Defendants’ Reply Regarding Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction

    UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA 

EASTERN DIVISION 

FILED 
F318 159 

Civil Action No. 4-96-CV-104-BO(3) 

MARTIN CROMARTIE. THOMAS ) DAVID ; 
CHANDLER MUSE. and GLENNES ) U.S Orson, Clery 
DODGE WEEKS, £ DIST Ng COURT 

Plaintiffs, 

Y. 

JAMES B. HUNT, JR.. in his official 

capacity as Governor of the State of North 

Carolina, et al., 

N
r
?
 

N
r
?
 

S
a
t
?
 

S
a
t
?
 

N
a
t
 

S
u
a
 

N
u
 

S
u
s
 

a
d
 

N
w
 

N
u
 

Defendants. 

DEFENDANTS’ REPLY REGARDING MOTION TO STRIKE 

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 

Defendants filed a motion to strike plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction on the 

grounds that plaintiffs had failed to comply with one of this Court’s most basic local rules: failing 

to file a supporting memorandum of law containing any legal argument or other basis explaining 

their extraordinary request for an injunction prohibiting the State’s congressional elections from 

taking place. In response to defendants’ motion, plaintiffs cavalierly suggest that their later filed 

motion for summary judgment, along with several affidavits and a brief, “relate to and support” the 

earlier motion for preliminary injunction and “provide adequate notice” of the basis for their 

injunction request. See Plaintiffs’ Reply to Defendants’ Motion to Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion for 

Preliminary Injunction at q 6. Plaintiffs proceed to request the Court to accept the summary 

judgment motion, brief and affidavits filed February 11, 1998, as “having been filed nunc pro tunc 

 



  

on January 30. 1998. when the motion for preliminary injunction was filed.” /d.. Prayer for Relief 

at 7 1. Plaintiffs’ request should be denied and plaintiffs must be required to offer support for their 

injunction request. a legal issue separate and distinct from their motion for summary judgment. 

As the Court is aware. the grant of interim injunctive relief involves the exercise of an 

extraordinary power which is to be applied only in limited circumstances which clearly demand it. 

Direx Israel. Ltd. v. Breakthrough Medical Corp., 952 F.2d 802, 811 (4th Cir. 1991). The standard 

for evaluating plaintiffs” request for preliminary injunctionrequires a delicate balancing by the Court 

of four factors. with the burden of establishing each of these factors squarely on the plaintiffs: (1) 

the irreparable harm to the plaintiffs if the relief is denied; (2) the harm to the defendants if the relief 

is granted; (3) the likelihood of plaintiffs’ success on the merits; and (4) the public interest. 

Blackwelder Furn. Co. v. Seilig Mfg. Co., 550 F.2d 189 (4th Cir. 1977); Rum Creek Coal Sales. Inc. 

v. Caperton, 926 F.2d 355 (4th Cir. 1991). 

By contrast. summary judgment is a final decision on the merits of a claim where the 

pleadings, depositions and affidavits show that there is no genuine issue as to any material fact and 

the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Ross v. CommunicationsSatellite Corp., 

759 F.2d 353, 364 (4th Cir. 1985); Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c). Thus, the rationale reflected in plaintiffs’ 

summary judgment brief relates solely to the question of plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the 

merits. Plaintiffs” proffered belief that the State’s congressional plan is unconstitutional by no 

means meets their burden of establishing each of the other three factors necessary to support the 

extraordinary grant of preliminary injunctive relief. Under these circumstances, defendants should 

not be required to respond to unstated and unsupported arguments regarding a preliminary 

injunction. 

 



Finally. plaintiffs’ suggestion that their summary judgment materials filed February 11. 1998. 

should be deemed filed January 30. 1998. thereby reducing defendants’ opportunity to respond by 

twelve days is patently unfair in so important a case. Plaintiffs, a small handful of voters. are 

seeking to enjoin the congressional elections for all the citizens of the State of North Carolina. 

Plaintiffs delayed amending their complaint to challenge the plan approved by Shaw three-judge 

court until October 17, 1997, and amended the complaint again three and one-half months later an 

January 30, 1998. Plaintiffsalso delayed filing their motion for preliminary injunction until Friday. 

January 30, 1998, only one business day before the close of the candidate filing period Monday at 

noon, February 2. 1998. As a result of plaintiffs delays. the election machinery and electionesring 

are already in progress. 

The congressional plan in effect reflects the policy choices of the State's elected 

representatives and the State is entitled to an orderly and proper opportunity to defend its 

congressional plan. For these reasons, plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction must be struck. 

If plaintiffs seriously wish to pursue a preliminary injunction they are free to file such a motion, 

properly supported by a brief and other materials relevant to an injunction determination by the 

Court. 

 



. » 
N 

Respectfully submitted. this the 1? day of February, 1998. 

MICHAEL F. EASLEY 

RNEY GENERAL 

WA 
Edwin M. Speas, Jr. 
Senior Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 4112 

SEER £ cb J 
Tiare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General 

N. C. State Bar No. 7119 

Norma S. Harrell 
Special Deputy Attorney General 

N.C. State Bar No. 6654 

  

  

  

‘N.C. Department of Justice 
P.O. Box 629 
Raleigh, N.C. 27602 
(919) 716-6900 

 



CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

  

This is to certifv that I have this day served a copy of the foregoing Defendants’ Reply 

Regarding Motion To Strike Plaintiffs’ Motion For Preliminary Injunction in the above 

captioned case upon all parties by depositing these documents in the United States mail, first class 

mail. postage prepaid addressed as follows: 

Robinson O. Everett 

Suite 300 First Union Natl. Bank Bldg. 

301 W. Main Street 

P.O. Box 586 

Durham. NC 27702 

ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 

Adam Stein 

Anita S. Hodgkiss 
Ferguson. Stein, Wallas, Adkins, 

Gresham & Sumter, P.A. 

312 West Franklin Street 

Chapel Hill, North Carolina 27516 

ATTORNEYS FOR APPLICANTS FOR INTERVENTION 

i. Bond, 
This the ses of February, 1998. 

  

iare B. Smiley 

Special Deputy Attorney General