Judge Entz's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Intervention by District; Order Denying Motion

    HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 MOMENTUM PLACE 

1717 MAIN STREET 
DALLAS, TEXAS 75201 

(214) 239-5500 

TELECOPIER (214) 939-6100 

TELEX 730836 

Direct Dial Number 

(214) 939-5577 

August 28, 1989 

VIA FEDERAL EXPRESS 

Mr. John Neill 
United States District Court 
Western District of Texas 

Midland-Ofessa Division 

316 U.S. Courthouse 
200 Rast Wall Street 
Midland, Texas 79701 

-* 

1500 FIRST STATE BANK BUILDING 

400 WEST 15TH STREET 

AUSTIN, TEXAS 78701 

(512) 482-6800 

TELECOPIER (512) 474-4258 

Re: League of United Latin American Citizens (LULAC), 
et al. Vv. Jim Mattox, 

MO 88 CA 154 

Dear Mr. Neill: 

et al., Civil Action 

Enclosed please find an original and two copies of Judge 
F. Harold Entz's Response to Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider 
Intervention by District Judges 
Capacities. 

Please return file-marked copies 

in Their Individual 

to me in the enclosed 

envelope. Please note that copies of the above pleadings are 
being mailed certified mail return receipt requested to the 
other parties. 

If you have any questions, please call. Thank you. 

wi a 

Yt Sli SA 
Bobby ubarts 

BMR: pai 

Enclosures  



  

Mr. John Neill 
August 28, 1989 

Page 2 

ce: (with enclosures) 
CERTIFIED MAIL RRR 

William L. Garrett 

Rolando Rios L 
Susan Finkelstein / 

Sherrill A. Ifill 
Gabrielle K. McDonald 

Edward B. Cloutman, III 

E. Brice Cunningham 
Renea Hicks 
Ken Oden 

David R. Richards 
J. Eugene Clements 

Darrell Smith 

Michael J. Wood 

 



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND—-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., MO-88-CA-154 

9 
ta

 
to
 

yn
 

Lo
 

Lo
 

tn
 

to
 

tn
 

Defendants. 

JUDGE F. HAROLD ENTZ'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' 
MOTION TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION BY DISTRICT 

JUDGES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 
  

TO THE HONORABLE COURT: 

Judge F. Harold Entz ("Judge Entz") of the 194th District 

Court of Dallas County files the following response to 

Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Intervention by District 

Judges In Their Individual Capacities: 

r Plaintiffs' Motion is not timely. Judge Entz filed 

his Motion to Intervene on February 27, 1989. Plaintiffs did 

not then oppose that motion. Judge Entz officially intervened 

in this suit on March 1, 1989. Plaintiffs made no objection 

to the intervention at that time, nor indeed at any time 

during the five months that have passed since that date. 

Judge Entz has invested significant time and money in this 

lawsuit in an effort to protect his interests and the current 

judicial system. Because Judge Entz became involved in the 

case at a relatively late date, he has through his attorneys 

JUDGE ENTZ'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 
TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION - Page 1 

 



  

exerted special efforts during the last five months to learn 

the facts and law around which this dispute revolves: he has 

propounded and answered written discovery; taken and 

participated in depositions; had his own witnesses noticed for 

deposition; and otherwise engaged in extensive trial 

preparation. This motion to deny Judge Entz a right to 

participate, coming as it does at the eleventh hour before 

trial, is five months too late. 

2. Plaintiffs contend that Judge Entz is not a proper 

party of this action because he has no property right in his 

elected position. Whether this is true or not, however, is 

irrelevant because Judge Entz's intervention is not based on 

any traditional property right claim, but on specific case law 

recognizing such a right. Plaintiffs' reliance on Tarrant 

County wv. Ashmore, 635 S.W.2d 417 (Tex. 1982) is unfounded.   

Ashmore concerns constables and justices of the peace 

threatened with removal from their respective public offices 

after the redrafting of precinct boundary lines. Nowhere does 

that case, nor either of the other two cases cited by 

Plaintiffs, address the particular issue of the property 

interests of state judges elected under an at-large system. 

Further, Ashmore concludes that even lower-level public 

officials do indeed have an interest in their positions that 

is recognizable "for purposes of procedural due process 

analysis." Ashmore at 422, Plaintiffs' Brief at Paragraph 6. 

3. Judge Entz's intervention is based on Williams wv. 
  

JUDGE ENTZ'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 
TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION - Page 2 

 



  

State Board of Elections, 696 F. Supp. 1563 (N.D. Ill. 1988) 
  

which is virtually factually identical to the present case. 

In Williams, the United States District Court for the Northern   

District of Illinois held that a sitting judge has an interest 

in asserting the legality and constitutionality of the 

judicial election system under which he was elected. The court 

allowed the judges' intervention on the grounds that they had 

"at the very least a colorable claim to their office" and "an 

equitable interest in the timing and nature of the relief to 

be ordered by the court." id. at 1572. Moreover, the 

Williams court found that the intervenor-judges were not only 
  

proper but "seemingly necessary" parties to the action. Id. 

4, For Plaintiffs to assert that Judge Entz, as a sitting 

judge elected under the challenged system, is an improper 

party is insupportable in light of the Williams precedent; 
  

moreover, their belated assertion is now untenable in light of 

the fact that the trial is only twenty days away. 

WHEREFORE, Dallas County District Judge F. Harold Entz 

requests that this Court deny Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider 

Intervention by District Judges in their Individual Capacities 

and grant any such further relief to which Judge Entz is 

justly entitled. 

JUDGE ENTZ'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 
TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION - Page 3 

 



Respectfully submitted, 

  
  

Robert H—Méw, Jr. 
David C. Godbey 
Bobby M. Rubarts 
Esther R. Rosenblum 

of HUGHES & LUCE 
2800 Momentum Place 
1717 Main Street 
Dallas, Texas 75201 
214/939-5500 

ATTORNEYS FOR DALLAS 
COUNTY DISTRICT JUDGE 
F. HAROLD ENTZ 

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
  

1 hereby certify that a true and correct copy of the 

foregoing document was served on counsel of record on 

this ATA aay of August, 1989.\ 

  A ——— 

Bobby M. Rubarts 

52800010:115 

JUDGE ENTZ'S RESPONSE TO PLAINTIFFS' MOTION 
TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION — Page 4  



  

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LULAC COUNCIL NO. 4434, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

Vv. CIVIL ACTION NO. 

JIM MATTOX, et al., MO-88-CA-154 

tn
 

7 
Ln

 
7 

o 
Ln

 
to

 
tg

 
tn

 

Defendants. 

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS' MOTION TO RECONSIDER INTERVENTION 
BY DISTRICT JUDGES IN THEIR INDIVIDUAL CAPACITIES 
  

Plaintiffs' Motion to Reconsider Intervention by District 

Judges in their Individual Capacities having come on for 

consideration, and the Court having reviewed the Motion and 

the brief in support thereof, as well as the response filed by 

Judge F. Harold Entz in opposition thereto, the Court is of 

the opinion that said Motion should be denied, and it is SO 

  

  

ORDERED. 

SIGNED this day of + 1989. 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 

52800010:116 

ORDER - Page Solo