Pigford v. Veneman, CIV.A. 97-1978(PLF).
Decision Date | 06 April 2001 |
Docket Number | No. CIV.A. 98-1693(PLF).,No. CIV.A. 97-1978(PLF).,CIV.A. 97-1978(PLF).,CIV.A. 98-1693(PLF). |
Citation | 141 F.Supp.2d 60 |
Parties | Timothy PIGFORD, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ann M. VENEMAN, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. Cecil Brewington, et al., Plaintiffs, v. Ann M. Veneman, Secretary, United States Department of Agriculture, Defendant. |
Court | U.S. Court of Appeals — District of Columbia Circuit |
Jacob A. Stein, Stein, Mitchell & Mezines, Washington, DC, Marcus B. Jimison, NCCU School of Law, Durham, NC, Stephon J. Bowens, Durham, NC, for Leonard Cooper.
Phillip L. Fraas, Tuttle, Taylor & Heron, Washington, DC, Alexander John Pires, Jr., Conlon, Frantz, Phelan & Pires, Washington, DC, for Abraham Carpenter.
Stephen J. Bowens, Durham, NC, for Houston Blakeney, Reatha Blakeney, Leroy Robinson, Bobbi Newton, Pearlie Paterson, Naomi Knockett, Ilenthe Porter, James Davis.
Daniel Edward Bensing, U.S. Attorney's Office, Washington, DC, Terry M. Henry, Susan Hall Lenon, Amanda Quester, Michael Sitcov, U.S. Dept. of Justice, Civil Div. Washington, DC, David Monro Souders, Weiner Brodsky Sidman & Kider, PC, Washington, DC, for Dan Glickman.
Terry M. Henry, Michael Sitcov, Dept. of Justice, Civil Div. Washington, DC, for Ann M. Veneman.
Wyndell Oliver Banks, Washington, DC, for Banks Law Firm.
Randi Ilyse Roth, St. Paul, MN, pro se.
Evans M. Folins, Los Valoros, CA, pro se.
Dennis Charles Sweet, Lanston, Frazer, Sweet & Freese, Jackson, MS, for Sarah Davis.
Ford C. Ladd, Alexandria, VA, for James Tanner.
Gerard Robert Lear, Arlington, VA, for Antonio Santos, Clinton R. Martin.
On July 14, 2000, the Court entered a Stipulation and Order agreed upon by the parties that set a deadline of November 13, 2000, for submitting all Petitions for Monitor Review relating to claimants who received a Track A or Track B decision on or before July 14, 2000. See Stipulation and Order of July 14, 2000, at 4. When it became clear that the November 13 deadline would not be met with respect to petitions for roughly 4,000 claimants, Class Counsel requested an enlargement of time. Instead of extending the deadline, the Court created a method of handling the petitions that required all Petitions for Monitor Review to be filed by November 13, but which allowed counsel to submit materials in support of those petitions over the following six months. See Order of Nov. 8, 2000. The Court directed counsel to submit a Register of Petitions listing all eligible claimants by November 13, 2000, and then to file supporting materials and/or notices of withdrawals with respect to at least 400 claimants on a monthly basis. See id. at 4-5. The Court required the first batch of materials and withdrawals to be filed by December 15, 2000, to be followed by new batches on the 15th of every subsequent month through May 15, 2001 — the final day on which the Monitor would accept supporting materials and/or withdrawals from counsel. See id. at 5.
In light of Class Counsel's past difficulty in submitting timely Petitions for Monitor Review, the Court asked the Monitor to file regular reports with the Court summari...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Pigford v. Veneman
...relying on "explicit assurances" by counsel as to the work load they could realistically shoulder into the future, Pigford v. Veneman, 141 F.Supp.2d 60, 62 (D.D.C.2001), the district court permitted counsel to file pro forma petitions by the original deadline and then to either file support......
- General Committee of Adj. v. Burlington Northern