298 F.Supp. 208 (D.Conn. 1968), Civ. 12624, Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed.
|Docket Nº:||Civ. 12624|
|Citation:||298 F.Supp. 208|
|Party Name:||Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed.|
|Case Date:||September 17, 1968|
|Court:||United States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, District of Connecticut|
Jonathan W. Lubell, of Lubell & Lubell, New York City (Stephen L. Fine, Westport, Conn., on the brief), for plaintiffs.
Robert H. Rubin, Sp. Corp. Counsel of the City of Norwalk, South Norwalk, Conn., for defendant.
Jack Waltuch, Norwalk-Stamford-Danbury Regional Legal Services, Inc., Stamford, Conn., for applicant intervenors.
MEMORANDUM OF DECISION DENYING APPLICANTS' MOTION TO INTERVENE AS DEFENDANTs
TIMBERS, Chief Judge.
Applicant intervenors ('applicants') by motion seek to intervene as of right as parties defendant in the present action. Their motion is based on the pleadings, exhibits, briefs and oral argument of counsel on September 16, 1968. After due consideration of the foregoing, the Court holds that applicants' motion to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., should be denied.
This is a class action wherein plaintiffs claim that defendant Norwalk Board of Education's policy in maintaining neighborhood schools in white neighborhoods but not in Black and Puerto Rican neighborhoods 'denies to plaintiffs and others similarly situated the equal protection of the laws, in violation of federally protected rights.' Basically plaintiffs seek injunctive and declaratory relief so that integration is achieved not only in white neighborhood schools (by busing children out of the Black and Puerto Rican neighborhoods), but by integrated schools in all neighborhoods of Norwalk. Neither party to this action opposes integration; however, plaintiffs allege that the means utilized by the Board to achieve integration by abandoning neighborhood schools in the ghetto areas deny the class which they represent equal protection of the laws.
Plaintiffs allege that they represent the class of Black and Puerto Rican citizens who are directly injured by this policy of the Board. In their motion to intervene as of right pursuant to Rule 24(a)(2), Fed.R.Civ.P., applicants allege that they 'seek to intervene as a class on behalf of themselves and all other Black...
To continue readingFREE SIGN UP