Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al v. Corey, et al

Filing 186

ORDER ON AMICUS CURIAE REQUESTS signed by District Judge Lawrence J. O'Neill on March 10, 2011. (Lira, I)

Rocky Mountain Farmers Union et al v. Goldstene

Doc. 186

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Plaintiffs, 16 vs. 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Two motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief are pending before this Court. On February 28, 2011, Clean Energy Fuels, Inc. ("Clean Energy") moved to file an amicus brief. On March 1, 2011, the States of Nebraska, Kansas, Michigan, Missouri, North Dakota, and South Dakota ("States") moved to file an amicus curiae brief in the above-titled actions. This Court ordered oppositions to the motions, if any, to be filed no later than March 9, 2011. On March 8, 2011, all plaintiffs filed a statement of nonopposition to the motions. On March 9, 2011, defendants and intervenor defendants filed a statement 1 and related intervenor actions / JAMES N. GOLDSTENE, Executive Officer of the California Air Resources Board, Defendants. ROCKY MOUNTAIN FARMERS UNION, REDWOOD COUNTY MINNESOTA CORN AND SOYBEAN GROWERS, PENNY NEWMAN GRAIN, INC., GROWTH ENERGY, RENEWABLE FUELS ASSOCIATION, REX NEDEREND, FRESNO COUNTY FARM BUREAU, NISEI FARMERS LEAGUE, and CALIFORNIA DAIRY CAMPAIGN, CASE NO. CV-F-09-2234 LJO DLB consolidated with CASE NO. CV-F-10-163 LJO DLB ORDER ON AMICUS CURIAE REQUESTS (Docs. 176, 177) IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Dockets.Justia.com

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

of non-opposition. For good cause appearing, this Court GRANTS Clean Energy's and States' unopposed motions. DISCUSSION "There is no inherent right to file an amicus curiae brief with the Court." Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1178 (D. Nev. 1999). This Court retains broad discretion to either permit or reject the appearance of amicus curiae. Gerritsen v. de la Madrid Hurtado, 819 F.2d 1511, 1514 (9th Cir. 1987). "A court may grant leave to appear as an amicus if the information offered is timely and useful." Waste Management of Pennsylvania, Inc., 162 F.R.D. 34, 36 (M.D. Pa. 1995). "An amicus brief should normally be allowed when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all." Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm., 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997). "District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties...if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers from the parties are able to provide." Sonoma Falls Developers, L.L.C. v. Nev. Gold & Casinos, Inc., 272 F. Supp. 2d 919, 925 (N.D. Cal. 2003) (quotations omitted). In addition, participation of amicus curiae may be appropriate where legal issues in a case have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved. Id. Here, all parties agree that the participation of Clean Energy and the States are appropriate, and that the legal issues have potential ramifications to these proposed amici curiae. In addition, the Court notes that the proposed amicus curiae memoranda are brief and present a unique position not represented by the parties. Accordingly, good cause appears to grant the unopposed motions to file amicus curiae briefs. CONCLUSION AND ORDER For the foregoing reasons, and under the foregoing conditions, this Court GRANTS Clean Energy's and the States' amicus curie motions. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: b9ed48 March 10, 2011 /s/ Lawrence J. O'Neill UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

2