NORTH CAROLINA: IN THE GENERAL COURT OF JUSTICE
SUPERIOR COURT DIVISION
WAKE COUNTY: 11 Cvs 001559
RODNEY-DALE CLASS
Private Attorney General,
Petitioner,
vs
NORTH CAROLINA DEPARTMENT
OF TRANSPORTATION, ZT AL.,
Respondents.
ORDER RE: RECUSAL AND RESCHEDULING OF HEARING ON
RESPONDENTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS PETITIONER’S JUDICIAL REVIEW
BEFORE ANOTHER SUPERIOR COURT JUDGE
THIS MATTER was set before the undersigned Superior Court
Judge on April 21, 2011, at the regularly schedule non-jury
motion calendar in Wake Superior Court for a scheduled 15
minute motion brought by the Respondents to dismiss
Petitioner's Petition for Judicial Review. The Court file
contained several filings by Mr. Class consisting of more
than 35 pages of legal arguments relating to Mr. Class’s
claims against Respondents.
‘The Court heard arguments but there was simply no way given
the limited time for the hearing and the fact that this was
one motion out of more than 30 motions on the calendar for
that week, that the Court could absorb the materials
submitted. The Court took the matter under advisement.
At the close of the week, the Court had to concern itself
with the regular business of the Court and due to the press
of.work, the Court put this file in line with other matters
that were under advisement. Thereafter, on May 5, 2011, the
Court received a mailing from Mr. Class with a proposed
Declaratory Judgment as Mr. Class’s pleadings contained in
the Court file asked for a Declaratory Judgment.
Thereafter, Mr. Class submitted a document referencing May
9, 2011 and containing information relating to title
certificates and information relating to Mr. Class’ case.These were placed with the file pending the Court having an
opportunity to sit down and review the complete file.
During the month of May, the Court had to preside in Court
in other matters and take an administrative week to work on
the Leandro school case.
On dune 5, 2011, the Court suffered an injury to its hip
area and had to receive physical therapy and remain at home
for a week. Thereafter, the Court returned to work and to
conduct its regularly assigned duties. On June 16, 2011,
the Court received correspondence from Mr. Class about the
case.
During the ‘week of June 20, 2011, the Court prepared for ~-
and conducted two days of hearings in the Leandro school
case on June 22 and 23, wherein the plaintiff school
districts requested the Court to grant injunctive relief
relating to the budget adopted by the General Assembly and
a ruling on the validity of moving the More at Four Pre-
Kindergarten program from the Department of Public
Instruction to the Department of Health and Human Services.
This matter took up a considerable amount of the Court’s
time and attention following the hearing. On the week of
duly 4, 2011, the Court had a criminal trial and continued
to work on the Leandro school matters. The Court was given
two weeks of administrative time in which to work on the
Leandro school matters and on July 18, 2011, the Court
entered an Order relating to the pre-kindergarten issue.
Upon the Court's return on July 25, 2011 for a week of
criminal court, the Court wrote to Mr. Class and advised
‘that it had reviewed the matters and proposed decision but_
had not been able to come to a final decision due to the
press of other matters. The Court requested that Mr. Class
send an affidavit setting out the facts about what actually
had happened to him to generate the controversy so the
Court could better understand his arguments. The Court
advised Mr. Class that it was sorry that it had taken so
long to get to the matter. The Court’s letter was written
on July 25, 2011.
on July 28, 2011, the Court received in the mail, a
Petition for Execution on Judgment of some 5 pages which
had been signed by Mr. Class on July 22, 2011 and
thereafter mailed to the Court. The Court put this filingin the file to await Mr. Class’ affidavit regarding the
facts and circumstances surrounding his complaints.
Obviously, this document was signed and written before
Mr.Class received the Court’s letter of July 25, 2011.
On August 5, 2011, the afternoon mail brought in Mr.
Class’s affidavit as requested by the Court and it was
reviewed by the Court on Monday morning August 8, 2011.
During the week of August 8, 2011, the Court presided over
a five day medical malpractice case which ended at 5:20
p.m. on Friday, August 12, 2011.
The Court has now had'the opportunity to review Mr. Class’s
prior Petition for Execution on Judgment which was received
by mail on July 28, 2011. First of all, there is no 90 day
time limit on this Court or any Superior Court Judge's
review of this matter or any other Petition for Judicial
Review. In reviewing Mr. Class’ Petition for Execution on
Judgment the Court read several derogatory and incorrect
allegations about the Court. The Court will set out
paragraphs 6 and 7 of said Petition in their entirety:
6. It appears that after 90 days Judge Manning is not
willing to place such a judgment against the
Defendants before the court as it (the court) may have
a conflict of interest.
7. Petitioner now demands a trial by jury to resolve
this issue and take the decision making out of Judge
Manning’s hands. The Petitioner was allowed to believe
that Judge Manning would be fair and unbiased (as his
job description requires), but it now appears that
Judge Manning may have either been threatened by the
Defendants for doing his duty (job) under Judicial
Review of Administrative Misconduct of a public
office/officer or has decided to violate his duty
(job) as a judge to help cover up for Defendants
unlawful acts, and abuse of the FEDERAL HIGHWAY SAFETY
acT.
None of the foregoing disparaging comments about this Court
are true. However, the Court is not going to do anything
further in this case because of these allegations by Mr.
Class.
It is unfortunate that the Court’s July 25, 2011, letter to
Mr. Class arrived after Mr. Class’s Petition was written