English v. Lawrence Petitioner's Reply Brief

    dmtrt of tlj? United t̂at ŝ
O ctober T erm , 1974 

No. 74-1485

I n th e

W illiam  E n g lish , J r .,

v.
Petitioner,

H on . A lexander A . L aw ren ce , Chief Judge United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia; 
S eaboard C oast L in e  R ailroad C o m pan y  ; and B rother­
hood oe R ailw a y , A irlin e  and  S team sh ip  Clerks , 
F reig h t  H andlers, E xpress and  S tation  E mployees,

Respondents.

PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF

J ack  G reenberg 
J am es M. N abrit , III 
M orris J . B aller

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019

F letch er  F arrington

Hill, Jones & Farrington 
208 East 34th Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Attorneys f o r  Petitioner

September 1975.



1st th e

guprnitB OInurt nf tl?L Initud
October Term, 1974 

No. 74-1485

W illiam  E n g lish , .1b.,

v.
Petitioner,

H on . A lexander A . L aw ren ce , Chief Judge United States 
District Court for the Southern District of Georgia; 
S eaboard C oast L in e  R ailroad C o m pan y  ; and B rother­
hood of R a ilw a y , A irlin e  and S team sh ip  Clerks , 
F reight  H andlers, E xpress and S tation  E m ployees,

Respondents.

PETITIONER’S REPLY BRIEF

1. Since submission of the petition for a writ of cer­
tiorari in May 1975, the district court has entered no 
orders, findings or conclusions in this case. The respon­
dent district judge has neither filed any response to the 
petition, nor indicated when a decision may be forth­
coming. Thirty-three months have now passed since trial 
ended in this case. 2

2. The American Bar Association Commission on Stan­
dards of Judicial Administration has recently promul­
gated “ Standards Relating to Trial Courts” (tentative 
draft, 1975). Section 2.52, Standards of Timely Disposi­
tion (at p. 88), recommends as follows:



2

Matters under submission, to a judge or judicial offi­
cer should be promptly determined. Short deadlines 
should be set for party presentation of briefs and 
affidavits and for production of transcripts. Decision 
where possible should be made from the bench or 
within a few days of submission; except in extraor­
dinarily complicated cases, a decision should be ren­
dered not later than 30 days after submission.1 2 3

3. The arguments made in the brief in opposition to 
certiorari filed by respondent Seaboard Coast Line Rail­
road merely attempt to obscure the issue presented here. 
Actions taken in Hayes v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad 
Co., C.A. No. 2371 (S.D. G-a.) and its companion case2 
are inapposite: it is English, not Hayes, that has been 
tried and awaits decision. Moreover, Hayes will be de­
cided on the merits only after and based on the English 
decision, which controls Hayes? Failure to decide English 
thus condems Hayes to limbo. Of the several orders en­
tered in English since trial, relied upon by Seaboard, 
only one involved anything more than approval of an 
agreement between parties. On December 13, 1973—almost 
two years ago—the trial judge ordered that Seaboard’s 
motion to expand the class, which plaintiff opposed, was 
“under consideration.” 4

1 The ABA Commission’s Commentary on this section notes, 
inter alia, that “It should not be left to lawyers to protest delay 
in the decision of a submitted matter” ; and instead advises judi­
cial self-policing.

2 Hamilton v. Seaboard Coast Line Railroad Co., C.A. No CY 
474-69 (S.D. Ga.).

3 See p. 67a, Appendix 16 to Brief in Opposition filed by Sea­
board.

4 See pp. 59a-60a, Appendix 14 to Brief in Opposition filed by 
Seaboard.



3

CONCLUSION

The petition for a writ of certiorari should be granted.

Respectfully submitted,

J ack  G reenberg 
J am es M . N abrit , III 
M orris J. B allbr

10 Columbus Circle 
New York, N. Y. 10019

F letch er  F arrington

Hill, Jones & Farrington 
208 East 34th Street 
Savannah, Georgia 31401

Attorneys for Petitioner



MEtlEN PRESS INC. —  N. V. C  « 219