San Diego Parents Challenge
Busing of Their Children,
in Carlin v. Board of Education,
as Intervenors in this Class Action

Both the motions by the Defendant Board and Groundswell Intervenors were denied on December 12, 1981 by the newly assigned judge. Thus the San Diego district continued under court jurisdiction during the pendency of the appeal from Crawford II to the Supreme Court, which was upheld on June 29, 1982 by Crawford III, supra.
 

Groundswell Intervenors Meet Second Challenge of Recording Opposition to Busing, but Carlin Judge Continues Court Jurisdiction Over Student Assignment Indefinitely

On September 14, 1984 the Carlin judge issued his Memorandum of Intended Decision, which evolved into his Statement of Decision on May 21, 1985. The conclusion of this Statement, however, indicated the tone of the conduct of this strongly contested proceeding by commending each counsel for the three parties by name “for their very able representation of their clients and for their assistance to the Court as officers of the Court.”

In the “Final” Order Re: Integration Plan, also filed May 21st, there was a paragraph which was first embodied in the September 14, 1984 memorandum, continuously challenged by Groundswell Intervenors:

1983-84 17. Assignment to particular seats and to particular classes solely because of race and for the sake of the District's integration plans, as challenged in these proceedings, does not violate the constitutional rights of any of the children involved.

Furthermore, the “Final” Order was not final in that Paragraph 11 contained this provision:

After the entry of this Order the Court will retain continuing jurisdiction of this matter but will take further action only upon noticed motion for good cause shown.

The Board not only did not object to this extension of jurisdiction, but in reversal of its 1981 motion to terminate all court jurisdiction, embraced both that paragraph and Paragraph “1983-84 17.” This change of position portended a need for a much longer pro bono representation than, for instance, was required by the Bustop attorneys because of the closure of the
 

Carlin v. Board of Education, San Diego Unified School District,
San Diego Superior Court No. 303800 (1967-1998)
San Diego, California
 

Crawford II 

Crawford v. Board of Education, 113 Cal.App.3d 633 (1980)
Los Angeles, California
 

Crawford III 

Crawford v. Los Angeles Board of Education, 458 U.S. 527 (1982)
Los Angeles, California
 

— Handbook: Challenge Two, pages 33 - 43 —