298 F.Supp. 210 (D.Conn. 1968), Civ. 12624, Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed.

Docket Nº:Civ. 12624
Citation:298 F.Supp. 210
Party Name:Norwalk Core v. Norwalk Bd. of Ed.
Case Date:October 28, 1968
Court:United States District Courts, 2nd Circuit, District of Connecticut
 
FREE EXCERPT

Page 210

298 F.Supp. 210 (D.Conn. 1968)

NORWALK 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 ofNorwalk, Connecticut, Defendant.

Civ. No. 12624.

United States District Court, D. Connecticut

Oct. 28, 1968

Page 211

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...

To continue reading

FREE SIGN UP