Judge Entz's Response in Opposition to Motion for Remand

    HUGHES & LUCE 
1717 MAIN STREET 

SUITE 2800 
DALLAS, TEXAS 7520 

  

1021 MAIN STREET (214) 939-5500 Il CONGRESS AVENUE 

SUITE I300 FAX (214) 939-6100 SUITE 900 
HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 TELEX 730836 AUSTIN, TEXAS 7870! 

(713) 754-5200 (512) 482-6800 

FAX (713) 754-5206 FAX (512) 482-6859 

Direct Dial Number 

(214) 939-5581 

  

July 29, 199] 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS gp. 

RECEIPT NO. 0208407511 

Gilbert F. Ganuck€au, Clerk 
U. 8. Court of Appeals, 5th Circuit 
600 Camp Street 
New Orfeans, Louisiana 70130 

pa 
Re: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 

et al. v. F. Harold Entz, et al., Cause No. 90-8014 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed please find an original and twenty copies of 
Judge Entz's Response to Motion to Remand in the 

above-referenced matter. 

Please return a file-marked copy to me in the enclosed 
envelope. Also, please note that copies of the above 
documents are being sent by certified mail to counsel for the 
other parties. 

ery truly yours, 

: Nello, 
David C. Godbey 

DCG/pai 

Enclosures 

52800010:291 

 



    
‘HUGHES & LUCE t » 

Gilbert F. Ganucheau, Clerk 

July 29, 1991 
Page 2 

CC: (CERTIFIED MAIL RRR) 
William L. Garrett 

“Rozando Rios 
herrilyn A. Ifill 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Renea Hicks 

J. Eugene Clements 

Walter L. Irvin 

Susan Finkelstein 

Seagal V. Wheatley 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 
CITIZENS (LULAC), et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 
§ 

YN. § NO. 90-8014 

§ 
F. HAROLD ENTZ, et al., § 

§ 
Defendants-Appellants. § 

DALLAS COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ'S 
RESPONSE IN OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT OF APPEALS: 

Appellant Dallas County District Judge F. Harold Entz 

("Judge Entz") responds to appellees' motion for remand (which 

Judge Entz did not receive until July 26) and to the State 

Defendants' request for briefing schedule as follows: 

1. Judge Entz agrees with the State Defendants that a 

remand now would waste time. Many of the issues raised by the 

Supreme Court's ruling can be addressed as a matter of law by 

this Court. 

2. Moreover, the current appeal raises numerous issues 

that could are dispositive of this case and are fully ripe for 

appellate review. Remanding sequentially to address each 

error of the district court in piecemeal fashion could result 

in an unnecessary bouncing of this case back and forth from 

the district court to this Court. Aside from the expense to 

the parties, that would also unnecessarily delay resolution of 

these important matters. 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND -- PAGE 1 

 



  

3. Judge Entz therefore joins the State Defendants in 

requesting a new briefing and argument schedule. In that 

connection, Judge Entz requests the Court to grant sufficient 

argument time that all appellants will be able to present 

their different positions to the Court. The need for such 

separate presentations was vividly shown in argument in the 

Supreme Court, when the State Defendants did not support the 

rationale of this Court's en banc decision and vehemently 

objected (successfully) to the Dallas and Harris County 

Intervenors' having any time to argue in support of this 

Court's opinions. 

WHEREFORE, Judge Entz requests that the motion for remand 

be denied and that a briefing and argument schedule be 

established for this appeal. 

Respectfully submitted, 

{ood torus 
Robert H. Mow, Jr. (/ 

ale a 

David C. Godbey i‘ 
Bobby M. Rubarts 

of HUGHES & LUCE 

1717 Main Street, Suite 2800 

Dallas, Texas 75201 

(214) 939-5500 
(214) 939-6100 (FAX) 

  

  

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 
COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND -- PAGE 1 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

I certify that a true and correct copy of the foregoing 

instrument was served by certified mail, return receipt 

requested, on William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Rolando Rios, 

Southwest Voter Registration & Education Project, 201 N. St. 

Mary's, Suite 521, San Antonio, Texas 78205; Sherrilyn A. 

Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, Inc., 99 

Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Gabrielle 

K. McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, Texas 

78701; Edwards B, Cloutman, 1II, Mullinax, Vells, Baab & 

Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm Street, Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; 

Renea Hicks, Office of the Attorney General, P.O. Box 12548; 

Capitol Station, Austin, Texas 78711-2548; J. Eugene Clements, 

Porter & Clements, 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 

77002-2730; Walter L. Irvin, 5787 South Hampton Road, Suite 

210, Lock Box 122, Dallas, Texas 75232-2255; Susan 

Finkelstein, Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc., 201 N. St. Mary's 

#600, San Antonio, Texas 78205; and Seagal V. Wheatley, 

Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Whetley, Inc., 711 Navarro, 

Sixth Floor, San Antonio, Texas 78205 in accordance with the 

Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure this 29th day of July, 

1991. 

  

ra 
az 

JUDGE ENTZ'S OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR REMAND -- PAGE 3