• Embed Doc
  • Copy Link
  • Readcast
  • Collections
  • CommentGo Back
Download
 
Case
2:09-cv-02095-MMB Document
14
Filed
06/29/2009
Page
1 of
25
IN
THE
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR
THE
EASTERN DISTRICT
OF
PENNSYLVANIAStudent Doe
1 by
and through his
Parents/Guardians
Does 1 and 2,
et
al.Plaintiffs,CIVIL ACTION NO. 09-12095
v.
The
School District
of
Lower Merion,Defendant.DEFENDANT'S MEMORANDUM
OF
LAW
IN SUPPORT 
OF
ITS OPPOSITION
TO
PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION 
FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 
Judith
E.
Harris
(PA
1.0.
No.
02358)
Christina Joy
F.
Greese
(PA
1.0. No.
200727)
Allison
N.
Suflas
(PAI.D. No.
204448)
Morgan, Lewis
&
Bockius
LLP
1701
Market StreetPhiladelphia, PA
19103215-963-5028/5085/5752
Attorney
for
DefendantDated: June
29, 2009
 
Case 2:09-cv-02095-MMB Document 14
Filed
06/29/2009
Page
2
of
25
TABLE
OF
CONTENTS
Page
I. 
INTRODUCTION ............................................................................................................. 1 II. FACTS ............................................................................................................................... 2 A. The Community Advisory Committee Recommends the Construction
of
Two Equal Size High Schools .............................................................................. 2 B. The Redistricting Process ...................................................................................... 3 
1. 
Phase I ........................................................................................................ 4 2. Phase II ...................................................................................................... 5 3. Phase III ..................................................................................................... 5 C. Implementation
of
Phase III The Redistricting Proposals and Community Feedback ............................................................................................ 6
1. 
Plan 1 -The September
8,
2008 Proposal ................................................. 6 2. Plan 2 -The October 20, 2008 Proposal ................................................... 6 3. Plan 3 The November 25,2008 Proposal ............................................... 7 4. Plan 3R (the "Redistricting Plan") The December
15,
2008 Proposal...................................................................................................... 8 III. ARGUMENT..................................................................................................................... 9
A. 
Injunctive Relief
Will
Alter, Not Preserve, The Status Quo ...............................
10 
B. Plaintiffs Have Failed to Demonstrate Irreparable Harm ....................................
11 
C. Plaintiffs Have Failed
to
Demonstrate a Likelihood
of
Success
on
the Merits ...................................................................................................................
13 
D. A Balancing
ofthe
Equities Favors the Lower Merion School District ..............
17 
IV. CONCLUSION................................................................................................................ 19 -i
 
Case
2:09-cv-02095-MMB Document
14
Filed
06/29/2009
Page
3 of
25
TABLE
OF
AUTHORITIES
Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645 (3d Cir. 1994) ............................................................................................................
12 
Adams v. Freedom Forge Corp., 204 F.3d 475 (3d Cir. 2000) ..........................................................................................................
10 
Antonelli v. New Jersey, 419 F.3d 267 (3d Cir. 2005) ...........................................................................................................
14 
Barnes Found. v. Twp.
of
Lower Merion, 982 F. Supp. 970 (E.D. Pa. 1997) .................................................................................................
14 
Bateman v. Ford Motor Co., 310 F 2d 805 (3d Cir. 1962) ............................................................................................................ 9 Beaumont,
S.
L.
&
W. R. Co. v. United States, 282 U.S. 74 (1930) .........................................................................................................................
18 
Bennington Foods LLC v. St. Croix Renaissance, Group, LLP, 528 F 3d 176 (3d Cir. 2008) ...........................................................................................................
10 
City
of
Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432 (1985) ......................................................................................................................
14 
Fed. Communications Comm'n v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (1993) .......................................................................................................................
14 
City
of
Cuyahoga Falls v. Buckeye Comty. Hope Found., 538 U.S. 188 (2003) .......................................................................................................................
13 
Concerned Citizens for Neighborhood Schools v. Pastel, No. 5:05-1070, 2007 WL 1220542 (N.D.N.Y. April 24, 2007) ....................................................
15 
Constructors
Ass'n
ofW.
Pa. v. Kreps, 
573F.2d811
(3dCir.1978)
...........................................................................................................
13 
Cont'l Group, Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 
614F.2d351
(3dCir.1980)
...........................................................................................................
12 
Delaware River Port Auth. v. Transamerican Trailer Transport Inc., 
501
F.2d 917 (3d Cir. 1974) ..........................................................................................................
13 
Dryfoos v. Edwards, D.C., 284 F. 596 (1919); affirmed, 251 U.S. 146 (1919) ........................................................................ 17 -ii
of 00

Leave a Comment

You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...
You must be to leave a comment.
Submit
Characters: ...