Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-46/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

PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION TO

AMEND AND PLACING CASE ON

BENCH TRIAL CALENDAR

In this action brought under the Americans with Disabilities Act to improve access to

the City College of San Francisco’s programs and services, the immediate issue is whether

plaintiffs’ waiver of damages dispenses with the need for a jury trial notwithstanding the

objections of the defendant.

STATEMENT

On November 23, 2004, plaintiffs commenced this action against City College of San 

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 594 Filed 01/31/06 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

Francisco seeking declaratory and injunctive relief, in addition to compensatory damages. In

their answer defendants requested a trial by jury. A jury trial is scheduled for February 13,

2006. On January 10, 2006, however, plaintiffs filed a “notice” stating that plaintiffs waived

their damage claims. Defendants responded with a motion to strike the notice and to maintain

the action on the jury calendar.

ANALYSIS

As a preliminary matter, the notice by plaintiffs will be treated as a motion to amend the

complaint to delete the damage request. This will place the matter in the proper procedural

context. The scheduling order provided that any motion to amend must have been brought by

March 4, 2005. Plaintiffs’ motion is well after that deadline. As such plaintiffs must show

good cause under Rule 16(b).

This order finds that good cause to amend exists. The trial of this case will prove to be a

protracted and bone-crushing exercise. This is because there are 4,180 ADA and Section 504

alleged violations. In most cases the issue will turn on whether or not the measurements exceed

the specified ADA Accessibility Guidelines for Buildings and Facilities measurements, taking

into account tolerances. This will be an extremely difficult case for a jury to track evidence in

even taking into account innovative methods the Court plans to use. Subjecting a jury to this

prolix and excessively tedious exercise will be unnecessary if the claim for damages is deleted.

On the other hand, this Court recognizes prejudice to defendants. Defendants have been

preparing as if this case were going to be tried by a jury. This prejudice can be remedied,

however, by conditioning the amendment on having plaintiffs and/or plaintiffs’ counsel pay all

reasonably related attorney’s fees related to these issues. For example, if defense counsel have

presented the case to a mock jury, then the expenses so associated would be recoverable. An

accompanying order will set a procedure to determine the amount of fees and expenses.

The amendment now having been permitted, Rule 39(a)(2) allows “the court upon

motion or of its own initiative” to determine whether or not a right to a trial by jury exists

“under the Constitution or statutes of the United States.” This order now finds that there is no

right to a jury trial, because only declaratory relief, injunctive relief, and attorney’s fees remain,

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 594 Filed 01/31/06 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

3

all equitable issues. Therefore, this action should be tried to the Court.

***

This order recognizes contrary authority as well as consistent authority with the above

reasoning. The Ninth Circuit has not yet ruled on the proper mode of analysis for the foregoing

problem. This order finds persuasive and has therefore followed the Fourth Circuit’s approach

in Francis v. Dietrick, 682 F.2d 485 (4th Cir. 1982). On appeal from the district court, the

defendant in Francis alleged that the district court had failed to consider Rule 39(a) in granting

the plaintiff leave to amend and subsequently converting the trial from a jury to a bench trial. 

In affirming, the Fourth Circuit stated that the plaintiff’s “amended complaint brought the

action within the purview of [R]ule 39(a)(2), which . . . authorizes the court to proceed without

a jury when it finds that the right to a trial by jury does not exist for the issues presented by the

pleadings.” Id. at 487. This is the approach followed by this order.

On the other hand, a different approach was taken in Abbott v. Bragdon, D.M.D., 893 F.

Supp. 99 (D. Me. 1995). In Abbott, the plaintiff’s original complaint included a request for

damages. After the defendant requested a jury trial, the plaintiff sought leave to amend to

delete the damage claim. In citing a series of admiralty cases, the court reasoned that Rule 39

must come before the Rule 16(b) or 15(a) analysis and “pursuant to [Rule] 39(a), Defendant's

refusal to consent to such an amendment bars Plaintiff’s request.” Id. at 101–02. This order

disagrees with the approach taken in Abbott. The threshold issue should be whether to allow

leave to amend. If leave to amend is granted, and the issues for which the right to a jury trial

existed are eliminated, Rule 39(a) then allows the case to be tried as a bench trial without a jury.

As indicated, a similar issue has arisen in admiralty-related actions. Illustrative is

Diotima Shipping Corp. v. Chase, Leavitt & Co., 102 F.R.D. 532 (D. Me. 1984). In Diotima the

plaintiff alleged diversity jurisdiction and sought damages. The defendant properly demanded a

jury trial. After pretrial conference the plaintiff sought leave to amend its complaint to change

the basis of jurisdiction to admiralty. The plaintiff did not seek to change the nature of the

remedy sought. The court declined to allow the plaintiff leave to amend the basis for

jurisdiction. Id. at 535. Here, unlike in the admiralty cases, plaintiffs’ amendment alters only

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 594 Filed 01/31/06 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

4

the nature of the remedy sought. Withdrawal of the claim for damages leaves only equitable

issues. Jurisdiction is not affected.

CONCLUSION

For these reasons, this motion is GRANTED. The case will proceed as a bench trial. 

Plaintiffs and plaintiffs’ counsel are jointly and severally liable for any reasonable fees and

expenses incurred by defendants in reliance on the preparation for a jury trial.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 31, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 594 Filed 01/31/06 Page 4 of 4