Case: San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District

3:78-cv-01445 | U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California

Filed Date: June 30, 1978

Closed Date: 2005

Clearinghouse coding complete

Case Summary

On 06/30/1978, the San Francisco branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("SFNAACP") and a group of black parents filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They charged the San Francisco Unified School District, its board members and its superintendent, the California State Board of Education and its members, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Department of Education with engaging…

On 06/30/1978, the San Francisco branch of the National Association for the Advancement of Colored People ("SFNAACP") and a group of black parents filed a class-action lawsuit in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California. They charged the San Francisco Unified School District, its board members and its superintendent, the California State Board of Education and its members, the State Superintendent of Public Instruction, and the State Department of Education with engaging in racially discriminatory practices and maintaining a segregated school system in San Francisco, in violation of the constitutions and laws of the United States and California. Plaintiffs sought a declaratory judgment and injunctions guaranteeing them equal educational opportunity and fully desegregated schools under a court-ordered desegregation plan, as well as an award of attorneys' fees and costs. The action was assigned to District Judge William H. Orrick, Jr., who presided over the case for almost all of its nearly thirty-year history.

On September 18, 1979, the state defendants' motion for dismissal or abstention was denied. San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 484 F. Supp. 657 (N.D. Cal. 1979). Judge Orrick rejected defendants' arguments that: (1) the Court should not decide the "unsettled" issue of state law concerning the apportionment of policy-making powers between state and local authorities, and (2) primary responsibility for implementing education policy should rest with the state legislature and local school districts, not with defendant state agencies. Because proof of segregative intent was a predicate for demonstrating a violation of equal protection, this issue was to be litigated. To establish segregative intent, plaintiffs needed to demonstrate evidence of past purposeful discrimination that would then give rise to liability for subsequent acts which had the effect of maintaining a segregated school system. Absent such a showing, plaintiffs needed to demonstrate ongoing intentional segregation, a higher burden. On September 24, 1981, the court denied the school district's motion for a separate trial on the issue of whether, at the time of filing of the original complaint, it was operating a segregated school system. While that motion was still pending, on June 30, 1981, the Court denied plaintiffs' motion for partial summary judgment on the issue of whether, as of 1954 and 1970, the district was intentionally racially segregated.

The parties entered into settlement negotiations, drawing on the expertise of a court-appointed settlement team co-chaired by Professor Harold Howe II and Professor Gary Orfield; both had extensive experience in desegregation cases. The parties submitted a consent decree on December 30, 1982. After a fairness hearing held on February 14, 1983, Judge Orrick approved the consent decree by written decision on May 20, 1983. San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 576 F. Supp. 34 (N.D. Cal. 1983). In the consent decree, guidelines were adopted to prevent any racial/ethnic group from exceeding 45 percent of the student body at any regular school or 40 percent at any "alternative" school. The decree provided that each school's staff should reflect the district-wide racial/ethnic composition of students and that staff would be equitably assigned throughout the district. The parties were also required to report to the court on the fairness and consistency of disciplinary actions and on student academic progress. Other highlights of the decree included a requirement that both the school district and an independent reviewer (subsequently known as the "consent-decree monitor") submit an annual report regarding the district's compliance with the consent decree and a provision that the state would pay the costs of complying with the decree.

Implementation of the consent decree proceeded successfully, with the exception of a dispute over exactly how much the state was required to reimburse the district for the costs of implementation. See San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 695 F. Supp. 1033 (N.D. Cal. 1988), rev'd, 896 F.2d 412 (9th Cir. 1990). After eight years of implementation, the court commissioned a comprehensive report on the results of the consent decree, appointing Professor Orfield to lead the investigation team. This committee of experts filed its report in June 1992, finding that the district had "largely achieved the decree's desegregation goals," while also noting the continuing achievement gap for black and Hispanic students. Based on recommendations made in the report, the Court approved a modified consent decree on November 5, 1993. The modified decree left the basic structure of racial/ethnic distribution the same but incorporated changes in individual school treatment. The district was also required to provide an additional annual report showing the longitudinal impact of the consent decree. At the fairness hearing, motions to intervene were heard from Multicultural Education, Training, and Advocacy, Inc., representing the interests of both Latino and Chinese students, and the local teachers union. In an unpublished order on July 22, 1993, Judge Orrick denied the motions to intervene while permitting two coalitions, representing the interests of Latino and Chinese students respectively, to act as amici curiae. For several years afterward, the court received positive reports of academic improvement in the schools.

After 1983, the demographics of the district changed significantly. Enrollment of black and white students declined as Chinese-American and Latino enrollment grew. While Chinese-American students represented 19.5 percent of the district in 1983, by 1992 they had grown to 24 percent, the largest ethnic subgroup in the district. The percentage caps imposed by the 1983 decree had practical impact: for example, at an academically-selective, alternative high school, Chinese-American students needed a significantly higher admission index score to gain admission than did white, black or Latino students. On July 11, 1994, several schoolchildren of Chinese descent filed suit against the district and state defendants. The plaintiffs in the new case, Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, were school children who had been "capped out" of their neighborhood schools. Their complaint alleged that the student-assignment plan described in the consent decree -- the 45/40 percent ethnic distribution requirement -- constituted race discrimination in violation of the Equal Protection Clause. In January 1995, the Ho plaintiffs filed a first amended complaint adding the SFNAACP as a defendant. In March 1996, the Court certified a class comprised of San Francisco schoolchildren of Chinese descent. The Ho plaintiffs then filed a motion for summary judgment, arguing that the ethnic-distribution requirement of the decree was unconstitutional. Their motion was denied in 1997. Judge Orrick held that the decree was not unconstitutional when entered and that, in any event, res judicata barred the plaintiffs -- as members of the original class -- from raising the issue. Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 965 F. Supp. 1316, 1320 (N.D. Cal. 1997). The Court also held that there were issues of fact precluding summary judgment, at least as to: (1) the existence of past discrimination justifying the consent decree; (2) the necessity of the decree's caps as a sufficiently narrowly-tailored remedy; and (3) whether continued judicial supervision was necessary to achieve full compliance with the decree. (Material from and a summary of the Ho case exists in this database as case SD-CA-0001.)

The Ho plaintiffs appealed the summary-judgment ruling. They also sought a writ of mandamus directing the court not to proceed with trial. In an opinion by Circuit Judge John Noonan filed on June 4, 1998, the Ninth Circuit dismissed the appeal for lack of jurisdiction. It noted that "proper resolution of any desegregation case turns on a careful assessment of its facts," which had not yet been presented. Ho v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 147 F.3d 854, 860 (9th Cir. 1998). The court also denied the petition for a writ of mandamus, while nevertheless pointing out weaknesses in the evidence justifying the continued implementation of the decree. After a lengthy discussion of the history of racial discrimination against the Chinese in San Francisco, Judge Noonan identified the two issues that remained for trial: "Do vestiges remain of the racism that justified...the consent decree in 1983? [Are the percentage caps] necessary to remove the vestiges if they do remain?" The Ninth Circuit stressed that defendants' evidence must tie the current vestiges of segregation to the discriminating practices and policies that justified the adoption of the consent decree in 1983. It also held that it was defendants' burden to show that the racial classifications and quotas employed by the decree were tailored to the problems caused by vestiges of the earlier segregation. On December 10, 1998, the court denied the Ho plaintiffs' motion for a preliminary injunction. That motion sought to enjoin defendants from further implementation of the student-assignment plan described in the decree. The court found that plaintiffs had not shown irreparable harm. If they succeeded at trial, there would be ample time to assign students to schools in a race-neutral manner for the following school year.

On February 16, 1999, the first day of trial, the parties submitted a settlement agreement, which was later approved in an order filed July 2, 1999. San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified Sch. Dist., 59 F. Supp. 2d 1021, 1029 (N.D. Cal. 1999). The settlement created of a new student-assignment plan that eliminated race as a factor in determining student placement. The court further required the parties to respond to reports submitted by members of the consent-decree advisory committee (represented at hearings by Hoover Liddell) and consent-decree monitor Stuart Biegel. The Ho settlement agreement also set a termination date for the consent decree of December 31, 2002, subject to court approval. During 1999-2001, the reports submitted by the advisory committee and Mr. Biegel reflected continuing problems within the school district and failure to comply with certain terms of the decree, including the development of a race-neutral student-assignment plan. The district was ordered to file a comprehensive plan to address these problems, which it did on April 11, 2001. At the parties' request, Thomas J. Klitgaard was appointed as special master to assist the parties in resolving any disputes in implementing, or unresolved by, the 2001 plan. On July 11, 2001, the parties submitted an amended stipulated settlement agreement, which was incorporated into the final version of the decree. These changes included further amendments and extended the life of the decree to December 31, 2005. This extension was allegedly necessary due to "unexpected turmoil" in the district, due to administrative personnel and financial problems. The new changes in the decree called for student assignment based upon District use of a "diversity index" which did not rely upon racial/ethnic factors. Afterward, the monitor and the court found that the district became increasingly re-segregated and schools displayed achievement gaps among racial and ethnic groups. The parties proposed extending the consent decree for a period of eighteen months, rather that allowing it to expire, as scheduled, at the end of 2005.

On November 8, 2005, District Judge Willaim H. Alsup (who took over the case in 2002 when Judge Orrick retired) rejected the proposal, citing recent Supreme Court precedent calling for returning school control to local authorities at the earliest practicable date. In his view, the diversity index had not and would not produce the benefit of diversity or racial integration. The judge's opinion reviewed the history of the cases leading to the 1983 and 1999 consent decrees, the 2001 settlement, and what the monitor had described as recent re-segregation of certain schools. The judge viewed the re-segregation resulting from the decree's student assignment plan as among the factors precluding extension of the decree, together with the parties' failure to show that the vestiges of past racial discrimination had not already been eliminated. An existing District initiative to remedy academic achievement disparities would continue whether or not the decree was extended, noted the court. Judge Alsup opined that the parties used the supremacy of the decree to override opposition from parents, teachers, and other interests not represented in the case and, although doing so with admirable motives, the decree short-circuited the traditional checks and balances of the traditional governmental and political processes. San Francisco NAACP v. San Francisco Unified School District, 413 F. Supp.2d 1051 (N.D. Cal. 2005). The same day, the judge ordered the clerk to close the case.

The court's docket sheets for the case reflect that, after Judge Alsup's order refusing to extend the decree, the San Francisco NAACP again sought an award of attorneys' fees, the plaintiffs' attorneys were allowed attorneys' fees, and the monitor filed a final supplemental report. We currently have no information about resolution of the NAACP's fee motion or indicating any other activity in the case following the December 28, 2005, filing of the monitor's supplemental report.

Summary Authors

Mike Fagan (6/30/2008)

Related Cases

Ho v. San Francisco Unified School District, Northern District of California (1994)

People

For PACER's information on parties and their attrorneys, see: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5735500/parties/san-francisco-naacp-v-sf-unified-school/


Judge(s)

Alsup, William Haskell (California)

Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Atkins, Thomas I. (New York)

Chun, Brian H. (California)

Cohn, Peter Graham (California)

Colton, Joseph R. (California)

Girard, Daniel C. (California)

Hunt, James L. (California)

Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (Ohio)

Lee, Anthony Kenhong (California)

Judge(s)

Alsup, William Haskell (California)

Orrick, William Horsley Jr. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Plaintiff

Atkins, Thomas I. (New York)

Chun, Brian H. (California)

Cohn, Peter Graham (California)

Colton, Joseph R. (California)

Girard, Daniel C. (California)

Hunt, James L. (California)

Jones, Nathaniel Raphael (Ohio)

Lee, Anthony Kenhong (California)

Levine, David I. (California)

McLetchie, Margaret A. (California)

Ogdie, Susan A. (California)

Paterson, Eva Jefferson (California)

Reardon, Nancy B. (California)

Rubin, Robert J. (California)

Tate, Diana C. (California)

Attorneys(s) for Defendant

Campos, David F. (California)

Cannon, H. LeRoy (California)

Davidson, John (California)

Falk, Jerome B. (California)

Herrera, Dennis J. (California)

Hestor, Sue C. (California)

Johansen, Robin B. (California)

Manshardt, Patrick J. (California)

McCutcheon, Aubrey (Michigan)

Morley, Mariam Merton (California)

Sneed, Maree F. (District of Columbia)

Snell, Karen L. (California)

Stewart, Therese M. (California)

Stricker, Teresa Lynn (California)

Van de Kamp, John K. (California)

VanRunkle, Aleeta Marie (California)

Willis, Thomas A. (California)

Younger, Evelle J. (California)

Zolotar, Barry A. (California)

Expert/Monitor/Master

Klitgaard, Thomas J. (California)

Documents in the Clearinghouse

Document

3:94-cv-01696

Docket (PACER) [related case]

United Educators v. SF Unified School

Oct. 23, 2001

Oct. 23, 2001

Docket

3:78-cv-01445

Docket (PACER)

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

Oct. 19, 2006

Oct. 19, 2006

Docket

3:78-cv-01445

Opinion and Order [Denying Dismissal of Defendants]

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

484 F.Supp. 657

Sept. 19, 1979

Sept. 19, 1979

Order/Opinion

3:78-cv-01445

Opinion and Order [re: Settlement]

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

576 F.Supp. 34

May 20, 1983

May 20, 1983

Order/Opinion
774

3:78-cv-01445

Memorandum Decision and Order [re: Consent Decree Implementation]

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

1993 WL 299365

July 22, 1993

July 22, 1993

Order/Opinion
1028

3:78-cv-01445

94-02418

Opinion and Order [Approving 1999 Ho Settlement]

United Educators v. SF Unified School

1999 U.S.Dist.LEXIS 12128

July 2, 1999

July 2, 1999

Order/Opinion

3:78-cv-01445

94-02418

Amended Stipulation and [Proposed] Order Re Modification and Termination of Consent Decree

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

July 11, 2001

July 11, 2001

Order/Opinion
1474

3:78-cv-01445

94-02418

Order Denying Proposed Extension of Consent Decree

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

413 F.Supp.2d 1051

Nov. 8, 2005

Nov. 8, 2005

Order/Opinion
1475

3:78-cv-01445

94-02418

Order Closing File

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

Nov. 8, 2005

Nov. 8, 2005

Order/Opinion
1492

3:78-cv-01445

94-02418

Stipulation, Application, and Order Granting Order Granting Supplemental Award of Attorneys' Fees to Ho Plaintiffs for Period Through November 30, 2005

San Francisco NAACP v. SF Unified School

Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

Order/Opinion

Resources

Docket

See docket on RECAP: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/5735500/san-francisco-naacp-v-sf-unified-school/

Last updated Aug. 1, 2022, 3:19 a.m.

ECF Number Description Date Link Date / Link
1

NOTICE OF REMOVAL (no process) by defendant from San Francisco Superior Court, Case Number: 960838; Summons, Complaint, Fee status pd entered on 5/13/94 in the amount of $ 120.00 (Receipt No. 109394) [3:94-cv-01696] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/1994)

May 13, 1994

May 13, 1994

1474

ORDER DENYING PROPOSED EXTENSION OF CONSENT DECREE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/8/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2005)

Nov. 8, 2005

Nov. 8, 2005

RECAP
2

ORDER RE COURT PROCEDURE and SCHEDULE (ADR Pilot) by Judge Vaughn R. Walker: counsels' case management statement to filed by 9/13/94; initial case management conference will be held 9:00 9/23/94. (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-01696] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/1994)

May 13, 1994

May 13, 1994

1475

ORDER CLOSING FILE. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/8/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/8/2005)

Nov. 8, 2005

Nov. 8, 2005

RECAP
3

NOTICE by defendant of related case(s) 78-1445-WHO [3:94-cv-01696] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 05/13/1994)

May 13, 1994

May 13, 1994

1476

REQUEST TO COUNSEL. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/9/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/9/2005)

Nov. 9, 2005

Nov. 9, 2005

RECAP
4

ORDER by Senior Judge William H. Orrick granting related case notice [3-1] relating cases; 3:78-cv-1445 with cases 3:94-cv-1696 , to reassign to Senior Judge William H. Orrick , Case removed from Case Management program upon reassignment (Date Entered: 6/13/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-01696] (th, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/13/1994)

June 9, 1994

June 9, 1994

1477

ORDER. Signed by Judge Alsup on 11/10/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 11/10/2005)

Nov. 10, 2005

Nov. 10, 2005

RECAP
5

MINUTES: ( C/R Carol Karen) plaintiff's motion will be heard by 2:00 6/23/94 ; hearing re plaintiff's motion for preliminary injunction will be held 2:00 7/7/94 ; [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/15/1994)

June 9, 1994

June 9, 1994

6

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before WHO by plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 to remand with Notice set for 6/23/94 at 2:00 pm [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1994)

June 14, 1994

June 14, 1994

7

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to remand [6-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1994)

June 14, 1994

June 14, 1994

8

DECLARATION by Judy Dellamonica on behalf of plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/17/1994)

June 14, 1994

June 14, 1994

11

MEMORANDUM by defendant SF Unified School in 3:94-cv-01696, defendant Waldemar Rojas in 3:94-cv-01696 in opposition to motion to remand [6-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 17, 1994

June 17, 1994

10

ORDER by WHO Case put into Case Management program upon reassignment , Case Management Conference set for 2:00 9/29/94 ; ( Date Entered: 6/21/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/21/1994)

June 20, 1994

June 20, 1994

12

NOTICE OF MOTION AND MOTION before WHO by plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration with Notice set for 7/7/94 at 2:00 pm [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/22/1994)

June 20, 1994

June 20, 1994

13

MEMORANDUM by plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/22/1994)

June 20, 1994

June 20, 1994

14

REPLY MEMORANDUM by plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 to response to motion to remand [6-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/22/1994)

June 20, 1994

June 20, 1994

15

PROOF OF SERVICE by plaintiff United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 of document nos. 12-14 [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/22/1994)

June 20, 1994

June 20, 1994

16

MINUTES: ( C/R Candy Yount) continuing hearing on plaintiff's motion to remand [6-1] 2:00 7/7/94 ; counsel shall file supplemental memos by 7/5/94 [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/28/1994)

June 23, 1994

June 23, 1994

17

MEMORANDUM by defendant in 3:94-cv-01696 in opposition to motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/29/1994)

June 27, 1994

June 27, 1994

18

DECLARATION by Aleeta M. Van Runkle on behalf of defendant in 3:94-cv-01696 re opposition memorandum [17-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/29/1994)

June 27, 1994

June 27, 1994

19

DECLARATION by Cynthia M. LeBlanc on behalf of defendants in 3:94-cv-01696 re opposition memorandum [17-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 06/30/1994)

June 29, 1994

June 29, 1994

20

MINUTES: ( C/R Carl Pline) resetting hearing on plaintiff's motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] 2:00 7/13/94 telephone conference re briefing schedule for the motion for preliminary injunction held ; defendant's opposition to motion for preliminary injunction due 7/11/94 [3:94-cv-01696] (mcl, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/01/1994)

June 30, 1994

June 30, 1994

21

SUPPLEMENTAL MEMORANDUM by Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to remand [6-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/06/1994)

July 5, 1994

July 5, 1994

23

SUPPLEMENTAL OPPOSITION by Defendants in 3:94-cv-01696 to motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/07/1994)

July 6, 1994

July 6, 1994

24

REPLY by Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/14/1994)

July 11, 1994

July 11, 1994

25

SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Judy Dellamonica on behalf of Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/14/1994)

July 11, 1994

July 11, 1994

26

MINUTES: ( C/R Carl Pline) resetting hearing on motion for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] 2:00 8/3/94, denying motion to remand [6-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/14/1994)

July 13, 1994

July 13, 1994

27

CLERK'S NOTICE resetting hearing on motion preliminary injunction pending arbitration [12-1] 2:00 8/4/94 [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/15/1994)

July 14, 1994

July 14, 1994

28

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 7/13/94 ( C/R: Carl Pline) [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/18/1994)

July 15, 1994

July 15, 1994

29

FURTHER SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Defendants in 3:94-cv-01696 regarding motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/21/1994)

July 20, 1994

July 20, 1994

30

DECLARATION by Roderick Hong on behalf of Defendant in 3:94-cv-01696 in opposition to motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/21/1994)

July 20, 1994

July 20, 1994

31

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by Defendants in 3:94-cv-01696 re motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/1994)

July 21, 1994

July 21, 1994

32

DECLARATION by Aleeta M. Van Runkle on behalf of Defendants in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of supplemental brief [31-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/22/1994)

July 21, 1994

July 21, 1994

33

REPLY by Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/26/1994)

July 25, 1994

July 25, 1994

34

DECLARATION by Joseph R. Colton on behalf of Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion reply [33-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/26/1994)

July 25, 1994

July 25, 1994

35

SECOND SUPPLEMENTAL DECLARATION by Judy Dellamonica on behalf of Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of motion to compel arbitration and for an injunction pending arbitration [12-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/26/1994)

July 25, 1994

July 25, 1994

37

DECLARATION by Marie Corlett Blits on behalf of Defendants in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of further supplemental brief [31-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 07/29/1994)

July 28, 1994

July 28, 1994

38

SUPPLMENTAL DECLARATION by Joseph R. Colton on behalf of Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 in support of pet's supp reply memorandum re motion to compel arbitration and for injunction pending arbitration [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/02/1994)

Aug. 1, 1994

Aug. 1, 1994

39

MINUTES: ( C/R Candy Yount) that the motion for preliminary injunction is submitted [3:94-cv-01696] (scu, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/05/1994)

Aug. 4, 1994

Aug. 4, 1994

40

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER: by Senior Judge William H. Orrick denying motion to compel arbitration [12-1] ( Date Entered: 8/23/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/23/1994)

Aug. 19, 1994

Aug. 19, 1994

41

REPORTER'S TRANSCRIPT; Date of proceedings: 8/4/94 ( C/R: Candace Yount) [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/08/1994)

Sept. 6, 1994

Sept. 6, 1994

42

NOTICE OF APPEAL by Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 from Dist. Court decision order [40-1] not paid [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/22/1994)

Sept. 14, 1994

Sept. 14, 1994

Docket fee notification form and case information sheet to USCA [42-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/22/1994)

Sept. 22, 1994

Sept. 22, 1994

PAYMENT received in amount of $ 105.00 from United Educators in 3:94-cv-01696 re appeal [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/1994)

Sept. 27, 1994

Sept. 27, 1994

43

TRANSCRIPT DESIGNATION and Ordering Form filed by Plaintiff for date 7/13/94; C/R: Carl Pline; appeal [42-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/03/1994)

Sept. 28, 1994

Sept. 28, 1994

Amended docket fee payment notification mailed to USCA [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 09/30/1994)

Sept. 30, 1994

Sept. 30, 1994

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number 94-16656 [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/05/1994)

Oct. 3, 1994

Oct. 3, 1994

CERTIFICATE of Record mailed to USCA, counsel notified. [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/06/1994)

Oct. 6, 1994

Oct. 6, 1994

44

JUDGMENT: by Senior Judge William H. Orrick denying plaintiff's petition to compel arbitration; dismissing case ; appeal filing ddl 11/17/94 ( Date Entered: 10/18/94) (cc: all counsel) [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/18/1994)

Oct. 14, 1994

Oct. 14, 1994

45

MOTION before Senior Judge William H. Orrick by Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 to supplement the record [45-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/1994)

Oct. 24, 1994

Oct. 24, 1994

47

PROOF OF SERVICE by Plaintiff in 3:94-cv-01696 of motion to supplement [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/25/1994)

Oct. 24, 1994

Oct. 24, 1994

48

CERTIFIED COPY of USCA Order: dismissing the appeal [42-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/1995)

Aug. 2, 1995

Aug. 2, 1995

49

CLERK's letter spreading the mandate to counsel. re appeal [42-1] [3:94-cv-01696] (tn, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 08/09/1995)

Aug. 9, 1995

Aug. 9, 1995

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel in 3:78-cv-01445, in 3:94-cv-02418 [3:78-cv-01445, 3:94-cv-01696, 3:94-cv-02418] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/16/2000)

Feb. 16, 2000

Feb. 16, 2000

Copy of notice of appeal and docket sheet to all counsel re SF NAACP [3:78-cv-01445, 3:94-cv-01696] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 02/19/2000)

Feb. 19, 2000

Feb. 19, 2000

NOTIFICATION by Circuit Court of Appellate Docket Number in 3:78-cv-01445 00-15347 for appeal filed 2/15/00 [3:78-cv-01445, 3:94-cv-01696] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 03/07/2000)

March 7, 2000

March 7, 2000

CLERK'S NOTICE, Honorable Dorothy W. Nelson's clerk has cancelled their request for this file. They will notify the USCA in San Francisco, of their decision. 10/30/01 at 11:30 AM [3:78-cv-01445, 3:94-cv-01696] (db, COURT STAFF) (Entered: 10/30/2001)

Oct. 23, 2001

Oct. 23, 2001

1492

ORDER GRANTING SUPPLEMENTAL AWARD OF ATTORNEYS' FEES TO HO PLAINTIFFS re 1491 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/16/06. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2005)

Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

RECAP
1493

ORDER RE SFNAACP PLAINTIFFS' SUPPLEMENTARY ATTORNEY FEE AND COST MOTION AND AWARD re 1491 Order on Motion for Attorney Fees. Signed by Judge Alsup on 12/16/05. (whalc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 12/16/2005)

Dec. 16, 2005

Dec. 16, 2005

RECAP

Case Details

State / Territory: California

Case Type(s):

School Desegregation

Key Dates

Filing Date: June 30, 1978

Closing Date: 2005

Case Ongoing: No

Plaintiffs

Plaintiff Description:

Individual black parents on behalf of all children who are school who are eligible to attend the public schools of the S.F.U.S.D., and who are entitled to do so under circumstances which afford them full and equal protection of the laws.

Plaintiff Type(s):

Private Plaintiff

Public Interest Lawyer: Yes

Filed Pro Se: No

Class Action Sought: Yes

Class Action Outcome: Granted

Defendants

San Francisco Unified School District (San Francisco), School District

State of California Board of Education, State

California State Superintendent of Public Instruction, State

Case Details

Availably Documents:

Trial Court Docket

Injunctive (or Injunctive-like) Relief

Any published opinion

Outcome

Prevailing Party: Plaintiff

Nature of Relief:

Injunction / Injunctive-like Settlement

Source of Relief:

Settlement

Form of Settlement:

Court Approved Settlement or Consent Decree

Order Duration: 1983 - 2005

Content of Injunction:

Preliminary relief denied