Houston Lawyers' Association's Opposition to Defendant Parties Motions for Costs

    St Regional Office » 

  

Suite 301 

NAACP LEGAL DEFENSE 1275 K Street, NW 

AND EDUCATIONAL FUND, INC. Washington, DC 20005 (202) 682-1300 Fax: (202) 682-1312 

October 25, 1990 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
Clerk 

United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit 

100 U.S. Courthouse 

600 Camp Street 

New Orleans, LA 70130 

Re: LULAC v. Mattox 

No. 90-8014 
  

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed please find an original and 19 copies of Plaintifr- intervenor-appellants Houston Lawyers’ Association, et. al’'s Opposition to Defendant parties’ Motion for Costs for filing in the above referenced case. 

All counsel of record have been served. Thank you: for your assistance. 

A. If111 

  
National Office Regional Office 

. ; on % ite 80C Contributions are The NAACP Legal Defense & Educational Fund, Inc. (LDF) is not part Sone joe Stree Sue gs 5 te Street deductible for U.S. of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People o rgeen Be 4 k : Ey id 
income tax purposes (NAACP) although LDF was founded by the NAACP and shares its By " Sn JK il AAD ) 

commitment to equal rights. LDF has had for over 30 years a separate 32 2 % ; om ae 2 ah 
Board, program, staff, office and budget. ix: (212) 226-7592 Fax: (213) 624-0075 

 



  

IN THE 

UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE PFPIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

No. 90-8014 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS (LULAC), COUNCIL #4434, 

et al., 

Plaintiffs-Appellees, 

HOUSTON LAWYERS ASSOCIATION, 
et al., 

Plaintiff-Intervenor- 

Appellees, 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

State Defendants- 

Appellants, 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD AND 

JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ, 

Defendant-Intervenor- 

Appellant. 

  

Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellees Houston Lawyers’ 
Association, et. al’sOpposition to 
Defendant Parties Motions for Costs 

  

Plaintiff-Intervenor-Appellees Houston Lawyers’ Association 

oppose State defendants and defendant-intervenor appellant Sharolyn 

Wood’s Motion for Costs on the following grounds: 

Defendant-intervenor appellees are not entitled to the 

costs of Federal Express delivery totalling $1,251.26. According 

to the Internal Operating Procedures of this court: 

 



Since briefs are deemed filed on the day 
of mailing or transmission, if sent by the 
most expeditious form of delivery short of 
special, the cost of expensive special 
express delivery cannot be allowed as 
taxable or recoverable costs on appeal. 

  

  

  

Rules of the United States Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, 

October 1, 1989 at p.91 (emphasis added). 

3 Defendant-intervenor appellee Wood is not entitled to 

costs associated with the filing of a Post-Submission Brief. There 

is no provision in the Rules of this court for the recovery of 

costs associated with the filing of gratuitous briefing. This 

brief was not requested by the court and was filed a mere week 

before the panel issued its May 11th decision in this case. 

Plaintiff-intervenor appellants are not responsible for the costs 

of the defendant’s decision to file superfluous briefs with the 

court, 

3. Plaintiff-intervenor appellees intend to bring this case 

to the attention of the Supreme Court by filing a petition for a 

writ of certiorari. Plaintiff parties have 90 days from the entry 

of judgment in "the United States Court of Appeals, “or until 

December: 28, 1990, to file such a petition. Sse, Rule 13 of Rules 

Of the Supreme Court of the United States, 58 U.S.L.W. 4042, 4044 

(December 5, 1989). Plaintiff-intervenor-appellees therefore 

request that this court deny the defendants’ Motion for Costs, or 

in the alternative, postpone any decision on the defendants’ Motion 

for Costs pending a decision by the Supreme Court on the plaintiff 

parties’ petition for a writ of certiorari. 

2  



  

WHEREFORE, plaintiff-intervenor-appellees respectfully request 

that defendant parties Motion for Costs be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JULIUS WERE 
SHERRIL A. IFILL 

99 Hudson Street 

16th Floor 

New York, NY : 10013 

  

OF COUNSEL: GABRIELLE K. MCDONALD 
MATTHEWS & BRANSCOMB 301 Congress Avenue 
A Professional Corporation Suite 2050 

Austin, Texas 78701 

October 25, 1990 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this 25th day of October, 1990, 

a true and correct copy of the foregoing Opposition to Defendant- 

-Intervenor-Appellee’s Motion for Costs was mailed to counsel of 

record in this case by first class United States mail, postage pre- 

paid, as follows: 

William L. Garrett 
Brenda Hull Thompson 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, Suite 800 
Dallas, TX 75225 

Rolando L. Rios 
Southwest Voter Registration 

Education Project 
201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Susan Finkelstein 
Texas Rural Legal Aid, Inc. 
201 N. St. Mary's, Sulte 521 
San Antonio, TX 78205 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

Mullinax, Wells, Baab & 
Cloutman, P.C. 

3301. Elm 

Dallas, TX 75226-9222 

Jim Mattox 
Mary F. Keller 

Renea Hicks 
Javier Guajaro 
Attorney General’s Office 
P.O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, TX 78711 

E. Brice Cunningham 
777 South R.L. Thornton Freeway 

Suite 121 
Dallas, TX 75203 

J. Eugene Clements 
John E. O’/Neill 
Evelyn V. Keys 
Porter & Clements 

700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
Houston, TX 77002-2730 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, TX 77002 

Ken Oden 
Travis County Attorney 
P.O.: Box. 1748 

Austin, TX 78767 

David R. Richards 
Special Counsel 
600 HW. 7th St. 

Austin, TX 78701 

Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, TX 75201 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 
A Professional Corporation 
301 Congress Avenue 

Suite 2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Sod A. 2410 
  

Sherrilyn . TFIID 
A or i Ay Intervenors 
Houston Lawyers’ Association