IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

,-

WESTERN DIVISION

\

DOLETHA TINSLEY, CORINE

)

BATTS, BERTHA DOSS, LORINE )

DÄWKINS, MARY VANN, AND LINDA )

ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF THEM- )

SELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY )

SITUATED,

)

) Plaintiffs,

V.

JACK L. KEMP,-1 SECRETARY OF

THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT

OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOP-

MENT; THE UNITED STATES DE-

PARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN ,

DEVELOPMENT; MIKE FISHER,

)

EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF

)

HOUSING AUTHORITY OF KANSAS )

CITY, MISSOURI AND THE HOUSING)

AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY,

)

MISSOURI.

)

)

Defendant.

)

Case No. 89-0023-CV-W-1 CLASS ACTION
Tinsley v. Kemp
PH-MO-002-001

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT I. INTRODUCTORY STATEMENT 1. This is a class action for declaratory and injunctive relief on behalf of all residents of T.B. Watkins Homes, (T.B. Watkins), a public housing development operated by defendants, Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, and Mike Fisher (hereinafter referred to collectively as "HAKC"), and on behalf of all applicants to public housing operated by HAKC who have been placed on a waiting list for public housing.
1. Plaintiffs are automatically substituting the name of Jack L. Kemp as Secretary of HUD pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 25(d)(l).

2. Plaintiffs who are residents of T.B. Watkins and the class they represent are living in substandard conditions. Over the years, HAKC has failed to respond to plaintiffsf requests for repairs. As a result, the units are frequently in a state of disrepair, and at all times relevant hereto, the common areas of the buildings at T.B. Watkins have been dilapidated and dangerous.
3. Currently, there are approximately 118 vacancies at T.B. Watkins out of 288 units. HAKC has boarded up most of these 118 vacant units. However, they have not been properly secured. Trespassers and drug dealers have entered many of these vacant units and have threatened and frightened the residents of T.B. Watkins.
4 . HAKC has taken little action to protect the residents of T.B. Watkins. Moreover, HAKC has taken no action to repair and make occqiable the 118 vacant units.
5. This complaint is also filed on behalf of applicants to public housing who have been placed on a waiting list. Some of these applicants are living in overcrowded conditions. Some are homeless, Many of these applicants would not be waiting for lowincome b u s i n g if HAKC had performed its duties and made the necessary repairs to ready the vacant units for occupancy.
6. Plaintiffs seek an order requiring HAKC to immediately repair and make occupiable all of the units at T.B. Watkins. Plaintiffs also seek an order requiring HAKC to immediately fill all vacant units after said units have been made occupiable. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin defendants from causing the deteriora-

tion and de facto demolition of T.B. Watkins. Plaintiffs challenge defendants' actions as violative of 42 U.S.C. § l437p, the Administrative Procedure Act, and the Annual Contributions Contract entered into by defendants HAKC, HUD and Kemp. Plaintiffs also challenge defendants' actions as violative of Title VIII of the Civil Rights Act of 1968, 42 U.S.C. § 3601 et seq. and Title VI 42, U.S.C. § 2OOOd et seq. because their actions discriminate against and have an adverse impact upon the nonwhite residents of T.B. Watkins and the nonwhite applicants for public housing.
II. JURISDICTION 7. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1343(3), as this is an action to redress the deprivation, under color of state law, regulation, custom and usage, of rights, privileges and immunities secured by the Constitution of the United States, and by an Act of Congress, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, providing for the protection of civil rights. 8. Jurisdiction is conferred on this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1331, as this is an action arising under the laws and Constitution of the United States. 9. Jurisdiction is conferred upon this Court by 28 U.S.C. § 1337, as this action arises under the United States Housing Act of 1937 as amended, 42 U.S.C. § 1437 - § 1437s (hereinafter referred to as the "Housing Act"), an Act of Congress regulating commerce. 10. Jurisdiction is also conferred upon this Court by 42 U.S.C. § 3610 and 42 U.S.C. § 3612.

11. This Court is authorized to grant declaratory judgments by 28 U.S.C. § 2201 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedures.
12. This Court is authorized to grant injunctive relief by 28 U.S.C. § 2202 and Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.
III. PARTIES 13. Plaintiff Doletha Tinsley has been a tenant at T.B. Watkins since 1984. She resides at 1606 E. 12th Terrace, Apt. 3, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Ms. Tinsley is a black, adult citizen of the United States of America. 14. Plaintiff Corine Batts has been a tenant at T.B. Watkins since 1983. She resides at 1606 E. 12th Terrace, Apt. 2, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Ms. Batts is a black, adult citizen of the United States of America. 15. Plaintiff Bertha Doss has been a tenant at T.B. Watkins since 1981. She resides at 1305 Paseo, Apt. 5, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Ms. Doss is a black, adult citizen of the United States of America. 16. Plaintiff Lorine Dawkins has been a tenant at T.B. Watkins since 1985. She resides at 1233 Highland, Apt. 4, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Ms. Dawkins is a black, adult citizen of the united States of America. 17. Plaintiff Mary Vann has been a tenant at T.B. Watkins since 1970. She resides at 1320 Highland, Apt. 7, Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri. Ms. Vann is a black, adult citizen of the United States of America.

18. Plaintiff Linda Robinson is an applicant to public housing operated by HAKC. She has been on a waiting list for a three bedroom unit since April, 1988. Ms. Robinson has four children. Ms. Robinson has been homeless since October, 1987. She has lived at various times in shelters or with relatives. She is desirous of moving into T.B. Watkins. Ms. Robinson is a resident of Kansas City, Jackson County, Missouri and a black, adult citizen of the United States of America.
19. Defendant Jack L. Kemp is the Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) in Washington, D.C. Defendant Kemp is sued in his official capacity. His presence in this action is necessary and indispensable for the provision of the relief requested by the plaintiffs.
20. Defendant HUD is the federal administrative agency responsible for fulfilling its statutory obligations, duties, and responsibilities under the Housing Act. Defendant HUD, is also responsible for implementing and enforcing any of its regulations promulgated to effectuate its statutory responsibilities.
21. Defendant Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri is a municipal corporation, created and existing under the laws of the State of Missouri, Mo. Rev. stat. §§ 99.010-99.225, and is, pursuant to said statutes, an agency and instrumentality of the State of Missouri. The Housing Authority is within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court, and is a Public Housing Agency within the meaning of 42 U.S.C. § 1437, which administers federally subsidized and assisted low-rent housing programs as authorized by the Act and regulations promulgated thereto.

22. Defendant, Mike Fisher, is the Interim Executive Director of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, and is sued in his official capacity as Interim Executive Director. Defendant Mike Fisher resides within the territorial jurisdiction of this Court. As Interim Executive Director, he is charged with the overall responsibility for the operation and administration of all the projects and programs of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, including the administration of public housing programs.
IV. CLASS ACTION REQUIREMENTS 23. The named plaintiffs bring this suit individually and, pursuant to Rule 23(a) and (b)(2) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, on behalf of a class consisting of all residents of T.B. Watkins and all applicants for public housing operated by HAKC who have been placed on a waiting list for public housing. 24. The requirements of Rule 23 are met in that the class, upon information and belief, consists of more than one hundred seventy (170) residents of T.B. Watkins and more than one thousand fifty (1050) applicants for public housing operated by defendant HAKC who have been placed on a waiting list. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. There are questions of law and fact common to the class including whether defendant HAKC's failure to repair and maintain T.B. Watkins violates rights secured to plaintiffs and all class members; the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class; the named plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class; and the defendants have acted and re-

fused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,
thereby making appropriate final injunctive and declaratory
relief with respect to the class as a whole.
STATUTORY AND REGULATORY BACKGROUND
25. The Housing Act was intended to provide a remedy for the
shortage of decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for low-income
individuals. This legislation, in pertinent part, authorizes a
variety of federal subsidies to Public Housing Authorities
("PHAs") to assist in the development and operation of housing
projects.
26. The national housing goal was affirmed in the Housing
and Community Development Act of 1968, 12 U.S.C. § ,l7Olt, which
stated that the goal of "a decent home and a suitable living en-
vironment for every American family" had not been fully "realized
for many of the Nation's lower income families; that this is a
matter of grave national concern; and that there exist in the
public and private sectors of the economy the resources and capa-
bilities necessary to the full realization of this goal."
Congress went on to provide that:
The Congress declares that in the administration of those housing programs authorized by this Act which are designed to assist families with incomes so low that they could not otherwise decently house themselves, and of other Government programs designed to assist in the provision of housing for such families, the highest priority and emphasis should be given to meeting the housing needs of those families for which the national goal has not become a reality; and in the carrying out of such programs there should be the fullest practicable utilization of the resources and capabilities of private enterprise and of individual self-help techniques.
27. The Federal Government, through the mechanism of the An-
nual Contributions Contract (ACC), to which a PHA is a party, has

the authority to make annual contributions to subsidize the cost of operating and managing low-income public housing projects. 42 U.S.C. §§ 14 37c and g. The operation of each local PHA is subject to extensive regulation by HUD including, but not limited to, the following areas: admission requirements, 24 C.F.R. part 960; maintenance and operation, 24 C.F.R. part 965; lease and grievance procedures, 24 C.F.R. part 966; energy conservation and utilities, 24 C.F.R. part 965; and the demolition and disposition of public housing units or projects, 24 C.F.R. part 970.
28. The Secretary of HUD is authorized to assist in the financing of the construction, acquisition and operation of lowrent housing developments on behalf of low-income individuals and families by a PHA such as HAKC. 42 U.S.C. § 1437b.
29. The demolition or disposition of a public housing project or unit is covered under 42 U.S.C. § l437p. In 42 U.S.C. § 1437p(a), the Secretary of HUD may not approve an application by a public housing authority for demolition or disposition unless the Secretary determines that:
(1) in the case of an application proposing demolition of a public housing project or a portion of a public housing project, the project or portion of the project is obsolete as to physical condition, location, or other factors, making it unusable for housing purposes and no reasonable program of modification is feasible to return the project or portion of the project to useful life; or in the case of an application proposing the demolition of only a portion of a project, the demolition will help to assure the useful life of the remaining portion of the project; . . . . (Emphasis added). 30. The statute continues to define specific requirements that must be met before an application for demolition can be approved:
8

(b) The Secretary may not approve an application or furnish assistance under this section or under this Act unless—
(1) the application from the public housing agency has been developed in consultation with tenants and tenant councils, if any, who will be affected by the demolition or disposition and contains a certification by appropriate local government officials that the proposed activity is consistent with the applicable housing assistance plan;
(2) all tenants to be displaced as a result of the demolition or disposition will be given assistance by the public housing agency and are relocated to other decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable housing, which is, to the maximum extent practicable, housing of their choice, including housing assisted under Section 8 of this Act; and
(3) the public housing agency has developed a plan for the provision of an additional decent, safe, sanitary, and affordable dwelling unit for each public housing dwelling unit to be demolished or disposed under such application which p l a n —
(A) provides for the provision of such additional dwelling units through-
(i) the acquisition or development of additional public housing dwelling units;
(ii) the use of 15-year project-based assistance under Section 8;
(iii) the use of not less than 15-year projectbased assistance under other Federal programs;
(iv) the acquisition or development of dwelling units assisted under a State or local government program that provides for project-based assistance comparable in terms of eligibility, contribution to rent, and length of assistance contract (not less than 15 years) to assistance under Section 8(b)(l);
(v) the use of 15-year tenant-based assistance under Section 8 (excluding vouchers under Section 8(o); or
(vi) any combination of such methods;
Under 42 U.S.C. § l437p(d), a public housing agency "shall
not take any action to demolish or dispose of a public housing

project or a portion of a public housing project without obtaining the approval of the Secretary and satisfying the conditions specified in subsections (a) and (b)." (Emphasis added).
31. Title 42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) makes it unlawful to "refuse to sell or rent after the making of a bona fide offer, . . . or otherwise make unavailable or deny a dwelling to any person because of race, color, religion, sex or national origin."
32. Title 42 U.S.C. § 3608(d) states that "[a]ll executive departments and agencies shall administer their programs and activities relating to housing and urban development in a manner affirmatively to further the purposes of this title and shall cooperate with the Secretary to further such purposes."
33. Title 42 U.S.C. § 2OOO(d) provides that: •'[n]o person in the United States shall, on the ground of race, color, or national origin, be excluded from participation in, be denied the benefits of, or be subjected to discrimination under any program or activity receiving federal financial assistance."
FACTUAL STATEMENT 34. Plaintiffs Doletha Tinsley, Corine Batts, Bertha Doss, Lorine Dawkins and Mary Vann are tenants of T.B. Watkins. All of their units have had defective conditions at various times during their tenancy. Frequently, their requests for repairs have been ignored by HAKC. When repairs have been made, they have usually been made improperly by unskilled maintenance workers. 35. Although these plaintiffs have had individual habitability problems with their units, the more serious risk of harm
10

to plaintiffs and their children comes from the dangerous conditions in the common areas of each building at T.B. Watkins and the existence of 118 vacant units among the 288 total units at the project.
36. The vacant units have exposed plaintiffs and the class they represent to drug dealers, arsonists and trespassers. These vacant units have not been properly secured by HAKC thereby enabling trespassers and drug dealers to enter the units and inhabit them. These units have become dilapidated and uninhabitable due to HAKC's failure to repair the units as repairs were needed. As a result, these vacant units are unoccupiable and have been left unsecured. Many of these units have been stripped of window frames, appliances, cabinets and countertops. They are full of trash and infested with rats and insects.
37. The legitimate residents of T.B. Watkins are fearful for their lives. They are frequently exposed to open drug dealing in the vacant units and in the hallways of their buildings. The common areas are full of trash, human waste, broken glass and filth. Many of the windows in the common areas are broken. The buildings are unsecured and dangerous.
38. Since May, 1988 the number of vacancies at T.B. Watkins has increased from 35 to 118 units. The vacancies at T.B. Watkins are growing at an astonishing rate.
39. HAKC has a history of failing to make repairs to its public housing units and buildings to such an extent that buildings at T.B. Watkins and other public housing projects have been demolished.
11

40. In 1983, T.B. Watkins had 348 units. HAKC requested the demolition of 48 units "because of the delay in making relatively simple repairs." Fiscal Year 1983 Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program Preliminary Application Narrative, p. 12. HAKC felt that it would be more cost effective to demolish the units than to rehabilitate them at $4,500.00 per unit. Id.
41. Defendants HUD and Pierce approved the demolition of these 48 units to be funded under the Fiscal Year 1984 Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Program (CIAP). Consequently T.B. Watkins went from 348 units to 300 units.
42. In 1984, HAKC again requested permission from HUD to demolish 12 units at T.B. Watkins due to poor maintenance and substandard conditions. Again, Defendants HUD and Pierce approved the demolition and T.B. Watkins was reduced from 300 units to 288 units.
43. HAKC is fully aware that its failure to make repairs and to remedy defective conditions has caused the de facto demolition of the affected units and buildings at T.B. Watkins.
44. In the summer of 1988, HUD assigned a member of its staff to be officed full-time at the central office of HAKC in order to oversee and monitor HAKC's management and operation of its public housing projects.
45. HUD has refused to take any action to force HAKC to remedy the defects and rehabilitate the vacant units at T.B. Watkins. Additionally, HUD has recently refused to grant funds for the rehabilitation of T.B. Watkins.
12

46. Currently, 99% of the residents at T.B. Watkins are

¿·—¯

'—

.

-—•

nonwhite. Historically, T.B. Watkins has been predominately

occupied by nonwhites.

, -

—

- '

47. All of the plaintiffs are nonwhite. The de facto

demolition of T.B. Watkins has a greater adverse effect upon non-

white people than upon white people.

48. Currently there are approximately 1,050 people on a

waiting list to get into public housing. Plaintiff Linda Robin-

son is one of those persons.

49. The waiting list for public housing operated by defen-

dant HAKC contains a larger percentage of nonwhite applicants

than white applicants.

50. Most people on the waiting list for public housing are

either living in substandard or overcrowded conditions, facing

eviction because of their inability to pay the rent or are home-

less.

51. Plaintiff Linda Robinson has lived in various shelters

and is currently living with ten other people in a three bedroom

house.

52. There are approximately 12,000 homeless people in the

Kansas City, Missouri metropolitan area.

53. HAKC has a pattern and practice of deferring

maintenance until units and buildings are beyond repair, thereby

leading to demolition.

54. Plaintiffs and the class they represent have been in-

jured by defendants' de facto demolition of T.B. Watkins.

13

55. Plaintiffs and the class they represent will be irreparably harmed if HAKC is not enjoined from taking any further steps to demolish units at T.B. Watkins.
56. Plaintiffs and the class they represent will be irreparably harmed if HAKC and HUD are not enjoined from deferring or neglecting to perform necessary maintenance and rehabilitation of all the units and common areas at T.B. Watkins.
57. Plaintiffs and the class they represent will be irreparably harmed if HAKC, HUD and Kemp are not enjoined from taking any action concerning T.B. Watkins that will have a discriminatory impact on plaintiffs and their class.
58. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I
(42 U.S.C. § 1983 against HAKC) 59. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully pled herein paragraphs 1 through 58 of their Complaint. 60. Defendants, Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri and Mike Fisher are each "persons" within the meaning of that term as it is used in 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 61. Defendant HAKC has failed to maintain and properly manage T.B. Watkins to such an extent that many of its occupied units are in disrepair and the 118 unoccupied vacant units are dilapidated and unfit for occupancy. 62. HAKC has failed to preserve the 118 vacant units by failing to repair and maintain these units in decent, safe and sanitary condition and by removing tenants from certain units.
14

63. HAKC's actions have caused the 118 vacant units at T.B. Watkins to become unoccupiable and have created a de facto demolition of these units.
64. The Housing Act requires that HAKC before undertaking any action, including the omission or failure to act, that would result in the destruction or demolition of any existing T.B. Watkins unit, must secure approval from defendants Kemp and HUD. 42 U.S.C. § l437p. Such approval shall not be given un-less certain conditions have been met, including the submission of an application that has been "developed in consultation with tenants . . . who will be affected by the demolition or disposi-tion . . .", 42 U.S.C. § l437p(b)(l), and provides that "all tenants to be displaced as a result of the demolition or disposi-tion will be given assistance by the public housing agency and are relocated to other decent, safe, sanitary and affordable housing, which is, to the maximum extent practicable, housing of their choice . . . . " 42 U.S.C. § l437p(b)(2).
65. HAKC has not consulted with tenants regarding the future of T.B. Watkins and has not developed their plans after consultation with tenants.
66. HAKC has failed to provide adequate relocation assistance and has not developed a plan for relocation of displaced tenants.
67. The actions and omissions of HAKC under color of state law deprived plaintiffs and the class they represent of the
15

rights they enjoy under 42 U.S.C. § l437p.

COUNT II

(Civil Remedy Against Kemp and HUD)

68. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if

fully pled herein paragraphs 1 through 58 of their complaint.

69. Plaintiffs and the class they represent fall within the

class of persons intended by Congress to be benefitted by 42

U.S.C. § l437p and federal regulations at 24 C.F.R. Part 970.

y
`L

70. Title 42 U.S.C. § l437p and 24 C.F.R. Part 970 create ^ %*

certain rights and remedies for plaintiffs and the class they

^

represent which mandate that no action be taken to demolish a

public housing unit or project without satisfying all the statu-

tory and regulatory requirements preceding HUD approval.

71. The actions of defendants HUD and Kemp have caused a de <-¿,

facto demolition without meeting the statutory and regulatory

requirements.

72. As a proximate result of the actions of defendants HUD

and Secretary Kemp, plaintiffs and the class they represent have

suffered irreparable damage in the form of the unsafe and

substandard environment in which they live.

COUNT III

(A.P.A. Against HUD)

73. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if

fully pled herein paragraphs 1 through 58 of their Complaint.

74. Defendant HUD is an agency within the definition set out

in 5 U.S.C. § 7Ol(b)(l) of the Administrative Procedure Act

(hereinafter referred to as the "APA").

16

75. Title 5 U.S.C. § 702 of the APA authorizes an action to be brought by persons adversely affected, aggrieved or suffering legal wrong by agency action.
76. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are persons adversely affected, aggrieved or suffering legal wrong by the actions of defendant HUD as these terms are defined under the APA. There are no administrative remedies for plaintiffs and the class they represent to pursue in order to redress the claims raised herein.
77. The actions of defendants HUD and Kemp in approving of the de facto demolition of 118 units at T.B. Watkins were in violation of 42 U.S.C. § l437p and were arbitrary, capricious and an abuse of discretion.
COUNT IV (Contract Claim Against HUD, Kemp and HAKC) 78. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully pled herein paragraphs 1-58 of their Complaint. 79. Defendants HUD, Kemp and HAKC entered into an ACC pursuant to 42 U.S.C § 1437c which has been and is in full force and effect during all proceedings mentioned in this Complaint. 80. In consideration for their mutual promises, HUD has agreed in the ACC to provide financial assistance to HAKC for its operation and management of its programs. In said contract, HAKC has agreed to comply with HUD requirements and regulations for the development and operation of public housing projects. 24 C.F.R. § 964.7.
17

81. Public housing tenants and applicants for public housing are the intended beneficiaries of the ACC between HUD and HAKC.
82. Defendants HUD and Kemp have breached the ACC by failing and refusing to enforce the terms and conditions of the ACC requiring proper maintenance of public housing units and prohibiting the de facto demolition of public housing units.
83. Defendant HAKC has breached the ACC by failing and refusing to maintain T.B. Watkins and by its de facto demolition of T. B. Watkins without following the statutory and regulatory requirements.
84. Defendants HUD, Kemp and HAKC have breached the ACC to the detriment and injury of applicants for public housing and tenants of public housing operated by HAKC.
COUNT V (Title VIII claim against HAKC, Kemp and HUD) 85. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if fully pled herein paragraphs 1 through 58 of their Complaint. 86. The acts and conduct of defendents HAKC, HUD and Kemp complained of herein, to wit, that defendents have failed to repair, rehabilitate and make occupiable 118 vacant units at T.B. Watkins, and have failed to maintain and secure the common areas of the buildings at T.B. Watkins constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. § 3604. These actions have made said units unavailable to plaintiffs and have created a discriminatory impact upon plaintiffs and the class they represent.
18

COUNT VI

(Title VIII claim against Kemp and HUD)

87. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if

fully pled herein paragraphs 1 through 58 and 86 through 87 of

their Complaint.

88. The failure of defendents HUD and Kemp to protect plain-

tiffs and the class they represent from racially discriminatory

treatment violates the duty of HUD and Kemp under 42 U.S.C. §

3608(d) to affirmatively further the purpose of Title VIII in its

administration of all programs and activities relating to housing

and urban development.

COUNT VII

'V`*T &Åy

(Title VI claim against HUD, Kemp and HAKC) V ¦`o<` ¯T`

89. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference as if /rW''cv

fully pled herein paragraphs 1 through 58 and 86 through 88 of 0 A

their Complaint.

¯3 5°
\Õ°\

90. Federal financial assistance is provided to defendent ` ¯`

HAKC from defendants HUD and Kemp to administer and operate the

public housing program in Kansas City, Missouri.

91. Plaintiffs and the class they represent are the in-

tended beneficiaries of the federal public housing program and

federal funds for said program.

92. The acts and conduct of defendents HAKC, Kemp and HUD

have denied plaintiffs and the class they represent the benefits

of living in safe, decent and sanitary housing and have subjected

plaintiffs and the class they represent to discrimination under

the federal public housing programs.

19

93. As a result of their actions and inactions, defendents HAKC, Kemp and HUD have violated 42 U.S.C § 2000(d) and 24 C.F.R. § 1.4, thereby creating a discriminatory impact upon plaintiffs and the class they represent.
VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiffs pray that this Court: 1. Assume jurisdiction of this action and retain jurisdiction until the full relief prayed for has been provided. 2. Enter an order pursuant to Rule 23(c)(1) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure that this action may be maintained as a class action. 3. Certify the class as all residents of T.B. Watkins and all applicants for public housing in Kansas City, Missouri, who have been placed on a waiting list for public housing. 4. Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that the actions and omissions of defendants HAKC, HUD and Kemp that contribute to and cause the de facto demolition of T.B. Watkins constitute violations of 42 U.S.C. S l437p which plaintiffs are permitted to enforce. 5. Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that the actions of defendants HUD and Kemp in contributing to and approving the de facto demolition of T.B. Watkins are arbitrary and capricious acts and constitute an abuse of discretion under 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). 6. Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
20

§§ 2201 and 2202 and Rule 57 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure declaring that the actions of defendants HUD and Kemp infailing to properly administer the ACC between defendants HUD and HAKC constitute a breach of the ACC.
7. Enter a preliminary and permanent injunction: a. Enjoining the further de facto demolition, destruction and deterioration of T.B. Watkins. b. Mandating the immediate rehabilitation of all vacant units so that they are occupiable and habitable. c. Mandating the immediate rental of all vacant units upon the completion of their rehabilitation. d. Mandating the immediate repair of all defective conditions in all occupied units. e. Mandating the provision of security and protection at T.B. Watkins. f. Mandating the repair and cleaning of all common areas both inside the buildings and on the grounds.
8. Enter a declaratory judgment pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 2201 declaring that defendents HAKC, HUD and Kemp have violated 42 U.S.C. § 3604, and 42 U.S.C. § 2OOO(d) and that defendents HUD and Kemp have violated 42 U.S.C. § 3608.
9. Grant preliminary and permanent relief enjoining defendents HAKC, HUD and Kemp and their agents and employees from making housing unavailable to plaintiffs and the class they represent and from engaging in conduct that creates a discriminatory
21

impact upon plantiffs and the class they represent. 10. Enter an order that plaintiffs and the class they rep-
resent shall not be required to post bond as security for the issuance of a preliminary injunction.
11. Award plaintiffs the costs and disbursements of this action and reasonable attorney's fees.
12. Award plaintiffs such further and other relief as the Court deems proper.
JULIE E. LEVIN, No. 28341 Kelly P. Finn, No. 28875 Sharon Weedin Siefkas No. 30526 Legal Aid of Western Missouri 600 Lathrop Building 1005 Grand Avenue Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 474-6750 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
and the Class
22

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I hereby certify that a true and accurate copy of the above

and foregoing was mailed, postage-prepaid, this j

day of

, 1989, to:
Ö
John Williams Williams & Clark 1006 Grand Avenue, Suite 1320 Kansas City, Missouri 64106

Attorney for Defendant HAKC

Joseph James Regional Counsel HUD 1103 Grand 12th Floor Kansas City, Missouri

64106

Attorney for Defendant HUD & KEMP

Attorney for Plaintiffs

23

 
 Tinsley v. Kemp

PH MO-002-002
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR WESTERN DISTRICT OF KISSOURI
WESTERN DIVISION

DOL£THA TINSLEY, CORINZ

)

BATTS, BERTHA DOSS, LORINZ )

DAVXINS, MARY VANN, AND LINDA )

ROBINSON, ON BEHALF OF THEM- )

SELVES AND THOSE SIMILARLY )

SITUATED,

)

Plaintiffs,
V.
JACK L. KEMP, SECRETARY OF THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING AND URBAN DEVELOPMENT; THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF HOUSING A*D URBAN DEVELOPMENT; MICHAEL FISHER, EXECUTIVE DIRECTOR OF HOUSING AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI A*D THE HOUSING) AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI.
Defendants.

Case No. 89-0023-CV-V-1 CLASS ACTION

CONSENT DECREE The plaintiffs, Doletha Tinsley, Corine Batts, Bertha Doss, Lorine Dawkins, Mary Vann and Linda Robinson, having filed this Complaint on behalf of thecselves and all others similarly situated, and plaintiffs and defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, Michael Fishsr, E×ecu· tive Director of the Housing Authority ot Kansas City, (collectively referred to as *HAXC") ar.i the United State· Departoent of Housing cind UrLan Development and its Secretary, Jack Ken>p (collectively referred to as »'HUD") having each consented to the ¢aîting and entry of this Consent

Decree, without trial or adjudication of any issue of fact or lav herein, and the Court having considered the »atter· and being duly advised, it l·
m
HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follOVSS 1. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject »attar of this action and of the parties hereto. 2· This case has been certified as a class action and the class is defined as all residents of T. B. Vatkins Hones (T. B. Vatkins); and all applicants to public housing operated by defendant HAKC who have been placed on a waiting list for public housing. 3. Subject to paragraph 3C below, KAXC will perfom comprehensive modernitation and rehabilitation of T^_B. Katkins to transform the develop¤ent into safe, decent and sanitary condition without loss of any units through, without limitation, the following courses of actiont A. KAKC will contract for an independent architectural survey and engineering study to achieve a needs assessoent for T. B. Katkins which updates the architectural study prepared by WGN in 1986. The purpose of said study will be to determine the work and expense to be proposed to HUD for its approval, to ssake each of the 288 units of T. B. Katkins, all the common areas and grounds safe, decent, sanitary and viable for th· next 20 years without any demolition, conversion or disposition except as provided for in paragraph 3F
belov·
- 2 -

B. Each of the 288 units, all the common areas and grounds of T. B. Vatkins will be rehabilitated into safe, decent and sanitary condition so that they will remain viable for the next twenty (20) years. As part of the above-described rehabilitation, all services en site at T. B. Vatkins controlled by HAKC shall be laproved, including but not limited to the playground, park areas, landscaping, outside lighting and security. Security Guards will be provided in accordance vith th· terms of a Public Housing Drug Elimination grant obtained by HAKC from HUD on February 16, 1990. C. HUD agrees to fund the modernization of T· B. Vatkins, according to the Comprehensive Modernization Plan as revised April, 1990, under the Comprehensive Improvement Assistance Prograa (CIAP), vith Fiscal Year 1991 funds, and HUD and HAKC agree to fund the completion of the Modernization Plan under the Comprehensive Grant Program (CGP), vith funding provided in Fiscal Year 1992 and thereafter. See 42 U.S.C. Sl437l· Said plan is attached hereto as Attachment 1. Subject tot (1) the availability of appropriations under the CIAP and CGP Programs; (2) the existence of statutory authority authorizing acts necessary for performance by HUD; (3) HAKC's compliance vith statutory requirements in the United States Housing Act, as amended and/or HUD public housing regulations and Handbooks pertaining to CIAP and CGP (including satisfactory progress in
- 3 -

completion of CIAP or CGP vork), and/or any provisions of HAKC's Annual Contributions Contracts (ACC) with HUD) that pertain to the CIXP and CGP program; and (4) any Kemoranda of Understanding (KOU) between HAXC and HUD that have been, or Bay in the future be, e×ecrut·d to ensure HAKC's compliance with the requirements in (3) above pertaining to its conventional public housing program, including specifically an MOU executed on November 29, 1990, HUD and HAKC agree that th· codernizationof the T.B. Watkins development vill b· fully funded in the fewest number of stages feasible.
If HUD determines that HAXC is deficient in its Eodernization of T. B. Vatkins, it vill provide KAKC vith notice and a reasonable opportunity to correct the deficiencies, in accordance vith 42 U.S.C. I 1437l(«) (<)(D), prior to withholding any funds. HUD vill simultaneously provide a copy of such notice to plaintiffs' counsel. If HUD subsequently determine* to withhold funds fron HAKC because HAKC did not take th· necessary corrective action, plaintiffs reserve th· right to challenge in this or any other court any such decision*
HAKC vill provide plaintiffs' counsel vith a copy of the quarterly report that it submits to HUD pursuant to paragraph 17 of this Consent Decree which details HAKC's progress in completing the ïnodernization of T.B. . Kàtkins.
- 4 -

If at any tine befor· the conplet· modernization of T. B. Vatkins, Congress revokes or substantially modifies the CIAP or CGP programs so as to sake th· completion of the »odernization under that prograa impossible, HUD vill in good faith explore providing funding for completion through any othe,r available HUD public housing assistance prograa under vhich such funding vould be legally permissible. D. Subsequent to the date of this Consent Decree, within 30 days of any vacancy in a unit either existing as of the date of this Decree or arising thereafter, HAKC must cake that unit occupiable (ready for ia»ediate occupancy) if that unit could be made occupiable with the expenditure of $1,000 or less. HAXC need not cake occupiable vithin 30 days those units located in buildings that are to be rehabilitated with CIAP or CGP funds, provided that those units are under contract (with a construction company) to be rehabilitated vithin the same fiscal year as the date of the vacancy. In the event that the vacancy occurs after November 15th of the year, then HAKC vill have until January 30th of the subsequent year to make the unit occupiable. In addition, HAKC agrees to implement th· Notification of Availability Procedures set forth in Attachment 2 (to vhich are attached Attachments 3 and 4) for each of its public housing developments. Th· Notification of Availability Procedures shall be imple-
- 5 -

»ented contesporaneously vith the ©ccupiability of ft
unit.
Z· KAXC will continue to implement and »aintain the Central Maintenance Work Order Procedures attached hereto as Attachment 5 and as amended, if necessary* These procedures vill be implemented for' vork orders of occupied units and vill in no vay alter the procedures outlined in Paragraph 3D· F. KAXC 6hall not apply to HUD for its approval of the total demolition of T. B. Vatkins vithin 20 years from the date of this Consent Decree. If KAKC submits an application to HUD for approval for partial demolition of T. B. Katkins or its dispositionf HAKC vill simultaneously provide to plaintiffs a copy of any such application. HUD vill provide to plaintiffs any copy of HUD's response to such application and, in the event HUD approves the application, HUD vill provide plaintiffs vith a copy of said approval. HUD and HAKC vill provide copies to plaintiffs of any correspondence concerning any application for disposition or partial demolition of T. B. Katkins· Should plaintiffs object to HAKC's application or HUD's approval of said application, plaintiffs nay challenge these actions before this or any other court· G· If HAKC requests the reconfiguration as defined la 24 C.F.R. 970.2(e) of one or aore units in T. B. Watkins, it shall einultaneously provide to plaintiffs a
- 6 -

< I
copy of the request and HUD shall provide to plain* tiffs a copy of its response. 4· HXKC vill conduct a promotional campaign designed to increase occupancy at T· B. Vatkins. The campaign vill include but not be limited to the following features: A. HAKC vill publicize the rehabilitation of T. B. Vatkins in brochures and posters. HAKC vill submit the brochures and posters to the plaintiffs' counsel for approval prior to dissemination. The brochures vill b· distributed to all applicants and the posters vill be displayed at HAKC offices. The publicity vill initially emphasize the scope and substance of the rehabilitation work to be performed at T· B. Katkins· After completion of the vork at T. B. Katkins, th· publicity vill emphasize the scope and substance of the vork actually completed. HAKC vill also advertise in local newspapers for applicants. HAKC vill begin th· __ publicity campaign vithin 60 days from the date of this Consent B. HAKC vill offer tours to any applicant expressing an interest in residing at T. B. Watkins. HAKC can delegate this responsibility to the Resident Management Corporation ("R>îC"), if the RMC agrees. The tours vill emphasize the program of Improvements at T. B. Watkin·· The tours vill be conducted by persons vho are familiar vith the neighborhood, schools and all of the benefit* of residing at T. B. Watkins. HAKC is ultimately rö-
- 7 -

( >
sponsibl· for fulfilling the requirements of this paragraph whether or not it decides to delegate the tour function to the WiC. C· Immediately prior to the completion of the »odern· ization of T. B. Vatkins pursuant to the Comprehensive Modernization Plan (Attachment 1), HAXC vill conduct a reception at T. B. Vatkins. Representatives from local radio, television and newspapers vill be invited. Public officials in Kansas City and tenants at T. B. Katkins vill also be invited. The focus of the reception vill be on presenting the improvements at T· B. Watkins. For example, KAXC vill present photographs and exhibits shoving the difference betveen T. B. Vatkins before improvements and after Improvements. HAKC vill use the reception as an opportunity to promote T. B· Katkins as a desirable place to liv·· D. KAXC say discontinue the promotion campaign set out in this paragraph 4 vhen T. B. Vatkins has achieved 90% occupancy. All expenses of the promotion campaign described in this paragraph 4 vill be borne by HAKC, except for expenses associated vith the FHC's tours of T. B. Katkins, vhich expenses shall be the sole responsibility of the FMC. 5· The parties understand that HAKC currently has two (2) vaiting lists, one for public housing and one for sec- * tion 8 certificates and vouchers. Said vaiting lists ar· arranged for each unit size by preference status, and then
- · -

( I
by date and tl&e of application. Each pr©graa vill continu· it* present preferences, priorities and procedure!. Kev applicants vill be added to the lists by unit size, preference status, date and tine of application. Whenever an applicant applies for any type of housing, his or her name vill b· placed on both waiting lists and said applicant vill be offered each type of housing as it becomes available.
A. When a unit, certificate or voucher become* available, it vill be offered to the first family on the list needing a unit of that size and who has th· highest preference required by the prograo being offered. If a family rejects an offer of a unit, it vill be placed at the bottom of the public housing waiting list, but retain its place on the section ft waiting list. If the family rejects an offer of a certificate and voucher, it will be placed at th· bottom of the section 8 waiting list, but retain its place on the public housing waiting list* B· If two or more appropriately sized units ar· simultaneously available in public housing, the offer must be cade based on the location of the unit in th· project with the most total vacancie·· C· Once an offer is accepted in any of KAKC's housing programs, the family say either be removed from all waiting lists or, if the family so chooses, it can still remain on the list for an alternative housing program. All applicants for public housing vill ba
- 9 -

offered only one appropriately sited unit. If •aid unit is refused, the applicant vill be placed at the bottom of the waiting list for public housing. D. KAKC vill sake decisions on the intra-project and inter-project transfers of tenants based on race* neutral criteria, but vhich vill maximiie desegregation results. Xny policy adopted nust provide first priority for those under and over housed.
To this end, HAXC vill develop a voluntary transfer program to encourage present tenants vho are currently living in a development where their race is predominant to transfer to a development vhere their race does not predominate, even if they are not inappropriately housed. HAKC vill also develop a special transfer list and give these tenants priority by allowing these transfers to occur after emergency applicants and after over and underhoused tenants; but before new applicants. E. Three (3} months after the date of this Consent Decree, and every three (3) months thereafter, upon twenty-four (24) hours notice from plaintiffs' counsel, HAKC shall make all of its files on applicants available to plaintiffs' counsel, HAKC shall allow plaintiffs' counsel to inspect the rehabilitation vork performed at T. Ð. WatXins periodically at the request of plaintiffs' counsel. Plaintiffs' counsel shall giv· KAKC twenty-four (24) hours notice prior to such in-
- 10 -

( )

spection«. KXKC shall deliv·r to plaintiffs' counsel any documents concerning the Coa>prehensive Xaproveaent Assistance Program that cone into existence after the date of this Consent Decree. 6. Each class »ember applicant and all future applicants shall be given by HAXC, on a one-time basis, a notic· that contains information about available HUD subsidized housing resources. A. HUD has prepared the notice for HAKC. HUD will revise said notice as circumstances dictate. HUD vill include in this notice the full address of the project and the telephone number of the manager, a short de» scription of the type of housing offered by the project or program and the general eligibility requirements for the project or prograa. B. This notice vill also advise the applicant of the right to file a discrimination complaint. A copy of the current form notice is attached hereto as attach* sent 6. C· The requirements of this paragraph 6 vill no longer be necessary at such tine as the percentage of non-minority residents in public housing operated by HAKC is equal to or greater than 23% or 8 years vhich»

ever cones first*

•·

·.

7· HAXC vill adopt an affinnative marketing plan

vhich vill include, vithout limitation, the following!

A· HAKC vill conduct outreach to potential section 8

- 11 -

landlords in non-racially impacted census tract* vithin HAXC'· jurisdiction. A census tract vill be considered non-racially impacted if it it comprised of less than BOX minority residents. Such outreach vill include! 1. At least once a year HAXC shall advertise in the print media in order to notify the landlords or other interested parties vithin HAXC's jurisdiction of the availability of rental property programs including the Section 8 certificate and voucher programs. 2. HAKC shall sponsor tvo seminars to be conducted in 1992 and 1994. These seminars shall concern fair housing opportunities vhich shall provide a variety of activities aimed att
a) Broadening participation of ovners/ landlords in the Section 8 certificate/ voucher programsì b) Explaining certificate/voucher programs to landlords! and c) Promoting the value of Section 6 vouchers as a tool for desegregation. d) Seminars vill be advertised to ma×iaie· participation. B. HAKC vill conduct outreach to non-ïainority prospective applicants in order to attract then to publio housing. Such outreach vill includes
- 12 -

1. Dissemination of information about aod·rnization, maintenance, resident initiatives at all · public housing developments, security, play •quipsent and other housing authority or resident prograns designed to improve the quality of life in public housing. 2. HAXC will continue to cooperate vith th· local police and other lav enforcement authorities to provide security and safety for all tenant families, especially those who cove into developments in vhich their race does not predominate* HAXC vill continue to contact police to request 6tepped up security measures and continue to notify police of suspected criminal activity. Development crime-vatch groups vill continue to be organized. Special measures vill be tafcen to notify tenants that incidents of racial and sexual harassment vill be reported and investigated iamediately. Resident policies vill be revised to provide that racial and sexual harassment is prohibited and may be justification for eviction. 3. KAKC agrees to oarket its programs to families of the race vhich is least ÜXely to apply for any of the housing programs administered by HAKC. HAKC ïnay delegate this responsibility to the BMC if the RHC agrees, but HAKC retains tha ultimate responsibility.
- 13 -

a) KAXC, or Its designee, •hall contact community and neighborhood organizations, and stores in neighborhoods of the targeted population in order to post informational »ateri· als about available housing or program*. 4. HAKC shall provide tours for individuals and groups of tenants who are considering desegregative transfers or aove-ins to projects vhere their race does not predominate. HAKC say delegate this responsibility to the RMC if the RHC agrees, but HAKC retains the ultimate responsibility. a) HAKC tours shall be conducted on th· development and shall include information en local transportation, neighborhood schools and services. C. HAKC will conduct a program of outreach designed to increase community awareness of the availability and desirability of public housing. The program vill •include but not be limited to the following features! l· HAKC vill publicize the features and amenities of each public housing development in brochures. The brochures vill also publicize any rehabilitation work which has been or vill b · undertaken vithin one year of the date of th· brochure's publication. Separate brochures may b * prepared for each development, or one brochur· describing all developments. The outreach litera·
- 14 -

ture vill be updated as it becoses outdated and at new rehabilitation vork is undertaken. 2. The brochures vill be distributed to •ach applicant for assistance under the section 8 pro* graa. The brochures vill also be distributed to comaunity and neighborhood organizations, stores and other locations vhere they are aost likely to increase awareness of the availability of public housing among individuals least likely to apply for public housing. HAKC vill insure that th· organizations, stores and locations vill be provided an adequate supply of brochures and vill b· provided additional brochures as needed. Distribution vill be focused on organizations, stores and locations vhich serve non-minority persons predominantly. 3. HAKC vill also print posters publicizing th· public housing program. The posters vill be designed to promote applications for public housing from individuals least likely to apply for public housing and vill include information about vher· to apply for such housing. The posters vill b · distributed similarly to the brochures. HAKC vill ensure that the posters remain posted at a við· variety of locations until such time as the percentage of non-minority residents in public hou·· ing operated by HAKC is eqjual to or greater than
- 15 -

401. 4. At least once •very thr·t (3) »onths, KAXC vill take applications for public housing at a site vithin a geographic area vhich has over a 50% non-minority population. HAKC will publicize tha date, time and location for taking applications by advertising in local media having a vide distribution in the geographic area vhere the applications vill be taken. The advertisements vill be published/announced at least twice in the two week* preceding the date set for taking applications. Notices containing the sane information vill b· distributed to community and neighborhood organizations, stores and other places in the area in the month preceding the taking of applications* 5. Plaintiffs' counsel nay review the posters, brochures, advertisements or notices prior to distribution. 8. HUD vill request in writing that the E×ecutiv· Director of each public housing authority (PHA) that offer* assistance in non-racially impacted areas or neighborhoods in the Kansas City Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area, conduct outreach to recruit as applicants to their respective areas those class members identified in the full class list provided by HAKC and all applicants for housing opar-· ated by HAKC whenever the PHA has no appropriately sized families on its waiting list. Said request vill be in th·
- l« -

fora of Attachment 7· 9· HUD will request in writing that the owner, oper-
ator, or manager of each HUD assisted non-pui>Hc housing program that offers assistance in non-racially impacted areas or neighborhoods in the Kansas City Standard Metropolitan Statistical Area conduct outreach to recruit as applicants to their respective programs those class members identified in the full class list provided by HUD and all . applicants for housing operated by HAXC whenever the owner or manager has no appropriately sized families on its wait* ing list. Said request will be in the form of Attachment S·
10. HAXC will make application to HUD for making exceptions to fair market rents up to 1201 for the Section 8 certificate program in non-racially identifiabl· neighborhoods, or, on a community-wide basis for both the Seciton 8 certificate and voucher programs. HAXC shall only be required to make said application if it is able to substantiate the necessity for an increase of fair market rents to 1201.
11. Any person who receives a section 8 certlficat· from HAKC will be given written notice that he or she has the right to use it in Missouri, HAXC's Metropolitan Statistical Area (MSA), or ft MSA that is contiguous to HAXC's MSA. Said written notice will be in the foro of Attachment 9· HAXC will make inspections in accordance with HUD's Housing Quality Standards of units owned and offered by these prospective landlords when the units are located within HAXC'»
- 17 -

jurisdiction. 12· Any person who receives a voucher froa KAXC will
be given written notice that he or she has the right to Ut· it In Missouri, HAXC's MSA, or an MSA that i· contiguous to KAXC's MSA. Also, said notice should advise prospective tenants that they »ay use their voucher anyvher· in th· nation, provided that an administering public housing authority is located there, as provided by 24 C.F.R· I 687.563(c). Said written notice will be in the font of Attachment 10.
13. K A K C will file with the Court annually, a report detailing the status of compliance with each provision of this Consent Decree.
14. For purposes of monitoring this Consent Decree, HUD, upon written request, will xcafce available to plaintiffs' counsel for inspection and copying the following documents, reports and records that come into existence after the date of this Consent Decree with the exclusion of any documents that would not be discoverable under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure:
A. Any CIAP or CGP documents, sen>oranda, records, and correspondence pertaining to T· B. Katkin·· B· Documents relating to the racial composition of T· B. Katfcln«· C. All correspondence sent by HUD pursuant to Para· graphs 8 and 9 of this Consent Decree and any corres· pondence received by HUD regarding those »atter··
- It ·

Ð· All »anageaent reviews and occupancy audits by HUD

in vhich T. B. KatXins has been referenced and respon-

ses of KAKC to saae.

;

E. Any complaints of HAXC racial dlscrinlnation with

regard to T. B. KatXins.

F. Any correspondence concerning maintenance, lacfc of

maintenance, vacancies or fair housing compliance vith

regard to T. B. WatXins. The release of said document*

is subject to applicable restrictions found in 24

C.F.R. | l.7(·).

C. Any Memoranda of Understanding between KAKC and

HUD;

Plaintiffs vill attempt to obtain the above doc-

uments from HAKC before requesting then from HUD·

15. For purposes of monitoring this Consent Decree,

HAKC vill make available to plaintiffs' counsel for inspec-

tion and copying the following documents, reports and r··

cords that come into existence after the date of this Con-

sent Decree:

A. Any CIAP or CGP documents, memoranda, records and

correspondence.

B. All waiting lists for public housing.

C· Documents relating to the racial composition of

public housing operated by HAKC.

D· Documents that contain any information concerning

the outreach and marketing efforts of HAKC referred to

in this Consent Decrea·

- 19 -

E. Any complaints of KAXC di·crinination· Th· naa«s of complainants shall be deleted. F· Any materials used in support of KAXC's application for an increase in fair market rents for th· section 8 and voucher programs pursuant to Paragraph 10 of this Consent Decr··. C. Any Method of Administration Procedures. H. Any Admission to and continued Occupancy Plans. I. Monthly Occupancy Reports. J. Comprehensive Occupancy Plans and Revisions as veil as any responses from HUD. K. Any documents pertaining to maintenance delivery by HAXC. L. Any Property Condition Reports. M. Any documents pertaining to Move-Out Inspections at T. B. Katkins. N. Any documents used in the investigation by KAKC of the appropriateness of exceptions to fair market rents or in preparation of KAKC's application for exceptions to fair market rents· 0. Any documents referred to in Attachment 2· 16. The provisions of this Consent Decree shall apply to the plaintiffs, defendants HAKC and HUD and to each o£ their officers, directors, agents, employees, successors and assigns, and to all persons, firms or corporations in activ· concert or participation as partner or joint venturer with defendants.
- 20 ·

17. Every thre· (3) »onths, froa the date of this Consent Decree, defendant HAXC vill submit a status report to
.•«
plaintiffs' counsel detailing the progress Bade in th· reàa· •`¿ bilitation and modernization of T. B. Watkins as veil as i£l obligation and expenditures of CIAP or CGP funds on T· B· KatXins. Said status report shall include defendant HAXC'· progress in implementing all of its other obligations outlined in this Consent Decree. Said report shall also include but not be limited to the following:
(1) A description of the CIAP or CGP funds received, expended and obligated for the applicable tine period; (2) A description of the rehabilitation vorX performed and in progress at T.B. Kat)cins and the status of said work; (3) The racial occupancy characteristics of each project site owned, operated, or managed by KAKC and of the immediate area or neighborhood vithin which each project site is located; (4) The racial characteristics of those on HAKC's waiting list for each KUD-assisted program operated by HAKC; and (5) The racial characteristics of those receiving housing assistance through section 8 programs that are operated, managed, or administered by KAXC· Defendant HAKC shall allow plaintiffs' counsel, upon twenty-four (24) hours prior notice, to review any file·# documents, memoranda or records in defendant KAKC's possession pertaining to the CIAP or CGP programs and to the other obligations of defendant KAKC outlined in this Consent
- 21 -

Decr··.
18. The Court will retain jurisdiction over this »atter for the purpose of enabling any party to this proceeding, including the named plaintiff*, the plaintiff class, HAKC, or HUD to apply to the Court for such further order» as may be necessary or appropriate for the construction, i»pleiaentation, or enforcement of this Decree* however, thi» agreement Bay be modified only with the prior written con·# sent of counsel for all parties. In addition, prior to sub· mission of any dispute under this Agreement to the Court, counsel for the parties shall consult in an effort to r · solve the matter informally.
19. Nothing in this Decree shall be construed to r · quire HUD to perform the obligations of a public housing agency or to act as a guarantor of HAXC's performance und·r this Decree. In addition, HUD shall not be obligated to provide any additional funding to HAKC, to carry out th· terms of this Decree, except those funds necessary to complete the CIA? and CEP projects for T.B. Katkins, subject to the terms of paragraph 3C abov·.
20. HUD's obligations under this Decree will end when the Comprehensive Modernization of T· B. Katkins is completed with the exception of the obligations outlined in paragraphs 3f, 3G and l4·
2l· The terms of this Decree constitute the entir· understanding of the parties, and no statement, remark, agreement or understanding, oral or written, which is not
- 22 -

contained her«in, shall be recognised or •nforc·d, nor <So·s the Decree reflect any agreed-up©n purpose other than th· desire of the parties to reach a full conclusion of this ~ action as between the parties and to resolve this natt*r vithout the time and expense of further litigation.
22. KAXC will pay $95,000.00 to plaintiffs in full compensation for their attorney's fees. KAXC will also pay plaintiffs their expenses and costs including any court* ordered notification to the class members up to the date of approval of this Consent Decree; none of such fees, expanses, and costs will be borne by HUD. Plaintiffs will not thereafter be compensated for any vork in aonitoring this Decree, except that, should plaintiffs obtain from the Court further orders for the enforcement of this Decree, their right to seek fees, expenses and costs including the costs of any court-ordered notification to the class members for such vork against either or both HAKC and HUD is reserved.
23. It is agreed and the Court so finds that all of the foregoing obligations of defendants vere agreed upon with full participation of plaintiffs? that all of th· foregoing obligations benefit the members of the defined plaintiff class; and further, it shall be sufficient notic· of this Consent Decree to members of the defined plaintiff class that defendants post copies of this order on the mala bulletin boards of defendant HAKC's offices at 299 Paseo# Kansas City, Missouri*
24· The procedures, policies and fonos incorporated in
- 23 -

this final judgment will be in full force and • f f · c t at of
this dat·.

Dated this 0<`> day of \×¡ÜYW2A

1991.

UNITED
We hereby consent to the entry of the foregoing Consent Decree without further notic·.
ÍL.L·<
OULIE E. LEVIN, Ko. 26341 TIM HAUSER, Ko. 35168 Legal Aid of Western Missouri 600 Lathrop Building 1005 Grand Avenu· Kansas City, Ko 6410S (816) 474-6750 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
ALLEEN S. CASTELLANI Assistant V.S. Attorney 549 U.S. Courthouse 811 Grand Avenu· Kansas City, Missouri 64106

V. HER01D >ited States Department of Housing and Urban
Developoent 451 7th 6treet S·V. Washington, D.C. 20410 Attorneys for Federal
Defendants
L. VìILLIXKS Fields Villiacs t Clark 2544 Koines Kansas City, Missouri 6410B Attorneys for Housing
Authority of Kansas City, Missouri
- 25 ·

 
 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI A S T E R N DIWSION

DOLETHA TINSLEY, et al. Plaintiffs
V.
HENRY CISNEROS, Secretary of the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development et al.
Defendants

) ) ) ) NO. 89-0023-CV-W-1
) ) )

ORDER

On July 6, 1993 this court entered an order" p¾¾cing the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri (HAKC) in receivership and appointed Joseph James, Regional Counsel for the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD) as the receiver of HAKC. The July 6, 1993 Order also provides'that if HUD does not approve of the appointment of Joseph James, the court will appoint an alternative receiver.
Counsel for HUD informs' the court that under 28 U.S.C. § 958, the court may not appoint Joseph James as a receiver because he is a United States employee. The court may, however, appoint a special master in this case. Fed. R. Civ. P. 53. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(2), and upon the consent of the parties, the Honorable Robert E. Larson, United States Magistrate Judge for the
* Western District of Missouri, is appointed special master pending the court's appointment of a receiver. It is therefore
ORDERED that the court RESCINDS the appointment of Joseph
T¡nsley v. Kemp

PH-MO-002-003

James as receiver of the Housing Authority of Kansas City. It is further
ORDERED that the court APPOINTS the Honorable Robert E. Larson, United States Magistrate Judge for the Western District of Missouri, as special master pending the court's appointment of a receiver.

DEAN WHIPPLE UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

DATED:
7

1993.

 
 c

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE L·

WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI

'

WESTERN DIVISION

DŒEETEÃ. TINSLEY, et al. ,

)

Plaintiffs,

v.

No. 89-0023-CV-W-1

HENRY CISNEROS, Secretary of the 1L5. Department of Housing anä '.Urban Development; and the HO¤SISE AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI,

Defendants.

ORDER

<Dn July 6, 1993 this Court placed the Housing Authority of

Kansas City, Missouri ("HAKC") in receivership and appointed Joseph

JaTVEFS, Regional Counsel for the United States Department of Housing

anñ Urban Development ("HUD"), as the receiver. Thereafter,

counsel for HUD advised the Court that under 28 U.S.C. § 958, the

Court could not appoint Joseph James as receiver due to his

position as an employee of the United States. The Court rescinded

the appointment of Joseph James and appointed United States

Magistrate Judge Robert E. Larsen as a special master pending the

appointment of a receiver pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §636(b)(2).

Accordingly, the Special Master having appointed an Advisory

Ca¤mittee to select a receiver for the HAKC, and the Advisory

Cc¤mittee having recommended the appointment of TAG Associates of

Kansas City, Inc. ("TAG") as receiver, it is ORDERED:

1. APPOINTMENT — TAG is hereby appointed receiver of the

E¾KC„ and will serve at the pleasure of this Court.

Document «2\v>.

2. POWERS — The Receiver shall have the authority necessary and available to provide relief to the plaintiff tenants, and to transform the HAKC into a functional housing authority, one that provides decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower income. To this end, the Receiver shall have full power to direct, control, manage, administer and operate the property, funds and staff of the HAKC, subject to the future orders of this Court. The Receiver shall have the powers given the HAKC under Mo.Rev.Stat. §§ 99.010 - 99.050, 99.060, 99.080 - 99.132 and 99.200 - 99.231. All the powers vested in the HAKC commissioners by these statutes are suspended and in lieu thereof are vested in the Receiver.
3. DUTIES — The Receiver shall perform the financial, contractual, legal, administrative, and personnel (including hiring and firing of employees) duties for the HAKC. These duties specifically include, but are not limited to, the following:
a. preserve, protect and administer all the property and assets of the HAKC.
b. fulfill all of the obligations required of the HAKC under the Consent Decrees presently in effect in the U. S. District Court for the Western District of Missouri.
c. do all acts necessary to transform the HAKC into a functional housing authority, one that provides decent, safe, and sanitary dwellings for families of lower income, in substantial compliance with all applicable laws and regulations.
4. REPORTS — The Receiver shall not later than 90 days after accepting this appointment submit to the Court and the

parties a 12-month plan detailing the manner by which the Receiver intends to fulfill its above-mentioned duties. Said plan shall include a proposed budget. Thereafter, the Receiver shall submit to the Court and the parties monthly status reports listing the significant actions taken by the Receiver during the month. Said reports shall include those expenditure requests for which the Receiver needs the Court's authorization.
5. IMMUNITY — The Receiver and members of its staff shall have the status of officers and agents of this Court, and as such shall be vested with such immunities as by law vest with this Court. HAKC and HUD shall indemnify the receiver and member of its staff for liabilities, damages and losses incurred and shall pay, upon a certification of expenses approved by the Court, all expenses reasonably incurred in defending any lawsuit or administrative proceeding in which the Receiver or one or more of its employees are named as a party, either personally or as an employee of •the Receiver, or in which liability may otherwise attach to them, if such suit or proceeding is based on or arises out of any action taken within the scope of the receivership as defined above.
6. COMPENSATION — The Receiver shall be paid a reasonable fee for its services in an amount to be approved by this Court. The per annum "target cost will be set forth in the 12-month plan, and the Receiver's monthly requests for compensation will be submitted in the monthly status reports. Said compensation shall be paid by the HAKC and from funds paid to it by HUD.

7. MODIFICATION — This order may be modified as necessary to assure the success of this receivership, and eventually, to return the operation of the HAKC to thé*¯ïìAKC Board.

DATED:

6lff4

_

DEAN WHIPPLF/ UNITED STATES DISTRZ¢?T JUDGE

 
 750 F.Supp. 1001 (1990)
Doletha TINSLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v.
Jack L. KEMP, et al., Defendants.
No. 89-0023-CV-W-1. United States District Court, W.D. Missouri, W.D.
January 3, 1990. 1002 *1002 Julie Levin, Kelly P. Finn, Legal Aid of Western Missouri, Kansas City, Mo., for plaintiffs.
John L. Williams and Taylor Fields, Fields, Brown, Williams & Clark, Kansas City, Mo., Vernon Poschel, Asst. U.S. Atty., Kansas City, Mo., for defendants.

ORDER

WHIPPLE, District Judge.

In this action, plaintiffs seek declaratory and injunctive relief in equity, but not damages. Five motions are pending:

1003

1. Plaintiffs filed a motion on January 31, 1989, seeking an order determining that this matter should be maintained as a class action. Defendants Mike Fisher *1003 and Housing Authority of Kansas City filed a memorandum in opposition on April 17, 1989. Plaintiffs filed a reply on April 27, 1989. The motion will be granted, and a class will be certified to seek equitable relief.

2. Defendants United States Department of Housing and Urban Development and Jack L. Kemp, secretary of the department (hereinafter, those two defendants collectively are "HUD") filed a motion on May 23, 1989, to dismiss this action. Plaintiffs filed suggestions in opposition on June 28, 1989, and HUD filed a reply on July 27, 1989. Plaintiffs submitted supplemental suggestions in opposition on October 19, 1989. The motion will be granted in part and denied in part.

3. HUD filed, on October 30, 1989, a motion to strike plaintiffs' supplemental suggestions or, in the alternative, for leave to file a limited response. Plaintiffs filed suggestions in opposition to the motion on November 1, 1989. The motion will be denied in part, in that the supplemental suggestions will not be stricken. However, the motion will be granted in part in that HUD's limited response will be considered.

4. HUD filed a motion on August 8, 1989, to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs filed their opposition on August 29, 1989. HUD replied on September 8, 1989. The motion will be denied as moot.

5. Plaintiffs filed a motion on December 6, 1989, to compel production of documents. HUD filed opposition on December 21, 1989. The motion will be granted.

I. STATEMENT OF THE CASE

Five plaintiffs are residents of T.B. Watkins Homes ("Watkins Homes"), a public housing project in Kansas City, Missouri. The sixth plaintiff is a homeless applicant who has been on a waiting list for public housing since April 1988.

Defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, and Michael Fisher, the authority's executive director (hereinafter, these two defendants collectively are "HAKC"), operate Watkins Homes. HAKC is a public housing authority which administers federally subsidized and assisted low-rent housing programs as authorized by the United States Housing Act of 1937 ("Housing Act"). HUD is a federal agency with statutory obligations, duties, and responsibilities under the Housing Act. HUD also is responsible for implementing and enforcing regulations promulgated to effectuate statutory responsibilities.
Plaintiffs allege essentially that defendants are permitting deterioration of residential units at the Watkins Homes which, in effect, is illegal demolition of the units. This passive sort of de facto demolition results in fewer units available to applicants, and a lower quality housing project for the residents, plaintiffs allege. Plaintiffs primarily seek declaratory judgment and an injunction to prevent the alleged de facto demolition. They seek no money damages.
Plaintiffs seek relief under a variety of theories. Their claims:
(1) Violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 by HAKC (constitutional rights claim),
(2) Violation of Housing Act provisions by HUD (implied cause of action under Section 18(d) of the Housing Act [42 U.S.C. § 1437p] and 24 C.F.R. Part 970),
(3) Commission of an administrative legal wrong by HUD for which there is redress under 5 U.S.C. § 702 (Administrative Procedures Act, or "APA", claim),
(4) Breach of contract by HUD and HAKC (third-party beneficiary claim),
(5) Discriminatory impact of violations of Housing Act by HAKC and HUD (Title VIII claim under Fair Housing Act of 1968 [42 U.S.C. § 3604(a) and 3608(d)]),
(6) Facially discriminatory impact of violations of Housing Act by HUD (another Title VIII claim), and
(7) Discrimination against intended beneficiaries by HAKC and HUD for failure to maintain decent housing (Title VI claim [42 U.S.C. § 2000d et seq.]).
1004 *1004 II. FACTS[1]
As a public housing authority ("PHA"), HAKC has an annual contributions contract ("ACC") with HUD to receive subsidizing funds for operation and maintenance of low-income housing under the Housing Act. 42 U.S.C. §§ 1437c and 1437g. The PHA is subject to extensive regulation by HUD in numerous areas, including demolition and disposition of public housing units or projects. Procedures, limits and requirements for demolition and disposition are set in 42 U.S.C. § 1437p.
Watkins Homes had 348 residential units in 1983 when HAKC asked to demolish 48 units because of delay in making relatively simple repairs. Demolition would be less expensive than the rehabilitation cost of $4,500 per unit. HUD approved the demolition, reducing the number of units to 300. In 1984 HAKC asked to demolish 12 more units, due to poor maintenance and substandard conditions. With HUD's permission, the number of units dropped to 288.
In the summer of 1988, HUD assigned a staff member to be officed full-time at the HAKC central office to oversee and monitor HAKC's management and operation of public housing projects. HUD did not force HAKC to remedy defects and rehabilitate vacant units, and did not grant funds for rehabilitation at Watkins Homes.
Of the 288 remaining units, 118 are vacant. In May 1988, only 35 units were vacant. The vacant units are unsecured, uninhabitable, dilapidated, and open to trespassers, arsonists and drug dealers. The vermin-infested units are full of trash. Many units are stripped of window frames, appliances, cabinets and counter tops. The common areas have broken windows, and are full of trash, human waste, and broken glass.

Like 99% of Watkins Homes residents, all the plaintiffs are nonwhite. Five of the plaintiffs, as residents, suffer from their exposure to the deteriorated conditions of the vacant units. More than 170 persons reside in the occupied units at Watkins Homes.
The sixth plaintiff is one of the 1,050 persons waiting to enter public housing. More nonwhite persons than white persons are waiting. They are living in substandard and/or overcrowded conditions, are facing eviction for inability to pay rent, or are homeless. The sixth plaintiff is homeless and has four children. She has lived in various shelters, and currently is living with ten other persons in a three-bedroom house. She has applied for a unit at Watkins Homes.
Despite the alleged de facto demolition of the 118 vacant units, HAKC has not consulted with tenants regarding the future of Watkins Homes so it has not developed post-demolition plans after consultation with tenants. HAKC further has not provided adequate relocation assistance, and has not developed a relocation plan for displaced tenants.
III. THE MOTIONS
A. Class Action
1. Arguments
Plaintiffs seek certification of a class action pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Fed. R.Civ.P. The class would include all residents of Watkins Homes, and all applicants who have been put on a waiting list for HAKC-operated public housing. They claim to have the four class characteristics required in Rule 23(a). They also contend the defendants acted on grounds generally applicable to the class, and that injunctive and declarative relief is appropriate, so a class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(2).
Defendant HAKC opposes certification on four grounds: (1) The relief, as a practical matter, would benefit proposed class members anyway, so certification is unnecessary. (2) The boundaries of the putative class have been defined inadequately. (3) Plaintiffs have not satisfied the characteristics required by Rule 23(a). (4) No 1005 sufficient nexus has been shown between the class and liability, i.e., the proposed class *1005 has not been limited to those harmed by defendants.
Plaintiffs replied that Rule 23(b)(2) specifically provides for class certification where injunctive and declaratory relief is sought. They raise four reasons why a class is necessary here. First, if a class is declared, plaintiffs argue, their claims could avoid premature mootness. (For instance, defendants merely could provide decent housing only for the named plaintiffs, thereby making their claims moot before the issues are resolved.) Thus the relief sought for other aggrieved parties could be obtained without litigating separately for each individual resident or applicant. Second, class status protects absent parties. Third, all class members subsequently can enforce relief. Finally, broader class issues can be considered in formulating class-wide relief. Plaintiffs further argue that the class definition is not too broad, that plaintiffs have standing, and that they have satisfied the Rule 23(a) requirements.
2. Discussion
Under Rule 23(a), parties may be representatives to sue or be sued of behalf of a class if:
(1) [T]he class is so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable, (2) there are questions of law or fact common to the class, (3) the claims or defenses of the representative parties are typical of the claims or defenses of the class, and (4) the representative parties will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class.
Under Rule 23(b)(2), a class action may be maintained if the requirements listed above are met and if:

(2) the party opposing the class has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class, thereby making appropriate relief or corresponding declaratory relief with respect to the class as a whole;
* * * * * *
a. Rule 23(a) Qualifications
(1). Numerosity
The number of persons in the proposed class exceeds 1,220, demonstrating that as a practical matter individual lawsuits would be so burdensome on the parties (and the courts) that they could not be litigated otherwise. Individual litigation is even less likely when one considers that the putative class members are, by definition, lowincome persons who could not afford to prosecute their own actions. Although the number of persons is small enough that they could be identified with particularity, the number still is too large to permit litigation merely by joining all the parties. The fluid nature of the class 0907 with residents arriving and leaving 0907 makes this group of plaintiffs particularly suitable for class certification. Although defendants argue to the contrary, any given individual easily can be identified with precision as being within or outside the class merely by looking at a list of residents and a list of applicants. The definition is not too vague, but the number is too large to accommodate by joinder.
(2). Commonality
The same single source of harm alleged by the plaintiffs is alleged to have occurred to all class members. The same alleged rights, allegedly protected by and enforceable under the same laws, would apply to plaintiffs and proposed class members alike. The remedy would apply to all class members the same as it would apply to the named plaintiffs. Contrary to HAKC's argument, the plaintiffs and proposed class members share more than a few characteristics. The few factual differences among individual persons are too insignificant, relative to what the persons allegedly have in common, to defeat certification. The common questions of law and fact are significant, substantial and obvious.
(3). Typicality
Likewise, the named plaintiffs' grievances are typical of those of the potential class members. The deteriorating conditions 0907 resulting from the same action (and inaction) of defendants 0907 of which resident plaintiffs complain are the same as the conditions allegedly causing de facto demolition that reduces the amount of housing for the 1006 plaintiff applicant. The factual proof and legal theories to be applied by *1006 the named plaintiffs are precisely the same as would be used by the potential class members. The relief which the named plaintiffs seek is precisely the same which would relieve the alleged harm to the other potential class members.
The named plaintiffs quite clearly have a personal stake in the outcome. Their standing to sue, and to represent the proposed class, is manifest. A judgment in their favor clearly would benefit the proposed class members.
(4). Representation Adequacy
As discussed above, the named plaintiffs have interests which are common to those of the potential class members. The plaintiffs' pleadings and supporting documentation demonstrate that they would prosecute the matter vigorously, with the assistance of qualified counsel. Defendants have raised no reason to doubt either of these propositions, and the court is aware of none. There is no reason to believe the named plaintiffs and any potential class members would have any conflict of interest. The named plaintiffs appear ready, willing and able to represent the other class members fairly, adequately and vigorously.

b. Rule 23(b)(2) Requirements
Under 23(b)(2) the proposed class first must satisfy the requirements of Rule 23(a) which, as discussed above, have been met in this instance. Second, the opposing party must have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to a class, thereby making final injunctive relief and corresponding declaratory relief appropriate.
As discussed above, the actions (or inaction) attributed to the defendants are the same with regard to all plaintiffs and potential class members. The most appropriate remedy under the circumstances would be injunctive and declaratory relief. That is precisely what the named plaintiffs seek, which would benefit all members of the potential class.
Curiously, HAKC argues that no class certification is necessary, inasmuch as any relief automatically would apply as a practical matter to all potential class members. This argument must fail for two reasons. First, Rule 23(b)(2) specifically provides for certifying a class in instances such as this. Second, the experience in a similar case illustrates how invalid this argument is.
In Todd v. Housing Authority of Kansas City, No. 84-0852-CV-W-1 (W.D.Mo. Dec. 14, 1984), HAKC was a defendant which had stipulated to maintenance of the class action by a group of persons virtually identical to those which would be in the class here. Three years after a consent decree had been entered on December 14, 1984, class members had to return to the court for enforcement and modification of the decree to assure compliance. Without certification in that case, the named plaintiffs there would have had no standing, and there would have been no class members to seek enforcement. In other words, the resolution would not 0907 as a practical matter 0907 necessarily benefit all of the class if it had not been certified. The virtually complete identity of parties in that case, compared to this one, is too obvious for HAKC's argument to have any credence.
3. Conclusion
The requirements under Rule 23(a) clearly have been met. The appropriateness of injunctive and declaratory relief, if any, demonstrates that a class should be certified under Rule 23(b)(2). The nature of the class suggests that notice of certification should be a relatively simple task. The residents of Watkins Homes, obviously, are to be found in a relatively small geographic area. The applicants, by definition, have their names on a waiting list which presumably shows how they can be located.
A reasonable timetable for notification must be established. To promote efficiency, by reducing paperwork and this court's involvement, the parties will be directed to cooperate in developing a notification procedure for approval by the court. The procedure would include the text of a notice, the means of distributing it, the mechanism for "opting out," and the financing for the notice. The parties will be expected to act in good faith to 1007 develop stipulations *1007 concerning the notice procedure to be submitted for approval.
B. Dismissal
The federal defendants ("HUD") rely upon numerous points in support of their motion to dismiss the claims:
1. Plaintiffs failed to state a claim under Section 18(d) of the Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 1437p) because
a. No actual demolition has occurred.
b. Section 18(d) does not express or imply a private right of action.
c. Any action by HUD is not subject to judicial review, because under the Administrative Procedures Act (5 U.S.C. § 701-706)

(1). Such action, if any, was discretionary, (5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)) and
(2). An adequate remedy is available against HAKC alone (5 U.S.C. § 704).
2. Plaintiffs failed to state viable civil rights claims under Title VI (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and Title VIII (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and 3608(d)) because
a. Sovereign immunity was not waived.
b. No prima facie violations were pleaded against HAKC, so HUD's alleged failure to enforce against HAKC has not been pleaded.
c. Titles VI and VIII neither express nor imply a private right of action.
d. Plaintiffs do not allege civil rights violations by HUD under
(1). Title VI, or
(2). Title VIII, Section 804(a), or
(3). Title VIII, Section 808(e)(5).
3. Plaintiffs failed to state a contract claim because
a. They are not third-party beneficiaries.
b. They have not identified a breach of contract by HUD.
The arguments will be examined individually.
1. Section 18(d) of Housing Act
a. Decision to Demolish
HUD argues that, in the absence of an affirmative decision to cause actual demolition, no claim is stated under Section 18(d) of the Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 1437p). This argument misses the point of plaintiffs' complaint. Plaintiffs allege that a de facto demolition has occurred by defendants' inaction. This is simply an allegation that, by inaction, defendants have accomplished what they cannot do by action.
Rather than alleging a conscious decision to demolish actively, the complaint essentially alleges that HUD passively decided not to decide to maintain the housing units. Plaintiffs allege this "non-decision" effectively left the units to deteriorate until overt demolition was the only available option. Plaintiffs should have the opportunity to prove that defendants accomplished, by inaction, what they were prohibited from doing actively.
This concept of "demolition by neglect" has been applied previously. In Concerned Tenants Ass'n of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, 685 F.Supp. 316, 321 (D.Conn.1988), the court said:
* * * By enacting § 1437p, Congress intended to prohibit the destruction of public housing projects without HUD approval. Because the result 0907 the unapproved destruction of a housing project 0907 is the same whether done by a wrecking ball and bulldozers or by neglect that renders the units uninhabitable, the requirements of § 1437p should apply to both actual and de facto demolitions. To conclude otherwise would allow public housing agencies to evade the law by simply allowing housing projects to fall into decay and disrepair.
* * * * * *
The use of the words "any action" and "any step" [in 42 U.S.C. § 1437p] can only be reasonably construed to encompass conduct, including an omission or failure to act, by a public housing

1008

agency that would result in the destruction of all or part of a housing project in the sense that the housing units would no longer be habitable. As reflected in the amendment [in 1987], Congress intended to ensure that tenants could fully enforce compliance with the physical condition requirements of § 1437p. To limit these *1008 requirements to actual demolitions would undermine this intent.

HUD distinguishes Concerned Tenants by saying it applies only to neglect by the public housing agency (in this case, HAKC) rather than to neglect by HUD. However, HUD has the authority (and, plaintiff contends, the duty) to enforce housing regulations which would prevent such demolition by negligence. As in Concerned Tenants, plaintiffs have stated a claim sufficiently here to overcome a motion to dismiss.

b. Private Right of Action

HUD contends that no private right of action exists under Housing Act Section 18(d) (42 U.S.C. § 1437p, which regulates demolitions) in favor of plaintiffs. Plaintiffs respond that other courts have found implied rights of action to enforce a closely related subsection, 42 U.S.C. § 1437a (which regulates rent charges).
In Howard v. Pierce, 738 F.2d 722, 725 (6th Cir.1984), the court found that low-income tenants clearly were the intended beneficiaries and thus privately could enforce regulations limiting rent amounts. In Castleman v. HUD, No. 83-0461-CV-W-8, 1988 WL 220583 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 8, 1988), the Honorable Joseph E. Stevens Jr. found an implied right of action to enforce rights to limited rent amounts in the public housing program. In Gonzalez v. St. Margaret's House Hous. Dev. Fund Corp., 620 F.Supp. 806, 809 (S.D.N.Y.1985), recon'd on other grounds, 668 F.Supp. 187 (S.D.N. Y.1987), the courts also found low-income tenants could sue to enforce rights through private litigation. Likewise, the Supreme Court has found rights enforceable (through 42 U.S.C. § 1983) against public housing authorities in 42 U.S.C. § 1437a. Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Hous. Auth., 479 U.S. 418, 107 S.Ct. 766, 93 L.Ed.2d 781 (1987).
The section in question here, Section 1437p, is so closely related to Section 1437a that these cases could be considered dispositive. After all, if the intended primary beneficiaries 0907 low-income tenants 0907 can enforce restrictions on rent, they should be able to enforce restrictions on demolition. Nevertheless, in an abundance of caution, the test promulgated in Cort v. Ash, 422 U.S. 66, 78, 95 S.Ct. 2080, 2087, 45 L.Ed.2d 26 (1975) will be applied to determine whether a private right of action can be inferred from Section 1437p. The four-part Cort test is: (1) Does the statute create a federal right in favor of plaintiff? (2) Does the legislative intent, explicitly or implicitly, create a private remedy or deny one? (3) Is it consistent with the purpose of the statute to imply such a remedy for plaintiff? (4) Is the cause of action one relegated to the sovereign states, such that inferring a right of action based solely on federal law would be inappropriate?
First, as noted in Concerned Tenants, supra, 685 F.Supp. at 320, the creation of a right is clear. The court in that case discussed Edwards v. District of Columbia, 821 F.2d 651 (D.C.Cir.1987), where Section 1437p was found not to have created an enforceable right that might be violated by a de facto demolition. The Congress promptly amended Section 1437p, and the court in Concerned Tenants quoted H.R. Conf.Rep. No. 426, 100th Cong., 1st Sess. (1987), U.S.Code Cong. & Admin.News 1987 pp. 3317, 3458:
* * * This provision is intended to correct an erroneous interpretation of the existing statute by the United States Court of Appeals for the D.C. Circuit in Edwards v. District of Columbia and shall be fully enforceable by tenants of and applicants for the housing that is threatened.
Second, the Congressional disagreement with the Edwards court, and the reference to enforceability, manifest intent to create a private right of action. Third, the purpose of the statute obviously is to benefit low-income tenants, so permitting a private right to enforce is consistent with the purpose of the statute. See Wright v. Roanoke Redev. & Housing Auth., supra, 479 U.S. at 430, 107 S.Ct. at 773; See also, Cannon v. University of Chicago, 441 U.S. 677, 703, 99 S.Ct. 1946, 1961, 60 L.Ed.2d 560 (1979). Finally, the entire scheme of the Housing Act, including promulgation, enforcement and funding, is and has been a matter for the federal 1009 government. It is *1009 not traditionally a matter for state governments, so inferring a federal cause of action would not be inappropriate.

Courts have found a private right of action under Section 1437a, and the court in Concerned Tenants, supra, found an implied right of action under Section 1437p. Independently, this court also finds a private right of action under Section 1437p by applying the Cort test. Plaintiffs' complaint withstands the motion to dismiss on this point.
c. Judicial Review Despite the APA
(1). Discretionary Act 0907 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2)
HUD relies upon Heckler v. Chaney, 470 U.S. 821, 105 S.Ct. 1649, 84 L.Ed.2d 714 (1985) in contending that the Administrative Procedures Act, under 5 U.S.C. § 701(a)(2), presumes immunity from judicial review of a decision not to enforce regulations. Plaintiffs respond that, under Traynor v. Turnage, 485 U.S. 535, 108 S.Ct. 1372, 99 L.Ed.2d 618 (1988), there is a strong presumption that Congress intends judicial review of administrative action. A comparison of the related case law reveals that these two cases are not necessarily in conflict. Rather, as noted by plaintiffs and in the Chaney case itself, the presumed immunity is a narrow exception to the overall presumption favoring judicial enforcement. See, Heckler v. Chaney, supra, 470 U.S. at 826, 830, and 838, 105 S.Ct. at 1652, 1655, and 1659; Dunlop v. Bachowski, 421 U.S. 560, 95 S.Ct. 1851, 44 L.Ed.2d 377 (1975); Citizens to Preserve Overton Park v. Volpe, 401 U.S. 402, 91 S.Ct. 814, 28 L.Ed.2d 136 (1971). Indeed, the APA itself provides, in part, "[a] person ... adversely affected or aggrieved by agency action ... is entitled to judicial review thereof."
Chaney is a peculiar case wherein the federal Food and Drug Administration was challenged by Oklahoma and Texas death-row inmates. They argued that the drug used for lethal injections had not been approved by the FDA as "safe and effective" for human executions. The court would not permit judicial review of FDA's refusal to enforce drug laws, analogizing FDA's position to the doctrine of prosecutorial immunity. Chaney, supra, 470 U.S. at 827 and 834, 105 S.Ct. at 1653 and 1657. The court reiterated, in its closing paragraph, that the exemption from judicial review is a narrow one which is used only where Congress intended an agency action to exempt from such review. Chaney, supra, 470 U.S. at 838, 105 S.Ct. at 1659.
As noted above, a private right of action clearly was intended by the Congress. Such a right, by definition, is a right to obtain judicial review. Contrary to HUD's position, this matter is not within the narrow exemption from judicial review. Rather, it is within the general rule that agency action should be subject to judicial review. The same finding was made by Judge Stevens in Castleman v. HUD, No. 83-0461-CV-W-8 (W.D.Mo. Sept. 8, 1988) in regard to the closely related subsection, 42 U.S.C. § 1437a.
(2). Remedy Against HAKC 0907 5 U.S.C. § 704
HUD argues that an adequate remedy is available in an action against HAKC alone so, under 5 U.S.C. § 704, review of HUD's actions is barred. Plaintiffs respond that any remedy fashioned against HAKC alone would be ineffective without a judgment against HUD. The court agrees.
The pervasive regulation, the frequent and close oversight, and the funding provided by HUD to HAKC illustrates that HAKC could not correct alleged problems to any significant degree without HUD cooperation, supervision, approval and funding. A remedy directed only at HAKC could be nearly worthless in these circumstances. Any meaningful remedy could be achieved only with HUD's involvement, so Section 704 does not preclude judicial review here.
2. Civil Rights Claims

a. Sovereign Immunity
HUD argues that sovereign immunity bars the claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) and Title VIII of the Fair Housing Act of 1968 (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and 3608(d)). However, HUD also 1010 acknowledges in its *1010 motion and reply to plaintiffs' response that the civil rights claims could be brought under 5 U.S.C. § 702, which provides, in pertinent part:
* * * An action in a court of the United States seeking relief other than money damages and stating a claim that an agency or an officer or employee thereof acted or failed to act in an official capacity or under color of legal authority shall not be dismissed nor relief therein denied on the ground that it is against the United States.... * * *
HUD's acknowledgement is consistent with several cases. See Young v. Pierce, 628 F.Supp. 1037, 1058 (E.D.Tex.1985), vacated on other grounds, 822 F.2d 1368 (5th Cir. 1987); Larson v. Domestic and Foreign Commerce Corp., 337 U.S. 682, 690-691, 69 S.Ct. 1457, 1461-1462, 93 L.Ed. 1628 (1949); See also, Dugan v. Rank, 372 U.S. 609, 621-622, 83 S.Ct. 999, 1006-1007, 10 L.Ed.2d 15 (1963); Gautreaux v. Romney, 448 F.2d 731, 735 (7th Cir.1971); United States v. Yonkers Board of Ed., 594 F.Supp. 466, 469 (S.D.N.Y.1984).
Plaintiffs oppose the motion to dismiss on sovereign immunity grounds. However, they ask in the alternative for leave to amend their complaint to insert the reference to Section 702 so they can maintain their civil rights claims. Rule 15, Fed.R. Civ.P., provides that leave to amend will be granted freely when justice requires. The intent of the complaint is obvious, so the amendment would be almost a formality. Nevertheless, plaintiffs' basis for bringing civil rights claims against a federal agency should be established explicitly in their complaint. Accordingly, leave will be granted to amend the complaint.
b. Prima Facie Case Against HAKC
HUD contends that plaintiffs failed to allege a prima facie case of civil rights violations by HAKC and, therefore, HUD cannot be held liable for any such violations. Plaintiffs respond that they have shown discriminatory effects and, thus, have alleged a prima facie case under each of Title VIII of the Federal Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 3604) and Title VI of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. § 2000d).
(1). Title VIII Claim
HUD contends that its liability under Title VIII would be due to its failure to enforce regulations against HAKC when it was violating Title VIII. That liability would presuppose that HAKC was violating Title VIII, but no such violation has been alleged by plaintiffs, HUD argues.
Plaintiffs respond that 99% of the residents at Watkins Homes are members of a racial minority, and most of the homeless or inadequately housed persons are minority members. They further respond that the alleged de facto demolition effectively reduces the quality and number of housing units for disproportionately more minority persons than non-minority persons.
The case law supports plaintiffs' position. The prima facie Title VIII claim was discussed in the relatively recent case of Huntington Branch, NAACP v. Town of Huntington, 844 F.2d 926, 934 (2nd Cir.), aff'd 488 U.S. 15, 109 S.Ct. 276, 102 L.Ed.2d 180 reh. denied, 488 U.S. 1023, 109 S.Ct. 824, 102 L.Ed.2d 813 (1988). In that case, the court compared the Title VIII standard to the standard for Title VII (employment discrimination) and relied in part on two cases from the Eighth Circuit Court of Appeals. The court said:
The prima facie standard for Title VIII disparate impact cases involving public defendants is a question of first impression in this circuit. In Boyd v. Lefrak Org., 509 F.2d 1110 (2d Cir.), rehearing denied, 517 F.2d 918 (2d Cir.), cert. denied, 423 U.S. 896, 96 S.Ct. 197, 46 L.Ed.2d 129 (1975), a divided panel, considering a Title VIII case against a private defendant, doubted the relevance of

1011

the methodology used in Title VII litigation. 509 F.2d at 1114. Since then, however, we have pointedly accepted the relevance of Title VII cases to Title VIII cases. See United States v. Starrett City Assoc., 840 F.2d 1096, 1101 (2d Cir. 1988); Robinson [v. 12 Lofts Realty, Inc.], 610 F.2d [1032] at 1036-37 [(2nd Cir.1979)]. Thus, even if the views expressed in Lefrak still apply in a Title VIII case against a private defendant, a matter of considerable uncertainty, the *1011 disparate impact approach of Title VII cases is fully applicable to this Title VIII case brought against a public defendant.

Under disparate impact analysis, as other circuits have recognized, a prima facie case is established by showing that the challenged practice of the defendant "actually or predictably results in racial discrimination; in other words that it has a discriminatory effect." United States v. City of Black Jack, 508 F.2d 1179, 1184-85 (8th Cir.1974), cert. denied, 422 U.S. 1042, 95 S.Ct. 2656, 45 L.Ed.2d 694 (1975). The plaintiff need not show that the decision complained of was made with discriminatory intent. United States v. Yonkers Board of Education, [supra], 837 F.2d 1181, 1217 (2d Cir. 1987); Robinson, 610 F.2d at 1036-38; Resident Advisory Board v. Rizzo, 564 F.2d 126, 146-48 (3d Cir.1977), cert. denied, 435 U.S. 908, 98 S.Ct. 1457, 55 L.Ed.2d 499 (1978); Smith v. Anchor Bldg. Corp, 536 F.2d 231, 233 (8th Cir. 1976); Black Jack, [supra], 508 F.2d at 1184-85. Refusal to require intent in disparate impact cases is entirely consistent with our prior decisions. See Starrett City, [supra], 840 F.2d 1100; Yonkers, 837 F.2d at 1217; Robinson, 610 F.2d at 1036-38. In determining whether discriminatory effect is sufficient, we look to congressional purpose, as gleaned from the legislative history of Title VIII, related Title VII jurisprudence, and practical concerns. Although none of these considerations is alone determinative, taken together they strongly suggest that discriminatory impact alone violates Title VIII.

HUD incorrectly would limit the field for testing alleged discrimination to only those persons who reside at Watkins Homes. HUD relies upon Betsey v. Turtle Creek Associates, 736 F.2d 983 (4th Cir.1984). That case concerned disparate treatment of minority tenants as compared to non-minority tenants within a particular building of an apartment complex. The court, at 987, looked to whether there was a disproportionate impact on minority members (as compared to non-minority members) within the limited group to which the defendant's policy applied.

In the present case, the allegation of discrimination is broader, and should be applied to a broader range of persons. The allegation is that, among low-income persons who have or seek subsidized housing, the alleged de facto demolition at Watkins Homes has a disproportionate and discriminatory impact upon persons who belong to minorities than upon non-minority persons. The comparison concerns all low-income persons who have or seek subsidized housing operated and administered by HUD. Such low-income persons are not all members of minorities, although nearly all (99%) persons living at Watkins Homes are members of minorities. Therefore, actions affecting residents or applicants at Watkins Homes are more likely to affect members of minorities than would actions affecting all low-income persons. The allegation of disparate impact is sufficient to withstand a motion to dismiss.

(2). Title VI Claim

In the Eighth Circuit, the disparate-impact analysis does not apply to claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964. Intent to discriminate is required under Title VI, rather than mere proof of disparate impact or effects. In Williams v. City of Sioux Falls, 846 F.2d 509, 511 (8th Cir.1988), the court said:
The district court correctly recognized that under plaintiff's individual claim, each theory of recovery is viable only if the City intentionally treated the plaintiff less favorably because of his race. See Guardians Ass'n v. Civil Serv. Comm'n, 463 U.S. 582, 103 S.Ct. 3221, 77 L.Ed.2d 866 (1983); Washington v. Davis, 426 U.S. 229, 96 S.Ct. 2040, 48 L.Ed.2d 597 (1976). The court employed the traditional analysis utilized to decide questions of intentional discrimination, asking first whether the plaintiff had established a prima facie case.

* * * * * *
Absent an allegation of intentional discrimination, the claim under Title VI must be dismissed.
1012 *1012 c. Private Actions Under Titles VI and VIII
Inasmuch as no viable Title VI claim has been alleged by plaintiffs, there is no need to reach the issue of whether a private action may be brought against HUD under Title VI. The claim under Title VIII is another matter, however. Immediately after a lengthy discussion of a private right of action under Title VI, the court in Clients' Council v. Pierce, 711 F.2d 1406, 1424-1425 (8th Cir.1983), examined the Title VIII claim. The court found that HUD "failed to carry out its affirmative duty to `institute action the direct result of which was to be the implementation of the dual and mutual goals for fair housing and the elimination of discrimination in that housing.'" 711 F.2d at 1425, quoting in part Banks v. Perk, 341 F.Supp. 1175, 1182 (N.D.Ohio 1972), aff'd in part, rev'd in part on other grounds, 473 F.2d 910 (6th Cir.1973). The only fair reading of the discussion is that a private right of action against HUD is implied in Title VIII.
d. Civil Rights Violations by HUD
HUD contends that plaintiffs have failed to allege civil rights violations by HUD under Title VI; Title VIII, Section 804(a); or Title VIII, Section 808(e)(5). As stated above, plaintiffs have failed to alleged the intentional discrimination necessary for a Title VI violation. HUD's position regarding Sections 804(a) and 808(e)(5) of Title VIII (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and 3608(d)) relies upon its characterization of plaintiffs' claims as "nonenforcement" claims. The complaint reveals, however, that the claims are allegations of actual overt and direct involvement by HUD in the passive decision-making process to permit alleged de facto demolition to occur. The allegations of discriminatory activity by HUD bring the claims within the requirements of the cases cited by HUD. Therefore, the claims against HUD under Title VIII, Section 804(a); or Title VIII, Section 808(e)(5) (42 U.S.C. §§ 3604(a) and 3608(d)) need not be dismissed for failure to allege discriminatory activity by HUD.
3. Contract Claim
a. Third-Party Beneficiary
HUD argues that the plaintiffs were not the intended beneficiaries of the annual contributions contract ("ACC") between HUD and HAKC. Therefore, HUD contends, plaintiffs cannot bring claims under the ACC as third-party beneficiaries. The case law is contrary.
In Ashton v. Pierce, 716 F.2d 56, modified, 723 F.2d 70 (D.C.Cir.1983), public housing tenants were found to be third-party beneficiaries of the ACC and had the right to enforce the duties arising under it. Likewise, third-party enforcement rights were found under the ACC in Concerned Tenants of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, supra, 685 F.Supp. at 324.
In Holbrook v. Pitt, 643 F.2d 1261, 1270 (7th Cir.1981), public housing tenants were found to be third-party beneficiaries to a "HAP" contract. A "HAP" contract provides for housing assistance payments by HUD to landlords to maintain low rent levels pursuant to Section 8 of the Housing Act (42 U.S.C. § 1437f). See also, Knox Hill Tenant Council v. Washington, 448 F.2d 1045 (D.C.Cir.1971); Free v. Landrieu, 666 F.2d 698, 700, 702 (1st Cir.1981).
b. Breach of Contract
HUD asserts that plaintiffs have failed to allege a breach of contract to support their claim. The purpose of the ACC is to provide safe, decent, sanitary and affordable housing for eligible low-income people. See Concerned

Tenants of Father Panik Village v. Pierce, supra, 685 F.Supp. at 323; Ashton v. Pierce, supra, 716 F.2d at 66; Holbrook v. Pitt, 643 F.2d at 1271-1272. The agreement authorizes payment of funds to a housing authority on the condition that it complies with federal housing laws. See, 42 U.S.C. § 1437c, 42 U.S.C. § 1437g, and 24 C.F.R. § 941.103. In this instance, plaintiffs clearly have alleged failure to comply with the contract requirements. A breach has been sufficiently alleged to evade dismissal.
1013 *1013 C. Strike Supplemental Suggestions
In the motion filed October 30, 1989, HUD objects to plaintiffs' supplementary suggestions, which were filed on October 19, 1989. The supplementary suggestions called to the court's attention a recent decision from a district court in Ohio on a related matter. HUD's argument was that plaintiffs had no permission to file the additional pleading, and so it should not be considered. Alternatively, HUD requested that its response to the supplementary suggestions be considered. For the sake of clarity in the record, plaintiffs will be granted leave nunc pro tunc to file supplementary suggestions. Further, HUD's motion to strike the suggestions will be denied, but the alternative request for consideration of the response to the supplementation will be granted.
D. Stay Discovery
HUD filed a motion to stay discovery pending a ruling on the motion to dismiss. The motion would appear to be moot, if based entirely upon the need to await a ruling on the motion. Of course, the pendency of a dispositive motion is not, by itself, sufficient to stay discovery. See Local Rule 15 D.
E. Compel Production
Plaintiffs filed a motion on December 6, 1989, to compel production of documents. HUD filed opposing suggestions, relying upon the fact that a motion to dismiss and a motion to stay discovery were pending. Attached to the motion is a document which is purported to be a letter dated November 6, 1989, from counsel for HUD. The text of the purported letter:
Perhaps I am obtuse, but I do not believe that Local Rule 15D applies to require completion of discovery pending a motion to stay that same discovery. Otherwise, the one would moot one's own motion, don't you think? We will await ruling on our motion or on any motion to compel you find it necessary to file.
The purported letter's observation suggests two interesting concepts. First, it implies that a motion to stay discovery is not a motion within the meaning of Local Rule 15 D.[2] The rule does not exempt particular types of motions. Second, the author is apparently so concerned about making the motion moot, that the inescapable consequence is overlooked. That is, by refusing to comply with discovery merely because a motion to stay is pending, a party effectively is granting its own motion to stay 0907 even before the court has ruled. Such a phenomenon would reduce a court's orders to useless and senseless formalities. The parties may be assured that this court's orders are not intended to be viewed or received so cavalierly.
The attitude conveyed in the letter also appeared in the opposition to the motion, although HUD did concede that a dispositive motion does not automatically stay discovery under Local Rule 15. HUD's sole (albeit misguided) reason for refusing production is the pendency of a motion to stay discovery. Therefore, HUD should be free to produce the discoverable materials, now that the motion to stay has been denied. Denial of the motion to stay ordinarily would have permitted summary disposition of the motion to compel, but the circumstances suggested that some guidance on the local rules, especially concerning discovery, would be helpful to the parties.

IV. CONCLUSION
As discussed above, plaintiffs will be permitted to represent a certified class. The parties will develop a proposed plan for managing the class action, including the notification mechanism, to be submitted for court approval.
The motion to dismiss will be denied, with two exceptions. First, a ruling on dismissal on the basis of sovereign immunity will be deferred, pending a motion by plaintiffs to file an amended complaint which would invoke 1014 jurisdiction under 5 U.S.C. § 702. Second, the claims against *1014 HAKC and HUD pursuant to Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 (42 U.S.C. § 2000d) will be dismissed for failure to allege intentional discrimination.[3]
HUD's motion to strike plaintiffs' supplemental suggestions will be denied in that the suggestions will not be stricken, but granted in that HUD's response will be considered. Plaintiffs' supplemental suggestions will be considered upon leave granted nunc pro tunc to file them. The motion to stay discovery will be denied. The motion to compel production will be granted. If the parties believe revision of the discovery schedule would be helpful, they may choose to submit jointly a proposed amended scheduling order.
It is
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion, filed January 31, 1989, seeking an order determining that this matter should be maintained as a class action is granted. It is further
ORDERED that the proposed class is certified, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), Fed.R. Civ.P., such that the named plaintiffs may proceed on behalf of the class to seek injunctive and declaratory relief, and costs (but not monetary damages). It is further
ORDERED that the parties shall, within 30 days, jointly submit a proposed plan for notification of class members and for management of this class action, including any stipulations which would promote efficient management, for court approval. It is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion, filed May 23, 1989, to dismiss the complaint is granted in part and is denied in part. It is further
ORDERED that Count VII (i.e., plaintiffs' claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, 42 U.S.C. § 2000d) is dismissed as to all defendants. It is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion, filed October 30, 1989, to strike plaintiffs' supplemental suggestions is denied in part and granted in part. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs are granted leave, nunc pro tunc, to file their supplemental suggestions, and the record shall continue to show it was filed October 19, 1989. It is further
ORDERED that defendants' motion, filed August 8, 1989, to stay discovery, is denied as moot. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' motion, filed December 6, 1989, to compel production of documents requested in plaintiffs' first request for production of documents, is granted. It is further
ORDERED that the federal defendants shall respond within 30 days of the date of this order to the plaintiffs' first request, which was served on defendants on July 6, 1989, for production of documents. It is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs submit within 30 days a bill of reasonable expenses, including attorneys' fees, incurred by plaintiffs in filing their motion to compel, which plaintiffs would hope to recover from defendants.
[1] For purposes of ruling these four motions, the facts set forth by plaintiffs will be accepted as accurate 0907 just as HUD accepted plaintiffs' facts in its May 23, 1989, motion to dismiss at page 8.

[2] Local Rule 15 D: D. Filing of Motions Does Not Automatically Stay Discovery. Absent an order of the Court to the contrary, the filing of a motion, including a discovery motion, a motion for summary judgment, or a motion to dismiss, does not excuse counsel from complying with this rule and any scheduling order entered in the case. (emphasis added)
[3] Plaintiffs are requested to acknowledge the dismissal of Title VI claims when plaintiffs file their motion to amend their complaint, and in any proposed order they submit. Such acknowledgement in the motion and order would avoid additional motion practice on that point, while preserving the issue for appeal.
Save trees - read court opinions online on Google Scholar.

 
 F Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

,STAYED, TERMED
u.s. District Court
United States District Court for the Western District of Missouri (Kansas City) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 4:89-cv-00023-DW

Tinsley, et al v. Pierce, et al Assigned to: District Judge Dean Whipple Demand: $0 Cause: 28: 1331 Fed. Question
Special Master Robert E Larsen

Date Filed: 0111711989 Date Terminated: 1112511991 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 443 Civil Rights: Accomodations Jurisdiction: Federal Question
represented by Terence J. Thurn Bryan Cave, LLP 1200 Main Street Suite 3500 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816)374-3233 Fax: (816)374-3300 Email: tthum@bryancave.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Thomas J Bath, Jr Bath & Edmonds, P.A. 7944 Santa Fe Drive Overland Park, KS 66204 (913) 652-9800 Fax: (913) 649-8494 Email: tom@bathedmonds.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James L Eisenbrandt Berkowitz Oliver Williams Shaw & Eisenbrandt LLP 4200 Somerset Suite 150 Prairie Village, KS 66208 913-649-7007 Fax: (913) 649-9399 Email: jeisenbrandt@bowse-Iaw.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

I of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri
Special Master Joseph James
Plaintiff Doletha Tinsley
Plaintiff Corine Batts Plaintiff Bertha Doss Plaintiff Lorine Dawkins Plaintiff MaryVann Plaintiff
20f44

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...
represented by Terence J. Thurn (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Thomas J Bath, Jr (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED James L Eisenbrandt (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Julie E Levin Legal Aid of Western Missouri Suite 1900 1125 Grand Boulevard Kansas City, MO 64106 816-474-6750 Fax: (816) 474-9751 Email: jlevin@lawmo.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED Kelly P. Finn Turner & Boisseau, P.C. 819 Walnut St Ste 409 Kansas City, MO 64131 (816) 941-4888 TERMINATED: 1111311992
4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri
Linda Robinson Plaintiff Public Housing Resident Council
Plaintiff Theron B Watkins Tenant Assocation
v.
Receiver TAG Associates of Kansas City, Inc.
v.
30f44

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...
represented by Carole W. Wilson U.S. Department of Housing & Urban Development 451 7th St. S.W. Washington, DC 20410 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Edwin T. Lowndes Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri 301 East Armour Blvd. Ste.200 Kansas City, MO 64111-1212 (816) 968-4107 Fax: (816) 968-4111 Email: elowndes@hakc.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Janet Steckel Lundberg Krokidas & Bluestein, LLP 141 Tremont Street Boston, MA 2111 (617)482-7211 Email: jlundberg@kb-Iaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Paul Holtzman Krokidas & Bluestein 141 Tremont Street Boston, MS 02111 (617) 482-7211 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri
Defendant Pierce, Samuel, Sec TERMINATED: 0210911989
Defendant V.S. Dept. ofH.V.D.
Defendant Fain, Venita, Interi TERMINATED: 0210911989 Defendant Housing Authority of
40f44

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...
represented by John L. Williams John L. Williams PC 600 Broadway Suite 250 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 221-7177 Fax: (816) 221-7722 Email: jlwmslaw@ao1.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Charles M. Thomas Office of the United States Attorney 400 E. 9th St. Room 5510 Kansas City, MO 64106 (816) 426-3130 Fax: (816) 426-3165 Email: charles.thomas@usdoj.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen C. VanBebber McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC-KCMO 605 West 47th Street Suite 350 Kansas City, MO 64112-1900 (816) 753-5400 Fax: (816) 753-9996 Email: avanbebber@mcdowellrice.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aileen C. VanBebber (See above for address) TERMINATED: 0912511998 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Carole W. Wilson (See above for address)
4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri 50f44

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...
LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
James F.B. Daniels McDowell, Rice, Smith & Buchanan, PC-KCMO 605 West 47th Street Suite 350 Kansas City, MO 64112-1900 (816) 753-5400 Fax: (816) 753-9996 Email: jdaniels@mcdowellrice.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jeff Lines 511 Washington St. Norwood, MA 02062 781-551-8801 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John W. Herold United States Department of Housing & Urban Development 451 7th St., S.W. Washington, DC 20410 TERMINATED: 0313111997 LEAD ATTORNEY
John L. Williams (See above for address) TERMINATED: 0111911995 LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Taylor Fields Fields & Brown 1100 Main Street Suite 1600 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 474-1700 Fax: (816)421-6239 Email: tfields@fieldsandbrown.com
4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri
Defendant JackL Kemp
Defendant Mike Fisher Defendant JackL Kemp Secretary of the United States Department ofHousing and Urban Development interested party Natalia Coe
60f44

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...
ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Carole W. Wilson (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Charles M. Thomas (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Aileen C. VanBebber (See above for address) TERMINATED: 0912511998 ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
John W. Herold (See above for address) TERMINATED: 0313111997
represented by John L. Williams (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Aileen C. VanBebber (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Gail M. Shrager Rusch & Eppenberger 1200 Main Street Suite 1700 Kansas City, MO 64105 (816) 421-4800 TERMINATED: 1011911998 LEAD ATTORNEY
Paul F. Pautler, Jr. Rusch Blackwell Sanders LLP-Main St 4801 Main Street Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 (816) 983-8259 Fax: (816) 983-8080
4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri
interested party Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N.A.
Miscellaneous J'ouise Stinnett
70f44

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...
Email: paul.pautler@huschblackwell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Benjamin F. Mann Husch Blackwell Sanders LLP 4801 Main Street Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 816/983-8126 Fax: 816/983-9126 Email: benjamin.mann@huschblackwell.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Terrance Summers Husch, Blackwell, Sanders, LLP-KCMO 4801 Main Street Suite 1000 Kansas City, MO 64112 (816) 983 -8222 Fax: (816)983-9222 Email: terry. summers@huschblackwell.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Andrea Taylor Equal Employment Opportunity Commission 400 State Avenue Suite 905 Kansas City, KS 66101 (913)551-5845 Fax: 913-551-6957 Email: andrea.taylor@eeoc.gov TERMINATED: 0710512002 LEAD ATTORNEY
John Wray Kurtz Hubbard and Kurtz 1718 Walnut Kansas City, MO 64108 (816) 472-4673 Fax: (816) 472-5464 Email: jkurtz@mokanlaw.com LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

Claimant Alfred L McCloud

represented by Alfred L McCloud 3615 E. 61st Kansas City, MO 64130 PRO SE

Date Filed 01/3111989 02/0911989 0411711989 0411711989
0412711989
0512311989 06/0211989 06/0811989
0612811989 06/3011989
07/0511989
07/0611989
0711011989

# Docket Text
10 MOTION by plaintiff for order determining that action be maintained as class action, w/memorandum & affidavit (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0412111989)
11 AMENDED COMPLAINT Number ofsummon(s): 0 (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0412111989)
22 ANSWER to 1st amended complaint by defendants Mike Fisher, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. (Sue Anderson) Modified on 0412411989 (Entered: 0412111989)
23 Memorandum by defendant Mike Fisher, defendant Housing Authority of in opposition to motion for order determining that action be maintained as class action [10-1] (Sue Anderson) Modified on 0412411989 (Entered: 0412111989)
24 Reply by plaintiffs to dfts Mike Fisher & Housing Authority ofKCMO'S memorandum in oppo to motion for class certification determining that action be maintained as class action [10-1] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0412911989)
25 MOTION by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to dismiss action against them (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0512311989)
26 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to respond to federal dfts' motion to dismiss, w/suggs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 06/0511989)
27 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple re motion to extend time to respond to federal dfts' motion to dismiss [26-1] until 6128/89 (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 06/0811989)
28 Suggestions by plaintiff in opposition motion to dismiss action against them [25-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0612811989)
29 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of, defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to extend time to file reply to plaintiffs' response to federal dfts' motion to dismiss (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 07/0611989)
30 CERTIFICATE by plaintiffs of service of amended 1st req for production of documents to dfts Housing Authority ofKCMO & Mike Fisher (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 07/0611989)
31 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of 1st req for production of documents to dfts US. Dept. of Housing & Urban Dev. & Jack L. Kemp (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 07/0711989)
32 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to file reply to plaintiffs' response to federal dfts' motion to dismiss [29-1]; response to motion to dismiss action against them [25-1] due 7128/89 (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson)

80f44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0711011989
0711411989 0712611989 0712711989 08/0811989 0811111989 0811711989
0812911989 09/0811989 1011911989 10/3011989
11/0111989 1112111989 1112111989 12/0611989

(Entered: 0711111989)
33 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to respond to federal dfts' motion to dismiss [26-1]; 1 response to federal dfts' motion to dismiss action against them [25-1] due 7128/89 (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0711111989)
34 Proposed scheduling order by defendants, plaintiffs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0711711989)
35 SCHEDULING ORDER: by Judge Dean Whipple discovery ddl set 1126/90 (cc: all counsel) (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 0712611989)
36 Reply suggestions by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. pIa's oppo to dfts' motion to dismiss action against them [25-1] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0712811989)
37 MOTION by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Housing Authority of, defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to stay discovery, w/suggs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 08/0811989)
38 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time to respond to federal dfts' motion to stay discovery (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0811411989)
39 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to respond to federal dfts' motion to stay discovery [38-1]; response by plas to fed. dfts' motion to stay discovery [37-1] is due 8/31/89 (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0811711989)
40 Suggestions by plaintiffs in opposition motion to stay discovery [37-0] (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 08/3011989)
41 Reply suggestions by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD., defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Housing Authority to plas' oppo to federal dfts' motion to stay discovery [37-0] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0911111989)
42 Reply (suppl suggs oppo) suggestions by plaintiffs to motion to dismiss action against them [25-0] (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 1012011989)
43 MOTION by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD., defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Housing Authority of to strike plas' suppl suggs, or in the alternative for leave to file a limited response (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 10/3111989)
44 Suggestions by plaintiffs in opposition to federal dfts' motion to strike plas' suppl suggs [43-1] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 11/0211989)
45 CERTIFICATE by plaintiffs of service of 1st interrs to dfts US. Dept of Housing & Urban Develop. & Jack Kemp, Sec. (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 1112111989)
46 CERTIFICATE by plaintiffs of service of 1st interrs to dfts Housing Authority of KCMO & Michael Fiser (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 1112111989)
47 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel prod of docs requested in plas' 1st req for prod of docs to fed dfts (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 12/0711989)

90f44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

12/0611989 1212111989 01/0311990
01/0411990 01/0911990 0111011990 0111211990 0111611990 0112211990 0112211990

48 Suggestions by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel prod of docs requested in plas' 1st req for prod of docs to fed dfts [47-1] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 12/0711989)
49 Response by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D., defendant Housing Authority of to plas' motion to compel prod of docs requested in plas' 1st req for prod of docs to fed dfts [47-1] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 1212811989)
50 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' motion for order determining that action be maintained as class action [10-1]; that the proposed class is certified, pursuant to Rule 23(b)(2), F.RC.P., such that the named plas may proceed on behalf of the class to seek injunctive & declaratory relief, & costs (but not monetary damages; that the parties shall, within 30 days, jointly submit a proposed plan for notification of class members & for management of this class action, including any stipulations which would promote efficient management, for court approval; granting in part dfts' motion to dismiss action against them [25-1]; that Count VII (plas' claims under Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964,42 USC Sec. 2000d) is dismissed as to all dfts; denying in part dfts' motion to dismiss action against them [25-1]; denying in part dfts' motion to strike plas' suppl suggs [43-1] & denying in part dfts' motion leave to file a limited response [43-2]; granting in part dfts' motion to strike plas' suppl suggs [43-1] & granting in part dfts' motion for leave to file a limited response [43-2]; that plas are granted lv, nunc pro tunc, to file their suppl suggs, & the record shall continue to show it was filed 10119/89; finding the motion to stay discovery [37-1] denied as moot; granting plas' motion to compel prod of docs requested in plas' 1st req for prod of docs to fed dfts [47-1]; that federal dfts shall respond within 30 days of the date of this order to plas' 1st req, which was served on dfts on 7/6/89, for prod of docs; that plas submit within 30 days a bill of reasonable expenses, including atty fees, incurred by plas in filing their motion to compel, which plas would hope to recover from dfts. (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 01/0411990)
51 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority ofKC to extend time to respond to plas' interrs (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 01/0511990)
52 MOTION by defendant to extend time to respond to plas' interrs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0111011990)
53 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft Housing Auth ofK.C.'s motion to extend time until 1115/90 to respond to plas' interrs [51-1]; finding the motion to extend time to respond to plas' interrs [52-1] denied as moot. (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0111011990)
54 MOTION by plaintiffs for leave to file 2nd amended complaint (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0111211990)
55 Notice by plaintiff of bill of expenses incurred in filing motion to compel prod by fed dfts of docs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0111711990)
56 MOTION by defendant to extend time to respond to plas' interrs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 01123/1990)
57 Amended Joint Proposed scheduling order by defendants, plaintiffs, (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 01123/1990)

10 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0112311990
0112311990 0113011990 01/3011990 01/3111990 02/0211990
02/0211990 02/0211990 02/0211990 0211411990 0211611990 0212011990 0212311990 0311211990

58 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion for leave to file 2nd amended complaint [54-1]. It is further Ordered that the Clerk of the Court shall accept flfiling the proposed 2nd amended complaint which was submitted wlplas' mt fllv to amend. It is further Ordered that the filing of the 2nd amended complaint shall relate back to 1117/89, when the original complaint was filed. (cc: all counsel) (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 0112311990)
59 2nd AMENDED COMPLAINT Number ofsummon(s): 0 (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 01123/1990)
60 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft's motion to extend time until 1/31/90 to respond to plas' interrs [56-1] (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 01/3011990)
61 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER: by Judge Dean Whipple ;discovery ddl set 9128/90 (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 01/3011990)
62 JOINT MOTION by defendant, plaintiff for order of court approval of class notice w/suggs. (Yvonne Johnson) (Entered: 02/0111990)
64 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the test of the parties' proposed notice shall be published, according to the approved plan of class notification, above the text of the order; the class members are advised that money will not be awarded to them, because this lawsuit does not concern monetary damages. (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) Modified on 02/0211990 (Entered: 02/0211990)
63 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting the joint motion for order of court for approval of class notice [62-1]; that the parties; proposed plan for notice of class members is granted. (cc: all counsel) (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 02/0211990)
66 ANSWER to 2nd amended complaint by defendant Housing Authority of, defendant Mike Fisher (Sue Anderson) Modified on 02/0511990 (Entered: 02/0511990)
65 CERTIFICATE by defendant Housing Authority of, defendant Mike Fisher of service of answers to interrs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 02/0511990)
67 CERTIFICATE by defendants of service of response to plas' 1st req for prod of docs (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0211411990)
68 CERTIFICATE by defendants of service of 1st interrs to plas (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0212011990)
69 ANSWER to 2nd amended complaint by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD., defendant Housing Authority of (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0212111990)
70 CERTIFICATE by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD., defendant Housing Authority of of service of response to plas' 1st interrs to HUD (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0212311990)
71 CERTIFICATE by plaintiffs of service of 1st interrs to plas (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0311311990)

11 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0412711990
0612911990 0612911990 0812911990
0910611990 0910611990 0912811990 1010311990 1011211990 1011611990 1011811990 1012311990 1012911990 11/0111990 11/0111990

72 CERTIFICATE by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant u.s. Dept. ofH.U.D.,
defendant Housing Authority of of service of suppl response to plas' 1st req for prod of docs & suppl response to plas' 1st interrs to HUD (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 04/3011990)
73 MOTION by plaintiffs to compel dfts Housing Auth ofKCMO & Michael Fisher to produce docs & respond to interrs , wlattachment {Exhibits 1-5} (Sue Anderson) Modified on 0612911990 (Entered: 0612911990)
74 Suggestions by plaintiffs in support of motion to compel dfts Housing Auth of KCMO & Michael Fisher to produce docs & respond to interrs [73-1] (Sue Anderson) (Entered: 0612911990)
75 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' motion to compel dfts Housing Auth ofKCMO & Michael Fisher to provide more complete answers to interrs & to produce docs sought in plas' amended 1st req for prod of docs; [73 -1]; court will take under advisement plas' request that dfts pay plas' reasonable expenses, including atty's fees, incurred in filing this motion (cc: all counsel) (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 08/3011990)
76 Joint MOTION by defendant, plaintiff to extend deadlines stated in scheduling order (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 0910611990)
77 Amended Joint Proposed scheduling order by defendants, plaintiffs (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 0910611990)
78 Amended Scheduling ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend deadlines stated in scheduling order [76-1] ; discovery set for 12128/90 (cc: all counsel) (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 0912811990)
79 MOTION by plaintiffs for sanctions wlsuggs (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 1010411990)
80 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of to extend time to respond to pIa's motion for sanctions wlsuggs (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 1011511990)
81 Objections by plaintiff to motion to extend time to respond to pIa's motion for sanctions [80-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011611990)
82 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple Settlement conference set for 4:00 11/8/90 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011811990)
83 Response by defendant Housing Authority of, defendant Mike Fisher to motion for sanctions [79-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 1012411990)
84 MOTION by defendants for leave to file Response to pIts' mt for sanctions against HAKA (Court Employee) (Entered: 10/3011990)
85 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion for leave to file Response to pIts' mt for sanctions against HAKA [84-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0111990)
86 Response by federal defendants to motion for sanctions against HAKC [79-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0111990)

12 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

11/0211990 11/0811990 1112011990 1211111990 1211111990 01/0811991 02/0111991
0311211991 0311211991 0312611991
0612411991 0612411991 0612611991
0712911991 1012111991
11/1')/1991 1112511991

87 Reply by plaintiffs to dft Housing Authority's response to plas' motion for sanctions (Rhonda Enss) (Entered: 11/0511990)
88 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple Settlement conference re set for 4:00 11120190 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0811990)
89 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple Settlement conference cancelled 4:00 11120190 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 1112011990)
90 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs, defendants to extend time of deadlines stated in scheduling order (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 1211211990)
91 Amended Joint Proposed scheduling order by plaintiff, defendant (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 1211211990)
92 REMARK: Order requiring certification of completion of discovery (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0811991)
93 AMENDED SCHEDULING ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple discovery extended to & closes 3128/91 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0111991)
94 JT MOTION by plaintiff, defendant to extend discovery (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311311991)
95 AMENDED JT Proposed scheduling order by plaintiff, defendant (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311311991)
96 AMENDED ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend discovery [94-1] to 6128/91 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312611991 )
97 Joint MOTION to extend time to complete discovery wlsugg (Court Employee) (Entered: 0612511991)
98 Amended Joint Proposed scheduling order (Court Employee) (Entered: 0612511991 )
99 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion to extend time to complete discovery wlsugg [97-1] ; discovery due on 7129191 granting parties mot for scheduling order [98-1], s ;proposed scheduling order due 7129191 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0612711991)
100 Joint MOTION for approval of consent decree and notice to class members (Court Employee) (Entered: 07/3011991)
101 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion for approval of consent decree and notice to class members [100-1] plas' will hereby distribute the approved notice to all class members win ten (10) days of the date of this Order. (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 1012111991)
1UL VV lillt;ll status report by plaintiffs (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 1112011991)
103 CONSENT JUDGMENT by Judge Dean Whipple; HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED as follows: HAKC will pay $95,000.00 to plaintiffs in full compensation for their attorney's fees It is agreed and the Court so

13 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

12/0611991 1212311991 12/3011991 01/0911992 0111011992 05/0511992
05/0511992
0511511992 0512011992
0512911992 06/0311992 06/0311992

finds that all of the foregoing obligations of defendants were agreed upon w/full participationof plaintiffs; that all of the obligations benefit the members of the defined plaintiff class. Bill of costs mailed to atty for plas' terminating case (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) Modified on 1112611991 (Entered: 1112611991)
BILL OF COSTS received from plaintiffDoletha Tinsley; objections to bill of cost due 12123/91 (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/0911991)
104 Objections by defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D., defendant Housing Authority of to bill of costs ;reply to obj to bcst by 12/30191 (Court Employee) (Entered: 1212611991 )
105 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file their resp to the dfts' objcs to the Bill of Costs (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/3111991)
106 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to file their resp to the dfts' objcs to the Bill of Costs [105-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) Modified on 0112711992 (Entered: 01/0911992)
107 Reply by plaintiffs to Federal Dfts' resp to plas' Bill of Costs (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111311992)
108 MOTION by plaintiffs for order adjudicating defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; Interim Executi ve Director, Janice Owens, Jack L. Kemp and the United States Dept ofHouseing & Urban Development acting as Temporary Operator and Manager of the Housing Authority in Civil Contempt for Violation of Consent Decree (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/0611992)
109 Suggestions by plaintiff in support of motion for order adjudicating defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; Interim Executi ve Director, Janice Owens, Jack L. Kemp and the United States Dept ofHouseing & Urban Development acting as Temporary Operator and Manager of the Housing Authority in Civil Contempt for Violation of Consent Decree [108-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/0611992)
110 Agreed MOTION by Federal defendants to extend time to resp to pIa's mot to reopen (Court Employee) (Entered: 0511811992)
111 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dfts motion to extend time to resp to pIa's mot to reopen [110-1] setting motion for order adjudicating defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; Interim Executi ve Director, Janice Owens, Jack L. Kemp and the United States Dept ofHouseing & Urban Development acting as Temporary Operator and Manager of the Housing Authority in Civil Contempt for Violation of Consent Decree [108-1] 611192 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512111992)
112 MOTION by federal defendants to extend time to resp to plas' mot to reopen (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/0111992)
113 COSTS TAXED for plaintiffDoletha Tinsley in the amount of$ 7,019.21 against defendant (cc: all counsel) (Phyllis Travers) (Entered: 06/0311992)
114 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting federal defendants' motion to extend time to resp to plas' mot to reopen [112-1] setting motion for order adjudicating defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; Interim Executi ve

14 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0611011992
0611511992
0611511992 0811011992 1012711992 11/0311992 11/0911992 1111011992 1111011992 1112011992 1211411992 1211711992
~992
1211711992 0112211993

Director, Janice Owens, Jack L. Kemp and the United States Dept ofHouseing & Urban Development acting as Temporary Operator and Manager of the Housing Authority in Civil Contempt for Violation of Consent Decree [108-1] 6110192 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/0311992)
115 Suggestions by defendants in opposition to motion for order adjudicating defendants Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri; Interim Executi ve Director, Janice Owens, Jack L. Kemp and the United States Dept ofHouseing & Urban Development acting as Temporary Operator and Manager of the Housing Authority in Civil Contempt for Violation of Consent Decree [108-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0611211992)
116 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple Case stayed; ORDERED that the Proposed Stipulation and Agreement executed by the parties is approved and shall be filed forthwith; It is further ORDERED that all proceedings are hereby stayed pending further motions by the parties or until October 10, 1992, whichever occurs first (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0611511992)
117 Proposed Stipulation and Agreement (Court Employee) (Entered: 0611511992)
118 Reply suggestions by plaintiffs to dft HAKC Tinsley Status Report of August 1, 1992 (Court Employee) (Entered: 0811011992)
119 CERTIFICATE of transmission of deposition of Roger Allen Williams taken on 9127/90 on behalf of plaintiffs Costs: $414.80 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1012711992)
120 Written status report by defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D., defendant Housing Authority's compliance wlTensley Consent decree and Joint stip (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0411992)
121 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple; Contempt hearing set for all parties at 2:00 on 11119192 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0911992)
122 Written status report by defendant Housing Authority ofK.C. Mo., to the TInsley Consent Decree (Court Employee) (Entered: 1111211992)
123 (Amended Notice to Cnsl) ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple; status hearing set for 2:00 12117/92 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) Modified on 1111211992 (Entered: 1111211992)
124 Reply by plaintiff to dft Housing & Authority's annual and status rpts to the cout on Tinsley Consent Decree (Court Employee) (Entered: 1112311992)
125 RETURN OF SERVICE by plaintiffs to Natlie Cole for depos returned on 12/11/92 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/14/1992)
126 I EXHIBIT INDEX by plaintiffs (Court Employee) (Entered: 1211811992)
~BIT INDEX by defendants (Court Employee) (Entered: 1211811992)
128 MINUTE ENTRY: of Contempt Hearing; Court finds Housing Authority in Contempt (Court Employee) (Entered: 1211811992)
129 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple the Court having held dfts in contempt of this Court for failure to comply wlConsent Decree and 6112/92 Stip orders that Dfts

15 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0112711993 0211711993 03/0111993 07/0211993 07/0211993 07/0611993 07/0611993 07/0611993
07/0611993

shall conform their performance and conduct to the Consent Decree; Dfts are ordered to pay the full attys fees of plas by modifying 1993 budget to provide for $86,000.00 salary for Ex Dir and to pay attys fees from that fund; IfHAKC and RUD are unable to pay plas' attys fees & costs, the Court directs that HAKC must reduce its 1993 budget 5% pay increase for HAKC staff; plas' counsel shall submit a bill for atty fees due as a result of the hrs expended in prosecuting this mt for contempt to dfts win 30 days; Dfts HAKC shall pay these addl atty fees from the $86,000.00; When dft contends all the money has been paid, they shall so advise the Court and plas shall acknowledge that said fees and costs have been paid. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0112511993)
130 Notice by plaintiffs of copy of plas' bill to dfts for plas' atty fees pursuant to Court order of 1122/93 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 01127/1993)
131 Reply by defendant u.s. Dept. ofH.U.D., defendant Housing Authority of to plas'
ntc of attys fees (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/18/1993)
132 Reply suggestions by plaintiff to dfts' resp to plas' ntc of attys fees (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 03/0211993)
133 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Judge Dean Whipple; the parties appear before the court for show cause hearing set 9:00 7/6/93 to show cause why dfts should not be held in contempt of 11125/91 consent decree and the 1122193 order (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0211993)
134 MOTION by plaintiff for court order adjudicating housing authority of Kansas City, Missouri in contempt of court (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0611993)
135 MINUTE ENTRY: Hrg; Exhibits admitted in camera; further hrg on Friday 9:00 a.m to hear any complaints (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0611993)
136 Joint Stipulation of facts for 7/6/93 hrg to show cause on pIa's mt for contempt (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0710611993)
137 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that Dft HAKC is in contempt of this court for violating 11125 91 Decree; Dft is in contempt of this Court for violating this Court's 1122/93 order by failing to modify its budget as directed; by failing to pay plas their attys fees as ordered and by failing to fully comply withe Decree; this Court appt Joseph James (RUD) as the receiver ofHAKC; the receiver ofHAKC shall report to plas' counsel on a weekly basis; the receiver ofHAKC shall report directly to this court on the status ofHAKC's compliance withe Decree, this report shall be submitted in writing on monthly basis beginning 8/6/93; no person except as authorized by the receiver shall alter any doc or remove or destroy any record, doc or item of personalty belonging to or in the possession ofHAKC; the US Marshal and any person appted by him for these purposes is hereby ordered to take immediate posessession upon receipt of this Order, of the HAKC premises at 299 Paseo and 1016 Locust Steeet; all current employees are hereby restrained from entry of 299 Paseo and 1016 Locust until further ntc of the Court or by permission of the receiver. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0611993 )
138 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the court recinds the appt of Joseph James as receiver of the Housing Authority ofKC and that the Court appts the

16 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

07/0811993 07/0911993 0711211993 0711511993
0711611993 0712211993 0712211993 0812411993
09/0811993

Honorable Robert E. Larson, US Mag Judge for the WDMO as special master pending the court's appt of the receiver. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0711993)
139 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the in camera submission is hereby trnasferred to Judge Larsen and may be unsealed by him for the purpose of his review and the review of those he may designate. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0811993)
140 MINUTE ENTRY: Hrg parties appear and reading for "Conference" spectator's participate by testifying in regard to status ,critisizm. (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0911993)
141 Notice of filing return by US Marshal's Office executed on 7/6/93 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0711211993)
142 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that Joseph James HUD and J.B. Littlejohn also an employee ofHUD shall assist specia master Robert Larsen in carrying ou the directies set forth in my order of 7/6/93; such assisstance shall be on a full time basis; any actions taken by Mr. James or Mr. Littlejohn as a result of this order shall be attributed to and shall be deemed to be on behalf of the Special Master, HUD shall not be liable for, and shall be held harmless w/respect to any actions taken by Mr. James or Mr. Littlejohn; the foregoing provisions of this order are entered upon the consent ofHUD and therefore shall not serve as a precedent in this or any other action. By consenting to the provisions of this order, HUD does not waive any right or defense in this or any other action; a Receiver for HAKC will be appted as expeditiously as possible. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/16/1993)
143 MINUTE ENTRY: Hrg for classification of an order the parties have worked out (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/19/1993)
144 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings on 7/9/93 before the Honorable Dean Whipple (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07122/1993)
145 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 7/6/93 before the Honorable Dean Whipple (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0712211993)
146 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that Robert E. Larsen in his capacity as Special Master shall take the oral statements, under oath, ofHUD employees Jane Phillips, Ron Bertalotto, Melinda Cade and John Wickstrom as to their observations during their conduct ofHUD business at HAKC; such statements shall be transcribed and provided to the attys of record in this matter. It is further ordered that the Clerk shall serve copies of this order on counsel of record and on Wm Nichols; the parties shall have five days from the date of this order to file objs; ifno objs are recieved the recorded statements shall be taken w/o need of further order; if objs are received the statements shall not be taken pending further order of this court. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0812511993)
147 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the HUD employees Janice Owens, Steve Israelite, Carrie Dobbins and Dru Thomas shall appear at a hrg before Robert E. Larsen in his capacity as Sepcial Master, at 2:00 p.m. on Monday, Sept 13, 1993, fr the purpose of answering quest from Judge Larsen or attys representing one or

17 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0912311993 1010411993 1012511993 11/0411993 11/0411993 12/0311993
12/0811993 12/0811993

moer employees of the Housing Authority of Kansas City; that the Clerk shall serve copies of this order on counsel of record and on William Nichols (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0910811993)
148 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to expedite appt of receiver wlsugg in supp (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0912311993)
149 Suggestions by plaintiff in opposition to motion to expedite appt of receiver [148-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1010511993)
150 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. for leave to file out of time reply to pIa's response to HUD's motion to expedite appointment of a receiver (Court Employee) (Entered: 1012611993)
151 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft HUD's motion for leave to file out of time reply to pIa's response to HUD's motion to expedite appointment of a receiver [150-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 11/0411993)
152 Reply suggestions by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion to expedite appt of receiver [148-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 11/0411993)
153 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the court orders a hrg be conducted at 9:00 a.m. on 12/8/93 to receive a report of the Special Master which may be either oral or in writing or both; that the rpt advise the Court in detail if the Consent Decree has been implemented and if not, why it has not been implemented; the court will be seeking information as to what individual andlor organizations are not cooperating in assisting or are interfering withe efforts of the Special Master to comply withe Consent Decree and to operate the KCHA under the Court's recievership; the court encourages all parties to be present for the hearing as the court if necessary will be directing parties and employees of the parties afte reasonable notice to respond to the Special Master's rpt. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0611993)
154 ATTORNEY APPEARANCE by Terence J. Thurn and James Eisenbrandt for Special Master Robert E. Larsen and Joseph James (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0811993)
155 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the court having hrd evidence that Special Master Robert E. Larsen presented to the court today, 12/8/93; the court directs taht the appropriate employees from the HUD regional or national office or both present themselves on 12120193 at 9:00 a.m. to resp to the Special Master's rpt and the evidence presented to the court at todays hrg; the Court directs that HUD have employees who have the authority to commit and bind HUD by the ans they give and to commit and bind HUD to do what the court orders HUD to do as a result of the 12120193 hrg; Dft shall be prepared to ans all questions that are rasied concerning the conduct ofHUD and its employees during the period of time HUD and its employees during the period of time HUD was operating the KCHA from 4/30192 through 611193 and from 716/93 when the Court placed the KCHA in receivership to the present; the following is a list of questions the Court directs HUD to ans in the manner prescribed above. (questions in Order of 12/8/93) the court reserves the right to revise this order at a later date and will notify the parties if it does so. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0911993)

18 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

12/0811993 12/0811993 12/0811993 12/0911993 12/0911993 12/0911993 12/0911993 1211011993 1211011993
1211311993 1211311993 1211311993 1211311993 1212011993 1212011993 1212111993

156 MINUTE ENTRY: Hrg; Judge Larsen's rpt filed; Joe James articulates specifics of obstacles taht the special master and he face; Hrg to be held on 12120/93 at 9:00 a.m. (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0911993)
160 Motion/Order for pro hac vice on behalf of Robert E Larsen, Joseph James by Terence J. Thurn Receipt #: 69261 in the amount of$25.00 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0911993)
171 Written status report by Judge Robert W. Larsen of Housing Authority of Kansas City's Compliance w/Consent Decree (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0411994)
157 MOTION by non-party The Kansas City Star Company to vacate or modify court's Decmeber 8, 1993 order (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0911993)
158 MOTION of non-party Kansas City Star Company to accelerate the briefing schedule and to schedule oral argument w/sugg in supp (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0911993)
159 Suggestions in support of motion to accelerate the briefing schedule and to schedule oral argument [158-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0911993)
161 Motion/Order for pro hac vice on behalf of Robert E Larsen, Joseph James by Thomas J. Bath Jr. Receipt #: 69300 in the amount of$25.00 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211011993)
162 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service ofreq for prod of docs (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211011993)
163 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the 12/8/93 order restraining Steve Israelite and Elmer Binford from answering specific questions before the scheduled 12120/93 hrg is vacated; denying as moot Kansas City Star's motion to accelerate the briefing schedule and to schedule oral argument [158-1], denying Kansas City Star's motion to vacate or modify court's Decmeber 8, 1993 order [157-1] as moot (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211011993)
164 Notice by special master Robert E Larsen, special master Joseph James proposed addl questions to HUD (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211311993)
165 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12/8/93 before the Honorable Dean Whipple (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211311993)
166 Notice by plaintiffs' of questions to be raised at the 12120/93 hrg (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211411993)
167 Notice by special master Robert E Larsen, special master Joseph James 2nd set of proposed addl quetions to HUD (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1211411993)
168 Reply (Response) by defendant Housing Authority of to inquiries concerning compliance w/consent decree (Court Employee) (Entered: 1212011993)
170 MINUTE ENTRY: ofHrg of Special Master Judge Larsen; neither party waives the right to a full evideniary hrg (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12121/1993)
169 ORDER by Magistrate Robert E. Larsen the w/regard to the Housing Authority of KC Missouri MOney Purchase Pension plan enters the following order; Mr. Joe James, as Asst Special Master is hereby authorized and desgn to act on behalf of

19 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0112611994 0112611994 0211011994 0212411994 0212411994
0212811994
0311711994

the Housing Authority and the Pension Plan w/respect to the admin of the Plan and to make any necessary decisions and execute any necessary docs w/respect to the Plan; that Mr. James is specifically authoized to execute the aforementioned Amendment to the Adoption Agreement and defined contribution plan; Mr. James is directed to take those actions that are necessary and approporiate w/respect to the administration of the Plan and may desgn such employee or employees as rna be required to handle the day-to-day administration of the Plan; This order does not apply to administration of those funds held by Principal Mutual representing certain accumulated forfeiture amts and subject to other litigation pending in this Court, specifically those funds mentioned and described in the Exceptions to Ans to Interrs to Garnishee in the case styled Commerce Bank ofKC, N.A. v. Housing Authority ofKC, MO and Principal Mutual Life Ins Co; Case No. 93-0900-CV-W-2, and the complaint for Declaratory Jgm in case styled Principal Mutual Life Ins Com v. Housing Authority ofKC, MO et. al. Case NO. 93-1132-CV-W-8. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1212111993)
172 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12120/93 before the Honorable Dean Whipple (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0112611994)
173 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings for the following date(s): 12117/92 before the Honorable Dean Whipple (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0112611994)
174 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple; status hearing set for 9:003118/94 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0211011994)
175 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple, ; status hearing reset for 1:303117/94 instead of 3118/94 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212411994)
176 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple That J.B. Littlejohn shall appear at a hrg before US Magistrate Judge Robert E. Larsen in his capcity as Special Master at 9:00 a.m. on 312/94 for the purpose of answering questions from Judge Larsen or attys representing the person whose employment at the Housing Authority of Kansas City is the subject of this hrg; that the Clerk shall serve a copy of this Order on William Nichols, Acting Regional Attorney, US Dept of Housing and Urban Development, 400 State Avenue, Kansas City, Missouri 66101 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212511994)
177 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that pending the appt of a permanent receiver, this court appoints Paula L. Schwach as the interim receiver of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, effective 2128/94 such appt to continue until further order of the Court; fully operate and manage all of the financial contractual, legal, personnel (including hiring and firing of employees), administrative and other responsibilities, duties and functions ofHAKC and its Board of Commissioners; Preserve, protect and administer all the property and assets ofHAKC; fulfill all of the obligations required ofHAKC under the 11125/91, Consent Decree on this action; report to plas' counsel on a weekley basis on HAKC's progress in fulfilling all of the obligations under the Consent Decree (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 03/0411994)
178 MINUTE ENTRY: Status hrg; Consent decree will be tansmitted into a work program (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0312111994)

20 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0312411994 0312411994 04/0111994 04/0111994
04/0111994 04/0711994 04/0811994 0411511994

179 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. for order staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim reciever, the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri and/or the receivership estate (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0312511994)
180 Suggestions by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. in support of motion for order staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim reciever, the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri and/or the receivership estate [179-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0312511994)
181 TRANSCRIPT of status conf held on 3117/94 before Judge Dean Whipple as to plaintiffs, and defendants (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/0111994)
182 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion for order staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim reciever, the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri and/or the receivership estate [179-1]; that such stay, restraint and injunc is w/o prej to the right and ability of the Interim Receiver to seek other or further temporary, preliminary and/or permanent relief restraining and enjoining the commission of specific acts or the commencement or continuation of specific actions or proceedings, nc1uding actions or proceedings arising under 28 USC 959 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 04/0111994)
183 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to resp to mt of interim receiver of and for the Housing Autho ofKC for an order staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceeding against interim receiver, the Housing Authority ofKC and/or the receivership estate. (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 04/0411994)
184 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying plaintiffs motion to extend time to resp to mt of interim receiver of and for the Housing Autho of KC for an order staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceeding against interim receiver, the Housing Authority ofKC and/or the receivership estate. [183-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/0711994)
185 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of to alter judgment order entered 4/1/94 staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim receiver, the HAKC and/or the receivership estate w/sugg, to amend order entered 4/1/94 staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim receiver, the HAKC and/or receivership estate (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 04/0811994 )
186 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that dfts shall pay to plas' atty an addl atty fee of $12,439.20 for the work performed in the contempt proceedings; as plas have already received $40,260.00 in atty fees in connection withe req at issue here, they must reimburse HAKC in the amt of$27,820.80, or in the alternative issue a credit to HAKC in that amt which shall draw interest at the same rate of interest that plas req and received from HAKC for the unpaid balance of original atty fees in the Consent Decree; the hourly rate of $120.00 will be applicable for all future awards of atty fees; plas may make further application for atty fees concerning work done subsequent to 12122/92 (the last billing date on plas 1127/93 filing) by filing with the Court a motion for such together w/counsel's contemporaneous time sheets; dfts will be given an opportunity to file a resp win the time period

21 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0412111994
0412511994 0412911994 05/0911994 0511911994 0512311994
0512611994 0512711994 06/0211994 0611311994 0611711994

provided in the local rules. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0411511994 )
187 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion to alter judgment order entered 4/1/94 staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim receiver, the HAKC and/or the receivership estate [185-1], motion to amend order entered 4/1/94 staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim receiver, the HAKC and/or receivership estate [185-2] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 04122/1994)
188 MOTION by plaintiffs' for reconsideration of order awarding attorney's fees and accompanying suggs in support (Court Employee) (Entered: 0412511994)
189 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for reconsideration of order awarding attorney's fees and accompanying suggs in support [188-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0412911994)
190 Suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of in opposition to motion for reconsideration of order awarding attorney's fees and accompanying suggs in support [188-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0511011994)
191 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time w/in which to reply to response of interim receiver for the Housing Authority of Kansas City, MO, to plas' motion for reconsideration (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512011994)
192 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting pIa's motion to extend time w/in which to reply to response of interim receiver for the Housing Authority of Kansas City, MO, to plas' motion for reconsideration [191-1] setting motion for reconsideration of order awarding attorney's fees and accompanying suggs in support [188-1] 5127/94 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0512311994)
193 MOTION by plaintiffs to extend time w/in which to reply to response of interim receiver for the Housing Authority ofKCMO to plas' motion for reconsideration (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512711994)
194 Reply suggestions by plaintiff to motion for reconsideration of order awarding attorney's fees and accompanying suggs in support [188-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0512711994)
195 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time w/in which to reply to response of interim receiver for the Housing Authority ofKCMO to plas' motion for reconsideration [193-1] up to and including 6110/94 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 06/0211994)
196 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying plas motion for reconsideration of order awarding attorney's fees and accompanying suggs in support [188-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0611311994)
197 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to alter judgment order entered 4/1/94 staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim receiver, the HAKC and/or the receivership estate [185-1], granting motion to amend order entered 4/1/94 staying and enjoining certain acts and/or proceedings against interim receiver, the HAKC and/or receivership estate [185-2] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0611711994)

22 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0612811994 07/0611994 07/0611994
07/0711994
0712211994 0712211994 0712611994 0712611994 0712611994

198 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Interim Receiver is authorized to pay the sum of$10,162.33 to Dunn Allied-Housing due from the HA ofKC, MO under its contract with Dunn Allied-Housing, for consulting services through April 30, 1994 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0612911994)
199 MOTION by receiver Paula L Schwach for order directing dfts Sec of the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development and the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development to show cause why construction and construction management agreements between the interim receiver and J.E. Dunn Construction Co and Dunn/Allied-Housing Joint Venture should not be executed, ratified, approved, implemented and funded (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0611994)
200 Suggestions by receiver Paula L Schwach in support of motion for order directing dfts Sec of the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development and the US Dept of Housing and Urban Development to show cause why construction and construction management agreements between the interim receiver and J.E. Dunn Construction Co and Dunn/Allied-Housing Joint Venture should not be executed, ratified, approved, implemented and funded [199-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0611994 )
201 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Judge Dean Whipple ;that win 15 days from and after the date of this order dfts Secretary and HUD are ordered to show cause (by 7122/94) in writing why the contracts, agreements and undertakings by and between Receiver HAKC, J.E. Dunn Construction Co. and Dunn/Allied-Housing, Joint Venture, as identified in the mt should not be deemed to have been executed and entered into by the Receiver and HAKC, as a proper exercise of the procurement prowers provided for under inter alia, 24 CFR 85.36 and/or why any and all constraints upon the procurement procedures employed with respect to such contracts, agreements and understakings should not be waived, forthwith, in accordance with the public exigency or emergency exceptions provided for under 24 CFR 85.36 (d)(4)(i)(B), and all such contracts, agreements, and undertakings ratified, approved and funded by dfts immediately, that in the event the dfts Secretary and/or HUD shall timely respond to this Order this matter shall be heard before the Court on 7129/94 commencing at 11 :00 a.m. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07/0711994)
202 MOTION by defendant to extend time to file resp to show cause order dated 7/8/94 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07122/1994)
203 MOTION by federal defendants to extend time to respond to 7127/94 OTSC (Court Employee) (Entered: 0712511994)
204 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to file resp to show cause order dated 7/8/94 [202-1] to and including 7127/94 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07126/1994)
205 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to continue (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 07127/1994)
206 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to Order (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0712711994)

23 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

08/0511994 0811611994 0811811994 0812211994 0812511994 08/3111994
09/0611994

207 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dfts Disnero and RUD's motion to continue is rescheduled [205-1] ; status hearing set for 9:309/30/94 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 08/0511994)
208 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Special Master is authorized to pay the sum of$21,000.91 to Dunn Allied-Housing due from HAKC under its contract wlDunn Allied-Housing, for consulting services through 5/31/94 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0811611994)
209 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that an immediate hrg is scheduled on 8125/94 at 9:00 a.m. for the purpose ofhrg the parties' positions and intentions w/regard to approval of the J.E. Dunn Constr Company contract. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0811811994)
210 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that all preliminary expenses shall be fully documented and shall include reimbursement for attys fee not to exceed $500.00. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0812211994)
211 MINUTE ENTRY: Defendant Exhibit A admitted into evidence, w/o obj (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0812511994)
212 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, by and through the Special Master, the Honorable Robert E. Larsen; caused to be incorported a Missouri not-for-profit corporation to be known as the "Regional Housing Development Corporation of Kansas City, Missouri, Inc.," the incorporators and directors of which shall be Pamela A. Alexander, Stanley E. Rice and Daniel Y. Hall; the Corporation's duration shall be perpetual; its registered agent shall be Robert E. Larsen at US District Courthouse, the Corporation shall serve as successor to the Issuer and shall have the same benevolent purposes of assisting low-income housing as provided in the Articles of Incorporation for the Issuer; and the Housing Authority of Kansas City shall be the sole member of the Corporation; Employ the firm of King Burke Hershey Farchmin & Scholmann, P.x. to assist in the incorporation of the Corporation; Accept the rights, assests and obligations, if any, ofIssuer, pursuant to the Issuer's plan of distribution, and immediately thereafter transfer and convey the same to the Corporation; As the sole member of the Issuer and Corporation, the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri shalld irect the Corporation as successor Issuer to issue a ntc of election to redeem, to the Succssor Trustee of those certain $5,130,000 HDRB, in the form attached as Exh A and made a part thereof, which shall instruct such successor Trustee to issue a ntc of call for redemption on or before 911/94 in the form attached as Exh B attached hereto and made a part hereof, which ntc of call shall indicate that the same is conditional in its nature; that the Corporation is and shall be for all purposes successor of the Issuer; by the Court to be effective immediately. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 08/3111994)
213 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple The Special Master having appted an Advisory Committee to select a receiver for the HAKC and the Advisory Committee having recommended the appt of TAG Associates ofKC, Inc as receiver; it is Ordered (look in order of 9/6/94) for the Appt of TAG as Receiver ofHAKC; the Powers, Duties, Reports, Immunity and Compensation; the Modification of this order may be modified as necessary to assure the success of this receivership, and eventually,

24 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0911611994 0912211994 0912211994
0912811994 11/0311994 11/0311994 1111511994 1111511994 1111811994 1112111994 1112811994 12/0211994 12/0511994 1211411994
1212011994

to return the operation of the HAKC to the HAKC Board (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0910611994)
214 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to amend or revise wlsupporting suggs (Court Employee) (Entered: 0911911994)
215 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the hrg scheduled for 9/30194 at 9:30 a.m. is cancelled (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0912211994)
216 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that shall serve the function of a contract for TAG as reciever and shall not be construed to create any riths or obligations in any parties other than TAG, RUD and this Court. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 09123 I 1994)
217 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple on Findings of Facts as to the Order made on 8/31/94 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0912811994)
218 MOTION by plaintiffs for attorney fees & expenses (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0311994)
219 Suggestions by plaintiff in support of motion for attorney fees & expenses [218-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 11/0311994)
220 ENTRY OF APPEARANCE on behalf of defendant Housing Authority of by Sallie D. Colaco (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1111611994)
221 Suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of in opposition to motion for attorney fees & expenses [218-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1111611994)
222 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time to file rply to dft Housing Authority of Kansas City's sugg in opp to plas' apl for atty fees (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1112111994)
223 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for attorney fees & expenses [218-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1112211994)
224 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' motion to extend time to 12/9194 to file rply to dft Housing Authority of Kansas City's sugg in opp to plas' apl for atty fees [222-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 1112811994)
225 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time win which to file rply to dft HAKC's sugg in opp to plas' application for attys fees and to RUD'S resp to plas' application for attys fees (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0211994)
226 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of to withdraw attorney Sallie D. Colaco and to substitute James F.B. Daniels and the firm of Daniels & Kaplan, P.C. (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/0611994)
227 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time win which to file rply to dft HAKC's sugg in opp to plas' application for attys fees and to RUD'S resp to plas' application for attys fees [225-1] setting resp to motion for attorney fees & expenses to and including 1115/95 [218-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 12/14/1994)
228 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft HAKC's motion to withdraw attorney Sallie D. Colaco and to substitute James F.B. Daniels and the firm of

25 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0111011995 0111111995 0111211995
0111211995 0111211995 0111211995 0111911995
0111911995
0112011995 0112511995
02/0111995 02/0111995 02/0111995
02/0311995 02/0711995

Daniels & Kaplan, P.C. [226-1] attorney Sallie D. Colaco for Housing Authority of(cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 1212011994)
229 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of to withdraw attorney John L. Williams (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0111111995)
230 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of for clarification (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0111211995)
231 MOTION by plaintiff Mary Vann, defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D. for approval of settlement agreement and accompanying suggs in support (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111211995)
232 Reply suggestions by plaintiff to motion for attorney fees & expenses [218-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111211995)
233 Reply suggestions by plaintiff to motion for attorney fees & expenses [218-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111211995)
234 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff of service of reply to dft RUD's suggs in oppo to pIa's mot for attorney's fees (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111211995)
235 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that plas supply the Court wlcounsel's contemporaneous time sheets win 15 days of the date of this order (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0111911995)
236 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to withdraw attorney John L. Williams [229-1] attorney John L. Williams for Housing Authority of(cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0111911995)
237 Response by plaintiff to motion for clarification [230-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0112311995)
238 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case wlsupp sugg (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0112511995)
239 MOTION by interested party Natalia Coe to intervene (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0111995)
240 MOTION by interested party Natalia Coe for relief from stay proceedings (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0111995)
241 MOTION by plaintiff to extend time win which to file sugg in opp to dft HAKC's mt for an order permitting its General Counel Ms. Sallie Colaco esq to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered:
02/0211995)
I 242 Notice by plaintiffs of time log (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0311995)
243 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion for approval of settlement agreement and accompanying suggs in support [231-1]; that the parties' jt mt for approval of settlement agreement is gr and the parties shall execute a final settlement agreement in the form of Exh A attached to the parties jt mt. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0711995)

26 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

02/0711995
02/0711995 02/0711995 02/0711995 02/0711995 02/0911995 02/0911995 0211011995 0211011995
0211311995
0211411995 0211611995 0211711995

244 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plas' motion to extend time win which to file sugg in opp to dft HAKC's mt for an order permitting its General Counel Ms. Sallie Colaco esq to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [241-1] setting motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] 2117/95 (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0711995)
245 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. for leave to file resp out of time wlsuggs (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0811995)
246 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for relief from stay proceedings [240-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0811995)
247 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion to intervene [239-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0811995)
248 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0911995)
249 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting Dft Cisneros, SecofUSDRUD motion for leave to file resp out of time wlsuggs [245-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0911995)
250 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for clarification [230-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 02/0911995)
251 Response by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiff Doletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiff Lorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts to motion to intervene [239-1] (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0211311995)
252 Response by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiff Doletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiff Lorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts to motion for relief from stay proceedings [240-1] (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0211311995)
253 Suggestions by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiff Doletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiff Lorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts in opposition to motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0211411995)
254 Suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of in opposition to motion for relief from stay proceedings [240-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0211511995)
256 Reply suggestions by plaintiff to motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0211711995)
255 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying motion for clarification [230-1];the court finding judicial action at this time in appropriate instructs the parties to attempt to resolve this matter amongst themselves. Should this approach prove fruitless, the parties are instructed to again seek clarification from the Court as to the possible conflict between the Consent Decree and RUD's new regulation,

27 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0212211995 0212211995
0212411995 0212711995 0212811995
0212811995
0212811995 03/0611995
0311011995 0311011995

discussed above. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0211711995)
257 MOTION by receiver TAG Assocs. Paula L Schwach to exceed page limitation for suggs (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212211995)
258 MOTION by receiver Paula L Schwach TAG Assoc of Kansas receiver for HAKC for order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, M.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable claim against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain asets should not be surrendered and distrbuted to it in full satisfaction of any such claim (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212211995)
259 Reply suggestions by interested party Natalia Coe to motion for relief from stay proceedings [240-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212411995)
262 Reply suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of to motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212811995)
260 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to exceed page limitation for suggs in supp of its mt for an order directing Commerce Bank ofKC Missouri to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable clm against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain assets should not be surrendered and distributed to it in full satisfaction of any such clm [257-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212811995)
261 Suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of in support of motion for order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, M.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable claim against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain asets should not be surrendered and distrbuted to it in full satisfaction of any such claim [258-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212811995)
263 AMENDED Reply suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of to motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0212811995)
264 Suggestions in opposition by Commerce Bank ofKC, MA to motion for order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, M.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable claim against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain asets should not be surrendered and distrbuted to it in full satisfaction of any such claim [258-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 03/0711995)
265 JOINT MOTION by plaintiffs and defendant Housing Authority of to withdraw plas' application for atty's fees and dft's opposition to said application for fees (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311311995)
266 Notice by plaintiffs and defendant Housing Authority of filing Settlement Agreement (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311311995)

28 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0311511995 0311511995
0311611995 0311711995 0311711995 0312011995
0312911995 03/3011995 0411711995 0412111995 05/0211995 05/0211995

267 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion to withdraw plas' application for atty's fees and dft's opposition to said application for fees [265-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0311511995)
268 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, M.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable claim against the Receiver andlor the Receivership estate and why certain asets should not be surrendered and distrbuted to it in full satisfaction of any such claim [258-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0311511995)
269 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to withdraw plas' application for atty's fees and dft's opposition to said application for fees [265-1] withdrawing motion for attorney fees & expenses [218-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0311611995)
270 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting Natalie Coe's motion to intervene [239-1] granting Intervenor Natalie Coe's motion for relief from stay proceedings [240-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311711995)
271 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft HAKC's motion for order permitting its genreal counsel, Ms. Sallie Colaco Esq. to act as its counsel in all matters arising in or relating to this case [238-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311711995)
272 Reply suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of to motion for order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, M.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable claim against the Receiver andlor the Receivership estate and why certain asets should not be surrendered and distrbuted to it in full satisfaction of any such claim [258-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0312011995)
273 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority (TAG) of for determination that its funds are "obligated" win the meaning of31 USC 1501 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0312911995)
274 Suggestions by plaintiff in support of motion for determination that its funds are "obligated" win the meaning of31 USC 1501 [273-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 03/3111995)
275 Suggestions (Response) by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. in opposition to motion of Receiver for determination that its funds are "obligated" win the meaning of31 USC 1501 [273-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0411811995)
276 Reply suggestions by defendant(TAG Assoc) Housing Authority of to motion for determination that its funds are "obligated" win the meaning of31 USC 1501 [273-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0412111995)
277 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that Eugene Jones and Mr. Jeffrey K. Lines are authorized to travel or desgn members of their staff to travel a necessary to conduct the business of the Receivership and the Kansas City Housing Authority (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 05/0211995)
278 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting TAG's (Housing Authority of Kansas City) motion for determination that its funds are "obligated" win the meaning of

29 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

05/0311995 05/0311995 0511011995 0711711995
07/3111995
08/3011995 08/3011995 0911111995 0911811995

31 USC 1501 [273-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 05/0311995)
279 Suggestions by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. in opposition to Receiver's mt "resp" filed 4121/95 or in the alternative RUD's mt to reflie its resp (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 05/0311995)
279 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to refile it's resp and RUD's sugg in opp to Receiver's mt/"resp" filed 4121/95 (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 05/0311995)
280 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying motion for order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, M.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable elaim against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain asets should not be surrendered and distrbuted to it in full satisfaction of any such elaim [258-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0511111995)
281 ORDER REQUIRING REPLACEMENT OF HOUSING UNITS IN GUINOTTE MANOR AND PROVIDING FOR REHOUSING OF CURRENT RESIDENTS by Judge Dean Whipple that each and every Guinote Manor housing unit which is demolished and reconfigured under the Housing Authority of Kansas City's revitalization plan under the Hope VI program for public housing shall be replaced by on-site and off-site units as scattered site units as scattered site units in the overall community under that program; that any current resident of Guinotte Manor wishing to do so will be rehoused in Guinotte Manor after the revitalization program is completed, provided that resident is still a resident in good standing, and further that there are appropriately-sized units available. (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0711711995)
282 ORDER REQUIRING THE ONE-FOR-ONE REPLACEMENT OF HOUSING UNITS FOR THE DISPOSITIO OF HERITAGE HOUSE by Judge Dean Whipple that Heritage House cannot be sold or disposed ofw/o the receipt by HAKC of funds for the one-for-one replacement of housing units through the acquisition or development of addl public housing dwelling units (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 08/0111995)
283 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of to exceed page limitation to file suggestions (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 08/3011995)
284 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of for order directing commerce Bank ofKC, N>A. to showe cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable elm against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain assets should not be surrendered and distributed to it in full satisfaction of any such elm (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 08/3011995)
285 MOTION by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC to extend time to resp to the renewed and restated mt of the Receiver of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri for an order directing Commerce Bank ofKC to show cause (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0911211995)
286 ORDER GRANTING RECIEVER OF AND FOR DFT, THE HOUSING AUTHORITY OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI LEAVE TO FILE EXTENDED SUGGS IN SUPP OF ITS RENEWED AND RESTATED MOTION FOR AN ORDER DIRECTING COMMERCE BANK OF KANSAS CITY, MISSOURI N.A. TO SHOW CAUSE WHY IT HOLDS OR SHOULD BE DEEMED TO

30 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0911811995 0912811995 1011011995 1011311995
1011611995 1012011995 1012511995 1012711995

HOLD A PROVABLE CLM AGAINST THE RECEIVER AND/OR THE RECEIVERSHIP ESTAE AND WHY CERTAIN ASSETS SHOULD NOT BE SURRENDERED AND DISTRIBUTED TO IT IN FULL SATISFACTION OF ANY SUCH CLM by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to resp to the renewed and restated mt of the Receiver of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri for an order directing Commerce Bank ofKC to show cause [285-1] granting motion to exceed page limitation to file suggestions [283-1] granting motion for order directing commerce Bank ofKC, N>A. to showe cause why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable clm against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain assets should not be surrendered and distributed to it in full satisfaction of any such clm [284-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0911811995)
287 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting Commerce Bank's motion to extend time to resp to the renewed and restated mt of the Receiver of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri for an order directing Commerce Bank ofKC to show cause to and including 9128/95 [285-1] (cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 0911811995)
288 Response by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC to motion of Receiver of the Housing Aughority of Kansas City, Missouri, for an order to show cause (Court Employee) (Entered: 0912911995)
289 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of to extend time to file its suppl sugg in supp of its renewed and restated mt for an order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, N.A. to show cause (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1011 011995)
290 Reply suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of to motion to extend time to file its suppl sugg in supp of its renewed and restated mt for an order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, N.A. to show cause [289-1] why it holds or should be deemed to hold a provable claim against the Receiver and/or the Receivership Estate & Why Certain Assets should not be surrendered & distributed to it in full satisfaction of any such claim (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011611995)
291 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting the Recevier of the Housing Authority's motion to extend time to file its suppl sugg in supp of its renewed and restated mt for an order directing Commerce Bank of Kansas City, Missouri, N.A. to show cause [289-1] to & including 10113/95 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1011611995)
292 MOTION by plaintiff for leave to file req for prod of docs and to have the time shortened for resp to said req and accompanying sugg in supp (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1012011995)
293 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting RUD's motion for leave to file req for prod of docs and to have the time shortened for resp to said req and accompanying sugg in supp [292-1] shall have 10 days from the receipt of the req for prod of docs to resp(cc: all counsel) (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 1012511995)
294 MOTION by defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D. to vacate order of October 25, 1995 w/suggs (Court Employee) (Entered: 10/3011995)

31 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

10/3111995 01/0811996 02/0711996
0311411996 0311911996
0312111996 0312111996 0312111996 0312211996 0312211996

295 Response by plaintiff to motion to vacate order of October 25, 1995 w/suggs [294-1] (Kelly McIlvain) (Entered: 11/0111995)
296 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting US attorney's motion to vacate order of October 25, 1995 w/suggs [294-1] vacating [293-1] order; the Court Orders pIa to comply in the future wlLocal Rule 15M before it files a waritten discovery motion (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0811996)
297 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Judge Dean Whipple ;ordered that dft RUD show cause by 9:30 at a hearing on 3122/96 why it should not be held in contempt of Court in consideration of the Court's Order of May 2, 1995 whch held that RUD's federal funds, including the Wayne Minor Project grant, constitute federal obligations under 31 Sec 1501; The Court invites the parties to brief this issue in anticipation of the hearing (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0711996)
298 Response by defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D. to Order to show cause of2/7/96 (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311511996)
299 OPINION AND ORDER FINDING A PROVABLE CLAIM: by Judge Dean Whipple finding the receiver's motion for order directing commerce Bank ofKC, N.A. to show cause why it holds or should be deemed to a provable clm against the Receiver and/or the Receivership estate and why certain assets should not be surrendered and distributed to it in full satisfaction of any such clm [284-1] moot; the court additionally denies the receiver's motion for an order directing Commerce to show cause why they have a provable claim, because the Court rules that Commerce's judgment entered from the order in Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N.A. v Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, No. CV91-30832 (Mo. Cir. Ct. November 5, 1992) is a provable claim against the Housing Authority; finally, the Court directs Commerce Bank to show cause w/in 15 days from the date of this order why the Court cannot or should not under its equitable powers that Commerce Bank's judgment be satisfied as the Receiver requests, by the Receiver's turning over the property and collateral secured by the promissory note, as modified; the Receiver will have 15 days to respond, after which Commerce Bank will have 15 days to reply (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312011996)
300 Suggestions by plaintiffs in support of memorandum of receiver in response to 2/7/96 order to show cause [298-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312111996)
302 AFFIDAVIT of Jeffrey Lines (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312211996)
303 Response [memorandum] by interested party [Receiver] TAG Associates ofKC to 2/7/96 Order to Show Cause (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312211996)
301 Motion/Order for pro hac vice on behalf of TAG Associates of KC by Janet Steckel Lundberg Receipt #: 107025 in the amount of$25.00 (Court Employee) Modified on 0312211996 (Entered: 0312211996)
304 MOTION by interested party TAG Associates ofKC for admission of Janet Steckel Lundberg pro hac vice to the Bar of the US Dist Ct for the WDMO (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312211996)

32 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0312211996 04/0411996 04/0511996
0411711996 0411711996 0412211996 0412311996 05/0211996
05/0211996 05/0611996 05/0911996 0511011996

305 MINUTE ENTRY: of Contempt ofH.UD. granting motion for admission of Janet Steckel Lundberg pro hac vice to the Bar of the US Dist Ct for the WDMO [304-1]; H.UD. not in contempt of May 2, 1995 Order; H.UD. (Court Employee) (Entered: 0312611996)
306 Response by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC to Order to show cause (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/0511996)
307 TRANSCRIPT of proceedings held on 3122/96 before Judge Dean Whipple, wlo a jury, as to receiver Paula L Schwach, special master Joseph James, special master Robert E Larsen, defendant Jack L Kemp, plaintiff Mary Vann, defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD., plaintiffDoletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, defendant Pierce, Samuel, Sec, defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Housing Authority of, defendant Mike Fisher, defendant Fain, Venita, Interi, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiffLorine Dawkins, plaintiffCorine Batts, interested party Natalia Coe, interested party Commerce Bank ofKC, interested party TAG Associates ofKC (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/0811996)
308 MOTION by defendant Housing Authority in support of TAG Associates of KC.Mo., as receiver of the Housing Authority ofKC. Mo. for orders (Court Employee) (Entered: 0411711996)
309 Response by interested party TAG Associates ofKC to Order to show cause dated March 19, 1996 (Court Employee) (Entered: 0411811996)
310 Suggestions by plaintiff in support of motion for orders [308-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0412211996)
311 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to extend time wlin which to respond to the motion of the dft (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0412411996)
312 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Receiver submit a more concise brief conforming with the requirements of Local Rule 13E win ten (10) days of the date of this Order; If the Receiver does not do this, the Court will read only the first 15 pages of the Receiver's current brief; that Commerce Bank's reply shall be due no later than fifteen days after the Receiver's abridged brief is due (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/0211996)
313 Reply by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC to TAG Associates of Kansas City, Inc.'s response to order to show cause (Court Employee) (Entered:
05/0311996)
314 Concise Response by interested party TAG Associates ofKC as receiver of the Housing Authority of Kansas City, Missouri, to Order to Show Cause (Court Employee) (Entered: 05/0811996)
315 Renewed Reply by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC to TAG Associates of KC., Inc.'s concise resp to order to show cause (Court Employee) (Entered:
0511 011996)
316 MOTION by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiffDoletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiff Lorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts for to decertify class, and for to add parties to lawsuit (Georgia Kee) (Entered:
0511311996)

33 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0511711996 0512011996 0512011996 0512011996 0512011996 0512111996 0512911996 06/0311996 06/0311996 0611011996 0611911996
0812311996 0911911996 0912311996

317 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to motion for to decertify class [316-1], motion for to add parties to lawsuit [316-2] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512011996)
318 Response by interested party TAG Associates ofKC to motion for to decertify class [316-1], motion for to add parties to lawsuit [316-2] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512011996)
319 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting RUD's motion to extend time w/in which to respond to the motion of the dft [311-1] to & until 5120/96 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0512111996)
320 Reply suggestions by plaintiffs to motion for to decertify class [316-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512111996)
321 MOTION by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to extend time for 2nd time within which to resp to mot ofHAKC for Court orders (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512111996)
322 Response by defendant US. Dept. ofH.UD. to dft HACK'S Motion for Court orders (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512211996)
323 MOTION by interested party TAG Associates ofKC (For enlargement of time) to extend time in which to reply to the resp ofRUD filed 5121/96 (Court Employee) (Entered: 0512911996)
324 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting RUD's motion to extend time for 2nd time within which to resp to mot ofHAKC for Court orders [321-1] on or before 5121/96 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/0411996)
325 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting HAKC's motion (For enlargement of time) to extend time in which to reply to the resp ofRUD filed 5121/96 [323-1] until 6110/96 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 06/0411996)
326 Reply suggestions by interested party TAG Associates ofKC to motion for orders [308-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0611111996)
327 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting plaintiffs' motion for to decertify class [316-1], granting plaintiffs' motion for to add parties to lawsuit [316-2]; it is further ordered that this Order shall have no effect on the terms, condictions, & finality of the jgm entered prior to the reopening of this case, the consent decree currently in force, & any orders now outstanding (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0611911996)
328 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple; Evidentiary hearing set for 9:309119/96; the Court anticipates this hrg to last the entire day (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0812611996)
329 Stipulationu regarding authenticity of documents of plaintiffs, and defendants (Court Employee) (Entered: 0912011996)
330 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple; Evidentiary hearing reset for 9:00 10110/96; the purpose of the hearing is set forth in the Court's Order of August 23, 1996 a copy of which is attached (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0912311996)

34 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

1011011996 1011111996 1011111996 1011111996
1011511996
~996
1211911996
1212011996 1212011996 1212311996
1212711996 01/0311997 01/0711997 01/0711997 01/0811997

331 MINUTE ENTRY: of 1st day of hearing (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011511996)
332 EXHIBIT INDEX OF interested party TAG Associates ofKC (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011511996)
333 Witness list submitted by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011511996)
335 CERTIFICATE of transmission of deposition of Joseph A. Snorgrass taken on 1012/96 on behalf of plaintiffs Costs: $284.60 (Court Employee) (Entered:
1011711996)
334 CERTIFICATE of transmission of deposition of Maryln Lambert Golub taken on 1012/96 on behalf of defendants Costs: $294.10 (Court Employee) (Entered: 1011611996)
336 I MOTION to intervene J'ouise Stinnett (Court Employee) (Entered: 12117119')6)
337 Response by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiff Doletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiff Lorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts, plaintiff Public Housing, plaintiff Theron B Watkins to motion to intervene J'ouise Stinnett [336-1] (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1212011996)
338 MOTION by proposed party J'ouise Stinnett and Sonya Jones to intervene (Court Employee) (Entered: 1212311996)
339 CERTIFICATE by proposed party J'ouise Stinnett and Sonya Jones of service of motion to intervene (Court Employee) (Entered: 1212311996)
340 Notice of clarification of filed motions by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiff Doletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiffLorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts, plaintiff Public Housing, plaintiff Theron B Watkins (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 12124/1996)
341 Suggestions by defendants in opposition to motion to intervene [338-1] (Court Employee) Modified on 12/3011996 (Entered: 12/3011996)
342 Suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of in opposition to motion to intervene [338-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0311997)
343 1/6/97 Written status report by receiver Paula L Schwach concerning status of Guinotte Manor Revitalization Plan (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 01/0811997)
345 Reply suggestions by plaintiff to motion to intervene [338-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0811997)
344 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Judge Dean Whipple ;ordered to show cause by 1117/97 in a written explanation why the Court should not authorize the Receiver to proceed withe Guinotte Manor Revitalization Plan wlout necessity of obtaining further zoning approval from the City or to take such other action as may be appropriate to proceed withe Revitalization Plan wlout further delay; it is further ordered that counsel flthe City ofKC, the City Council ofKC, the individual members of the City Council ofKC, & counsel f/HAKC shall appear at a hearing on 1122/97 at 9:00 a.m. to present evience & oral argument on the

35 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

01/0811997 01/0911997 01/0911997 0111411997 0111411997 0111711997
0111711997 0112211997
0112411997 0112711997

above-identified issues; it is further ordered that US Marshal shall effect service of process upon the City ofKC, the City ofKC, the City Council ofKC, & the individual members of the City Council ofKC by personal service; personal service may be effected upon the identified parties by serving the agent appointed to accept service of process on their behalf; such agent is located at the following address: City Hall, Law Department, 414 E. 12th Street, 28th Floor, KCMO 64106 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 01/0811997)
346 Suggestions by plaintiff in opposition to RUD's motion for orders to ameand order of June 17, 1997 [308-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0911997)
347 RETURN OF SERVICE of US marshal 285 form of Show Cause Order and Status Report executed upon Law Dept. City Hall, 414 E. 12th St., 28th Fl., KC.Mo. executed on 1/8/97; $40.62 pIa (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/0911997)
348 Suggestions by defendant Housing Authority of in opposition to motion to intervene [338-1] (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111011997)
349 MOTION for appointment of next friend by Sonya Jones (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111511997)
350 Notice to act as next friend by Natural Mother Sonya Jones (Court Employee) (Entered: 0111511997)
351 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying J'Quise Stinnett's and Sonya Jones' motion to intervene [338-1]; that the Court releases J'Quise Stinnett and SOnya Jones fro this Court's injunction of July 17, 1994 solely for the purpose offiling the lead paint-related action against HAKC in any court of competent jurisdiction (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0112111997)
352 Response by defendants to Order to Show Cause filed on January 8, 1997 (Court Employee) (Entered: 0112111997)
354 MINUTE ENTRY:Hearing as to receiver, special master, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, interested party, plaintiff, proposed party Judge Dean Whipple presiding; Court addresses observors to inform them of the status of the hearing-city will file report Friday re: city council's vote; hearing possible next Friday Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0112711997)
353 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying motion for appointment of next friend by Sonya Jones [349-1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0112411997)
355 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple; that counsel for the City ofKC., counsel for the City Council ofKC., counsel fot MaYor EManuel Cleaver, counsel for the individual members of the City Council of Kansas City, and counsel for HAKC shall appear at a status hearing set for 9:00 1/31/97; to present evidence and oral argument on the issues previously identified; the Location of the hearing shall be Courtooom 4, room 665, US Courthouse, 811 Grand Ave., KC.Mo; that the US Marshal shall effect service of process upon the City of Kansas City, the City Council of Kansas City, Mayor Emanual Cleaver, and the individual members of the CIty Council of Kansas City by personal service; Personal service may be effected upon the identified parties by serving the agent appointed to accept service of process on their behalf; such agent is located at the following address:

36 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

01/3011997 01/3011997 01/3011997 01/3111997 01/3111997 02/0311997 02/0311997 02/0711997 03/0611997
0311111997

City Hall, Law Dept., 414 East' 12th St., 28th Fl., KC.Mo. 64106; certified copy sent to US Marshal with 285 mashal form (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 01127/1997)
356 RETURN OF SERVICE by plaintiffs of subpoena and order executed on 1128/97 on Virginia Walsh, City Plan and Development Dept at 414 E. 12th St. KC. Mo.,; pIa $80.00 (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/3011997)
357 RETURN OF SERVICE by plaintiff of Subpoena and Order executed on 1128/97 on James M. Vaughn, Dir. City Dept of Housing and Community Development at 414 E. 12th KC. Mo. PIa $80.00 (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/3011997)
358 RETURN OF SERVICE by plaintiff of subpoena and Order executed on 1128/97 on City Hall, Law Dept. at 414 E. 12th., KC. Mo; PIa $40.00 (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/3011997)
359 Motion/Order for pro hac vice of Paul Holtzman on behalf of TAG Associates of KC by Receipt #: 128067 in the amount of25.00 (Court Employee) (Entered: 01/3111997)
360 MINUTE ENTRY of hearing as to plaintiffs, and defendants Judge Dean Whipple presiding; motion to admit Paul Holtzman pro hac vice is GRANTED; witnesses testifying Mark Marfield, Eugene Jones Bachus, Jeffry Lines, John Glessner, and Mike burke Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0311997)
361 MINUTE ENTRY:Hearing as to receiver, special master, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, interested party, plaintiff, proposed party Judge Dean Whipple presiding; All parties present; Court announces recess until @ 9:00 a.m. on Friday Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 02/0511997)
362 JOINT EXHIBIT INDEX OF plaintiffs, and defendants (Court Employee) (Entered: 02/0711997)
363 MINUTE ENTRY as to plaintiffs, and defendants Judge Dean Whipple presiding Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing; 11: 15 a.m. Counsel for HAKC reprts status of dispute w/KC City Council (Court Employee) (Entered: 0211011997)
364 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, TAG shall establish and implement procedures by which creditors-whose claims matured before July 6, 1996-- re adequately notified and instructed to present their claims to the Receiver and are afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond; that TAG shall prepare and submit to the Court the following information: (1) an accounting ofHAKC's assets; (2) a statement of whether each asset is legally available for distribution to creditors; (3) HAKC's outstanding debts; and (4) a list identifying HAKC's creditors whose claims arose either before or after the institution of the receivership; the report shall be submitted no later than May 12, 1997 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 03/0611997)
365 CORRECTED JUDGMENT: by Judge Dean Whipple that, no later than thirty (30) days from the date of this Order, TAG shall establish and implement procedures by which creditors-- whose claims matured before July 6, 1993 --are

37 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0311811997
04/0811997 0411011997 0411011997 0411511997 0412311997 0511211997 0511911997 0512211997 06/0111997 06/0211997

adequately notified and instructed to present their claims to the Receiver and are afforded a reasonable opportunity to respond; that TAG shall prepare and submit to the Court the following information: (1) an accounting ofHAKC's assets; (2) a statement of whether each asset is legally available for distribution to creditors; (3) HAKC's outstanding debts; and (4) a list identifying HAKC's creditors whose claims arose either before or after the institution of the receivership; the report shall be submitted no later than May 12, 1997 (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311111997)
366 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the City Council of Kansas City is granted an extensio of time to and including April 11, 1997 within which to submit an acceptable plan to HUD to revitalize Guinotte Manor; that demolition and abatement of the Guinotote Manor site shall continue acording to HAKC's construction schedule during the extension (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0311911997)
367 MOTION by interested party TAG Associates ofKC to extend time to comply with the Court's Corrected Judgmetn and Order of March 11, 1997 (Court Employee) (Entered: 04/0911997)
368 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT of testimony of witnesses held on 1/31/97 before Judge Dean Whipple; Court reporter Barbara Buesing (Court Employee) Modified on 0411 011997 (Entered: 0411 011997)
369 PARTIAL TRANSCRIPT of witnesses testifying held on 2/3/97 before Judge Dean Whipple; Barbara Buesing (Court Employee) (Entered: 0411011997)
370 Notice of Establishment & Implementation of procedures f/the presentation, adjudication, & allowance of provable claims by receiver TAG Associates ofKC (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 04/16/1997)
371 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting motion to extend time to comply with the Court's Corrected Judgmetn and of March 11, 1997 [367-1] (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0412311997)
372 MOTION by receiver TAG Associates ofKC to extend time to comply with the Court's corrected jgm & order of3111/97 (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0511311997)
373 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting dft TAG's motion to extend time to comply with the Court's corrected jgm & order of 3111/97 [372-1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0511911997)
374 MOTION by receiver TAG Associates ofKC to extend time to comply withe Court's order of 5119197 (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05122/1997)
376 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting TAG's motion to extend time to comply withe Court's order of 5119197 [374-1] to & including 6/5/97 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 06/0311997)
375 CERTIFICATE by plaintiff Mary Vann, plaintiffDoletha Tinsley, plaintiff Linda Robinson, defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Housing Authority of, plaintiff Bertha Doss, plaintiff Lorine Dawkins, plaintiff Corine Batts, plaintiff Public Housing, plaintiff Theron B Watkins of service of Cooperative Agreement (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 06/0311997)

38 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

06/0511997 0611811997 07/0111997 07/0111997 0711411997 0711611997 07/3111997
0811811997 0811911997
0812011997 0812011997 0812111997 0910211997 0910311997 0910911997

377 Notice by defendant Housing Authority of Accounting of Assets, Statement of Availability fldistribution of same to creditors, and listing and aging of debt (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 06/0611997)
378 Notice of Proof of Claim by interested party Commerce Bank of KC (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0611811997)
379 MOTION by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC to compel Tag Associates to participate & cooperate in sale of collateral (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/0211997)
380 Suggestions by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC in support of motion to compel Tag Associates to participate & cooperate in sale of collateral [379-1] (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/0211997)
381 MOTION by receiver TAG Associates ofKC to extend time wlin which to respond to Commerce Bank's motion to compel Tag to participate & cooperate in sale of collateral (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0711511997)
382 MOTION by receiver TAG Associates ofKC for approval of notice of establishment and implementation of procedures flthe presentation, adjudication & allowance of provable claims (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0711711997)
383 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting TAG Associates ofKC, Inc's motion for approval of notice of establishment and implementation of procedures flthe presentation, adjudication & allowance of provable claims [382-1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/31/1997)
384 Notice by defendant Housing Authority of, receiver TAG Associates ofKC of opportunity to file proof of claim (Court Employee) (Entered: 0811911997)
385 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple finding the Commerce Bank's motion to compel Tag Associates to participate & cooperate in sale of collateral [379-1] moot. finding the TAG's motion to extend time wlin which to respond to Commerce Bank's motion to compel Tag to participate & cooperate in sale of collateral moot. (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 0811911997)
386 Notice of Posting --Notice of Opportunity to file proof of claim & proof of claim form by receiver TAG Associates ofKC (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0812011997)
387 Notice of Mailing--Notice of Opportunity to file proof of claim and proof of claim form by receiver TAG Associates ofKC (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0812011997)
388 MOTION by receiver TAG Associates ofKC for approval of publication of notice (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0812111997)
389 PROOF OF CLAIM by claimant Alfred L McCloud (Susan Larson) (Entered: 0910311997)
392 Notice by defendant Mike Fisher of Potential Creditor (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0912611997)
390 Objections by receiver TAG Associates ofKC to Michael J Fischer's proof of claim (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0910911997)

39 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0910911997 0912911997 1012211997 1112511997
12/0111997 0112311998 0411311998
0412711998 05/0411998

391 Objections by receiver TAG Associates ofKC to Commerce Bank of Kansas City, N.A.'s proof of claim (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0910911997)
393 Notice by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC of Answers to TAG Associates ofKC, Inc's objection to the Proof of Claim (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 09/3011997)
394 Notice by defendant Housing Authority of, receiver TAG Associates ofKC of Proof of Publication (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1012211997)
395 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple denying TAG Associates' motion for approval of publication of notice [388-1]; However, the cout will consider objections to the sufficiency of notice by any party in this case; that any party objecting to the notice of opportunity to file proof of cl alim in this case may file written objections with the Cout within fifteen (15) days from the date of this Order; that ifno party objects to the notice which has been provided, TAG Associates of Kansas City, Inc. will be deemed to have complied with Claims Procedure 5.0 without further Order from this Court (cc: all counsel) (Court Employee) (Entered: 1112611997)
396 JOINT MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of, interested party Commerce Bank ofKC for approval of agreement for marketing of Holmes Gardens (Court Employee) (Entered: 12/0211997)
397 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion for approval of agreement for marketing of Holmes Gardens [396-1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0112311998)
398 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple in-court hearing is set for 5113/98 @ 9:00 am; the following parties or their representatives shall appear: TAG, Commerece Bank, HUD, Michael Fischer, and Alfred McCloud; it is further ordered that TAG shall be prepared to discuss the following issues and submit supporting documentation where necessary: A) whether the HAKC could raise money in the future to satisfy Commerece Bank's jgm after termination of the receivership; B) whether the HAKC's funding contracts w/HUD prevent TAG and the HAKC from satisfying Commerce Bank's jgm with any of the HAKC's assets other than Holmes Gardens (TAG shall be prepared to submit the relevant contracts to the Court); C) whether the HAKC could raise money in the future to satisfy Fischer's claim, if the claim proves valid; D) whether the statute oflimitations of Fischer's claim was tolled or extended by the stay entered in this case; It is further ordered that both TAG & Michael Fischer shall be prepared to present argument & documentation about the merits of Fischer's contractual claim; it is further ordered that, if TAG has reason to object to Alfred L McCloud's proof of claim, it shall file an objection withe Court by 4127/98 and shall be prepared to discuss its objection at the hearing; it is further ordered that the clerk's office shall serve a copy of this Order upon both Michael Fischer & Alfred McCloud by mailing it to each person's last known address or atty's address (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0411311998)
399 Objections by defendant Housing Authority of to Alfred L. McCloud's proof of claim dated 912197 (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0412811998)
400 SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF FILED by defendant Housing Authority of its objection to Alfred L McCloud's proof of claim (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 05/0411998)

40 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0511311998 0511311998
0611211998
0611211998 07/0711998 09/0211998 0911511998 0912211998
0912511998 1011511998

401 Notice of Memorandum in response to that portion of the order entered 4113/98, which relates to the claim ofCommerece Bank of Kansas City, N.A. by receiver TAG Associates ofKC (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0511511998)
402 MINUTE ENTRY as to special master, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, interested party, receiver, plaintiff, proposed party, claimant Judge Dean Whipple presiding; All parties appear; Michael Fisher withdraws his claim; Court gives Commerece 30 days to respond to TAG's brief; Court adjourned; Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Georgia Kee) Modified on 0612311998 (Entered: 0512011998)
403 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Court approves the Cooperative Agreement submitted to the Court on 612/97; it is further ordered that the Show Cause order issued 1/8/97 to the City of Kansas City, the City Council of Kansas City, and the individual members of the City Council of Kansas City is vacated because the dispute is now moot (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0611211998)
404 POST HEARING BRIEF FILED by interested party Commerce Bank ofKC (Susan Larson) (Entered: 0611511998)
405 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting joint motion for approval of agreement for marketing of Holmes Gardens [396-1]; it is further ordered that Michael Fisher's claim is dismissed as moot; it is further ordered that Alfred McCloud's claim is dismissed as moot (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/0811998)
406 JOINT MOTION by defendant Housing Authority of, interested party Commerce Bank ofKC for expedited approval oflisting agreement and real estate contract for the sale of Holmes Garden (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 09/0311998)
407 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple granting HACK's motion for expedited approval of listing agreement and real estate contract for the sale of Holmes Garden [406-1] (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0911611998)
408 MINUTE ENTRY: Status ConfRe; Heritage House Revitalization as to special master, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, interested party, receiver, plaintiff, proposed party, claimant Judge Dean Whipple presiding; All parties present; Purchase site by 10/30/98; must have someone who can bind HUD; must hear agreement by 10/9/98; disputed drafts by 10115/98; show cause will be drafted by 10119/98; Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0912411998)
409 ENTRY & SUBSTITIUTION OF APPEARANCE on behalf of defendant U.S. Dept. ofH.U.D., defendant Jack L Kemp, defendant Housing Authority of by Charles M. Thomas (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0912811998)
410 ORDER TO SHOW CAUSE: by Judge Dean Whipple ordered that by 5:00 pm on 10116/98, the parties must submit their respective drafts of the proposed memo of understanding regarding the revitalization plan f/the Heritage House Replacement project; it is further ordered that the parties also submit written explanations directing the Court to those portions of their draft memos upon which the parties cannot reach agreement ;show cause hearing set 9:00 am on 10119/98 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1011611998)

41 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

1011911998
1011911998 0812011999
1111612000 0412412001 05/0912001 0611112001 0612812001
07/0312002 0712412002 0911812002 0911812003

411 MINUTE ENTRY: Status Conf as to special master, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, interested party, receiver, plaintiff, proposed party, claimant Judge Dean Whipple presiding; All parties present; Court congratulate parties f/reaching agreement; Court adjourned; Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1011911998)
412 TRANSCRIPT of Proceedings held on 9123/98 before Judge Dean Whipple as to special master, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, defendant, plaintiff, interested party, receiver, plaintiff, proposed party, claimant (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1012011998)
413 ORDER by Judge Dean Whipple that the Court receiver to utilize the full extent of its authority to recover any monies wrongfully obtained from the HAKC, including the act of offsetting any claims due against the disputed amounts, if it deems such an action necessary (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0812011999)
414 I NOTICE by plaintiffs' of change of address (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 1112012000)
415 MOTION by plaintiffs', defendans' for order modifying the powers of the reciever (Steve Navarro) (Entered: 0412612001)
416 ORDER by Chief Judge Dean Whipple that in addition to those powers identified in this Court's 9/6/94 Order and such relevenat subsequent orders previously issued, TAG Assoc ofKC, Inc is hereby vested withe authority to exercise all powers and authority (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0511112001)
417 ORDER by Chief Judge Dean Whipple in-court hearing set for 6128/01 @ 9:00am to inform this Court of the status of compliance with the terms and conditions of the Cooperative Agremeent approved by this Court on 6112/98 (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0611212001)
418 MINUTE ENTRY: Status Hearing as to plaintiff Theron B Watkins, plaintiff Public Housing Chief Judge Dean Whipple presiding; All parties present; Hearing on issues: re: co-operative agreement; some issues are resolved; 711 %I-Approval; Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/0212001)
419 ORDER by Chief Judge Dean Whipple status hearing set for 7124/02 @ 12:30pm (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 07/0312002)
420 MINUTE ENTRY for status hearing as to plaintiffDoletha Tinsley Chief Judge Dean Whipple presiding Court Reporter: Barbara Buesing (Michelle Kendall) (Entered: 0712912002)
421 ORDER by Chief Judge Dean Whipple effective 9/30/02, TAG shall no longer be designated as Receiver, and is hereby designated Special Master of the HAKC and will serve in that capacity for an initial term of one year (cc: all counsel) (Georgia Kee) (Entered: 0911912002)
422 ORDER - The Court orders that TAG continue to serve as Special Master of
-
HACK for an additional term of one year. The Court shall schedule a hearing approximately eleven months from the date of this Order to consider whether and on what terms this Order shall be continued, modified or vacated. Signed by Judge

42 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binIDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0712712004 09/3012004 1010412004
1011312004 0912112005 0912712005 0912912005 1010412005 1212912005
0412612006 05/0112006

Dean Whipple on 911812003. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 0911812003)
423 NOTICE of HEARING: Status Conference set for 9/3012004 at 10:00 AM. in
-
Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. before Dean Whipple. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 0712712004)
-425 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dean Whipple: STATUS CONFERENCE held on 9/3012004. (Court Reporter Donna Turner.) (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 1011312004)
424 ORDER - that TAG continue to serve as Special Master ofHAKC for an
-
additional term of one year. Moreover, the Court shall schedule a hearing approximately eleven months from the date of this Order to consider whether and on what terms this Order shall be continued, modified or vacated. Lastly, the parties are directed to begin drafting a consent decree which may serve to eventually end litigation of this case. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 10/412004. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 1010412004)
426 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Kelly P. Finn. (Related
-
document(s) 424 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 1011512004)
-427 ORDER - setting status conference to be held on 912912005 at 9:00 AM. at Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 9121120205. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 0912112005)
-428 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Kelly P. Finn. (Related document(s) 427 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 0912712005)
430 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dean Whipple : All parties
-
present.STATUS CONFERENCE held on 912912005. (Court Reporter Denna Lamken.) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 1011112005)
429 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Paul Holtzman. (Related
-
document(s) 427 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 1010612005)
-431 ORDER - that TAG continue to serve as Special Master ofHAKC for an additional term of six months. It is further ORDERED that the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development shall remain a party in this case. It is FURTHER ORDERED that the Court will schedule a status hearing approximately four months from the date of this Order to consider whether and on what terms this Order shall e continued, modified or vacated. It is further ORDERED that the parties shall draft a proposed consent decree by the date of the aforementioned status hearing, which may serve to eventually end litigation of this case. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 1212912005. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 1212912005)
432 NOTICE of hearing: Status Conference set for 511112006 at 9:00 AM. in Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. before Dean Whipple. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 0412612006)
433 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Kelly P. Finn. (Related
-
document(s) 432 ) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 05/0112006)

43 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM

CMlECF Western District of Missouri

https:llecf.mowd.uscourts.gov/cgi-binlDktRpt. pI ?964904992656259-L_ ...

0511112006 0611512006
0612712006 1211412007 1212612007

434 Minute Entry for proceedings held before Judge Dean Whipple: STATUS
-
CONFERENCE held on 511112006. (Court Reporter Cynthia Johnson.) (Beard, Melanie) (Entered: 0511112006)
435 ORDER - that (1) TAG continue to serve in its role as Special Master ofHAKC;
-
(2) the United States Department of HOusing and Urban Development shall remain a party in this case; (3) the parties shall contine to negotiate the terms of a proposed consent decree and submit it to the Court upon completion. Signed by Judge Dean Whipple on 611512006. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 0611612006)
436 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Paul Holtzman. (Related
-
document(s) 435) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 0612712006)
NOTICE of hearing: Status Conference set for 111712008 at 8:30 AM. in Courtroom 8B, Kansas City, MO. before Judge Dean Whipple. (Johnson, Yvonne) (Entered: 1211412007)
437 MAIL RETURNED as undeliverable. Mail sent to Paul Holtzman. (Related
-
document(s)[]) (Kee, Georgia) (Entered: 1212712007)

PACER Service Center

I

I

Transaction Receipt

I

I

1

04/21/2008 19:44:56

1

IpACER Login:

IIwu0079

IIclient Code: II clearinghouse

IIDescriPtion:

II Docket
Report

II Search
Criteria:

114:89-cv-00023-Dw l

IBillable Pages: 1129

IICost:

11 2.32

1

44 of 44

4/21/20087:45 PM