Court filings concerning PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues, motion to extend time, and cross-petition for attorneys' fees

District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issues; District Court, brief in support of motion for attorneys' fees, pre-judgment interest, and post-judgment interest; District Court, affidavit of Sam Jones; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion to extend time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply brief in further support of its cross-petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Little Rock School District (LRSD) motion to extend time; District Court, response of Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) to Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion to extend time; District Court, order The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. JUN (i - 1997 OFFICE Cr DESEGREGAT!O~J MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JA~Ats.w. McC,ORMAC~. CLERK By. ~1 ~ Ll... l U ".. LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * * Plaintiff, * * vs. * No, LR-C-82-866 * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT No. 1, ET AL., * * Defendant. * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * ORDER Before the Court is the motion of the Pulaski County Special School District for reconsideration of this Court's Order approving the 1996-97 budget for the Office of Desegregation Monitoring. There has been no timely response to the motion. The Court finds that the motion should be granted. 1 1 See doc. # 2983. DEP CLERK' ., .. :,-._ O O 1: The Court hereby modifies it Order of May 6, 1997 to clarify that the Order applies only to the 1996-97 ODM budget. The Pulaski County school districts are free to present evidence on all issues concerning the adequacy of state funding of future ODM budgets. Also before the Court is the motion of the Knight Intervenors for an extension of time within which to respond to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. The motion is granted. The Knight Intervenors have until and including June 10, 1997, within which to file their response to the PCSSD's petition for attorneys' fees. IT IS SO ORDERED this -5~ay of June 1997. a, ,g,J ~' \ 'Hd f0 UNITED A ES DIST JUDGE - i,1s DOCUMENT ENTERED ON OOCKETSHE:ETIN .- MPUANCE Wl"'[H RULE~ ANL(a) FROP :N __ {:,~/2/!l_~ey V ~ - ~ r - 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL RJECEI''~"' DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. ~.q ,,cf_ ]; .I W!!;.U DEFENDANTS -e.,,. Vr.,., d MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. JUN S-1997 INTERVENORS Y-'Gl'ti KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. p..., _ INTERVENORS OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MON/TO PCSSD MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS'ffi~ES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUES The PCSSD for its motion states: 1. The PCSSD is the prevailing party as regards the pooling - dispute. 2. Pursuant to both Arkansas Code Annotated 16-22-308 and 42 U.S.C. 1988, the PCSSD is entitled to payment of its reasonable attorneys' fees. 3. The PCSSD is entitled to an award of attorneys' fees of at least $45,723.50, all as more fully set out, explained, and supported in the brief and affidavit which accompany this motion. 4. Under the particular circumstances of this case, the PCSSD is entitled to both pre- and postjudgment interest pursuant to Arkansas law. 5. This Court's order of July 30, 1996, as affirmed by the Court of Appeals, ordered the LRSD to pay over the pooling sums within 60 days of that date. The opinion of the Court of Appeals - dated March 31, 199~ is attached as Exhibit A. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD prays for an order of this Court awarding reasonable attorneys' fees together with pre- and postjudgment interest. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ones O) for ski County District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June _5 , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 2 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 03/%8/97 17:36 US COURT APPEALS UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT No. 96-3333 Little Rock School District, * * Appellant, * * Lorene Joshua; Intervenor Plaintif!s, * Servicemaster Management Services; * Intervenor, Appeal from the United States * District court ror the Anne Mitchell; Bob Moore, Pat * Easte~ District of ~kansas. Gee; Pat Rayburn; Mary J. Gage;* North Little Rock Classroom * Teachers Association; Pulaski * A.,sociation of Classroom Teachers; Little Rock Classroom* Teachers Association; Alexa Armstrong; Karlos Armstrong; Ed Bullington; Khayyam Davis; * Janice Dent; John Harrison, Alvin Hudson; Tatia Hudson; Milton Jackson; Leslie Joshua; : Stacy Joshua; Wayne Joshua; Katherine Knight; Sara Matthews; Becky McKinney; * Derrick Miles; Janice Miles; * John M. Miles; NAACP; Joyce * Person; -Brian Taylor; Hilton * Taylor, Parsha Taylor; Robert * Willingham; Tonya Willingham; * Intervenor Plaintiffs, v. North Little Rock School District; Leon Barnes; Sheryl Dunn; Mac Faulkner; Richard A. * * * * * * EXHIBIT I A OJ1281i7 li:3i 'OJH 5Ja 31145 Giddings; Marianne Gosser; Don Hindman; Shirley Lowery; Bob Lyon; George A. Mccrary; Bob * Moore; Steve Morley; Buddy Raines; David Sain; Bob * Stender; Dal Ward; John Ward; Judy Wear; Grainger Williams; * * Defendants, * Pulaski County special School * District; Appellee, * State of Arkansas; Defendants, Office of Desegregation Monitor;* Claimant, * Horace A. Walker, F. A. * Hollingsworth; Kenneth G. * Torrence; Phillip E. Kaplan; Janet Pulliam, John Bilheimer; * Dale Charles; Robert L. Brown, Sr.; Gwen Hevey Jackson; Diane * Davis; Raymond Frazier; Plaintiffs, * V. Pulaski Cowity Board of Education; o. G. Jacovelli, * individually and as President * of the Board of Education of the Little Rock School District;* Patrici~ Gee, individually and in her official capacity as a * member or the Board or Education of the Little Rock School District, a public body;* Dr. George Cannon, individually and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board or Education of the Little Rock -2- '61JUU.i 03/28li7 17:38 'Et3H 53i JU5 US COliRT APP.EALS School District, a public body; John Moore, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Board o! Education o! the Little Rock school District, a public body; Dorsey Jackson, individually and in his official capacity * as a member of the Board ot Education of the Little Rock School District, a public body; Dr. Katherine Mitchell, indivi- dually and in her official * capacity as a member of the Board o! Education ot the * Little Rock School District, a public body; W. D. Hamilton, individually and in his o!!icial* capacity a~ a mexiwer of the Board of Education ot the Little Rock School District, a public body; Cecil Bailey, * individually and in his official capacity as a member of the FUlaski County Board of Education, a public corporate; Thomas Broughton, individually and in his official capacity as a member or the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate, Dr. Martin Zoldessy, individually and in his official capacity as a member of the Pulaski County Board of Education, a public corporate; * Defendants, Submitted: February 25, 1997 Filed: March 31, 1997 l(illOOi Before RICHARD S. ARNOLD, Chid Judge, and HEANEY and WOLLMAN, Circuit Judge~. -3- 03/%8/97 17:40 !!314 539 3945 US COURT APPEALS ilJ 007 HF.ANEY, Circuit Judge. Little Rock School District (LRSD) appeals from an order of the United States District Court for the Eastern District o! Arkansas requiring it to pay the Pulaski County School District (PCSSD) $345,294 pursuant to a settlement agreement in the interdistrict desegregation case. We a!!irm. the order or the district court essentially tor the reasons stated in its opinion. At issue in this appeal is the entitlement to majority-tominori ty [M-to-M] payments and the amount each school district would receive pursuant to the settlement agreement. Paragraph oot the settlement agreement provides in part: [A]ll M-to-M payments generated by Interdistrict School students paid by the State to LRSD and PCSSD (including payment to each district as sending district and receiving district), except transportation payments, will be pooled for the education of all Interdistrict School students. The instructional budgets ot the Interdistrict Schools will be equalized. This provision does not change each district's obligation to construct and maintain the Interdistrict Schools within its boundaries. (Settlement Agreement, II, 1 0(3) .) Pursuant to this court's. instructions, the district court judge conducted an evidentiary hearing and subsequently ordered: [F]or each school year, the amount of LRSD's and PCSSD's financial contribution to the pool is calculated in accordance with Paragraph O of the Settlement Agreement. [There is no dispute as to the methodology for calculating these amounts.] The total amount of fwids in the pool for a given year is then divided by the total -4- 03/ZS/97 17:41 US COllRT APPEALS number or M-to-M students in the interdistrict schools in both districts to arrive at an equalized, per-student dollar amount for educating them in the interdistrict schools. For each school district, the equalized perstudent dollar amount is then multiplied by the number of M-to-M students hosted by that district in its interdistrict schools to deteanine the amount of the pooled funds to which each district is entitled. Little Reck school Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special Schgol Dist, Ne. l, LR-C-82-866, at 3 (E.D. Ark. July 30, 1996) (citations omitted). ijooa On appeal, LRSD argues that the district court erred in dividing the pool based on the number ot M-to-M transter students; rather, it asserts that the court should have divided the pool based on the total number of students in the interdistrict schools. Under LRSD's method o! calc~lation, PCSSD would owe LRSD - Sl,270,839, instead o! LRSD's owing PCSSD $345,294 as ordered by the district court. We review the factual findings ot the district court under a clearly erroneous standard and its interpretation ot the Settlement Agreement de ngyg. The district coUit's interpretation of paragraph O is an acceptable one: it is just, it will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools, and it will provide a financial incentive to both districts to receive Mto- M tra.nster students. ~ Little Bock School Dist, Y, Pulaski Cty, Special School Dist No, 1. 921 F.2d 1371, 1394 (8th Cir. 1990). We recognize that LRSD spends more per pupil to educate its students in the interdistrict schools than PCSSD does and that the district court fonnula will not fully equalize these costs, but we do not believe that these differences are sufficient to release LRSD from its pooling obligation. Such a release would certainly -5- OJ12819i li:4J liS COl,;RI Af'f'&u..S inhibit efforts to provide an integrated education to many student~, the principal objective of the school integration propo.!al. Nor are the differences sufficient to justify the alternative method of equalization suggested by LRSD. The practical problems in that approach were found by the district court to be insurmountable and we are not prepared to say that the district court erred in making that assessment. The judgment of the district court is attirmed. A true copy. Attest: CLERK, U.S. COURT OF APPEALS, EIGHTH CIRCUIT. -6- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PRE-JUDGMENT INTEREST AND POST-JUDGMENT INTEREST The Pulaski County Special School District ("PCSSD") submits this brief in support of its motion for attorneys' fees in connection with its motion to enforce the "pooling" agreement. Without doubt, PCSSD was the prevailing party in this contract dispute and, pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-22-308, this Court may award reasonable fees. Alternatively, this Court may award fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. PCSSD is further entitled to pre- and post-judgment interest on this Court's award of $345,294 to PCSSD. BACKGROUND By motion dated January 7, 1994, PCSSD sought to enforce the Settlement Agreement, requiring the Little Rock School District ("LRSD") to reimburse the PCSSD for monies owed pursuant to the "pooling" agreement of the parties regarding Majority-to-Minority ("M-to-M") payments received from the State of Arkansas. LRSD opposed PCSSD's motion, and this Court entered an order on March 16, 1994 granting PCSSD's motion. The Court of Appeals vacated this Court's March 16, 1994 order by opinion dated July 12, 1995, and remanded for an evidentiary hearing. 1 Pursuant to the Eighth Circuit's order, this Court held an evidentiary hearing on September 8, 1995, and again on December 14, 1995. Both parties filed post-hearing briefs addressing the issues raised in the Eighth Circuit's opinion and this Court again, on July 30, 1996, granted PCSSD's motion and ordered the LRSD to pay over these sums within sixty (60) days. To date, LRSD has paid nothing. LRSD appealed the pooling order to the Eighth Circuit once more. Reviewing the district court's factual findings under a clearly erroneous standard, and its interpretation of the Settlement Agreement de novo, the Eighth Circuit affirmed this Court's order on March 31, 1997, finding the district court's interpretation of Paragraph O (the "pooling" agreement) to be just and in furtherance of implementation of the Settlement Agreement. 2 This petition is timely pursuant to this Court's order of August 16, 1996, giving the PCSSD until thirty (30) days after return of the Eighth Circuit's mandate to present this petition. ARGUMENT I. THE PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED REASONABLE ATTORNEYS' FEES A. PCSSD Is Entitled to Fees Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-22- 1 Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Cty Dist. 1, 60 F.3d 435 (8th Cir. 1995). 2 Opinion, p. 5. A copy of the Eighth Circuit's March 31, 1997 opinion is attached to PCSSD's motion as Exhibit A. 2 PCSSD is entitled to request reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. 16-22-308, which provides that a prevailing party in a breach of contract case may be allowed reasonable fees to be assessed by the court and collected as costs. This statute may be utilized by a federal court in awarding fees on breach of contract claims brought in federal court. TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994). There is no fixed formula or policy to be considered in arriving at the amount of the attorneys' fees. There are, however, pertinent considerations w~ich the courts regularly evaluate in exercising their discretion to determine the amount of such award. These factors include (1) the attorneys' judgment, learning, ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice; (2) the relationship between the parties; (3) the amount or importance of the subject matter of the case; (4) the nature, extent and difficulty of services in research; (5) the -preparation of the pleadings; (6) the proceedings actually taken and the nature and extent of the litigation; and (7) the time and labor devoted to the client's cause, the difficulties presented in the course of the litigation and the results obtained. Crockett & Brown, P.A. v.Courson, 312 Ark. 363, 849 S.W.2d 938 (1993) (under Ark. Code Ann. 16-22-308); see also Chrisco v. Sun Indus., Inc., 304 Ark. 227, 800 S.W.2d 717 (1990). 3 An evaluation of the above considerations in this action makes clear that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable attorneys' fee in the amount of at least $45,723.50. 1. The Attorneys' Judgment, Learning Ability, Skill, Experience, Professional Standing and Advice This Court is well acquainted with the PCSSD's attorneys' judgment, learning ability, skill, experience, professional standing and advice. Mr. Jones has represented the PCSSD in this matter since its inception in 1982. 2. The Relationship of the Parties In this long standing action, PCSSD has been required to litigate funding claims against both the State and the other Districts. In this particular instance, PCSSD has litigated the - pooling issue twice before this Court and twice before the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The hard fought nature of the pooling dispute is a relevant matter for this Court to consider in fixing the appropriate fee. 3. The Amount and/or Importance of the Subject Matter of the Case This Court ruled that, pursuant to the pooling agreement, the PCSSD is entitled to $345,294 for FY 1991-91 through FY 1994- 95. Equally significant to the monetary award, this Court determined that the pooling agreement interpretation urged by PCSSD -- and adopted by the Court in its order -- would give effect to the meaning the parties attached to the agreement and in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, particularly to interdistrict schools. The operation of the 4 - agreed number of interdistrict schools according to the agreed timetable is considered by the Eighth Circuit to be a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement, and with respect to which no retreat should be approved. 3 Thus, PCSSD achieved not only a substantial monetary award but also a substantial success in the continued implementation of the Settlement Agreement toward the goal of desegregation. 4. The Nature, Extent and Difficulty of Services in Research PCSSD was required to research and submit briefs and supplemental briefs to this Court and to the Eighth Circuit on the pooling issue on multiple occasions. To do so required considerable legal and factual research in order to present the applicable law and facts to this Court and the Court of Appeals. 5. The Preparation of the Pleadings PCSSD respectfully submits that the quality of its pleadings were equal to the results obtained. 6. The Proceedings Actually Taken and the Nature and Extent of the Litigation PCSSD submitted numerous briefs to this Court both before and after remand by the appellate court, participated in two full days of hearings before the Court, and submitted multiple briefs to the Eighth Circuit on two separate appeals of the same pooling issue. With regard to the overall nature and extent of this 3 949 F.2d 253, 256 (8th Cir. 1991). Similarly, on the second appeal of the pooling issue, the Eighth Circuit found that the District Court's interpretation was "just" and would promote voluntary interdistrict transfers to interdistrict schools. March 31, 1997 Opinion of the Eighth Circuit, at p. 5. 5 - litigation, this Court is well familiar with all matters related hereto. 7. The Time and Labor Devoted to the Client's Cause, the Difficulties Presented in the Court of the Litigation and the Results Obtained The time and labor devoted to the client's cause was plainly substantial, and is particularized in the Affidavit which accompanies the motion requesting fees. The results obtained for the PCSSD -- and the additional benefit to the overall Settlement Plan -- were surely positive. B. Alternatively, PCSSD Is Entitled to An Award of Fees Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1998 The pooling agreement is an integral part of the Settlement Agreement, which embodies the remedy of the various parties in - this desegregation case. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) PCSSD, by its motion to enforce the pooling portion of the Settlement Agreement, sought to defend that remedy and, as prevailing party, may recover attorneys' fees. Jenkins v. Missouri, 73 F.3d 201, 204 (8th Cir. 1996) (fees available to permit school desegregation plaintiffs to defend remedy); see also Jenkins v. Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) (services devoted to reasonable monitoring of the court's decrees, both to ensure full compliance and to ensure that the plan is indeed working to desegregate the school system, are compensable services); LRSD v. PCSSD, (E.D. Ark. Dec. 10, 1996) (districts 6 - entitled to attorneys fees from State of Arkansas for enforcing financial terms of settlement agreement). This Court found, and the Eight Circuit Court of Appeals agreed, that not only was PCSSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement the correct one, but that interpretation would give effect to the Settlement Agreement in a manner that will promote voluntary interdistrict transfers, especially to interdistrict schools. Once again, the operation of the agreed number of interdistrict schools is a crucial element of the Settlement Agreement. Consequently, PCSSD -- by seeking further to effectuate the desegregation remedy through enforcement of the settlement agreement -- is entitled to recover its attorneys' fees and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. II. PCSSD IS ENTITLED TO PREJUDGMENT INTEREST PCSSD brought its motion asking this Court to interpret the pooling agreement in January 1994, at which time the damages PCSSD sought for LRSD's breach of the pooling agreement were capable of determination. Indeed, PCSSD has consistently, since the inception of the pooling agreement, made the calculations in accordance with the formulae/interpretation adopted by the Court and affirmed by the Eighth Circuit. The law of the state where the cause of action arises governs whether a party in a federal action is entitled to 7 - prejudgment interest. Jennings v. Dumas Public School Dist., 763 F.2d 28, 33 (8th Cir. 1985) (citing Bauer v. Uniroyal Tire Co., 630 F.2d 1287, 1290 (8th Cir. 1980). The standard for assessing whether prejudgment interest may be awarded was articulated by the Arkansas Supreme Court in Lovell v. Marianna Fed. Savings and Loan Assoc., 267 Ark. 164, 166, 589 S.W.2d 577 (1979) -- the test is "whether there is a method of determination of the value of the property at the time of injury." The Lovell decision was clarified in Wooten v. Mcclendon, 272 Ark. 61, 612 S.W.2d 105 (1981), by indicating that what must be ascertainable is the "initial measure of damages" as distinguished from the precise amount that plaintiff would claim in his complaint or from the amount that the finder of fact would - ultimately award. Under either case, however, the requirement remains only that damages be determinable immediately after the loss. Pre-judgment interest is justified for obvious reasons: an injured party is entitled to have use of his money from a particular date. When deprived of that use, he suffers damages for which he should be granted relief in the form of interest. As a general rule, interest on an improperly disallowed insurance claim accrues from the date the amount due should have been paid under the policy. Missouri State Life Ins. Co. v. Fodrea, 185 Ark. 155, 46 S.W.2d 638 (1932). Arkansas courts have uniformly awarded six per-cent (6%) prejudgment interest in contract 8 - disputes. Wilson v. Lester Hurst Nursery, Inc., 269 Ark. 19, 598 S.W.2d 407 (1980). PCSSD's injury -- the amount it should have received from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement since 1991 -- has been capable of determination, indeed readily ascertainable, from the outset. As such, it meets the test of Lovell and its progeny. Accordingly, PCSSD should be awarded prejudgment interest on the award of $345,294. 4 III. PCSSD SHOULD BE AWARDED POST JUDGMENT INTEREST By Arkansas statute, a judgment on a contract is to bear interest at the contractual rate or ten percent (10%), whichever is greater. Ark. Code Ann. 16-65-114. Because the pooling agreement does not contain a provision setting the rate of interest, the statutory rate of 10% is applicable. Further, this post-judgment interest is appropriately awarded not only on the judgment, but also on the amount of pre-judgment interest to provide total compensation for the loss of use of the money prior to -- as well as subsequent to -- the date of the judgment. Hopper v. Denham, 281 Ark. 84, 661 S.W.2d 379 (1983). PCSSD is entitled to payment from LRSD pursuant to the pooling agreement but, to date, LRSD has paid not one cent. This Court's order of July 30, 1996 required the LRSD to pay over 4 PCSSD is calculating the interest it claims and will submit its calculations to the Court at the appropriate time, unless, of course, agreement can be reached with the LRSD regarding the accuracy of the calculations. 9 - these sums within sixty (60) days; this has plainly not been done. The award of post-judgment interest, including post judgment interest on any prejudgment interest awarded, is certainly warranted in this instance. CONCLUSION For all of the foregoing reasons, PCSSD respectfully urges this Court to award it reasonable fees for the prosecution of its Pooling motion, as well as pre- and post-judgment interest on the award of $345,294. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ft-) V <:;:,._kc______ ,,--- ~ Samuel. Jones /II (76060 ) Claire S ws Haficock (95013 ) Attorne for Pulaski County Se School District 10 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On June~, 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 11 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Jones, I IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO . LR -C - 8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEHlED f/4'7,!- " , , ., 14.1, ve,--e' JUN 5 - 1997 4- 30 I' ,v} OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING AFFIDAVIT OF SAM JONES PLAINTIFF ' DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS My name is Sam Jones and I represent the Pulaski County Special School District in this litigation and have done so since its inception. Attached as Exhibit A are the billing records representing time reasonably expended in pursuit of these claims against the LRSD beginning September 13, 1993 and continuing through June 2, 1997. This file has been separately maintained as regards this claim and all time and expense entries relate only to the pooling claim. It is my professional belief that the narratives submitted as Exhibit A reasonably reflect time actually spent and devoted toward the pooling orders. Please note that the time entries are kept in tenths of an hour units as opposed to other firms whose time is recorded in units of one quarter hour. Because of the financial circumstances of the PCSSD, we have represented them in this matter at reduced hourly rates. My - standard rate for clients on January l, 1993 was $150.00 per hour; 1 January 1, 1994 was $160.00 per hour; January 1, 1995 was $170.00 per hour; January 1, 1996 was $175.00 per hour and is now $180.00 per hour. However, during 1996, I have represented the PCSSD in this matter for $135. 00 per hour. I have been a partner since January 1, 1981. Claire Shows Hancock has been a licensed attorney practicing primarily in New York City where her last standard hourly rate was $245.00 per hour. Her normal hourly rate in Little Rock is now $155.00 an hour as compared to $145.00 an hour 1996, and she is also a partner. She too has represented the PCSSD in this matter at the reduced hourly rate of $110.00 an hour. Angell Jones was the Manager of our Litigation Support Department. That department evolved because of the instant case - and several other complex cases involving the creation of databases and the management and retrieval of hundreds of thousands of documents and pleadings. Her hourly rate during 1996 has been $75. 00 an hour and that is her normal hourly rate. In 1993 her hourly rate was $55.00 as it was in 1994. It rose to $60.00 an hour in 1995. Valerie Bryant is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. She is primarily charged with maintaining this litigation database as well as with the management of the hundreds of thousands of documents that this case involves. Her normal hourly rate is $60.00 an hour and that is what she was paid by the PCSSD during 1997. Her rate in 1994 was $45.00 an hour, and was $55.00 an hour in both 1995 and 1996. 2 Sherry Murphy is a paralegal in the Litigation Support Department. Ms. Murphy's hourly rate is $60.00 an hour, up from $55.00 an hour in 1995. I respectfully submit that a total fee award of hours multiplied by standard 1996 rates would be appropriate in this matter, as reflected on the attached fee statement. These rates are consistent with those commonly found within the community for this type of work. STATE OF ARKANSAS COUNTY OF PULASKI \ - .. ,.. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN TO before me, a notary public, this day of __: _ .-_,'-_~_ _ , 1993/- My Commission Expires: .- .) ) No t--iry Public Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 722 01-3699 (501) 371-0808 By '-----77i . M. Samuel AJc'torneys Special S '----- 3 J nes III jl76060) for Pcrlaski County ool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE / On June _) , 1997, a copy of the foregoing was served by U.S. mail on the following persons of record:. Mr. John W. Walker John W. Walker, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ( 4 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 401 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Timothy Gauger Assistant Attorney General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 Dr. Donald Stewart Pulaski County Special School District Post Office Box 8601 North Little Rock, AR 72216 Re: Little Rock School District: Pooling Issues FOR PROFESSIONAL SERVICES RENDERED: Date Timekeeper 09/13/93 09/14/93 09/20/93 09/29/93 - /30/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/01/93 10/07/93 10/08/93 12/14/93 12/15/93 12/22/93 01/03/94 01/03/94 01/05/94 01/07/94 ._107/94 . /07/94 MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III V Bryant V Bryant MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III A Jones MS Jones, III MS Jones, III MS Jones, III Telephone conference with Don Stewart regarding pooling agreement Telephone conference with Don Stewart Telephone conference with Chris Heller and Don Stewart Confer with Mr. Milhollen, Mr. Malone, Mr. Heller and Dr. Stewart Organize transcripts regarding settlement agreement for attorney review Telephone conference with Don Stewart for pooling Review old transcripts to agreement issue Computerized search of transcripts for references to settlement agreement approval Organize transcript references regarding settlement agreement approval for attorney r