United States of America v. State of California et al

Filing 122

MOTION for LEAVE to FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF by Annie Lai, Kathleen Kim, Emily Robinson (and associated parties). (Attachments: # 1 Appendix A - Motion for Leave, # 2 Proposed Amici Curiae Brief, # 3 Appendix A - Proposed Amici Curiae, # 4 Proposed Order)(Phillips, Bradley) Modified on 5/21/2018 (Benson, A.).

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 BRADLEY S. PHILLIPS (State Bar No. 85263) bradley.phillips@mto.com GREGORY D. PHILLIPS (State Bar No. 118151) gregory.phillips@mto.com MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 T: (213) 683-9100 F: (213) 687-3702 Brad.Phillips@mto.com Counsel for Amici Curiae 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION 9 10 11 UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 Plaintiff, vs. THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA, EDMUND GERALD BROWN JR., Governor of California, in his official capacity; and XAVIER BECERRA, Attorney General of the State of California, in his official capacity, Defendants. 19 20 Case No. 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN UNOPPOSED MOTION OF IMMIGRATION, LABOR AND EMPLOYMENT LAW SCHOLARS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AN AMICI CURIAE BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION RE: AB 450; MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT THEREOF Date: None Time: None Judge: Hon. John A. Mendez 21 22 Complaint Filed: 23 March 6, 2018 24 25 26 27 28 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN UNOPPOSED MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE ISO OPP. TO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEMO P’S & A’S 38707138.2 1 TO ALL PARTIES AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT Professors Annie Lai, Kathleen Kim, Emily 2 3 Robinson and the other legal scholars listed in the attached Appendix A hereby move the 4 Court for leave to file a brief amici curiae in the above-captioned case in support of 5 defendant’s opposition to Plaintiff’s motion for a preliminary injunction. Counsel for 6 proposed amici has conferred with counsel for the parties to the case and the parties have 7 consented to the filing. This motion is therefore unopposed. A copy of the proposed brief 8 is appended as Exhibit A to this motion. 1 MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 I. STANDARD FOR MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICI CURIAE BRIEF District courts have broad discretion to permit third parties to participate in an action as amici curiae, and generally courts have “exercised great liberality” in allowing amicus briefs. Woodfin Suite Hotels, LLC v. City of Emeryville, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4467, *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2007). District courts frequently accept amicus briefs from non-parties when the legal issues in a case “have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved” or if the amici have “unique information or perspective that can help the court.” NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (internal quotation marks omitted). There are no strict prerequisites that must be established to qualify for amicus status; an applicant must merely make a showing that its “participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the court.” Infineon Techs. N. Am. Corp. v. Mosaid Techs., Inc., 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81506, at *10 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 23, 2006). This Court has specifically indicated a willingness to consider amicus briefs that meet certain requirements in this litigation. See Minute Order Regarding Amicus Briefs, ECF No. 52. 26 27 28 1 No proposed amicus is a corporation or publicly held company. Further, no party’s counsel authored the brief in whole or in part and no party or party’s counsel contributed money that was intended to fund preparation or submission of the brief. -1- 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN UNOPPOSED MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE ISO OPP. TO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEMO P’S & A’S 38707138.2 1 2 II. AMICI CURIAE’S EXPERTISE WILL ASSIST IN THE COURT’S CONSIDERATION OF THE MOTION 3 As explained in the proposed brief, the amici, all of whom are independent of the 4 parties to this action, are law professors and scholars who have a professional interest in 5 the issues presented on this case. See App. A. Amici have researched, studied, and taught 6 in the areas of immigration law, labor and/or employment law, and have specific expertise 7 in the issues of state and federal authority regulating the treatment of immigrant workers, 8 the purpose and objectives of the Immigration Reform and Control Act of 1986 and the 9 parameters of legitimate exercise of state powers addressed in the brief. 10 Amici include professors who have taught and published extensively in the area of 11 immigration law. For example, Professor Kathleen Kim is a Professor at Loyola Law 12 School, Los Angeles. She has written extensively in major law reviews on the intersection 13 of immigration and employment law, immigrant workers’ rights at both state and federal 14 levels and worker exploitation and human trafficking, including the leading case book on 15 Human Trafficking Law and Policy. She recently served as a member of the Los Angeles 16 Police Commission. Another amicius, Professor, Annie Lai, Assistant Clinical Professor 17 of Law at the University of California, Irvine, is an expert on immigration federalism 18 issues and has written extensively on these topics. 19 Amici also have expertise in labor and employment law. For example, Professor 20 Catherine Fisk is the Barbara Nachtrieb Armstrong Professor of Law at Berkley Law 21 School. She is a leading voice on unions and labor who has authored a casebook on labor 22 law in the contemporary workplace. She has collaborated with another amicusi, Professor 23 Michael Wishnie, William O. Douglas Clinical Professor of Law and Counselor to the 24 Dean at Yale Law School. He is considered a leading expert on immigration and 25 employment law with an emphasis on domestic enforcement and federalism. Amicusi 26 William B. Gould IV is Charles A. Beardsly Professor of Law at Stanford Law School. He 27 is regarded as a foremost labor law authority and served as the Chairman of the California 28 Agricultural Labor Relations Board as well as the Chairman of the National Labor -2- 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN UNOPPOSED MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE ISO OPP. TO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEMO P’S & A’S 38707138.2 1 Relations Board. He is a critically acclaimed author of ten books and over sixty law 2 review articles. 3 Further, amici Jennifer Gordon, Professor of Law at Fordham University School of 4 Law, and James Pope, Professor of Law and Sidney Reitman Scholar at Rutgers Law 5 School, are two of the most respected legal scholars on labor and/or immigration law. 6 Professor Pope’s articles about workers’ rights, constitutional law, and labor history have 7 appeared in a wide variety of publications including the Columbia Law Review, Michigan 8 Law Review, and Yale Law Journal. 9 On the basis of their expertise, scholarship, and experience in the fields of 10 immigration, labor, and employment law, amici meet the broad discretionary standard for 11 filing an amicus curiae brief. See Woodfin Suite Hotels, 2007 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 4467, at 12 *7-8. Amici have special expertise in federal preemption, constitutional law, immigration 13 law, and the intersection of immigration law and labor and employment law that will be 14 useful to the Court. See Infineon, 2006 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 81506, at *10. Moreover, the 15 potential ramifications of this case go far beyond the parties, as the outcome may 16 determine the parameters of state authority to enact regulation affecting and promoting the 17 rights of workers, not only for plaintiff, but also for many other jurisdictions around the 18 country. For the foregoing reasons, the motion for leave to file an amici curiae brief 19 should be granted. 20 21 Dated: May 18, 2018 22 MUNGER, TOLLES & OLSON LLP By: ___/s/ Bradley S. Phillips____________ 23 Bradley S. Phillips 350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor Los Angeles, CA 90071 T: (213) 683-9100 F: (213) 687-3702 Brad.Phillips@mto.com 24 25 26 27 Counsel for Amici Curiae 28 -3- 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN UNOPPOSED MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE ISO OPP. TO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEMO P’S & A’S 38707138.2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 1 2 3 I hereby certify that on the 18th day of May, 2018, I electronically transmitted the 4 foregoing document to the Clerk's Office using the CM/ECF System for filing. Notice of 5 this filing will be sent by e-mail to all parties by operation of the Court's electronic filing 6 system or by mail as indicated on the Notice of Electronic Filing. 7 8 Dated: May 18, 2018 Los Angeles, CA /s/ Bradley S. Phillips 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -4- 2:18-cv-00490-JAM-KJN UNOPPOSED MOTION OF AMICI CURIAE ISO OPP. TO MOT. FOR PRELIM. INJ.; MEMO P’S & A’S 38707138.2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?