Reply to Opposition to Motion to Intervene as Appellees

    No. 98-30004 

IN THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

CLEMENT F. PERSCHALL, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

• STATE OF LOUISIANA, 

• Defendant-Appellee 

and 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL. 

Proposed Appellee-Intervenors 

On Appeal from the 
United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

U. S. COURT OF APPEALS 

FILED 

MAR 3 0 1998 

CHARLES R. FULBRUGE 111 
CLERK 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS 
APPELLEES 

Proposed appellee-intervenors, Ronald Chisom, et a/., file 

-this reply in response to the Opposition To Motion To Intervene 

As Appellees On Behalf Of Ronald Chisom, et a/. and to raise two 

points: (1) there is an issue as to whether Plaintiff-

Appellant's filing is timely and (2) even if timely, this filing 

should not serve as a basis for denying intervention to the 

proposed appellee-intervenors. 

• Pursuant to Local Rule 27.6, the parties were notified by 

the clerk of this Court as to the filing date of any response to 



proposed appellee-intervenors' motion and the date "when the 

motion must be submitted to the court." Local Rule 27.6. 

(emphasis supplied). The Court set this date for filing on March 

16th. See Letter of Clerk, dated March 9, 1998. (Exhibit A). 

Plaintiff-Appellant's opposition was not filed until March 23rd, 

after this deadline. There is no reference in Plaintiff-

Appellant's submission to a request for or receipt of an 

extension for filing until March 23rd. Nor did Plaintiff-

Appellant confer with counsel for proposed appellee-intervenors 

regarding this late filing. If Plaintiff-Appellant's pleading is 

indeed untimely, then this pleading should be stricken from the 

record in this proceeding and this motion should be treated as 

having no opposition. 

Even if this pleading was timely filed and all the issues 

raised therein are properly before this Court, no basis has been 

presented for denying intervention. Plaintiff-Appellant's 

opposition does not address any of the grounds under which the 

proposed intervenors have identified in support of their motion. 

Plaintiff-Appellant's opposition motion conveniently ignores not 

only that an interest distinct from the State of Louisiana was 

presented in the proposed appellee-intervenors' pleading, 

Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Intervene at 15-16 

(citing differences in interpretation of the terms of the consent 

decree), but also that this interest can be adversely affected if 

the Defendant-Appellee, the State of Louisiana, and the 

Plaintiff-Appellant agree to a settlement while this case is on 

2 



appeal, without the Chisom intervenors participation as 

parties.' See e.g. Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.3d 984, 

1005 (the issue is whether the applicant for intervention has an 

interest "different from that of the [government entity] and that 

the interest will not be represented by [it]") (citation 

omitted). 

Indeed, Plaintiff-Appellant does not dispute that the 

proposed appellee-intervenors have a distinct and separate 

interest in this case from the State of Louisiana. See Brief of 

Appellant, Clement F. Perschall, Jr. at i (listing among the 

interested persons in the case all of the proposed appellee-

intervenors). Instead, Plaintiff-Appellant focuses on whether 

there will be similar arguments made by the State of Louisiana 

and the Chisom intervenors, an issue already remedied by the 

Rules of this Court. See Local Rule 31.2 (providing for the 

brief of the intervenor or amicus to be filed "15 days after the 

principal brief of the party supported by the intervenor or 

amicus" in order to avoid .duplication of arguments) •2 Thus, 

Plaintiff-Appellant Perschall has not provided any basis, 

consistent with this Court's standards, for denying intervention 

'Given the history of the Chisom litigation, which prompted 
this present action, this scenario is quite plausible. See Chisom 
v. Edwards, 970 F.2d 1408, 1409 (5th Cir. 1992) (remanding the case 
"to the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana for the limited purpose of effectuating a settlement" . 
. . "[u]pon notification that a consent judgment has been entered 
by the district court. . . ."). 

2It is also noteworthy that the State of Louisiana -- which is 
the best position to make the argument advanced by Plaintiff-
Appellant -- did not oppose this motion. 

3 



to the proposed appellee-intervenors Ronald Chisom, et a/. 

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth previously by 

the proposed intervenors, the motion for intervention should be 

granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

William P. Quigley 
Loyola University School of 
Law 
7214 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, LA 70118 
(504) 861-5590 

Elaine R. Jones 
Director-Counsel 
Norman J. Chachkin 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
Victor A. Bolden 
Jacqueline A. Berrien 
NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Ronald L. Wilson 
837 Gravier Street 
New Orleans, LA 70113 
(504) 586-1241 

4 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION 

TO INTERVENE AS APPELLEES, have been served by depositing same in the United States 

mail, first class postage prepaid, on this March 27, 1998, addressed to the following: 

Clement F. Perschall, Jr., Esq. 
One Galleria Boulevard 
Galleria One, Suite 1107 
Metarie, Louisiana 70001 
Telephone: (504) 836-5975 

Richard P. Ieyoub 
Attorney General, State of Louisiana 
State Capitol 
P.O. Box 94005 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 

Robert McDuff, Esq. 
767 N. Congress Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 39202 
Telephone: (601) 969-0802 

Peter Butler (Bar# 3731)-T.A. 
Peter J. Butler, Jr. (Bar# 18522) 
Richard G. Passler (Bar# 21006) 
LL&E Tower, Suite 2400 
909 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 
Telephone: (504) 584-5454 

Tyron D. Picard (Bar# 20473) 
Mark Stipe (Bar# 19803) 
Petroleum Tower, Suite 330 
3639 Ambassador Caffrey Parkway 
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503 
Telephone: (318) 983-0090 

VICTOR A. BOLDEN 



• United States Court of Appeals • 
11/FTH CIRCUIT 

OFFICE OF THE CLERK 

CHARLES R. FULBRUGE III 
CLERK 

March 9, 1998 

Mr Clement F Perschall Jr 
One Galleria Boulevard 
Suite 1107, Galleria One 
Metairie, LA 70001 

Mr Peter J Butler Jr 
Breazeale Sachse & Wilson 
909 Poydras Street 
Ste 2400 LL&E Tower 
New Orleans, LA 70112 

No. 98-30004 Perschall v. State of Louisiana 
USDC No. 95-CV-1265-A 

TEL. SO4-539-6514 
600 CAMP STREET 

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 

Regarding the case above, the following has been filed: 

Motion filed by Ronald Chisom, Marie Bookman, Walter 
Willard, Henry Dillon, III, and the Louisiana Voter 
Registration/Education Crusade to intervene in the 
present action as appellees. 

This matter will be presented for ruling Without oral argument. 
Any response must be filed by opposing counsel on or before March 16, 1998 
Counsel will be notified by mail after the court has ruled.. 

Sincerely, 

CHARLES R. FULBRUGE III, Clerk 

BY:0 c )(-C Cindy oa Cad, Deputy Clerk 
cc: Mr William P Quigley 

Ms Elaine R Jones 
Mr Norman J Chachkin 
Mr Charles Stephen Ralston 
Mr Victor A Bolden 
Ms Jacqueline A Berrien 
Mr Ronald L Wilson 

P.S. to counsel filing pleadings: Unless the pleading is purely 
procedural and/or a certificate of interested persons has already been 
submitted, please send the certificate required by 5THCIR. R. 27.5 by the date above. 

ry -)yr 
A 

• eitp,argSge 



64 

No. 98-30004 

IN THE 
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

CLEMENT F. PERSCHALL, JR., 

Plaintiff-Appellant, 

V. 

STATE OF LOUISIANA, 

Defendant-Appellee 

and 

RONALD CHISOM, ET AL. 

Proposed Appellee-Intervenors 

On Appeal from the 
United States District Court 

for the Eastern District of Louisiana 

REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AS 
APPELLEES 

Proposed appellee-intervenors, Ronald Chisom, et al., file 

this reply in response to the Opposition To Motion To Intervene 

As Appellees On Behalf Of Ronald Chisom, et a/. and to raise two 

points: (1) there is an issue as to whether Plaintiff-

Appellant's filing is timely and (2) even if timely, this filing 

should not serve as a basis for denying intervention to the 

proposed appellee-intervenors 

Pursuant to Local Rule 27.6, the parties were notified by 

the clerk of this Court as to the filing date of any response to 



proposed appellee-intervenors' motion and the date "when the 

motion must be submitted to the court." Local Rule 27.6. 

(emphasis supplied). The Court set this date for filing on March 

16th. See Letter of Clerk; dated March 9, 1998. (Exhibit A). 

Plaintiff-Appellant's opposition was not filed until March 23rd, 

after this deadline. There is no reference in Plaintiff-

Appellant's submission to a request for or receipt of an 

extension for filing until March 23rd. Nor did Plaintiff-

Appellant confer with counsel for proposed appellee-intervenors 

regarding this late filing. If Plaintiff-Appellant's pleading is 

indeed untimely, then this pleading should be stricken from the 

record in this proceeding and this motion should be treated as 

having no opposition. 

Even if this pleading was timely filed and all the issues 

raised therein are properly before this Court, no basis has been 

presented for denying intervention. Plaintiff-Appellant's 

opposition does not address any of the grounds under which the 

proposed intervenors have identified in support of their motion. 

Plaintiff-Appellant's opposition motion conveniently ignores not 

only that an interest distinct from the State of Louisiana was 

presented in the proposed appellee-intervenors' pleading, 

Memorandum Of Law In Support Of Motion To Intervene at 15-16 

(citing differences in interpretation of the terms of the consent 

decree), but also that this interest can be adversely affected if 

the Defendant-Appellee, the State of Louisiana, and the 

Plaintiff-Appellant agree to a settlement while this case is on 

2 



appeal, without the Chisom intervenors participation as 

parties.' See e.g. Edwards v. City of Houston, 78 F.34 984, 

1005 (the issue is whether the applicant for intervention has an 

interest "different from that of the [government entity] and that 

the interest will not be represented by [it]") (citation 

omitted). 

Indeed, Plaintiff-Appellant does not dispute that the 

proposed appellee-intervenors have a distinct and separate 

interest in this case from the State of Louisiana. See Brief of 

Appellant, Clement F. Perschall, Jr. at i (listing among the 

interested persons in the case all of the proposed appellee-

intervenors). Instead, Plaintiff-Appellant focuses on whether 

there will be similar arguments made by the State of Louisiana 

and the Chisom intervenors, an issue already remedied by the 

Rules of this Court. See Local Rule 31.2 (providing for the 

brief of the intervenor or amicus to be filed "15 days after the 

principal brief of the party supported by the intervenor or 

amicus" in order to avoid duplication of arguments) .2 Thus, 

Plaintiff-Appellant Perschall has not provided any basis, 

consistent with this Court's standards, for denying intervention 

'Given the history of the Chisom litigation, which prompted 
this present action, this scenario is quite. plausible. See Chisom 
v. Edwards, 970 F.2d 1408, 1409 (5th Cir. 1992)(remanding the case 
"to the United Stated District Court for the Eastern District of 
Louisiana for the limited purpose of effectuating a settlement" . 
. . "[u]pon notification that a consent judgment has been entered 
by the district court. . . ."). 

2It is also noteworthy that the State of Louisiana -- which is 
the best position to make the argument advanced by Plaintiff-
Appellant -- did not oppose this motion. 

3 



to the proposed appellee-intervenors Ronald Chisom, et a/. 

For these reasons, and the reasons set forth previously by 

the proposed intervenors, the motion for intervention should be 

granted. 

Respectfully submitted, 

William P. Quigley 
Loyola University School of 
Law 
7214 St. Charles Avenue 
New Orleans, LA 70118 
(504) 861-5590 

• 

Elaine R. Jones 
Director-Counsel 
Norman J. Chachkin 
Charles Stephen Ralston 
Victor A. Bolden 
Jacqueline A. Berrien 
NAACP Legal Defense & 
Educational Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street 
Suite 1600 
New York, New York 10013 
(212) 219-1900 

Ronald L. Wilson 
837 Gravier Street 
New Orleans, LA 70113 
(504) 586-1241 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that copies of the foregoing REPLY TO OPPOSITION TO MOTION 

TO INTERVENE AS APPELLEES, have been served by depositing same in the United States 

mail, first class postage prepaid, on this March 27, 1998, addressed to the following: 

Clement F. Perschall, Jr., Esq. 
One Galleria Boulevard 
Galleria One, Suite 1107 
Metarie, Louisiana 70001 
Telephone: (504) 836-5975 

Richard P. Ieyoub 
Attorney General, State of Louisiana 
State Capitol 
P.O. Box 94005 
Baton Rouge, Louisiana 70804-9005 

Robert McDuff, Esq. 
767 N. Congress Street 
Jackson, Mississippi 39202 
Telephone: (601) 969-0802 

Peter Butler (Bar# 3731)-T.A. 
Peter J. Butler, Jr. (Bar# 18522) 
Richard G. Passler (Bar# 21006) 
LL&E Tower, Suite 2400 
909 Poydras Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70112 
Telephone: (504) 584-5454 

Tyron D. Picard (Bar# 20473) 
Mark Stipe (Bar# 19803) 
Petroleum Tower, Suite 330 
3639 Ambassador Caffrey Parkway 
Lafayette, Louisiana 70503 
Telephone: (318) 983-0090 

\c 
X  

VICTOR A. BOLDEN 



S United States Court of Appeals 
M TH CIRCUIT 

OMCE OF THE CLERK 

CHARLES It. FULBRUGE ill 
CLERK 

March 9, 1998 

Mr Clement F Perschall Jr 
One Galleria Boulevard 
Suite 1107, Galleria One 
Metairie, LA 70001 

Mr Peter J Butler Jr 
Breazeale Sachse & Wilson 
909 Poydras Street 
Ste 2400 LL&E Tower 
New Orleans, LA 70112 

No. 98-30004 Perschall v. State of Louisiana 
USDC No. 95-CV-1265-A 

TEL SO4-539-6514 
600 CAMP STREET 

NEW ORLEANS, LA 70130 

Regarding the case above, the following has been filed: 

Motion filed by Ronald Chisom, Marie Bookman, Walter 
Willard, Henry Dillon, III, and the Louisiana Voter 
Registration/Education Crusade to intervene in the 
present action as appellees. 

This matter will be presented for ruling without oral argument. 
Any response must be filed by opposing counsel on or before March 16, 1998 
Counsel will be notified by mail after the court has ruled. 

Sincerely, 

CHARLES R. FULBRUGE III, Clerk 

indy oa e : aA,,, Deputy. Clerk 
cc: Mr William P Quigley 

Ms Elaine R Jones 
Mr Norman J Chachkin 
Mr Charles Stephen Ralston 
Mr Victor A Bolden 
Ms Jacqueline a Berrien 
Mr Ronald L Wilson 

P.S. to counsel filing pleadings: Unless the pleading is purely 
procedural and/or a certificate of interested persons has already been 
submitted, please send the certificate required by 5THCIR. R. 27.5 by the date above. 

A