{"response":{"docs":[{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1659","title":"Court filings: District Court, supporting documents","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-07-02"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Office of Desegregation Monitoring (Little Rock, Ark.)","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joe T. Robinson High School (Little Rock, Ark.)","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Standards","School management and organization","School discipline","Students","Student suspension","Student expulsion"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, supporting documents"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1659"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["140 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT V. NO. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. LR-C-82-866 R Ec1:111,:D JUL 2 - 1997 DESEGRJFF!CE OF TION MONiTORJNG NOTICE OF FILING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS Please take notice that the PCSSD is filing the following documents as part of the record in this case: 1. Office of Desegregation Monitoring Climate Analysis Process and Climate of Robinson High School, both performed by the Office of Desegregation Monitoring this Spring. 2. A portion of the minutes of the Board of Directors meeting of the PCSSD dated May 13, 1997. 3. Letter dated January 24 , 1995 from counsel for the PCSSD to all other counsel in the case. 4. Pertinent portions of the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline, 1996-97, Secondary Edition . 5. Portions of the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case Settlement Agreement as revised September 28, 1989, including pages 19 and portions of the attached PCSSD release. 6. Pertinent portions of the 1995-96 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 7. Pertinent portions of the 1994-95 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report ' describing discipline outcomes. 8. Pertinent portions of the 1993-94 Pupil Personnel Services Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 9. Pertinent portions of the 1992-93 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 10. Pertinent portions of the 1991-92 Pupil Personnel Annual Report describing discipline outcomes. 11. Letter dated May 16, 1997 from the Office of Desegregation Monitoring to Mr. John W. Walker regarding climate analysis at Robinson High School. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Ave., Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ' ,,-?\"' / By  ,, , ~-----1, -( -- --- M. Samuel Jones III (16060) Attorney~ for PU-Hiski County 8.peci--arschool District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 2, 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 \u0026 Clark 400 W. Capitol, Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 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 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 ODM CLIMATE ANALYSIS PROCESS The ODM climate analysis process occurred in six steps: 1. Collecting and Analyzing Archival Data To develop a statistical picture of Robinson High School, ODM examined archival data that included attendance zone maps, census tract demographics. enrollment reports, school profiles. quarterly discipline records, and extracurricular participation rates. We also studied the school CO E. (Creating Opportunities for Excellence) staff, student, and parent survey results. 2. Site Observations A team of ODM monitors formally visited Robinson twice, and individual monitors returned to the school on other occasions for interviews and observations. We observed a total of 44 classes, representing eleven disciplines (such as math, social studies, etc.) and four activities (such as basketball. cheerleading, etc.). We stayed in individual classrooms from 30 to 60 minutes or lo nger. noting the physical environment (such as visuals. facilities, seating patterns, etc.). instructio nal approaches, and the nature of student-to-student and student-to-teacher interactions. \\Ve also watched the interplay among students, staffs, and administrators during the morning bus arrival, class changes, and lunch. Additionally. we observed student interaction during one home basketball game when the boys and girls varsity teams played Lonoke High School. 3. Interviewing School Staff. Students, and Parents ODM interviewed randomly selected staff, students. and parents. We asked interviewees about their perceptions of interactions among various groups at Robinson and about their opinions of the strengths and weaknesses of the school. :\\1onitors conducted one-on-one interviews with 39 randomly selected students (approximately l ')0/o of the student body). Over half of the student interviewees ( 54%) were white and 460 \\\\ ere black Based on a random drawing, monitors identified and interviewed 16 staff members (31 % of th e total staff). Blacks comprised 31 % of staff interviewees and whites 69%. We talked to teachers. cafete ria workers, office staff, and paraprofessionals, as well as the principal and assistant principal. 0 OM conducted parent interviews by phone. We randomly generated a list of 43 parents. representing both black and white parents from various geographic areas within the Robinson attendance zone. The list also included the parents of majority-to-minority transfer students who lived in adjacent school districts. Overall, 26% of the parents we interviewed were black and 7 4% were white. - 4. Organizing the Finding, After gathering information from the various sources, we grouped our findings into broad categories (such as geography, leadership, etc.) Each individual monitor assumed responsibility for various categories and converted the data into a series of comprehensive summaries. 5. Reaching Conclusions Working in concert, the ODM monitors drew conclusions by identifying patterns across the data summaries and drawing connections bet.veen various pieces of information. We focused most of our conclusions on broad themes rather than individual behaviors and incidents. 6. Making Recommendations Finally, ODM developed a series of recommendations based directly on our findings. We attempted to make the recommendations as broad as possible in order to address more than one specific finding. The recommendations are applicable to the Robinson High School community as well as the PCSSD central administration. and are offered as suggestions for improving the school environment not only at Robinson, but at other schools in the district. CLIMATE OF ROBlNSON HIGH SCHOOL Strengths (Identified by Staff, Students, and Parents)  The students themselves. especially their comradery and good interpersonal relations Diversity of the student body (race. socioeconomic status. geographic are:i) Small size of school and local community Racial integration of the school An environment that is safe  Many involved parents Parents feel welcome at the school Teachers who care about their students and work hard Positive relationships between the students and staff Some strong relationships among staff members The academic program Block scheduling Sports  A strong program for students with special needs A strong administration An administration that has improved the academic program and established a safe environmem Strong discipline Additional Strengths (Identified by ODM) Well-maintained facility that is attractive and welcoming Orderly environment Students who are friendly and respectful Cooperative administration, staff, students, and parents Most classes are racially integrated Some good teaching practices Additional factors that have contributed to the climate at Robinson High School Geography The Robinson attendance zone is far ranging and very diverse, with a student enrollment that also includes M-to-M transfer students from various neighborhoods. \\\\-rule such diversity is a strength of the school, it is also a potential barrier to maintaining a cohesive school community. Expectations The principal expected to have the latitude to make changes as he saw fit. The pn11cipal believed he had been hired to increast! order at Robinson High. Prior to his arrival. the school had experienced disc1pli11e problems. racial conflict, and loss of e11rollmelll. The staff did not expect sweeping changes. Staff seemed pleased wiih the increased order and discipline established in the las! !WO and half years, bm they were not so pleased w1th other changes i11st1wted by the principal. The adve11t of block scheduling caused greaI co11stematio11. While there was general support for the co11cept, staff felt they did not have mough say i11 the decision. Issues related to the scheduli11g of athletics and spint teams caused a rremendous rift between some staff. parents, and rhe adm1msrraao11. The principal' s values and Robinson s traditions represented a culture clash. The prmcipal sought ro increase the emphasis on academics a11d achrevemenc, b111 many teachers believe he did so at the expense of Robinson rradiuons. Sports have been very important lO Robinson studellls. parents. and teachers. Attendance at sporting evellls was often the on(v school-related acuvrty reported by parents m our imervrft'r11s. i\\,fany members of the school community perceived the pnnc1pal as anti-athletic. One student said she thought the admi11istration was trying to /Um Robi11so11 imo \"something rt is not . ..  The PCSSD did not plan for change at Robinson High If the district had made effons to help facilitate the leadership rransrtion at the school. many of the current problems could have been avoided or at least m111imi:ed The dismct should have worked closely with the prrnc1pal to help acquaint him with the traditional culture and values at the school. If the district expected the pri11c1pal to make changes at Robinson, they should have articulated this charge to the staff and parents as well. Leadership The principal' s leadership style was perceived as autocratic by many of the staff, students, and parents. Many staff members felt they were not involved in the decision-making process within the school. , Trust has become frai.tile or non-existent between some individuals and groups. Wt! rept!at11dly ht!ard comments that reveall:!d various levels of distn1st between the administration and many staff members. as well as among some staff A minimum of infonnal inter:iction between the principal and many of the school's students, staff, and parents has contributed to perceptions that the principal was generally distant and aloof Some pi:!ople told us that the principal was seldom in the halls or cafeteria to mingl11 with st11dents and staff Others hi:!li11ved that the prmcrpal was oftm away from the school during the day or that he declined to participate in some school activities. especially athletic events. The few opportumtiesfor informal imeraction wrdened the distance between the principal and members of the school community. A lack of general collegiality has characterized the relationship between the principal and most staff members, contributing to a general lack of cohesiveness that has inhibited communication. understanding, trust, respect, shared work goals, and mutual support. Th11 school's admimstrators and faculty have not bonded well either as professional colleagues or as informal associates. Building positive relationships is work that requires time, attention. shanng, and muwal support on the part of all involved. Some staff. students, and parents have sensed a racial undercurrent at Robinson and perceived that racial prejudice has been a negative factor in some interactions. They be!il:!ved that racial prep1dice has impeded objective decision-making and caused inequitable trearmem of soml:! individuals and groups. Problem Solving ).\"o mechanism has been in place at Robinson to anticipate problems and head them off Small problems and disagreements between the administration and staff members were not addressed early on, so some small problems escalated into much larger ones. Few. if any outlets, were available for the adrninimation and staff to vent frus-trations and concerns without going through the formal grievance process. 01her rhan 1he Jonna! gnevance process, 111dividuals who were dissansfied had few opnons for ventmg 1hetr frustrations or solving 1he1r problems. Eventually neganw feelings compounded mlSt de1enorated. anger 1tscalated, and a tense atmosphere prevaJ/ed; some individuals l:!ven acted on a desire /0 retaliate. Many staff members perceived that central office administrators did not give adequate attention to the problems developing at Robinson nor did they provide direction and support for solving problems until they had grown to enonnous proportions. No staff development or any other kind of meaningful intervention was initiated early on to assist the school's administrators or staff in resolving the problems they were facing. Even !hough leaders at both Rohinson and the central office were aware !hat the school was experiencing serious difficulties, they did not quickly move lo objectlvely analy:e the problems or set about fixing them. Professionalism Many members of the staff manifested inappropriate professional behavior by individually soliciting parent and student involvement in their controversy with the principal. 'v(aJ1y srajj members, parents, and swdents were distressed by the pressure they received to take sides on issues. Some starf members have shown favoritism to certain students and parents. Some swdents and parents 1:xpressed 1ea/011sy, resenrment. and a sense that everyone co11/J11 't expect fair, 11qwtable rrearment. They perceived that some people were shown javonusm based 011 race or soc10economrc status. Instructional Quality Teachers exhibited uneven instructional performance. We found some classes that were well orgam:ed with motivarional teachers and involved studems, hlll in too many other classes we smv disengaged st11d11111s and teachers who were not presennng mformat1011111 an engagmg way. In a few cases. we found teachers who had a poor grasp of rhe basic comem of the course they were teach111g.  A number of te:ichers made poor use of instructional time. We saw maJTy teachers that seemed to be havlllg some rro11b!e adj11sring to the longer class periods afforded by block scheduling. The extended time period should have allowed for more ac11ve swdenr leam111g. but some teachers were su!l spending an ho11r or more lecwnng. In some classes. teachers S.:f!med 10 \"coast\" durmg the last 30 mmwes of class rime, usmg nomma!!y re/el'CI!ll matena/s 10 .fill nme. While teachers sel!med 10 be srn,gg!ing to .fill class lime wuh meaJ1mgf11I !eannng act1v111es, some pare ms comp/al/led that swdents did not have enough learning nme during the school day, and that the teachers did not have llme to adequately exp/am new concepts. Some classes were lacking in order and control. Whzle most classes were orderly, af(?W were dramatic excep110ns. We noted classes where no one seemed to be in charge: consequem!y, no learning could rake place. Student Behavior Some srudent behaviors may indicate a backlash against school rules that students have perceived as too restrictive. For example. fo//(J'Wing their lunch period, students left the cafeteria in a deplorable state. Much of the mess appeared to be the result of conscious neglect. We saw uneaten food, large m,mbers of unused napkins strewn on 1he floor, half-filled plastic cups, and ketcfn,p smeared across tables and chairs. Cafeteria workers said some swdents Jon 't appear 10 feel it's /heir responsibility to pick up after themselves when lunch is over. Although we saw adults supervising in the cafeteria. few of them encouraged student to bus their own 1ab{es before leaving. RECOMMENDATIONS 1. Work to establish an atmosphere of collegiality and the re.1liry of teamsmanship among the entire staff Collegialiry ,s fosr2red by a number of factors, including agreement 011 common values aJ1d goals: respect for the ideas and comnhutions of fellow workers: /2adersh1p that elicits and s11pporrs a s2ns2 of teamsmanship: and opporwmtiesfor i11forma/ interaction that allows co-workers to feel comforrahle wirh 011e anorher and develop a ge1111i11e se11se of connectedness a11d caring 2. Bring together existing school organizations (such as staff committees, student council, equity committee, etc ) to squarely confront both the perception and reality of racism and other prejudices and work to eliminate them. Recog11i:mg that prejudice and bigotry are teamed, use inservice rraining. swdent workshops, open andjrank disc11ssio11, multicultural opporru11ities in the curriculum, staff retreats, behavior modeling, and all other available means to eliminate biased behavior and atti wdes. 3. The PCSSD should de\\e!op both a fonnal system for regularly assessing school climate and a process for delling with conflict within a school community.  The key to a posime school envrronment is wg,lmu monitoring of the factors that comprise the climate and addressing problems before they escalare. !11 addition. an organi:ed approach to d2aling wirh co11J7icts wirhm individual schools will help solve probl2ms before they are playd out in the evening news. 4. The district administrar;on should support a summer retreat for the Rci:inson staff led by a skilled, outside professional. A summer rerreat or series of retreats will allow the Robinson stafj an opporru111ry to reflect m1d leamfrom recent experrences. 1dennfy changes they need to make, and commll to overcoming the problems that have divided them. 5 All stakeholders at Robinson (parents, students. administration, support staif. facuity. and PCS SD administrators) should work together to deve!cp a vision for the sc:1001' s short and long tenn future. 6 Develop and implemem a staff development program on communication skills Bnng in tramers 1~1th a proven track record in the area of orgam:auonal a11d crosscultural communrcanon. Thrs r;,pe of tramrng should be an ongoing actmry ratha than the one shot,. i11oculat1on approach. 7. Provide more staff training on effective time management and varied instructional approaches for the 90 minute periods offered through block scheduling. 8. Consider collaborating with the staffs of other secondary schools in central Arkansas who have had a history of successfully implementing block scheduling. 9. Plan additional staff development for teachers who need skill development (such as classroom management techniques). Io. rn selecting the next principal. take care to match the vision. strengths. needs. culture. and expectations of the school community with the skills. style. vision. and expectations of the prospective principal. 11 . The school PTO and Equity Committee should jointly establish a plan of act ion to deve!op a more inclusive school community 12. The staff should involve student representatives in the fonnulation of school-based rules and policies. 13 . Staff members and srudent leaders should present a united front to encourage the student body to exhibit more responsible beha,ior toward maintaining a clean school en,ironment. P.2 A.DDENDVM  BOARD OF EDUCAUON MEETING MAY13, 1997 !;!,_EMENT4,RY ELFCTIQNS Wendy Case Resource To Be Assigned Nicole Robinson ElemcntarY To Be ASSigned SECONDARY ELfCTJONS Richard Allen Bishop Jacksonville Jr. High Art Rel'.)lacing: Richard Alan Llsemby Transferred to Social Stu.dies BESIGNATJQNS Brenda Groce (Priroa.ry) Temporary Oakbcook.e Elemenwy Andrea Knapp (Kindergarten) Temporary Sherwood Elemenwy Julie Rasmuson (Biology/Chemistry/Coach) Robinson High Ralph Hoffman (Principal) Robinson High School Searcy. AR; Certification: Special Ed. BA  Harding University at Searcy ,AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Warren, AR; Cettification: Elementary BS  U of A at Pine Bluff, AR Experience: None Beginning: August 14, 1997 Mtn. View, AR; Certification: Art K-12 BS Hardini University at Searcy, AR Experience: Two and ooc half (2-1/2) years outside the District \u0026ginning: August 14, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 17, 1997 June 6, 1997 EOWARO L . WRIGMT i I 903-t 977) ROBERT S LINOSEY WRIGHT. LINDSEY 8: JENNINGS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 200 WEST CAPITOL AVENUE SUITE 2200 tl 91J.!991J RONALD A MAY IS AA.C A. SCOTT JR .;AMES M MOODY JOM N G LILE LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 7 2 20 I 3699 GORD(\" t;RATHER. JR TERR)' THEWS DAVID .JWELL ROGER ..., GLASGOW C OOUGLAS BUFORD. JR PATRICK J GOSS ALSTON JENNINGS JR JOI-IN R flSDALE KATMLYN GRAVES '-t SAMUEL JON ES ill JOHN -N IL.LIAM SPIVEV IU LEE J MULDROW WENDELL L GRIFFEN N M NORTON. JR EDGAR J TVLER CHARLES C PRICE CHARLES T COLEMAN JAMES J GLOVER EDWIN L . LOWTHER. JR BEVERLY BAS SETT SCHAFFER CHARLES L SCHLUMBERGER SAMMY( L TA.VLOR WALTER E. MAV Mr. Mr. Mr. Mr. Ms. Ms. Christopher Heller Stephen Jones John W. Walker Richard Roachell Ann Brown Elizabeth Boyter ( 501 ) 371-0808 FA.X 1!5011 376,9442 OF COUNSEL ALS TON JENNING S GEORGE E LUSK J R January 24, 1995 A.N,.,.( I-IIR A I GIB S ON CRECORV T .JON ES M ~EIT,_. '4QRR ISON BETTINA E BRO'o'fNSTE JN H.-.LiER \"'4 CS P.-.OOEN ROGER O ROWE NA \"CY BELLHOUSE MAY JQl-+N O DAVIS .. UOY S IMMONS HE'-IRY K IMBERLV WOOO T'JCKER '4ARK L PRYOR RAY F COX JR H-'RRY 5 ,..URST J R TROY A PRICE P'-i'qlC IA SI E V ERS LEHALLEN J A\"'4E5 M \"\"1000Y JR t\u003cATMRYN A PRYOR J '4AR,\u003c DAVIS C!..A IRE SNOWS HANCOCK l\u003c(V IN -H ,\u003c(NNEOY \"'4ARI( A ROGERS J ERRY J SALLINGS M TOCO WOOD R GREGORY ACLIN FRED M PERKINS 111 WILLIAM STUART JACKSON M ICH AEL O SARNES STE.='HEN R i..ANCASTE\"' FRED ANDREW WOOD JUOV \"4 ROBINSON BETS Y MEACHAM AIN SLEY H LANG Re: Pulaski County Special School District Dear Ladies and Gentlemen: Enclosed for each of you are copies of the Pulaski County Special School District Discipline Management System Manual together with a copy of Memorandum of Unqerstanding between the District and PACT dated January 12,. 1995. Bill Bowles tells me that our desegregation plan requires, and that we previously indicated to the Court, that we would first develop this system, then share it with the parties and, assuming no significant opposition, then file it with the Court. MSJ/jhs Enclosures JlullJOS.030 Cordially yours, WRIGHT, LINDSEY f- omuel Jones, \u0026 JENNINGS III HANDBOOK FOR STUDENT CONDUCT AND DISCIPLINE ~~~~~~- /: : ' ----', .. \"------,.,i .. ',: . ' .. ~ 1996-97 SECONDARY EDITION  w z :J 0 w ~ a: 0 u.. a: w a.. c., z g \u003c( I u ~ w 0 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT PARENT-STUDENT STATEMENT OF RESPONSIBILITY Student Name Date The statement below must be signed and returned to the homeroom teacherw1thIn one (1) week after the student receives ,t. If. after one ( 1) week. the student has not returned the form. he will not be permitted to attend class until he does comply. We have read the PCSSD Handbook for Student Conduct and Discipline and although we may not agree with all the regulations, we understand that the student must adhere to them while he ,s at school or In attendance at school sponsored activ1t1es. In the event that we are not entirely certain of some aspect of school policy, we w,11 contact the principal for clarification w1th1n one (1) week after receipt of that policy. Student Signature ParenVGuardian Signature Date State law (6-18-502. 6-18-505) requires documentation of student and parent receipt of student d1sc1pline polIcIes. This document will be included in the records packet for students transferring w1th1n Pulaski County Special School District .  TO THE STUDENTS: This document has been prepared for the purpose of outlining to you the expectations of the Pulaski County Special School District ,n regard to student conduct. The District recognizes that students are guaranteed full rights of c1t1zensh1p by the United States Const1tut1on; and these rights may not be denied except in accordance with due process of law. The District further recognizes that with these rights there are respons1bli1t1es which are designed to help all part1c1pants acquire the full benefits of the educational program, regardless of race. sex. creed or national origin. It 1s 1mposs1ble to list in this Handbook all of the rules and guidelines for student and staff use. Therefore. the contents of this Handbook should not be construed to limit or deny your rights and respons1b1ht1es on your own campus as a member of the student body or as a c1t1zen. Neither should the Handbook be construed as limiting or denying your principal the right and respons1b11ity to develop such necessary rules and regulations that are not 1ncons1stent with federal and state laws and Board of Education policies and regulations. Each student will receive a copy of the policy Handbook, and will be required to sign a statement of receipt. ii  Eddie Collins Assistant Superintendent Pup,! Personnel Services WHO IS RESPONSIBLE FOR STUDENT CONDUCT? Freedom 1s a constttut1onal nght. but it does not mean the absence of reasonable rules and regulations which serve to guide the actions of 1nd1v1duals. Along with freedom comes the respons1b1ltty to act In such a manner as to insure that all part1c1pants may en1oy the same freedom. To obtain the greatest possible benefit to the students, teachers. adm1n1strators, parents. Board of Education and ti'le entire community. 1t ,s essential that all work together to insure that all persons are treated equally and with d1gn1ty 1n respect to their rights and respons1b1htIes. Students Students have the respons:01hty to pursue their education tn the Pulaski County Special School O1stnct In a manner thats ows respect for other students. acuity members. parents and other c,tIzens. Students shot;ld be aware that they have a respons1b1'.1ty o cooperate with and ass,st tne school s a~ ,n the orderly and erf1c:ent conduct of he schoo1s by abiding by rules and regulations established by the Board of Education and r.e school of attendance. and implemented by teachers and school aom,nistrators. Each student 'S respors1ble for his own conduct at all times. Parents or Guardians Parents should carefully ,ead the pages of this handbook and assume a ,ead1ng role ,n ad IsIng their children of appropriate and inappropriate behavior at school. Parents should stress he r:,portance of a good educatton and conduct necessary to achieve ,t. Without the support of tne parents/guardians. this attempt o promote good c1t1zensh1p and success ,n ,,fe may not succeed and the student will be the one to suffer the consequences of struggling though 1fe ., 1 r:out benefit of an educauon. Arkansas Law 6-15-.116. 6- 5 . .1 7 establishes a penalty not to exceed 550 plus court costs and reasonable fees for any parent who fails to attend a student conference to discuss his child's failure to achieve mastery level periormance on a basic competency test at grade levels 6 and 8. Fa,lure on the part of the student's parents to attend the conference or o arrange another t,rr,e for he conference sub1ects them to the c1v1l penalty. Arkar,sas Law 6- 7-106 states that any person who shall abuse or ,nsult a public school teacher while hat teacher ,s performing normal and regular or assigned school respons,b1hlieS shall be guilty of a misdemeanor and upon conviction be liable for a fine of not ,ess than 5100 nor rrore than S1 .500. o urauthor,zed person 1non-stt;dent) shall purposely en er or remain unlawfully tn a scnoot venIc:e or on the schaol premises. ICrim1nal respass - A.C.A 5-39-203) Teachers All eacrers are responsible for the superv,s,on of he bel-iav1or of all the students .n re sc,..col. This includes not only the s udents who are regularly ass:gred to the teacner. but all ot;,er students ~J1th ,1,hom the teacher comes 1n contact. Each teacher s expected to rna,nta1n the kind of atmospr,ere and decorum which will promote the learning crocess. and to ut11,ze sound :ecr-r1ques :ih1ch seem appropriate. These techniques ,nclude conferences mth students ar,o parents. referral o counse,ors at the school or referral to other supportive service personre of tre Oistnct rnurse. attendance caseworker. educational examiner. psycho1og1st). Wren re teacher 'S unable o assist the student to maintain proper controls of ,s benav1or. the stwdent s o be referred to the appropriate adrrnnistrator 1n the school.  , I School Administrators An administrator of each school will disseminate and explain to all students at the beginning of the school year, and will d1ssem1nate to each new student upon reg1strat1on. the rules and regulations currently in effect for that school. In developing rules and regulations the administrator Is expected to involve representatives. of the teaching staff. the student body and the patrons of the school. The administrator of each school is responsible for conducting continued inservice education for all personnel on a regular basis to interpret and implement established policies. Each principal. or the princ1pal's des,gnee. ,s authorized to assign students to detention. to work detail. to probation status and to suspend or to recommend the expulsion of students. The principal ,s expected to inform the parents or guardians of any student whose behavior ,s in serious conflict with established laws, rules and procedures. Superintendent The Superintendent ,s responsible for exercIsIng leadership ,n establishing all necessary procedures. rules and regulations to make effective t e Board of Education policies relating to standards of student behavior. * * * * * Board of Education The Board of Education of the Pulaski County Special School District. acting through the Superintendent. holds all school employees responsible for the supervision of the behavior of students while legally under the supervision of the school. The Board expects all employees to be concerned with student behavior and when and where unacceptable behavior occurs. to take appropriate action. * * * * * Nondiscrimination It ,s the policy of the Pulaski County Special School D1stnct to provide equal opportunities without regard to race, color. national origin, sex. age. qualified handicap or veteran ,n ,ts educational programs and act1vItIes. educational services. financial a,d and employment. Inquiries concerning application of this policy may be referred o: Director of Desegregat1on/EquIty Coordinator 925 East Dixon Road/PO. Box 8601 Little Rock. Arkansas 72216 Telephone Number: 490-2000. Extension 205 In keeping with the requirements of federal la.v. state law and aoolicable court order, the District w,11 stnve to remove any vestige of d1scnm1natIon ,n the employment. assignment and promotion of personnel: ,n educational opportunities and services offered students: ,n student assignment o schools and classes: ,n student discipline. and, ,n location and use of fac1lit1es. Furttier. the D1stnct will make special efforts to employ and advance women. blacks and handicapped persons. (Board Policy Code AC) Any student. or parent, who feels aggrieved urder the aoove policy may secure 1nformat1on concerning filing grievance procedures from the principal of a D1str:ct scrool or from ttie office of the Assistant Superintendent for Pupil Personnel Services. * * * * * Student Procedure for Filing Sexual Harassment Complaints It ,s me policy of the district that none of ,ts s:L.dents 11111 be sub1ec:ed to sexual :iarassment 'Jy any school employee, including teachers and administrators. any ,olunteer or any v1s1tor 2  * * * * * Alternative School The Pulaski County Special School District has an Alternative Learning Center for students in grades 7 through 12. It Is designed to serve the needs of those students whose educational needs are not met by trad1t1onal programs. The primary goal of the program ,s to help students develop and maIntaIn the academic. social and behavior skills they need to function successfully ,n school and in society. Grievance - Due Process Students have the right to be Immed1ately informed of alleged vIolat1ons of standards of behavior as estaol,shed by Board poilcy and/or school regulations. and to be informed of appeal procedures. Students have the respons1b1l1ty to know and obey school rules. to express gnevances ma ool1te and hoso1table manner. and to give parents correct information concerning misconduct. Pnnc1oals and teachers have the respons1b11ity to follow Board established procedures ,n d1sc1plmary actions against students. Principals are responsible for nottfymg and confernng with parents and students m cases mvolvmg suspension and expulsion recommendations. Parents have the respons1b1l1ty to calf pnnc1pals for conference when needed. and to arrange with proper school authont1es for desired student hearings. * * * * * Student Complaints It a student and the parent of a student involved In a dIsc1plinary ruling wish to contest a d1sc1plinary ruling or a cond1t1on or ci "},{"id":"umc_awr_50539","title":"Board of Directors: Meeting, July 1997","collection_id":"umc_awr","collection_title":"Advancing Workers’ Rights in the American South","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-07"],"dcterms_description":["Folder of materials from the \"National Association for the Advancement of Colored People, 1956-1999\" series from the AFL-CIO Civil Rights Department records"],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights","Labor movement"],"dcterms_title":["Board of Directors: Meeting, July 1997"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of Maryland, College Park. Libraries"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["https://hdl.handle.net/1903.1/50539"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["records (documents)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1634","title":"Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Joshua Intervenors","Arkansas. Department of Education","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Educational law and legislation","Pulaski Association of Classroom Teachers (PACT)","School management and organization","School integration","School employees","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings concerning motion for an award of attorneys' fees, PCSSD strike issue, ADE semiannual monitoring report and executive summary"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1634"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["57 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"District Court, three Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) motions for enlargement of time; District Court, order; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) response to the Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) brief in response to the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; District Court, notice of filing, Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) semiannual monitoring report and executive summary; District Court, Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) amended reply to the response of Little Rock School District (LRSD) to its petition for attorneys' fees and interest; Court of Appeals, petition for additional time; Court of Appeals, entry of appearance; District Court, order  The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  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 DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. RECE~ /~r; - DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL . J~1 ~ ;  - 1997 INTERVENORS KATHERINE KNIGHT I ET AL. OFFICE OF PCS SD MOTION FOR ENLARGO!~{ijM'{'WJ !~friOO/NG INTER VENO RS The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the response of th/ LRSD to the PCSSD motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning the \"pooling\" issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to reply. 2. Counsel for the LRSD has no objection to this extension of time. WHEREFORE, PCSSD prays for an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997 in which to reply to LRSD's response to the PCSSD motion for attorneys' fees and costs. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By .. r. __ , M. Samuel Jones III (76060) Attorneys for Pulaski County Special __ ,.,.School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July ___ , 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 \u0026 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 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 M. Samuel Jones, III a J: Es lfED JUL 7 - 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT PLAINTIFF V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD MOTION FOR ENLARGEMENT OF TIME The Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") for its motion states: 1. Presently pending before the Court is the motion of thEf Joshua Intervenors seeking an award of attorneys' fees concerning - the PCSSD strike issue. Due to the impending holiday weekend and the issues raised in the Joshua's motion, the PCSSD requests additional time to and including July 14 to respond. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (S01) 371-0808 By '-----;27-r. -~~ __ ,,-- M. Samue+ Jones ;rII (76060) - 1?-ttorn~ fok..../ Pulaski County \u003c_______~ School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July 3 , 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 \u0026 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 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 07 10 97 15:.?3 LJP I GHT, LI I l[1SE',' . IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LI7TLE ROCK SCSOOL DISTRICT V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SP~CIAL SC~OOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD MOTION FOR i;-NLARGEMEN:' OF TIME PLAINTI:::'F DEFC:NDAK'I'S J::-JTERVEl\\ORS IJ:1;'7ERVEKORS ':'he P.1laski County Special School Jistrici: ( \"PCSSJ\") fol:' its motion states: , Prese:1i:l21 pending: be:'o::-e ~he Cour: :.s LRS'J' s :no~.:.or: for attorneys' feee and costs perta:ni~g to the 0 pool:~g'' issue. 2. So:;i.e of :.he issues raised ir1 :he LRSD' s CT',o~:on are s:milar to the :ssues ra1sed a~d pend:~g in ~RSD's ~sspcr.se to c~e PCSSD motion seeking an awa=d of atcor~eys' fees o~ the same issue. 7te reply to the response :s due on Mor.day, cu_y 14, 1997. 3. Due to the related nature of these pending ~otio~s, the PCSSD requests additional time to and !nc:ud::1g July 14, 1997 in which to respond to LRSD's motion. 4. Counsel for the LRSD has no cbjecticn to ~his exte~s:on of tiIT\",e. WHEREFORE, PCS SD prays for an exce:1sicr: of t:1r.1e to and includ:~g July 14, :997 in which to ree9ond to the ~~SD ~otion :or 15:2J .~E: ,lill/Ci3 - attorneys' fees and coats. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, :,I~DSEY \u0026 JE!\\-:-JIKGS 200 West Capitol Ave~~e suite 2200 Litt:e Rock, Arkansas 72201 -3699 (501) 371-0808 '-- , .. - I \\ By ) ----:\u003e--..  \u003c- '- '- ';--_, ~- Samuel Jones rr:' (76060) Attorneys,,/ for ,..,.-Pulaski Coc.nty Sp_e_c_i_a ...] ,_/:Schcol Cistr.:.c'::. CcRT!FICATE CF SE~v:cs 1~ , 199~, a copy o! t~e fores=i~g was served by U.S. mail on t~e fol:owing. Mr. Joh~ W. Wal~er ~ctn W. wa:ker, F.A. 1 723 Brcaci,.;ay ~itt:e Roe~, AR 72201 Mr. Chr:s:oor.er Heller Friday, ~~d~edge \u0026 C~ark 2000 First Cc~~ercia~ Buildi~g Little Rock, Arka~sas 72201 ODM Heritage West Blcig., Ste. 510 201 Eas: Xarkham Stree~ Lit~le Rock, Arka~sas 722Cl ~r. Richard~- Roachell Koac~e:: anc Street F:rst Federa: Pla~a 401 ~- Caci:~:. s~~ce 524 Litc~e KoCk, ~r~a~sas 722~1 ~r . ::~ot~y Ga~ger Ass:sta~t At:or~ey Ge~eral 323 Cen'::.s= S;ree'::., Suite 20 ~it~le Rock, A=kaneas 72201 Mr. Stephe~ ~. ~ones 3400 :'CBY Tcwe1: 425 West Capitol A~enue Litt!e Rock, Ar~ansas 7220: I) M. Sa:r.ue:. :II -- ----- IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION ~!lErJJ ~S DISTRICT COURT EAST::i,,'i Cc STRICT fa.RKANSAS LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, * JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK Plaintiff, * By.~.!~ vs. * No. LR-C-82-866  oep CLERK * PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL * DISTRICT NO. 1, et al., * RECEIVED Defendants, * * MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, et al., * JUL 1 5 1997 Intervenors, * * OFFICE OF KATHERINE KNIGHT, et al., * DESEGREGATION MONITOR/NG Intervenors. * QB.DER Before the Court is a motion filed by the Pulaski County Special School District (\"PCSSD\") requesting an extension of time in which to respond to the Joshua Intervenors' motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the PCSSD strike issue. Also before the Court is a motion filed by the PCSSD requesting an extension of time in which to file a reply to the Little Rock School District's (\"LRSD\") response to the PCSSD's motion seeking an award of attorneys' fees in regard to the \"pooling\" issue. In both motions, the PCSSD requests an extension of time to and including July 14, 1997. The PCSSD has indicated in its motion that the LRSD has no objection and has orally indicated to this Court that the Joshua Intervenors have no objection to this request. For good cause shown, this Court grants the PCSSD's motions for extension of time. The PCSSD has to and including July 14, 1997, in which to file its response to the Joshua Intervenors' motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the strike issue and its reply to the LRSD's response to the - PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees in regard to the pooling issue. Jit 0 2 5. ,r/'- IT IS SO ORDERED THIS // day of July 1997. 'll/ ) , r . ,1 :;:/7 ~/4 11,,-/.._,J... UNITED STATES DISTRI~ JUDGE Tttl IXDME.0- OOEREO ON DOCKET IHET ~ C~E ~TH RULE 58 ANc;}J8~RCf \u003cMl 1 ~1  1 av ~ 2 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECEIVED JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue, states: 1. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is without merit and their petition should be denied. 2. The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). 3. The Joshua Intervenors' reliance on Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996) is misplaced. 4. The Joshua Intervenors do not meet the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\" as set forth in Jenkins and Schafer. Their limited participation in the post-judgment - litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was not in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. 5. The Joshua Intervenors' own petition for fees states that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 12 (emphasis added). 6. This is the position taken by counsel for the Joshua Intervenors at the strike hearing on August 28, 1996. 7. As argued by the Joshua Intervenors, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. The Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, F.3d (8th Cir. 1997). 8. The Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Schafer. 9. The Joshua Intervenors cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the Joshua Intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys fees in its entirety. 2 Respectfully submitted: WRJGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 - ' ----- ' (; ~ By ----:--;i ~, . -:- - \\.__ . '---'-- M. Samuel Jone , III (76060) Claire Shows ancock ~013) Attorn~s. for the Pulaski County Special Scnoof District No. 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July_, 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 \u0026 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 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 M. Samlle1-Jo,, III . i ) 3 -----/ 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. RECE]VED \\JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE Of DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOTION FOR AN AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in response to the motion of the Joshua Intervenors for Attorneys' Fees in connection with the PCSSD strike issue. The basis asserted by the Joshua Intervenors for a fee award is, simply put, without merit and their petition should be denied. ARGUMENT The Joshua Intervenors seek an award of fees relating to an issue which was litigated by and between the PCSSD and the Knight Intervenors (which included PACT, the striking teacher body). Their brief addresses only two paragraphs to the \"Predicate for Award,\" and they cite only two cases. Joshua Br. at 1-2. Their reliance on those cases, however, is misplaced. Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), stands for the proposition that -- with regard to fee awards -- a prevailing plaintiff does not necessarily lose its \"prevailing\" status even if it does not prevail on an issue so long as it was defending its remedy. The plaintiff's claims in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with the underlying claims. Id. at 11. The Joshua Intervenors pay mere lip service to the requirements of \"defending\" their \"remedy\", and do not explain how their participation (limited as it was) in the post-judgment litigation between the PCSSD and PACT was in furtherance of enforcing the underlying desegregation obligations of the PCSSD. Indeed, their position is belied by their own petition for fees, in which they state that they filed a memorandum opposing the equitable relief sought by the PCSSD, arguing that \"[m]oreover, resolution of the contract dispute between the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement.\" Joshua Motion for Fees, 1 2 (emphasis added). Counsel for the Joshua Intervenors made this plain at the strike hearing, as well. The - Court, referring to a pleading filed by the Joshua Intervenors the morning of the hearing stated, and Mr. Walker responded: THE COURT: And Mr. Walker -- I won't enunciate all that he [Mr. Walker] has responded to, in fact, I have not read it all carefully, but in essence, you are asking the Court not to intervene in this dispute because the teachers union and negotiations between employer and employee has never been really a part of the Settlement Agreement. And that the black children do not stand to be harmed any more than any other children. And yet, you do concede that this Court has jurisdiction -- MR. WALKER: No, we don't, Your Honor. * * * THE COURT: All right. MR. WALKER: There was no issue in the original case that sought to raise liability of the teacher's union with respect to the constitutional rights of black children, there is none. 2 - Transcript of Hearing, August 28, 1996, at pp. 16-17 (emphasis added). Mr. Walker later stated to the Court: MR. WALKER: Your Honor, understand our position. This has been presented to the Court as a conflict between two parties, the Teacher's Union and the School District. It does not involve at this particular point the Joshua Intervenors other than to the extent that Joshua would talce a position with respect to the Settlement Agreement. . . . Id. at 27. As argued by Joshua, the Settlement Agreement was not implicated in the teachers' strike. Indeed, as this Court is aware, the Eighth Circuit, on appeal, held that the teachers' strike was not covered by the Settlement Agreement or Desegregation Plan. LRSD v. PCSSD, _ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997). Thus, the Joshua Intervenors' request for fees does not fall within the parameters for an award under either Jenkins or Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008 (8th Cir. 1996).1 The Joshua Intervenors did not have a dog in this fight. They cannot simply label themselves the prevailing party whenever other parties litigate a matter, and request and expect an award of fees. Given their present posture, it is surprising that they did not request attorneys' fees in the pooling dispute between the LRSD and the PCSSD, or the teacher retirement dispute between the LRSD/PCSSD and the ADE. The Joshua Intervenors could, and should have requested this Court's permission to absent themselves from proceedings on the strike issue, just as the PCSSD has done in the 1 In Schafer, the Eighth Circuit reversed that portion of the district court's judgment awarding attorneys' fees because the plaintiffs' were not defending their remedy, and failed to persuade the panel that the State continued to violate federal law. As the court stated: \"We must avoid creating a framework in which 'the decree institutionalizes the attorney, as well as the system.\"' 83 F.3d at 1012 (quoting Brewster v. Dukakis, 786 F.2d 16, 18 (1st Cir. 1986). 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 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 \u0026 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 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 5 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 I ' / ' 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KA THERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES .JUL 1 4 1997 OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\"), for its response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs, states: 1. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. 2. In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. 3. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it made a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered and order granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of the Eighth - Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" 4. The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. 5. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCSSD's petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. 6. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically noted that LRSD did not request and was not - granted an extension, and that any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated  June 18, 1997. 7. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. That fee petition is untimely. 8. The LRSD stated grounds for not seeking an extension, to wit, that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible\" and that the \"LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" (LRSD Br. at 3) do not excuse the LRSD's failure to obtain an extension of time . 2 9. The LRSD's and PCSSD's cooperation follows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue and not when, as here, the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. 10. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to file a fee petition on the pooling issues, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. 11. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 12. The case of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997), does not support the LRSD's claim for attorneys' fees. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, held that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they - were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. 13 . The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction that the issues in the post-judgment litigation must be inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit. 14. This distinction has been applied to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 15. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 3 16. Further, the proceedings relating to the pooling issues concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claims. WHEREFORE, the PCSSD respectfully requests that this Court deny the LRSD's petition for attorneys' fees and costs, in its entirety. Respectfully submitted: WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol A venue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 ___ ., ('(~ By( ___.TJ:.---\"- y~~-~~ M: Samuel JfnesUI)76060) Claire Shows Hancock (95013) , _}..~or the Pulaski County Special School District CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE On July~. 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 \u0026 Clark 2000 First Commercial Building Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Richard W. Roach ell 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 4 Ms. Ann Brown ODM Heritage West Bldg., Ste. 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 Mr. Stephen W. Jones 3400 TCBY Tower 425 West Capitol Avenue Little Rock, Arkansas 72201 / Ms SamuelJ nes, III. _~ I / , _____ / 5 IN THE UNITED ST A TES 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. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL. KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL. PCSSD'S BRIEF IN RESPONSE TO THE LRSD'S PETITION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES J\\JI_ l ,1 1997 omcE OF OESEGREGA110N MON\\10RING PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS The Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (\"PCSSD\") submits this brief in - response to the motion of the Little Rock School District (\"LRSD\") for attorneys' fees and costs. The LRSD's motion should be denied because it is untimely and fees are not warranted on the merits. ARGUMENT I. THE LRSD's FEE PETITION IS UNTIMELY In August 1996, the PCSSD made a motion to this Court for an enlargement of time in which to present its petition for attorneys' fees and costs, specifically requesting that the Court defer the requirement of a petition and defer ruling until thirty days after entry of a final order on the pooling issue. The LRSD did not object to the PCSSD's motion, nor did it make a motion to extend its own time. On August 16, 1996, the Court entered an order - granting the PCSSD's motion: \"The PCSSD is hereby given 30 days from the issuance of - the Eighth Circuit's mandate on the pooling issue in which to file its petition for attorney's fees and costs.\" The Eighth Circuit affirmed the District Court's ruling on the pooling issues in favor of the PCSSD, and its mandate issued on May 30, 1997. The PCSSD timely filed its petition for attorneys' fees, in accordance with the extension granted by this Court, on June 5, 1997. Following the filing by PCSSD, the LRSD made a motion to extend its time to respond to the PCS SD' s petition for fees until June 30, 1997, indicating that it would be filing its own fee petition on that date, to wit, thirty days after the Eighth Circuit mandate had issued. The PCSSD objected to the requested extension and to the LRSD's claim that it had until June 30th to file its own petition for fees and costs. In its order granting the LRSD's request for an extension of time until June 30, 1997 to respond, this Court specifically ruled: As PCSSD points out, this Court granted only PCSSD an extension of time to and including thirty (30) days after the Eighth Circuit issued the mandate regarding the pooling issues in which to file a motion for attorneys' fees and costs. LRSD did not request and was not granted a similar extension. Therefore, any motion filed on or before June 30, 1997, by LRSD for attorneys' fees and costs in regard to the pooling issues would be untimely. Order, dated June 18, 1997. Notwithstanding the express language in the Court's order that any such filing by the LRSD for fees in connection with the pooling issues would be untimely, the LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 2 The LRSD states that it is simply seeking the same time within which to file its fee petition as was previously granted the PCSSD, stating that it did not seek an extension for two reasons. Neither reason is persuasive. First, the LRSD states that it has \"previously worked cooperatively [with the PCSSD] to share legal work and save fees for both school districts whenever possible. The LRSD did not expect that either district would file a fee petition with respect to the pooling issue.\" LRSD Br. at 3. While it is true that the LRSD and PCSSD attempt -- as they should -- to work cooperatively, that cooperation flows when the PCSSD and the LRSD are aligned on a legal issue. That was certainly not the circumstance in this instance, where the PCSSD was moving against the LRSD to enforce its rights under the pooling agreement. Further, it is somewhat disingenuous of the LRSD to claim that it did not expect the PCSSD to file a fee - petition with respect to the pooling issue. The LRSD was on notice that PCSSD intended to do so, if it prevailed on appeal, at least as early as August 1996 when the PCSSD filed its motion for an enlargement of time. The LRSD did not request a similar extension, and thereby failed to preserve its rights. 1 Second, the LRSD states that its \"right to recover fees in this case was firmly established only last month by an Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals decision in the Kansas City desegregation case. Jenkins v. State of Missouri,_ F.3d _ (8th Cir. 1997)(slip op., May 22, 1997)\" As discussed fully in Point II, infra, the LRSD's reliance on the Jenkins 1 Even if the LRSD had requested and been granted an extension of time to file a fee petition up to and including thirty days after the Eighth Circuit issued its mandate, the fee petition would have been due June 29, 1997, i.e., thirty days from May 30, 1997. The LRSD filed its petition on June 30, 1997. 3 - case is wholly misplaced. It provides no support to the LRSD, either as to the timeliness (or lack thereof) of its fee petition, or on the merits. II. THE LRSD IS NOT ENTITLED TO FEES ON THE MERITS The LRSD misconstrues the holding of Jenkins v. Missouri, 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895 (8th Cir. 1997) and misapplies it to the facts of this case. In Jenkins, the prevailing class plaintiffs were denied fees by the district court for their participation in the proceedings in the United States Supreme Court that culminated in Jenkins III (515 U.S. 70 (1995). The Eighth Circuit reversed, finding that the class plaintiffs had not lost their status as \"prevailing party\" where they were required to defend their original remedy, and did so reasonably. The Jenkins class plaintiffs had obtained orders at the district court level, and affirmed by the - Eighth Circuit, which related directly to the issues they won initially -- issues from which their prevailing party status flowed. The Court of Appeals held that even though they did not successfully defend their remedy at the Supreme Court level, they did not lose their prevailing party status. The Eighth Circuit, in Jenkins, also specifically endorsed the distinction set forth in Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983) and applied by the Fourth Circuit in multiple cases: Under Hensley, the first inquiry is whether the issues in the post-judgment litigation are inextricably intertwined with those on which the plaintiff prevails in the underlying suit or whether they are distinct. The Fourth Circuit has applied this distinction to deny fees in civil rights cases where the parties entered a consent decree and further litigation concerned contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. 4 - 1997 U.S. App. LEXIS 11895, *10 (citing Willie M. v. Hunt, 732 F.2d 383, 386 (4th Cir. 1994). The Eighth Circuit applied this distinction in Association for Retarded Citizens v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1011 (8th Cir.), cert. denied 117 S.Ct. 482 (1996)(plaintiffs' post judgment activities so much greater than necessary for monitoring the decree, they amounted to the assertion of distinct, new claims for relief which could not be compensated on the strength of the plaintiffs' prevailing party status in the underlying suit). The facts and circumstances of this case do not fit within the Eighth Circuit's \"prevailing party\" ruling in Jenkins for two reasons. The LRSD's status as prevailing party as to certain remedies has been extinguished, and the pooling fee litigation was initiated by the PCSSD to enforce contractual issues under the consent decree, not the underlying civil rights claim. While the LRSD was the prevailing plaintiff in its suit against the PCSSD initiated in 1982, any past \"liability\" of the PCSSD was extinguished by the remedy afforded the LRSD in 1985, the Settlement Agreements (and releases), and the Desegregation Plan approved by this Court and by the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. As the Eighth Circuit noted: The remedy prescribed was intended to be a full and sufficient correction of wrongs done in the past. If PCSSD or some other governmental entity commits another constitutional violation in the future which has an interdistrict segregative effect, the courts will of course be open and able to order an appropriate remedy on pr "},{"id":"gsl_borm_borm1997-1998","title":"Minutes, Board of Regents, 1997-1998, July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998","collection_id":"gsl_borm","collection_title":"Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798"],"dcterms_creator":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_date":["1997-07-01/1998-06-30"],"dcterms_description":["Meeting minutes and agendas of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Digitization of this collection is a project of the Georgia Public Library Service, a unit of the Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, in association with the University System. The project is supported with federal LSTA funds administered by the Institute of Museum and Library Services."],"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Atlanta, Ga. : Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005"],"dcterms_subject":["Education, Higher--United States--Administration","Universities and colleges","Schools","University System of Georgia. Board of Regents","Minutes (Records)","Agendas (Series)"],"dcterms_title":["Minutes, Board of Regents, 1997-1998, July 1, 1997-June 30, 1998"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/do:gsl_borm_borm1997-1998"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.usg.edu/record/gsl_borm_borm1997-1998"],"dcterms_temporal":["1997-07-01/1998-06-30"],"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia. Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia Meeting Minutes, 1932-2005. Office of Legal Affairs, Board of Regents of the University System of Georgia, Atlanta, Georgia."],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["minute books"],"dcterms_extent":["930 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1497","title":"Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock School District","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-07"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System."],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Standards","Educational law and legislation","Educational innovations","School attendance","School management and organization","School improvement programs","Student activities","Student assistance programs","School discipline","Student suspension","Parents","Education, Elementary"],"dcterms_title":["Student handbooks, elementary school, Little Rock School District"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1497"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["handbooks"],"dcterms_extent":["300 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1667","title":"Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, memorandum brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) response to Pulaski County Special School District's (PCSSD's) motion for attorneys' fees, prejudgment interest, and postjudgment interest as respects the pooling issue"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1667"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["80 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL JUN 3 n 1991 V I ' OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORING MEMORANDUM BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS LRSD'S RESPONSE TO PCSSD'S MOTION FOR ATTORNEYS' FEES, PREJUDGMENT INTEREST, AND POSTJUDGMENT INTEREST AS RESPECTS THE POOLING ISSUE I. Attorneys' Fees. Federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. A prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it was, LRSD's pooling claim was not frivolous. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for attorneys' fees should be denied. A. 42 u.s.c.  1988. Prevailing defendants in civil rights litigation may recover attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988. However, the Supreme Court has declared that a prevailing defendant is entitled to attorneys' fees only in very narrow circumstances. Eichman v. Linden \u0026 Sons, Inc., 752 F.2d 1246, 1248 (7th Cir. 1985), citing Christianburg Garment Co. v. Equal Employment Opportunity Comm'n, 434 U.S. 412 (: l~Vcndky\\lnd\\pcu-foc.bri (1978). \"A court may award prevailing defendants attorney's fees - under section 1988 only if the plaintiff's claim was 'frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless, or . . the plaintiff continued to litigate after it clearly became so.'\" Flowers v. Jefferson Hospital Ass'n, 49 F.3d 391, 392 (8th Cir. 1995), quoting Christianburg, 434 U.S. at 422. Moreover, the prevailing defendant must affirmatively prove that the plaintiff's claim was \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless.\" Marquart v. Lodge 837, 26 F.3d 842, 851 (8th Cir. 1994) (\"A survey of the Eighth Circuit's most recent decisions awarding attorneys' fees to 'prevailing defendants' in civil rights cases reveals that this Circuit has been unwilling to award attorneys' fees where the defendant is unable to prove that the plaintiff's case is meritless. 11 ) (emphasis in original). PCSSD's claim for attorneys' fees under 42 U.S.C.  1988 fails for two reasons. First, while PCSSD may have prevailed on the pooling issue, LRSD remains the \"prevailing party\" in the case as a whole. In Jenkins v. Missouri, F.3d , 1997 WL 268815, *l (8th Cir. 1997), the Eighth Circuit stated that \"status as a prevailing party is determined on the outcome of the case as a whole, rather than by piecemeal assessment of how a party fares on each motion along the way.\" The court noted that \"(t)his is true of matters decided after judgment on the merits, as well as those decided before.\" Id. Thus, PCSSD is not a \"prevailing defendant\" under 42 u.s.c.  1988. PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees also fails because LRSD's pooling claim was not \"frivolous, unreasonable, or groundless\". (:\\hofrc\\/crdlcy\\1n,d\\pcw-foc .bri 2 LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement, although rejected by the this Court, was the only interpretation consistent with the language of the agreement and with the only contemporaneous explanation of the agreement. See Docket No. 2610. The Eighth Circuit described LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement as \"completely logical.\" Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 436, 437 {1995). LRSD's interpretation of the pooling agreement was not \"frivolous\", and as a result, PCSSD cannot recover attorneys' fees even if it was a prevailing defendant. PCSSD also argues that it may be awarded attorneys' fees under Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308. State law governs the award of attorneys' fees only in diversity cases where the underlying claim was governed by state law. In federal question cases, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded unless authorized by federal law. Alyeska Pipeline Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240, 259 n.31 {1975). The present case is a federal question case. This Court's original jurisdiction was based on 28 U.S.C.  1331{a), 1343(3) and (4) 2201 and 2202 and 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1983, 1988 and 2000d. Jurisdiction to enforce the settlement agreement is based on Fed. R. Civ. P. 60(b) (6). See Docket Nos. 1947 and 2337. Because this Court's jurisdiction was and is based on federal law, attorneys' fees cannot be awarded under Ark. Code Ann.  16- 22-308. In Home Savings Bank v. Gillam, 952 F.2d 1152 {9th Cir. 1991), the Ninth circuit reversed an award of attorneys' fees based f:\\hancVcrdky\\Jr,d\\p:::u--fcc.bti 3 on state law where the district court's jurisdiction was based on a federal question. The court stated: Because established federal common law disfavors the award of attorney's fees in federal question cases absent an express congressional directive, we hold that the district court erred in applying Alaska's law on attorney's fees. Incorporation of state law occurs in federal question cases only in the absence of federal coJillDon law or statutory law. * * * Since the Supreme Court's decision in Alyeska Pipeline Serv. Co. v. Wilderness Soc'y, 421 U.S. 240, 95 s.ct. 1612, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975), the rule in federal courts had been that, absent an express statutory coJillDand, attorney's fees will not be awarded in civil cases. Id., at 1162 (emphasis supplied). PCSSD's reliance on TCBY Systems, Inc. v. RSP Co., 33 F.3d 925 (8th Cir. 1994), is misplaced. Jurisdiction in that case was based on diversity. As the Supreme Court noted in Alyeska, \"A very - different situation is presented when a federal court sits in a diversity case.\" Alyeska, 421 U.S. at 259 n.31. Therefore, federal law governs PCSSD's request for attorneys' fees. Under 42 U.S.C.  1988, a prevailing defendant can recover attorneys' fees only where the plaintiff's claim was frivolous. However, PCSSD is not a prevailing defendant, and even if it were, LRSD's claim was not frivolous. attorneys' fees should be denied. B. Timeliness. Accordingly, PCSSD's motion for Included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed before this Court's Order dated March 16, 1994. PCSSD failed to request attorneys' fees within 14 days of that Order. Consequently, they r:\\horne\\fcrdlcy\\l r.d\\p::114-(oc .bti 4 have waived any right to fees for work performed before the March - 16, 1994. See Local Rule B-3. D. Work on Appeal. Also included in PCSSD's fee request is work performed on the two Eighth Circuit appeals of the pooling issue. In each case, PCSSD failed to timely file a request with the Eighth Circuit to recover attorneys' fees for its work on appeal. A substantial question exists as to whether this Court has authority to award attorneys' fees for work on appeal absent the issue being remanded by the Eighth Circuit. See Eighth Circuit Rule 4 7C. This is currently one of the issues pending before the Eighth Circuit in the State's appeal of this Court's award of attorney's fees to LRSD and PCSSD. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 19, Appeal No. 97- 1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. LRSD prays that this Court stay any award of fees for work on appeal pending the Eighth Circuit's resolution of this issue. Moreover, PCSSD did not prevail on the first appeal of this issue. LRSD appealed this Court's March 16, 1994 order, and the Eighth Circuit vacated the order and directed this Court to \"take evidence regarding the purposes of the clauses at issue.\" See Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District, 60 F.3d 435, 436 (8th Cir. 1995). Even if this Court finds that PCSSD is entitled to a reasonable fee, PCSSD should not be compensated for work on this first appeal in which PCSSD lost. f:\\homeVcndlcy\\Jnd'9c-fec .bri 5 E. Reasonable Hourly Rate. In an Order filed December 12, 1996, this Court awarded attorneys' fees to PCSSD for the work of M. Samuel Jones and Claire Hancock at an hourly rate of $160.00 and $145.00, respectively. See Docket No. 2883. The State has appealed contending that these hourly rates are excessive. See Appellant's Opening Brief, p. 23, Appeal No. 97-1350, attached hereto as Exhibit A. Even so, PCSSD now asks for an even higher hourly rate for the work of attorneys Jones and Hancock. LRSD believes that the hourly rates awarded by this Court in its December 12, 1996 Order are reasonable and, unless reduced by the Eighth Circuit, should be applied in the present case should a fee be awarded. F. Lack of Detail. In Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424 (1983), the Supreme Court stated that the \"fee applicant bears the burden of establishing entitlement to an award and documenting the appropriate hours expended and hourly rates.\" The Eighth Circuit has held that \" [ i] nadequate documentation may warrant a reduced fee.\" H.J. Inc. v. Flygt Corp., 925 F.2d 257,260 (8th Cir. 1991). \"Incomplete or imprecise billing records preclude any meaningful review by the district court of the fee application for 'excessive, redundant, or otherwise unnecessary' hours . II The Supreme Court in Hensley noted that \"at should identify the general subject matter expenditures.\" Hensley, 461 U.S. at 437 n.12. least counsel of his time In H.J. Inc., supra, the Eighth Circuit affirmed the district court's 20% fee (;\\hon-c\\fcndlcy\\lnd\\p::sfc,c.bti 6 reduction based on inadequate documentation where the fee applicant's time records included numerous vague entries such as \"legal research\", \"trial prep\" and \"met w/ client.\" Similarly, the vast majority of PCSSD's time entries contain no description of the subject matter on which time was spent. This failure justifies a significant reduction in any fee awarded to PCSSD. II. Prejudgment Interest. As with its argument for attorneys' fees, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law and federal diversity cases to support its request for prejudgment interest. Federal law governs whether prejudgment interest may be awarded in federal question cases. See Mansker v. TMG Life Ins. Co., 54 F.3d 1322, 1330 (8th Cir. 1995) (\"The question of whether interest is to be allowed, and also the rate of computation, is a question of federal law where the cause of action arises from a federal statute.\"). Under federal law as interpreted by the Eighth Circuit, PCS SD' s motion for prejudgment interest is untimely and should be denied. See Reyher v. Champion International Corp., 975 F.2d 483, 489 (8th Cir. 1992). In Reyher, supra, the Eighth circuit held that the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 59 apply to postjudgment motions for prejudgment interest. Id. Rule 59 requires that postjudgment motion be filed within 10 days of judgment. Fed. R. Civ. P. 59(e). When a motion is untimely under Rule 59 ( e) , \"the district court loses jurisdiction over that motion and any ruling on it becomes a nullity.\" Id. f:\\horne \\fcn:tlcy\\lr'ld\\p:;:N-(ce.bri 7 Judgment was entered in favor of PCSSD on July 30, 1996. Docket No. 2724. PCSSD did not file its request for prejudgment interest until on or about June 5, 1997. Thus, PCSSD's motion for prejudgment interest is untimely under Rule 59 and should be denied. 1 III. Postjudgment Interest. As with the above issues, PCSSD incorrectly relies on Arkansas law to support it claim for postjudgment interest. Post judgment interest on judgments of federal district courts is governed by 28 u.s.c.  1961. LRSD admits that it owes PCS SD post judgment interest on the July 30, 1996 judgment as provided in that statute. LRSD also admits that it has not yet satisfied the July 30, 1996 judgment. LRSD understood that it had an agreement with PCSSD to withhold payment of the judgment until after conclusion of LRSD's appeal. It was understood that postjudgment interest would accrue during this time. PCSSD and LRSD are currently attempting to determine the precise amount owed and are negotiating payment terms. IV. Prayer. LRSD prays that PCSSD's Motion for Attorneys' Fees and Prejudgment Interest be denied; that LRSD be awarded its costs and 1PCSSD may argue that Fed. R. Civ. P. 60 governs its request for prejudgment interest rather than Rule 59. However, the Eighth Circuit noted in Reyher that Rule 60 \"cannot be used to impose additional affirmative relief.\" Reyher, 975 F.2d at 489 n.l. Therefore, Rule 60 cannot be used after the fact to award PCSSD prejudgment interest.  (;\\ha-nc\\fcrdlcy\\l r-.d\\pcM-(oc .bri 8 attorneys' fees expended herein; and that LRSD be awarded all other just and proper relief to which it may be entitled. f: \\home \\fcrd le y\\J nid\\pc:u- fee. bri Respectfully Submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK First Commercial Bldg., Suite 2000 400 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201-3493 (501) 376-2011 BY: 9 O9ristopher Heller (#BlP?3) ~ohn C. Fendley, Jr. (M182) CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing has been served on the following people by depositing a copy of same in the United States mail on this X,\"!' day of r , 1997. Mr. John W. Walker JOHN W. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Sam Jones Wright, Lindsey \u0026 Jennings 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 425 W. Capitol, Suite 3400 Little Rock, AR 72201-3472 Mr. Richard Roachell Mr. Travis Creed Roachell Law Firm First Federal Plaza 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., suite 510 201 East Markham Street Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 !hJistopher Heller' '\\.o/1n C. Fendley, Jr. f:\\horn::Vcrdlc.y\\Jnd\\pc:u-fcc.bri 10 IN THE UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE EIGHTH CIRCUIT ARKANSAS DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION V. LITTLE ROCK $CHOOL DISTRICT and PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1 No. 97-1350EALR APPELLANT APPELL:SES Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division Hon. Susan Webber Wright APPELLANT'S OPENING BRIEF : EXHIBIT SUMMARY A. WAIVER OF ORAL ARGUMENT This appeal arises from the Pulaski County, Arkansas desegregation litigation. In response to motions brought by ihe three school districts in Pulaski County, by order entered January 13, 1995, the District Court found that the Arkansas Department of Education (\"ADE\") violated the 1989 Settlement Agreement between the State of Arkansas and the three districts. The District Court's order was affirmed in part and reversed in part by this Court. ~ Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1. et al., 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996), reh'a denied {June 27, 1996). After this Court's mandate issued, the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and the Little Rock School District (LRSD) filed motions in the District Court seeking an award of attorneys' fees and costs. By orders entered December 10, 1996 and December 12, 1996, the District Court awarded PCSSD and LRSD $36,464.00 and $43,083.32 respectively in attorneys' fees and costs. ADE appeals from these two orders. ADE believes that this appeal can be resolved on the briefs alone and therefore does not request oral argument. i TABLE OF CONTENTS SUMM.l\u003e.RY .AJ.\\ffi WAIVER OF O~ZU, ARGUMENT TABLE OF CONTENTS TABLE OF AUTHORITIES PRELIMINARY STATEMENT STATEMENT OF ISSUES STATEMENT OF THE CASE SUMM.l\u003e.RY OF ARGUMENT ......................... ......................... ARGUMENT A. B. ................................... Standard of Review The District Court Erred in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Under 42 U.S.C. 1988 .............. . C. The District Court Erred in Awarding PCSSD and LRSD Costs and Attorneys' Fees in Connection With Their Defense of ADE's Appeal and Their Prosecution of Their CrossAppeal of the District Court's i ii iii l 2 3 14 15 15 15 January 15, 1995 Order . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 18 D. The District Court Abused its Discretion in Awarding Fees to LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Discounted Rates Actually Charged the Districts During 1994 Through 1996 . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 20 CONCLUSION ................................... CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE ADDENDUM ................................... ii 24 25 26 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES CASES Aleveska Pipeline co. v. Wilderness Societv, 44 L.Ed.2d 141 (1975) Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982) Corder v. Brown, 25 F. 3d 833 (9ti:c Cir. 1994) DeGidio v. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990) Delta Special School District No. s v. State Board of Education, 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984) Fogertv v. Fantasv. Inc., 127 L.Ed.2d 455 (1994) Green v. McKaskle, 788 F.2d 1116 (5th Cir. 1986) International Travel Arranaers. 1 nc. v. Western Airlines. Inc., 623 F.2d 1255 (8th Cir. 1980) Jenkins v. state of Missouri, 967 F.2d 1248 (8th Cir. 1992) Klein v. Zavaras, 80 F.3d 432 (10th Cir. 1996) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. , , 921 F.2d 1371 (8th Cir. 1990) Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F. 3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996) Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989) iii PAGE(Sl 15 20 I 23 15, 22 16 17 15 17 22 17 17 3 5, 19 22, 23 TABLE o~ AUTHORITIES (Cont.) CASES Patrick v. Staples, 780 F.Supp. 1528 (N.D. Indiana 1991) Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Board, 925 F. 2d 1069 ( 8th Cir. 1991) Wvcoff v. Hedcrepeth, 34 F. 3d 614 ( 8th Cir:. 1994) STATUTES Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308 42 u.s.c. 1983 42 u.s.c. 1988 OTHER AUTHORITIES Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 39(a) Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C Local Rule B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts Of Arkansas iv PAGE{Sl 17 15, 23 16 PAGE(Sl 7 16 passim PAGE(Sl 19 19 5 PRELIMINARY STATEMENT The Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) appeals from orders entered on December 10 and December 12, 1996, by the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Arkansas, Western Division, the Hon. Susan Webber Wright, District Judge, in the action styled Little Rock School District v. Pulaski County Special School District No. 1. et .al., No. LR-C-82-866. In those orders the District Court ordered ADE to pay a total of $79,547.32 to the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) and Little Rock School District (LRSD) in attorneys' fees and costs. Apx. 56-61. The District Court's jurisdiction was originally invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  133l(a), 1343(3) and (4), 2201 and 2202, 42 U.S.C.  1981, 1~83, 1988 and 2000d, and the Fou~teenth Amendment to the United States Constitution. This Court's jurisdiction is invoked pursuant to 28 U.S.C.  1291 in that the District Court's December 10 and December 12, 1996 orders are collateral orders that are final with respect to all issues raised therein. ADE's notice of appeal was filed on January 8, 1997, and hence was timely filed under Fed. R. App. Proc. 4(a) (1). 1 STATEMENT OF ISSUES I. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD Pursuant to 42 U.S.C. 1988. --42 u.s.c.  1988; --DeGideo V. Puna, 920 F.2d 525 (8th Cir. 1990);  --Delta School Dist. v. State Bd. of Educ., 745 F.2d 532 (8th Cir. 1984); --Wycoff v. Hedgepeth, 34 F.2d 614 (8th Cir. 1994) II. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees and Costs to LRSD and PCSSD for Work Performed Defending ADE's Appeal and Prosecuting LRSD's and PCSSD's Cross-Appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 Order. --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Fed. R. App. Proc. 39(a); --Eighth Circuit Local Rule 47C. III. Whether the District Court Erred in Awarding Attorneys' Fees To LRSD and PCSSD Based Upon Their Attorneys' 1996 Regular Hourly Rates Instead of the Actual Discounted Rates Paid by the Districts for Work Performed by Their Attorneys During 1994, 1995 and 1996. --Missouri v. Jenkins, 105 L.Ed.2d 229 (1989); --Avalon Cinema Corp. v. Thompson, 689 F.2d 137 (8th Cir. 1982); --Winter v. Cerro Gordo Countv Conservation Bd., 925 F.2d 1069 (8th Cir. 1991) --International Travel Arranaers, Inc. v. Western Airlines. Tnc., 623 F. 2d 1255 ( 8th Cir. 1980) . 2 STATEMENT OF THE CASE This is an appeal arising from the Pulaski County, Arkansas school desegregation litigation. The parties to this appeal are appellant Arkansas Department of Education (ADE) and appellees Pulaski County Special School District No. 1 (PCSSD) and the L1ttle Rock School District (LRSD). In 1989 the State of Arkansas, the three school districts in Pulaski County, and two groups of intervenors agreed to settle the remedial aspects of the school desegregation litigation. The parties submitted to the District Court \"comprehensive settlement agreements covering both interdistrict and intradistrict desegregation measures -- agreements referred to by the parties as the 'setclement plans.' They also submitted a separate but related document, called the 'settlement agreement,' settling the financial liability of the State of Arkansas.n Little Rock School District v. Pulaski Countv Special School District No. 1, 921 F.2d 1371, 1376 (8th Cir. 1990). This Court reviewed and approved the settlement documents and directed the District Court to approve the settlement plans and the Settlement Agreement as written by the parties . .IQ.. at 1394. Pursuant to the terms of the Settlement Agreement, the District Court entered an order on January 18, 1991, dismissing the State of Arkansas as a party to the case. 3 A. LRSD's and PCSSD's Motions to Enforce the Settlement Agreement In July of 1994 LRSD filed a motion asking the District Court to enforce the terms of the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. LRSD contended that the State breached the Settlement Agreement by enacting a law that shifted the responsibility for the payment of workers' compensation claims brought by school district employees from the State to each school district in the state. PCSSD joined in this motion. Later, in August of 1994, LRSD and PCSSD filed a second motion asking the District Court to enforce the Settlement Agreement against the State and ADE. In this motion, LRSD and PCSSD contended (a) that ADE improperly treated M-M Transfer students in calculating the amount of \"loss funding\" due the Pulaski County school districts; (bl that ADE improperly excluded certain funds, known as Education Excellence Trust Funds, in a multiplier that determined the amount of \"loss funding\" due the three Pulaski County school districts; and (c) that the manner in which the State planned to implement a statewide public school computer network violated the Settlement Agreement . After a four-day hearing, the District Court, by order entered January 13, 1995, granted in part and denied in part 4 LRSD's and PCSSD's motions to enforce the Settlement Agreement. B. The Appeal and Cross Appeals of the District Court's Januarv 13, 1995 Order The State and ADE appealed the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. PCSSD and LRSD cross-appealed, contending . that the District Court did not grant them full and appropriate relief on their motions. On May 15, 1996, this Court affirmed in part and reversed in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order . .s.ae. Little Rock School District v. Pulaski countv Special School District No. 1, 83 F.3d 1013 (8th Cir. 1996). LRSD and PCSSD filed a motion for reconsideration, which was denied by this Court on June 27, 1996. No party sought from the Eighth Circuit an award of attorneys' fees or costs in connection with the appeal or cross-appeal, and no order awarding costs or fees to any party was entered by the Eighth Circuit. C. PCSSD and LRSD Seek Extensions of Time Within Which to File Motions for Attorneys' Fees and Costs Under Local Rule Local B-3 of the United States District Court for the Eastern and Western Districts of Arkansas, any motion by PCSSD or LRSD for attorneys' fees incurred in connection with the District Court's January 13, 1995 order was due within fourteen days of the entry of the order, ~, on or before January 27, 1995. On January 26, 5 1995 PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion asking for an extension of time to file such a motion. The District Court extended the time to February 17, 1995. Apx. 66. On February 17, 1995, PCSSD and LRSD filed another motion'for an extension of time; asking that their motions for attorneys' fees not be due until after this court resolved ADE's appeal and the districts' cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. The District Court granted this motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until \"fourteen days after the appeal is decided or withdrawn\" to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 71. On May 29, 1995 (fourteen days after this Court announced its decision affirming in part and reversing in part the District Court's January 13, 1995 order), PCSSD and LRSD filed a motion in the District Court asking for a further extension of time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 72. The District Court granted that motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until June 28, 1996 to file their motions. Apx. 74. On June 28, 1996 PCSSD and LRSD again filed a motion asking for additional time to submit an attorney fee motion. Apx. 75. On July 1, 1996 the district Court granted the motion, giving PCSSD and LRSD until 30 days after this Court's mandate issued to file a motion for attorneys' fees . Apx. 78. 6 On August 19, 1996 LRSD filed another motion seeking more time within which to file a motion for attorneys' fees. Apx. 79. ADE filed an opposition to this motion on August 22, 1996. The District Court granted LRSD's motion on August 27, 1996. Apx. 82. D. PCSSD's Motion for Fees and costs On August 16, 1996, PCSSD finally filed its initial motion for attorneys' fees and costs. 1 In its motion the only basis PCSSD cited for its fee request was Ark. Code Ann.  16-22-308, which permits a court, in its discretion, to award attorneys' fees to the prevailing party in a breach of contract action. Apx. 83-84. The affidavit filed in support of the motion provided no information concerning the billing rates of or the activities performed by the various persons who allegedly worked on b~half of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. Apx. 85-88. On August 30, 1996, ADE filed its opposition to PCSSD's motion. ADE opposed the motion on the grounds, inter alia, that state law could not form the basis for a fee award to PCSSD, that PCSSD had failed to provide sufficient information to enable the Court to calculate a reasonable 1 While PCSSD's motion purported to seek \"costs\" in addition to attorneys' fees, the motion itself contained no information concerning such claimed \"costs.\" 7 fee award, and that the District Court lacked authority to compensate PCSSD for time its attorneys spent defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting PCSSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Three weeks later, on September 20, 1996, PCSSD filed a \"Supplemental Motion for Costs and Attorneys' Fees as to the State Defendants.\" In its \"Supplemental Motion\" PCSSD claimed that it was entitled to an award of fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988. The \"Supplemental Motion\" did not provide any further information concerning the hourly rates or activities performed by the attorneys, paralegals and document clerks that purportedly worked on behalf of PCSSD in connection with PCSSD's motion to enforce the Settlement Agreement. On October 4, 1996, ADE filed a response to PCSSD's \"Supplemental Motion.\" In its response ADE argued, among other things, that PCSSD was not entitled to fees under 42 U.S.C. 1988 or any other exception to the \"American rule,\" and that PCSSD's motion must still be denied for its failure to present evidence sufficient to enable the District Court to compute a \"reasonable\" fee award. On November 21, 1996, the District Court entered an order directing PCSSD to submit, within ten days, \"an affidavit documenting the time spent litigating these matters and the position or job title and hourly rates for 8 those who worked on the matters.\" The District Court further specified that \"the affidavit should set forth the activity performed and time spent by each individual.\" Apx. 133-34. On December 2, 1996, PCSSD filed a second affidavit signed by its attorney,  Sam Jones. Apx. 135. \"Attached to the affidavit were billing records that purported to show the time spent by attorneys, paralegals and document clerks on behalf of PCSSD. Apx. 139-170. In the affidavit, attorney Jones stated that his current normal billing rate was $175.00 per hour, but that during 1996 PCSSD was charged only $135.00 per hour for his time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that attorney Claire Hancock's current normal billing rate was $145.00 per hour, but that PCSSD was charged only $110.00 per hour for her time. Apx. 136. The affidavit further stated that the time of Angell Jones, the Manager of the firm's Litigation Support Department, was currently billed at $75.00.per hour during 1996 (Apx. 136); the billing records attached to the affidavit showed, however, that Ms. Jones' time was billed to PCSSD at a rate of $55.00 during 1994. Apx. 139, 147. The billing records attached to the affidavit also showed, among other things, that PCSSD was billed $110.00 per hour for attorney S. Jones' time during 1994 (Apx. 139, 147), and included time spent by attorneys, paralegals and 9 document clerks for work performed in connection with PCSSD's defense of ADE's appeal and PCSSD's prosecution of its cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 148-165. E. LRSD's Motion for Fees and costs LRSD filed its motion for fees and costs on August 30, 1996. LRSD's motion sought an award of $42,520 in attorneys' fees (262 hours spent by attorney Chris Heller at a rate of $160.00 per hour and 6 hours spent by attorney Clay Fendley at a rate of $100.00 per hour) and $563.32 in other unidentified \"costs.\" Apx. 89. Like PCSSD, LRSD sought attorneys' fees for its attorneys' work defending ADE's appeal and prosecuting LRSD's cross-appeal of the District Court's January 13, 1995 order. Apx. 95-132. The affidavit submitted in support of LRSD's motion stated that attorney Heller's current normal billing rate was $160.00 per hour and attorney Fendley's current normal billing rate was $100.00 per hour. Apx. 89. The billing records attached to LRSD's motion, however, showed that LRSD was only billed $105.00 per hour for attorney Heller's time from June, 1994 through at least November of 1995, and that LRSD was only billed $85.00 per hour for attorney Fendley's time through at least November of 1995. Apx. 103, 122, 125, 127-131. LRSD's motion also sought attorneys' fees for time spent by LRSD's lawyers on appeal. Apx. 125-132. 10 With respect to costs, the billing records attached to LRSD's motion showed that a total of approximately $4380 was billed to LRSD as \"expenses\" during the period from June of 1994 through November of 19952 (Apx. 103, 122, 127-129, 131- 32), but LRSD's motion did not identify which particular items of the total \"expenses\" LRSD wanted the District Court to direct ADE to pay. See generally Apx. 89-132. ADE filed its opposition to LRSD's motion on September 16, 1996. ADE objected to any award of fees for time spent on appeal, ADE pointed out that LRSD's request for $160.00 per hour and $100.00 per hour for time spent by attorneys Heller and Fendley was excessive and would result in a windfall to LRSD in light of the actual hourly rates paid by LRSD, and ADE pointed out that some of the allegedly \"compensable\" time spent by LRSD's attorneys was spent on matters unrelated to LRSD's litigation against the State and ADE. F. The District Court's December 10 and December 12. 1996 Orders On December 10, 1996, only eight days after PCSSD finally submitted an affidavit with billing records to 2 These total \"expenses\" included charges listed as \"binding expense,\" \"deposition expense,\" \"copy charges, 11 \"Lexis computerized research,\" \"messenger expense,\" \"postage,\" \"fax,\" \"express mail,\" \"filing fees,\" \"preparation expense, 11 \"meals,\" \"Westlaw computerized research,\" \"airline ticket,\" \"parking\" and \"taxi.\" 11 support its fee motion and before ADE had filed any response to it, the District Court entered an order granting LRSD's and PCSSD's motions for attorneys' fees and costs. The District Court found that LRSD and PCSSD were prevailing parties entitled to an award of-fees pursuant to 42 U.S.C.  1988. The District Court awarded PCSSD $28,854.50 in attorneys' fees. The award was based, among other things, 3 upon billing rates of $110.00 per "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1657","title":"Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)","Little Rock School District"],"dc_date":["1997-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Evaluation","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, notice of filing, Little Rock School District (LRSD) fee petition exhibits"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1657"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["121 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.   IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT v. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT NO. 1, ET AL MRS. LORENE JOSHUA, ET AL KATHERINE KNIGHT, ET AL NOTICE OF FILING RECEIVED !! ii 1 - 1997 I.- '  ~ DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS For its notice the Little Rock School District (LRSD) states: 1. On June 30, 1997, LRSD filed its fee petition with respect to the pooling issues. For the convenience of the court and - the parties, LRSD has prepared the attached summary of its fee petition. 2. During the course of preparing a summary of its fee petition, LRSD discovered additional time entries which should have been deleted from Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. LRSD has deleted those entries and submits with this notice a substitute Exhibit A to the Affidavit of Christopher Heller. 3. LRSD's brief in support of its fee petition refers to two exhibits: A request by PCSSD for an extension of time in the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals; and the Eighth Circuit's order providing additional time for all appellees. Those exhibits were not attached to the brief filed yesterday. They are attached to this notice of filing. Respectfully submitted, LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK 2000 First Commercial Bldg. 400 West Capitol Street Little Rock, AR 72201 (501) 376-2011 \") ,.   ..) ~--;. _.,.. . By: ~~--:;;;4,/,;;/~/~~~ Christopher Hell- , v -__ Bar No. 81083 /1/' CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I certify that a copy of the foregoing Notice of Filing has been served on the following by depositing copy of same in the United States mail on this 1st day of July, 1997. Mr. John Walker JOHN WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 Mr. Sam Jones WRIGHT, LINDSEY \u0026 JENNINGS 2200 Worthen Bank Bldg. 200 West Capitol Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Steve Jones JACK, LYON \u0026 JONES, P.A. 3400 TCBY Tower 425 Capitol Avenue Little Rock, AR 72201 Mr. Richard Roachell Roachell Law Firm 401 West Capitol, Suite 504 Little Rock, AR 72201 Ms. Ann Brown - HAND DELIVERED Desegregation Monitor Heritage West Bldg., Suite 510 201 East Markham street Little Rock, AR 72201 2 Mr. Timothy G. Gauger Office of the Attorney General 323 Center Street 200 Tower Building Little Rock, AR 72201 Chri.stophJ~ -- 3 SUMMARY OF EXHIBIT A - INVOICE NO. FEES EXPENSES 1 $ 880.00 $ -o- 2 1,195.00 226.09 3 4,785.00 923.00 4 995.00 5.00 5 575.00 28.50 6 40.00 18.00 7 800.00 8.00 8 8,325.00 4.80 9 7,955.00 555.88 10 12,345.00 19.31 11 10,850.00 3,808.70 12 1,410.00 5.00 13 2,095.00 621.80 14 6,760.00 136.20 15 1,080.00 -o- 16 1,900.00 1,750.00 17 9,960.00 95.00 18 6,830.00 52.10 $ 78,780.00 $ 8,257.88 EXHIBIT A TO AFFIDAVIT OF CHRISTOPHER HELLER ' FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 31'6-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 CD RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 2/25/94 CJH 4/19/94 CJH 5/05/94 CJH 5/11/94 CJH - 16/94 CJH 5/17/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSD REPLY RE: POOLING ISSUE LETTER FROM OISTR1CT CLERK - POOLING APPEAL LETTER FROH .6TH CIRCUIT CLERK RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED BRIEFING SCHEDULE PREPARATION OF APPEARANCE FORH PREPARATION OF DESIGNATION OF RECORD; REVIEWED FILE RESEARCHED STAY ISSUE TELEP.HONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN I3J - POOLING TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DRAFTED STIPULATION ANO SUPERSEDEAS BOND TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN (2+ \"i-ELEPHmt~ CtUIFERENGE! RITII TOtJR RE ARQEESS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH BARRY WARD PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .so .25 .25 .25 .25 1.25 .so .so .25 .75 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATON  71-()25363; l -110294 6/23/94 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER TOTAL SERVICES '5\"- st) 5.75 5.75 X 105.00 = $603.75 603.75 'i\u003eW TOTAL THIS INVOICE 5.7s -------------- TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOCCE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARCiES F'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND PAYA  I.IC UPON 111:CICIPT, $603.75 4/28/97 CJH 4/29/97 CJH 4/30/97 CJH 4/30/97 JCF 5/27/97 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DRAFTED HOTI ON LETTER TO MR GANS LETTER FROM HR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORgER RESEARCH AND DRAFTING - POOLING BRIEF RESEARCH AND PREPARATION OF BRIEF REVIEWED PETITION FOR REHEARING; CONFERENCE WITH CJ~ LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED POOLING ORDER TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 .25 6.50 7.50 1.00 .25 .25 43.25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO', 71-Q2S363. 2 -137146 6/18/97 .0001so-cJH $5368.00 -------- ---------- C~RISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN Cl.AYBURN FENDLEY COPY CftARGES 41.75 X 124.98 = 1.50 x 100.00 = LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !!EN !!ILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !!EN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE !!ILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 5211.92 \"-W 1so.oo lSO 8.60 43.50 $52.10 $5420.10 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROfESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTl.E ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 6/27/94 CJH 6/28/94 CJH 6/29/94 JCF 6/30/94 JCF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED AND CONFERENCE WITH FENDLEY REVIEWED PLEADINGS; REVIEWED NISWANGER MEMO 't-EI FPWONE CONFERENCE IHTII ATTOP~15 +AYL  R*S DI I ICE. I Eltrn  NL CEINFERENCE lllll PfR:a ~EBERS OFFICE RESEARCHED ENFORCE~ENT OF CONSENT DECREE CONFERENCE WITH CJH; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT RESEARCHED RULE OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .75 1.25 .75 -zs 2.so 1.00 2.00 2.so , 11,.QO TAX I0ENTIFICATO'-, 1 7Hl2SJ6J; l -11108S 7/26/94 .0001so-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER -------- --------- JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 2.00 X 105.00 = 9.oo x es.oo = EXPRESS HAIL \"7\u003e. \"K\" 'f.... \\ OJ WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET llEEN lllLl.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTED. THESE WILL ee l!IILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOIClt\u0026 ARI: DUI: AND P'AYA8\u0026.IC UP'ON RICCICIP'T. 210.00 '5lQ 765.00 \"l\u003e'?S-a. oo 218.09  . ~ ' Sl201.09 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING '00 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501 I 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 7/05/94 JCF REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPT RE: ADOPTION OF SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT 7/06/94 JCF RESEARCHED RULES OF CONTRACT CONSTRUCTION 7/07/94 CJH 7/10/94 CJH 7/l.0/94 JCF -7/11/94 CJH 7/11/94 JCF 7/12/94 CJH 7/12/94 JCF 7/13/94 CJH 7/13/94 JCF 7/14/94 CJH 7/24/94 CJH PREPARATION OF 8TH CIRCUIT ARGUMENT; REVIEWED RULES RE: PREPARATION BIREF RESEARCHED APPEAL BRIEF PREPARATION OF BRIEF IN POOLING APPEAL RESEARCHED ANTICIPATORY BREACfl RE: DISCHARGING CONTRACT DUTY; PRESUMPTION OF DEPENDENT DUTIES P.REPARATION OF STATEMENT OF THE CASE PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL PREPARATION OF sPP~cMENTAL AUTHORITY ~TER IH '1/0THIG R1C.MT'~ ,\\PPl;ilibi CO~IFERENCE WITII FENBLC PREPARATION OF 8TH CiR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOff OF APPENDIX; CONFERENCE WYTH C3H PREPARATION OF POOLING BRIEF AND APPENDIX PREPERATION OF 8TH C~R. BRIEF RE: POOLING PREPARATION OF POOLYIIG BRIEF; ARPENOIX; PIRED REVIEWED AND REVISED BTR CIR. BRIEF RE: POOLING; PREPARATIOM FOR FILING TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH 8Tff CIR. CLERK REVIEWED FILE RE: AP.PEAL TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.so 2.25 1.75 1.25 1.25 5.75 4.25 5.50 7.25 3.25 1.25 1.2s .25 .so TAX I0ENTIFICATO1' I 71-0253637 1 -111812 8/25/94 .0001so-CJH $3702.50 .. .. , .. .  ~ '. (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2 TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT tNCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.EC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POST0, THESE WILL DE BILI.EC ON A LATER INVOICE, Al.I. INVOICU AIIIIIC DUii: AND PAYAL.11: UPON 111111:CICIPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ~D PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING \u003c100 WEST CAPITOL LlffiE ROCK, ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 \\(.o .oo PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY ~-25 X 105.00 = 22.25 X 85.00 = BINDING EXPENSE EXPRESS MAIL COPY CHARGES POSTAGE WESTLAW COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE -:$(4,ic;- TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC:.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET !IEEN !IILLEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL !IE !IIU..EO ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICES AIUC DUK AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. TAX I0ENTIFICATOI. I 71 -(1253637 2 -111812 8/25/94  000150-CJH 63.00 68.90 479.40 17.40 294.30 $923.00 $4625.50 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ,4()() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 TAX IDENTIFICAT01' I 71-02S3637 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKf1AH (501) 376-2011 PAGE INV# DATE LI230 l -112794 9/28/94 .0001so-cJH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSD 8/17/94 CJH 8/18/94 CJH 8/2.2/94 CJH 8/24/94 CJH 8/29/94 JCF - 0/94 JCF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: BRIEF REVIEWED FILE; SEND DOCUMENTS TO WL\u0026J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY LETTER FROM MICHAEL GANS RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER LETTER FROM MR. JONES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED APPELLEES BRIEF PREPARATION OF DRAFT REPLY BRIEF TO 8TH CIR. 8TH REVIEWED ANO REVISED CIR. REPLY BRIEF TO TOTAL SERVICES HOURS .zs .25 .25 1.00 .25 .25 .25 .75 1.00 -------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 3.25 8.oo X 105.00 = .r,..75 X 85.00 = HES SENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL \"THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIIE DUE AND PAYALE UPON RECEIPT. ---------- s.oo ---------- ---------- S750.00 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS N-ID PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/05/94 CJH RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF REPLY BRIEF; BRIEF 9/06/94 JCF REVIEWED AND REVISED REPLY PREPARATION FOR FILING 9/07/94 CJH RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED FINAL REPLY BRIEF - POOLING 9/23/94 CJH REVIEWED APPEAL FILE TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE Ll230 HOURS 2.00 .75 3.50 TAX IDE'-'TIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -113619 10/26/94  000150-CJH S352.50 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY EXPRESS MAIL 2.75 X 105.00 = .75 X 85.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE P'ROPER CREDIT, P'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED. THESE WILL IIE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU Alli: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. ~8.7'.5 '-\\40 .f,3 _y:, 1'5\"\" 28.50 $2_!3.50 $381.00 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 10/10/94 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAH JONES TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 TAX IOENTIFICA TOI.  71-()25363~ l -116162 2/13/95 .000150-cJH $26.25 -------- ---------- CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER FAX .25 X 105.00 = TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL TRIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL IHVOICU AIIIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LII: UPON 11111:Cll:IPT, 26.25 C.,C) 18.00 $18.00 $44.25 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROfESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST NARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi. BUILDING .COO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 cJ PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TAX IDENTIFICATON  71 -025363 7 1 -121629 9/18/95 .0001so-cJH HOURS 8/02/95 8/10/95 8/22/95 8/29/95 CJH CJH CJH CJH RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION OF POOLING APPEAL REVIEWED MCCUTCHEON EXHIBITS; PREPARATION FOR HEARING RECEIVED t REVIEWED ORDER LETTER TO OR. WILLIAMS TELEPHONE COIJFERENCE lHTH MARG. GREHILLIAN TOTAL SERVICES 1.75 2.50 .25 .25 s.oo CHRISTOPHER JOHN MELLER COPY CHARGES s.oo x 1os.oo = MESSENGER EXPENSE TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAl THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"'RO,.ER CREDIT, \"'LEASE ENCl.OSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL !IE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE, AU. INVOICU AIIIC DUI: AND P'AYA  LIC UP'ON 1111:CICIP'T, S525.00 52s.oo ~co 3.00 s.oo s0.oo -------$--5--3--3--.--0--0 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVI0UAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COl,O,lERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LrTTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS i'Z101 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 9/01/95 CJH 9/05/95 CJH 9/05/95 JCF .06/95 CJH 9/06/95 JCF 9/07/95 CJH 9/07/95 JCF 9/08/95 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE PREPARATION OF HEARING PREPARATION OF INFORMATION REQUIRED BY COURT; REVIEWED SETTLEMENT DRAFTS ANO HEARING TRANSCRIPTS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; CALLS TO SAH JONES, ANN BROWN AND J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLER~; CALLS TO RUTH STEELE CONFERENCE WITH CJH~ REVIEWED SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT FILES RE: EQUALIZATION OF INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGETS RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSSD POOLING DOCUMENTS; SUBMISSION ON POOLING; PREPARATION FOR HEARING; CALLS WITH HILHOLLEN: SAM JO~ES: RUTH STEELE; CHIP JONES AND JUDGE WRIGHTS OFFICE REVIEWED PCSSO SUBMISSION; CONFERNCE WITH CJH PREPARATION OF HEARimG; CALL TO J. WRIGHTS OFF~CE; CHYP JONES; RUTH STEELE; HARK HIL~ObLEN: SAH JONES: PREPARATION FOR CROSS EXAHINATI:ON OF DON STEWART; CONFERENCE WITH H~RK HILHOLLEN; CALLS TO LRSD; REVIEWED BUDGET AND BOARD MINUTES CONFERENCE WITH CilH RE: RESEARCH -FOR HEARING RESEARCHED NOVATI N REFORMATION AND MODIFICATION OF CONTRACT PREPARATION AND APPEARED AT POOLING HEARING; CORFERENCE WITH HARK MIUiOLLEN; PREPARATION FOR HEARING CONTINUATION PAGE INV# OAT!: LI230 HOURS .zs 1.00 7.50 2.so 7.75 1.00 8.75 .25 7.50 TAX I0ENTIFICATO,._ f 71-Cl2S3637 l -122801 10/18/95 .000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHAR\u003coES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLEC OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IIE IIILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L IHVOICU ARIC DUIC AND PAYA  LIC UPON IIICCICIPT. 9/08/95 JCF 9/11/95 CJH 9/12/95 CJH 9/13/95 CJH 9/14/95 CJH --9/95 CJH 9/28/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAL.S AHO PROFESSIONAl ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 'I)() WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37\u0026-2011 ATTENDED HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: CROSS EXAM OF MR. STEWART CONFERENCE WITH KR. HIUHOLIN RE: HEARING PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH STEVE JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN PREPARATION OF HEARING; STEELE AND JONES TESTIMONY; STEWART CROSS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION EOR HEARING TELEPHONE C  lfFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR HEARING LETTER FROH SAH JONES  TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CITT:P JONES RE: DEPOSITION RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED ORDER RE: aEARING TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.00 .so .75 .25 .25 5.25 .so .75 .so .2s .25 2.00 .25 .so .so .25 . so .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt.. I 71 -(125363 ; 2 -122801 10/18/95 .000150-cJH CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOfN CLAYBURN FENDLEY -------- --------- 45.00 X 105.00 = 11.25 X 85.00 = 4725.001'100 956.25 \\ \\\"2..$\"' COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES P'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICES AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 4.50 s~.80 $5686.05 ======= FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PAATNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING ' WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST HARKHAH LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS. PCSSD 10/06/95 CJH 10/09/95 CJH 10/10/95 CJH 112/95 C:JH 10/16/95 CJH 10/17/95 CJH 10/18/95 CJH 10/19./95 A TT RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED HEARING TRANSCRIPTS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAH JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS TELEPHONE CO!llFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES RE: DEPOSITION PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE COMFERENCE WITH CHIP JONES; PREPARATION FOR JONES DEPOSITION REVIEWED STEWART TESTIHONY PREPARATION OF OUTLYNE OF STEWART TESTIMONY PREPARATION OF POOLING DEPOSITIONS; REVIEWED FILE AND SENT DOCUMENTS TO CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH CH'IP JONES; DEPOSITION PREPARATION LETTER FROH sAH JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN OICTATEO OUTLINE OF STATEMENT TESTIMONY; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITION ANO TRIAL HEHO TO J.C. FENDLEY TELEPHONE COIIFEREWCE WITH MARK MILHOLLEN LETTER TO SA~ JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCES WITH CHRIS HELLER; RESEARCflEO YRS7RUCTIONAL BUDGET CASES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 2.25 .25 .25 .25 2.50 .so .so 2.75 1.50 1.75 2.so 2.50 .25 .50 .25 4.50 .2s .25 .so .so TAX I0ENTll'ICATOt, I 71 -0253637 1 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 2J TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT, THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES f'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET IIEEN IIILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET IIEEN POSTED, THESE WILL IIE IIIU.ED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 10/19/95 CJH 10/20/95 CJH 10/23/95 CJH 10/23/95 JCF 10/2~/95 JCF 10/26/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL AS SOCIA TKlNS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 37'6-2011 TRAVELED TO DALLAS FOR CHIP JONES DEPOSITION; PREPARATION; CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES; RESEARCHED INSTRUCTIONAL BUDGET TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN LETTER TO DR. WILLIAHS RE: JONES DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE VITH CHIP JONES PREPARATION FOR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES TELEPflONE CONFERENCE WITH J. WRIGHTS DOCKET CLERK REVIEWED SUMMARY OF TESTIMONY OF STEWART; CONFERENCE MITH CJH RE: DEPO. OF CHIP JONES AND RESEARCH NEEDED; RESEARCHED CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RESEARCHED INTERPRETATION OF CONSENT DECREE; PREPARATION OF HEMO TO CJH RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED CHIP JONES, DEPOSITION TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 11.75 .zs .2s .25 2.50 2.2s .25 .so .25 s.so 5.25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOI, f 71 -02536:l\u003e 2 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH ANDREW T. TURNER 42-50 CHRISTOPHER JOHN NELLER JCJ-fN CLAYBURN FENDLEY .so x as.oo = 43.00 X 105.00 = 10.7s x as.oo = 4515. oo \u003cr:,'6W 913.75 \\01~ COPY CftARGES LEXIS COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH PARKING TAXI WESTLAV COMPUTERIZED RESEARCH TOTAL EXPENSES 5.ao 202.50 12.00 13.00 322.58 $-55. .5 .88 ; (CONTINUED ON PAGE 31 TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED, THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AL.L INVOICU ARI: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INOIVIOUAI.S ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TOTAL THIS INVOICE PAGE INV# DATE LI230 TO INSURE l'ROPER CREDIT, l'U:ASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIii INVOICE MAY NOT INCL.UDE CHARGES l\"OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.I.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WIL.L. BE BIL.I.ED ON A I.ATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU AIUI: DUI: AND PAYA l-1: UPON Rl:Cl:IPT, TAX I0EWl~ICATOI. I 71-(12~3637 3 -123591 11/15/95 .0001so-cJH $6027.13 FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTLE ROCK ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKHAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSO VS. PCSSO 11/08/95 CJH 11/10/95 CJH 11/12/95 CJH 11113/95 CJH 1 20/95 CJH 11/22/95 CJH 11/26/95 CJH 11/27/95 CJH 12/02/95 CJH 12703 /95 CJH 12/04/95 CJH 12/05/95 CJH 12/06/95 C.JH liELEPHQ1\u003e1~ CONFERENCE WITH EIGAI A '1RCUIT ELERlr I.El EPHtmE CONFERENCE WITII SAf4 JON~ ~REP!.RATUJN OF BRAL ARGUHENl:TELEPIISHE EONFEROCE WITII Sidi JOH~ '2-REP:AltATION Hfi BRAL ARGUNer~T' Rf'.IEWEB CASES FOR BRAL ARGUMENT 'KLEPflOPE CONFEltENC:E WI I A Bi A CIR. E-at:IRT OF .t,PP~Ats REVIEWED OLD FILES RE: SETTLEMENT AGREEMENT AND HISTORY LETTER FROM J. WOODS RE: CHIP JONES DEPOSITION RECEIVED t REVIEWED CORRIGENDUM OF DEPOSITION CHANGES PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION F.OR TRIAL PREPARATION FOR TRIAL; REVIEWED DEPOSITION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING DEPOSITIONS RESEARCHED ANO PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL REVIEWED TRAISCRIPTS AND PREPARATION FOR TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HII.J-IOLLEN PREPARATION OF TRIAL; CALLS TO SAM JONES ANO COURT REPURTER RE: LESTER AND SECRETARY; REVIEWED EXHIBITS TELEPHONE CORFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE l1 ITH SAM .JONES PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS ~ 2.50 .25 2.00 2.00 1.00 .25 1.75 1.75 2.00 .zs 3.25 .zs .25 TAX I0ENTl~ICATO\" I 71-0253637 l -126291 3/22/96 .0001so-cJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 21 TO INSURE P'ROPER CREOIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUOE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN l!IIU..EO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET l!IEEN POSTEO. THESE WILL l!IE l!IILLEO ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. IKVOICU AIII: DUI: AKD PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT, 12/07/95 CJH 12/07 /95 JCF 12/08/95 CJH 12/08/95 JCF 12/11/95 CJH 12/12/95 CJH 12/13/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP Of INDIVIDUALS AND PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS AND TRIAL TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES AND DON STEWART TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH OR. STEELE PREPARATION OF DEPOSITIONS OF STEWART AND LESTER CONFERENCE ~ITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: DEPOS. CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PREPARATION FOR DEPO. OF STEWART PREPARATION OF DEPOSITION OF RUTH STEELE; PREPARATION AND DEPOSITIONS OF DON STEWART AND BOBBY. LESTER ATTENDED DEPOSITION OF DR. STEELE PREOEPOSITIOU CONFERENCE WITH DR. STEELE ATTENDED DEPOSITIONS OF DR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS OF OR. STEWART AND BOBBY LESTER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: POOLING; FEE ISSUE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES l2J TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH RUTH STEELE PREPARATION FOR HEAR~NG TELEPHONE COSFERENCE WITH SAH JONES 12) TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WYTH RUTH STEELE TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH TRAVIS CREED TELEPHONE CONFERENCc WITH CHIP JONES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPTS PREPARATION FOR HEAR\"ING; REVIEWED EXHIBITS; PREPARED EXHIBITS; EXAMINATIONS TELEPHONE COIIIFERERCE MITH HARK HILHOLLEN; CALL TO SAM JONES l2J; CHIP JONES; JUDGE WEIDOWER; REVIEWED ANO OUTUNEO DEPOSITIONS; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; TRIAL PREPARATION PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .2s .zs .2s 1.2s .2s .75 a.so 1.2s 2.00 3.25 1.75 .so .50 .25 1.75 .50 .25 .2s .so .25 3.50 11.75 TAX IDENTll'ICAT01\"  71-0253637 2 -126291 3/22/96  000150-CJH (CONTINUED ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE PROPER CRECIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET ISEEN ISIU.0 OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET !SEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL IS ISIU.0 ON A LATER INVOICE, ALL INVOICU ARC DUI: AND PAYA  LC UPON 1111:CCIPT, 12/13/95 J CF 12/14/95 CJH 12/14/95 JCF 12/15/95 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROA:SSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING 400 WEST CAPITOL LITTlE R()CI(. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOHN WALKER TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HANK WILLIAMS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING PREPARATION OF TR1AL; CONFERENCE WITH WITNESSES; APPEARED FOR POOLING TRIAL; CONFERENCE WITH co=cauNSEL ATTENDED POOLING HEARING PREPARATION FOR POOLING HEARING CONFERENCE WITH CJY RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE COIIFERENCE WITH SAH ~ONES RE: SETTLE HE NT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK HILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS .25 .25 .25 7.50 10.75 6.50 1.00 .25 .so TAX I0ENTl~ICATO1'  71-025363\" 3 -126291 3/22/96 .000150-cJH 91.00 $9070.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY TOTAL SERVICES bZ,CO 66.75 X 24.25 X -------- ---------- 105.01 = 7009.42 q'C\\'20 85.00 = 2061.25 'l-'-1\"2$\"\" LONG D'ISTANCE MESSENGER EXPENSE FAX TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE \"ROPER CREDIT, \"LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHAR\u003cilES l'OR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. AU. INVOICU Altl: DUI: AND \"AYA LI: UPON 1111:Cl:IPT. 9.81 s.oo 4.50 $19.31 $9089.31 ----------------- FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIDUALS ANO PROFESSIONAL ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAi- BUILDING 0l WEST CAPITOL LITTlE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 LITTLE ROCK PUBLIC SCHOOLS 810 WEST MARKfiAM LITTLE ROCK AR 72201 RE: LRSD VS PCSSD 12/04/95 CJH 1/04/96 CJH 1/05/96 CJH 1/08/96 CJH -1/09/96 CJH 1/10/96 CJH 1/11/96 CJH l/Ei/9.6 JCF 1/16/96 JCF 1/18/96 JCF 1/19/96 CJH TELEPHONE CONFERENCE ~ITH SAM JONES RE: DEPOSITIONS; PREPARATION FOR DEPOSITIONS ANO TRIAL; CALL TO RUTH STEELE; CA~~ TO GAR~ JONES; CALL TO C~IP JONES; CALL TO aAMES ~ENNINGS; OUTLINED JONES DEPOSITION - RE POOLING RESE~RCHED AND REYIEWED FILE RE: POST-TRIAL BRIEF RESEARCHED ISSUES RE: BRIEF TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH SAM JONES RE: SETTLEMENT; TRANSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT RESEARCHED FOR POOLING POST HEARING BRIEF; CALL TO HILHG~LEN RE: SETTLEMENT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH COURT REPORTER RE: TRANSCRIPT; BRIEF PREPARATION RECEIVED . REVIEWED POOLING TR~NSCRIPT TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HR. HILHOLLEN CONFERENCE WITH CLER~ RE: RESEARCH PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FIND'INGS OF FACT REVIEWED TRAHSCRIPT OF CROSS OF DON STEWART ANO ESTIHOlff OF CHIP JONES REVIEWED RESEARCH MEMO RE: POOLING IS5ES; REVIEWED 8TR CIR. OPINION REMANDING CONFERENCE WITH CJH RE: PROPOSED PINOINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW CONFERENCE WITH JCF RE: POOLING PAG= INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.25 1.75 2.75 .25 .25 1.50 1.25 1.75 .25 .25 3.00 4.25 .75 .25 1.15 TAX I0ENTl~ICATOI, I 71-0253637 l -128661 6/30/96  000150-CJH ICONTINUED ON PAGE ZJ TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY Wl'ni PAYMENT. 'nilS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARC.ES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILI.ED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. 'niESE WILi. BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA  LI: UPON 1111:CCIPT, 1/19/96 JCF 1/21/96 JCF 1/22/96 CJH 1/22/96 JCF 1/23/96 CJH 1/23/96 JCF 1/24/96 CJH 1/24/96 DKHP 1/24/96 JCF 1/25/96 CJH 1/26/96 CJH 1/26/96 JCF FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF IN0IVIOUALS ANO PROFESSIONAi. ASSOCIATIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .WO WEST CAPITOL LITTtE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 DOCUMENTS AND ISSUES; REVIEWED FILE; BRIEF PREPARATION TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH HARK KILHOLLEN RE: SETTLEMENT REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT OF DIRECT EXAM. OF STEWART; REVIEWED DEP.O. OF LESTER AND STEELE RE: PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH JOANN SORN RESEARCHED AND PREPARATION OF BR~EF PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED RESEARCH DONE BY CLERK RE: CONTRACT INTERPRETATION ISSUES TELEPHONE CONFERENCE lUTH HARK HlLHOLLEN RE: SETTLE!ENT RECEIVED t REVIEWED NEW CALCULATIONS RESEARCHED AND REVISED DRAFT BRIEF; CONFERENCE WITH JCF; REVIEWED TRANSCRIPT PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT REVIEWED AND REVISED BRIEF; REVIEWED RECORD; EIGHTH CIR ORDER PREPARATIO~ OF EXHIBIT NOTEBOOK RESEARCHED CONTRACT EORHATION ANO MUTUAL ASSENT PREPARATIOM OF PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT AND CONCLUSIONS OF LAW BRIEF PREPARATION AND CALLS WITH COUNSEL PREPARATION OF FINAL DRAFT OF PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; REVIEWED CALCULATIONS; CA~L FROM SAM JONES RE: WASHINGTON; CALL TEJ SAM LcTTER TO .JUDGE WRIGHT RE: PROPOSED FINDINGS OF FACT PREPARED NOT~CE OF FILING DEPOSITIONS OF STEELE AND LESTER LETTER TO JUDGE WRIGHT ENCLOSING DEPOS. PAGE INV# DATE LI230 HOURS 4.50 .so 5.25 s.so 1.00 .25 .so 1.75 7.25 1.so .so 1.75 2.75 2.50 .25 .25 TAX I0ENTIFICATOt,,  71-0253637 2 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH ICONTINUEO ON PAGE 3J TO INSURE !'ROPER CRECIT, !'LEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUCE CHARGES FOR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BIL.LEO OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTEC. THESE WILL BE BILLEC ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INY0ICU AIII: DUI: AND PAYA LI: UPON 111:Cl:IPT. 1/30/96 CJH 1/30/96 JCF 1/31/96 CJH 2/01/96 CJH 5/03/96 CJH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARTNERSHIP OF INDIVIOUAI.S AND PROFESSIONAL ASSCX:IA TIONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BUILDING .6()() WEST CAPITOL LrntE ROCK. ARKANSAS 72201 (501) 376-2011 OF STEELE ANO LESTER PREPARATION OF PROPOSED FINDS OF FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RECEIVED \u0026 REVIEWED PCSSO POOLING \"SECOND SUBMISSION; PROPOSED FINDINGS AND CONCLUSIONS; CONFERENCE WITH JCF REVIEWED PCSSD PROPOSED FINDiNGS AND FACT ANO CONCLUSIONS OF LAW RESEARCHED RE: PCSSD REVIEWED ANO FUTURE RESEARCH RE: PCSSO POOLING AND PLAN BRIEFS TELEPHONE CONFERENCE WITH MARK HILHOLLEN TOTAL SERVICES PAGE INV#- DATE LI230 HOURS .25 5.50 2.so .75 1.25 1.25 .25 -------- as.po TAX IDENTIFICATOIS  71-(1253637 3 -128661 6/30/96 .000150-CJH S8Q05.00 CHRISTOPHER JOHN HELLER DEBORAH K. MOORE JOHN CLAYBURN FENDLEY 40.00 X 105.01 = .50 X 45.00 = 44.50 X 85.00 = 4200.40 6\u003c.tCO 22.so 3782.50 ~~ DEPOSITION EXPENSE COPY CHARGES TOTAL EXPENSES TOTAL THIS INVOICE TO INSURE PROPER CREDIT, PLEASE ENCLOSE REMITTANCE COPY WITH PAYMENT. THIS INVOICE MAY NOT INCLUDE CHARGES l\"DR WHICH WE HAVE NOT YET BEEN BILLED OR WHICH HAVE NOT YET BEEN POSTED. THESE WILL BE BILLED ON A LATER INVOICE. ALL INVOICU AIIIIC DUI: AND PAYAaLIC UPON 11111:CICIPT. 3791.50 17.20 $3808.70 $11813.70 3/'Jz./96 JCF '3/05/% CJH 9/U/% CJH SIA % CJH 9/~ 9b CJH q/'JCJ/96 CJH q/U/qb CJH 9/l3/9b CJH q/t5/9b CJH (:J/l7/9t:, CJH 9/24/96 CJH 9/25/96 CJH 9/27 /'H, C.JH FRIDAY, ELDREDGE \u0026 CLARK A PARlHERSHI' OF JNOIYl)\\JAI.S NIJ pRQFESSK)NAI. ASS0CIA llONS ATTORNEYS AT LAW 2000 FIRST COMMERCIAL BULDING .00 WEST CAPITOL um ROCK. ARl(ANSAS 7Z201 (1501) ,7\u0026-2011 REV!EwED J 1.JOGE  S ~HIORAN0U!\", AtW ORDER TELEPHONE CJNFERENC~ WITH OR. ANDERSON RE: APPEAL RECEIVED t REVIEWED PCSS~ MOTION RE: FEES PREPARATION OF NCTICE CF APPEAL REVIEW (CQNTINUE01 OF SUPPLEMtNTAL PLEAaINGS CALL FROM JOE HAGEN; CALL TO UARRY WARD LETTER FROM MR GANS RECEIVED REVIEWED APP FOR~ ( BRIEf!NG SCHE~ULE "},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1633","title":"Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-26/1997-06-30"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Joshua Intervenors","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Educational law and legislation","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["Court filings: District Court, Joshua intervenors' motion for an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, Joshua intervenors' memorandum in support of an award of attorneys' fees concerning the Pulaski County Special School District (PCSSD) strike issue; District Court, affidavit and activity statement of John W. Walker; District Court, affidavit of Joy C. Springer; District Court, Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs; District Court, affidavit of Christopher Heller; District Court, brief in support of Little Rock School District's (LRSD's) motion for attorneys' fees and costs"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1633"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["99 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Walker, John W.","Springer, Joy C.","Heller, Christopher"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"The transcript for this item was created using Optical Character Recognition (OCR) and may contain some errors.  f\\LED uRT S 01s11~1C\\ ci9p.l(.P,.NSAS u. N 01s1R1c IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT Cdm.~ 2, 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS J\\.lN ?.- WESTERN DIVISION _ ,., Mccu~\\11\\Ac\\C-, CLI:. JA N~tS OE.P .CLE.RI(. sv: LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. JUN 2 7 1997 DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. OFFICE OF DESEGREGATION MONITORl\u0026lt: THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MOT10'N.FOR''A'N A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE The Joshua Intervenors respectfully move for the entry of an order against the PCSSD defendants, awarding attorneys' fees for the work of their representatives concerning the PCS SD strike issue. The award sought is set forth in Attachment One to this motion. This motion is based upon the affidavits of John W. Walker and Joy C. Springer, the declaration of Robert Pressman, attachments to these documents, 1 the accompanying memorandum, and the following allegations: (1.) On August 27, 1996, the PCSSD defendants filed a motion seeking equitable relief, including an order \"directing that PACT end [a] strike .... \" A 9-page memorandum supported the motion. The court scheduled the matter for a hearing on the following day, August 28, 1996. (2.) On August 28, 1996 the Joshua Intervenors filed a memorandum opposing the relief sought by the PCSSD. Joshua argued in part: \"Moreover, resolution of the contract dispute between 1 These documents are attached to this motion. 1 - the teachers and the District is not a desegregation obligation covered by the settlement agreement\" (at 2); see also at 4 (\"The Joshua Intervenors simply observe that the District has not identified a single provision of the settlement agreement which the union has violated.\") (3 .) On August 28, 1996, the court conducted an evidentiary hearing on the PCSSD motion, which it treated as a motion for a preliminary injunction. At the conclusion of the hearing, the court \"enjoin[ ed] the teachers from further striking following the Labor Day weekend.\" Transcript, at 18. ( 4.) The Knight Intervenors appealed this court's judgment enjoining the strike. Thereafter, on May 1, 1997, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit reversed this court's judgment. In words echoing those set forth in the memorandum promptly filed by Joshl!:i on August 28, 1996, the court reasoned: \"But we cannot agree that the settlement agreem~nt, even by implication, took away the right to strike, assuming such a right exists under state law, nor can we - find any other source of authority for the action the District Court took\" (Slip Opin., at 5). (5 .) The position taken by the Joshua Intervenors was premised upon two ir.terests of the plaintiff class. First, it sought to focus the attention of the parties and the court, and the use of hearing time, on matters within the scope of the agreements and designed for the benefit of the class members. Second, it sought to avoid a situation where teachers could view class members negatively, because their litigation would be a vehicle for suppressing a tool available to the teache1 s to advance their economic interests. (6.) The Joshua Intervenors are entitled to the fee award sought in this motion against the PCSSD because their representatives' efforts constituted a reasonable post-judgment activity to defend their earlier victory embodied in the approved agreements. Alternatively, and without waiving the foregoing contention, Joshua Intervenors note that they ultimately prevailed in their action to 2 - defend their earlier victory -- and are entitled to the award sought on that basis. (8.) The attachments to this motion, and the accompanying memorandum, show that the time and the rates claimed for the representatives of the Joshua Intervenors, as set forth on Attachment One of this motion, are reasonable. WHEREFORE the Joshua Intervenors move that the PCSSD defendants be ordered to pay )j-{;M.00  the amount of$ --to John W. Walker, P.A., for the work of Joshua Intervenors' representatives in opposing the PCSSD motion. JOHNW. WALKER, P.A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 3 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accqf11panying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this c2.f1fl_ day ofJ une ~ 1997. Sb v1J .U/oKo A J~ W. Walker \" 4 ATTACHMENT A SUMMARY OF THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' FEE CLA AGAINST THE PCSSD REGARDING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE John W. Walker Robert Pressman Joy C. Springer 11 . 7 hours at $ 250\\ hour 5. 75 hours at $ 200\\ hour 10.9 hours at$ 50\\ hour Grand total 5 $2,925.00 $1,150.00 $ 545.00 $4,620.00 FILED RT U.S. DDl~s\\R~~\\ cAi~ANSAS EASTERN ' IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT JUN 2 6 1997 EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS JAMES W. McCORMACK, CLERK WESTERN DIVISION By: OEP.ClERK LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 Fy r= p..;. F P,' r:! D PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICr/ E~AE':~-t -~, ~ DEFENDANTS MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. JUN ?. 7 1997 INTERVENORS OFFICE OF INTERVENORS DESEGREGATION MONITORING THE JOSHUA INTERVENORS' MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF AN A WARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES CONCERNING THE PCSSD STRIKE ISSUE A. Introduction This memorandum supports the accompanying motion of the Joshua Intervenors for an award - of attorneys' fees against the PCSSD defendants in connection with the PCCSD st:-ike issue. It discusses the predicate for this award, as well as the time claimed and the rates sought. B. The Predicate for an Award As detailed in the motion, the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors concerning the court's involvement in the PCSSD strike issue was ultimately the one adopted by the Court of Appeals in ruling in the appeal filed by the Knight Intervenors. As also explained in the motion (at paragraph 5), the position taken by the Joshua Intervenors is properly viewed as protecting the value of the court-approved settlement, for class members, in two regards; that is, by focusing the attention of the court r and the parties on the substantive relief gained by intervenors in the settlement;1 and by avoiding a 1 Such an effort was appropriate. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions regarding the incentive schools and ODM recommendations, pending at the time of the August 28, 1996 hearing, were never heard on the merits. The Joshua Jntervenors' motions concerning the Robinson High School and PCSSD discpline were denied tersely, without hearings by the court. situation where the plaintiff class could be scapegoated by the teachers. Alternate grounds support the award sought. The Joshua Intervenors having broadly prevailed in this action by virtue of the settlement, their representatives are entitled to fees for reasonable postjudgment monitoring, including \"defensive [steps], seeking to preserve relief obtained earlier . . . . \" Jenkins v. Missouri, Appeal No. 96-3870 (8th cir. May 22, 1997), Slip Opin. generally and at ---; 2 see also Association of Retarded Citizens of North Dakota v. Schafer, 83 F.3d 1008, 1012 (8th Cir. 1996) (defending a victory). We note also, that as to PCSSD, there is no claim of a waiver of fees for monitoring. Secondly, the Joshua Intervenors ultimately prevailed on this matter. They are, therefore, entitled to fees on this matter as a prevailing party. E,\u0026, 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1n8. C. The Hours Claimed and the Rates Sought \"The most useful starting point for determining the amount of a reasonable fee is the number - of hours reasonably expended on the litigation multiplied by a reasonable hourly rate.\" Hensley v. Eckerhart, 461 U.S. 424,433 (1983). This \"lodestar\" amount yields a presumptively reasonable fee. Pennsylvania v. Delaware Valley Citizens' Council for Clean Air, 478 U.S. 546, 565 (1986). 1. The Time Claimed The time claimed, totalling ---- hours, was \"reasonably expended on the litigation .... \" Hensley, supra. As this submission shows, intervenors claim only a modest amount of time for the work of lead counsel, Robert Pressman (only on this petition), and Ms. Joy Springer. Intervenors' representatives studied the materials filed by the parties, prepared a memorandum, participated in the hearing on August 28, 1996, and prepared this petition. As it is customary in this market to bill the time of a paralegal separately (J. Springer Aff., para. ---), it is proper to make a sepan.te award for Ms. Springer's time. Missouri v. Jenkins, 491 U.S. 274, 288-89 (1989). Indeed, involving Ms. 2 See paragraph beginning \"Another factor that has been considered . ... \" Springer was cost-effective. Id., at 288. 2. The Hourly Rates Sought The rates sought are John W. Walker$ 250 per hour, Robert Pressman$ 200 per hour, and Joy C. Springer $ 50 per hour. These are \"reasonable hourly rate[s]\" for these advocates taking account of the nature of this case and their \"skill[s], experience[s], and reputation[s].\" Blum v. Stenson, 465 U.S. 886, 888 (1984). In order to avoid repetition, intervenors' argument on rates relies upon the details set forth in the accompanying affidavits. These documents show, among other things, that Mr. Walker has long been active in this case, been lead counsel in a very large number of civil rights cases, and been praised by members of the federal bench for his expertise in this sphere. J. Walker Aff., paras. 3, 5, 7, 9. The Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated Mr. Walker at the rate of$ 250 per hour for his work on the appeal in the case of Shirley Harvell v. Blytheville School District, 93- 1009EAJ (Order, August 19, 1996). See J. Walker A.ff, para. 8 and attachment. He currently charges fee-paying clients this rate. Aff., para. 9.3 With regard to Mr. Pressman, a district judge familiar with his work during the lengthy Boston school desegregation case compensated almost all of his time for the period October 1988 through June 1993 at the rate of$ 200 per hour. See Morgan v. Gittens, 915 F.Supp. 457, 472-74 (D.Mass. 1996). The affidavits appended to Mr. Pressman's declaration here also support a rate of 3 To be sure, this court in dictim, in an order of September 2 3, 1996, at 9, n. 6, set a rate of $ 200 per hour for lead counsel. However, this rate is inconsistent with the rate established by the Court of Appeals. Moreover, at minimum, lead counsel's rate should not be lower than$ 225 per hour, a rate employed by two other judges of this court on a total of four occasions. See J. Walker Aff., para. 8. $ 200 per hour. 4 The affidavit of Ms. Springer attached to the motion shows that she has considerable experience in civil rights litigation generally, and this case in particular. In Jeffers v. Clinton, 776 F.Supp. 465,470,476 (E.D.Ark.) (2 to 1), a three-judge court utilized rates of$ 40 per hour for local paralegals and $ 50 per hour for out-of-town paralegals in a voting rights case, for work in the period 1989 to 1991. The passage of time since this work was performed justifies the higher rate sought for Ms. Springer's work in this case. We note also the following factors. First. The rates sought are supported by rates approved by the Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit (in instances other than the one cited with regard to Mr. Walker). See McDonald v. Armontrout, 860 F.2d 1456, 1460, 1461 (1988) (the court noted its approval in 1986 in the Pulaski County School Desegregation Case of the rate of \"$ 200 per hour for a Washington, D.C. 'cooperating attorney who had been in practice approximately thirty years\"' and of the same rate in 1988 in the Kansas City case for \"an experienced civil rights attorney for his services in [that] school desegregation case ... \"); Planned Parenthood, Sioux Falls Clinic, v. Miller, 70 F.3d 517, 520 (1995) (rates ofup to$ 260 per hour for attorneys based in Chicago); see also the Declaration of Thomas I. Atkins, former General Counsel of the NAACP, attached to the Declaration of Mr. Pressman. Second. The rates sought here are supported by the reasoning of the Court of A~peals for the Eighth Circuit, which has emphasized the connection between the rates employed in cases like this one and fulfilling the goal of facilitating civil rights enforcement, which underlies the fee statutes on 4 Recently, in this case, the LRSD did not challenge a rate of$ 200 per hour for Mr. Pressman/or work in opposing the termination of jurisdiction as to the LRSD and preparing the related fee petition. This court then granted the full award sought by the Joshua Jntervenors, in an order entered on May 16, 199 7. which the plaintiffs rely. See Casey v. City of Cabool. MO, 12 F.3d 799, 805 (8th Cir. 1993). Conclusion There is no basis for departing from the lodestar amount here. Therefore, an award should be made to John W. Walker, P.A. in the amount of $4i~O-OO Respectfully submitted, JOHNW. WALKER, P. A. 1723 Broadway Little Rock, AR 72206 501-374-3758 Robert Pressman MA# 405900 22 Locust A venue Lexington, MA 02173 617-862-1955 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I do hereby state that a copy of the foregoing Motion and attachments, as well as the accAmpanying Memorandum, were sent via United States mail to all counsel of record on this MdayofJune~ 1997. ~/-.~ J~er IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DIVISION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. AFFIDAVIT OF JOHN W. WALKER STATE OF ARKANSAS) )SS. COUNTY OF PULASKI) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS INTER VEN ORS INTERVENORS Comes now the affiant, JOHN W. WALKER, who submits the following affidavit under oath: Educational and Professional Qualifications 1. I graduated from Arkansas AM\u0026N College in Pine Bluff, Arkansas in 1958 with a major in Sociology. In 1960, I was awarded a John Hay Whitney Opportunity Fellowship which I used to obtain a Master's Degree from New York University in Education (Human Relations) in 1961. In 1961, I enrolled in the Yale University Law School from which I received my law degree in 1964. At Yale Law School, in 1964, I was a finalist in the Thurman Arnold Appellate Moot Court Competition. I have studied further at Fisk University (the Race Relations Institute) and at many legal training seminars which focused upon the subject of civil rights law in particular. 1 In 1964, I was admitted to practice before the Bar of Arkansas. Subsequently, I was admitted to, and still practice before, the United States Supreme Court, the Court of Appeals for the 2. Eighth, Fifth, Eleventh, and Tenth Circuits, the United States District Court, Western District of Texas, and the United States District Court, Eastern and Western District of Arkansas. 3. I completed a legal training internship in New York City with the NAACP Legal Defense and Educational Fund (LDF) in September, 1965. In 1965, I opened a private general law practice in Little Rock which emphasized civil rights law. In 1968, Norman Chachkin (now of the LDF) and I opened one of the first integrated law firms in the South. That law firm has continued to be operated on an integrated basis since that time although it has undergone several name changes. My own work continues to emphasize civil rights legal activity. 4. I hold membership in the American and National Bar Associations, and the W. Harold  Flowers and Pulaski County Bar Associations. From 1976 to 1982, I was a member of the Arkansas Board ofExaminers. I have served as a member of the Federal Rules Advisory Committee of the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. I am a member of the Board ofDirectors of the LD F b New York. 5. The following is a partial listing of major cases where I have been lead counsel: Employment Paxton v Union National Bank, 688 F. 2d. 522, 574 (8th Cir. 1982); Maney v Brinkley Municipal Water Works, 802 F 2d. 1073, 1076 (8th Cir. 1986); Rogers v International Paper Co., 423 U.S. 809 (1975); Powell v Georgia Pacific Paper Company, Civ. Nos. 73- C-l and E.D. 73-C-3 (Ark. 1993); Williams v Anderson, 562 F 2d. 1081 (8th Cir. 1977); Clark v Mann, 562 F 2d. 1104 (8th Cir. 1977); Parham v Southwestern Bell, 433 F 2d. 421 (8th Cir. 1970); Robinson v Klassen, Civ. No LR-C-73-301 (E.D. Ark. 1981); 2 McFadden v Arkansas State Hospital, Civ. No. LR-C-78-153 (E.D. 1989; 1994); Taylor v Jones, 653 F 2d. 1193 (8th Cir. 1981); Hollowell v Gravett, Civ. No. LR-C-86-600 (E.D. Ark. 1989); and Perryman v Johnson Products, 698 F 2d. 1138 (11th Cir. 1983); Hollowell and Day v. Randy Johnson, E.D. Ark., October 30, 1995 .. Education Clark v Board of Education, 705 F 2d. 265 (8th Cir. 1983); Dowell v Oklahoma City Board of Education, 890 F 2d 1483 (10th Cir. 1989); Arvizu v Board of Education of Waco, Texas, 296 F 2d. 1309 (5th Cir. 1974); Kemp v Beasley. 389 F 2d. 178 (8th Cir. 1972); Raney v Board of Education of Gould, Arkansas, 381 F.2d 252 (8th Cir. 1967); Kelley v Altheimer, 378 F 2d. 483 (8th Cir. 1967); Little Rock School District v Pulaski County Special School District, 839 F 2d. 1296 (8th Cir. 1987), cert den., 102 L. Ed. 2d. - 146 (1988); Smith v Board of Education of Morrilton, 365 F 2d. 770 (8th Cir. 1966); and Sherpell v. Humnoke School Dist. No. 5.; Rusk v. The Stuttgart School District,_ F.Supp. ___J E.D. Ark. (1994). Housing Williams v Matthews, 499 F. 2d. 819 (1974). Criminal Justice Winters v Beck, 407 F 2d. 125 (8th Cir. 1969). Public Accommodations Daniel v Paul, 395 U.S. 298 (1969). Voting Rights Sherpell v Humnoke, 814 F.2d 538 (8th Cir. 1989); Harvell v Ladd, 931 F. 2d. 226 (8th 3 - Cir. 1992); Harvell v Ladd, __ F. 3d. __ (8th Cir. 1994); Williams v City of Texarkana, 32 F. 3d. 265 (8th Cir. 1994). 6. I have served as Chairman of the Board of the Arkansas Opportunities industrialization Center (OIC). the Center for Law and Education (Cambridge, Mass.), and the Leadership Roundtable (Little Rock, Arkansas). In 1968, I was a member of the Arkansas Constitutional Revision Study Commission. In the early 1970's, I was a member of the Land Use Study Commission of the Southern Governors Conference. I have served as a member of the Supreme Court Committee on Legal Education. I have spoken or lectured at several annual meetings of the National Bar Association; the American Bar Association; other bar associations; many public colleges and many high schools regarding many subjects but primarily upon the subject of Civil Rights Law. I have also received numerous awards for my representation of civil rights causes and cases. 7. I have participated actively in this case and the predecessor litigation since the 1960's. 8. The foregoing recitations establish my educational and professional qualifications. It is my opinion that the bar of first rank with comparable qualificaitons in other fields of law command the highest hourly rates for their work. Those rates range between $150.00 and $300.00 per hour in this market. The State of Arkansas has contracted for legal services in the range of $150.00 per hour for experienced counsel. In an Order dated August 19, 1996, in the case of Harvell v. Blytheville School District, Appeal No. 93-1009 EAJ, the United States Court of Appeals for the Eighth Circuit compensated my time at the rate of $250.00 per hour for a successful appeal in a voting rights case. See the papers attached to this affidavit. My time has been compensated at the rate of $225.00 per hour on at least four occasions in the Arkansas District Courts. These cases are as follows: (a) Ashford v. City of Hamburg. C.A. No. 93-1032 (W.D. Ark.) (Order 1/19/95) 4 - (Judge Barnes); (b) McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital, C.a. No. LR-C-78-153 (Order, 4/18/95) (Judge Howard); (c) Davis v. Franks, C.A. No. 88-4082 (Order, 5/16/96) (Judge Barnes); (d) Day and Hollowell v. Johnson. C.A. No. LR-C-94-849 (Order 9/27/96) (Judge Howard) (stayed ... r pending outcome of substantive appeal). 9. In Taylor v. Jones, Circuit Judge Richard Arnold described me as a member of the bar of the \"first rank.\" In April, 1995, in the aforementioned Order in McFadden v. Arkansas State Hospital. cited in paragraph 8., Judge George Howard, Jr. wrote: \"The Court notes that Walker is one of the most preeminent civil rights attorneys in the State\" (at 3). 10. The fee which I request herein of $250.00 per hour is my usual and customary fee which I routinely charge fee paying clients. The total time for which this fee is sought is 11. 7 hours. 11. Counsel and co-counsel herein have taken great care to prevent their submission from - reflecting duplicate and non-productive efforts. I have reviewed the submissions of all representatives of the intervenors and believe they are accurate. correct and reasonable. 12. A statement and activities for which I claim compensation is attached hereto. The foregoing statement is true and correct to the bestof my knowledge, records, information and belief. SUBSCRIBED AND SWORN to before me this ~ay of 199 ~~LQ. ~Lll MY COMMISSION EXPIRES: 9/11/ZfJJ') IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF ARKANSAS WESTERN DMSION LITTLE ROCK SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. PLAINTIFFS V. NO. LR-C-82-866 PULASKI COUNTY SPECIAL SCHOOL DISTRICT, ET AL. MRS. LORENE JOSHUA ET AL. KATHERINE W. KNIGHT, ET AL. DEFENDANTS INTERVENORS INTERVENORS DATE - 8/27/96 8/27/96 8/ /96 9/09/96 9/11/96 9/14/96 6/25/96 ACTIVITY STATEMENT OF JOHN W. WALKER ACTIVITY Conference with JCS re: PCSSD special board meeting; Attended meeting Review and study of PCS SD Motion and Memorandum; drafted and finalized Joshua Intervenors' Response to Motion; preparation for hearing Prepare for hearing and hearing before Judge Wright on Motion Review and study of Knight Motion for TRO and Brief Review and study Knight Response to PCS SD Motion (Response and Memorandum) Review and study PCS SD Reply to Knight Response, including Brief Review draft Fee Petition Total Hours Expended Hourly Rate Total Fee Requested HOURS 1.3 3.5 6.5 .3 NC .1 NC 11.7 $ 250.00 $2,925.00 Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. Civil Action No. LR-C-82-866 Declaration of Robert Pressman Robert Pressman swears under penalty of perjury that the following information is truthful: A. Employment in Civil Rights Division (1). Following my graduation from the Columbia Law School in June 1965, I worked as an attorney in the Civil Rights Division, U.S. Department of Justice, from August 2, 1965 through July 31, 1970. The Division enforced civil rights laws concerning voting rights, access to public facilities and public accommodations, school desegregation, equal employment opportunity, and freedom from mistreatment by police personnel. My work at various times involved each of these areas. It encompassed giving guidance to the Federal Bureau of Investigation on investigations of possible civil rights violations and compiling factual material and analyzing complex fact patterns, as well as legal research. (2.) For roughly the first two years of my tenure in the Division, I was assigned to work on problems arising in the northern part of Mississippi. During this period, I frequently travelled to Mississippi and, among other things, made appearances in the Carroll County school desegregation case. I also investigated the status of school desegregation in other systems, including Lee County, Pontotoc County, Tunica County, and the City of Corinth. In 1967, the Division was reorganized and my work shifted to Illinois. There, I developed facts concerning school segregation in School District 151 of Cook County, Illinois. The Department's suit against that district was its first northern case. I participated in the trial. See United States v. School District 151, 286 F. Supp. 786, 787 (N.D. Ill. 1968); 301 F. Supp. 201, 205 (N.D. Ill. 1969). My Illinois work also included school segregation issue in Cairo, East st. Louis, and Madison County, Illinois. (3.) In 1969, the Division was again reorganized, this time along subject matter lines. I was assigned to the education section. From October 1969 through my departure from the Division at the end of July 1970, I worked principally on Alabama school desegregation issues, particularly on Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, a statewide case involving 100 local - districts, as well as state officials. Efforts were underway in this period to secure implementation of plans satisfying the standards of Green v. County School Board. I prepared written comments on issues arising in more than 30 Alabama districts and appeared frequently before the three-judge court (Judges Richard T. Rives, Frank M. Johnson, and R.H. Grooms). I also appeared before Judge Johnson in the separate Montgomery County school desegregation case and prepared for the Department briefs in two appeals from the decisions of the three-judge court in the Lee case. See, for example, Lee v. Macon County Board of Education, 448 F.2d 746, 747 (5th Cir. 1971). (4.) On December 15, 1969, I received a Certificate of Award for outstanding work, in the Attorney General's Twentieth Annual 2 Awards Ceremony. Four of the Division's ninety attorneys were given this award at that time. B. Employment at the Center for Law and Education (5.) In August 1970, I began working at the Center for Law and Education (CLE), a component of the federally-funded program of legal services for low-income persons, administered since 1975 by the Legal Services Corporation. As the \"national back-up center\" on education issues for the entire legal services program, the Center's principal role was to promote throughout the program strong representation of clients experiencing education problems. The work consisted of providing advice to local legal services personnel on particular client problems; conducting training programs; writing publications and articles; - engaging in administrative advocacy; and participating as cocounsel in some cases. My employment at the Center ended as of September 15, 1995, due to lay off, because the Congress chose to eliminate funding for national support programs like CLE. (6.) In 1972, upon its filing, I began working on the Boston school desegregation case as co-counsel for the plaintiff class of Black parents and students. My involvement has continued to the present, although the case is largely inactive with only a few orders remaining in place. See, for example, Morgan v. Hennigan, 379 F. Supp. 410, 414 (D.Mass. 1974) (liability ruling) and Morgan y, McDonough, 540 F. 2d 527, 528 (1st Cir. 1976) (argued appeal in which the court affirmed the placing of the operation of a high school in receivership). 3 (7.) In the 1970's I also did some work in the Detroit school desegregation case, Bradley v. Milliken, and more than 1000 hours of work on behalf of the plaintiffs-intervenors in the Omaha school desegregation case, United States v. School District of Omaha. See for example 521 F.2d 530 (wrote brief for successful appeal with the court's opinion reflecting to a substantial degree the factual portion of the brief). (8.) During the 1970's, I played a role at CLE in the development of a racial discrimination theory ultimately employed successfully in securing a delay in the Florida program of denying standard high school diplomas to students failing a \"competency test.\" See Debra P. v. Turlington, 474 F. Supp. 244 (M.D. Fla. 1979), aff'd, 644 F.2d (5th Cir. 1981). In the Debra - I:..._ litigation, I participated briefly in the trial (due to an illness in the family of a CLE colleague) and wrote a portion of the trial memorandum setting forth a theory accepted by the courts (denial of standard high school diploma based upon competency test result perpetuated earlier intentional discrimination against black students who began their educations in segregated and unequal elementary schools). (9.) In 1986, I wrote two memoranda on racial discrimination claims for use in the legal services program. (a) The first, focusing on racial discrimination in school discipline and curricula, contained the following headings: \"Typical Problems,\" \"Gathering Information About a Discrimination Problem,\" \"The Legal Bases of Racial Discrimination Claims\" (including 4 constitutional and Title VI claims), \"Other Material re Disparate Discipline,\" \"Material Regarding Discrimination in Curriculum,\" and \"Remedial Principles.\" (b) The second memorandum is titled \"Discriminatory Allocation of Resources within a School District\" (14 pages). I first used this document in a training program for legal services attorneys in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania in 1986. (10.) I participated during my tenure at CLE, as a trainer or lecturer, in a minimum of 40 sessions on education issues for legal services workers, parents, and\\or students. One such session in Colorado during the late 1980's for legal services attorneys concerned ways to monitor consent decrees and other judgments in institutional reform cases. I prepared for this event a 34-page memorandum titled \"Materials on Monitoring and - Enforcement of Judgments.\" c. Work on the Ayers Case (11.) In January 1987, the North Mississippi Rural Legal Services Program asked me to join their staff members providing representation to the named plaintiffs and the plaintiff class in the case then styled Ayers v. Allain, Civil Action No. 4:75CV009- B-O, Northern District of Mississippi. Ayers concerns the nature of the obligation of Mississippi officials to eliminate racial disrimination and segregation from the operation of the Mississippi system of public universities. I have played an active role in the case since that time. My work in Ayers through March 1995, totalled in excess of 6,000 hours, and involved, inter alia, framing and responding to discovery requests; taking 5 depositions; identifying and preparing exhibits; preparing exhibit lists and other materials required as part of the standard pre-trial submission; participating in settlement efforts; making an opening statement; presenting and crossexamining witnesses and otherwise participating in two lengthy hearings (with the second exceeding 40 days of trial); preparing proposed findings of fact and conclusions of law; preparing appellate briefs; arguing before three panels of the Court of Appeals for the Fifth Circuit, as well as that court sitting en banc, 1 and supporting the efforts of my brother and sister cocounsel. o. Court Appearances (12.) During the course of my legal career, I have made - appearances in the following federal courts: M.D. Ala., S.D.Ala., E.D. Ark., M.D. Fla., S.D. Fla., N.D. Ill., D. Mass., N. D. Miss., E.D. Mich., D. Neb., D. N. H., and D. S. Car.; Court of Appeals for the First, Fifth, Eighth, and Eleventh Circuits (filed briefs and argued); United States Supreme Court (filed briefs). E. Work in this District Court (12.) In September 1995, I began to assist John W. Walker 1 See Ayers v. Allain, 893 F.2d 732 (5th Cir. 1990); Ayers v. Allain, 914 F.2d 676, 677 (5th Cir. 1990) (en bane) (argued in each instance). A fresh appeal followed the district court's March 1995 decision. See Ayers v. Fordice, 879 F. Supp. 1419. I later argued in March 1996 before a panel considering a stay of a part of the district court's order and on November 4, 1996 before the panel hearing the matter on the merits. See Ayers v. Fordice, 111 F.3d 1183, 1188 (5th Cir. 1997). 6 and other persons in his firm with various facets of their work. My many projects have included: several fee petitions; work on a large number of issues in the Little Rock Sch. Dist. v. Pulaski County Special Sch. Dist. case; participation in the Honorable v. North Little Rock Sch. Dist. student discipline case in this court; preparation of the appellees' brief on appeal in Day and Hollowell v. Johnson, a case in which Judge Howard invalidated in part on the basis of 42 U.S.C. Sec. 1981 and Title VII, the attempt by the newly elected sheriff to discharge two African American captains; support to an attorney in the Walker firm in the ongoing MOPAC case involving Title VII issues, as well as work on other employment discrimination issues; and preparation of the complaint and discovery efforts in Young v. City of Little - Rock, alleging the wrongful arrest and detention of a black resident of Little Rock. F. The Current Fee Petition (13.) Attachment One to this Declaration, which is incorporated herein by reference, sets forth my time and activities in working on this particular petition. It is based upon records prepared on a daily basis. An award is sought  "},{"id":"uwg_phc_thomas19970616","title":"Oral history interview with Lindsay Thomas, 1997 June 16","collection_id":"uwg_phc","collection_title":"Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program","dcterms_contributor":["Steely, Mel","University of West Georgia. Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program"],"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018"],"dcterms_creator":["Thomas, Robert Lindsay, 1943-"],"dc_date":["1997-06-16"],"dcterms_description":["Robert Lindsay Thomas (1943 - ) was a Democratic congressional representative from the 1st District from 1982 to 1993. The former investment banker was the president and CEO of the Georgia Chamber of Commerce. He lives in Atlanta.; Interviewed by Dr. Mel Steely on June 16, 1997 (possibly at the office of Lindsay Thomas at the GA Chamber of Commerce).; Dr. Steely begins by mentioning that Thomas had last been interviewed for the Georgia Political Heritage Program in August of 1989 at his home in South Georgia, where they had spoken of Thomas' childhood, his early political campaigns and his burgeoning career in Congress. Since the initial interview Thomas successfully ran for reelection in 1990; Thomas talks about this particular campaign and discloses how television ads had played a part. Lindsay discusses his role in introducing legislation, which did not occur too often, divulging that he had been most proud of the advances he had made for environmental causes, such as with turtle excluder devices and the wetlands bill. Thomas then discusses the Cold War, the nuclear arms race and the fall of the Berlin Wall, moving on to talk about U.S. involvement with the Contras of Central America and a discussion of Speaker Wright. Thomas then discusses his opinion of President George H. W. Bush and the foreign policy of the U.S. The congressional debates over the Gulf War is the next topic of conversation and Thomas speaks of his meeting with Egyptian president, Hosni Mubarak, who convinced him of the necessity of America's involvement in the impending war. Thomas then speaks of the importance of leadership within the U.S. armed forces, including that of the 24th Infantry Division. The shift from President George H. W. Bush to President Bill Clinton is discussed next, as are both presidents' popularity ratings and how hypocrisy played a role. Thomas goes on to discuss the House banking scandal of 1992 and of the ('sensationalizing') role of the press. Thomas served alongside three different Speakers of the House, Tip O'Neill, Jim Wright and Tom Foley, and several Majority Whips including Tony Coelho, Bill Gray and David Bonior; he discusses their political tactics, giving his opinion on each. Thomas addresses what he thinks are essential of a representative and discusses the delegation with which he worked. He discusses his own bipartisanship and his identification as an independent, as well as his decision to leave Washington, D.C. Georgia's politics are discussed, including governors Zell Miller and Joe Frank Harris. Thomas worked from 1993 to 1996 on the legalities concerning the 1996 Summer Olympics, he talks about these issues and about how Speaker Tom Murphy had responded to the Olympic Games. The conversation next turns to the future of the Republican and Democratic parties, the current polarizing trends and what Thomas would like to see happen. He discusses the presidency of Bill Clinton and the importance of the business sector and local governance. Thomas closes the discussion by stating that he no longer wants to work in politics; he would prefer to work on his farm, spend time with his grandchildren, work in the preservation of local ecology and pursue writing. [The interview ends mid-sentence.]"],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Carrollton, Ga. : University of West Georgia Special Collections in association with the Digital Library of Georgia"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program oral history interviews. Annie Belle Weaver Special Collections, Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library, State University of West Georgia"],"dcterms_subject":["Atlanta Committee for the Olympic Games","Christian Coalition","Georgia Chamber of Commerce","Georgia's HOPE Scholarship Program","United States. Tax Reform Act of 1986","Georgia--Politics and government--1865-1950","Thomas, Robert Lindsay, 1943---Interviews","Baker, Howard H., Jr. (Howard Henry), 1925-2014","Boehner, John, 1949-","Boxer, Barbara","Bowers, Michael","Bush, George, 1924-","Callahan, Sonny, 1932-","Clinton, Bill, 1946-","Darden, George, b. 1943","Foley, Thomas S.","Ford, Gerald R., 1913-2006","Qaddafi, Muammar","Galvin, John R., 1929-","Gephardt, Richard A. (Richard Andrew), 1941-","Gingrich, Newt","Gorbachev, Mikhail Sergeevich, 1931-","Gray, William H., III","Harris, Joe Frank","Hussein, Saddam, 1937-2006","Jenkins, Ed, 1933-","Lewis, John, 1940-2020","Mandela, Nelson, 1918-","Miller, Zell, 1932-","Mubarak, Muhammad","Murphy, Thomas Bailey, 1924-2007","O'Neill, Tip","Ortega, Daniel","Powell, Colin L.","Ray, Richard Belmont, 1927-1999","Reagan, Ronald","Rostenkowski, Dan","Rowland, J. Roy (James Roy), 1926-","Schroeder, Patricia R., 1951-","Schwarzkopf, H. Norman, 1934-2012","Shultz, George Pratt, 1920-","Swindall, Pat, 1950-","Walesa, Lech, 1943-","Wright, Jim, 1922-","Yeltsin, Boris Nikolayevich, 1931-2007","Young, Don, 1933-","United States. Army. Infantry Division, 24th","Olympic Games (26th : 1996 : Atlanta, Ga.)","Berlin Wall, Berlin, Germany, 1961-1989","Cairo, Egypt","Iran-Iraq War, 1980-1988","Georgia--Politics and government--1951-","Legislators--Georgia--Interviews","Air Force One (Presidential aircraft)","Cold War","Counterrevolutionaries--Nicaragua","Israel","Kuwait","Nuclear arms control","Panama","Persian Gulf","Saudi Arabia","Savannah (Ga.)","Somalia","Turtle excluder devices","Soviet Union"],"dcterms_title":["Oral history interview with Lindsay Thomas, 1997 June 16"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["University of West Georgia. Special Collections"],"edm_is_shown_by":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/uwg/phc/do:thomas19970616"],"edm_is_shown_at":["https://dlg.galileo.usg.edu/id:uwg_phc_thomas19970616"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":["Cite as: [interview title], Georgia Political Papers and Oral History Program oral history interviews. Annie Belle Weaver Special Collections, Irvine Sullivan Ingram Library, University of West Georgia"],"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)","moving images"],"dcterms_extent":["1 interview (circa 122 mins.)"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Carter, Jimmy, 1924-"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc_118","title":"Dr. Lawrence Pijeaux (1997)","collection_id":"bcri_bcri-ohpc","collection_title":"Birmingham Civil Rights Institute Oral History Project Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, Jefferson County, Birmingham, 33.52066, -86.80249"],"dcterms_creator":null,"dc_date":["1997-06-11"],"dcterms_description":["Dr. Lawrence Pijeaux discusses demonstrating in New Orleans before pursuing a career in arts education. He served at various institutions, including the Birmingham Civil Rights Institute, and worked to increase Black community involvement in museums."],"dc_format":["video/mp4"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":null,"dcterms_publisher":null,"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights movements--Alabama--Birmingham","African American Museum Association","Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"dcterms_title":["Dr. Lawrence Pijeaux (1997)"],"dcterms_type":["MovingImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Birmingham Civil Rights Institute (Birmingham, Ala.)"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://bcriohp.org/items/show/118"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["oral histories (literary works)"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"aar_amg_202422","title":"Birmingham News sleeve BN0067586","collection_id":"aar_amg","collection_title":"Alabama Media Group Collection","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026"],"dcterms_creator":["Taylor"],"dc_date":["1997-06-05"],"dcterms_description":["Mabel Pride - Civil Rights Institute / Pride is a volunteer at the Civil Rights Institute. Please take pictures of her in front of the exhibits / Civil Rights Institute / 520 16th Street North / [Work order included]"],"dc_format":["image/jpeg"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Montgomery, Ala. : Alabama Department of Archives and History"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":null,"dcterms_subject":["Civil rights"],"dcterms_title":["Birmingham News sleeve BN0067586"],"dcterms_type":["StillImage"],"dcterms_provenance":["Alabama. Department of Archives and History"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://digital.archives.alabama.gov/cdm/ref/collection/amg/id/202422"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":null,"dcterms_medium":["photographs"],"dcterms_extent":null,"dlg_subject_personal":null,"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":null},{"id":"bcas_bcmss0837_1645","title":"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","collection_id":"bcas_bcmss0837","collection_title":"Office of Desegregation Management","dcterms_contributor":null,"dcterms_spatial":["United States, 39.76, -98.5","United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959"],"dcterms_creator":["United States. District Court (Arkansas: Eastern District)"],"dc_date":["1997-06-05/1997-06-19"],"dcterms_description":null,"dc_format":["application/pdf"],"dcterms_identifier":null,"dcterms_language":["eng"],"dcterms_publisher":["Little Rock, Ark. : Butler Center for Arkansas Studies. Central Arkansas Library System"],"dc_relation":null,"dc_right":["http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/"],"dcterms_is_part_of":["Office of Desegregation Monitoring records (BC.MSS.08.37)","History of Segregation and Integration of Arkansas's Educational System"],"dcterms_subject":["Little Rock (Ark.)--History--20th century","Special districts--Arkansas--Pulaski County","Little Rock School District","Education--Arkansas","Education--Economic aspects","Education--Evaluation","Education--Finance","Educational law and legislation","Educational planning","Lawyers"],"dcterms_title":["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"],"dcterms_type":["Text"],"dcterms_provenance":["Butler Center for Arkansas Studies"],"edm_is_shown_by":null,"edm_is_shown_at":["http://arstudies.contentdm.oclc.org/cdm/ref/collection/bcmss0837/id/1645"],"dcterms_temporal":null,"dcterms_rights_holder":null,"dcterms_bibliographic_citation":null,"dlg_local_right":["Available for use in research, teaching, and private study. Any other use requires permission from the Butler Center."],"dcterms_medium":["judicial records"],"dcterms_extent":["54 pages"],"dlg_subject_personal":["Jones, Sam"],"dcterms_subject_fast":null,"fulltext":"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 \u0026 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 \u0026 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'\u0026u..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 \u0026 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 \u0026 JENNINGS 200 West Capitol Avenue Suite 2200 Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-3699 (501) 371-0808 By ft-) V \u003c:;:,._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 \u0026 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 \u0026 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 \u0026 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 \u0026 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 "}],"pages":{"current_page":437,"next_page":438,"prev_page":436,"total_pages":6797,"limit_value":12,"offset_value":5232,"total_count":81557,"first_page?":false,"last_page?":false},"facets":[{"name":"educator_resource_mediums_sms","items":[{"value":"lesson plans","hits":319},{"value":"teaching guides","hits":53},{"value":"timelines (chronologies)","hits":43},{"value":"online exhibitions","hits":38},{"value":"bibliographies","hits":15},{"value":"study guides","hits":11},{"value":"annotated bibliographies","hits":9},{"value":"learning modules","hits":6},{"value":"worksheets","hits":6},{"value":"slide shows","hits":4},{"value":"quizzes","hits":1}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"type_facet","items":[{"value":"Text","hits":40428},{"value":"StillImage","hits":35298},{"value":"MovingImage","hits":4529},{"value":"Sound","hits":3226},{"value":"Collection","hits":41},{"value":"InteractiveResource","hits":25}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":16,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"creator_facet","items":[{"value":"Peppler, Jim","hits":4965},{"value":"Phay, John E.","hits":4712},{"value":"University of Mississippi. Bureau of Educational Research","hits":4707},{"value":"Baldowski, Clifford H., 1917-1999","hits":2599},{"value":"Mississippi State Sovereignty Commission","hits":2255},{"value":"Thurmond, Strom, 1902-2003","hits":2077},{"value":"WSB-TV (Television station : Atlanta, Ga.)","hits":1475},{"value":"Newman, I. DeQuincey (Isaiah DeQuincey), 1911-1985","hits":1003},{"value":"The State Media Company (Columbia, S.C.)","hits":926},{"value":"Atlanta Journal-Constitution","hits":844},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":778}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_facet","items":[{"value":"African Americans--Civil rights","hits":9445},{"value":"Civil rights","hits":8328},{"value":"African Americans","hits":5912},{"value":"Mississippi--Race relations","hits":5750},{"value":"Race relations","hits":5604},{"value":"Education, Secondary","hits":5083},{"value":"Education, Elementary","hits":4729},{"value":"Segregation in education--Mississippi","hits":4727},{"value":"Education--Pictorial works","hits":4707},{"value":"Civil rights demonstrations","hits":4440},{"value":"Civil rights workers","hits":3536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"subject_personal_facet","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966--Correspondence","hits":1888},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1815},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1709},{"value":"Baker, Augusta, 1911-1998","hits":1495},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1312},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1071},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":858},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":814},{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":719},{"value":"Mizell, M. Hayes","hits":674},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":626}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"name_authoritative_sms","items":[{"value":"Smith, Lillian (Lillian Eugenia), 1897-1966","hits":2598},{"value":"King, Martin Luther, Jr., 1929-1968","hits":1915},{"value":"Meredith, James, 1933-","hits":1704},{"value":"Herrera, John J.","hits":1331},{"value":"Parks, Rosa, 1913-2005","hits":1070},{"value":"Jordan, Barbara, 1936-1996","hits":856},{"value":"Young, Andrew, 1932-","hits":806},{"value":"Silver, James W. (James Wesley), 1907-1988","hits":625},{"value":"Connor, Eugene, 1897-1973","hits":605},{"value":"Snelling, Paula","hits":580},{"value":"Williams, Hosea, 1926-2000","hits":440}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"event_title_sms","items":[{"value":"Martin Luther King, Jr.'s Nobel Prize","hits":1769},{"value":"Ole Miss Integration","hits":1670},{"value":"Housing Act of 1961","hits":969},{"value":"Little Rock Central High School Integration","hits":853},{"value":"Memphis Sanitation Workers Strike","hits":366},{"value":"Selma-Montgomery March","hits":337},{"value":"Freedom Summer","hits":306},{"value":"Freedom Rides","hits":214},{"value":"Poor People's Campaign","hits":180},{"value":"University of Georgia Integration","hits":173},{"value":"University of Alabama Integration","hits":140}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"location_facet","items":[{"value":"United States, 39.76, -98.5","hits":17987},{"value":"United States, Georgia, Fulton County, Atlanta, 33.749, -84.38798","hits":5437},{"value":"United States, Alabama, Montgomery County, Montgomery, 32.36681, -86.29997","hits":5151},{"value":"United States, Georgia, 32.75042, -83.50018","hits":4847},{"value":"United States, South Carolina, 34.00043, -81.00009","hits":4599},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, 34.75037, -92.50044","hits":4328},{"value":"United States, Alabama, 32.75041, -86.75026","hits":3948},{"value":"United States, Mississippi, 32.75041, -89.75036","hits":2910},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, 34.76993, -92.3118","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Tennessee, Shelby County, Memphis, 35.14953, -90.04898","hits":2580},{"value":"United States, Arkansas, Pulaski County, Little Rock, 34.74648, -92.28959","hits":2536}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"us_states_facet","items":[{"value":"Georgia","hits":12823},{"value":"Alabama","hits":11313},{"value":"Mississippi","hits":10220},{"value":"South Carolina","hits":8493},{"value":"Arkansas","hits":4733},{"value":"Texas","hits":4399},{"value":"Tennessee","hits":3786},{"value":"Florida","hits":2602},{"value":"Ohio","hits":2403},{"value":"North Carolina","hits":1875},{"value":"New York","hits":1840}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"year_facet","items":[{"value":"1966","hits":10632},{"value":"1963","hits":10287},{"value":"1965","hits":10218},{"value":"1956","hits":9840},{"value":"1955","hits":9619},{"value":"1964","hits":9365},{"value":"1968","hits":9345},{"value":"1962","hits":9247},{"value":"1967","hits":8897},{"value":"1957","hits":8523},{"value":"1961","hits":8282},{"value":"1958","hits":8259},{"value":"1959","hits":8061},{"value":"1960","hits":7948},{"value":"1969","hits":7348},{"value":"1954","hits":7240},{"value":"1950","hits":7118},{"value":"1953","hits":6969},{"value":"1970","hits":6835},{"value":"1971","hits":6425},{"value":"1977","hits":6367},{"value":"1972","hits":6254},{"value":"1952","hits":6162},{"value":"1951","hits":6046},{"value":"1975","hits":5894},{"value":"1976","hits":5863},{"value":"1974","hits":5849},{"value":"1973","hits":5689},{"value":"1979","hits":5416},{"value":"1978","hits":5405},{"value":"1980","hits":5366},{"value":"1995","hits":4885},{"value":"1981","hits":4811},{"value":"1994","hits":4704},{"value":"1948","hits":4597},{"value":"1949","hits":4573},{"value":"1996","hits":4542},{"value":"1982","hits":4417},{"value":"1947","hits":4317},{"value":"1985","hits":4313},{"value":"1998","hits":4281},{"value":"1983","hits":4261},{"value":"1997","hits":4258},{"value":"1984","hits":4152},{"value":"1999","hits":4074},{"value":"1946","hits":4047},{"value":"1945","hits":4018},{"value":"1986","hits":4006},{"value":"1990","hits":3988},{"value":"1943","hits":3900},{"value":"1944","hits":3896},{"value":"2000","hits":3894},{"value":"2001","hits":3876},{"value":"1942","hits":3868},{"value":"1940","hits":3765},{"value":"1941","hits":3758},{"value":"1987","hits":3744},{"value":"2002","hits":3624},{"value":"1991","hits":3553},{"value":"1936","hits":3507},{"value":"1939","hits":3501},{"value":"1992","hits":3500},{"value":"2003","hits":3489},{"value":"1993","hits":3478},{"value":"1938","hits":3466},{"value":"1937","hits":3450},{"value":"1989","hits":3441},{"value":"1930","hits":3378},{"value":"1988","hits":3355},{"value":"1935","hits":3307},{"value":"1933","hits":3271},{"value":"1934","hits":3271},{"value":"1932","hits":3255},{"value":"1931","hits":3240},{"value":"2005","hits":3143},{"value":"2004","hits":2995},{"value":"2006","hits":2860},{"value":"1929","hits":2790},{"value":"1928","hits":2272},{"value":"1921","hits":2124},{"value":"1925","hits":2040},{"value":"1927","hits":2026},{"value":"1924","hits":2012},{"value":"2016","hits":2011},{"value":"1926","hits":2010},{"value":"1920","hits":1976},{"value":"1923","hits":1955},{"value":"1922","hits":1929},{"value":"2007","hits":1715},{"value":"2008","hits":1664},{"value":"2011","hits":1661},{"value":"2009","hits":1624},{"value":"2019","hits":1623},{"value":"2015","hits":1613},{"value":"2013","hits":1604},{"value":"2010","hits":1601},{"value":"2014","hits":1567},{"value":"2012","hits":1553},{"value":"1919","hits":1533},{"value":"1918","hits":1531}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null},"min":"0193","max":"2035","count":506439,"missing":56},{"name":"medium_facet","items":[{"value":"photographs","hits":10710},{"value":"correspondence","hits":9628},{"value":"black-and-white photographs","hits":7678},{"value":"negatives (photographs)","hits":7513},{"value":"documents (object genre)","hits":4462},{"value":"letters (correspondence)","hits":3623},{"value":"oral histories (literary works)","hits":3607},{"value":"black-and-white negatives","hits":2771},{"value":"editorial cartoons","hits":2620},{"value":"newspapers","hits":1955},{"value":"manuscripts (documents)","hits":1692}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"rights_facet","items":[{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC/1.0/","hits":41201},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-EDU/1.0/","hits":17721},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/UND/1.0/","hits":8830},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/CNE/1.0/","hits":7090},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-US/1.0/","hits":2186},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-NC/1.0/","hits":1778},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NoC-CR/1.0/","hits":1115},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-nd/4.0/","hits":145},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/NKC/1.0/","hits":60},{"value":"http://rightsstatements.org/vocab/InC-RUU/1.0/","hits":51},{"value":"https://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-nc-sa/4.0/","hits":27}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"collection_titles_sms","items":[{"value":"Jim Peppler Southern Courier Photograph Collection","hits":4956},{"value":"John E. Phay Collection ","hits":4706},{"value":"John J. Herrera Papers","hits":3288},{"value":"Baldy Editorial Cartoons, 1946-1982, 1997: Clifford H. Baldowski Editorial Cartoons at the Richard B. Russell Library.","hits":2607},{"value":"Sovereignty Commission Online","hits":2335},{"value":"Strom Thurmond Collection, Mss 100","hits":2068},{"value":"Alabama Media Group Collection","hits":2067},{"value":"Black Trailblazers, Leaders, Activists, and Intellectuals in Cleveland","hits":2033},{"value":"Rosa Parks Papers","hits":1948},{"value":"Isaiah DeQuincey Newman, (1911-1985), Papers, 1929-2003","hits":1904},{"value":"Lillian Eugenia Smith Papers (circa 1920-1980)","hits":1887}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"provenance_facet","items":[{"value":"John Davis Williams Library. Department of Archives and Special Collections","hits":8885},{"value":"Alabama. Department of Archives and History","hits":8153},{"value":"South Caroliniana Library","hits":4251},{"value":"Atlanta University Center Robert W. Woodruff Library","hits":4102},{"value":"University of North Texas. Libraries","hits":3854},{"value":"University of South Carolina. Libraries","hits":3438},{"value":"Hargrett Library","hits":3292},{"value":"Richard B. Russell Library for Political Research and Studies","hits":2874},{"value":"Mississippi. Department of Archives and History","hits":2825},{"value":"Butler Center for Arkansas Studies","hits":2785},{"value":"Rhodes College","hits":2264}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":11,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"class_name","items":[{"value":"Item","hits":81102},{"value":"Collection","hits":455}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}},{"name":"educator_resource_b","items":[{"value":"false","hits":81360},{"value":"true","hits":197}],"options":{"sort":"count","limit":100,"offset":0,"prefix":null}}]}}