Application for Waiver of Ten Day Motion Response Period; Affidavit of Rosenberg; Memorandum in Support of Motion to Defer Further Proceedings

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT 0? MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et ..1. , }

Plaintiffs )

v. )

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )

Defendants )

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

Defendant- 
Intervenor

and

DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al.,

Defendants- 
Intervenor

)

)

)

)

.)

m  53 nyiO  S* 'pi *■ ‘ <./■> o
70 —4• C/> -Wfl

O 'O C3 •—* —*■ ZO f**r~
m. •*- Ĉ>' ^orn

7*- c ♦ —\ o
<- VP 5 oo 7L73* oo
ZP 
-jr. 
cf>

-S .C Z

7 3
o
x r̂~>

CIVIL ACTION NO. 35257

APPLICATION FOR WAIVER OF TEE DAY MOTION RESPONSE PERIOD IN LOCAL COURT RULE IX

Now conies the United States or America, by its attorneys, Ralph 

B. Guy, Jr., United States Attorney, and Robert A. Rosenborg, Assistant 

United States Attorney, and hereby asks this Honorable Court to waive the 

ten day motion response period ana set the hearing on the Application tor 

Intervention and Motion to Defer for Friday, April 14, 1972, or as soon 

thereafter as Counsel can be heard. The reasons for the within application 

are as i.o 11 ows .

1. The Government believes the Court may conclude the taking of 

testimony and enter its plan within the next week.

2. The President recently sent a message, on the subject matter 

of this action, to the Congress and it is believed that Congressional action 

is forthcoming.

3. The Government has had some difficulty contacting counsel to 

seek concurrence to its motions.

Respectfully submitted,

RALPH B. GUW-, JR.
United S tates a Attorney

// /, 0 .A.o-.-

ROBERT A. ROSENBERGAssistant United States Attorney
By:



*  -

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISH ACT GE KICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD DRADLEY, ea cl

v .

R'BLLLAM Go MILLINER, et al.

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

:nd

DENISE -1AGB0WSKI4 et al.,

? -a m t i f  f s ,

Defendants,

Civil No. 35257

Defendant-In tervenox

Defendan t s- intervene-

:x>nio

o  o
r~ 7̂
ni -£ PD -t

33*
ZQ

0‘,K3 —4 —.• cn.
<=• ^r?r~

-4 o  tr\
AFFIDAVIT

STr TE OF MICHIGAI

'— »v]Orc 5=»
co - O  *---1 SC

x 0
o o  :r c:' 33

O

L- j_ Q<2 t am .

:. Tea t am .

3 . That I hav

COUNTY OF WAYNE }

I, ROBERT A. ROSENBERG, being first duly sworn, do 'hereby declare and

say:

That I am an Assistant United States -Attorney.

That I am familiar with Local Court Rule IX.

have sought the concurrence of counsel with regard to the 

Government's Application For Leave To Intervene, and hotion To Defer Furthei 

Proceedings.

4. That the following is the result of my best efforts to contact all 

of the listed parties through their counsel: •

a) Louis Lucas, principal attorney for the plaintiffs, denies 

concurrence on both motions (on -April 5. 1572) .

b) George T. Roumell, Jr., attorney for Detroit Board of 

Education, takes no position on either Motion (on April 7, 1972).

c) Eugene Krasicky, Assistant Attorney General, State of Mich­

igan, concurs on intervention, but takes no position on the Motion 

To Defer (on April 5, 1972).

d) Theodore Sachs, attorney for Detroit Federation of Teachers, 

takes no position on either motion (on April 7, 1972).



e) After diligent efforts, I have been unable to contact 

Robert J. Lord, attorney for intervenor-defendants Green et al; 

and Tri-County Citizens for Intervention in Federal School , Civil 

Action Ac. 35257 (on April 5 and 10, 1S72) .

f) Davie Hood, attorney for intervenor-defendant Jefferson- 

Cnalmers Citizens District Council, Inc., denies concurrence on both 

notions (on April 1, 1972).

g) Alexander Ritchie, attorney for intervenor-defendants

Ida gd g w  ski, et al., denies concurrence on both motions (on April 10,

1972) .

h) Douglas West, attorney for Crosse Pointe Schools; William 

Saxton, attorney for Allen Park Schools, et al: Richard Condit, 

attorney for Southfield Public Schools; and Kenneth AcConnell, attorney 

for Royal Oak School District, concur on both Motions. (on March 31, 

1972; April 5, 1972; April 5, 1972, and April 10, 1972, respectively).

Further deponent sayeth not.

Subscribed and sworn to before rae 
this 11th day of April, 1972.

Dorothy Reranitz, "Notary Public 
Wayne County,’""State of Michigan.
My commission expires Mar. 23, 1974



IN THE u n i t e d s t a t e s d i s t r i c t c o u r t f o r  t h e

EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v.
WILLIAM G . MILuIKEN, et al. , 

Defendants

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

Defendant- 
Intervener

and
DENISE MAGDCWSKI, et al.,

Defendants- 
Intervener.

)

)
) MEMORANDUM IN -  
) SUPPORT OF MOTION 
) TO DEFER FURTHER 
) PROCEEDINGS 
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION 
) NO. 35257 
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

It is well settled that a court has inherent power 

to stay proceedings in control of its docket, after bal­

ancing the competing interests which will be affected. 

Landis v. North American Go., 299 U.S. 248 (-936);

:;sr v. Mitchell, 442 F.2d 782 (C.A. D.C. 1971); 

kelson v.. Grooms , 307 F .2d 76 (5th Cir. , iS62) ; -•■Q-'-tro 

Corp. v. Prindie, 105 F. Supp. 460 (D.C. N.Y. 1952).

Among such competing interests is the orderly 

course of justice measured in terms of simplifying issues 

proof, and questions of law which could be expected to

result from a stay in proceedings. CMAX„ Inc. v. Hal-, 

SCO F .2d 265 (9th Cir., 1962).



. _ »

the cioove principle, s everal

iy postpo:ned further action

:haoi ces egr£gatxon

bu'sr eme

(Occur:

Unified

UOUl u

asas pending a decision by the

n Keyes v. School District ha, 1, Denver

on March 2, 1972, in Johnson v. San Francisco
School Dost 9th Cir.; on February 7, 1972

in Cisneros v. Corpus Christi Independent School Dis­

trict, 5th Cir.; and on January 14, 1972, in Unired 

States v. Midland Independent School District, 5th Cir.) 

These actions are reminiscent of the Fifth Circuit1s 

announcement of October 1, 1970, postponing all decisions 

in pupil assignment and related cases until the Supreme 

Court announced its decision in Swann v. Charlotte-

Me ckl enbir

Conelusion

Congress ion

.at ion.

Lon when a higher 
i of the pending

al consideration of the President's proposed

The logic or delaying cour l. cLC C

. ' S 0 0 C ision may affect the outcom

ought to be extended here to the (

Respectfully submitte<

.f\us pc .0 Ih5 \i).
i/K

Assistant Attorney General