Motion to Intervene; Answers, Counterclaim and Cross-Complaint of Defendants-Intervenor; Request for Concurrence of Counsel to Applicants' Contemplated Motion to Intervene as Defendants

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

-vs-

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.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
) CIVIL ACTION
) NO. 35257
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

NOTICE OF HEARING

MOTION TO INTERVENE

ANSWERS, COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS- 
COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS-INTERVENOR 
KERRY AND COLLEEN GREEN, ET AL.

MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT 
OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

ROBERT J. LORD, PAUL R. VELLA 
and EUGENE R. BOLANOWSKI 

Attorneys for Applicant 
Defendants-Intervenor 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093 
Telephone: 756-1900



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN.DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

NOTICE OF HEARING

TO: RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al., 
and the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People, Detroit Chapter 

525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

EUGENE KRASICKY 
Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants William G. Milliken,
Frank J. Kelley, Michigan State Board of 
Education and John W. Porter 

Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913
MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK and STONE
Attorneys for Defendant Detroit Board of Education
2500 Detroit Bank & Trust Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

-vs- )
)

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. )

___________________________________________________ )

1



ROTHE, MARSTON, MAZEY, SACHS,
O'CONNELL, NUNN & FREID, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor 
Detroit Federation of Teachers 
1000 Farmer Street 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

ALEXANDER B. RITCHIE 
Attorney for Defendants-Intervenor 
Denise Magdowski, et al. and the 
Citizens Committee for Better Education 
of the Detroit Metropolitan Area 

2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

Please take notice that the undersigned will bring the within motion 

on for hearing before the Honorable Stephen J. Roth in the Federal Building, 

Detroit, Michigan, on Monday, the 31st day of January, 197i at 10:00 o'clock 

in the forenoon of that day, or as soon thereafter or theretofore as counsel 

may be heard.

SIRS:

ROBERT J. LORD, PAUL R. VELLA

Robert J. Lord
Attorneys for Applicant 
Defendants-Intervenor 
30009 Schoenherr Road
Warren, Michigan 48093 
Telephone: 756-1900

2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)

-vs- )
)

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. )

______ _____________________________________________ )

CIVIL ACTION ! 
NO. 35257

MOTION TO INTERVENE

Applicants Kerry and Colleen Green, by their Father and Next Friend, 

Donald G. Green, Sterling Heights, Michigan; James, Jack and Kathleen 

Rosemary, by their Mother and Next Friend, Evelyn G. Rosemary, Milford, 

Michigan; Terri Doran, by her Mother and Next Friend, Beverly Doran, Redford 

Township, Michigan; Sherrill, Keith, Jeffrey and Gregory Couls, by their 

Mother and Next Friend, Sharon Couls, Warren, Michigan; Edward and Michael 

Romesburg, by their Father and Next Friend, Edward M. Romesburg, Jr., East 

Detroit, Michigan; Tracey and Gregory Arledge, by their Mother and Next 

Friend, Aileen Arledge, New Hudson, Michigan; Sheryl and Russell Paul, by 

their Mother and Next Friend, Mary Lou Paul, Hazel Park, Michigan; Tracy 

Quigley, by her Mother and Next Friend, Janice Quigley, Plymouth, Michigan;

1



/

ri
4

| Ian, Stephanie, Karl and Jaako Suni, by their Mother and Next Friend, Shirley
!
j Suni, Dearborn, Michigan, and Tri-County Citizens For Intervention In Federal

|School Action No. 35257 move this Court for the entry of an order granting
j _ ;
the applicants leave to intervene of right or by permission as a defendant in’

this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure upon '

the following alternative grounds: j
• j

1. The applicants claim an interest relating to the transaction

which is the subject of this action;

2. The applicants are so situated that the disposition of this

may as a practical matter impair and impede their ability to protect 

said interest; and

3. The applicants' said interest is not represented at all by the 
existing parties; or

4. The applicants' defenses and claims and the main action have 

questions of law and fact in common.

This motion is based upon the file and record of this action and

Rule 24(a)(2) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and 

accompanying this motion are the applicants' pleadings and memorandum brief.

Annexed also is a copy of the applicants' request for concurrence 

mailed to all counsel on November 1, 1971 and a copy of the November 16, 1971
j

concurrence from Attorney General Frank J. Kelley for all State defendants; 

and otherwise applicants assume that all other parties, by their silence, j
, . ioppose this motion.

.
December 1, 1971

Address:

30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093 
Telephone: 756-1900

ROBERT J. LORD, PAUL R. VELLA 
and

By__
Robert J. Lord 

Attorneys for Applicant 
Defendants-Intervenor

ENE R. BOLANOWSKI

*£_. u.

2



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al.,

Plaintiffs,
)-vs- )
)

WILLIAM G. MILLIKEN, et al., )
)

Defendants, )
)

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

)
Defendant- )
Intervenor, )

)DENISE MAGDOWSKI, et al., )
. )

Defendants- )
Intervenor, )

and )
)KERRY and COLLEEN GREEN, et al., )
)

CIVIL ACTION 
NO. 35257

Defendants - 
Intervenor.

)

ANSWERS, COUNTERCLAIM AND CROSS- 
COMPLAINT OF DEFENDANTS-INTERVENOR 
KERRY AND COLLEEN GREEN, ET AL.

ANSWER TO COMPLAINT

Defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., answer the 

plaintiffs' complaint as follows:

FIRST DEFENSE

Neither the single-count complaint commencing this class action, 

nor any amendment thereto, contains any justiciable averment of fact, claim, 

notice of claim or subject matter whatever against or concerning any school



district, or school children or resident parents of school children attending 

public schools in any school district, other than the City of Detroit metro­

politan public school system and the various regions thereof, described in 

paragraph IV, sub-paragraph 5, of the complaint as:

"The Board of Education of the City of Detroit, 
a school district of the first class, organized 
and existing in Wayne County, Michigan, under and 
pursuant to the laws of the State of Michigan and 
operating the public school system in the City of 
Detroit, Michigan"

and hereinafter for brevity referred to as the defendant "Detroit School 

System"; and the plaintiff classes of persons, to wit:

1. All school children in the City of Detroit,
Michigan,

and
2. All Detroit resident parents who have children 

of school age_,

a^a not entitled substantively or procedurally to relief in their favor by

a desegregation order or judgment of this Court against or concerning any 

school district, or school children or resident parents of school children 

attending public schools in any school district, other than the defendant 
‘'Detroit School System", however otherwise the plaintiff classes or one or 

mote Of the other defendants may deem such an inequitable and improper order i 

§r judgment in the plaintiffs' favor as socially desirable.

SECOND DEFENSE !I

Plaintiffs have failed to state a claim upon which this Court can 
grant relief in their favor by a desegregation order or judgment against or 
Concerning any school district, or school children or resident parents of 
school children attending public schools in any school district, other than 

the defendant "Detroit School System".



THIRD DEFENSE

The interlocutory order entered in this action on November 5, 1971, 

providing in part:

"IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State defendants 
submit a metropolitan plan of desegregation within 
120 days."

is subject to revision at any time before the entry of judgment adjudicating 

all the claims and the rights and liabilities of the parties pursuant to 

Rule 54(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; and said order in part 

is capable of being understood in more than one sense by the parties hereto; 

and defendants-intervenor will move that the said order be revised in part 
to provide:

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the State defendants 
submit a plan for the desegregation of the schools 
of the first class school district in the City of 
Detroit.

FOURTH DEFENSE

The complaint fails to state the names, if known to the plaintiffs, 

©f any persons, as described in subdivision (a)(l)-(2) of Rule 19 of the 
Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, who were not joined by the plaintiffs as 

defendants in this action, including the school districts in Macomb County, 

In Oakland County and in Wayne County other than the defendant "Detroit 

School System"; and the complaint further fails to state the reasons why 

those persons were not joined as defendants in this action; and if the 

plaintiffs deem themselves entitled to relief in their favor by a desegrega­
tion order or judgment of this Court against or concerning any Macomb County, 
Oakland County or Wayne County school district, or school children or 
resident parents of school children attending public schools in any Macomb 

County, Oakland County or Wayne County school district, other than the
3



I
defendant "Detroit School System", then in that event defendants-intervenor 

will move for dismissal of the complaint for nonjoinder of indispensable 

parties. :l
ii
!FIFTH DEFENSE

1. Defendants-intervenor admit the averments contained in para-
I

graphs I, II, III, IV (Superintendent Drachler having been succeeded by 

another person), V and VII of the complaint.

2. Defendants-intervenor deny the averments contained in para-
Ir

graph XVII of the complaint, except admit that the defendants named are 

charged with responsibilities as provided by Michigan laws under the 

Constitution and laws of the United States.

3. Defendants-intervenor deny knowledge or information sufficient 

to form a belief as to the truth of the averments contained in paragraphs 

VI and VIII through XVI inclusive and XVIII through XXIII inclusive of the 

complaint, except admit (a) the averments in paragraph VI that this is also 

a proceeding for a permanent injunction against the defendant Board of 

Education, its members and Superintendent, (b) the averment in paragraph

^  thcit; on April 7, 1970 the Detroit Board of Education adopted a limited 

plan of desegregation, (c) the averment in paragraph X that on April 7, 1970 

the Detroit Board of Education adopted a regional boundary plan as shown by i 

Exhibit D, (d) the averment in paragraph XI that a movement to recall the

four members of the Detroit School Board who voted in favor of said April 7, j|
1970 plan was initiated in the City of Detroit resulting in a recall election

j
resolved by Detroit voters recalling the four Board members who had voted in 

favor of said April 7, 1970 plan, (e) the averment in paragraph XII that the
!

attorney for the Detroit Board of Education rendered the Exhibit E opinion, ! 

(f) the averments in paragraph XIII that defendant Governor Milliken on



July 22, 1970 appointed said three-member commission to draw said boundary 

lines and that on August 4, 1970 said Detroit Boundary Line Commission 

adopted its plan and presented its boundary lines for said eight election 

regions, (g) the averments in paragraph XIV that said Section 12 applies to 

one school district and that a copy of said Sherrill School Parents Committee 

opinion is annexed to the defendant Detroit Board of Education's answer to 

plaintiffs' complaint, and (h) the averment in paragraphs XV and XVI that j 

determinations of unconstitutionality of parts of said Act No. 48 were made ii
by the Court of Appeals, Sixth Circuit, 433 F2d 897.

|
WHEREFORE, defendants-intervenor deny that plaintiffs are entitled j

I
to relief in their favor by a desegregation order or judgment by this Court 

against or concerning any school district, or school children or resident 

parents of school children attending public schools in any school district, 

other than the defendant "Detroit School System".

ANSWER TO CROSS-COMPLAINT, MISDENOMINATED 
"MOTION TO JOIN ADDITIONAL PARTIES DEFENDANT",

OF DEFENDANTS-INTERVENOR DENISE MAGDOWSKI, ET AL.

Defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., answer the 

cross-complaint, misdenominated "Motion To Join Additional Parties Defendant"1, 

of defendants-intervenor Denise Magdowski, et al., as follows:
iIj

FIRST DEFENSE

Neither the responsive pleading of defendants-intervenor Denise
l

Magdowski, et al., to the complaint, nor any amendment to said responsive 

pleading by leave of court or by written consent of the plaintiffs, contains 

a cross-claim, notice of cross-claim, any averment of fact or law or subject 

matter whatever against or concerning any school district, or school children;



r 1
! or resident parents of school children attending public schools in any school;
i  !• i
| district, other than the defendant "Detroit School System"; and defendants-
! !:intervenor Denise Magdowski, et al., are not entitled substantively or pro- j
i i

|cedurally to relief in their favor or in the plaintiffs* favor by a desegrega-
| I
tion order or judgment by this Court against or concerning any school district, 

or school children or residents parents of school children attending public 

schools in any school district, other than the defendant "Detroit School 

System", however otherwise the plaintiff classes or one or more of the other 

defendants may deem such an inequitable and improper order or judgment in 

the plaintiffs' favor as socially desirable.

SECOND DEFENSE

Purported reliance by the defendants-intervenors Denise Magdowski, 

et al., upon Rule 19(a)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure as an 

actual ground for their pending "Motion To Join Additional Parties Defendant" 

is entirely misplaced; and said "motion" actually constitutes not only a 

cross-complaint pleading and an amendment to their said responsive pleading 

without leave of court or written consent therefor but also an improvised 

attempt to circumvent a trial determination of justiciable cross-complaint 

averments of fact and law issues and to circumvent representation of 

interests of defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., relating j
i

to any relief in the plaintiffs' favor by any desegregation order or judgment!
iI

by this Court against or concerning any school district, or school children !1I
or resident parents of school children attending public schools in any schoolj 

district, other than the defendant "Detroit School System".
iii

.......  ......... ...  . THIRD DEFENSE . ____________________

The justiciable issues of fact and law averred in the several para­

6



graphs of the cross-complaint, misdenominated "Motion To Join Additional 

Parties Defendant", of defendants-intervenor Denise Magdowski, et al., have 

not at all been litigated in this action; nor does the Court's September 27, 

1971 Ruling On Issue Of Segregation touch upon said issues; nor has the 

Court of its own initiative at any stage of this action added any of the
i

school districts, or school children or resident parents of school children 

attending public schools in any of the school districts, mentioned in said
j

cross-complaint misdenominated a "motion". Ii

FOURTH DEFENSE !•

Neither defendants-intervenor Denise Magdowski, et al., nor any of i
ii

the other parties to this action are entitled substantively or procedurally ' 

to the relief claimed in said cross-complaint misdenominated a "motion". j
FIFTH DEFENSE

Defendants-intervenor deny all of the averments contained in the 

said cross-complaint, misdenominated "Motion To Join Additional Parties 

Defendant", of defendants-intervenor Denise Magdowski, et al., except they 

admit that the suburban school districts referred to in paragraph 1 are
I

subject to the jurisdiction of this Court and are organized and exist
j

according to Michigan laws; and in support of said denials, defendants- i
intervenor will rely upon their within affirmative defenses and upon the

t
fact that said suburban school districts are not agents of defendants

♦l
Governor Milliken, Attorney General Kelley, Michigan State Board of 

Education or Superintendent Porter.

WHEREFORE, defendants-intervenor deny that the defendants-intervenor 

Denise Magdowski, et al., or any of the other parties to this action, are



f

:
i

Ii

entitled to relief as claimed in their cross-complaint misdenominated "Motion 

To Join Additional Parties Defendant" and will move to dismiss said cross-

complaint misdenominated a "motion"; and defendants-intervenor further deny
|

that the defendants-intervenor Denise Magdowski, et al., are entitled to
i

relief in their favor, or in the plaintiffs' favor, by a desegregation order !' 

or judgment by this Court against or concerning any school district, or 

school children or resident parents of school children attending public 

schools in any school district, other than the defendant "Detroit School 

System".

i

COUNTERCLAIM

Defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., set forth 

their counterclaim for declaratory relief against the plaintiffs pursuant

to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and 2202 as follows:

1. Defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, by their Father 

and Next Friend, Donald G. Green, Sterling Heights, Michigan; James, Jack 

and Kathleen Rosemary, by their Mother and Next Friend, Evelyn G. Rosemary, 

Milford, Michigan; Terri Doran, by her Mother and Next Friend, Beverly 

Doran, Redford Township, Michigan; Sherrill, Keith, Jeffrey and Gregory 

Couls, by their Mother and Next Friend, Sharon Couls, Warren, Michigan;

Edward and Michael Romesburg, by their Father and Next Friend, Edward M. 

Romesburg, Jr., East Detroit, Michigan; Tracey and Gregory Arledge, by 

their Mother and Next Friend, Aileen Arledge, New Hudson, Michigan; Sheryl 

and Russell Paul, by their Mother and Next Friend, Mary Lou Paul, Hazel Park, 

Michigan; Tracy Quigley, by her Mother and Next Friend, Janice Quigley,
!

Plymouth, Michigan; and Ian, Stephanie, Karl and Jaakko Suni, by their !

Mother and Next Friend, Shirley Suni, Dearborn, Michigan, are all minor 

school children and parents of school children attending public schools in

-■

8



f

; Macomb County, Oakland County and in Wayne County school districts, other
i
j than the defendant "Detroit School System"; and the defendant-intervenorII! Tri-County Citizens For Intervention In Federal School Action No. 35257
■I
is a Michigan non-profit corporation formed for the purpose of intervening 

representatively as a defendant in this action for and on behalf of all 

school children and all resident parents who have children of school age 

in each and every school district in Macomb County, Oakland County and in 

Wayne County other than the defendant "Detroit School System".

2. Defendants-intervenor make this counterclaim pursuant to Rule 

23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on their own behalf and on behalf 

of all persons similarly situated in Macomb County, Oakland County and in 
Wayne County other than the defendant "Detroit School System"; and said 

persons constituting said class are so numerous as to make it impracticable 

to bring them all before this Court; and there are common questions of law 

and fact affecting the rights of defendants-intervenor and the rights of all 

the persons constituting said class; and a common declaratory judgment is 

sought and defendants-intervenor fairly insure the adequate representation 

of said class.
3. The plaintiffs represent two classes of persons, to wit: all

school children in the City of Detroit, Michigan, and all Detroit resident 

parents who have children of school age.

4. A case of actual controversy exists between the plaintiffs and 

the defendants-intervenor, to wit:

(a) upon information and belief, the plaintiffs say and claim 

that the eighty-five suburban school districts, which are mentioned in the
|

cross-complaint misdenominated a "motion" by defendants-intervenor Denise 

Magdowski, et al., are white segregated school districts in violation of the 

Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United

9



States and that the plaintiffs are therefore entitled to relief in their
|

favor by a desegregation order and judgment by the Court not only against 

the "Detroit School System" but also against and concerning the said eighty- 

five suburban school districts and the school children and resident parents 

of school children attending public schools in said suburban school districts;I
whereas to the contrary

II
(b) the defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., I 

say and claim that the plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor proved that the 

said eighty-five suburban school districts are white segregated school 

districts in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

Constitution of the United States and that the plaintiffs are not entitled 

to relief in their favor by a desegregation order or judgment by the Court 

against or concerning all or any of the said suburban school districts or 

school children or resident parents of school children attending public 

schools in said suburban school districts.

WHEREFORE, defendants-intervenor claim and respectfully demand a 

judgment of this Court declaring that the plaintiffs have neither pleaded 

nor proved that the said eighty-five suburban school districts are white 

segregated school districts in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and that the plaintiffs 

are not entitled to relief in their favor by a desegregation order or judg- j
i

ment against or concerning all or any of the said suburban school districts !
j

or school children or resident parents of school children attending public
f

schools in said suburban school districts; and that the Court grant the
j

defendants-intervenor such other and further relief as the Court deems proper 

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2202.

10



CROSS-COMPLAINT jII
!

Defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., set forth
I

their cross-complaint for declaratory relief against defendants-intervenor 

Denise Magdowski, et al., Michigan State Board of Education, John W. Porter '
I

and Board of Education of the City of Detroit pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2201 and; 

2202 as follows:

1 - 2 .  Defendants-intervenor incorporate by reference the aver­

ments contained in paragraphs 1 and 2 of their counterclaim against the 

plaintiffs, except the word "counterclaim" in paragraph 2 is herein changed 

to "cross-complaint".

3. The cross-defendants are the defendants-intervenor Denise 

Magdowski, et al., the Michigan State Board of Education, John W. Porter 

and the Board of Education of the City of Detroit.

4. A case of actual controversy exists between the defendants- 

intervenor and one or more the cross-defendants, to wit:

(a) upon information and belief, one or more of the cross­

defendants say and claim that the plaintiffs have pleaded and proved that 

the eighty-five suburban school districts, which are mentioned in the cross­

complaint misdenominated a "motion" by cross-defendants Denise Magdowski, 

et al., are white segregated school districts in violation of the Thirteenth
I

and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and that i
Ii

the plaintiffs are therefore entitled to relief in their favor by a desegrega­

tion order and judgment by the Court not only against the "Detroit School 

System" but also against and concerning the said eighty-five suburban school
j

districts and the school children and resident parents of school children
i

. -  • •• •   -•    - • • —  ...............................-  - -• ..........  .........- ............ .............................. ............................  t

attending public schools in said suburban school districts; whereas to the 

contrary

11



1
(b) the defendants-intervenor Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., I

I
say and claim that the plaintiffs have neither pleaded nor proved that the

j said eighty-five suburban school districts are white segregated school 

districts in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth Amendments to the 

Constitution of the United States and that the plaintiffs are not entitled 

to relief in their favor by a desegregation order or judgment by the Court 

against or concerning all or any of the said suburban school districts or 

school children or resident parents of school children attending public 

schools in said suburban school districts.

judgment of this Court declaring that the plaintiffs have neither pleaded 

nor proved that the said eighty-five suburban school districts are white 

segregated school districts in violation of the Thirteenth and Fourteenth 

Amendments to the Constitution of the United States and that the plaintiffs 

are not entitled to relief in their favor by a desegregation order or judg­

ment against or concerning all or any of the said suburban school districts 

or school children or resident parents of school children attending public 

schools in said suburban school districts; and that the Court grant the 

defendants-intervenor such other and further relief as the Court deems proper

WHEREFORE, defendants-intervenor claim and respectfully demand a

pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 2202.

ROBERT Jo LORD, PAUL R. VELLA 
and J&IGENE R. BOLANOWSKI

Robert J. Lord
Attorneys for Applicant 
Defendants-intervenor 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093 
Telephone: 756-1900

12



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )
)

Plaintiffs, )
)-vs- )
)

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. )
______________________ )

CIVIL ACTION | 
NO. 35257

MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT 
OF MOTION TO INTERVENE

Applicants Kerry and Colleen Green, et al., submit the following 

memorandum brief in support of their motion to intervene:

Applicants rely upon the following material provisions of Rule 24 

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:

(a) Intervention of Right. Upon timely application 
anyone shall be permitted to intervene in an action:
• • • •(2) when the applicant claims an interest re­
lating to the property or transaction which is the 
subject of the action and he is so situated that the 
disposition of the action may as a practical matter 
impair or impede his ability to protect that interest, 
unless the applicant's interest is adequately repre­
sented by existing parties. As amended Feb. 28, 1966, 
eff. July 1, 1966.

(b) Permissive Intervention. Upon timely application 
anyone may be permitted to intervene in an action: . . 
• • •(2) when an applicant's claim or defense and the

1



—  I .— — — I

• i
j

main action have a question of law or fact in common 
. . .As amended Dec. 27, 1946, eff. March 19, 1948. j

Pleadings, which set forth the applicants' defenses and claims for
i

which intervention is sought alternatively as a matter of right or permission, 

accompany the applicants' motion and show their interest relating to the 

desegregation relief which is the pending subject matter of this action.
iAs shown by their pleadings, applicants are opposed substantively i

and procedurally to relief in the plaintiffs' favor, or in favor of defendants 

or defendants-intervenor, by a desegregation order or judgment of the Court
|

against or concerning any school district, or school children or resident 

parents of school children attending public schools in any school district, 

other than the City of Detroit school district.
A

The State defendants do not oppose the applicants' motion; and to 

parties in opposition, it is submitted that the applicants' motion is timely
i

in view of the record circumstances of the atypical proceedings at bar, - 

proceedings which since April of this year, and only until more recently, 

appeared substantively and procedurally to be concerned with no more than a 

pleaded and litigated segregation school issue involving the City of Detroit I
j

school district, but which ever more presently now appear to be expansively 

concerned with a desegregation order and judgment involving upwards of 

eighty-five additional suburban school districts without representation of 

the applicants' interests and without representation of the interests, what- | 

ever they may be, of the eighty-five suburban school districts.

. Yet the pivotal litigant interests relating to relief in the very 

proceedings at bar are being structured by the defendants-intervenor Denise
j

Magdowski, et al., and the plaintiff classes.

Now, at the very least, it can never be said that the applicants 

slept on their intervening rights.

2



! IWithout relying upon an interpretation of the language of Rule 24! !I
j (a)(2): . . unless the applicant's interest is adequately represented by
j  |existing parties" as casting a burden upon the opposing parties to show thei !; i
! adequacy of their representation of the applicants' interest relating to the i

j
transaction which is the subject of this action, the applicants' grounds for 

intervention as a matter of right, pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2) are: first, !
applicants claim an interest relating to the transaction which is the subject 

of this action; second, their interest is not represented at all by the 

existing parties; and third, the applicants are so situated that the dis­

position of the action may as a practical matter impair and impede their 

ability to protect that interest.

Even prior to the 1966 liberalizing revision of Rule 24(a)(2), the 

whole of Rule 24 was liberally construed to avoid multiplicity of suits and 

to settle all related controversies in one action. Clark v. Sandusky, 7 

Cir., 205 F2d 515 (1953).

In Nuesse v. Camp, D.C. Cir., 385 F2d 694 (1967), the District 

Court denied an application for intervention by a state banking commissioner 

in an action by a Wisconsin bank for declaratory and injunctive relief 

against the United States Comptroller of Currency. Reversing, the Court at 

page 699 said:

As amended effective July 1, 1966, Rule 24(a) of 
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits inter­
vention as of right —

when the applicant claims an interest 
relating to the property or transaction 
which is the subject of the action and 
he is so situated that the disposition 
of the action may as a practical matter 
impair or impede his ability to protect 
that interest, unless the applicant's 
interest is adequately represented by 
existing parties.

We think appellant made sufficient showing of each 
of the three necessary requirements: (i) an

X.

3



interest in the transaction, (ii) which the appli­
cant may be impeded in protecting because of the 
action, (iii) that is not adequately represented 
by others.

and at page 700:

As we said in Textile Workers Union v. Allendale 
Co., 96 U.S. App. D.C. 401, 403, 226 F.2d 765, 767 
(1955) (en banc), cert, denied sub nom. Allendale 
Co. v. Mitchell, 351 U.S. 909, 76 S.Ct. 699, 100 
L.Ed. 1444 (1956) in permitting intervention:
"obviously tailored to fit ordinary civil liti­
gation, these provisions (of Rule 24) require 
other than literal application in atypical cases. 
Administrative cases, as the present one demon­
strates often vary from the norm." We should not 
be niggardly in gauging the interest of a state 
administrative officer in the validity of what 
his federal counterpart has done in an area of 
overlapping fact and intertwined law. . . .

The Rule 24(a)(2) "interest" test was noted by the Court in the

Nuesse case at page 700:

. . .We know from the recent amendments to the 
civil rules that in the intervention area the 
"interest" test is primarily a practical guide 
to disposing of lawsuits by involving as many 
apparently concerned persons as is compatible 
with efficiency and due process. . . .

The liberalizing Rule 24(a)(2) amendment in 1966 was analyzed by 

the Court in Nuesse at page 702:

The Commissioner's right to intervene as a party 
depends also on whether his interest is adequately 
represented by existing parties. See generally 
Annot., 84 A.L.R.2d 1412 (1962). The prior text 
of Rule 24 spoke in terms of whether representa­
tion by existing parties "is or may be inadequate".
The present rule provides for intervention "unless 
the applicant's interest is adequately represented 
by existing parties."
While the change in wording does not relate to 
any change in standard as such, it underscores 
both the burden on those opposing intervention 
to show the adequacy of the existing representa­
tion and the need for a liberal application in 
favor of permitting intervention.

The Court in Nuesse considered an alternative motion seeking per-

4



We think the District Court should have granted 
the alternative motion seeking permissive inter­
vention under Rule 24(b). While reversal of the 
denial of permissive intervention is not often
warranted, there is undoubted jurisdiction to j
enter such an order where the District Court has 
not followed the appropriate standard or approach ;
in exercising its discretion. See Textile Workers j
Union v. Allendale Co., supra, 96 U.S. App. D.C„ i
at 405-06, 226 F.2d at 769-70.
Rule 24(b), not amended in 1966, provides bas­
ically that anyone may be permitted to intervene 
if his claim and the main action have a common 
question of law or fact. In the present case 
the legal issues are the same. Although the rule 
speaks in terms of a "claim or defense" this is 
not interpreted strictly so as to preclude per­
missive intervention. In Professor Moore's 
phrase, quoted with approval in Allendale, inter­
vention has been allowed in situations where "the 
existence of any nominate 'claim' or 'defense' is 
difficult to find." . . .

The applicants' ground, alternatively, for permissive intervention ii
pursuant to Rule 24(b)(2) is that the applicants' claims and defenses and 

the main action have questions of law and fact in common as shown by the 

applicants' pleadings.

missive intervention under Rule 24(b)(2) and at page 704 said:

Respectfully submitted,

ROBERT J. LORD, PAUL R. VELLA 
and ̂EUGENE R. BOLANOWSKI

Robert J. Lord
Attorneys for Applicant 
Defendants-Intervenor 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan .48093 
Telephone: 756-1900



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN 

SOUTHERN DIVISION

)
RONALD BRADLEY, et al., )

)
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 )

.)

CIVIL ACTION NO 
35257

REQUEST FOR CONCURRENCE OF COUNSEL TO APPLICANTS' 
CONTEMPLATED MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTS

TO: RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS
Attorneys for Plaintiffs Ronald Bradley, et al., 
and the National Association for the Advancement 
of Colored People, Detroit Chapter 

525 Commerce Title Building 
Memphis, Tennessee 38103

FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

EUGENE KRASICKY 
Assistant Attorney General
Attorneys for Defendants William G. Milliken,
Frank J. Kelley, Michigan State Board of 
Education and John W. Porter 

Seven Story Office Building 
525 West Ottawa Street 
Lansing, Michigan 48913

MILLER, CANFIELD, PADDOCK and STONE
Attorneys for Defendant Detroit Board of Education
2500 Detroit Bank & Trust Building
Detroit, Michigan 48226



ROTHE, MARSTON, MAZEY, SACHS,
O'CONNELL, NUNN & FREID, P.C.

Attorneys for Defendant-Intervenor 
Detroit Federation of Teachers 
1000 Farmer Street 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

ALEXANDER B. RITCHIE 
Attorney for Defendants-Intervenor 
Denise Magdowski, et al. and the 
Citizens Committee for Better Education 
of the Detroit Metropolitan Area 
2555 Guardian Building 
Detroit, Michigan 48226

SIRS:

Applicants Kerry and Colleen Green by their Father and Next 

Friend, Donald G. Green (Macomb County), James, Jack and Kathleen 

Rosemary by their Mother and Next Friend, Evelyn G. Rosemary 

(Oakland County), and Terri Doran by her Mother and Next Friend, 

Beverly Doran (Wayne County), et al., individually and jointly 

for and on behalf of all school children, and all resident parents 

who have children of school age, in each and every school district 

in Macomb County, Oakland County and in Wayne County other than 

the City of Detroit, and the Tri-County Citizens for Intervention 

in Federal School Action No. 35257 (copy of articles of incorpora­

tion attached), hereby make their request for concurrence of 

counsel to said applicants' contemplated motion to intervene as 

defendants in this action pursuant to Rule 24 of the Federal Rules 

of Civil Procedure.

EUGENE R. BOLANOWSKI

Robert J. Lord
Attorneys for Applicant 
Defendants-Intervenor 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093 
Telephone: 756-1900



C-2JC2
(formed/ form 2) O

M ichigan orpARTMCN'T c~ rncAGunv
C O R P O R A T I O N  D I V IS IO N

L A N S I N G .  M I C H I G A N  | .

CO NOT V/RI"t IN SiViCS CtLOW-rOR DEPARTMENT USE '( ,
MOTS Da!o Rcccivcdi

i\
i

McJ! ON'E signed and cckr.owledgod 
copy to* 

i
Michigan Department of Treasury 

Corporation Division 
P.O. Drawer C

OCT 2 6 1271
T_*̂ *7 r% rr*-* r-** fc- - it. LJ

CCT2S1S71

^  SIAJC TilCASUiitt 
M.ciu^io ol T*os**ry

j*
Lansing, AUchigan 23904 

frontMi« foo vte.CO
Filing fee $iu.C0

(Moko too payablo to 
Siaio of AMchlgcn) • !

_____________________________________ i

r, V ■>./"? r j
k ■ V • « Vrf >•

[Mon-Prom

I N C O R P O R A T I O NO
ihoso Articles or incorporation oro signed and acknowledged by tho incorporators for tho purposo of

C7 No. 327 of tho Public Ac:* or 1931/ osforming a non-profir corporation unaor tho provisions of Act 
Ginonded, cs foiiowsi . .

ARTICLE 1
Tho nomo of ;ho corporation i*__ iRl~CQUXTY CITIZENS FOR INTERVENTION

IN FEDERAL SCHOOL.ACTIONNO. ___________________
typ* or print corporate nomo)

ARTICLE il.
tno purposo or purposes for which tho corporation is formed aro as foliowsi

-ZS_i?J&^&.ll_Qr^aniza^ij3nal.^nd_neces.sarx...Re.gaX._4LC.£.iP.n....t.Q____

intervene representatively as a defendant in_ Civil Action__
No. 35257, pending in the United States District Court,
Eastern District of Michigan, Southern Division, for and __
-on. bana1f of nil_school childrcn and all resident parents
wno have children or school age in each and every school
district in Macomb County. Oakland County and i n _____
County other than the City of Detroit, and in general to 
do all things in connection therewith and incident thereto
not, forbidden by the laws_of the State of Michigan and wit)}
all the powers conferred upon_ non-profit corporations by___
the State of.Michigan.

ARTICLE III.

location of tho first registered offico 1st
3.^A^.Coachv/opd_ Dr . . . j _ _ 5 t . g r _____ jfesomk___ Michr0on„4.8.Q7.7„

(•NoJ (Sl(.«l) (ClI/) (Count/) (Z .p  Cod.)

Postoffico edd.-oss of tho firs} recislercd office 1st
33828 Coachwood Dr.____________ Sterling Heights_____ MichiCan_.A.?.P.Z7„

(No. and ilr to t  or f. O. ion) (City) (X i, Cod.)""

ARTIClc IV.

Tho nc.T.o of tho first rosiciont aeon) u Donald G. Green
C-2C02
(fctiaor.'y rom  2)



AR7iCLS V.

Said corporator. is orconuoo up on o .
(ilU«*tKo<* Of MA'ltou)

to
(1/ upon o  ktsCk.*kharo Lokik fill In tno following)

(*/' upon o  non-klorit Mklk kid'*- owl porocropb (a) obovo ond fiii in tho following) 

7 ho citiOw A t of a s s e t s  which solo corporator. p a s s  c s s o ,  is ,

Nona * _____ ..•Real proper1.'/..

•Persona! property!.. Nor.e

•(Give description end value—it none, msort "r.ono ")  ̂ „ „ u _ re .'u.-n j , , - -
Seiji corporator, is to bo i, reread or,a.r tho following gonoroi p,oni------ar.v.kk t ...& M e .a„-----rt-v.p—

! •■

ARTICLE VIk

Tho nemos cr.o' pieces of residence, or business, of ccch of tho incorporators (end If a corporation 
organized upon a stock-share basis the number of shares of stock subscribed for b/ each) cro os toi.owsi

(At took! tiw-00 required)

skfooto f/po or pilot following informolion if poikibto)

NAME
(Nob

RESIDENCE OR 
BUSINESS ADDRESS

(Slloot) (Or,)

NUMBER O? 
SHARES
(Slot*)

T;ona i £ g . Cro on, 33S2S Conchwood Sr. , Starling 077
vary Xarkowicz, 1555 Hubbard Rd., Garden City, Michigan 48135 ---
Evelyn Rcso-orv, 3843 Salir.or.y, Milford, Michigar. 48042_____;-------

!

-i
t-
4



a* t;c i& v;i.
no.v.c/i end ctcdrcsiOi or l*So board of diroefors "'or irCifwui) aro c# fo»ow«i

. , (Al Itotl Hwwo f*r,wi/*o)
•NAA“: ADD.tZSS

(N«J {=<•■••>') (Cl/) (Slot.)

xr or nla a« C - c c.., b .> o 2 S Core.-.wood Dr*. ̂ Stcrlmc .ieirkts \ichi°rr A§C
X 5 : d . X g -V.a—7555 Hubbard Rri., Cardan City, Michigan 43135______
g^bg>-2.cg.g~firy,. 3343 Dal-.ony, Milford,..Michigan 43042_____________

Ar.T;c:n via.
Tho torn*. ov the corporcio oxistcnco Is perpejeoJ,
d f tW o  mDi(6u nyfni)*,/ c/ '/<dQftt ii)6» «;aio (wen U(M iniiw'i-i i f  porpotwaL)

APXiClc iX.
vf*«*r« bitart otv/ dotlcud cd u ith fio i prori»lon» owiho<u«d by tho A«t)

V/o, :Iu> incorpc.-cjors, jl^n our nemo* this

..da/ c»i__ 0C tobQT_______t > ̂  »9.7Jk (All portloi op?«OfInQ un<for 
Art.'il* Y l or* r«<;v>ro«i to **3 a ift ikU tpoa)

STATS Or MICHIGAN___  ._ .) (Of*» or mo ro of tho portlo* iT̂nT/ig 
mv»l uiiuiowiivî * boforo tho Nolar/)

O c t o b e r  lp  71

7 «•

On this .............  25 t h
)

c f .............

bolero nno porione!!/ cppocrcd-^-. . . .D o n a ld  G . G r e e r . , M a ry  M a r k o w ic z  a n d

E v e l y n  R o s e m a r y

to mo known to bo tho persons describee! in and v,ro .•./.nc:>*..d il.c Corcuolno instrument, end acknowledged 
«»*•&* mo/ oxocoJuc.;no icrr.o cs Jno.r vroo ac? end a'ouj. _

Alice (i>«3notwr« of Notary)3 a ro
(t'tlnl or typo oomo or Nolar/)

Notary Public f o r . . . . . ? .  = ; . . .Clair—  ............— County,Slot* a; ACuing in »\ncorr»o
/Ay convn*^%!on expires__AV>£U.S .X 97 4
(Notnried seel rerjotroo if acknowledgment rakon our of 
Slafo)



STATE OF MICHIGAN
DEPARTMENT OF ATTORNEY GENERAL

L e o n  S. C o h a n  

Deputy Attorney General

F R A N K  J. KEL L EY
A T T O R N E Y  G E N E R A L

LANSINC 
4 8 9 1 3

November 16, 1971

Re: Bradley v. Milliken
United States District Court 
Eastern District of Michigan 
Southern Division, Civil Action No. 35257

Dear Mr. Lord:
In response to your recent request for concurrence of 
counsel to certain applicants identified as Kerry and 
Colleen Green, et al, for a motion to intervene as 
defendants in the above entitled cause, please be advised 
that this office is the attorney for defendants Milliken, 
Kelley, Michigan State Board of Education and Porter.
Consistent with our general policy in this litigation 
not to oppose the intervention of any interested parties 
in the above cause, please be advised that we do not 
intend to object to your contemplated motion to intervene 
as defendants in the above entitled cause.

Mr. Robert J. Lord 
Attorney at Law 
30009 Schoenherr Road 
Warren, Michigan 48093

Sincerely yours
FRANK J. KELLEY 
Attorney General

Eugepte Krasicky 0 
Assistant Attorney General

EK:hb

1

t