Case: People Who Care v. Rockford Board of Education

3:89-cv-20168 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois

Filed Date: May 11, 1989

Closed Date: 2002

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On May 11, 1989, black and Hispanic public school students from Winnebago County, Illinois filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Rockford Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by People Who Care, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by racial discrimination in the assignment of schools and classes to students in their …

On May 11, 1989, black and Hispanic public school students from Winnebago County, Illinois filed a class action lawsuit under 42 U.S.C. §1983 against the Rockford Board of Education in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. The plaintiffs, represented by People Who Care, asked the court for declaratory and injunctive relief, alleging that their constitutional rights had been violated by racial discrimination in the assignment of schools and classes to students in their school district.

On July 7, 1989, the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois (Judge Stanley Julian Roszkowski) issued an Interim Agreed Order, governing the placement of students in particular schools within the District, the different types of classes that would be offered in each school, which schools would remain operational, and what types of academic entrance restrictions would be allowed for magnet schools. On December 15, 1989, the Court made the order permanent. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No.89 C 20168, 1989 WL 197569 (N.D.Ill. Dec. 15, 1989).

The plaintiffs asked the court to award them attorneys' fees and costs for their work to bring about the court order. On February 23, 1990, the District Court (Judge Roszkowski) granted the plaintiffs $112,935.50 in attorneys' fees and $14,765.54 in costs. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No.89 C 20168, 1990 WL 25883 (N.D.Ill. Feb. 23, 1990). The defendants asked the court to reconsider the award of fees and costs, and on April 10, 1990, the District Court denied the motion to reconsider. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No.89 C 20168, 1990 WL 53282 (N.D.Ill. April 10, 1990). The defendants appealed. On January 2, 1991, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit dismissed the appeal. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 921 F.2d 132 (7th Cir. 1991).

On January 14, 1991, the District Court appointed Dr. Eugene Eubanks to serve as Special Master in the case. Dr. Eubanks was charged with evaluating the District's compliance with the 1989 Interim Agreed Order and directed to make recommendations to the Court for further remedial measures. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 1991 WL 166960 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 14, 1991). [He also appears on a number of documents listed as if he was counsel for People Who Care -- this seems implausible, but we have listed him accordingly.]

Following the recommendations of Dr. Eubanks and with the consent of the parties, the District Court entered an extensive Second Interim Order on April 24, 2001 which detailed a comprehensive desegregation plan to be implemented in the District. The Second Interim Order addressed the following issues: racial integration, discipline procedures, recruitment, management, staff assignments, facilities, grading, alternative programs, transportation, supplemental programs for disadvantaged minority students, voluntary transfers, equipment, funding, vocational education, ROTC, and curriculum requirements. The Second Interim Order did not resolve the plaintiffs' underlying liability claim and the District made no admission of liability therein.

Teachers' unions, which were allowed to intervene in the case, objected to portions of the Second Interim Order which affected their collective bargaining rights. Following a hearing, the teachers' unions appealed. On April 22, 1992, the Seventh Circuit ordered the District Court to vacate those portions of the Second Interim Order that interfered with collective bargaining agreements. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 961 F.2d 1335 (7th Cir. 1992) reh'g denied, 964 F.2d 639 (7th Cir. 1992).

On September 12, 1991, the District Court entered a preliminary order enjoining the school board election and compelling the plaintiffs and the defendants to engage in a joint effort with regard to election issues. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 1991 WL 299104 (N.D.Ill. Sept. 12, 1991).

On January 31, 1992, the District Court ordered the defendants to institute a system-wide human relations program to address attitudes and expectations throughout the school system including staff development, training, and education programs. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No. 89 C 20168, 1992 WL 184301 (N.D.Ill. Jan. 31, 1992).

On June 29, 1992, the District Court issued an order referring the case to Magistrate Judge P. Michael Mahoney for disposition of all pending motions. A hearing on plaintiffs' motion for a permanent injunction was conducted before Magistrate Judge Mahoney beginning on April 2, 2003. The parties agreed that the Magistrate Judge would make a Report and Recommendation to the District Court which would then rule upon the permanent injunction and liability issues. The parties further agreed that Magistrate Mahoney would oversee all past and future remedial measures. Magistrate Mahoney issued his Report and Recommendation finding intentional discrimination on the part of the District to which the District lodged objections.

On February 18, 1994, the District Court accepted and adopted as modified the Magistrate's Report and Recommendation, finding the defendants guilty of system-wide intentional discrimination in violation of the plaintiffs' constitutional rights. The District Court entered a permanent injunction and referred the case to Magistrate Mahoney for entry of further remedial measures. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 851 F.Supp. 905 (N.D.Ill. 1994). The District did not appeal.

On August 31, 1995, the court disposed of all issues regarding fees and costs for liability litigation by awarding the plaintiffs $1,827,124.00 in fees and $198,342 in expenses. Both sides appealed the calculations made by the court. On August 1, 1996, the Seventh Circuit reversed the decision and remanded the fee award back to the district court. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 90 F.3d 1307 (7th Cir. 1996).

On June 7, 1996, Magistrate Mahoney issued a Comprehensive Remedial Order [CRO], which provided for the changes in the following areas: desegregation of schools, within school integration, ability grouping, extra-curricular activities, human relations program, discipline code, curriculum and instruction, special education, community education, early childhood education, magnet schools, bilingual education, school-based planning, research and development, staff development, student participation and performance, student assignment, implementation and monitoring, organizational structure of the administration, transportation, personnel department, actions by District administration and board, disposition/acquisition of facilities, alteration of District boundaries, racial incidents, facilities and equipment, affirmative action, desegregation of teaching staff, financial impact, funding, and budgeting. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No. 89-C-20168, 1996 WL 364802 (N.D.Ill. June 7, 1996). The defendants appealed.

On April 15, 1997, the Seventh Circuit affirmed in part, holding that the minority teacher hiring goals established by the CRO were inequitable and unconstitutional, that the provisions of the CRO generally forbidding grouping of students by ability and establishing racial quotas for those ability-related groupings permitted were inequitable, that the CRO's requirement that within four years half of the gap in test scores between white an minority students in the school district be closed was inequitable, that the provision of the CRO forbidding school district to refer a higher percentage of minority students than of white students for discipline was inequitable, that the provision of the CRO limiting minority enrollment in remedial programs constituted impermissible benign discrimination, that the provision of the CRO cutting off the remedy at the preschool level was arbitrary and therefore inequitable, that the District Court was justified in ordering the school district to use a method of financing the building program that would avoid displacing the state's taxing authority into the federal court system, and that the Magistrate Judge's procedural orders allowing the special master to play a party role in the hearing were not appealable. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 111 F.3d 528 (7th Cir. June 7, 1997).

On August 11, 2000 Magistrate Mahoney modified parts of the CRO but denied the District's request to terminate it. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No.89-C-20168, 2000 WL 1855107 (N.D.Ill. Aug. 11, 2000). The District appealed. On April 18, 2001, the Seventh Circuit reversed the District Court's denial of the termination and remanded the case, ordering that the CRO would be terminated since the consequences of segregation had been eliminated. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., 246 F.3d 1073 (7th Cir. 2001).

On June 29, 2001, Magistrate Mahoney ordered that the School District was relieved of all obligations under the CRO with the exception of providing certain educational and remedial advantages to the Plaintiff class through June 30, 2002. At that time, the CRO would be fully dissolved. People Who Care v. Rockford Bd. of Educ. Dist., No.89-C-20168, 2001 WL 755306 (N.D.Ill. June 29, 2001).

On June 28, 2002 Judge Mahoney issued a minute order declaring that full control of the School District would be returned to the Board of Education effective June 30, 2002, and that the case was dismissed with prejudice. Special Master Dr. Eugene Eubanks was relieved of all duties related to the case and all pending motions were denied as moot.

Summary Authors

Kristen Sagar (2/5/2007)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5165854/parties/people-who-care-v-rockford-board-of-ed/


Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Cummings, Walter Joseph (Illinois)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Mahoney, P. Michael (Illinois)

Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)

Roszkowski, Stanley Julian (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ashley, Carol R. (Illinois)

Bradtke, James G. (Illinois)

Judge(s)

Bauer, William Joseph (Illinois)

Cudahy, Richard Dickson (Illinois)

Cummings, Walter Joseph (Illinois)

Easterbrook, Frank Hoover (Illinois)

Kanne, Michael Stephen (Indiana)

Mahoney, P. Michael (Illinois)

Posner, Richard Allen (Illinois)

Roszkowski, Stanley Julian (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Ashley, Carol R. (Illinois)

Bradtke, James G. (Illinois)

Campos, Andrew (Illinois)

Egner, Charles A. (Illinois)

Eubanks, Eugene (Missouri)

Faulkner, David P. (Illinois)

Fischer, Jennifer Louise (Illinois)

Futterman, Ronald L. (Illinois)

Hartfield, Claire T. (Illinois)

Hartunian, Aram A. (Illinois)

Haskell, Vincent (Illinois)

Hervey, Venita (Illinois)

Hoggard, Denise Reid (Arkansas)

Holley, Charles J. (Illinois)

Howard, Robert C. (Illinois)

Jennings, Diane I. (Illinois)

Lehrer, Robert E. (Illinois)

Mangold Spoto, Kathleen (Illinois)

Matlack, Joan (Illinois)

Piers, Matthew J. (Illinois)

Pulliam, Janet L. (Arkansas)

Rothstein, Jonathan A. (Illinois)

Scheurich, G. Michael (Illinois)

Shappert, Amy E. (Illinois)

Spears, Jeffry S. (Illinois)

Sukenik, Dana H. (Illinois)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Broncato, Patrick J. (Illinois)

Bueschel, Thomas A. (Illinois)

Ciambrone, Rosanne (Illinois)

Cooper, Charles Justin (District of Columbia)

Ellch, Robert H. (Illinois)

Eyestone, Linda L. (Illinois)

Francisco, Noel (District of Columbia)

Goldgar, A. Benjamin (Illinois)

Hess, James Michael (Illinois)

Himes, Albert Lynn (Illinois)

Izzo, John M. (Illinois)

Kardell, Gary Richard (Illinois)

Kirk, Michael W. (District of Columbia)

Kula, David P. (Illinois)

Lester, Thomas J. (Illinois)

Lischer, Nancy G. (Illinois)

Moore, Stephen T. (Illinois)

O'Brien, Michael (Illinois)

Pearl, Jonathan A. (Illinois)

Petrarca, Justino D. (Illinois)

Preiner, Barbara A. (Illinois)

Quinlan, William J. Jr. (Illinois)

Ryan, James E. (Illinois)

Scariano, Anthony A. (Illinois)

Schmidt, John (Illinois)

Swoffard, Stephen R. (Illinois)

Weiner, Lawrence Jay (Illinois)

Other Attorney(s)

Agnew, Patrick H. (Illinois)

Alexander, Peter (Illinois)

Buhai, Barbara Jean (Illinois)

Carle, Susan D. (District of Columbia)

Chanin, Robert H. (District of Columbia)

Collins, Jeremiah A. (District of Columbia)

DeBruyne, Peter D. (Illinois)

Katz, Stephen Gary (Illinois)

Lovett, Tammara M. (Illinois)

Poloyac, Denise S. (Illinois)

Seitz, Virginia A. (District of Columbia)

Thomas, Charles F. (Illinois)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:89-cv-20168

Docket (PACER)

July 1, 2002

July 1, 2002

Docket

3:89-cv-20168

Interim Agreed Order

July 7, 1989

July 7, 1989

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-20168

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Dec. 15, 1989

Dec. 15, 1989

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-20168

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Dec. 22, 1989

Dec. 22, 1989

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-20168

Memorandum Opinion and Order

Feb. 23, 1990

Feb. 23, 1990

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-20168

Order

April 10, 1990

April 10, 1990

Order/Opinion

3:89-cv-20168

Memorandum Opinion and Order

June 19, 1990

June 19, 1990

Order/Opinion

90-03284

90-08098

90-03291

Opinion

U. S. Court of Appeals for the Seventh Circuit

Jan. 2, 1991

Jan. 2, 1991

Order/Opinion
308

3:89-cv-20168

Order of Reference

Jan. 14, 1991

Jan. 14, 1991

Order/Opinion
369

3:89-cv-20168

Second Interim Order

April 23, 1991

April 23, 1991

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5165854/people-who-care-v-rockford-board-of-ed/

Last updated Dec. 1, 2022, 3:18 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
3768

MINUTE ORDER of 6/29/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: In accordance with the decision of the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals the attached Memorandum Opinion and Order is hereby entered. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce)

June 29, 2001

June 29, 2001

RECAP
3779

MINUTE ORDER of 8/8/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter attached Memorandum Opinion and Order Setting Responsibilities and Powers of Monitor. Entered Memorandum Opinion and Order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/08/2001)

Aug. 8, 2001

Aug. 8, 2001

RECAP
3780

MOTION by defendant for leave to, file a brief in excess of 15 pages ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)

Aug. 14, 2001

Aug. 14, 2001

PACER
3781

RESPONSE by defendant to plaintiffs' attorneys' motion for fees and costs related to the 1998-1999 consolidated appeals [3678-1]. (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)

Aug. 14, 2001

Aug. 14, 2001

PACER
3782

EXHIBITS by defendant to response [3781-1] (2 vols.) (fce) (Entered: 08/15/2001)

Aug. 14, 2001

Aug. 14, 2001

PACER
3783

MINUTE ORDER of 8/23/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Defendant's motion for leave [3780-1], to file a brief in excess of 15 pages is granted [3780-2]. Plaintiffs' reply to defendant's response to plaintiff's attorney's fee petition for the consolidated appeals is due 9/20/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 08/23/2001)

Aug. 23, 2001

Aug. 23, 2001

PACER
3784

LETTER dated 8/3/01 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Judge Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

Sept. 5, 2001

Sept. 5, 2001

PACER
3785

MINUTE ORDER of 9/5/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 8/3/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for July 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from fund 12 the sum of $4,224.05 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $3,442.50 and reimbursable expenses of $781.55, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

Sept. 5, 2001

Sept. 5, 2001

PACER
3786

MINUTE ORDER of 9/6/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to agreement of the parties, the date on which Plaintiff's reply with regard to their petition for attorney's fees is due is extended to 10/19/01. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 09/06/2001)

Sept. 6, 2001

Sept. 6, 2001

PACER
3787

MINUTE ORDER of 10/3/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 9/3/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 8/2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $3,248.51 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $2,613.75 and reimbursable expenses of $634.76, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such furture auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 10/03/2001)

Oct. 3, 2001

Oct. 3, 2001

PACER
3788

LETTER dated 9/4/01 to Magistrate Mahoney from special master Eugene E. Eubanks. (fce) (Entered: 10/03/2001)

Oct. 3, 2001

Oct. 3, 2001

PACER
3789

MOTION by plaintiffs for extension of time to file reply in support of 1998-99 consolidated appeals fee petition ; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/17/2001)

Oct. 17, 2001

Oct. 17, 2001

PACER
3790

OBJECTIONS by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to Plainitffs' motion for extension of time to file reply in support of 1998-99 consolidated appeals fee petition [3789-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/19/2001)

Oct. 19, 2001

Oct. 19, 2001

PACER
3791

STATEMENT by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed as to plaintiff's attorney's fees for the 1998-2000 calendar years, exclusive of appeals fees and motion to enter briefing order (Attachments-1 box); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/23/2001)

Oct. 22, 2001

Oct. 22, 2001

PACER
3792

RESPONSE by plaintiff to defendant's statement [3791-1](Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Oct. 30, 2001

Oct. 30, 2001

PACER
3793

MINUTE ORDER of 11/5/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Enter letter of 10/01/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for September 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $5,561.07 to Dr. Eubanks, representing the professional fees of $4,611.25 and reimbursable expenses of $949.82, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 11/06/2001)

Nov. 5, 2001

Nov. 5, 2001

PACER
3794

LETTER from Dr. Eubanks requesting payment of fees (jmm (Entered: 11/06/2001)

Nov. 5, 2001

Nov. 5, 2001

PACER
3795

MINUTE ORDER of 12/3/01 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 11/1/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for October 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submissions, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,364.05 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,461.25 and reimbursable expenses of $902.80, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

Dec. 3, 2001

Dec. 3, 2001

PACER
3796

LETTER from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney dated 11/1/01.(Attachments). (fce) (Entered: 12/03/2001)

Dec. 3, 2001

Dec. 3, 2001

PACER
3797

MOTION by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to bar plaintiffs' counsel from seeking any attorney's fees or costs ; Attachments; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 12/26/2001)

Dec. 26, 2001

Dec. 26, 2001

PACER
3798

MINUTE ORDER of 1/7/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 12/3/01, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for 11/2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and dispurse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,293.64 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,312.50 and reimbursable expenses of $981.14, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 01/08/2002)

Jan. 7, 2002

Jan. 7, 2002

PACER
3799

LETTER dated 12/3/02 from special master Eugene E. Eubanks to Magistrate Mahoney. (fce) (Entered: 01/08/2002)

Jan. 7, 2002

Jan. 7, 2002

PACER
3800

COPY of Order dated 1/14/02 from the 7th Circuit. (01-1784) On December 27, 2001 plaintiffs-appellees filied a petition for rehearing and petition for rehearing en banc. All the judges on the original panel have voted to deny the petition, and none of the active judges has requested a vote on the the petition for rehearing en banc. The petition is therefore denied. (fce) (Entered: 01/16/2002)

Jan. 16, 2002

Jan. 16, 2002

PACER
3801

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff People Who Care in opposition to motion to bar plaintiffs' counsel from seeking any attorney's fees or costs [3797-1](Attachment). (fce) (Entered: 01/22/2002)

Jan. 22, 2002

Jan. 22, 2002

PACER
3802

LETTER from the 7th Circuit returning the record on appeal no. 01-1784 consisting of: 14 vols. of pldgs., 15 vols. trnscpts., 5 vols. exh., 12 vols. depos. (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
3803

CERTIFIED COPY of order from the 7th Circuit: Affirming in part, reversed in part, and remanded in part, the decision of the District Court [3745-1]. (01-1784) (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
3804

OPINION from the 7th Circuit: Decided 11/29/01. (01-1784) (fce) (Entered: 01/25/2002)

Jan. 25, 2002

Jan. 25, 2002

PACER
3805

REPLY by defendant Rockford Board Of Ed to plaintiffs' response [3801-1] (fce) (Entered: 01/29/2002)

Jan. 29, 2002

Jan. 29, 2002

PACER
3806

AGREED MOTION by plaintiff for approval of stipulated agreement of the parties related to plaintiffs' fourth quarter 2001 fee request . (fce) (Entered: 01/30/2002)

Jan. 30, 2002

Jan. 30, 2002

PACER
3807

MINUTE ORDER of 2/6/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of 1/3/02, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for December 2001. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $5,778.13 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $5,078.75 and reimbursable expenses of $699.38, for the above-stated period. The court further directs the District to retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 02/07/2002)

Feb. 6, 2002

Feb. 6, 2002

PACER
3808

MINUTE ORDER of 2/7/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As stated on the reverse, Defendant's motion to bar plaintiffs' from seeking any attorney's fees is denied [3797-1]. This court has determined that a comprehensive approach to Plaintiff's fees petitions is appropriate. As stated on the reverse, the parties are to comply with Local Rule 54.3 and the modified schedule provided by this court. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) Modified on 02/08/2002 (Entered: 02/08/2002)

Feb. 7, 2002

Feb. 7, 2002

PACER
3809

MOTION by plaintiff People Who Care for a scheduling order concerning fee petition for work from 1998 to present and for direction to RSD to producie documents and information required by Rule 54 (Attachments); Notice. (fce) (Entered: 02/11/2002)

Feb. 11, 2002

Feb. 11, 2002

PACER
3810

MINUTE ORDER of 3/4/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As stated on the reverse, the court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,505.66 to Dr. Eubanks, representing professional fees of $6,502.50 and reimbursable expenses of $1,003.16, for the stated period. The court further directs the District of retain its copy of this Order and all underlying materials for such future auditing and/or accounting purposes as the court may order. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/04/2002)

March 4, 2002

March 4, 2002

PACER
3811

MINUTE ORDER of 3/21/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: On 2/11/02, plaintiffs filed a motion for scheduling order. This court had on 2/7/02, entered a scheduling order with regard to Plaintiffs' fee petitions and therefore considered Plaintiffs' motion moot. However, plaintiffs included in their motion a request that Defendants be required to submit billing materials to plaintiffs in accordance with LR 54.3. This court enters the following briefing schedule on that issue: Plaintiff's are to submit a brief regarding the requested material by 3/28/02, defendants response is due 4/4/02, and plaintiffs' reply will be due 4/11/02. The submissions are not to exceed 3 pages. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 03/21/2002)

March 21, 2002

March 21, 2002

PACER
3812

MINUTE ORDER of 3/26/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: As a result of this court's 2/7/02, order providing for a comprehensive schedule for plaintiffs' fee petition, Plaintiff's 8/8/00, motion for fees (docket entry number 3678) is moot. No notice (fce) (Entered: 03/26/2002)

March 26, 2002

March 26, 2002

PACER
3813

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff People Who Care in support of their motion for direction to RSD to produce documents and information required by Rule 54 [3809-1]; Notice. (fce) (Entered: 03/29/2002)

March 29, 2002

March 29, 2002

PACER
3814

MINUTE ORDER of 4/4/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: This court has reviewed Dr. Eubanks' letter of March 2002, setting forth fees and expenses for February 2002. The court authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,044.09 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 04/05/2002)

April 4, 2002

April 4, 2002

PACER

SCHEDULE set on 4/15/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : Telephonic status hearing held. Telephonic Settlement conference set for 11:30 5/29/02 . Telephoned notice (glg)

April 15, 2002

April 15, 2002

PACER
3815

MINUTE ORDER of 5/1/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Enter letter of April 1, 2002, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for March 2002. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $6,515.32 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 05/02/2002)

May 1, 2002

May 1, 2002

PACER
3816

MINUTE ORDER of 6/5/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney : The Magistrate has reviewed the letter of 5/01/02, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for April 2002. No party has objected. The court has reviewed the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from Fund 12 the sum of $7,232.04 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. (For further detail see order on the reverse side of the original minute order.) Mailed notice (jmm (Entered: 06/05/2002)

June 5, 2002

June 5, 2002

PACER
3817

MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to LR 26.2, any documents filed with the court as restricted, under seal, or subject to a protective order will be returned to the party who filed the document or exhibit, with the opposing party receiving a copy of the Clerk's transmittal letter. Those doucments shall then be retained for at least 90 days and made available to opposing counsel and the Court Monitor, with reasonable advance notice. Documents being held pursuant to Paragraph 5 of the parties March 25, 1999, stipulation, as adopted by this court's April 20, 1999, order are hereby released to the control and custody of the District and shall be available to opposing counsel and the Court Monitor, with reasonable notice, for 90 days. Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

June 28, 2002

June 28, 2002

PACER
3818

MINUTE ORDER of 6/28/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: Pursuant to the May 30, 2001, mandate of the 7th Circuit Court of Appeals, the permanent injunction declaratory order entered February 18, 1994, is hereby dissolved. The District is declared to be totally unitary. Full control of Rockford School District No. 205 is hereby returned to the Board of Education effective June 30, 2002, and the case is dismissed, with prejudice. The Court Monitor, Dr. Eugene Eubanks, is relieved of all duties related to the case effective Jun 28, 2002. All pending motions are moot. terminating case Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/01/2002)

June 28, 2002

June 28, 2002

PACER
3819

MINUTE ORDER of 7/1/02 by Hon. P. Michael Mahoney: The Magistrate has reviewed the letter of June 3, 2002, from E. Eubanks to the court setting forth fees and expenses for May 2002. No party has objected. The court has revewied the submission, and finds that the fees and expenses contained therein are directly related to and reasonably necessary for implementation of the CRO. The court therefore authorizes and directs the Rockford School District to charge against and disburse from fund 12 the sum of $11,516.56 to Dr. Eubanks, as stated on the reverse. (For further detail see order.) Mailed notice (fce) (Entered: 07/02/2002)

July 1, 2002

July 1, 2002

PACER

Case Details

State / Territory: Illinois

Case Type(s):

School Desegregation

Special Collection(s):

Multi-LexSum (in sample)

Key Dates

Filing Date: May 11, 1989

Closing Date: 2002

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Black and Hispanic public school children adversely affected by the actions of the Rockford Board of Education School District #205.

Public Interest Lawyer: No

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

Rockford Board of Education, State

Case Details

Causes of Action:

42 U.S.C. § 1983

Constitutional Clause(s):

Equal Protection

Available Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Complaint (any)

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Litigation

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1989 - 2002

Issues

Discrimination-basis:

Race discrimination