Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 42-1 Filed 03/30/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID #: 648

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF RHODE ISLAND MARK AHLQUIST, as next friend, parent and guardian of J-A--, a minor v. CITY OF CRANSTON, by and through Robert F. Strom, in his capacity as Director of Finance, and by and through the SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CRANSTON, and SCHOOL COMMITTEE OF THE CITY OF CRANSTON, by and through Andrea Iannazzi, in her capacity as Chair of the School Committee of the City of Cranston C.A. No. 11-138-L

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF OBJECTION OF THE PLAINTIFF TO MOTION TO INTERVENE AND ACCOMPANYING MOTIONS TO STAY AND RECONSIDER On March 7, 2012, a group of individuals, consisting of a North Providence resident, a Connecticut resident, and three Cranston residents, filed a series of motions designed to participate in the above-captioned action to present arguments not presented by the parties. The motions were all filed pro se, including a superfluous motion for leave to proceed pro se (#39). The other motions are: 1. A motion to intervene, claiming a right to intervene as a matter of law (Rule 24(a),

Fed.R.Civ.P.) on the ground that defendants did not adequately represent them. Proposed intervenors described themselves as Cranston taxpayers, students of Cranston West, or prior students of Cranston West (#35) Notwithstanding the clear requirements of Rule 24(c),

Fed.R.Civ.P., the motion to intervene was not accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. Nor has this deficiency been cured at any time to date. 2. A motion for reconsideration (#37), requesting the Court to stay its decision, consider the

Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 42-1 Filed 03/30/12 Page 2 of 5 PageID #: 649

intervenors arguments and reconsider its decision. 3. A motion to stay the Decision and Order of January 11, 2012 and/or convene a three-

judge court (#36). The motions were accompanied by a 29-page supporting memorandum of law (#38). Argument The motions are completely deficient and should be summarily rejected. Plaintiff will focus on the motion to intervene, because the remaining motions are dependent upon it. The motion to intervene is not timely. The motions were filed on March 7, 2012, that is, almost two months after the Court issued the Decision and Order which proposed intervenors seek to attack and almost one month after the School Committee voted, on February 16, 2012, not to take an appeal from the Decision and Order. By the time that the proposed intervenors filed the motions, the Prayer Mural had, in fact, been permanently removed from Cranston High School West (Stipulation of 3/5/12, #34). The following day, March 8, 2012, the Court entered judgment in the form submitted by the parties (#40). Because the Judgment resolved all issues between all parties, it constituted a final judgment. Indeed, the Court docket indicates that the case is CLOSED. Moreover, the pendency of this action and the nature of the arguments taken by the parties were well-publicized and well-known. Indeed, one of the proposed intervenors, Mr. LHeureux, had appeared before the School Committee or its subcommittee on February 22, 2011 and March 7, 2011, to present his analysis of the law (see Trial Exhibits 9, at 69-70 and 12, at 7-8), none of which were argued by the Cranston defendants. The fact that the Cranston defendants had not presented or argued the positions articulated by Mr. LHeureux both in the public hearings and in the memorandum submitted in support of intervention (#38) was well

Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 42-1 Filed 03/30/12 Page 3 of 5 PageID #: 650

known and readily apparent. Proposed intervenors were content to stand by until long after the case was decided to present a last-minute effort to meddle with the outcome. Assuming

arguendo that proposed intervenors would have standing to be heard,1 their motion is not timely. The critical words of Rule 24, whether intervention is sought as of right or permissive, are [o]n timely motion. The motion is not timely and should be rejected outright. The motion is further deficient in that it is not accompanied by a pleading that sets out the claim or defense for which intervention is sought. We are left to guess as to the proposed intervenors basis for an assertion of standing, the facts relative to claimed harm, whether they seek to intervene as plaintiffs or defendants, and the legal claims they seek to assert. The purpose for which intervention is soughtto stay the order requiring the permanent removal of the Prayer Muralcannot be accomplished. The Mural has been removed. All rights have been adjudicated as between the parties. Denial of intervention will not, as a practical matter, impact any rights or interests of the proposed intervenors. Wherefore, plaintiff respectfully prays that the motions to intervene, stay, and reconsider be in all respects denied.

Any party, whether original or intervening, that seeks relief from a federal court must have standing to pursue its claims. Dillard v. Chilton County Comm'n, 495 F.3d 1324, 1330 (11th Cir. 2007), cert. denied, Green v. Chilton County Comm'n, 554 U.S. 918 (2008) (revisiting a consent decree challenged by the intervenor). An [i]ntervenor must show independent standing to continue a suit if the original parties on whose behalf intervention was sought settle or otherwise do not remain adverse parties in the litigation. Id. See also City of Chicago v. FEMA, 660 F.3d 980, 984 (7th Cir. Ill. 2011)(Article III standing, though required, is not sufficient by itself to confer Rule 24(a) standing).

Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 42-1 Filed 03/30/12 Page 4 of 5 PageID #: 651

Plaintiff, By plaintiffs attorneys, /s/ Lynette Labinger Lynette Labinger #1645 Roney & Labinger Cooperating Counsel, Rhode Island Affiliate, American Civil Liberties Union 344 Wickenden Street Providence, RI 02903 labinger@roney-labinger.com (401) 421-9794 (401) 421-0132 (fax)

Case 1:11-cv-00138-L-DLM Document 42-1 Filed 03/30/12 Page 5 of 5 PageID #: 652

Certificate of Service I hereby certify that on March 30, 2012, I electronically filed the foregoing document with the Clerk of the Court for the District of Rhode Island using the CM/ECF system which will send notification of such filing to the following: Joseph V. Cavanagh, Jr. Blish & Cavanagh LLP 30 Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903-1765 jvc@blishcavlaw.com Joseph V. Cavanagh, III Blish & Cavanagh LLP 30 Exchange Terrace Providence, RI 02903-1765 jvc3@blishcavlaw.com Carolyn Mesagno 2330 Cranston Street Cranston, RI 02920 Jared McMullen 35 Kimberry Lane North Cranston, RI Lori McClain 23 Nicholas Avenue Groton, CT 06340 Michael Motaranni Cranston, RI Ronald L'Heureux 213 Waterman Avenue North Providence, RI 02911 Lori H. Windham The Becket Fund for Religious Liberty 3000 K St. NW, Suite 220 Washington, DC 20007 lwindham@becketfund.org Christopher M. Rawson 869 Park Avenue Cranston, RI 02910 crawson@lovettlaw.com #5191

/s/ Lynette Labinger