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

SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS

To compensate for the excessive and unauthorized pages used by plaintiffs in their

recent supplemental brief, defendants may file a reply, not to exceed fifteen pages, by 10 A.M.

ON WEDNESDAY, JUNE 15, 2005, responding to plaintiffs’ supplemental brief. In doing so,

defendants shall please address the issues plaintiffs raised concerning the Armstrong case and

the alleged inadequacy of defendants’ transition plan as a basis for class certification as well as

whether there is a private right of action to enforce ADA transition plans under the relevant

statues. In addition, defendants should address whether such private right of action extends to

both new and old construction. Defendants should also address the Putnam decision, the

Siddiqi decision, the Guckenberger decision and plaintiffs’ assertions at pages 30:26–31:8.

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 225 Filed 06/12/05 Page 1 of 2
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

Also by WEDNESDAY AT 10 A.M., plaintiffs shall file a two-page memorandum on the

following. It is the Court’s understanding that Lopez did not certify any damages issues for

class treatment, contrary to the statements in plaintiffs’ supplemental brief at page 37. 

Specifically, in Lopez, the parties stipulated to class certification “solely for injunctive and

declaratory relief.” In any event, Judge Illston’s Order Denying Defendants’ Motion to

Decertify the Class noted that plaintiffs were “no longer seek[ing] damages” (Order at 8). 

Please clarify. Otherwise, plaintiffs shall file no more briefs (or letters) unless invited by the

Court to do so.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 12, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 225 Filed 06/12/05 Page 2 of 2