Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-57/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 GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SUMMONS AND 

CROSS-COMPLAINT AND

VACATING HEARING

After stipulated judgment was entered on the underlying disabilities-rights action,

defendants move for leave to file a cross-complaint against certain contractors for

indemnification. Defendants’ motion is not opposed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides:

At any time after commencement of the action a defending party,

as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to

be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 677 Filed 05/15/06 Page 1 of 4
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

liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s

claim against the third-party plaintiff.

If the cross-complaint is to be filed more than ten days after an answer is filed in the case, Rule

14(a) requires leave of court. Even where the cross-complaint lacks an independent basis for

subject-matter jurisdiction, a court will be able to adjudicate the claim under its ancillary

jurisdiction. “The purpose of this rule is to promote judicial efficiency by eliminating the

necessity for the defendant to bring a separate action against a third party who may be

derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s original claim.” Kim v.

Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir. 1989).

The contractors may be derivatively liable to defendants for the costs of improvements

to the City College campuses required by the stipulated judgment. This order thus finds that

defendants are entitled to file a cross-complaint under Rule 14(a). Defendants’ motion,

therefore, is GRANTED. Defendants are instructed to file and issue summons on their crosscomplaint by no later than JUNE 1, 2006. Finding no further argument necessary, the hearing on

this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 677 Filed 05/15/06 Page 2 of 4
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 GRANTING

DEFENDANTS’ MOTION 

FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

SUMMONS AND 

CROSS-COMPLAINT AND

VACATING HEARING

After stipulated judgment was entered on the underlying disabilities-rights action,

defendants move for leave to file a cross-complaint against certain contractors for

indemnification. Defendants’ motion is not opposed.

Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 14(a) provides:

At any time after commencement of the action a defending party,

as a third-party plaintiff, may cause a summons and complaint to

be served upon a person not a party to the action who is or may be

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 677 Filed 05/15/06 Page 3 of 4
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

liable to the third-party plaintiff for all or part of the plaintiff’s

claim against the third-party plaintiff.

If the cross-complaint is to be filed more than ten days after an answer is filed in the case, Rule

14(a) requires leave of court. Even where the cross-complaint lacks an independent basis for

subject-matter jurisdiction, a court will be able to adjudicate the claim under its ancillary

jurisdiction. “The purpose of this rule is to promote judicial efficiency by eliminating the

necessity for the defendant to bring a separate action against a third party who may be

derivatively liable to the defendant for all or part of the plaintiff’s original claim.” Kim v.

Fujikawa, 871 F.2d 1427, 1434 (9th Cir. 1989).

The contractors may be derivatively liable to defendants for the costs of improvements

to the City College campuses required by the stipulated judgment. This order thus finds that

defendants are entitled to file a cross-complaint under Rule 14(a). Defendants’ motion,

therefore, is GRANTED. Defendants are instructed to file and issue summons on their crosscomplaint by no later than JUNE 1, 2006. Finding no further argument necessary, the hearing on

this motion is hereby VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 15, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 677 Filed 05/15/06 Page 4 of 4