Plaintiffs' Motion for Interim Attorney Fees

    * ROLANDO L. RIOS 
Attorney At Law 

MILAM BUILDING 
115 E. TRAVIS, SUITE 1024 

(210) 222-2102 SAN ANTONIO, TEXAS 78205 FAX (210) 222-2898 

Re: Lulac Council #4434, Lulac Council #4451, Houston Lawyers 
Association v. The State of Texas, In the United States District Court 
for the Western District of Texas, Midland Odessa Division, Cause 
Number MO-88-CA-154 

March 11, 1993 

District Clerk 
Western District of Texas 
Midland-Odessa Division FEDERAL EXPRESS 
200 E. Wall 
Federal Building, Room 316 
Midland, Texas 79701 

Dear Sir/madam, 

Enclosed is the original and two copies of Plaintiffs Motion on Interim 
Attorneys Fees along with the Order for Interim Attorney Fees to be 
filed in the above cause. 

Please file mark the extra copy and mail back to our office in the 
enclosed self-addressed, stamped envelope. 

ane 
hia D. Alvarado 

 



  
# 

x 2 ® f 

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS 

MIDLAND-ODESSA DIVISION 

LEAGUE OF UNITED LATIN AMERICAN 

CITIZENS °(LULAC), COUNCIL #4434; 

LULAC COUNCIL #4551; CHRISTINA 

MORENO; AQILLA WATSON; JOAN 

ERVIN; MATTHEW W. PLUMMER, SR., 

JIM CONLEY, VOLMA OVERTON, 

WILLARD PEN CONAT, GENE COLINS, 

AL PRICE, THEODORE M. HOGROBROOKS, 

ERNEST M. DECKARD, MARY ELLEN 

HICKS, REV. JAMES THOMAS, and 

LULAC (statewide) 

Plaintiffs, 

HOUSTON LAWYERS’ ASSOCIATION, 

ALICE BONNER, WELDON BERRY, 

FRANCIS WILLIAMS, REV. WILLIAM 

LAWSON, DELOYD T. PARKER, BENNIE 

MCGINTY, JESSE OLIVER, FRED TINSLEY, 

JOAN WINN WHITE, And THE TEXAS 

BLACK LEGISLATIVE CAUCUS, 

Plaintiff-Interveners 
vs, 

CA NO.: MO-88-CA-154 
THE STATE OF TEXAS 

Defendants 
SHAROLYN WOOD, and 

F. HAROLD ENTZ, 

Defendant-Interveners 

ELAINTIFES' MOTION FOR INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES 

This case was originally filed on July 11, 1988. After 
trial, this Court entered judgement for the plaintiffs on 
January 2, 1990. Since that time, this case has been argued 
in the Fifth Circuit three times and once before the Supreme 
Court. This case is now scheduled for reargument before the 
Fifth Circuit en banc in May of 1993. Plaintiffs counsel are 
now preparing for the May argument. 

D
O
D
D
)
 

D
Y
)
 

D
D
D
 

W
D
D
 
W
D
 

The Fifth Circuit en banc decision may take over a year 
and, it is likely that the losing party will then appeal to 
the Supreme Court. We have been through this process before; 
the Supreme Court appeal will take another year and then the 
case may be sent back to the. 5th Circuit. In short, the 
appeal of this case has been protracted and placed a 
significant burden on plaintiffs’ counsel, especially the 
private practitioners. 

In this case, the plaintiffs have so far clearly 
prevailed on the issue of whether or not the Voting Rights 
Act covered judicial elections and whether or not state 

1 

 



district judges were sole office holders exempted from the 
Voting Rights Act, Chisom v. Roemer, 111 S. Ct.2354 (1991); 
Houston Lawyers Ass’n v. Attorney General of Texas, 111 8S. 
Ct. 2376, (1991). Insofar as these issues are concerned, the 
Supreme Court held that Congress intended to cover judicial 
elections under the Voting Rights Act and that there was no 
sole office exception. Further, given the recent panel 
opinions, plaintiffs are prevailing parties on the litigation 

All other issues involved in this case are discussed in 
the recent 216 page panel opinion that ruled for the 
plaintiffs. Given the extensive issues that have been raised 
in this case, it is likely that this case will continue for 
several more years. 

Federal law allows for interim fees to private 
attorneys where they have played a key role in vindicating 
the rights of the plaintiffs. As a matter of public policy, 
in order to prevent cash flow problems for plaintiffs and 
their attorneys and to prevent the danger that defendants 
“may be tempted to seek victory through an economic war of 
attrition against the plaintiffs.” Bradley v. School Board 
City of Richmond, 416 U.S. 696, 723 (1974); James v. 
Stockham Valves & Fittings co., 559 F 2d. 310, 358-59 (5th 
Cir. "1977). It is now at the point where the ability of 
plaintiffs’ counsel to effectively continue this case is 
being affected by serious cash flow problems. In addition to 
preparing for the May en banc hearing, counsel has had to 
respond to the many requests made by the Texas Legislature, 
the Governors Office and the Lieutenant Governor for 
testimony and drafting of legislation. 

Plaintiffs’ private practitioners request another 
interim fee similar to the one this court granted back in 
1990 (See Attachment A). 

Accordingly, an additional 40% interim fee amount is as 
follows: $108,000 for Rolando L. Rios, $90,000 for William 
L. Garrett, $34,000 for Gabrielle K. McDonald, $28,089.00 for 
Edward B. Cloutman, and $4,500.00 for E. Brice Cunningham, 
and $9,000.00 for Brenda Hull Thompson. The total interim 
fee request is $ 273,589.00 

Respectfully Submitted, 

ROLANDO L. RIOS 

ATTORNEY AT LAW 

Milam Building 
115 E.: Travis, Suite 1024 

San Antonio, Texas 78205 

Telephone: 210/222-2102 
Facsimile: 210/222-2898  



WILLIAM L. GARRETT 

BRENDA HULL THOMPSON 

GARRETT & THOMPSON 

ATTORNEYS AT LAW 

A Partnership of 
Professional Corporation 

8300 Douglas, Suite 800 

Dallas, Texas 75225 

Telephone: 214/369-1952 
Facsimile; 214/987-0429 

Wed 
ROLANDO LY RIOS 
ATTORNEY FOR PLAINTIFFS 
State Bar no. 16935900 

  

I Rolando L. Rios, hereby certify that I have discussed this 

motion for interim fees with counsel for defendants and they 

have not decided whether or not to oppose thisy motion. 

749 
Rolando L. Rios 
  

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 

I hereby certify that on this yr day of March, 1993, a 

true and correct copy of the foregoing PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR 

INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES was mailed to the opposing counsel of 

record in this case by first class, as follows: 

WILL PRYOR J. EUGENE CLEMENTS 

RENEA HICKS JOHN E, O’/NEIL 

DAN MORALES EVELYN V. KEYS 

JAVIER GUAJARDO PORTER & CLEMENTS 

Attorney General’s Office 700 Louisiana, Suite 3500 

P.O. Box 12548 Houston, Texas 77002-2730 

Austin, Texas 78711 

ROBERT H. MOW, Jr. 

Hughes & Luce 

2800 Momentum Place 

1717 Main Street 

Dallas, Texas 75201 Ly Ais 

ROLANDO L. RIOS 
Attorney for Plaintiffs 

   



  TI tA Lr CITY SLT ERIE 1. 0 VY wet hn 

. PO DES BAY DIVISION Mime 
LB] 
~ 

: BY 
LULAC COUNCIL #4434, et al. 

Ve MO-88~-CA-154 

JIM MATTOX, et al, 

SUPPLEMENTAL ORDER ON INTERIM ATTORNEY FEES 

IT HAS COME TO THE COURT'S ATTENTION that its previously- 

entered Order on Interim Attorney's Fees failed to specifically 

designate Bob Bullock on -behalf of the State of Texas. The Court 

wishes to correct this omission and will do so by vacating its 

previous Order and entering this Supplemental Order on Interim 

Attorney Fees. Accordingly, 

IT IS ORDERED this Court's previously-entered Order on 

Interim Attorney Fees in the above-captioned cause is hereby 

VACATED. 

IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Bob Bulloch) on behalf of the 

State of Texas as its Comptroller, pay an interim attorney’s fee 

of $273,589.00 to Rolando L. Rios, attorney for the Plaintiffs, 

to be distributed as follows: 

Rolando L. Rios $108,000.00 

William L. Garrett 90,000.00 

Gabrielle K. McDonald 34,000.00 

Edward B. Cloutman 28,089.00 

E. Brice Cunningham 4,500.00 

Brenda Hull Thompson 9,000.00 

$273,589.00 
  

SIGNED AND ENTERED this 20 day of March, 1980. 

A true copy of the original. | certify, 
/ 

ARLES W. VAGNER ~L A Ri 

rk, U. S. District Court 
} 

% Le. _ Jocas D. BUNTON, CHIEF JUDGE 

/ Deputy