Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education, Civ. No. 12624.

Citation298 F. Supp. 210
Decision Date28 October 1968
Docket NumberCiv. No. 12624.
CourtU.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
PartiesNORWALK CORE, a/k/a Norwalk Chapter of the Congress of Racial Equality and Roodner Court Fair Rent Association, etc., et al., Plaintiffs, v. NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION, a/k/a the Board of Education of the City of Norwalk, Connecticut, Defendant.

Jonathan W. Lubell, New York City, and Stephen L. Fine, Westport, Conn., for plaintiffs.

Robert H. Rubin and John T. Redway, Corp. Counsel, South Norwalk, Conn., for defendant.

CLASS ACTION ORDER

TIMBERS, Chief Judge.

Plaintiffs, by their amended complaint, having alleged that plaintiff Timothy Blunt, by his parents, natural guardians and next friends, William Blunt and Dollie Blunt, has brought this action on behalf of himself and all other Black public elementary school students in the City who do not attend a neighborhood school and for whom the privilege and right of a neighborhood school would exist but for the action of defendant in denying them that privilege and right, and having further alleged that plaintiff Nicholas Hernandez, by his parents, natural guardians and next friends, Antonio Hernandez and Lucy Hernandez, has brought this action on behalf of himself and all other Puerto Rican public elementary school students in the City who do not attend a neighborhood school and for whom the privilege and right of a neighborhood school would exist but for the action of defendant in denying them that privilege and right; and

Defendant Board of Education having stipulated to the facts that plaintiffs Timothy Blunt and Nicholas Hernandez are being transported to elementary schools in school districts in which they do not reside, and that the elementary school in their district is closed to elementary education; and

The Court having heard evidence on the merits of plaintiffs' claims in a consolidated hearing held pursuant to Rule 65(a) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and plaintiffs having rested; and

The Court having heard counsel for plaintiffs and counsel for defendant on the question of whether this action can be maintained as a class action; and

After due deliberation, the Court having found that plaintiffs Blunt and Hernandez have met each of the four prerequisites of Rule 23(a) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, and that the action comes within Rule 23(b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure; it is

ORDERED, pursuant to Rule 23(c) (1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, that plaintiffs' action may be maintained and hereby is recognized as being maintained as a class action, Rule 23(b) (2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class comprised of plaintiff Blunt and all other Black public elementary school students in the City who do not attend a neighborhood school and for whom a neighborhood school would exist but for the action of defendant in denying them a neighborhood school, and on behalf of a class comprised of plaintiff Hernandez and all other Puerto Rican public elementary school students in the City who do not attend a neighborhood school and for whom a neighborhood school would exist but for the action of defendant in denying them a neighborhood school; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that there be mailed to all members of the said classes, in the native language or languages of the members of the said classes, copies of the attached "NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION", dated October 28, 1968, which notice has been approved by the undersigned Chief Judge of this Court; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that defendant furnish plaintiffs' counsel with an accurate and current list of the names and addresses of all members of the classes, and that plaintiffs mail the notice to all members under the supervision of the Clerk of this Court, or, in the alternative, that defendant file with this Court a copy of the said list, and that defendant mail such notice under the supervision of the Clerk of this Court; and it is

FURTHER ORDERED, that the costs of preparing the notice, its mailing and any other reasonable and necessary expenses incurred in connection therewith, will be borne by plaintiffs in the first instance, such costs and expenses to be taxable as costs to abide the event of judgment to be entered herein.

NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF CLASS ACTION

TO: ALL BLACK AND PUERTO RICAN PUBLIC ELEMENTARY SCHOOL CHILDREN OF THE CITY OF NORWALK WHO ATTEND A SCHOOL IN A DISTRICT IN WHICH THEY DO NOT RESIDE:

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that, pursuant to an order of the above Court dated October 28, 1968 issued under Rule 23(c)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, notice is hereby given that an action has been commenced in the above Court by the above-named plaintiffs against the above-named defendant to declare unconstitutional the...

To continue reading

Request your trial
3 cases
  • Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education
    • United States
    • United States Courts of Appeals. United States Court of Appeals (2nd Circuit)
    • March 10, 1970
    ...action." The motion was denied. 298 F.Supp. 208, 209. However, the court held that the action should be maintained as a class action. 298 F.Supp. 210. Although a motion for a temporary restraining order had been denied, 298 F. Supp. 203, the court held a trial on the merits. During the five......
  • Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Board of Education
    • United States
    • U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut
    • March 13, 1969
    ......v. . NORWALK BOARD OF EDUCATION, a/k/a the Board of Education of the City of Norwalk, Connecticut, Defendant. . Civ. No. 12624. . United States District Court D. Connecticut. . March 13, 1969. 298 F. Supp. 214         COPYRIGHT MATERIAL OMITTED 298 F. ......
  • Johnson v. Moore, 42060
    • United States
    • United States State Supreme Court of Washington
    • April 27, 1972
    ...South Carolina, 320 F.2d 611 (4th Cir. 1963), cert. denied 375 U.S. 814, 84 S.Ct. 46, 11 L.Ed.2d 49 (1963); Norwalk CORE v. Norwalk Board of Education, 298 F.Supp. 210 (D.Conn.1968). The fact that some members of such a broadly defined class might not be entitled to enter the schools even i......

VLEX uses login cookies to provide you with a better browsing experience. If you click on 'Accept' or continue browsing this site we consider that you accept our cookie policy. ACCEPT