|
Lois E. Adams, et al, | Plaintiffs, | | versus | Civil Action No: 98-1665 LFO, MBG, CKK | George W. Bush,* et al, | Defendants | MOTION TO RELIEVE PLAINTIFFS LOIS E. ADAMS, et al., OF JUDGMENTS ENTERED ON MARCH 20, 2000 BY THE THREE-JUDGE DISTRICT COURT Pursuant to Rule 60(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs Lois E. Adams, et al., in Civil Action number 98-1665-LFO, MBG, CKK, ask this honorable Three-judge District Court of the District of Columbia to relieve them from the judgements entered by this Court on March 20, 2000. In support of this request, Plaintiffs state: 1. On June 30, 1998, the law suit styled Lois E. Adams, et al., v. William Jefferson Clinton, et al., was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Columbia and assigned civil action number 98-1665-LFO. 2. Almost four months later, another law suit styled Clifford Alexander, et al., v. William M. Daley, et al., was filed in the same court and assigned civil action number 98-2187-LFO. 3. The claims presented in Adams and Alexander, respectively, are categorically different responses to the District's situation and these claims and the arguments presented in each case in support of them are in almost diametric opposition on various critical and dispositive points. 4. On the Court's initiative and over a showing by Plaintiffs in Adams that consolidation presented significant risk of confusion and denial of due process, the two cases were consolidated pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 42(a). 5. Shortly thereafter, pursuant to Applications filed in each case, the judge to whom the cases were first assigned referred the consolidated cases to the Chief Judge of the Circuit for nomination of a district court of three judges under 28 U.S.C. § 2284 and this Three-judge District Court was duly empaneled by order filed November 16, 1998. 6. Plaintiffs in Adams filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants in Adams filed three Motions to Dismiss. 7. Plaintiffs in Alexander filed a Motion for Summary Judgment and Defendants in Alexander filed Motions to Dismiss. 8. These dispositive motions in both cases were heard in oral argument on April 19, 1999. 9. The Three-judge District Court entered judgment on March 20, 2000 on the various dispositive Motions filed by the parties (the Memorandum Opinion is reported at 90 F.Supp.2d 35-72 (D.D.C. 2000)), (1) dismissing all claims challenging the constitutionality of apportionment of congressional districts in both cases. 10. Although the Memorandum Opinion is captioned in a manner and discusses the cases in a manner which indicates the Memorandum is intended to address the claims presented in both cases, and although the Court entered judgments disposing of claims in both cases, the Memorandum only actually discusses the claims presented in Alexander. 11. To the extent the Memorandum mentions claims presented in Adams, the Memorandum either directly and overtly or indirectly and by inference treats the claims in Adams as subsumed within the claims in Alexander, presenting - at most - points or suggestions in addition to those presented in Alexander. 12. With a few technical exceptions (the details which do not alter the dispositive points made by the Court), Adams Plaintiffs agree with the Three-judge District Court's analysis of the merits of Alexander, but the Court's analysis does not address the claims actually made in Adams, nor is this analysis of the claims and arguments in Alexander dispositive of those presented in Adams. 13. If applied to the actual claims and arguments presented in Adams, the Court's analysis of the merits of Alexander technically begs the question presented at the heart of Adams. 14. Since judgment disposing of the claims made in Adams was entered on the basis of analysis of antithetical or, at best, irrelevant claims and arguments in a separate, distinct case, Plaintiffs in Adams were denied due process of law. 15. Plaintiffs in Adams are entitled to reasoned consideration of the claims, arguments, and evidence they placed before the Court, without being subsumed within antithetical claims or arguments presented by any other party in this or any other case. 16. The last time counsel for Plaintiffs was able to review the official Record of this case at the office of the Clerk, the Record was not complete or fully accurate; several documents are mislabeled and the Record does not contain at least one key document: Plaintiffs' Memorandum in support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment with supporting evidentiary exhibits; counsel has not been able to ascertain the accuracy of the Record at present. 17. A Memorandum of Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiffs' request is filed simultaneously with this Motion; attached to the Memorandum is a comprehensive factual Analysis of the Memorandum Opinion. Therefore, on the basis of the instant Motion and argument and evidence in support of the Motion, Plaintiffs ask this honorable Three-judge District Court to relieve them of its judgments entered on March 20, 2000 dismissing their claims. Further, Plaintiffs ask the Court to reconstitute the Record in this case to include all documents and only all documents pertaining to this case, and Plaintiffs ask the Court to set the case for oral argument on Plaintiffs' Motion for Summary Judgment and on Defendants' Motions to Dismiss (which were before the Court prior to entry of the judgment from which relief is sought) in order to insure that issues in the case are clearly set forth as the parties to this case frame them. Pursuant to Local Civil Rule 7.1(f), Plaintiffs also lodge a request that the Court set the instant Motion to Relieve for oral argument. Respectfully submitted, George S. LaRoche
1. The reported Memorandum notes it is "as amended April 20, 2000," but it appears that the
only amendments were to the opinion of the dissenting judge. |
|