Texas's Response to Judge Wood's Bill of Costs and Motion to Strike; Proposed Order

    THE ATTORNEY GENERAL 

Or TEXAS 

JIM NIATTOX 

ATTORNEY GENERAL November 3, 1990 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

John D. Neil 
United States District Clerk 

200 East Wall Street 

Midland, Texas 79702 

  

Re: LULAC v. Mattox, MO-88-CA-154 

Dear Mr. Neil: 

Enclosed for filing in the above-reference cause is the original 

and one copy of Texas's Response to Wood's Bill of Costs and Motion to 

Strike. Also enclosed is a proposed order on the motion. 

erely, 

No rel, 
Special Assistant fo ney Gofleral 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 
(512) 463-2085 

CC: Counsel of record 

S12 / ABE =2100 SUPREME COURT BUILDING AUSTIN, TEXAS 78711-2548 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND /ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al. 
Plaintiffs, 

VS. Civil Action No. 
MO-88-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 
Defendants. 

TEXAS'S RESPONSE TO JUDGE WOOD'S BILL OF COSTS AND MOTION TO 
STRIKE 

The State-Defendants, through the Attorney General of Texas on behalf 

of the State of Texas ("State"), respond as follows to Judge Wood's Bill of 

Costs: 

RESPONSE 

Insofar as Judge Wood seeks to have any costs or attorney fees 

assessed against the state or state-defendants, the State opposes it. (Judge 

Wood specifies nothing in her filing.) Beyond that, the State joins in the 

Plaintiffs’ Opposition to Wood's Bill of Costs, urging that the Court postpone 

further action. 

MOTION TO STRIKE 

The State further moves the Court to strike Judge Wood's filing for 

failure to comply with Rule 11 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. Rule 

11, among other things, requires that every pleading or motion "be signed 

by at least one attorney of record in the attorney's individual name . . ." 

Judge Wood's filing was signed, not in the attorney's individual name, but in 

the name of the law partnership. That is, it was signed for the partnership 

by an attorney.  



  

This form of signature does not comply with Rule 11. In Pavelic & 

Leflore v. Marvel Entertainment Group, 110 S.Ct. 456 (1990), Justice Scalia, 

writing for eight members of the Court, wrote: 

It has long been thought the better practice for the 
attorney complying with Rule 11 not to sign for his 
firm, but to sign in his individual name and on his 
own behalf, with the name of his firm beneath. See 
Gavit, The New Federal Rules and State Procedure, 
25 A.B.AJ. 367, 371 (1939) (Under Rule 11, "the 
practice for pleadings to be signed in the name of 
the partnership" is "undesirable" and "improper"). 

110 S.Ct. at 459. Pavelic & LeFlore did not make it explicit that the 

proper signature is required by Rule 11, but its reference to the 

"improper" form suggests that the rule should be applied henceforth. 

We urge its application here. 

Respectfully submitted, 

JIM MATTOX 
Attorney General of Texas 

MARY F. KELLER 
First Assistant Attorney General 

fT tre) L 
“~RENEA HICKS 

igl Assistant Attorney General 

  

  

  

JAVIER GUAJARDO > 
sistant Attorney General £ inf 

P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 
(512) 463-2085 

 



  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I certify that on this 3rd day of November, 1990, I sent a copy of the 
foregoing document by first class United States mail, postage prepaid, to 
each of the following: William L. Garrett, Garrett, Thompson & Chang, 8300 
Douglas, Suite 800, Dallas, Texas 75225; Rolando Rios, Southwest Voter 
Registration & Education Project, 201 N. St. Mary's, Suite 521, San Antonio, 
Texas 78205; Sherrilyn A. Ifill, NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund, 
Inc., 99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor, New York, New York 10013; Gabrielle K. 
McDonald, 301 Congress Avenue, Suite 2050, Austin, Texas 78701; Edward 
B. Cloutman, III, Mullinax, Wells, Baab & Cloutman, P.C., 3301 Elm Street, 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637; J. Eugene Clements, Porter & Clements, 700 
Louisiana, Suite 3500, Houston, Texas 77002-2730; Robert H. Mow, Jr., 
Hughes & Luce, 2800 Momentum Place, 1717 Main Street, Dallas, Texas 
75201; John L. Hill, Jr., Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & LaBoon, 3300 Texas 
Commerce Tower, Houston, Texas 77002; Walter L. Irvin, 5787 South 
Hampton Road, Suite 210, Lock Box 122, Dallas, Texas 75232-2255; James 
George, Jr., Graves, Dougherty, Hearon & Moody, P.O. Box 98, Austin, Texas 
78767; Paul Strohl, 100 Founders Square, 900 Jackson Street, Dallas, Texas 
75202; Susan Finkelstein, Texas Rural Legal Aid, 201 N. St. Mary's #600, 
San Antonio, Texas 78205; Seagal V. Wheatley, Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, 
Kelleher & Wheatley, Inc., 711 Navarro, Sixth Floor, San Antonio, Texas 
78205; and Jose Garza, MALDEF, 140 East Houston, Suite 300, San Antonio, 
Texas 78205. 

foi} A ey ’ | 
AS. 7: L/ 

hb. 

  

  

J 
Ha Hi a V 

 



UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 
MIDLAND /ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al. 
Plaintiffs, 

Civil Action No. 

MO-88-CA-154 
VS. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., 

Defendants. un
 

on
 

Lo
n 

Un
 

Lo
n 

Un
 

Un
 

ORDER 

On this day came before the Court Texas's Motion to Strike Judge 

Wood's Bill of Costs for failure to comply with the signature requirements of 

Rule 11. After giving due consideration to the matter, the Court is of the 

opinion that the motion is well taken. Accordingly, it is hereby 

ORDERED that Texas's Motion to Strike is GRANTED. Defendant- 

Intervenor Wood has ten days from this date to file a properly signed Bill of 

Costs. 

SIGNED and ENTERED this day of November, 1990. 

  

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE