Wood's Reply to Texas's Responses and Motion to Dismiss Wood for Lack of Standing and for Sanctions

    PorTER & CLEMENTS 
FIRST REPUBLICBANK CENTER 

700 LOUISIANA, SUITE 3500 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002-2730 

ATTORNEYS   
A PARTNERSHIP INCLUDING 

TELEPHONE (713) 226-0600 
PROFESSIONAL CORPORATIONS 

TELECOPIER (713) 228-1331 

TELECOPIER (713) 224-4835 
EVELYN V. KEYES TELEX 775-348 

(713) 226-06 

November 6, 1990 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau, Clerk 
United States Court of Appeals 
for the Fifth Circuit 
100 U.S. Court of Appeals Courthouse 
600 Camp Street 
New Orleans, Louisiana 70130 

Re: No. 90-8014 and No. 90-9003; League of United Latin 
American Citizens, Council No. 4434, et al., Plaintiffs- 
Respondents, v. William P. Clements, Governor of the 
State of Texas, et al., Defendants, Judge Sharolyn Wood, 
etc., Defendant-Appellant; In the United States Court of 
Appeals for the Fifth Circuit 

Dear Mr. Ganucheau: 

Enclosed is the original and four copies of the following: 

(1) Judge Wood’s Reply to the State of Texas’s Responses to 
Judge Wood’s Motions and the State’s Motion to Dismiss 
Judge Wood for Lack of Standing and Motion for Sanctions; 
and 

(2) Judge Wood'’s Response to Plaintiff-Appellees’ Opposition 
to Her Bill of Costs. 

Please verify filing of these documents by placing your file 
mark in the margin of one of the copies provided herewith and 
return to me for my records. 

All parties are being served with a copy of these documents by 
first class United States mail, postage prepaid. 

Very truly yours, 

y 4 

Zr G / (Cope 
Evelyn V. Keyes 

EVK/cdf 
enclosures  



    

PorRTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 

November 6, 1990 
Page -2- 

CC: Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John IL. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 

Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 
Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 
Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. R. James George 
Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O. Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 

 



    PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
November 6, 1990 
Page ~3- 

cc! Mr. William 1.. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201 N.. st. Mary's St., £521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. Box 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, II 

Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 

New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy, Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 
2120 Welch 

Houston, Texas 77019 

 



    PorTER & CLEMENTS 

Mr. Gilbert Ganucheau 
November 6, 1990 

Page -4- 

cc: Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 
Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 

Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 

Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 
Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

 



IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 
FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 

NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 
OF TEXAS, ot al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

JUDGE WOOD'’S REPLY TO THE STATE OF TEXAS'’S 
RESPONSES TO JUDGE WOOD’S MOTIONS AND THE 
STATE’S MOTION TO DISMISS JUDGE WOOD FOR 
LACK OF STANDING AND MOTION FOR SANCTIONS 

  

  

  

  

Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood ("Judge Wood") 

files this Reply to the State of Texas’s Responses to Judge Wood’s 

Motions and the State’s Motion to Dismiss Judge Wood for Lack of 

Standing and Motion for Sanctions, and respectfully shows the Court 

the following: 

il. It appears that Judge Wood’s Motion for Attorneys’ fees 

touched a very raw nerve with the Texas Attorney General’s office.  



Judge Wood did not anticipate that Attorney General Mattox would 

welcome her fee application; however, she did not anticipate the 

angry virulence of the attack it would trigger. The facts speak 

for themselves; and this Reply will not be prolonged by reiteration 

of the obvious. If anyone believes that this appeal would have 

occurred absent the involvement of Judge Wood and Dallas County 

District Judge Harold Entz, given the Plaintiffs and Texas Attorney 

General Mattox’s Joint Settlement Agreement and Joint Application 

for Payment of Attorneys’ fees to the Plaintiffs, they have not 

read the documents. 

2. Attorney General Mattox predicates his attack on Judge 

Wood’s Motion for Attorneys’ Fees on her alleged failure to seek 

attorneys’ fees from the State in the district court. Not only has 

Judge Wood filed a timely Motion for Costs and Attorneys’ Fees in 

the district court, referenced in her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees 

before this Court, but also as Attorney General Mattox knows or 

should know, she sought a declaratory judgment and attorneys’ fees 

under the civil rights fee statutes in her First Amended Original 

Answer and Counterclaim to Plaintiffs LULAC, et al. at p. 18. 

Judge Wood’s Counterclaim is attached hereto as Exhibit "A."! That 

pleading did not specify any party as the sole party liable for 

attorneys’ fees under the appropriate statutes. As Judge Wood 

argued at length in her Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Memorandum 

in Support of that Motion, both prevailing law and equity support 

  

A copy of the entire First Amended Original Answer and Counterclaim 
is on record with this Court as Exhibit "7" of Judge Wood's 

Exhibits, filed with her Petition for Interlocutory Appeal.  



  

her claim that her statutorily mandated attorneys’ fees should be 

paid by the State of Texas. 

3. Attorney General Mattox seems to attach importance to the 

fact that both the State of Texas and Judge Wood are prevailing 

parties without considering the role the Defendant-Intervenors, 

Judge Wood and Judge Entz, played in assuring that there would be 

an appeal and that it would be successfully presented. He also 

seems to attach importance to the fact that Judge Wood did not 

intervene to assert a violation of the Voting Rights Act but to 

argue the constitutionality and validity of applying the Act under 

the circumstances and to argue that it does not and could not 

constitutionally apply to judges. These concerns are of as great 

importance to the constitutional and statutory protection of all 

the citizens of the United States as are concerns whether the 

Voting Rights Act has been violated in particular circumstances. 

The Act does not simply provide for an award of attorneys’ fees to 

successful plaintiffs. It gives the Court discretion to award 

attorneys’ fees when justice demands. To assist this Court and the 

Supreme Court to reach the conclusion that the Act does not apply 

is at least as valuable as proving that the Act applies and has 

been violated in a specific instance. 

4, Attorney General Mattox impugns Judge Wood’s motives in 

intervening in this suit and in seeking her attorneys’ fees from 

the State of Texas, claiming "Exultation in victory is a matter of 

ego, not justice or law." State’s Response at 9. Judge Wood’s 

intervention — together with that of Judge Entz — saved the State 

 



  

of Texas millions of dollars in costs for the overnight dismantling 

and (illegal) reconstruction of Texas’ judicial election system. 

Reasonable compensation for her attorneys’ fees is a matter of both 

justice and law, and no one’s ego has anything to do with it. 

5. Texas Attorney General Mattox improperly attacks Judge 

Wood’s standing in this case. The question of Judge Wood’s 

standing was raised in her Motion to Intervene and was 

affirmatively decided by the district court’s order permitting her 

intervention in her individual capacity, signed and entered 

March 1, 1989. That order was fully in accord with precedent cited 

in Judge Wood'’s Brief in Support of her Motion to Intervene. See 

Williams v. State Board of Elections, 696 F. Supp. 1563 (N.D. Ill. 

1988). The State of Texas did not oppose Judge Wood’s intervention 

in her personal capacity, nor did it appeal the district court’s 

order permitting her intervention. Indeed, Attorney General Mattox 

repeatedly recognized Judge Wood’s standing, insisting that he 

himself represented her in her official capacity. See Judge Wood’s 

Exhibit "I" (2), Judge Wood’s Response to Attorney General Mattox’s 

Statement Concerning Non-Partisan Election and Supplement, at 7-14. 

However, when Judge Wood became concerned about the Attorney 

General Mattox’s willingness to uphold her interest in this suit, 

either as a voter or as a sitting district judge, Mattox denied 

ever having represented her either in her individual or in her 

official capacity. See letter of Harris County District Judge 

Sharolyn Wood to Attorney General Mattox dated December 29, 1989, 

attached hereto as Exhibit "B" and Attorney General Mattox’s Reply, 

 



  

dated January 3, 1990, and attached hereto as Exhibit "cc." 

Mattox’s new claim that Judge Wood has no justiciable interest in 

this suit and is not even entitled to be called "Judge Wood" for 

purposes of this suit are contrary to all his previously stated 

positions and are merely personal attacks without legal foundation. 

His Motion to Dismiss Judge Wood is neither timely nor meritorious 

and should be summarily denied. 

6. Texas Attorney General Mattox’s Motion for Sanctions 

against Judge Wood for filing her legally well-supported and 

factually well-documented Motion for Attorneys’ Fees is frivolous 

and obviously filed in a fit of pique and should be denied. 

WHEREFORE, for the foregoing reasons, Harris County District 

Judge Sharolyn Wood respectfully requests that the Court grant her 

Motion for Attorneys’ Fees and Motion to Stay the Mandate, that it 

deny the State of Texas’s Request for Sanctions and Motion to 

Dismiss Judge Wood for Lack of Standing. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

© Pa er : A ————      pr" J 

. Eugene Clements 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
36500 NCNB Center 

.0O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744 

(713) 226-0600 

  

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ 
INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT JUDGE WOOD 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy 
of the above and foregoing document has been served on all counsel 
of record on this LA day of November, 1990, by first class 
United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. .Jonn L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 

Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 

Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 
2300 NCNB Plaza 

300 Convent Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205  



* 

Mr. R. James George 

Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O. Box 98 
Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201 :N. St. Mary's St., #521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. BOX 12548 

Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B. Cloutman, II 

Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 

777 South 'R. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 
2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019  



® * 

  

Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 
Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N. Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 
Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 
Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Cf / A tps 
EVELEK-V. KEYES 
  

3285C:\DOCS\W0027001\022 

 



E
X
H
I
B
I
T
 

A 

 
 

 



      

® ® 

of the voters' personal interests (such as the voters' desire to 

have the interests of their racial or language group put fore- 

most) -- and judges -- who serve the interests of all the people 

impartially and in the proper exercise of whose function the 

desires of the voters to promote racial identification have no 

proper role at all. When the Voting Rights Act is applied to 

judges, the proper distinction between the legislative and 

judicial function is sacrificed to the promotion of racial 

interests and any state in which it is so used is denied the 

opportunity to maintain the separation of the legislative and 

judicial function which is fundamental to the United States 

Constitution itself and to all state constitutions, including the 

Texas Constitution. 

WHEREFORE, Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood 

respectfully requests that the Houston Lawyers' Association 

Plaintiffs' cause of action be dismissed with respect to the 

system for electing district judges within Harris County and that 

judgment be entered in her favor and that she recover all other 

relief, both general and special, in law and in equity, to which 

she may show herself justly entitled. 

III. 

DEFENDANT WOOD'S COUNTERCLAIM 
  

Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood, Defendant in the 

above-captioned action, now acting as and designated Counter- 

Plaintiff, complains of the Plaintiffs, now designated Counter- 

Defendants, and for cause of action would show by way of counter- 

claim the following: 

16 w 

 



  

6.1. Counter-Plaintiff incorporates by reference the 

allegations in paragraphs 1.1 through 5.10 as though fully 

restated. 

6.2. In connection with the controversy which is the 

subject of this cause of action, Counter-Defendants rely 

integrally on the constitutionality of the Voting Rights Act of 

1965 as amended in 1982 and codified at 42 U.S.C.A. § 1973 (West 

Supp. 1988). Title 28 §§ 2201 and 2202 permit any interested 

party to seek a declaration of his rights and other legal 

relations in a case of actual controversy within its jurisdiction 

and to seek further necessary or proper relief based on a 

declaratory judgment. Therefore Counter-Plaintiff seeks a 

declaration of her rights vis-a-vis the amended Voting Rights Act 

under the United States Constitution. 

6.3. For the reasons set forth above in paragraphs 4.1 

through 4.2 and hereby incorporated by reference, Counter- 

Plaintiff alleges that state judicial elections are beyond the 

scope of the Voting Rights Act of 1965. 

6.4. Alternatively, and still urging and relying upon the 

claim set forth herein, Counter-Plaintiff further alleges that, 

for the reasons set forth in paragraphs 5.1 through 5.10 and 

hereby incorporated by reference, the Voting Rights Act as 

amended in 1982 is unconstitutional as applied to judicial 

elections. It deprives non-protected classes of the equal 

protection of the law, in violation of the fourteenth amendment: 

and in addition, it deprives citizens of those states in which it 

“317 

 



  

is invoked to force the redistricting of state judicial election 

districts of their right to a form of government in which the 

function of the judiciary as servants of the people is kept 

separate from the function of the legislature as representatives 

of the people. More specifically, its application in the way 

by Plaintiff's would deprive Defendant Wood of her constitutional 

rights. 

6.5. In that she seeks a declaration of her constitutional 

rights, Defendant Wood is entitled to court costs and attorney's 

fees. 

WHEREFORE, Counter-Plaintiff Wood respectfully prays that 

the Court will grant her relief as follows: 

1. Declare that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended 

in 1982, does not apply to judicial elections; or, alternatively, 

2. Declare that the Voting Rights Act of 1965, as amended 

in 1982, is unconstitutional as applied to judicial elections; 

and 

3. Dismiss all of Plaintiffs' claims; and 

4. Award Counter-Plaintiff her just costs and attorney's 

fees pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and 42 U.S.C. § 1988; and 

5. Award Counter-Plaintiff such other and further relief 

in law and in equity to which she may show herself to be justly 

entitled. 

“i 18. 

 



      

OF COUNSEL: 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

John E. O'Neill 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
700 Louisiana, 
Houston, Texas 

(713) 226-0600 

Suite 3500 

77002-2730 

Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 

440 Louisiana, 
Houston, Texas 

(713) 228-5105 

Suite 200 

77002 

        

N 
U 

} 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

  

ee 

r— 

D— 
  

  

- 

I. Eugene Clements 

    f00 Louisiana, Suite 3500 
ouston, Texas 77002-2730 
(713) 226-0600 

RE St orls 
  Darrell Smith JA 
Attorney at Law 
10999 Interstate Hwy. 
San Antonio, Te 

(512) 641-9944 

-_ — 

7.3% tien Fat r— 

10, #905 
xas 78230 

ATTORNEYS FOR HARRIS COUNTY 
DISTRICT JUDGE SHAROLYN WOOD 

-t10 

 



E
X
H
I
B
I
T
 

B 

 
 

 
 

 



  

| 

  

  

  
  

SHAROLYN WooOD 
JUDGE, 127TH DisTrICT COURT 

HARRIS COUNTY COURTHOUSE 

HOUSTON, TEXAS 77002 

December 29, 1989 

Mr. Jim Mattox 
Attorney General of Texas 
P. O. Box 12548, Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711-2548 | 

Dear Sir: 

Throughout this case from the date I first attempted to 
intervene until today, you and your office have represented that 
you and only you can represent me in my official capacity. While 
it seems apparent to me that you have never taken any interest 
whatsoever in representing me or my interest, either in an 
official or individual capacity, to the extent that you have 
demanded to be my lawyer I hereby call upon you to oppose 
vigorously the Proposed Interim Plan which you negotiated 
(without my advice or input) with the plaintiffs in this case and 
which you signed in your capacity as Attorney General of Texas 
(despite your oath of office to uphold the Constitution and Laws 
of this State). 

If you are not willing to oppose the Proposed Interim Plan 
or if you recognize a conflict of interest in doing so, please 
immediately notify me of your withdrawal as attorney for me in my 
official capacity and authorize me to employ counsel to represent 
my interests in both my official and individual capacities. 

In the meantime, I instruct you to take no action whatsoever 
inconsistent with my interest as explained in pleadings filed in 
my behalf by attorneys employed to represent me in my individual 
capacity. 

Yours very ey 

A he M 
Sharolyn Wood, Judge 
127th District Court 
Harris County, Texas 

EXHIBIT "CO" 

 



EXHIBIT 
C 

 
 

“4 

 



XEROX TELECOPIER 

   
Tix ATTORNEY GENERAL 

OF TEXANS 

JIM MATTOON 

ATTORNEY GENERAL 

January 3, 1990 

The Honorable Sharolyn Wood, Judge 
127th District Court 
Harris County 
Houston, Texas 77002 

RE: LULAC v. Mattox 

Dear Judge Wood: 

This will acknowledge receipt of your letter dated December 29, 1989, wherein you 
have requested outside counsel at state expense to represent you both officially 

and in your individual capacity. As you know, this office has never purported to 

represent you in your official capacity or in your personal capacity in this lawsuit. 
Both Judge Bunton and the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit have made it clear 
that state district judges In their official capacity have no legal interest in this case, 
and therefore cannot intervene. Please see LULAC v. Clements, 884 F.2d 188, 
188 (5th Cir. 19889). 

Accordingly, your request is denied. 

Very truly yours, 

LN iam 
Jim Mattox 
Attorney General of Texas 

RE2/ M8820 0) MY BCREMC NAR: €IEON BIL asU IRAPENGS AUNMTIN, THX AN TRTII-23.48 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS 

FOR THE FIFTH CIRCUIT 

  

NO. 90-8014 and 
NO. 90-9003 

  

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN CITIZENS, 
COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs-Respondents, 

versus 

WILLIAM P. CLEMENTS, GOVERNOR OF THE STATE 

OF TEXAS, et al., 

Defendants, 

JUDGE SHAROLY!I WOOD, ETC., 

Defendant-Appellant. 

  

Appeal from the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas 

Midland Division 

  

JUDGE WOOD’S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFF-APPELLEES’ 
OPPOSITION TO HER BILL OF COSTS 
  

  

Harris County District Judge Sharolyn Wood ("Judge Wood") 

files this Response to the Plaintiff-Appellee’s Opposition to her 

Bill of Costs to show the Court the following: 

l. Judge Wood’s costs exceed Defendant-Intervenor Judge 

Harold Entz’s costs solely because (1) Judge Wood filed her 

Petition for Interlocutory Review and Application for Stay with 

supporting documentation and Judge Entz was able to incorporate 

Judge Wood’s arguments and exhibits by reference, thereby sparing 

 



  

P 

him great expense; and (2) Judge Wood filed a Supplemental Brief on 

essential issues, which Judge Entz did not file. 

2 Judge Wood has addressed her entitlement to Federal 

Express charges both in her Motion for Costs and in her Reply to 

Plaintiff-Intervenors Houston Lawyers’ Association’s ("HLA"’s) 

Opposition to that Motion. She will not repeat her argument here. 

3. Likewise, Judge Wood has justified her request for 

reimbursement for additional copies in both her Motion and her 

Reply to the HLA on the ground that the copies sent were mandated 

by the 19 person service list furnished her by this Court and by 

the rules of service set out in Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

30 and Local Rule 30.1. 

4. Judge Wood is entitled to recover the costs of filing her 

Post-Submission Brief for the reasons set out in her Motion for 

Attorneys’ Fees, the Brief in Support thereof, and her Reply to the 

HLA. 

5. Judge Wood is entitled to recover her costs for her 

Petition for Expedited Review given the emergency nature of this 

case. The fact that her petition was granted and an expedited 

schedule set by this Court is confirmation of the urgency of 

interlocutory appeal of this leading Voting Rights Act case and the 

necessity of expedited review. Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 

39 allows recovery of costs for necessary documentation. 

6. For the same reasons, Judge Wood is entitled to recover 

costs for her Emergency Application for Stay. The document was 669 

pages long with exhibits. Both the Application itself and its 
  

 



% * 

  

exhibits were necessary to obtain appellate review of this crucial 

civil rights case. 

7. This Court should not delay its award of costs to Judge 

Wood on the grounds that the Plaintiffs intend to seek Supreme 

Court review of this case. The Plaintiffs have sought no Stay of 

the Mandate pending Supreme Court review, as provided by Federal 

Rule of Appellate Prcedure 40, and, as set out in Judge Wood’s 

Reply to the HLA’s Opposition to her Motion for Costs, this Court 

has full authority to award Judge Wood her costs at this time. 

Judge Wood has already stated her willingness to keep all costs 

awarded in trust pending any forthcoming review by the Supreme 

Court. 

THEREFORE, Judge Wood requests that this Court grant her 

Motion for Costs and grant her such other and further relief to 

which she may show herself justly entitled. 

Respectfully submitted, 

PORTER & CLEMENTS 

No BR ms 
Et “SE = 

J. Eugene Clements “a 
Evelyn V. Keyes 
3500 NCNB Center 
P.O. Box 4744 
Houston, Texas 77210-4744 
(713) 226-0600 

  

  

ATTORNEYS FOR APPELLANT/ 
INTERVENOR/DEFENDANT JUDGE WOOD 

 



| . 

  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

The undersigned hereby certifies that a true and correct copy 

of the above and foregoing document has been served on all counsel 

of record on this (#{, day of November, 1990, by first class 
United States mail, postage prepaid, addressed as follows: 

Mr. Michael J. Wood 
Attorney at Law 
440 Louisiana, Suite 200 
Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. David C. Godbey, Jr. 
Mr. Robert H. Mow, Jr. 
Hughes & Luce 
2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

Mr. John:L. Hill, Jr. 
Mr. Andy Taylor 
Liddell, Sapp, Zivley, Hill & Laboon 
3300 Texas Tower 

Houston, Texas 77002 

Mr. Seagal V. Wheatley 
Mr. Donald R. Philbin, Jr. 
Oppenheimer, Rosenberg, Kelleher & Wheatley 
711 Navarro Street, 6th Floor 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Mark H. Dettman 

Attorney at Law 
Post Office Bax 2559 
Midland, Texas 79702 

Mr. Gerald H. Goldstein 
Goldstein, Goldstein & Hilley 
29th Floor, Tower Life Bldg. 
San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Mr. Joel H. Pullen 
Kaufman, Becker, Pullen & Reibach 

2300 NCNB Plaza 
300 Convent Street 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

 



e 

Mr. R. James George 

Mr. John M. Harmon 
Ms. Margaret H. Taylor 
Graves, Dougherty, et al. 
P. O. "Box ©8 

Austin, Texas 78767 

Mr. William L. Garrett 
Garrett, Thompson & Chang 
8300 Douglas, #800 
Dallas, Texas 75225 

Mr. Rolando L. Rios 
Ms. Susan Finkelstein 
Attorneys at Law 
201 'N, St. Mary’s St., £521 
San Antonio, Texas 78250 

Ms. Gabrielle K. McDonald 
Matthews & Branscomb 

301 Congress Ave., #2050 
Austin, Texas 78701 

Mr. Renea Hicks 
Mr. Javier Guajardo 
Special Asst. Atty. Generals 
P. O. BOX 12548 
Capitol Station 
Austin, Texas 78711 

Mr. Edward B., Cloutman, ‘II 
Mullinas, Wells, Baab & Cloutman 
3301 Elm Street 
Dallas, Texas 75226-1637 

Ms. Sherrilyn A. Ifill 
NAACP Legal Defense and 

Education Fund, Inc. 
99 Hudson Street, 16th Floor 
New York, New York 10013 

Mr. E. Brice Cunningham 
Attorney at Law 
777 South R. L. Thornton Frwy., Suite 121 
Dallas, Texas 75203 

Mr. Michael Ramsey 
Ramsey & Tyson 
2120 Welch 
Houston, Texas 77019  



Mr. Daniel J. Popeo 
Mr. Paul D. Kamenar 

Mr. Alan M. Slobodin 
1705 N, Street, N.W. 
Washington, D.C. 20036 

Mr. Paul Strohl 
Attorney at Law 
100 Founders Square 
900 Jackson Street 

Dallas, Texas 75202 

Mr. Daniel M. Ogden 
Attorney at Law 
900 Chateau Plaza 
2515 McKinney Avenue 
Dallas, Texas 75201 

I 
& ; / : 

oy ea 
EVELYN’V. KEYES 
  

3285C:\DOCS\WO0027001\021