Pena et al v. Cid

Filing 71

ORDER signed by Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 11/13/2013 ORDERING 56 Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief is GRANTED. (Waggoner, D)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

IVAN PENA, et al.,

12

No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM-CKD

Plaintiffs,

13
v.

ORDER

14
15

STEPHEN LINDLEY,
Defendant.

16
17

Glock, Inc. moves for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, EFF No. 56, in

18
19

support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 61, in the above-captioned

20

matter. The court decided the matter without argument and, for the reasons below, GRANTS

21

the motion.

22

Although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 outlines the manner and

23

circumstances in which an amicus brief may be filed in appellate court, the Federal Rules of

24

Civil Procedure lack a trial-court counterpart. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has held that “the

25

district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae,” such that the appellate court will not

26

reverse absent abuse of discretion. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982),

27

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995). Amicus briefs are

28

“frequently welcome . . . concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the
1

1

parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help

2

the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” N.G.V. Gaming,

3

Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, L.L.C., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citations

4

and internal quotation marks omitted).

5

The touchstone is whether the amicus is “helpful,” and there is no requirement

6

“that amici must be totally disinterested.” Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260. However, “in the

7

absence of exceptional circumstances, . . . [the court does] not address issues raised only in an

8

amicus brief.” Artichoke Joe’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 719 n.10 (9th Cir.

9

2003) (citing Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1383 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Santiago v.

10

Rumsfeld, 425 F.3d 549, 552 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We follow our general rule in declining to

11

address . . . arguments not raised by the parties.”).

12

Given the Second Amendment issues in the instant case, the case has “potential

13

ramifications beyond the parties directly involved.” N.G.V. Gaming, Ltd., 355 F. Supp. 2d at

14

1067. Glock, Inc. correctly cites several district courts that have permitted amici in Second

15

Amendment cases, even when opposed. Mot. for Leave to File Br. of Amicus Curiae 2–3.

16

Further, although interested in the outcome, Glock, Inc., a large firearms manufacturer, is likely

17

to lend a unique perspective on the Second Amendment. The court concludes Glock, Inc.’s

18

supplemental briefing will be helpful in adjudicating plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary

19

judgment.

20

Glock, Inc.’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED.

21

IT IS SO ORDERED.

22

Dated: November 13, 2013.

23
24
25

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

26
27
28
2