mechanisms of the Remedy Order. B. Scope The parties seek to have their Stipulation and Proposed Order “govern and control all further action and progress” and render “[a]U prior rulings and orders ... rescinded, repealed or modified as needed to be in compliance with this Order.” (Stip. [Doc. # 153] at 2 ¶1.) Having supervised this case for ten years, the Court is well aware that many circumstances have changed since the Remedy Order was issued in 1983, due at times to the ameliorative compromises and negotiations among the parties. However, the Court also recognizes its responsibility to “provide an orderly means for withdrawing control” that will ensure continuation of the progress already made. See Freeman v. Pitts, 503 U.S. 467, 489-90, 112 S.Ct. 1430, 118 L.Ed.2d 108 (1992) (<HOLDING>). To this end, the Court recently issued its
holding that professionals who advised the plan were not fiduciaries because they had no decision making authority over the plan or plan assets also noting that the power to act for the plan is essential to status as a fiduciary holding that the district court had authority to gradually relinquish supervision over a school district that had attained requisite compliance with a desegregation plan holding district court lacked authority to order placement at a school not approved by the state holding that the district court had discretion to order an incremental or partial withdrawal of its supervision and control holding that the superior court had no jurisdiction over the division of marital property when the district court had properly invoked jurisdiction over the property