Plaintiff's Opposition to Motion to Alter or Amend Judgement

     [||4e640624-2559-4e5d-92a8-e98fdf5ce59d||] March 26, 1979 

Mrs. Katharine Butts 

Chief Deputy Clerk 
United States District Court 

Northern District of Mississippi 
Oxford, Mississippi 38655 

Re: Civil Action No. WC 70-53-K, 

Norwood v. Harrison 
  

Pear Mrs. Butts: 

Enclosed for filing is plaintiffs’ opposition to 

motion to alter or amend judgment. 

Thank vou for vour attention to this matter. 

Sincerely, 

Bill Lann Lee 

Attorney for Plaintiffs 

BLL:deh 

cc: Hon, William C. Keady, 

Chief Judge 

Hon. Peter HM, Stockett, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

Fred L. Banks, Jr., Esq. 

bee: Melvyn R. Leventhal, Esq. 

 



a » 3-% 9 

  

| IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF MISSISSIPPI   
WESTERN DIVISION 

  

DELORES NORWOOD, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Ve. NO. WC 70-53-K 

D. IL. HARRISON, SR., et 'al., 

Defendants. 

  

PLAINTIFFS' OPPOSITION TO MOTION 

TO ALTER OR AMEND JUDGMENT 

Plaintiffs Delores Norwood, et al., oppose the motion to 

alter or amend the order for payment of attorneys' fees and       costs of March 12, 1979, for the following reasons: 

1. Defendants concede that the contentions now made against | 
| | 

the imposition of interest on the attorneys' fees awards were | 

previously presented to this Court and specifically rejected, | 

memorandum at p. 4. (A previous rebuttal memorandum did not con- 

tain any new matters not already before the Court.) Therefore, 

the Court's prior order should not be disturbed.     
I 2. This case emphasizes the inherently equitable nature of 

the award of interest: but for the award of interest, defend- 

ants' recalcitrance in fighting the award of attorneys' fees for | 

years would go unremedied, and the status quo altered without 
  

any possibility of recourse by the judgment creditor. 

3. No equitable considerations justify payment of the 

 



  

  
  
  

  
    

interest award into an escrow account. There is no basis in 

fact or law that should any appeal be successfully maintained 

by defendants that plaintiffs would not comply with an order for 

return of the interest. Defendants, in any event, should be 

estopped from making any such claim in light of their refusal to 

pay, or excuse their refusal to pay, a proper order of this 

Court for payment absent exercise of this Court's power to exe- 

cute judgment. 

CONCLUSION 
  

For the above reasons, defendants' motion to alter or amend 

judgment should be denied. 

Respectfully submitted, 

/ 

/ / 

/ [== — 

Y ~ - 
17 Ta a 

Yom 7 , BY IT AN AL 

PR aad 

  

JACK GREENBERG 

BILL LANN LEE 

‘Suite 2030 

' 10 Columbus Circle 
New York, New York 10019 

FRED L. BANKS, JR. 

318 East Pearl Street 

Jackson, Mississippi 39205 

Attorneys for Plaintiffs 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

Undersigned counsel certifies that copies of the foregoing 

plaintiffs' opposition to motion to alter or amend judgment were 

served on counsel of record by placing copies in the United 

States mail, postage prepaid, first class mail, this 26th day 

of March, 1979, addressed to: 

  

 



 
 

Stockett, Jr. 

Assistant Attorney General 

State of Mississippi 

Peter M. 

Post Office Box 220 

Hon. 

Mississippi 39205 Jackson, 

  
Bill Lann Lee 

 
 

  

Attorney for Plaintiffs [||4e640624-2559-4e5d-92a8-e98fdf5ce59d||]