Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-37/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MARGIE CHERRY and ESTORIA CHERRY,

on behalf of themselves and all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

 v.

THE CITY COLLEGE OF SAN FRANCISCO

(“City College”) LAWRENCE WONG, in his

official capacity as President of the Board of

Trustees, MILTON MARKS, III, in his official

capacity as Vice-President of the Board of

Trustees, DR. NATALIE BERG, JOHNNIE

CARTER, JR., DR. ANITA GRIER, JULIO J.

RAMOS, RODEL E. RODIS, in their official

capacities as members of the Board of

Trustees, and DR. PHILIP R. RAY, JR., in his

official capacity as Chancellor,

Defendants. /

No. C 04-04981 WHA

ORDER DENYING MOTION TO

CONTINUE TRIAL DATE

By a case management order dated February 28, 2005, a jury trial of this class action

was set for January 9, 2006. On July 22, 2005, plaintiffs counsel requested an eleven-week

extension of the discovery cutoff to take more discovery. This submission included a letter

from defense counsel (dated July 19, 2005) stating that while defendants would not stipulate to

extend the trial date, the defense “will abide by whatever the court orders.” At no time during

the pendency of the motion did defense counsel object to the continuance or bring to the Court’s

attention any potential conflict in trial dates that might arise were a continuance granted.

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 486 Filed 01/03/06 Page 1 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

On August 5, 2005, a telephone hearing was held on the motion. In the telephone

hearing, the Court continued the trial date to February 14, 2005. No alleged conflict was raised

at that time. A formal order captured the new schedule on the same day as the conference.

Weeks then passed. On September 15, 2005, Mr. Louis A. Leone, part of the defense

team, sent a letter stating that he would be in another trial starting February 6 for three months. 

On the next day, the Court issued an order stating that the trial would proceed on schedule and

would be continued only for good cause or on a proper motion, a letter not being a proper way

to communicate with the Court (except for discovery disputes). The order noted that the letter

by itself did not establish good cause. That was on September 16.

Months then passed. No motion was filed. On November 16, 2005, in an order relating

to the pretrial conference and related matters, the Court reminded all counsel that the trial would

commence February 14, 2006. More weeks then passed. 

On December 30, 2005, defense counsel filed a motion to continue the trial date. 

Defense counsel set the motion for hearing only ten days before the trial date. The asserted

ground was that Mr. Leone would be the lead trial counsel and that he had a previously set trial

for February 6 where he is to be “co-lead” trial counsel. Given all counsel’s need to know the

schedule and to prepare accordingly, we cannot wait until ten days before trial to rule on the

motion. Having read it in full, the Court will consider it now, applying the standard set forth in

Johnson v. Mammoth Recreations, Inc., 975 F.2d 604, 609 (9th Cir. 1992). The defense motion

to continue is denied for the following reasons:

First, counsel’s statement that the defense was not consulted as to the new date is

inaccurate. Before or during the September hearing, the defense had a fair opportunity to

propose new dates or raise potential conflicts and said only that the defense would “abide by

whatever the court orders.” The Court is disappointed that counsel would claim it had been

denied a hearing on the matter.

Second, the Court gave Mr. Leone an express invitation to file a timely and proper

motion. That was on September 16. Instead, Mr. Leone dropped the issue until the last

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 486 Filed 01/03/06 Page 2 of 3
United States District Court

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

business day of the year. Meanwhile the Court’s calendar (and presumably the remaining

parties’ calendar) were filled out in reliance on the February 14 date.

Third, while Mr. Leone claims to be lead trial counsel herein, the fact is that he has

made precious few appearances in the action. At least three other counsel, including Ms.

Kathleen Darmagnac, have regularly appeared in the numerous hearings in this action and

conducted the discovery herein. In the Court’s judgment, they are qualified to present the

defense at trial.

It may be that “defendants will not authorize anyone other than Louis A. Leone to be the

lead trial counsel in this matter,” as now alleged. That is not dispositive. While

accommodating a party’s choice of lead trial counsel is important, it is equally important to

maintain an orderly calendar and to set dates that can be relied upon for purposes of the rest of

the Court’s voluminous caseload. No party has the right to engage in the pattern of dilatory

conduct set forth above. If the defendants had felt so keenly about their choice of lead trial

counsel, then they should have been more diligent in moving for a continuance or, better still,

raising the problem during or before the September telephone conference instead of advising

that defendants “will abide by whatever the court orders.”

The motion to continue the trial date is DENIED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 3, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 486 Filed 01/03/06 Page 3 of 3