Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04981-39/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’ REQUEST FOR

LEAVE TO EXCEED PAGE

LIMIT AND AMENDING

BRIEFING SCHEDULE AND

HEARING DATE FOR 

CROSS-MOTIONS FOR

SUMMARY JUDGMENT

1. Plaintiffs request leave to file an opposition brief to defendants’ motion for

summary judgment that exceeds the 25-page limit. The proposed brief is 47 pages, nearly

double the limit. This is beyond the pale. It is disappointing that counsel would impose this

burden as a fait accompli. With great reluctance, plaintiffs’ request is GRANTED but at the

expense of reducing plaintiffs’ reply brief to be filed next week.

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 511 Filed 01/06/06 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

2. Because of the overlapping nature of the cross-motions for summary judgment,

the Court finds that the parties have essentially already replied to each other. This order

therefore imposes the following more expedited schedule for these cross-motions.

a. The parties’ reply briefs will be due by NOON, JANUARY 10, 2006.

b. Defendants have TWELVE pages for their reply brief. The brief must be 

double-spaced, with twelve-point font and contain no footnotes. Defendants may not submit

additional declarations.

c. Plaintiffs have SIX pages for their reply brief. The brief must be 

double-spaced, with twelve-point font and contain no footnotes. Plaintiffs may not submit

additional declarations.

d. Hearing on the cross-motions is rescheduled for 1:30 P.M., JANUARY 12,

2006.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 6, 2006 WILLIAM ALSUP

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04981-WHA Document 511 Filed 01/06/06 Page 2 of 2