Letter from Caldwell to Court RE: Request for Deferred Time for Filing Brief of Appellees

    P H O N E  ( 9 0 1 )  5 2 5 * 0 6 0

M A R V I N  L. R A T N E R  
R. B. S U G A R M O N ,  J R .  

L O U I S  R.  L U C A S  
W A L T E R  L. BAI LE Y,  J R .  
I R V I N  M.  S A L K Y  
M I C H A E L  B.  KAY  
W I L L I A M  E.  C A L D W E L L

• t
RATNER, SUGARMON & LUCAS

A T T O R N E Y S  AT  L A W
S U I T E  5 2 5

C O M M E R C E  T I T L E  B U I L D I N G

MEMPHIS, TENNESSEE 38103

B E N  L.  H O O K S  
OF CO UNSEL

January 22, 1973

Hon. James A. Higgins, Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 
Sixth Circuit 
Fifth and Walnut 
Cincinnati, Ohio 45202

Re: Bradley v. Milliken;
Professional Personnel of 
Van Dyke, Appellants,
No. 72-2008

Dear Mr. Higgins:

I have just realized that on or about Novem­
ber 21, 1972, we were served with the Brief and Appen­
dix for Appellants, Professional Personnel of Van 
Dyke, in the above-numbered appeal, and that we have not 
filed a Brief for Appellees, Ronald Bradley, et al., 
within the time allowed. The purpose of this letter is 
(1) to request that the time for filing a brief for the 
Bradley appellees be deferred, and (2) to suggest that 
further proceedings in this appeal may be unnecessary.

The appellant, Professional Personnel of Van 
Dyke, complains in its appeal of the refusal of the 
district court to allow it to intervene in the case of 
Bradley v. Milliken, which was the subject of an opinion 
of a panel of this Court on December 8, 1972 (Nos. 72- 
1809, -1814). In its December 8 opinion, this Court 
held that all school districts which are to be affected 
by the district court's metropolitan desegregation de­
cree must be made parties pursuant to Rule 19, F.R.C.P. 
On January 16, 1973, however, the Court granted rehea­
ring en banc thereby vacating the December 8 opinion 
and restoring the case on the docket as a pending ap­
peal. Oral arguments before the Court en banc are 
scheduled for February 8, 1973.

Should the Court en banc affirm or adopt that 
part of the panel opinion of December 8 (slip,op. at 
67-68) requiring all school districts to be made parties^



Hon. J. Higgins - Page 2 - January 22, 1973

then the Bradley plaintiffs, although not conceding that 
the district court erred in any way, would withdraw their 
objections to the permissive intervention in the dis­
trict court sought by the Professional Personnel of Van 
Dyke. (We note that although the Professional Person­
nel of Van Dyke asserts in its Brief that it is entitled 
to intervention of right pursuant to Rule 24(a), F.R.C.P., 
in the district court the appellant sought only permis­
sive intervention. (See Brief and Appendix for Appel­
lants at pp. 2a-5a and lla-13a).). On the other hand, 
should the Court en banc reverse the panel's December 8 
holding that a metropolitan desegregation plan is pro­
per, the appeal by the Professional Personnel of Van 
Dyke would be moot.

We cannot speak for the Detroit Federation of 
Teachers and the Detroit Board of Education (the only 
other parties to oppose the permissive intervention of 
appellants in the district court), but should they like­
wise be willing to withdraw their objections to permissive 
intervention in light of the panel's opinion of Decem­
ber 8 (should it be affirmed by the Court en banc), then 
we would suggest that this appeal be remanded for further 
consideration without the necessity of oral argument or 
further briefing.

On behalf of the Bradley plaintiffs-appellees, 
therefore, we respectfully request that the time within 
which to file our brief be deferred until the decision 
of the Court en banc in the principal case.

Very truly yours,

(jJ(Jjha+*7 £, CcdUo+df
William E. Caldwell

cc: All counsel of record
WEC:rb