Reynolds v. Dept/Transportation, et al

Filing 8883

ORDER that the defendants' 8829 motion to certify for appeal and stay and alternative motion for reconsideration are denied, for reasons as set out in order. Signed by Honorable Judge Myron H. Thompson on 7/30/2012. (cc, )

IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF THE UNITED STATES FOR THE
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF ALABAMA, NORTHERN DIVISION

JOHNNY REYNOLDS, et al.,

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Plaintiffs,
v.
ALABAMA DEPARTMENT OF
TRANSPORTATION, et al.,
Defendants.

CIVIL ACTION NO.
2:85cv665-MHT
(WO)

ORDER
It is ORDERED that the defendants’ motion to certify
for

appeal

and

stay

and

alternative

motion

for

reconsideration (doc. no. 8829) are denied.
***
As to the motion to certify and stay, the court
believes, for several reasons, that it is more prudent to
resolve to conclusion one or more of the now pending
intervenors’ contempt claims and then to let that claim
or

claims

be

subject

to

appeal.

First,

the

court

understands that the parties have already selected one or

more of the intervenors’ contempt claims for resolution,
and the special master has informed the court that those
claims can be resolved with dispatch.

Second, final

resolution of a claim or two will give full context to
the court’s earlier decision regarding Article XV.

It

will, if anything, show how that decision has played out.
(While

the

plaintiffs’

contempt

claims

and

the

intervenors’ contempt claims are quite different, it is
still

noteworthy

that

so

far

the

plaintiffs

have

unconditionally dismissed all of their ‘test’ contempt
claims before going to trial.

The

bottom line is that

it is unpredictable how these claims will play out in the
end.)

Third,

if

there

is

an

appeal

after

final

resolution of one or more of the intervenors’ contempt
claims, the appellate court will then be able to resolve
in one appeal all of the issues (not only liability but
relief) regarding resolution of the intervenors’ contempt
claims,

rather

than

by

piecemeal

with

the

issue

of

liability resolved in one appeal and, if the intervenors

2

should prevail on appeal on the liability issue in whole
or in part, with another, separate appeal on relief
should the intervenors prevail on relief in this court.
The

court

believe

appreciates

that

they

that

will

the

prevail

defendants
on

appeal,

sincerely
but

the

intervenors sincerely believe too that they will prevail;
the court believes that, just as it is now doing with
regard to the plaintiffs’ contempt claims, it is more
efficient to resolve one or more of the intervenors’
contempt claims to conclusion.
DONE, this the 30th day of July, 2012.

/s/ Myron H. Thompson
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE