Court filings concerning ADE's objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart, Joshua motion for reconsideration, and Court of Appeals, judgment

District Court, motion for enlargement of time; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motion for enlargement of time as to Joshua motion for reconsideration; District Court, two orders; District Court, Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, brief in support of Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, two notices of appeal; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to Arkansas Department of Education's (ADE's) objections to and motion to strike the ''counter-affidavit'' of Donald Stewart or, in the alternative, for leave to submit a sur-reply; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) response to Joshua motion for reconsideration; District Court, order; District Court, motion to add parties; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) project management tool; Court of Appeals, judgment The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors. /MAR 1997 Ut~~~~tQR}, c:.,~ IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT co~s-~;; C: l i.,; EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MAR 3 'i997 WESTERN DIVISION D~ GA iQ,.; ,.,,nmroR1~. LITTLE RO~ SC..,H OOL DISTRICT ~ . cCOR \ACK. CL~nK JM,\b tv, PLAINT I FF By:~ V. NO. LR-C-r8-2 - 8 6 6 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. REr~11 ~~ MAR !{ 11q7 MOTION FOR l ~~ ~~NITO/YNG ENLARGEMENT OF TIME DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS '. INTERVENORS This Court entered its order regarding teacher retirement on February 18, 1997. Theoretically, a fee petition by the districts could be due on March 4, 1997 in respect of the teacher retirement order. Counsel for the districts and the State have agreed to ask the Court to enlarge the time to file this or any other fee petition. Matters remain pending before this Court which ~nvolve additional claims and the parties believe that efficiency can best be accomplished by postponing the due date for any fee petition until and including 15 days after this Court rules on all pending motions for summary judgment embodying claims against the State. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski districts seek an enlargement of time to pursue and file any fee petition until and including fifteen (15) days after this Court adjudicates all of the pending motions for summary judgment. 1 Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By _ 7"""'-:__-::'-c'-----=-,,.:--J=:...__----: _ _ M. County ec t CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March .3 , 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 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, Suit~ 200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MAR 041997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK By: -------- LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. vs. NO. LR-C-82-866 DEP CLERK PLAINTIFF PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO., ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT SERVICES, INC. REc~n l11'2 . ::: DEFENDANTS .,, INTERVENORS MAR - 0 l9J7 OFFICE OF lfSEGfifGATJOti MONITORING PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME AS TO JOSHUA MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION INT ERVEN ORS INT ERVEN ORS The Pulaski County Special School District for its motion states: 1. on February 11, 1997 Joshua filed a motion regarding an incident which occurred at one of the Oak Grove schools. Pulaski County Special School District responded and the Court dismissed Joshua's motion because it involved a personnel matter. 2. Joshua replied on February 20, 1997 and filad its motion for reconsideration on February 21, 1997. The motion for reconsideration contains multiple Joshua memos and correspondence. 3. Pulaski County Special School District needs an enlargement of time until and including March 24, 1997 to respond to the motion for reconsideration. The Pulaski County Special School District relies upon the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for this requested enlargement. WHEREFORE, the Pulaski County Special School District prays that it be granted an enlargement of time until and including March 24, 1997 to respond to the Joshua motion for reconsideration. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By_-V-IL..f&.:;..:::~~~~-.,&./.----M. S~~.,._ Attorneys for County Special 2 60) Pulaski School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On March 4- , 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 William P. Thompson and James M. Llewellyn, Jr. Thompson & Llewellyn 412 Sout~ 18th Street P. o. Box 818 Fort Smith, Arkansas 72902-0818 r:pm,1194.nuj 3 Mr. Richard W. Roachell Roachell and Street First Federal Plaza 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 - RECEIVED MAR 7 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION 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., * .).>.. . * Interve:nor. * * KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL., * * Intervenor. * * SERVICEMASTER MANAGEMENT * SERVICES, A Limited Partnership, * * Intervenor. * QRQER FILED U.S. DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS MARO 5 1997 JAMESfaV. ~ORMACK, CLERK By: ~, ~V.,/)J,A ~ C\ oep CLERK'"<.....__ "' Before the Court is the motion of the North Little Rock School District ("NLRSD") to add eight (8) classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary School. The NLRSD states the additional cla.sswow:s are necessary to accommodate those elementary students at Redwood Elementary who will be displaced by the NLRSD's plans to convert Redwood into a specialized preschool program for four-year-old students. There have been no timely responses, and the Court finds that the motion should be g'ranted. 2 95 2 While the Court will continue to closely watch all proposed school capacity alterations to determine the effect on desegregation and whether there is a pattern of closing schools in areas largely inhabited by black citizens while increasing capacity of schools in areas largely inhabited by white citizens, Seventh Street Elementary is located in a predominantly black neighborhood. In addition, the NLRSD argues convincingly that its plan will have a positive impact on desegregation goals as well as provide enhanced early educational development services to at-risk children. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the motion to add classrooms at Seventh Street Elementary (doc. # 2928) is granted. ,,.. _--1h_ :. ~--- DA TED this ~ day' of March 1997. n-us DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKET SHEET IN COMPLIANCE WiTH RULE 5a ANOOR 7S(a) FRCP JN 3/S-/97 IV tl?- 2 RECEI\IED FilcD US OIST:llCT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT ARKANSAS A MAR 7 1997 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT W EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS MARO 5 1997 JAMES 't/, Mc~MACK, CLERK OFFICE OF WESTERN DIVISION By: ~ .,, ~ \ \ [\ ""cV'- DESEGREGATION MONITORINr, LITT[E "l~OCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * oeP CL.ERK - * 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 an extension of time within which to file a fee petition. The motion [doc. 2947] is granted. Any fee petition in connection with the teachers' strike must be filed within thirty days from the date of the return of the Eighth Circuit mandate in this matter. Also before the Court is the motion by the Pulaski County school districts for an enlargement of time within which to file a fee petition concerning the teacher retirement order. The motion [doc. 2949] is granted. The districts must file any fee petition regarding the teacher retirement issue within fifteen (15) days after the Court adjudicates pending motions for summary judgment embodying claims against the State. Finally, the Pulaski County Special School District moves for an extension of time within which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors motion for reconsideration. The motion [doc. 2951] is granted. The PCSSD has until and including March 2-1-, 1997, within which to file its response to the motion for reconsideration. -1A. SO ORDERED this~ day of March 1997. :HIS DOCUMENT ENTERED ON DOCKETSH9:TIN ;( ,MPLIANCE WITH RULE 58 AND/OR 79(8), FRCP ,it ::>N 3/5791 BY-...,_.;.---- 2 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAR 1 J 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGJiEGATtON MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS ARKAl~SAS DEPARTMEitt OF EDUCATION~s OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE "COUNTERAFFIDA VIT" OF DONALD STEW ART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY The Arkansas Department of Education ("ADE") hereby objects to and moves to strike the "Affidavit of Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D." ("Stewart Affidavit"), which was served on March 3, 1997. In the alternative, should the Court decide not to strike the Affidavit in its entirety, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply to address the issues raised in the Affidavit. The motion is made on the following grounds: i. Portions of the Stewart Affidavit refer to matters (Exhibit "A" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion for summary judgment) that constitute inadmissible hearsay that is not subject to any exception to the hearsay rule. 2. The Stewart Affidavit contains testimony that is not within the affiant's personal knowledge, as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(e). 1 3. Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court's local rules authorize the filing of "reply briefs," "reply affidavits," or "reply counter-affidavits" in support of a motion for summary judgment, and it is improper in any event to use a reply brief or affidavit to introduce new evidence or argument. 4. . The grounds for the motion are more fully explained in the brief served and filed herewith. Wherefore, ADE requests that the Stewart Affidavit be stricken in its entirety and not be considered in ruling on the Districts' motion for summary judgment. In the alternative, should the Court deny the motion to strike in whole or in part, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Stewart affidavit and the evidence and argument contained therein. . Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Attorney eneral 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this 6th day of March, 1997, by first-class mail, on the following person(s) at the address( es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 John Walker JOHN WALKER., P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON & LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ~~ Timothy G.Ga ~ ~ 3 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION REcr~~ 7~sJ MAR 1 0 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. DEFENDANTS BRIEF IN SlJFPORT OF ARKANSAS DEPARTl\1""ENT OF EDUCATiON'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE "COUNTERAFFIDA VIT" OF DONALD STEWART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY I. INTRODUCTION On March 3, 1997, three weeks after ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD, LRSD and NLRSD's motion for summary judgment on the issues of health insurance, loss funding and special education, PCS SD filed an "Affidavit of~ Donald M. Stewart, Ed.D." (hereinafter referred to as the "Stewart Affidavit"). The Stewart Affidavit is presumably submitted as a "reply" to ADE's opposition to the Districts' u1.otion. As discussed below, the Stewart Affidavit should be stricken from the record in whole or in part and should not considered by the Court in ruling on the Districts' motion for summary judgment. Should the Court decline to strike the affidavit in its entirety, this Court should give ADE the opportunity to file a "sur- - reply" to address the issues raised in the Stewart Affidavit before ruling on the summary judgment motion. II. ARGUMENT A. Exhibit "A" To The Districts' January 13, 1997 Motion For Summary Judgment And References To It In The Stewart Affidavit Must Be Stricken As the Court will recall, Exhibit "A" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion for summary judgment is a photocopy of a newspaper article that was published sometime in mid-1996, and was offered by the Districts to prove state school funding for 1996-97 as compared to 1995-96. Exhibit "A" to the Districts' January 13, 1997 motion and all references to that Exhibit in the Stewart Affidavit 9 should be stricken because the Exhibit constitutes inadmissible hearsay. See, e.g., I Dowdell v. Chapman, 930 F.Supp. 533,541 (M.D. Ala. 1996). B. Paragraph 13 Of The Stewart Affidavit Must Be Stricken Because It Does Not Comply With Fed. R. Civ. P, 56(e) Federal_ Rule of Civil Procedure 56( e) requires that supporting affidavits "be made on personal knowl~dge." In paragraph 13 of his affidavit Dr. Stewa...11: purports to give testimony "[ u ]pon information and belief." 2 It is well-settled that an affiant's testimony based upon "information and belief' does not meet the 1 Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(e) states that affidavits in support of a motion for summary judgment must "set forth such facts as would be admissible in evidence." 2 At the conclusion of his Affidavit Dr. Stewart similarly states that the matters set forth in the affidavit are "true based upon [his] best information and belief." - "personal knowledge" requirement of Rule 56(e). See Automatic Radio Mfg. Co. v. Hazeltine Research, Inc., 94 L.Ed. 1312, 1317 (1950).3 C. Neither The Federal Rules Of Civil Procedure Nor This Court's Local Rules Authorize The Filing Of "Reply" Affidavits, And In Any Event It Is Improper To Introduce New Evidence Or Argument By Way Of Reply Neither the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure nor this Court's local rules provide for the filing of "reply" briefs or "reply" or "counter" affidavits in support of motions for summary judgment. Moreover, to ensure fairness to the nonmoving party, courts have uniformly held that it is improper to submit new evidence or raise arguments for the first .time in a reply brief. See, e.g., CIA. Petro/era Caribe, Inc., v. ARCO Caribbean, Inc., 754 F.2d 404, 408-410 (1st Cir. 1985) (trial court erred in considering reply brief and affidavits in ruling on motion for summary judgment); Hall v. Cropmate, 887 F.Supp. 1193, 1199 (S.D. Ind. 1995) (new argument may not be advanced for the first time in a reply brief); Hartley v. Wisconsin Bell, Inc., 930 F.Supp. 349, 352- 53 (E.D.Wis. 1996). Wh'!re, as here, the motion at issue is one for summary judgment, it is error for a court to consider new evidence or argument contained in 3 See also Bank Melli Iran v. Pahlavi, 58 F.3d 1406, 1412-13 (9th Cir. 1995) ("information and belief' declarations do not satisfy personal knowledge requirement); Price v. Rochford, 947 F.2d 829,832 (7th Cir. 1991) (verification stating that testimony was based upon the witness' "own personal knowledge or upon his information and belief' was insufficient under Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(e)); Gore v. GTE South, 917 F.Supp. 1564, 1570 (M.D. Ala. 1996). - reply papers without at least giving the non-moving party an opportunity to respond: The District Court therefore had two choices when it was informed that defendants had filed a reply brief: it could strike the brief or grant ... the nonmoving party the opportunity to respond to it. Certainly, after discovering that use of the information contained in the tardily served brief and affidavit would be helpful to its opinion, the district court should then have provided the nonmoving party with an opportunity to respond. CIA Petrolera Caribe, Inc., supra, 754 F.2d at 410; see also Povenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996) ('"[w]here new evidence is presented in a reply to a motion for summary judgment, the district court should not consider the new evidence without giving the [ non-]movant an opportunity to respond."') ( quoting Blackv. TIC Inv. Corp., 900 F.2d 112, 116 (7th Cir. 1990). Paragraph 10 of the Stewart Affidavit should be stricken because it contains new factual assertions concerning residential treatment centers that could have and should have been submitted along with the Districts' initial moving papers.4 Paragraphs 11-14 and Exhibits D through F of the Stewart Affidavit, concerning Fiscal Crisis Relief Funds, should also be stricken. No mention of Fiscal Crisis "Paragraph 10 of the Stewart Affidavit is also contrary to representations made in the Districts' brief in support of their motion for summary judgment. In their brief filed on January 13, 1997, the Districts did not even argue that any residential treatment facility in the County was charging any District in excess of the existing per diem state aid rate. Rather, the Districts stated only that "many of the major institutions have reduced their charges to reflect the newly reduced daily reimbursement." Relief Funds were made in any of the Districts' previous motions or filings, and this issue was certainly not raised in ADE's response to any District submission. ill. CONCLUSION For the foregoing reasons, ADE respectfully requests that the Stewart Affidavit be stricken in its entirety. In the alternative, should the Court decline the strike the Stewart Affidavit in its entirety, ADE requests leave to file a sur-reply in response to the Stewart Affidavit and the new evidence and argument contained therein. Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General ---' -~~ ~ BY: I ~ -;;;--]'c,,...--~ TIMOTHY G~ER;95019 Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 (501) 682-2007 Attorneys for Arkansas Department of Education CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served this 6th day of March, 1997, by first-class mail, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JAC~ LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON & LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ~~ Timothy G. ~ RECE;VEE. IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION MAR 1 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING LI1TLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. No. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, et al. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al. KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al. NOTICE OF APPEAL PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS . INTERVENORS NOTICE IS HEREBY GIVEN TIIA T the Arkansas Department of Education appeals to the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the District Court's order, entered February 18, 1997 (docket no. 2930), granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, the North Little Rock School District, and Pulaski County Special School District "on the issue of state funding for teacher retirement matching contributions." Respectfully Submitted, WINSTON BRYANT Attorney General Assistant Atto ey General 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Lh.tle Rock, Arkansas 72201 (501) 682-2007 Attorney for Arkansas Department of Education 2 _ __,___ CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this / 71'4.day of March, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones m WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE b. CLAR. "..f ( 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 3 John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON & LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 .I RECEIVED - MAR I 8 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING DOCKETNO. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLANT'S FORM A Appeal Information From To Be Filed With the Notice of Appeal Style Of Case: Cc!msel: Nrur~, Addr'!ss, and tdephon'! number ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION APPELLANT vs. TIMOTHY G. GAUGER Assistant Attorney General 323 Center St., Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 682-2007 -------------------------- PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT NORTH LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT APPELLEES 1 M. Samuel Jones, III Wright, Lindsey & Jennings 200 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller Friday, Eldredge & Clark 400 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 Stephen Jones Jack, Lyon & Jones 425 W. Capitol Ave. Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 722201 Date of District Court Judgment: February 18, 1997 Basis of: District Court Jurisdiction: Federal Question Appellate Jurisdiction: 28 U.S.C. 1291, Final Collateral Order Jurisdictional Isssue, If any: None Is this case suitable for consideration in this Court's Settlement program? LJ Yes. (_X_) No. If no, state why: Case concerns interpretation of consent decree. Appropriate Standard of Appellate Review: De Novo. List !s~ues on Appe~l: (List below): Whether the district court erred in granting summary judgment in favor of the Little Rock School District, North Little Rock School District, and the Pulaski County Special School District on the districts' claims that changes in the State of Arkansas' public school funding laws violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State and the school districts. Does this Constitute Your Statement oflssues under FRAP 10(b)(3)? (__) Yes. (_X_) No. Submitted by:~~!- Signature' u V 1 Copy - Send to Appellee (together with an uncompleted Form B) 2 Copies - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1 Copy - Retain lorettap\forms-July 31, 1996 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, Timothy Gauger, certify that a copy of the foregoing document was served by U.S. Mail, postage prepaid, on this ( 1 t.: day of March, 1997, on the following person(s) at the address(es) indicated: M. Samuel Jones Ill WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 400 W. Capitoi, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 7220 I Stephen Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 E. Markham Street Little Rock, AR 7220 I John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. O:.pitoi, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 James M. Llewellyn, Jr. THOMPSON & LLEWELLYN 412 S. 18th Street P.O. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-0818 ~J:_ ~ - Timothy ger 3 DOCKET NO. U.S. COURT OF APPEALS - EIGHTH CIRCUIT APPELLEE'S FORM B Appeal Information Form STYLE OF CASE: IS THE ALIGNMENT OF PARTIES, NAMES, ADDRESSES, AND TELEPHONE NUMBERS CORRECT ON APPELLANT'S FORM A? L_) YES. L_) NO. If no, list corrections below. IF YOU WISH TO CLARIFY THE JURISDICTIONAL STATEMENT OR GENERAL STATEMENT, LIST THE ADDITIONAL ISSUES OR COMMENTS: DO YOU BELIEVE THIS CASE IS SUIT ABLE FOR CONSIDERATION IN THIS COURT'S SETTLEMENT PROGRAM? L_) YES. L_) NO. Ifno, state why. NAME, ADDRESS, AND TELEPHONE NUMBER OF COUNSEL COMPLETING THIS FORM: Submitted by: ________ _ 1 Copy - Send to Appellant 2 Copies - Send to Clerk, Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals 1 Copy - Retain lorettap\forms-August 6, 1996 FILED U.S. 018T~ICT OOUlff EASTE"N OIS'ffllCT AIU(ANSAS IN THE UNITED ST A TES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION MAR 1 8 N97 JAMES W. McCORMACK. CLERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. PULASKl COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL LR-C-82-866 NOTICE OF APPEAL 8t:AIN LIFF DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTER VEN ORS Notice is hereby given that the Intervenors, 111 Arkansas School Districts, listed on Attachment 1, as Defendants in the above case, hereby appeal to the United States Court of OEP CLEllK - Appeals for the Eighth Circuit from the Memorandum Opinion and Order entered in this action on February 18, 1997. Respectfully submitted, INTERVENING SCHOOL DISTRICTS, DEFENDANTS THOMPSON AND LLEWELLYN, P.A. 412 South 18th Street P. 0. Box 818 Fort Smith, AR 72902-818 Telephone: 501-785-2867 Facsimile: 501-782-8046 Byfamres iM.U LlewJell~yj~# 66040 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I, James M. Llewellyn, Jr., do hereby certify that I have on this I 7 day of March, 1997, caused a true and correct copy of the above and foregoing NOTICE OF APPEAL to be mailed first class, postage prepaid, to: Timothy G. Gauger ASSISTANT ATTORNEY GENERAL 323 Center Street, Suite 200 Little Rock, AR 72201-2610 M. Samuel Jones, III WRIGHT, LINDSEY & JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue, Suite 2200 Little Rock, AR 72201-3699 Christopher Heller FRIDAY, ELDREDGE & CLARK 425 W. Capitol, Suite 2000 Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Stephen Jones JACK, LYON & JONES 425 West Capitol Ave., Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 7220 I John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 7220 l Richard Roachell ROACHELL & STREET 410 W. Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Alma School District Alread School District Altus Denning School District Ashdown School District Barton-Lexa School District Batesville School District Beebe School District Bentonville School District Bergman School District Berryville School District Biggers-Reyno School District Black Rock School District Blevins School District Blytheville School District Booneville School District Bradford School District Bright Star School District Brinkley School District Bryant School District Buffalo Island School District Caddo Hills School District Carthage School District Center Point School District Charleston School District Clarendon School District Corning School District Cotton Plant School District County Line Public School Crossett School District Cutter-Morning Star School District Decatur School District Dermott School District Dewitt School District Dollarway School District Dumas School District Elaine School District Fordyce School District Foreman School District Fort Smith School District Fountain Lake School District Gillett School District Glen Rose School District Gosnell School District Grady School District Green County Technical Schools Green Forest School District Greenland School District Greenwood School District Guy-Perkins School District Harrisburg School District Hamburg School District Holly Grove School District Hoxie School District Huttig School District Jackson County School District Jonesboro School District Junction City School District A TI ACHMEi'IT 1 Kirby School District Lakeside School District Lavaca School District Lead Hill School District Leslie School District Lewisville School District Magazine School District Malvern Special School District Mammoth Spring School District Manila School District Marion School District Marshall School District Mayflower School District Maynard School District McGehee School District Mountainburg School District Nettleton School District Newport School District Oden School District Ola School District Ozark School District Paragould School District Parkin School District Plainview-Rover School District Pleasant View School District Pocahontas School District Prairie Grove School District Quitman School District Rural Special School District Saratoga School District Searcy School District Smackover School District South Conway County School District Southside School District #2 Bee Branch Spring Hill School District Stamps School District Stephens School District Strong School District Stuttgart Schooi District Turrell School District Valley Springs School District Van Buren School District Waldron School District Warren School District Watson Chapel School District Weiner School District West Fork School District West Memphis School District White Hall School District Wickes School District Winslow School District W onderview School District Wynne School District Yellville-Summit School District UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT Eastern District of Arkansas Office of the Clerk 600 West Capitol, Room 402 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3325 March 20, 1997 Mr. Michael g_ Gans, Clerk United States Court of Appeals 1114 Market Street St. Louis, MO 63103 Case No. LR-C-82-866 Re: LRSD vs. PCSSD ET AL Dear Sir: MAR 2 1~ 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING Enclosed please find in duplicate, copies of the following in the above case: Notice of Appeal [certified] by intervening School Districts Docket Entries [certified] Memorandum and Order filed 2/18/97 Sincerely, James W. McCormack, Clerk Doris Collins, Deputy Clerk CC: w/encs. All Counsel of Record IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO ADE'S OBJECTIONS TO AND MOTION TO STRIKE THE "COUNTER-AFFIDAVIT" OF DONALD STEWART OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO SUBMIT A SUR-REPLY The PCSSD for its response states: PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTER VENO RS MAR 2 O 'i897 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONffORING 1. The PCSSD has no objection to the State filing a surreply, assumes that the State is at work upon a sur-reply, and suggests that a limited period of time be permitted by this Court for the filing of any sur-reply authorized by the Court. 2. The PCSSD did not set forth the residential treatment center charg