Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-27/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 RE THE 

STURDEVANT LAW FIRM

The Court notes that on October 28, 2005, class counsel unilaterally “associated”

James C. Sturdevant and Mark T. Johnson of the Sturdevant Law Firm as additional class

counsel. Designation of class counsel is the Court’s responsibility. Once designated, class

counsel cannot lateral off the case, or the trial, or any part of the case without the Court’s

permission. No such motion has been made.

The Court knows Mr. Sturdevant personally and is aware of his excellent reputation. 

The Court has not yet had the pleasure of meeting Mr. Johnson. Nonetheless, the problem is

that a new set of lawyers will add enormously to the attorney’s fees in this action. From

first-hand experience, the Court knows the inefficiencies in having multiple law firms handle a

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 437 Filed 11/29/05 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

single matter and further knows the large amount of make-up work by the new additions that

would be necessary at the eleventh hour.

Class counsel (meaning Mr. Wallace), must file under seal for the Court’s in camera

review why his own firm is unable to carry out the full responsibilities of class counsel and why

he desires to bring Mr. Sturdevant in at this time. The Court appointed Mr. Wallace and his

firm as class counsel on the representation that his firm could handle this case. Also,

Mr. Sturdevant should state without equivocation whether he will be ready on the dates

currently scheduled for the final pretrial conference (on January 30, 2006) and trial (on

February 14, 2006). Also, who will be lead trial counsel? In addition, Mr. Wallace and

Mr. Sturdevant should explain how they would propose to eliminate or reduce the inefficiencies

described above and how they would recommend those inefficiencies be taken into account

with respect to any future attorney’s fees petition. All of this should be filed by DECEMBER 8,

2005 AT NOON. Do not serve defendants.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: November 29, 2005 

WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 437 Filed 11/29/05 Page 2 of 2