Liddell, et al v. Board of Education, et al

Filing 488

OPINION, MEMORANDUM and ORDER (See Full Order) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to File a Response to the Motion to Enforce, [Doc. No. 470 ], is denied. The State is given 14 days from the date of this Order to file its response. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike, [Doc. No. 471 ], is denied. Signed by District Judge Henry Edward Autrey on 7/24/20. (EAB)

Case: 4:72-cv-00100-HEA Doc. #: 488 Filed: 07/24/20 Page: 1 of 3 PageID #: 1896

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI
EASTERN DIVISION
CRATON LIDDELL, et al.,

)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
BOARD OF EDUCATION OF THE )
CITY OF ST. LOUIS, MISSOURI, et )
al.,
)
)
Defendants.
)

No. 4:72CV100 HEA

OPINION, MEMORANDUM AND ORDER
This matter is before the Court on Defendant State of Missouri’s Motion to
Strike Liddell Plaintiff’s Motion to Enforce, [Doc. No. 471] and its Motion for
Extension of Time to File a Response to the Motion to Enforce, [Doc. No. 470].
Liddell Plaintiffs oppose both Motions, and the St. Louis Public Schools District
opposes the Motion to Strike. For the reasons set forth below, the Motions are
denied.
The Liddell Plaintiffs have filed a Motion to Enforce seeking to enforce an
alleged violation of the 1999 Desegregation Settlement Agreement (“DSA”) which
was incorporated in this Court’s Memorandum and Order entered on March 12,
1999.

Case: 4:72-cv-00100-HEA Doc. #: 488 Filed: 07/24/20 Page: 2 of 3 PageID #: 1897

On March 26, 2019, this Court struck the original Motion to Enforce
Settlement Agreement finding that, pursuant to the DSA, the Special
Administrative Board of the Transitional School District of the City of St. Louis,
(“SAB”),1 now the City Board of Education (“the Board”), could not raise any
disputes between the State of Missouri and the SAB/Board must be filed only in
the Circuit Court of the City of St. Louis. Conversely in the event of a dispute
between the State of Missouri and Plaintiffs, motions for specific performance of
may be filed in this Court.
Plaintiffs Motion is brought solely on behalf of Plaintiffs. It is therefore
properly filed in this Court.
Defendant State of Missouri agues the Court cannot address the Motion
because the Board is a necessary and indispensable party to the Motion. As the
Board and Plaintiffs correctly argue, the Board is and has always been a party
defendant in the matter. As such, the State’s argument lacks merits.
The State also argues that if the Court were to address the merits of the
Motion, the Board could foreseeably file an action in the Circuit Court seeking the
same or similar relief Plaintiffs seek in their Motion. The Board has represented to
this Court that it has no intention of pursuing specific performance in the Circuit

1

On October 25, 2019, the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis filed a Motion to Substitute Parties seeking to
substitute the Board of Education of the City of St. Louis as a party defendant for the SAB. The motion was granted
on October 28, 2019.

[2]

Case: 4:72-cv-00100-HEA Doc. #: 488 Filed: 07/24/20 Page: 3 of 3 PageID #: 1898

Court related to the issues presently before this Court. The Board unequivocally
has stated that it agrees to be bound by any final determination by this Court as to
the proper distribution and use of the Desegregation Sales Tax. In the unlikely
event that the Board would file pleadings in the Circuit Court, the State could rely
on these representations.
The State seeks an additional 45 days from this ruling to file its response to
the Motion to Enforce. The Motion has been pending for some time. The Motion
is straightforward. An additional 45 days would only serve to delay addressing the
issues. The State will be given 14 days to file its response.
Accordingly,
IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion for Extension of Time to File
a Response to the Motion to Enforce, [Doc. No. 470], is denied. The State is given
14 days from the date of this Order to file its response.
IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Motion to Strike, [Doc. No. 471], is
denied.
Dated this 24th day of July, 2020.

___________________________________
HENRY EDWARD AUTREY
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
[3]