# Brief for the Respondents in Opposition — Universal Builders, Inc. v. Clark > Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more. URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0006%3A2 ## Record - **Collection:** Supreme Court brief - **Document type:** Brief for the Respondents in Opposition - **Published:** January 1, 1970 - **Citation:** 400 U.S. 821 ## Text * LIBRARY- Se pteeeeeseerren emwewr!, U.S. UE ashen ican Tf mE ED IN THE . | JUL 6 1970" _supceme Court of the eno ! he October TERM, =. 157t _ CHARLES BAKER, et a,” Petitioners, vs, K & F INVESTMENT C0, al Re spond wuts, SIDNEY CLARK, ‘1. au, i ‘ \ ‘ Y titione rs, Us, . ; - UNIVERSAL BUILDERS, INC. er an, rr Respondents. + BRIEF. OF’ RESPONDENTS UNIVERSAL BUILDERS, -INC., et al. IN OPPOSITION: TO THE PETITION OF PLAINTIFFS. APPELLEES BELOW FOR aad OF - CERTIORARI | ; s Burtos Y. WEItTzeENFELD, . Lovis A. Lenr, Jr., Jonunxn F. MeC LURE Sraxtey M. Li ariox. 120 South LaSalle Street, ae | ‘hieag roy Hlinois 60603, “Counsel for Respondents Universal Builders. Inc... et al. ARNSTEIN, Giuck, Werrzenrerp & Mrxow, ~ 120 South LaSalle Street, Chieago, THinois 60603, Of -Céunsel. 2 ° : THE GUNTMORP-WARREN PRINTING COMPANY, cHIcaco * * Opinions Below Jurisdiction .. TABLE OF CONTENTS. | —C ‘onstitutional Provisions, Statutes, ond Rules of Pro- cedure: Involved yen [radiecaukaceuns oes BETS Ae Counterstatement of the Case. Saver eokek en aaecanks si caer al fool adh Ag tether Neck Sdn in attatched ~ Ret hal whet Part I: Elaboration of Jurisdictional Deficiencies. Patt. Il: Non- Jurisdictional Reasons Why This Pez “tition Should Not -Be Granted.:..0...... Petitioners Have Not Raised a Ques- ’ we - ' tion of Substance Under the Rules of “0. E. _ Warrant Review by This Court This Court Should Not Consider tlre - Decision Uo hes ree er tas This Court? Should. Not Agata uae sider’ Whether Nationally Uniform Substantive Rights Must- Be .Gov- — -erned. by “Natioually | Uniform Stand- ards of Timeliness. , eter acon yi e ce : This Court Need - Not Consider the ‘Alleged Intent of. the Reconstruction : ‘Congress Ps Gara Ren DR pene Soe Petitioners’ Cc iad a a {}li- -nois: Doctrine ‘of- Laches Does: Not Warrant Revi iew by This Court....-. The : Argued Applicability of the Fed- | eral Doctrine of Laches Does Not Construction of 42 U; S. C. $¢ 1988 Urged by Petitioners -............... - - Petitioners Have Not Haiscd Any Sub- stantial Question Under the . Fifth and Feurteenth. Amendments. ep fep erin Conclusion .... ? ‘ | . ‘£ ; ‘ . ‘ena 24484 864 46 & 2% 6K. 2 ES ea & G6606 66 cry rere tT Ps id 12 * PAGE dere Per Marr Set Rr icar. © ee — 11 16 18 . eo TABLE OF CITATIONS. Cases. a | Alexander v. Cosden Pipe Co., 290 U.S. “484 (1984)... 7, “Alsop v. Riker, 155 U. S. 448" B } pemeaare geen treks ee ey Atchafalaya Land Co., std. v. F. B. Williams Cyaeen Coy 258 U.S. 190 ( (IR). fener st seer to Beard y. Stephens, 2 F. Des ( th ( it: F9GE). 2. s," ER : Blakeslee’s Warehouses ‘Vv. City of ice 369 TI. 480, 17 N. -E. 20° 1 (198 38) EO Py Lore EE ee ery > Campbell v. City of Haverhill, 155 U. S. 610 (1895)... «15 . ‘Chattanooga I ‘omy and Pipe Works v. Atlanta,’ 208 U.S. 399 ( (NE oe eee a peeve ae Cope v. Anderson, 431 U.S. 461 (1947)...... ART te, Pliw. ae “ Cramp v: Board of Public Instruction, 368 U. 87-278 (PR) FR eee poo ere Le SE Taeess Ik Crawford v., Zeitler, 326 Vom 119 (th Cir, 1964) .....° 11° . C ‘zaplicki y. , S. Hoe gh Silvercloud’’,- 351 U.S. 525. (1956) DAee GEO pay PER Lee ced ne sd coaster acres re Detroit Bank vi United States, 217 U: 329 (1943)... 16 I last v. Cohen, 392 U.S. 83 (1968). armed EM Roc oak om 7 Francis v.°C rafts, 2 03 I. 2d 809 (Ast C in. 19538), pave: - denied, 346 -U.-S. 835....... atk ieanea sad eee ee 11 : Guaranty Trust Co. of N. Y. v. United States, 304 U. S.. 126 (19: 38) SOA ec centy meet Peed te Mert os ae ~ Hawkins \. Barney’ s Lessee, 30 UL S26 (5 Pets) 497 (3GRtt 5ixe, heen ae Freres ie ee PE ae 4 Hileman yy. Kuable, 391 iF. 4 996 (3d Cir. 1968) Peuil WW Holmberg v. Armbrecht, ¢ 327 U: S. 392 (1946).......11, 12 Jones v. Mayer, 392 UL S. 409° PC ola ore et 16, 17 Key ishiair v. Board of Rege nts, 38) U.S. 589 (1967)... 14 - Lyons v. County of Morgan, 313 Tl. App. 296, 40-N. Ki 2d 108 (38d Dist. Gt ea PN ae ie > iii . - MiChimy ¥. Silliman, 28 U. S. (3 Pet.) 270 (1830)... 7 O'Neil v. Northern ( ‘oloraddo eto Co., 242 U.S. ya) | ee ee POE CEL EE PT eee ECE eee ‘~’ Sullivan v. | ‘elix, 933 U. 8.318 (1914) 7 See he eee Pre) Me ‘ “Parmeloe v. Price, 208 Tl, O44, 70 N. EB. 725"( (1904) weeny” Ruséell v. Todd, 309 U.S. 280 oe Sarre iy eek cea 12,13 | | Silber v. United States, : 370. U.S. 717 To eres” ie Smith v. Cremins, 308 BF, 2d 187. Ys A. i. BB 11: D4 (9th Cir. | Dama nT ek eae ar ere eee Sere Swan y..Board of Eligtier Kdueation, 319 Fr. 2d of (2d : Rar. IOGG) wi vcass 4 .. A weet ay er rae 11, 13 | Textile Workers U nion v..L incoln Mis 353 U. S. 448 . (1957) eee eel eek on ere eee cule eis Naa is 9 . peri: Seale Co. v. C omputing Se ale C o., 261.0. S. 399 EE enters Bia URW pe REO ra attra hee ahsie ee 4's - 8 > th ad oe See,“ United Auto Workers v. Hoosier Cardinal Corp., 383 A AMR 0 cee ee, 7,9, 10,11, 14 United States v, Morris, 125 Ped. 322 (E. D. Ark. 1908) 16." Virginia Coupon Cases, 114-U. S. 270 (1884) 2.00... 8,15 ginia ( S08, | © ore Wakat vy. Harlih, 253 F.2d 59 (7th Cir, 1958). ao a Wilson, v. Hinman, 172 F.2d 914 (0th Cir. 1949), cert. denied, 336. U.S. 970, Soneafe denied, 337 v. 'S. 9297, rehearing denied, 888 U.S. 9: 08 cairns USP Peer eeke | ~~ Wood v. Carpenter, 101 U.S. 135 (1879). Md Sone ens Saas 14 Fedeval Constitutional Provisions, . ‘Article IIT, Section 2......... saat orden ce inert See ee Amendment raat hare i RIS eas eae Pe ae 16 Amendment XIV ............. ima eRe Seed tee, 16 x Pe iv Federal Statutes. 15 U.S. C. § 15(b)—(Clayton Act, Statute of Limita- re iSpemehws eee wes Ln tw 6 G5% Kes 0-0 11 28S. C.§ § 1292() ) BRUNE SERENE ryan nee fee 28 U.S. C. § 1343 (Jurisdiction, Civil Riehts ) rr 28 UaS. C. § 1652 (Rules of Decision Act) ......... 7,8, 16 28 .U. 8. C. § 2101(¢ ‘)— (Supreme Court Jurisdiction, ° 2 | ree RISD g OL keen Whskes + 4s bene fake wess 8 29 U. S.C. $185 (See. 301, Labor Management Rela- ems At? ..2. a, ee ee ialiew béing frustrated by a lack of, uniformity in applyi ing substantive law, while specifigally rejecting the claim that such policy mjzht be frustrated by a lack of uniformity in, applying limitations. 383 U.'S. at 701-703, : ~ There is nothing which can be Said. of federal civil rights policy and the need petigiorers assert + for. a nationally” uniform st andard of timeliness for asserting civil rights which Avas not considered juad specifically rejected by: this . Court in Hoosier Cardinal. Accordingly, petitioners’ re- liance upon an ‘fexpanded view,’ of federal law and a need for ‘uniform federal rules’ is only st rehashr of an identi- eal argument expressly rejected by this Court as tate as - 1966, and there #8 no need for this Court to consider: the question again. . - > - = ¢, ‘This Court Need’ Not Consider the Alleged Intent of | | the Reconstruction Congress, Petitioners argue (at 10-11) that thie draftsmen of “the “post-bellum civil rights acts could not have intended that federal courts *‘blindly”’ apply. state limitations statutes to bar eiv il rights actions. This contention was made before the Seventh Cirenit: whith responded : a ai. “The fact that the C¥xil Rights Atts grew out of the need to- remedy prior abuses of, state law and state officials.fails to indicate th: at Congress intended private actions to remain Tipe interginably.ar that the federal . courts could not be trusted to sflect appropriate state. imitations statutes.’’ 420 FP. 2d at- 1195. } epee supplied. ae : S) i .- CD. AAR eee eee ey, 6.. Petitioners’ reference (at 11. n.) to South Carolina’s dis- criminatory. 1865 statutes of limitations does not help them, The legislative ‘history of the post-bellum civil rights acfs does not siggest any Congressional apprehension that the Federal courts would apply to-those statutes discriminator¢ or otherwise inappro- priate state statutes of limitations. ; . Respondents would also note that the ‘ +—“County of Worgan, 313 Til. App: 296, 40 N. B, 2.103. (3d * \ = origim. ; ae - = Dist. 1942). The cases Cig by petitioners (at. 11,-n.) are- ry inapplicable because fhey were all suits*for breach of. fi- dueiary obligations, which actions. are pyrely of equitable a . Kor both of: these reasons; petitioners’ argument that laches sould apply as a matter of Hlinois law is without merit. c E. The Argued’.Applicability of the Federal Doctrine of _ ‘L&hes Does Not Warrant Review by This Court. ~ Petifioners argue (at 13-15) that, as a.matter of federal law, laches rather than l?mitations must be applicable be- cause ‘the complaint ‘seeks equitable relief. : Petitioners rely on. Russell v. Todd, 309 U.S. 280 (1940) and Holmberg v. Armbrecht, 327 U.S. 892 (1946). They are in error. “a ae . ar . s. . msiar -* ae : ‘Phe availability of both legal”and equitable remedies: iff civil: rights ‘actions, (28 U. S.C. $1348, 42 -U S.C. 1988) renders the eour't’s legal and equitable jurisdiction S “i a re 2 138 ‘concurrent, in which eventgtlig statute of limitations appli- cable to. the legal remedy is. applicable to entire action. Pies v. Mtnderson, 331 U.S. 461, 463-464 (1947) ; “Russell - v. Todd, supra, 309 U.S. at non This complaint prays for | punitive damages (A. 20%, andthe petition (at Sy reaffirms. the demand for this legal remedy. Moreov er, this rule is applicable to civil rights actions even w hen nee equitable relief: is sought. Swan v. Board of Higher Education, 319 F. 2d 46, 59n. (2d Cir. 1963), opinion by Mr. Justice Yar-- shall W hile on the bench of that C ourt. " Accordingly, ‘the federal doctrine’ of laches does Sat ap- ply. . This case ixc¢learly controlled by Cope vy. Anderson,. « B31 U. 8. 461 (1947). ; Petitioners also argue thal laches. should apply. here because the five-year state statute applied by the lower ‘courts is ‘*short’’. and because, unless respondents prove -actual prejudice at’ trial, the defense of limi-’ * tations would be ‘‘arbitrary’” and a ‘technicality, pure and ’ simple”? ( petition at 15,.16). Petitioners’ ~msupported characterization of the five-year Hlinois statute as ‘‘short”’ cannot withstand comparison of that period with ‘the one- year and the six-month limitations periods which Congress. , '* itself applied to the: civil rights statutes: for which it did enact limitations provisions, 42 U. S; C. $$ 1986, 3612(a). ~The other branch of petitioners’ argument fs equally untenable. The defense of limitations is not a ‘ttechni- -—eality’’, as petitioners. contend, but-‘‘a meritorious defense, | in itself serving a publi¢ interest’, Guaranty Trust Co, of N.Y. v. United States, 304 U. S. 126, 136 °(1938). Nor must respondents prove prejuc ice by passage of time. The - — — 8. Responde nts accept jetitionern’ convession (at. 15) that no actual damages. will be sought at trial except such, sums as are contingent upon and directly result from reformation if awardéd. Without that concession, the allegatfons of ‘Paragraphs’ lo(ey, (f), (az) and (h) of the complaint (A. 17-18) would constitute claims for actual damages not. contingent upon reformation. Gis 4 o a ee This Court Should Not Consider the Construction of ae _ 4° 42°U. S.C. § 1988 Urged by Petitioners. f This Court should not consider petitioner’ s ‘argument (at 10-11). that Section 3 of the Civil Rights Act of* 1866, eeene U. S. C. 3 ¥ 1988, prohibits application of state statutes . of limitations: to ¢ivil rights actions. This statute was in effect when .this’ Court decided O ‘Sullivan v. Feha, _U:S.:318 ( (1914) and whet the dozens of lower court cases oe following it (See 420 F.2d at 1193- 1194) were deéided. Thus, the’ doctrine -df. Congressional acquiescence which » this Court deycribed ‘in. Hoosier Cardinal, 383, U.S. at 704, is ckearly applicable.” g ee Teen, Wee ie ‘Nor "should this Court summarily; ‘ disregard O'Sullivan as petitioners suggest (at 15)! eyen though the effect of 42-0. 8. C. f $1988 may not have been argued. This {ourt has always been empostered: to notice plain error not raised by the parties. «See, ¢.g., Silber v. United States, 370 Us. 717 (1982) ; Rule 40 (d) (2) of this Court. If an existing federal statute. * precluded the result reached in O'Sullivan, the effect of such a statute could have been noticed to avoid plain error, Neyishian-v, Board. of, Regents, 385 a U.S. 589 (1967), upon which pefitioners rely, is inapposite be- \ = = cause it was an uppéal from a state court halle nging federal - -constitutionality of "a state statute, and considerations of federal- ~~ ory Moréover, Section 1988, by its express language,-is in- applicable to ‘limitations. “It provides only- that, in civil rights actions, existing federal law, is to Ye used to supply "hin remedies and punish, offenses, and that, where existing iederiil law is’ deficient or not suitable, the courts are to , Nei, . look to existing state law for’ the same purposes. This "| 7 statute is not concerned with the ‘time within which the cy remedies -it prov ides must be pursued. Petitioners here “ ask this Court to re ud into, $-1988 something that simply | is not; ‘there by arguing that applic: tion: ‘of the state statute ©. -— of limitations ‘will har the federak court from affording . a a reniedy to sonie of the petitioners> {petition at 12), and . they again.confuse the-totiil denial of a right with a reason- able limitation upon the time for*its enforcement. See dis- cussion of Vérginia. Coupon and Atchafalaga Land, supra, of. Part. A of this Argument, ©_ J Ay or ° F arthermore; even if- £1988. could be said z ie to choosing an appropriate’ timeliness rule, the state statuté. of limitations would still be“applicablé here. There is no f federal statute of limitatjons, and the federal-doctrine of é aches ean not apply. ‘Micrefore, eVen § $1988 would — ya nF — resort te the state timeliness requirement, | .* ‘t/ ay Nor is there any merit to petitioners’ suggestion. {at 12), ‘that, under existing feder: al law, this action may be held gubject to no. a, of timeliness, Such acoptention: oe Was re, rected long ago.” 7 ; — ff : ‘AS was ‘said by Chief Justice Marshall. ih Adams v. ' Woods, 6.U. S. 2 Cranch, 336,342: :[2 298,299], : ‘This would be utterly repugnant the genius of: our laws. In a country within erhightiot even treason - can De prosecuted after the Tapseé of three Vears, it ‘ean searctly be “supposed that an individual would remain forever liable to a peewiiary forfeiture,’ 7 ¢ ‘ampbellv. C ity of Haverhill, 155 U.S. 610, 616 (1899). :- skeha relations, do preclude this Court from considering such cons. stitutional questions which gvere not raised before the state courts. ~ No such considerations preclude this Court from. considering wn- - _- argued feder al statutes ‘when eonstruing another sia sces statute. = hie ¢ ae ‘ . re . p Sa -- . ¥ e . re rs a oe $B Fe | | a ‘ A " Pe For all of- these. reasons, review by this Court i is - not Ww wary antéd. | ogee G. ‘Petitioners Have Not: Raised Any Substantial Quiestion... et Under the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments. ©’ OF ah ae -Petitioners“argit (at 16:17) that’ they ‘could not have. | Seine a known they had a valid civil rights cause of action until this ° reverse. Cear-eut prior Jaw as petitioners’ argument: _Sug- . * gests. See 392 U.S. at: 419.4205" citing United States. v. Morris, 125 Fed. 322 (ED. “Ark: 1903).°- * | finally, “petitioners? contention. that, until this Court decided Jones v, Mayer, tliey had‘no reason to believe they might maintain this action, is shown. by this very record ‘ to be unténablé ais a matter of undisputed fact. The civil rights charges against respondents are made “in a single count (A. 16) which specifically alleges that respondents : 30, - T hese redpondents deny that the claim here ‘states a cause ph, of action-under Jones v. Mayer, but, as previously noted, the suf- ficieney of the a ee not before the Seventh Circuit. « { : ed ~~ .11. “Petitioners failfto vecoghize that the Fourteenth Amend- ment is inapplicable to action by a federal court under a federal — ostatute .(Rutes = Decision Act). See Detroit Bank v. United _ States, 317 U. 329, | (1943): “"e , eye! | he es 17 at art 4 acted ander color of ‘he aws of Hlimois and ‘of, a its municipalities, and under|color-of the custom and a ; jusage of residential racial se sregation | allege d above.” e ' They [respondents] also. made itse of the laws and Bee cystoms of the State of. Hilinois, the: County of Cook - Se and the City of Chicago, . .2’ (A. 11). are ° na aE Coe eae hile Yoapaniloute believe the factual allegations do’ not” Nea constitute state action as a er of law,. resolution of the question ‘is unnecessary *here.! -Petitioners’ own comi- plaint allegations of state action refute the argument : they now make, that they did-not file, a ‘timely Suit because they believed, until this Court decided Jones v. Mayer, that ‘ state action was required. - Therefore, this petition does. not present any y Con. stitutional, question, and. revi lew ‘by this: Court is ‘hot: war- a ty ranted. | TG ‘ yf of t é * . : 2 a s ‘ ; rae ; 2 ‘a f A 7 , . * » ‘ ‘ kd » 3 f bag ® ° ’ ie & ; + , 2 The a Court did not dee ide> whether the ‘illegatifms oe € - tien unnecessary rm decision of ’ ‘he: iasues mY nN 1 before it (A. 42. o*s “G5S76). . : es . ay Ses Raa es Po cone ae 18 Sie aR o: : —— pe: _ CONCLUSION. . This. Court does rot have jurisdiction to grant the petition. Even assuming jurisdietion,, the petition does not raise ‘any quéstion of sufficient substance* to watrant re- _ view ‘by this Court. Accordingly, the petition should be. — - denied. : ey we oa ae ' Respectfully’ submitted, a "ee eae ee : : , be i «. Of Counsel = ae ee 7 _* . ‘ - $ «* i a ? 5 a ? > - \ é - s es i a . aX >. ae ° e p .* “6 : é "© . °¢@ Sat Ee ye ry °°? é >. . e : _~ - c ~ é % 3 ; oe : F \ ozs ’ /e , ¢ : me A : a e , 7 A * ° , fi ve ; ° : --- Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/brief%3Amicro_IA40385605_0006%3A2. Public record. Not legal advice.