Case: Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

2:00-cv-01205 | U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington

Filed Date: July 18, 2000

Closed Date: 2009

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, a nonprofit corporation formed by a group of parents whose children were not, or may not be, assigned to a high school of their choice under the Seattle school district's assignment plan (which used a racial integration tiebreaker, described below) filed a civil lawsuit on July 18, 2000. Relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and represented by private counsel, the plaintiff organization claimed that use of the tiebreaker violated the Was…

In the U.S. District Court for the Western District of Washington, a nonprofit corporation formed by a group of parents whose children were not, or may not be, assigned to a high school of their choice under the Seattle school district's assignment plan (which used a racial integration tiebreaker, described below) filed a civil lawsuit on July 18, 2000. Relying on 42 U.S.C. § 1983 and represented by private counsel, the plaintiff organization claimed that use of the tiebreaker violated the Washington Civil Rights Act ("Initiative 200") (codified at RCW 49.60.400), the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution, and Title VI of the federal Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d. The defendants were the school district and certain of its officials. The plaintiff alleged that Seattle's public school system used a plan to assign students to its ten high schools that considered, for example, applicants' preferences, school proximity, and siblings' placement, but also considered race as a "tiebreaker" factor, along with other tiebreakers, to preclude over-populating high schools considered more desirable by applicants. When the race tiebreaker was used, the school district's object included selecting for placement students whose race would help mitigate what the district regarded as imbalance in the racial makeup of a particular school. The school district considered that a school was out of balance if it deviated by more than 15% from the overall racial breakdown of the students attending Seattle's public schools, which (at the time of the lawsuit) were approximately 40% white and 60% nonwhite. According to the docket sheet for the case, on July 28, 2000, the defendants filed a counterclaim against the plaintiff, along with an answer denying liability. We do not have a copy of the complaint, nor of the counterclaim, so we do not know specifics of the relief either party sought; however, the plaintiff plainly sought injunctive relief to preclude use by the defendants of the racial tiebreaker component of the district's "open choice" student assignment plan. After the initially-assigned district judge recused herself in December 2000, the case was assigned to District Judge Barbara J. Rothstein. The discovery and pre-trial motion process ensued, with the parties eventually filing cross-motions for summary judgment.

In ruling on those motions, Judge Rothstein first found that the Seattle district's use of a racial tiebreaker did not offend Initiative 200, the then-recently-passed voter initiative barring state government, including school districts, from discriminating against or granting preferential treatment to any individual or group on the basis of race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public education. The judge interpreted that provision to mean that a school board's race-conscious assignment policy would not constitute a "preference" or "discrimination" when instituted to accomplish school integration, based on state court interpretations of those terms in the state constitution. Turning to the plaintiff's federal claims, Judge Rothstein found compelling the school board's purpose of mitigating the effects of de facto residential segregation which, otherwise, would impede benefits offered by racially diverse schools and would result in re-segregation of the city's public schools. The judge also viewed the plan as narrowly tailored to serve the established compelling interests. Accordingly, her view was that the policy did not violate federal law and, on April 6, 2001, she granted the defendants' motions for summary judgment on the state and federal law claims. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 137 F. Supp.2d 1224 (W.D. Wash. 2001).

The defendants appealed to the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. A panel of that court reviewed the school's policy and its' effect, concluding that the racial tiebreaker determines about 10% of student assignments in Seattle's public high schools, noting that those schools had never operated under laws requiring segregation. Following the urgings of the parties to not certify a question about the meaning of Initiative 200 to the state's Supreme Court, the panel interpreted the voter initiative differently than did the district court, saying that the interpretation that the state court would give it was clear: giving the provision its' plain meaning, as state law required, meant the racial tiebreaker did grant preferential treatment in violation of Initiative 200. The panel observed that use of the racial tiebreaker resulted, during one stage of the admissions process, in all decisions being made based solely on race. Thus, as support for its' state law interpretation, the court concluded that the racial tiebreaker at issue was "inherently invidious," under federal law. By granting some students preferential treatment over others on the basis of race, the school district violated state law as enacted by the initiative, in the panel's view. In April 2002, it reversed the district court's ruling. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 285 F.3d 1236 (9th Cir. 2002) (Circuit Judge Diarmuid F. O'Scannlain). Additionally, the appellate panel granted the plaintiff's motion for an injunction pending the filing and disposition of any petition for rehearing or rehearing en banc. The injunction prevented the defendants from using the racial tiebreaker in making high school assignments pending further order of the court.

The injunction, however, was short-lived, as the defendants' petition for rehearing was granted on June 17, 2002. That day, the appellate panel withdrew its' opinion and vacated the injunction. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 294 F.3d 1084 (9th Cir. 2002). Given that the pendency of the rehearing en banc petition precluded a final judgment before the upcoming school year began, and viewing it as a prudent step to seek the opinion of the state's highest court on a matter of interpreting state law, the panel on its own motion decided to certify to the Washington Supreme Court the question: "By using a racial tiebreaker to determine high school assignments, does Seattle School District Number 1 'discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, ...color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of ... public education' in violation of Initiative 200...?" Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 294 F.3d 1085 (9th Cir. 2002). In these appellate proceedings, various amici curiae filings were made by the ACLU, the Pacific Legal Foundation, the Center for Equal Opportunity, the American Civil Rights Institute, and the Urban League of Metropolitan Seattle.

On June 26, 2003, the Washington Supreme Court issued its en banc opinion that the school district's "open choice" assignment plan did not discriminate against, or grant preferential treatment to, any individual or group on the basis of race, color, ethnicity, or national origin in the operation of public education in violation of Washington's discrimination statute, because it used race neutrally and did not promote a less qualified minority applicant over a more qualified applicant. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 72 P.2d 151 (Wash. 2003).

Having received the state court's ruling, the Ninth Circuit had the case re-argued in December 2003. A new panel opinion resulted, on July 27, 2004. In a 2-1 decision, Judge O'Scannlain wrote that racial diversity in education was a compelling governmental interest, but the school district's using race as tiebreaker in student assignments was not narrowly tailored to further that interest. Therefore, the panel ruled that the school district's use of the racial tiebreaker violated the equal protection mandate of the Fourteenth Amendment. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 377 F.3d 949 (9th Cir. 2004). The defendants' application for rehearing en banc was granted on February 1, 2005. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 395 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2005) (Circuit Judge Mary M. Schroeder).

Unlike most federal appellate courts, en banc review in the Ninth Circuit did not entail review by all sitting circuit judges, but by eleven assigned to the case. Judge O'Scannlain was not one of the eleven. On October 20, 2005, those who did provide en banc review decided, 7-4, that the use of the racial tiebreaker did not violate federal law. The majority opinion, by Circuit Judge Raymond C. Fisher, held that: (1) the school district had a compelling interest in securing educational and social benefits of racial and ethnic diversity and in ameliorating racial isolation or concentration in its high schools by ensuring that its assignments did not simply replicate Seattle's segregated housing patterns; (2) for purposes of determining whether the district's plan was narrowly tailored to meet its compelling interests, the district's fifteen percent plus or minus variance was not a "quota"; (3) the district made a good-faith effort to consider feasible race-neutral alternatives and permissibly rejected them in favor of a system involving sibling preference, the race-based tiebreaker, and proximity preference; (4) the racial tiebreaker imposed a minimal burden shared equally by all district's students and did not unduly harm members of any racial group; and (5) the plan included periodic reviews to determine whether racial preferences were still necessary to achieve student body diversity. As a result, the district court's decision was affirmed. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 426 F.3d 1162 (9th Cir. 2005).

The plaintiff, however, petitioned the Supreme Court to issue a writ of certiorari in order to review the Ninth Circuit's affirmance. On June 5, 2006, the Supreme Court issued the writ and directed that the case and a similar appeal involving public schools in Jefferson County (Louisville), Kentucky, were to be considered together. Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, 547 U.S. 1177 (2006).

In June 2007, the Supreme Court issued its ruling addressing the issues raised in the two cases. Published as Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School Dist. No. 1, __ U.S. __, 127 S. Ct. 2738, 168 L. Ed. 2d 508 (June 28, 2007) (John G. Roberts, Jr., Chief Justice), the ruling consists of several parts, with some mustering a 5-4 majority and others only a plurality. The majority framed the issue as whether a public school system that had not operated legally segregated schools (i.e., Seattle) or that had been found to be unitary (i.e., Jefferson County) may choose to classify students by race and rely upon that classification in making school assignments. Although the appellate courts had upheld the school systems in each case, the Supreme Court reversed. After reviewing the operation of the racial classifications used by each school system and ruling that changed circumstances did not deprive it of jurisdiction, the Supreme Court set out the framework it used to evaluate the two cases. Its prior cases, in evaluating the use of racial classifications in the school context, recognized two interests that qualified as compelling. The first was the compelling interest of remedying the effects of past intentional discrimination. This factor could not apply to the Seattle system, which had never engaged in such discrimination, nor to the Louisville system, which had been found, earlier, to be unitary. The second government interest recognized as compelling was the interest in diversity in higher education, but only where the racial component of the process was a part of an individualized, holistic consideration process. Because each system under review relied on racial classifications in a nonindividualized, mechanical way, and because of the different context presented by public elementary and secondary schools in comparison to higher education, the school systems' could not rely on race as they had. In a portion of his opinion garnering three concurring votes, Chief Justice Roberts wrote that the racial classifications employed by the districts were not narrowly tailored to the goal of achieving the educational and social benefits asserted to flow from racial diversity. In his view of their design and operation, the plans were directed only to racial balance, pure and simple, an objective he said that the Court had repeatedly condemned as illegitimate. He rejected use of racial balancing as an end in itself and rejected efforts to re-label the practice as racial diversity, avoidance of racial isolation, or racial integration. To the Chief Justice, the Constitution prohibited the states' use of means that treat students solely as members of a racial group, rather than as individuals. In the following part of his opinion, he noted that both districts asserted the minimal impact of the districts' racial classifications on school enrollment. To him, the assertion cast doubt on the "necessity" component employed in assessing governmental use of racial classifications. Nor had either district shown they seriously considered other, race-neutral methods of achieving their educational goals. The opinion described what the Chief Justice considered flaws in a lengthy dissent authored by Justice Stephen Breyer. Justice Stevens also filed a dissenting opinion. Justice Thomas filed a concurring opinion and Justice Kennedy filed a separate opinion, concurring in part and concurring in the judgment. The cases were remanded to the Courts of Appeals for further proceedings.

On August 22, 2007, the Ninth Circuit vacated its 2005 opinion and remanded the case to the District Court for further proceedings. The plaintiff subsequently moved for entry of judgment, seeking a declaratory judgment, an injunction, as well as attorney's fees pursuant to the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act, 42 U.S.C. §1988. In support of its request for an injunction, the plaintiff argued that there was a substantial risk that the District would adopt new impermissible racial classifications. The plaintiff also requested that the court retain jurisdiction to determine the amount of fees and costs, and to enforce the injunction if necessary.

After an extended briefing schedule, the District Court (Judge Barbara Rothstein) entered judgment in favor of the plaintiff on January 12, 2009. However, Judge Rothstein denied the plaintiff's requests for declaratory relief and an injunction. She denied the injunction on the basis that there was nothing in the record to suggest that the District was planning to implement a new admission policy which would run afoul of the Supreme Court's opinion. As to declaratory relief, Judge Rothstein denied this after finding that the plaintiff's proposed declaratory judgment was too broad in light of the Supreme Court's opinion. Judge Rothstein also found that the plaintiff was the prevailing party for purposes of the Civil Rights Attorney's Fees Awards Act, but declined to declare it was entitled to attorney's fees until she had received a breakdown of the fees the plaintiff would be seeking.

On February 5, 2009, the plaintiff appealed the denial of declaratory relief and a permanent injunction to the Ninth Circuit. One week later, the defendant cross appealed the same order. While both appeals were pending, the parties participated in the Ninth Circuit's Mediation Program. In July 2009, the plaintiff withdrew its motion for attorney's fees. The case closed on August 4, 2009, when the parties stipulated to the dismissal of both appeals.

Materials and a summary of the Louisville case exist in this database as SD-KY-0001.

Summary Authors

Mike Fagan (7/1/2008)

Greg in den Berken (11/11/2014)

Related Cases

Meredith, Custodial Parent and Next Friend of McDonald v. Jefferson County Bd. of Ed, Western District of Kentucky (2002)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4894540/parties/pics-v-seattle-school-dist/


Judge(s)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Chambers, Tom (Washington)

Fisher, Raymond C. (California)

Fletcher, William A. (California)

Graber, Susan (Oregon)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Judge(s)

Bea, Carlos T. (California)

Breyer, Stephen Gerald (District of Columbia)

Callahan, Consuelo Maria (California)

Chambers, Tom (Washington)

Fisher, Raymond C. (California)

Fletcher, William A. (California)

Graber, Susan (Oregon)

Hawkins, Michael Daly (Arizona)

Kennedy, Anthony McLeod (District of Columbia)

Kleinfeld, Andrew Jay (Alaska)

Kozinski, Alex (California)

O'Scannlain, Diarmuid Fionntain (Oregon)

Pregerson, Harry (California)

Rawlinson, Johnnie B. (Nevada)

Reavley, Thomas Morrow (Texas)

Roberts, John Glover Jr. (District of Columbia)

Rothstein, Barbara Jacobs (Washington)

Schroeder, Mary Murphy (Arizona)

Stevens, John Paul (District of Columbia)

Tallman, Richard C. (Washington)

Thomas, Clarence (District of Columbia)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Korrell, Harry James Franklyn III (Washington)

Ritter, David Benjamin (Washington)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Green, Mark Stephen (Washington)

Janes, Carol Sue (Washington)

Madden, Michael (Washington)

McMinimee, Shannon Marie (Washington)

Other Attorney(s)

Brooks, Russell C. (Washington)

Browne, Sharon L. (California)

Lawrence, Paul J. (Washington)

Robinson, Jeffrey (Washington)

Widlan, Sandra (Washington)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

2:00-cv-01205

09-35105

Docket [PACER]

PICS v. Seattle School Dist, et al

Aug. 4, 2009

Aug. 4, 2009

Docket
98

2:00-cv-01205

Order Granting Defendants' Motion for Summary Judgment

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.

137 F.Supp.2d 1224

April 6, 2001

April 6, 2001

Order/Opinion

01-35450

Opinion

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

285 F.3d 1236

April 26, 2002

April 26, 2002

Order/Opinion

01-35450

Order

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

294 F.3d 1085

June 17, 2002

June 17, 2002

Order/Opinion

72712–1

Opinion

Washington state supreme court

72 P.3d 151

June 26, 2003

June 26, 2003

Order/Opinion

01-35450

Opinion

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

377 F.3d 949

July 27, 2004

July 27, 2004

Order/Opinion

01-35450

Order

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

395 F.3d 1168

Feb. 1, 2005

Feb. 1, 2005

Order/Opinion

01-35450

Opinion

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

426 F.3d 1162

Oct. 20, 2005

Oct. 20, 2005

Order/Opinion

2:00-cv-01205

01-35450

Judgment

Parents Involved In Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1 et al.

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit

Nov. 8, 2005

Nov. 8, 2005

Order/Opinion

05-00908

Order Granting Petition for Writ of Certiorari

Parents Involved in Community Schools v. Seattle School District No. 1

Supreme Court of the United States

547 U.S. 1177, 126 S.Ct. 2351, 165 L.Ed.2d 277

June 5, 2006

June 5, 2006

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/4894540/pics-v-seattle-school-dist/

Last updated Aug. 11, 2022, 3:10 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

COMPLAINT (Summons(es) issued) Receipt # 300864 (PM) Modified on 07/28/2000 (Entered: 07/24/2000)

July 18, 2000

July 18, 2000

PACER
2

ATTORNEY APPEARANCE for defendants by Michael Madden (RS) (Entered: 07/26/2000)

July 20, 2000

July 20, 2000

PACER
3

ACCEPTANCE/ACKNOWLEDGEMENT OF SERVICE of summons and complaint by defendants on 7/18/00 (KERR) (Entered: 07/27/2000)

July 21, 2000

July 21, 2000

PACER
4

ANSWER to complaint [1-1] and COUNTERCLAIM by defendant against plaintiff (VK) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

July 28, 2000

July 28, 2000

PACER
5

NOTICE by defendants of ASSOCIATION OF ATTORNEY by Mark S. Green (VK) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

July 28, 2000

July 28, 2000

PACER
6

REQUESTS for production and interrogatories by defendant Seattle School Dist for (VK) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

July 28, 2000

July 28, 2000

PACER
7

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of counterclaim answer [4-1], of counterclaim complaint [4-2] etc. (VK) (Entered: 08/02/2000)

July 28, 2000

July 28, 2000

PACER
10

ANSWER TO COUNTERCLAIM [4-2] by counter-defendant PICS (KERR) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

Aug. 1, 2000

Aug. 1, 2000

PACER
8

ORDER re: DISCOVERY and DEPOSITIONS by Judge Marsha J. Pechman (cc: counsel, Judge) (TG) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

Aug. 3, 2000

Aug. 3, 2000

PACER
9

ORDER/NOTICE OF JOINT STATUS REPORT Joint Status Report due 9/2/00 (cc: counsel, Judge) (TG) (Entered: 08/03/2000)

Aug. 3, 2000

Aug. 3, 2000

PACER
11

JOINT STATUS REPORT filed by all parties. Est. Trial Days: 5 (RS) (Entered: 09/08/2000)

Sept. 1, 2000

Sept. 1, 2000

PACER
12

ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman setting trial and related dates. Last date for adding new parties is 10/23/00; expert disclosures due 11/15/01; discovery ddl set for 1/15/01 ; mtn filing ddl set for 1/25/01 ; pretrial order ddl set for 2/14/01 ; pretrial conf set for 1:30 2/19/01 ; trial brief ddl set for 3/8/01 ; trial set for 3/13/01 Motions in Limine deadline 2/1/01 ; (cc: counsel, Judge) (MD) (Entered: 09/25/2000)

Sept. 22, 2000

Sept. 22, 2000

PACER
13

ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman ; 39.1 designation effective set for 12/1/00 (cc: counsel, Judge) (MD) (Entered: 09/25/2000)

Sept. 22, 2000

Sept. 22, 2000

PACER
14

STIPULATION and ORDER by Judge Marsha J. Pechman : Disclose Expert Witnesses by 12/15/00 ; ; 39.1 designation effective extended to 1/15/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (MD) (Entered: 11/16/2000)

Nov. 15, 2000

Nov. 15, 2000

PACER

LODGED ORDER: stipulation and order modifying case schedule (MD)

Dec. 11, 2000

Dec. 11, 2000

PACER
15

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Marsha J. Pechman recuses herself and the Case reassigned to Judge Barbara J. Rothstein (cc: counsel, MJP, BJR, Intake, Liz) (MD) (Entered: 12/15/2000)

Dec. 14, 2000

Dec. 14, 2000

PACER
16

ORDER re: DISCOVERY and DEPOSITIONS by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein (cc: counsel, Judge) (KERR) (Entered: 12/18/2000)

Dec. 14, 2000

Dec. 14, 2000

PACER
17

ORDER SETTING TRIAL and PRETRIAL SCHEDULES and Designating case under Local Rule CR 39.1 by Judge Barbara Jacobs Rothstein:Court Trial set for 9:30 5/7/01 ; Pretrial Order set for 4/9/01 ; Trial briefs to be submitted by 4/23/01 ; Motions in Limine deadline 4/23/01 ; Motion filing ddl 2/15/01 ; 39.1 designation effective 2/28/01 ; Discovery deadline set for 2/5/01 ; Disclose Expert Witnesses by 1/8/01 ; Disclose Rebuttal Expert Witnesses by 2/22/01 ; Court Trial set for 5 days (cc: counsel, Judge) (KERR) (Entered: 12/18/2000)

Dec. 14, 2000

Dec. 14, 2000

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: stipulated mtn relieving parties of obligation to mediate (KERR)

Dec. 19, 2000

Dec. 19, 2000

PACER
18

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein - The parties' mtn for an order relieving them of the LR 39.1 obligation to mediate is DENIED. The court hereby refers the parties in this dispute to Judge Dwyer for mediation. Parties to contact Trish Graham to schedule a mediation confr in February (cc: counsel, Judge) (KERR) (Entered: 12/21/2000)

Dec. 21, 2000

Dec. 21, 2000

PACER
19

STIPULATED MOTION AND ORDER MODIFYING CASE SCHEDULE by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein : Disclose Expert Witnesses by 1/15/01 ; discovery ddl amd to 2/15/01 ; mtn filing ddl amd to 2/15/01 Motions in limine deadline amd to 2/22/01 ; pretrial order ddl amd to 3/7/01 ; trial brief ddl amd to 3/29/01 ; trial amd to 9:30 4/3/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (KERR) (Entered: 12/21/2000)

Dec. 21, 2000

Dec. 21, 2000

PACER
20

MAIL RETURNED: re: Minute Order [18-1] addressed to Daniel Ritter Esq. (KERR) (Entered: 12/28/2000)

Dec. 28, 2000

Dec. 28, 2000

PACER
21

MOTION by defendants for partial summary judgment NOTED FOR 2/2/01 (KERR) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER
22

MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (KERR) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER
23

DECLARATION of Morgan Lewis by defendants re motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (KERR) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER
24

DECLARATION of Rebecca Taylor by defendants re motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (KERR) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER
25

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendants in support of motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (KERR) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (KERR)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER
26

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] etc (KERR) (Entered: 12/29/2000)

Dec. 29, 2000

Dec. 29, 2000

PACER
27

MOTION by plaintiff for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 NOTED FOR 1/19/01 (RS) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
28

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
29

DECLARATION of Harry J.F. Korrell by plaintiff re motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] (RS)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
30

MOTION by plaintiff to shorten time on motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] NOTED FOR 1/9/01 (RS) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: motion to shorten time on motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] [30-1] (RS)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
31

MOTION by defendants for leave to file overlength brief (dfts' memo in support of partial summ jgm motion) NOTED FOR 2/2/01 (RS) (Entered: 01/05/2001)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: motion for leave to file overlength brief (dfts' memo in support of partial summ jgm motion) [31-1] (RS)

Jan. 4, 2001

Jan. 4, 2001

PACER
32

RESPONSE by defendants to motion to shorten time on motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] [30-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/09/2001)

Jan. 8, 2001

Jan. 8, 2001

PACER
33

RESPONSE by defendants to motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

Jan. 10, 2001

Jan. 10, 2001

PACER
34

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendant re: motion response [33-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

Jan. 10, 2001

Jan. 10, 2001

PACER
35

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant of motion response [33-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

Jan. 10, 2001

Jan. 10, 2001

PACER
36

REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion for a continuance on its reply to dfts' motion for partial summ jgm until 2/15/01 [27-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

Jan. 11, 2001

Jan. 11, 2001

PACER
37

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Harry Korrell by plaintiff re: motion reply [36-1] (RS) (Entered: 01/12/2001)

Jan. 11, 2001

Jan. 11, 2001

PACER
38

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein renoting dfts' motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] to 2/16/01; response due 2/12/01; dfts' reply due 2/15/01 (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 01/23/2001)

Jan. 22, 2001

Jan. 22, 2001

PACER
39

ORDER by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein GRANTING dfts' motion for leave to file overlength brief (dfts' memo in support of partial summ jgm motion) [31-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 02/02/2001)

Feb. 2, 2001

Feb. 2, 2001

PACER
40

MOTION by defendants to exclude pltf's expert NOTED FOR 2/9/01 (RS) (Entered: 02/09/2001)

Feb. 7, 2001

Feb. 7, 2001

PACER
41

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendant re motion to exclude pltf's expert [40-1] (RS) (Entered: 02/09/2001)

Feb. 7, 2001

Feb. 7, 2001

PACER
42

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant motion to exclude pltf's expert [40-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 02/09/2001)

Feb. 7, 2001

Feb. 7, 2001

PACER
44

RESPONSE by plaintiff to exclude pltf's rebuttal expert (RS) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 8, 2001

Feb. 8, 2001

PACER
45

DECLARATION of Harry Korrell by plaintiff re: motion response [44-1] (RS) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 8, 2001

Feb. 8, 2001

PACER
46

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff motion response [44-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 8, 2001

Feb. 8, 2001

PACER
47

REPLY DECLARATION of Michael Madden TO RESPONSE to motion to exclude pltf's expert (RS) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 8, 2001

Feb. 8, 2001

PACER
48

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE motion reply [47-1] (RS) (Entered: 02/12/2001)

Feb. 8, 2001

Feb. 8, 2001

PACER
43

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein DENYING dfts' motion to exclude pltf's expert [40-1] (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 02/09/2001)

Feb. 9, 2001

Feb. 9, 2001

PACER
49

Cross MOTION by plaintiff for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) NOTED FOR 3/9/01 (VK) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
50

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of cross motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) [49-1], and opposing defts' motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (VK) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
51

DECLARATION of Harry J. F. Korrell by plaintiff re attachments to pltf's memo supporting its motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) [49-1], and opposing defts' motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (FILED IN EXPANDO) (VK) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
52

DECLARATION of Jill Kurfirst by plaintiff re motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) [49-1] (VK) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
53

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) [49-1] etc. (VK) (Entered: 02/13/2001)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: granting pltf's motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) [49-1] (VK)

Feb. 12, 2001

Feb. 12, 2001

PACER
54

MOTION by defendants for partial summary judgment re compelling interests NOTED FOR 3/9/01 (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
55

MEMORANDUM by defendants in support of motion for partial summary judgment re compelling interests [54-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
56

DECLARATION of Nan Stavnshoj by defendants, exhibits attached. (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
57

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendants in support of motion for partial summary judgment re compelling interests [54-1], exhibits attached. (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
58

DECLARATION of Wm T. Trent by defendants, exhibits attached. (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
59

DECLARATION of John Vacchiery by defendants, exhibits attached. (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
60

DECLARATION of Eric Benson by defendants (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: motion for partial summary judgment re compelling interests [54-1] (CL)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
61

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of motion for partial summary judgment re compelling interests [54-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 02/16/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
62

MOTION by plaintiff PICS for partial summary judgment on federal law claims, OA Req'd NOTED FOR 3/9/01 (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
63

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff PICS in support of motion for partial summary judgment on federal law claims, OA Req'd [62-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER

Declaration of Harry J.F. Korrell regarding attachments to pltfs mem. re: memorandum [63-1]. (See declaration complete declaration filed/docket #69). (CL) Modified on 02/20/2001

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER

LODGED ORDER: re: motion for partial summary judgment on federal law claims, OA Req'd [62-1] (CL)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
64

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff PICS of motion for partial summary judgment on federal law claims, OA Req'd [62-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
65

RESPONSE by defendants to motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims (Oral Argument Requested) [49-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
66

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Morgan Lewis by defendants in support of motion for partial summary judgment [21-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
67

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendant authenticating exhibits to dfts' reply br in support of motion response [65-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
68

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendants of motion response [65-1], of motion reply [65-1], etc. (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 15, 2001

Feb. 15, 2001

PACER
69

DECLARATION of Harry J.F. Korrell by plaintiff PICS regarding attachments to pltf's memorandum supporting its mtn for partial sum jgm on the federal law claims, exhibits attached. (FILED IN EXPANDO) (CL) Modified on 02/20/2001 (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 16, 2001

Feb. 16, 2001

PACER
70

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff PICS of declaration [69-1] (CL) (Entered: 02/20/2001)

Feb. 16, 2001

Feb. 16, 2001

PACER
71

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein setting settlement conf with Judge Dwyer at 9am on 3/14/01; settlement briefs due 3/9/01 (cc: counsel, Judges) (RS) (Entered: 02/21/2001)

Feb. 20, 2001

Feb. 20, 2001

PACER
72

ERRATA by plaintiff to memorandum in support of mtn for p sum jgmt of Federal Law Claims [63-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/22/2001)

Feb. 20, 2001

Feb. 20, 2001

PACER
73

CORRECTED MEMORANDUM by plaintiff in support of motion for partial summary judgment on federal law claims, OA Req'd [62-1] (KERR) (Entered: 02/22/2001)

Feb. 20, 2001

Feb. 20, 2001

PACER

PRAECIPE by Seattle School Dist, et al to attach or replace documents to motion reply [65-1] in the Court file. (KERR)

Feb. 20, 2001

Feb. 20, 2001

PACER
74

MINUTE ORDER: by Judge Barbara J. Rothstein vacating the pretrial order deadline (cc: counsel, Judge) (RS) (Entered: 03/05/2001)

Feb. 27, 2001

Feb. 27, 2001

PACER
75

RESPONSE (OPPOSITION) to motion for partial summary judgment on federal law claims [62-1] and CROSS MOTION by defendants re narrow tailoring NOTED FOR 3/23/01. Cross motion not noted-ltr sent (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
76

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendant re: motion response [75-1], re motion re narrow tailoring [75-2] (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
77

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION of Morgan Lewis by defendants re: motion response [75-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
78

DECLARATION of Joseph Olchefske by defendant re: motion response [75-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
79

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant motion response [75-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
80

RESPONSE (MEMORANDUM OPPOSING) by plaintiff to motion for partial summary judgment re compelling interests [54-1] OA REQ'D by pltf (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
81

DECLARATION of David Armor PhD by plaintiff re: motion response [80-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
82

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by plaintiff motion response [80-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 03/07/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
110

DECLARATION of Harry J.F. Korrell by plaintiff re: motion response [80-1] (RS) (Entered: 07/12/2001)

March 5, 2001

March 5, 2001

PACER
83

REPLY by defendants TO RESPONSE to motion for partial summary judgment re compelling interests [54-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/09/2001)

March 8, 2001

March 8, 2001

PACER
84

DECLARATION of Michael Madden by defendant re: motion reply [83-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/09/2001)

March 8, 2001

March 8, 2001

PACER
85

AFFIDAVIT OF SERVICE by defendant motion reply [83-1] etc (RS) (Entered: 03/09/2001)

March 8, 2001

March 8, 2001

PACER
86

REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion for partial summary judgment on federal law claims, OA Req'd [62-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/09/2001)

March 8, 2001

March 8, 2001

PACER
87

REPLY by plaintiff TO RESPONSE to motion for partial summary judgment on state law claims [49-1] (RS) (Entered: 03/09/2001)

March 8, 2001

March 8, 2001

PACER
88

DECLARATION of Harry J.F. Korrell by plaintiff re: motion reply [86-1] (filed in expando) (RS) (Entered: 03/09/2001)

March 8, 2001

March 8, 2001

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Washington

Case Type(s):

School Desegregation

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: July 18, 2000

Closing Date: 2009

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Group of parents challenging the constitutionality of the Seattle School District's "open choice" assignment.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: No

Class Action Outcome: Not sought

Defendants

Seattle School District No. 1 (Seattle), School District

Board of Directors of Seattle Public Schools (Seattle), School District

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

U.S. Supreme Court merits opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Litigation