Response to Motion to Join and Substitute Parties

    t
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICim\N 

SOUTHERN DIVISION ”

RONALD BRADLEY, ET AL,

Civil Action 
No. 35257

Defendants,
and

DETROIT FEDERATION OF TEACHERS, 
LOCAL 231, AMERICAN FEDERATION 
OF TEACHERS, AFL-CIO,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, ET AL,

Defendants-Intervenor,
and

ALLEN PARK PUBLIC SCHOOLS, ET AL,

/  Plaintiffs, 
v .

WILLIAM G . MILLIKEN , ET AL,

Defendants-Intervenors,
and

GROSSE POINTE PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

SOUTHFIELD PUBLIC SCHOOLS,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

SCHOOL DISTRICT OF THE CITY OF 
ROYAL OAK,

Defendant-Intervenor,
and

KERRY GREEN, ET AL,
Defendant-Intervenor,

and

PROFESSIONAL PERSONNEL OF VAN DYKE,

/

*&

i.t

Defendant-Intervenor.
V



> -

RESPONSE TO MOTION TO JOIN 
AND SUBSTITUTE PARTIES

NOW COME Allen Park Public Schools, et al, C r o s s e  Pointe P u b ­

l ic  Schools, Southfield Public Schools and School D is tr ic t  o f  theCity o f  R oya l  

Oak, Defendants-Interveners, by and through their respect ive  attorneys, and 

in response to P la intif fs ’ motion to jo in  and substitute parties, say:

1. The June 12, 1973, opinion o f  the Court o f  Appeals f o r  the 

Sixth Circuit  c lea r ly  exp resses  the manner in which schoo l  d is tr ic ts  w h ich  

are  to be affected by the d ecree  o f  this Court are to be added as n e c e s s a r y  

parties under Rule 19, Fed. R. Civ. P. In this regard the Sixth C ircu it  s ta ­

ted as fo l low s :
* j

"On rernand, any party against whom, re l ie f  is sought, 
including school d is tr ic ts  which hereafter  may b ecom e  p a r ­
ties to this litigation, shall be afforded an opportunity to o f ­
f e r  additional evidence, and to c r o s s -e x a m in e  available w i t ­
n esses  who previously  have testified, on any issue ra ised  
by the pleadings, including amendments thereto, as m ay be 
relevant and adm issib le  to such issues .  " Bradley, et ai v  
Miiliken, et al, _ _  F2d (CA 6, June 12, 1973), Slip 
Opinion, pp 68-69. Emphasis added.

"Upon remand, the plaintiffs and other parties shall be 
perm itted  to amend their pleadings to co n fo rm  to the e v i ­
dence (see Rule 15(b), Fed. R. Civ. P. ), to add additional 
p a rties and to ask fo r  any additional appropriate re l ie f ,  the 
details of such amendments to be under the continuing s u p e r ­
v is ion  o f  the D istr ict  Court. " Bradley, et al v M iiliken, et
al, ____F2d ___ , (CA 6, June 12, 1973), Slip Opinion, p 69.
Emphasis added.

2. The Court o f  Appeals opinion thus recogn izes  that it is no 

m ere  technicality to require som e sem blance o f  o rd e r  in a jud ic ia l  p roceed in g  

and contemplates that plaintiffs shall file and serve  an amended com plaint
V

which shall show the title of the action with the names o f  the parties ,  together 

with such form al allegations as may connect them with the cla.im fo r  re l ie f .  

A ccord in g ly ,  plaintiffs ' motion to add parties should be denied.



« * •

3. Defendants-Intervenors  school d istr icts  submit that the

Pontiac School D is tr ic t  should be jo ined as a party defendant at appropriate  

juncture in these proceedings  and in an appropriate manner. The fact that 

the Pontiac School D is tr ic t  is a lready subject to the ju r isd ict ion  of this 

Court is no reason  to exclude the Pontiac School D istr ic t  f r o m  this l i t ig a ­

tion nor, indeed, under the rulings p r io r  in this cause, even relevant to 

the issue b e fo re  this Court on Remand, to wit; which school  d is tr ic ts ,  if 

any, in the Tri-County area /to  be affected in o rd e r  to desegregate  the D e ­

tro it  School System.

4. If it is P laintiffs '  position that by virtue o f  the F ed era l  D i s ­

t r ic t  Court 's  desegregation  O rder  the Pontiac School D is tr ic t  is now unitary
<

and th ere fore  need not be included in any desegregation  plan im plem ented  in 

this litigation, such position  is untenable on the re cord  in this cause. B e ­

cause this Court has taken no proo fs  in such regard, there is nothing to in ­

dicate that every  schoo l  d is tr ic t  now a party or  to be added as a party 

(other than Detroit) is not also a unitary school  system .

5. It is prem ature at this stage o f  these p roceed in gs ,  b e fo re  

any plan has been proposed  and be fore  any previous intervenors and yet to 

be added parties have been afforded an opportunity to be heard, to add as 

parties  defendant som e school d is tr ic ts  which are  geograph ica lly  situated 

further f r o m  the boundaries of  the D etroit  School D is tr ic t  than the Pontiac 

School D is tr ic t  and exclude the Pontiac School D is tr ic t  as a party, as p r o ­

posed  by Plaintiffs.

V

6. If the Pontiac School D is tr ic t  is not added as a party and, 

assum ing the co r re c tn e s s  of this Court 's  dec is ion  regarding a Detroit  Only

"2



* ^ J b

Plan of D esegregation  and that a Metropolitan Rem edy is appropriate  (neither 

of which assumptions D efendants-Intervenors admit), and if it should deve lop ,  

a fter all parties have had an opportunity to be heard, that it is n e c e s s a r y  in 

o r d e r  to a fford com plete  re l ie f  that the Pontiac School D is tr ic t  be included in 

any desegregation  plan to desegregate  the Detroit School D istr ict ,  no such 

plan could then be implemented:

"W e hold that school d istr icts  which are to be a ffected  
by the d ecree  of the D istr ic t  Court are 'n e ce ssa ry  p a r t ie s 1 
under Rule 19. As  a prerequis ite  to the implementation o f  
a plan in this case  affecting any school d istr ict ,  the a ffected  
d is tr ic t  f i r s t  must be made a party to this litigation and a f ­
forded  an opportunity to be heard. " Bradley, et al v Mil.liken,
at ad, _ _ F 2 d ____, Nos. 72-1809 - 72-1814, June 12, 1973,
en banc, Slip Opinion at p 68.

7. Since no party to this litigation can prophesize  w hich  sch oo l  

d is tr ic ts  it v/ill be n e ce ssa ry  to affect in any interim  a n d /o r  final d e s e g r e g a ­

tion nian to be imniernented and neither the parties nor tne Court can d e t e r -
---------------- L ...............

mine, be fore  proofs  have been taken, if the absence o f  any sch oo l  d is t r ic t  

within the T ri-C ou n ty  area w ill  prevent the Court f r o m  accord in g  

com plete  relie f ,  at this stage o.f the proceedings,  each ano. e v e iy  s ch oo l  d i s ­

t r ic t  within such area  should be added as party defendants and be heard r e ­

garding how, if at all, each should be affected by any d esegregat ion  plan to 

be implemented in this cause.

8. D e fe n d a n t s -Intervenors school d is tr icts  have no ob ject ion  

to the substitution o f  parties currently holding o f f ices  with the D etro it  Board  

of Education as prayed fo r  in Plaintiffs ' motion.

Respectfu lly  submitted,

B U T Z E jL /L O N C ^ Q U S f ,  KjLEIN VAN ZILE

By /J U -Q u ^ ^ j  //
c- W ill iam  M. Saxton



X. Orhan
188l\FiTst National Building 
Detroit, Michigan 4822 6
Telephone: (213) 963-8142 
Attorneys fo r  Defendants-lutervenors  
A llen  Park Public Schools, et al

HILL, LEWIS, ADAMS,, GOODRICH & TAIT

w/j  y  y // yw"
~7y  Douglas H. West

By

3700 P en obscot  Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226 
Telephone: (313) 962-6485 
A ttorn eys  fo r  Defendant-Intervenor 
G rosse  Points Public Schools

1C GARRY, P j C ,

Richard P. Condit 
860 West Long Lake Road 
B loom fie ld  Hills, Michigan 48013 
Telephone: (313) 645-5205 
Attorneys fo r  Defendant-Intervenor 

Public  Schools

HARTMAN, BEIER, HOW LETT, MC CONNELL 
& GOO GAS IAN

Kenneth B. McConnell
74 West Long Lake Road 
B loom fie ld  Hills, Michigan 48013 
Telephone: (313) 645-9400
Attorneys fo r  Defendant-Intervenor 
School D is tr ic t  o f  the City o f  Royal Oak

v.