Response to Motion to Join and Substitute Parties
Public Court Documents

5 pages
Cite this item
-
Case Files, Milliken Hardbacks. Response to Motion to Join and Substitute Parties, 2a211608-54e9-ef11-a730-7c1e5247dfc0. LDF Archives, Thurgood Marshall Institute. https://ldfrecollection.org/archives/archives-search/archives-item/07018644-3e3f-4a69-ba99-c0285582986f/response-to-motion-to-join-and-substitute-parties. Accessed July 11, 2025.
Copied!
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.