F\12ST T~\AL,
\ql \ - ,l:\S;l. A1J'D
UAJl)prT~t> ( \Oi"2..
LiAV£S)
MOTION!'" /977- /fl7?
AND UNDJlTICD
(.31 £I;~.r)
1M '!HE UNITED STATES DISTlICT CXIUaT
fOR '!HE llOItTHEJtH
DI5nICJ OF TUAS
WlJOCI DIVISION
REV. ROY JONES. £T AL.
CIVIL ACTION
1«).
CA-S-74-14
THE cln OF WllOCl, £T At.
NOTION F(Il, EXTfHSION OF TINE TO fiLE laiD
TO '!HE HONOllULE JUDGE OF SAIP COORT:
n-.t defeadUlu in thit
~.
I'IUIIber pel'ldina befon the Court. UlJ
rupee:tfully __a this Honorable Court to .xtend the t _ for fiUIli of
their polJt_trial brief for I period of un daya.
DefendUlt. _Id rnpectfllllY show tb. Court u.at the attomeys
for the def.ndants b."e betm lInable to d.vote .ufficient tiM in prepantlOft of the post_trial bri.f to be able to prepare s\lC.h briaf in I
"Mar _hlch _Ill reflect the true positiOft of d.f.ndants.
Defendants
wou14 show the Court that thit it so, becaun of t.ha crollde4 c:ourt
oIoe.... t of the d.fandanu' Ittomay' and. Ii.....is•• beUUS8 of the neeessity
KJTIONS
of preparation of I eapital lUrdu bri.f by one of til. d.fendants'
attomey••
Additionally. d.fendutl _id ahow the Court that til.
pri_rr napouibility for til. preparaUoJl of tM bri.f bu f.l1.n to
DaMl. McCl1l. on. of the Inomaya. md h. 11 the a. . Ittomey respond_
bl' for the preparetiOll of tbe eapiul amlar bri.f. wtdell 11 Ii...."is•
.... • t the . _ tiM •• the post_trial briaf in thil c........
An extension
was arlDtH for tila pnpantiOll of the capitll -.wd.... bri.f bee....... of
tha lan.th aM
c~l.llity
of thit
C.Il" _
pandln, befo.,1 thl Court.
Daf.ndanU _Id funhar sllow tIM Court. that Delendutl'
.ttomarl. nl.ia D. SbaltOll aM J _......st.r. h.ve be.n lik...ise
occupiacl with othtl' peadilll _n.... IIId
ll_
ha".
bMn unabl' to devote the
required ti_ to the pnpanUOII of the briel.
In further support of Dehnd.aaU' .otion, tMY ..wol show the
1M tHE UNITED SfATES DIS'TI.ltT eot.aT
COurt thn Defendants il.ave personally COIltactad the attom.ys lor tIM
FOR THE I«lR1HEDl
plaintiffs and plalntiff~intervenors and have deterained til.at th.y hav.
DIS'TI.ICT Of 1UA.S
Ul'8OCl DIVISIOH
no objoetion to sueh DlltensiOft.
REV.
WH.EREFORE. pl'dhes con.sidered. defendatlts re,pectfully pray
10'(
.JC»CES, ET A.L.
this Honor.ble COurt to enend the ti. . for IUin, their brief fr_ the
V.
previously set dna of February ~, 11179. to thst of Mardi 7, 1979,
THE CITY OF WIIOCI, ET A.L.
Respectfu.lly
,ubaltt_.
ORDER OF tHE CWaT
TA.\VlS D. SHELTON' ASSOCIA.TES
C»C THIS, the _ _ day of FebNary, 1979,
~
Oft UI be heard
defendSftts' Notion for El:tension of Ti_ to fU. post.triS1 brief In this
UIISe.
The Court h.vin, con,idered the -otion find' end detendnes that
said aotlon should in .11 thinp b. JrSlltad.
IT IS THDEFOlE 0lDD.EJl, A.OJUDCED,
A.JrI)
DEaEED that the ti_
for f11in, defendants' po,t·tri.1 brief ,hall be chan,ed fro. February 26,
1$179, to March 7. 1"9, AND IT IS SO ORDER£D.
SIGHf1l AMI EHTEaED
this _ _ day of February. 1"$1.
KIWtRt
o.
IilWmb
.JUDGE PReSIDI,..
l
=,0;.-=:::1a~U: i t. . .
n , . lIfI1D
...... CltJlall
tl"-".~
1.IIMle*, ' ' ' ' fMlIL
_ . IlQ1UCf 0DIItT
......
"_~"lIIcr
tn"fl. . . . . .
........ 1kGlU
tn• • • 1IIelc. • AaeNlat..
l5CW I"~ IUwt
U-.:I Jm:1I.
---
~.T_ft«D.
.... CII:a QUJIII, aT &1..,
1lU111 T. _ _
l1&latlfh
~,'-"'MOl
••
_crn.~.IT&I.
..... .....
.....el ..
._...........,,-..,....
....."'Il'"
lOCIllIMa 1tnIt, Wee 1M
~,.,....
hf.....t.
a-
_,.,m
• ..-n:. J'OI laYS " . mpywwt.
~'
•• 0 . . . . . . .
_
.... 1Jtlo_
laten_or ......ctfll11.J' ..... til.
te - . d Mr.-....
~at
tl
~
U~t.".
t.
....
cn-t
tM I • •~ 1•••
t_
~
......._ u al tbe I . t . n _ t.. thi, ..... IIII1e U(.), '
ChU~,
eM te
~
att-.qt,l_ bI
c:b.N . .
reJ.
u.
~.,
tM:. . . . . . .
ftlb b tid, _ . , 4Z II."C, ItTJ 1(1) .... 41 '''.C. I ....
-... -
&ft........ &ft....
_ " " - ' - Wte UN
. --
~.~7.-J.
,
.~II . . . . . ~ ,
ftd, ill te caftt.". t _ _
•
t~
1a
ClMTMt
.,
-J.eta
........... tell
c." If drI
Mnl.
bJ
1' ~
.
t_X_
III
lett
tl.. tile _
~ "'flc:l~
1m• ...... III
JUlJ ...
l.-,-
l
ant
f - . . '. . IlIIl.......t:7
~,""'''''
... L<t~
)
~ .....tt...
, t-. ...
"""',T-..fMGl
Iehrt P.
Wt_ ItdM
clue ......
-.u
arn.t.
candidates in any such elections to attend to their affair.; and.
NOrtTllt:RIl UISTRICT OF TEXAS
121
LUBBOCK UIVISION
That Plaintiffs will not op..,ose the current ttotion of uefendlntl
for permission to file late a Defendants' Pirst Amended Original An.wer.
,', CE:JE O"t:lI:S, ET AL.
Plaintiffs
The Court will note that by virtue of the above "gree.ent by and
TilE CITY Of' LUBBOCK, AND 'lHE
;.v.YOR Allll CITY COUlfCIL Of' Sr.IU
CITY. ROY BASS, CAROl.YN JORDAN.
BILl. Hcl\LlSTl:;;I:. OI;;l:K Wt;ST,
HE:.il:Y. ALL IN "HEIR CAPACITY AS
:1I::-1BI::~S OF 'till: CITY COOI/CIL Of'
LliSBOCK,
between Plaintiffaand Defen<l4ntl, the OUtC0D8 of this ca.e, and itl
CIVIL ACTIOt'
NO. CA-5-11i-34
subsequent ilppelll, if any, will not affect the colling- April 1978 elec-
Al.\..'
tionl in the City of Lubbock, Texal, in any ....nner until at le.lt lixty
1601 day. after any judgment I..oecomes final on .ppeal.
~LAlIlTIFFS'
All
~rtiel
.re
aware of thil Court'. concern that the City of Lubbock be enabled to
l>efendant.
conduct it. April 1978 elections on Ichedule and with an appropriate
MOTION FOR CONZUIUANCE
deqree of certainty regarding the law and rule. under which such
':'0 ';'ll£ IlON0Rt'BLE JUDGE 0:" SAID COURT:
(;01:10 now the Plaintiffs in the above captioned and nwnbered
election must be conducted, notwithstanding the pendency of this case
cause and respectfully r.lOve the Court, uithou.: objection from oefen-
or its poI.ible appeal, and it i. the under.tanding of the Plaintiffs
uolnt!l, to grant a continuance of at least ninety (901 day. in the
and the Oefenuantll that the provision agreed to herein will accompli.h
IIl!:lC, ilnu "'ould rcspectfully show the Court the following in lupport
that end in the moSt effective manner poasible under the circWllstances.
or this !totion.
Accordingly, titis reque.t for continuance will not defeat the Court's
leqitimate concern regarding the effect of delay in this case upon the
forthcocainc; April 1978 eleCtion. in the City of Lubbock.
Thil notion i. not opposed by Defendant••
In aqreoinq to the continuance, the Defendant. have IIWlde two
conditions, which Plaintiffs have a9r"!ed to _et.
Defendant. recoq-
Plaintiffa do not 0ppolle the ClIrrent i40tion of Defendanta for
penli.sion to file late a Defendant.' rirst -'-ended Original Anawer.
nile the valiuity of Phintiffs' need for additional ti... and. have
no objections to this notion.
Th'" position of Defendants beil'l9 aet
This I1otion for COntinUAnCe ia not due to the circwutance. of
forth in their July l!f, 1977. letter to counsel for the Plaintiff.,
attached hereto and incorporated herein a. Appendi.
-1.-.
haa nothinq to do with and is not the reason for the requelt for eon·
tinullnce.
Tile two conuitions agreed to by and bet_en Plaintiffs and 0.fendant. herein are I
III That .hould any jUrlcpll8nt be ulti_tely
entered aqainst Defendants, by it. tenns it will not be eftective
as to sny municipal election of officer• •cbaduled or due to be
ICheduled within .bty (001 dayl fran the date the
ju4~nt
beca.e.
final on appeal. if any, with the undentanding th&t the COurt .ignt
VII
Thh notion for COntinuance fa ba.ed upon the need for additional
tillle to cOllllplete COIllplicated and extensive discovery now underway. involving thou.and. of the Defendanta' record•• file. and dOCUlll8nts.
A
_eting va. held previoul to the preparation and filinq of this Hotion
for Continuance in which Defendant. and their coun.el fully cooperated
with PlaintiU. and thei.r counsel in ascertaining- which of nuDerous
-2-
'.'lI.riuJ& records, <Jocumcnts ..nd instrur.tents that will be requh'ed for
It. lS olnticl".. :<!d tll'lt the outcome of these depositions will be .tipu-
~~T:.:· . .L~'.~,i2~
htions concern1nq I:luch, if not .oSt. of the stati.tical and backqround
: ..
c!eposaions
e~'il;ence
~u'"
sch.:!dulcd ..nd beinq still scheduled by the Plaintiffs.
to LJe rrclIcntcd, thus
savi~
,,,,,\,,,:~m
the tiae of the Court illS vell as
the ".leuol. and .... itne••e. durinq trial of the case,
Due to the sUlllftler
lioli.lSOn, \'IlCi.ltiOIlS of nUr.leeous employees, individual vitnesses, and proSiJecth'C witnesses in this c..tse, it has been more difficult than
oricin;lllr olnticipolted to couplete the kind of adequlllte discovery dee_d
eS5cntlal by counlocl for the Plaintiffa for .uitlllble preparAtion of tnis
Colse for trioll.
"'his rC<.juest (;or olduitional tillle is attributlllble to Plaintiffs.
'''"c Clchmdants h.... vc coop,crated fully and fairly lilt 1lI11 ti_s with Pllllintif~s
in the discovery I,rocess, and the plllrtie. have encountered no
dl::1Cultr
~h .. tsoever
in their dealinqa with each other on di.covery.
"his rC'luest is r.lade b)' !'laintiffs in qood faith and only for the purpose of ir.surinq that in the in ..er.st I"f justic•• this CIllS. viII be
olJe<j.1oltely j.Jrepareu and presente<! to the Court lilt trillli.
\':lII::rtl::l'O:U:,
the Court qrolnt
.:l
P,I&::fSI::S CO:1SIUERED, it i .. respectfully prlllyed thllIt
continuancc of lilt lellIst nincty (90) dlllYs in this cas••
Respectfully Submitted,
I/ILLIS T. TAYLOR
2206 Broadway
l.ubbock, Texas
Al.DERT PEREZ
Court Place
l.ubbock, Texas
19401
UAtlI EL H. BENSON
P. O. Box 4030
LUbbock. Texa.
19401
TOKAS GAR;tA
1811 BrOllldwllIY
Lubbock, Texa.
19401
ATTORNEYS 'POR PLAINTIFFS
-.-
....
USITED STATES DISTRleT COURT
MlRTHER.'Il DISTRICT OF TEXAS
WIIlOCI: DIVISION
City Attorney's Qffice
762.0411
P. O. 80' 2000
A. GENE GAINES.
July19,1977
Plaintiff,
Xr. Willb T. Taylor
Attomeyat t..v
2206 Iroadw.ly
L~bock, Texaa 19401
vs.
TltE CITY OF WllOCl, AND THE MAYOR
"'...D CITY COlISCIL OF SAID CITY, ROY
BASS, CAROLYN JORDAN, BRICE CAMPBELL,
VIRK WEST, ALAN HESRY, ALL IN TllEIR
I
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF TIlE CITY CDUN·
CILOF WB!lOCl.
Xr. D41nlel H. Benson
Attorn.y at Law
P. O. In 4030
Lubbock, Tex.. 19409
In r.:
CA-~16-)4,
Gen. Call1ll!', .t a1. v. The City of Lubbock, at a1.
CIVIL ACTION
MO. U.·5·76·;W
oefendants.
Geatl_n:
Your info~l Inquirlea of our IHUnp a. to a continuance In tbe .boW! styl.d
aod .ntltled <;.ae fro. Ausust IS, 1977, ha". _
baen dis<;us.ed by Travis Shelton,
D<mnis H<:GIll .nd .,aelf.
While I personally have been II"hrouah the "vrlnl.r" on this utter ..vera! tl_.
nov .nd a. user to brlnl It to • <;10••• VI nonethal... re<;0lnbe the validity of
your concern• •nd recoanbe that the curr.nt ti_tabl. ,I&ht have a deul_nul
effect 4. to the lnt.re.u of the cU.nt. )'Ou rapra..nt.
Our only (oacar'll la t!\at tbe poeen,iUty tboat a daby (ould aad would run u'
ov.r Into tbe AprH 1918 eleetloa proce... UncI.r our Cbarter and .tat. 1... the
relular _ic1pal electlona
hal. ia Aprl1 191', not urller tban the first
Suurday of that .eatb e1lCl not later tban the l ..t Saturday. The loc.al pro<;.....
cul.lnatl'lll with alaetlon oay 'DO~~ly occupy about 60 ",y" DOt laeludlnl the U_
prior to that th.t ladlvidua.! candidate. ,Ilht n.ad to ba actlvaly seeklnl .dvlca.
auld.nca .n. Hacal.upporc.
_at "
You . .y tharefore IIIfo,", Jltdla Wooelvar. that the dafandante 101111 not oppo:ll
your curunt _tion for continuanc. on tbe followl. . caRdltlo..-.
I«lTIOS TO PERMIT lATE FILING
OF DEFEHDAHTS' ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF'S FIRST AHENOED CCNPLAINT
TO TltE HONORABLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT:
NOll a»ES the City of Lubbock, Texas. a Holle Rule ~nidp.1 Corporation,
and the Mayor and City CouncH of said City. Roy lass, Cuolyn Jordan. Brice
CUlpbell. Dirk .est, Atan Kenry. all in their capadty as __bers o~ the City
Counell of Lubbock, oafendants in the above·styled and nlllbered cause and . .ke
and fHe this
their Motion to Penlit Late FiJin, of Defendants' Answer to
Plaintiff's First "-nded Caaplaint, and for such would show the Court:
1. That .hauld aay Jltda:-nt be ultl. .tl1y eutlre.....I••t ua, tbat by Ita
te.... It will not be eff.ctive •• teeny_Ielpal dectloD of offlcen .cheduled 0'1'
due: to be "had"l.d vithi. 60 .ya f'l'O'l the dati the jltd.-nt ~ !!!!!! B:! !22!!!.
If aa,. IN would onl, "quire the 60 Jay provision. n.. Court ai&ht 1'11_11 '1'1,11,
for a ,Ulbt1, lona,r perioll to all_ the candidat.e to t.a. to their alfaire; an.,
and further th.at th.r. have been pe~itted third party interventions by the
2. That 'au will 'DOt OPPOH our curreat _tioa lor penll.. lon to IU. bt. a
Del.naata' Piut ....ad•• Orllinal Anavar.
Co\Irt and further that the case contlnue:1 to upand in its scope.
SiDeer.l,.
,
~~(~
~/
P.
•
Civil Trial Attorney
1.
Defendants would show the Court that thil ease h
h
involved and COllpln
Said expansion
indicated by .ay of Plaintiff.' and l"uneDOrs' questions to oerenants by
way of oral ._Iations, writtan letters. and pleadina•.
iMs expansion of
scope of subject utter and partia. bat created difficultie. on lehalf of Dden·
dants in brin,In, forth a tl. .ly answer to Plaintiffs' Fl.rst .uende11 COIIplaint.
(APPEPilIX
~A·l
Def.Manu woul. further .how the Court that they h.an recently "Ployed
a4dltional attorneys to as.ht I_ the preparation of this ever·expandin. case.
1.... f,nJ:>nt~ "'0.,111 furthrr
~h"",
Ihto l:Ourl Ih"l
,ne,· 111t.. :",n ,.11>.1 l"",,_,r:uum of tlldr
~.,' _ ,"!'
'.",r· I" 1''''''''1 Ih,- (.1 ing of th",ir
..Hllo:lh)il]. 1'ltl"lISIS
ln~ ••-r ~o
I'le"Jinl:~
(OSSlllERI:JJ,
111~y ","Vl" u~C'd
.• nJ ",ou"'l
\n~",,·r
IIi I i.;cnce
rto~pl'Ctftllly
JrlOlmtE.R.\l DISTaICT Of TEXAS
to 1·1;.. ntlff,;' rlr't
~fcndanu n-~J'C"lfullr Ilu)'
th...t th.-ir
1".I,nt,'f,' f,r:>l .\W:ndC'd C<>aplaint be file.! ::-.,nl the' (litoadu'l' of this
Rcspcnfull~'
USITED STATES DISTaICT COOaT
rcque,;t
,,,t-itt ...d,
FRf.O O. Sf.~T"Il, .IR.
City Attorney
P. O. loll 1000
Lubbock, TC'X:I~ 79~5i
llt,.\VIS O. SIIELTOS , ASSOCIATES
IS071lthStreet
Lubbock,Tcus 79'-01
L'IBBOCKDIVISION
I
A. GENE GAINES,
PI.lntlH,
I
I
I
lllE CITY OF LUBBOCK. AHD THE MYOlI
AND CITY COUNCIL OF LUBBOCK (ROY
BASS, CAROLYN JORDAN, BILL Mc:ALISTER,
DIRl: IfliST, ALAN HENRY), IN lllE.lR
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF lllE CITY
cot.tiClLOf LUBBOCK.
o.fenclanu.
I
I
CIVIL Al."TIOS NO.
I
I
0.5.76• .)4
I
I
I
I
I
I
HOTICI Of APPEAllANCE
TO THE HONORABLE UNITED STATEs DlsnlCT COURT:
NOll' COtES Tnvh D. Shelton Ii Associates, by and thro....h Dennrs If.
Mc:GH1, and -..Id respectfully s ' - the COurt that they have been ISsociated
CUTlFICATf Of SEIt\'ICI
This is tocutlfythat alruc.nd<;orre<;l eO(lY of lhe above and fore·
gOing Jokltlon to I'~",II Lat~ Filinl of Defendants' ,,"SIIU to Plaintiffs' First
•~e'nd~dCo.l'la"'t, ... uthls~dayofJ"ly,1971, urved upon PI:llntiffsherein
b)' ... llinls~tothelrattorneys,Willisl.Taylor,2206Broad
...ay,Lubboc:k.
Tna" Albert Pere;. Court Place. Lubboc:k, Te.:as. Oanl.el H. !lenson, P. O. loll
4030, Lubbock, lexas, and lc.as Garn, 1006 Ilth Street. Lubbock, Teus, and ..as
urvC'd upon Inte.....enor herein by uilin, SPIC to her attorney of record,Robert P.
Oavidoo;, School of La.. , leus Tech Unh'ersity, Lubbock, Teus 79409.
in the defense of the aboYe·stylad and .-bered cause.
we
would further req...est
of the Court tllat our eppean.nee be noted and ...e be notified of all ,sntinas
.ncIpleadin,shereafur filed inthb suit .
Respectfully
su~ltted,
TRAVIS D. SHELTON II ASSOCIATES
lS07UthSlfeet
Lubbock, Teus 19101
CE11'IFICATE OF SElVICE
nil is to cenify that. tnM and correct copy of the above and
:~:=~~s":~~:n°:"~~:.:st:h:~1tu~~;/U;~il::'i:;:~~,u~~
Broadway, Lubbock, Teus, Albert Pere1, Court. Piece, Lubboek, TUIS, Daniel I'! ,
""son, P. O. 10.4030, Lubbock. TellIS, and TO&I&s (;ana, 1006 13th Street,
Lubbock, Te..s, and was served upon Intervenor herdn by uilin, SPIC to her
ettO""'1 of raeont. Aobert. P. Davidow, School of ~... , TeDs Tech University,
Lubbock. Teua 791011.
.Ill
lnc urU1CU ;:)lAlt.:'l
FOR THE NORTHERN
Ul~]Kll:T l,;UUKT
DISTRICT OF TEXAS
LUBBOCK DIVISION
that are common to the classes represented by the black population
and by the Mexican American or Spanish Surnamed population of the
City of Lubbock, Texas, within the meanine of Rule 23(a), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
A. GENE GAINES, et aI.,
4. The claims made by the representative parties in this
Plaintiffs
lawsuit, to-wit, those claims made by Plaintiffs and those claims
CIVIL ACTION NO. CA-S-76-34
vs.
THE CITY OF LUBBOCK, et al.,
sought to be presented by Plaintiff-Intervener, in the Plaintiffs'
First Amended Complaint and in the Plaintiff-Intervener's proposed
De fendants
Amended Complaint, are claims which could be presented by the
individual members of the classes made up of the black population
STIPULATION CONCERNING CLASS ACTION
and the
It is hereby stipulated and agreed by and between all of the
parties in the above captioned and numbered cause, by their
~lexican
American or Spanish Surnamed population of the
City of Lubbock, Texas, within the meaning of Rule 23(a), Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
S. There is no evidence at this time to indicate that the
respective attorneys, that:
1. The total population of the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County,
Texas, according to the 1970 U.S. Census, was 149,101 and the total
population of the City has grown since that time.
According to
the 1970 U.S. Census, the black population of the City of Lubbock
was 10,912 and the Mexican American or Spanish Surnamed population
of the City of Lubbock was 23,883.
Although the exact size of the
population of the City of Lubbock, Lubbock County, Texas, is not
known at this time, it was true in 1970 and it is now true that
the black and the Mexican AJ..arican or Spanish Surnamed eroups in
the City of Lubbock each constitute distinct classes or groups
within the City of Lubbock population generally which are
culturally identifiable by virtue of language, customs, history,
physical characteristics, and other similar identifiable attributes.
2. The members of the black population, and the Mexican American
or Spanish Surnamed population, within the City of Lubbock, Texas,
constitute classes so numerous that joinder of all members is
impractical, within the meanine of Rule 23(a), Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure.
3. In the pending lawsuit, there are questions of law or fact
representative parties in this lawsuit, to-wit, the Plaintiffs
and the Plaintiff-Intervener, will not fairly and adequately
protect the interests of the classes made up of the black population
and the Mexican American or Spanish Surnamed population of the City
of Lubbock, Texas, within the meanine of Rule 23(a), Federal Rules
of Civil Procedure.
6. Without regard to the legality or appropriateness of any
such actions and without precluding the presentation of evidence
by any party on any issue, as may be determined subsequently in
trial on the merits in this case, it is stipulated that the
Defendants herein have declined to erant the precise relief
soueht by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff-Intervener regarding the conduct
of City Council elections in the City of Lubbock, Texas, on grounds
that are eenerally applicable to the classes represented by the
black popUlation and by the Mexican American or Spanish Surnamed
population of the City of Lubbock, Texas, within the meaning of
Rule 23, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, thereby making appropriate
final injunctive relief, or its refusal, or corresponding declaratory
relief, or its refusal, with respect to such classes as a whole.
- 2-
I. lnne
1$
no objeCtiOn by any party to this lawsuit to the
sane beine lIIa~nlained and tried u
LUBBOCI{
DIVISION
a class action under the
GEtIE GAINES, et al
applicabh: provisions of Rul. 23. Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
vs.
Silned :lnd dated this 31st day of May. 1977.
CIVIL ACTION NO. CA·S-16-H
TilE CITY OF LUBOOCK,
THE MAYOR OF THE CITY
OF UJBBOCK, ROY BASS,
Respectfully sub.litted.
et al
fRED O. SENTER. JR.
City Attorney for the City of
Lubbock, Texas
PIAIIITIPFS' ItOTION FOR CLASS ACTION O...... ERMINATION
JAt4£S P. BREWSTER
Trial Attorney for the City of
Plaintiffs respectfully 1llOve that this court, pursuant
~
to the applicable provisions of Rule 23, rederal Rules of
Civil Procedure. deterllln. and order that this action is to
be _intained as a cla.s action in accordance with the al-
W ILLIS T. TAYLOR
2206 Broadway
Lubbock. Texu 79401
ll!9ationa of plaintiff's tint 4JlH!!nded complaint.
ALBERT PEREZ
pray that this court 9rant this Hotion and, thereafter, deter-
t~~~o~:~ft T:~~:e~94~~ite
WHEREFORE, PnDlISE& CONSIDERED, plaintiffs respectfully
634
a1~
Respectfully subalitted,
WILLIS T. ':'AYLOR
2206 Broadway
Lubbock, Texa. 19401
TOMAS GARZA
1006 13th Street
::bb~rtn
X
FLA
and order that this action ia to be _int.ined .s a class
action.
DANIEL H. BENSON
P.O. BOK 4030
Lubbock, Texas 79409
ALBERT PEREZ
Court Place
Lubbock, 'rex.. 79401
FFS
DAlUEL H. BENSON
P.O. Box 4030
Lubbock, Texa. 79409
r,ARZA
1006 13th Street
Lubbock, Tex••
TOMAS
.,.
L_
LlJabOCK DIVISION
A. GENE GAINES,
Plaintiff
CIVIL ACTlON NO.
CA-5-76-34
TIlE CITY OF LUBBOCK, A.~O TIlE
MAYOR ;.NO CITY COUNCIL OF
LUBBOCK (ROY BASS, CAROLYN
JORDAN, BR)'CE CAMPBELL, DIRK
"'EST. ALAN HL~RY), IN THEIR
CAPACITY AS MEMBERS OF THE
CI TY COUNCIL OF LUBBOCK.
Defendants
Y.
1/
~~ U,,,VE (;'1
,t~ 1 )
trlep
lUI" •
.
HOTIOry'ro INTERVENE AS A PLAINTlFP
1ll , . - - . .
Rose ~ih;on moves, through counsel, for leave to intervene as a plaintiff in
this action in order to assert the clai. set forth in her proposed complaint, a
IlllII ClIIa
'-
"
aID Q1Ul!'a
~
copy of which is attached hereto, on the around that the complaint of the applicant
_,
_.
...., _ _M
I.
•• aa
e-e __••h
.......... __ 1ft••
ill eel.
for intervention and that of plaintiff, Gene Caines, have questiona of law and
aU~iII"''''_,~
fact in common.
. . . . . - ..... ...uF'" ell aU
Rule 24(b) (2), Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:.
a_.. __
IIIUo ... ..u .....-IlaUF ...... e-t tat lie ....
__ f
1Jaiaatlft, ~. o.e ua.•• la tile
.
a_
----_
....
_......
Respectfully submitted,
.
..au.
1sIl.
_
e-tn-NWbw
Robert P. Davidow
Attorney for Rose Wil.on,
Applicant for Intervention
Address:
7fffd l ;!jl
School of Law, texas Tech University,
Lubbock, TX
79409
;If:
-.naB
_
ell ~. 1"., .-.l.. ., •
. . . - _ . . . . . . . . .,eftF •
Z
M." .. ...uJ
. . _ _ . . eII
. . . . . eII.-.
. . . . . . ......-
"'
_
ill doe Wtel _ _ MIl ill
Mft..- flfta e1a. ....... ~ •
........ r.u-t
-1-
...
_.-._-
O-.l. w•
,....". ••
...-tU
--.........
:u.l
a.t~
....
~.r-.
A.
__ .,...
Gt:~E
(,A1SES, ET At.,
..-~
DISTRICT OF TF.XAS
I.CFiROCK DIVISION
1IIlW.. f. " - ' ~.f
FOR TIlE XORTllERN
...........
......
Plaintiffs
............... W
CIVIL AcnON
~.f-.,...
,..
'.0.""
~.f-'''''
_...........
-_
.. u._
~.f
so.
CA·S·76·34
TilE CITY OF LUBEOCK. ET AL ••
D('(cndants
SOTICE OF APPEAF.ANCE
__ " .
TO l11E HO::ORABlE JUDGE OF SAID COURT:
~,
----'-f
XOll' COl-:E Lane Arthur and Nancy Firebau,h Arthur, and ,,"ould
.
respectfully st:o,,"
. . . . . . f - . .....
th~
Court th.t they have becollte associated
.5
counsel for the Pl.intifr·Inten'ener. I\ose '-ilson, in the above
captioned .nd nUJ::bered cause, and hereb)' enter their appearance
"....f_~
as counsel for all purposes in the said c.use, respectfully
request!n, the Court to note their
.ppearanc~
and to notify
ther: of .11 settings .nd other proceedin&s In saiel cause.
I\cspectrull)' submitteel.
ARTHUR , ARTliUR
Attorne)" at law
~:etro TO"'er, Suite 1506
]22(1 Broad"'ay
lubbock, Tens 79401
By'
_
CERTI FTCATE CF
SER\~
This is to certify that on the _ _ day or July,
1~i7,
sen'!ce or a true ane correct copy of the abcn! instrUrtfl .. as
f,alle upon each ;1arty or attt'rn':)' or rt"core ht"T(·in br t<.;-csit :rj;
the sa..e in the t;nited Stites l.ail in t"n\'elopes prcrer!y
Ioith sufficient fin.t c]:!ss
- 1-
11_-
~'ostllgt'
-,-
llr(lJed,
ad"~(,Hcd ~~
lI."dr"~~ed
'ollc"5:
·
,
,
_...• ,
,.0. THI KOUHI•• DISTUCT 0'
JM':es P. ~rf'wster, City Trill Attorney
lubbock City Ball
916 Tex.s ;"'enue
lubbock, Texas 79401
Trads D. Shelton
Dennis W. '-lcGill
Tr .... is D. Shelton' Associ.te'S
1507 13th Street
lubbock, Texas 79401
Willis T. Taylor
2206 Bro.dw.y
Lubbock, Tex.s 79401
C~.&
CAlliES.
H. J:t'r.son
P. O. BOJ: 4030
Lubbock, Texas 79409
101l"s Garz.
1006 13th Street
Ll.lbbod:, Texu 79401
J:obert P. Davidow
School of Law
Texas Tech University
lubbock, Texas 79409
.,,----------
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACIIO. 110. CA.S-16.34
CITY 0' LUIIOCI:. et d . .
)
)
D.f.lllbllt.
Albert Perez
1001 ~:.in Street, Suite 634
Lubbock, Teus 79401
.In. n iel
T~LU
LUIIOCI: DIVInO.
)
'LAINTIP,.'S Mono.
'0"
COIl'TIICA)lCI
TO Til HOIOUILI JUOCa 0' UID coeu;
lOll COMIS the 'l.tllttff hi the .bo.... c.pttoll.d .Ild
COllttIlU••C. til •• td c.u•• for th. follovt., r •••oll.;
. l . t . t t f f h •• vlthdrava a. hl. ova .l.!!. .!..!. coua •• l
rhl. c.u •• , .Ild the uad.r.l,D.d ••v cou.....l
la
h......Dtu·.d
th.tr .pp •• r.ac• • • attorD.'. for the .1.latlff.
Addltlo... l
f •• lll.r vlth the c •••• the pl ••dllll• • ad fl1. to d.t., ... d
to co.pl.t. furth.r dl.co .... r ' 'Ild oth.r pr.p.r.ttOD for trl.l
of th. c....
Tb. u ..d.r.ll...d c.u....l
.r • •".r. of th. D••d
for . r••pt trl.l of tbl. c ••••••d vlll
r ' .ffort
to ...... tb. c ••• forv.rd for trl.l • • • •p.dltlou.l, a. po •• lbl ••
1I11:• • ,0aa.
it t. r •••• ctf.ll' pr.,.d th.t tha Court
Ir •• t • c •• ti••aDc. 1. tlal. c.u• • • f at l ••• t 1'Ih•• t, (90)
d.,. for t .....bo" • • t.t.d ra'.OD'.
VILLh T. TULO"
Attor••, . t La.
2206 Iro.dv.,
Lu"oc", T.:. . . 79401
ALun 'IUl
"ttor••, . t L••
1001 Mal. Str •• t, Sutt.
L."oc'. T.ll•• 79401
TOMAS CAUA
&t-torD.' at La.
1006 - 13th Str •• t
L."oc", T.ll.' 19401
·z·
~34
IN THE UNIT£D STATES 01STI.ICT coun
FO" THE 1I0 .. THUM
OAJltIL R. IEWSO.
Attor ..., . t L••
P. O. 10. 4030
Lubbock, t •••• 79409
OI5TI.ICT or TEXAS
CENEC... INES.
CIVIL ACTtOIi ICO. CA-$-76-34
CITY OP LUIBOCIt, et al ••
cunnCATE
0. S,..VICI
Tbh i t to cart if, th.t •
ENTIlY OP "'PPURANCE ... 5 COUNSEl
tr",a cop, of tb. for.loi"l
TO THE HONO ..... ILE JUDCE OP $AI0 COUIT:
Th. ",no.r.llned.ttorne, •• ha"lngbe.n pre"lo ... ),
the •••• to tb.ir .ttoroa, of r.cord, Mr. Jiw Ira•• t.r,
A•• ht.~t Cic,.
Attor~a"
on t b i t . ; l , 2 d., of
... tl,orl ...d 10, the Plal .. tHf.
L"'bbock Cit,. •• 11, Lv"b_clr., taa •••
~
c....
C.I .... , I" th" .b""e
c.ptlon.d. .nd. n ...b.red. c .... e. to .nter their .pp •• r."ce a.
,1977.
co .. n •• 1 for th • • • U
Pl.lntlff, and. h ... ln,baen ,r."ted.
I ..... tOdD .ob, thl. Court. no",h.reb, .nt.r th.lr
app.aranc. a. attor...,.a for the PI.lntHr In •• U
r ......
IIlLLts T. T... YLOR
Attorn.y at L.",
2206Iro.d",.,
Lubbock. Tu,a. 7'iUOl
AUUT pun
Attorn.,.t L...
1001 Main Str"er. Suite 634
Lubboclr., T•••• 19'01
TOHAS CARZ'"
"'ttorn.,.t La..
1006 - 13th Strut
Lubb"ck. T•• a. 7'1401
CllnnCATt; OP SERVICE
j
Thi. ia to certlf, th.t •
tr ... cop, "r th" .b"Y"
In.u· .... ot ••••• r".d .. pon O"f""d.ant. b, •• Illnk the ".11"
... ,n.. UIU'(li:D STATES DISTUCT COUIT
fOl THE !I0lTHUM
City Att"rn"y, Lubbock City H'll,
on thi ..
..22_
day of
/~
DISTIICT Of TEXAS
Lubb"ck, Tellll,19'OI,
,19;'7.
CEMECAIMES,
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ".CTlON !I0. CA-.5-76-34
CITY OF LUIIOCll:, et al.,
Defendant.
)
)
)
PLAINTIff'S WITHDRAWAL AS COUNSEL
TO THE HOMORABLE JUOCE OF SAID COUlT:
HOW COKES the P1&lfttiff, Cene C.lne., 1ft the above captioned
and nu.ber"d ellU'" nov p .. ndlng In thl' Court, /lnd hereby adVise.
the Court nf hl.",lthdra ... alaa "oun.al.2.!2.:!..!.. anei a. eounaelln
any oth.r capacity ",hata"er, In •• Id eau •• , h."ln• • eeuredother
eounael to repre.ent hln In the •••e.
Is wholly voluntary, and h
own be.t latere.t.
Thh "'1thdr.val a. eoun •• l
believed by Plaintiff to be In hta
PlallltUf euthorhea I'Ir. \Hllh T. T.ylor,
Mr. Alb.rt Per.&. Mr. To•• a C.r&., .nd Mr. Daniel H.
len.on, to
£11. an entry of .ppe.r.nee a. eounael for Plaintiff In ,hi.
e
nd .uthorl" •• the. to repreaent hi. herein.
Th. Court l.re.peetfu}ly req .... ted to approve ehl,
CUTlF1CATE OF SERVICE
Thl. I. to eertlf, th.t I h"ve •• r"ed the Oefend.ntll herein
by de11".rlnl • "opy of the fore.olnl Inatr".ent to Mr . .J!'
Ir.".t.r, Aaalat.nt Cit, Attorn.y, Lubbock City H.ll. L"bbock.
T.xaa. on tbl.
J_
2.7
d., of Aprll, 1911
A.
,I.. ";\
CEMECAIMES, Plaintiff