Prior to the filing of this petition, the Caldwell plaintiffs made no application for attorneys' fees. Louis County and the school district of the City of St. While the question is not free from doubt, we are satisfied that we have jurisdiction to hear an appeal from a remedial order that, on its face, arguably involves potential parties who have not yet had their day in court 6 We note that the district court has found it necessary to extend the deadlines for filing the proposed plans under paragraph 12(a)-(c) and that it is apparently having some difficulty in getting complete and adequate proposals from the parties.
We are satisfied that the district court had discretion to order the transfer of funds already collected and held by the Board. We are convinced, however, that these amendments do not alter the substance of original paragraph 12.
There is nothing inconsistent about paragraphs 12(a) and 12(c), and both are valid parts of the district court's order. A joint report on the status and results including the availability of technical assistance and funding of this effort should be given to the Court by the United States, the State defendants, and the St. Pursuant to (this) paragraph * * *, the State of Missouri and particularly the State Board of Education and the Commissioner of Education of the State of Missouri shall submit a new Plan of voluntary and cooperative desegregation on or before February 2, 1981. Louis, including the race and grade of those students. The State of Missouri distinguishes the cases cited by the appellees by noting that the school board in each of those cases was ordered to prepare a remedy consistent with its judicially determined constitutional liability.
In that subdivision, we acknowledge the amendments made by the district court; we see no need to further modify our opinion of February 13, 1981. We deny the motion to stay our mandate or to stay enforcement of the district court's orders and adhere to our most recent pronouncement concerning the State's legal responsibilities for the prompt desegregation of the St. Louis Board of Education and the suburban school districts involved. Louis Board of Education will investigate the availability of funding for this program. The report of March 2, 1981 shall include the number of students that each district is willing to receive and those that they desire to send outside of their district, either to magnet schools in the County or in the City of St.
Louis under the Emergency School Aid Act (ESAA), 20 U. Moreover, the evidence in the record gives us no reason to believe that similar funding will not be available to continue implementation of the plan for the foreseeable future.
The court directed the United States Department of Education to expedite the processing of funding applications for St. Louis school system received over million in ESAA funds-nearly one-third of the desegregation budget-to cover the costs of implementing the plan during the 1980-1981 school year.