Court of Appeal
Orders Petition Briefed

But I had “jumped the gun,” for on November 19, 1997 the Court of Appeal issued the following direction to Groundswell:

For good cause shown, the Superior Court of the County of San Diego is ordered to show cause why the relief requested should not be granted. Real parties in interest (Groundswell, et al.) are to respond on or before December 1, 1997; petitioner (Board) may reply on or before December 8, 1997. If by December 8, 1997, any party requests oral argument, it will be calendared in January; otherwise it will be deemed waived.

From November 19 until November 28, I worked feverishly on a Response.

I first argued that extraordinary relief was not warranted because abdication of jurisdiction by the Board (1) lacked a legal basis and (2) inequitably denied Intervenors of their rights under Proposition 209 and other laws.

I then argued that extraordinary relief should be denied to insure that the Board brought its Integration Program into compliance with Proposition 209 by July 1, 1998.

My Response concluded that the Order Modifying the Final Order was in line with federal decisional law.

... The most recent federal desegregation decisions emphasize the importance of “[r]eturning schools to the control of local authorities at the earliest practicable date [as] essential to restore their true accountability in our governmental system.” Freeman (1992), supra, 118 L.Ed 108 2d. at 134. See also Board of Educ. of Oklahoma City P. Sch. v. Dowell, 111 S.Ct. 630,638 (1991)....

My son Bob drove me down to the Court Clerk's office to file my Response on December 1, and on my return I received a call to my request for assistance from an old buddy, Jim Marinos, a prominent San Diego