Wells Fargo Bank, National Association et al v. City of Richmond, California et al

Filing 52

RESPONSE (re 50 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Law as Amici Curiae, 44 MOTION for Leave to File Memorandum of Amicus Curiae in Support of Plaintiffs' Motion for Preliminary Injunction ) filed byCity of Richmond, California, Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Kronland, Scott) (Filed on 8/30/2013)

1 STEPHEN P. BERZON (SBN 46540)
SCOTT A. KRONLAND (SBN 171693)
2 JONATHAN WEISSGLASS (SBN 185008)
3 ERIC P. BROWN (SBN 284245)
Altshuler Berzon LLP
4 177 Post Street, Suite 300
San Francisco, CA 94108
5 Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
6 E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
7
[e-mail]
[e-mail]
8
9 Attorneys for Defendants City of Richmond and
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC
10
11 BRUCE REED GOODMILLER (SBN 121491)
City Attorney
12 CARLOS A. PRIVAT (SBN 197534)
Assistant City Attorney
13 CITY OF RICHMOND
450 Civic Center Plaza
14
Richmond, CA 94804
15 Telephone: [phone]
Facsimile: [phone]
16 E-mail: [e-mail]
[e-mail]
17
Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond
18

Attorney for Defendant
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

19
20

21 WELLS FARGO BANK, NATIONAL
ASSOCIATION, as Trustee, et al.,
22
Plaintiffs,

23
24

WILLIAM A. FALIK (SBN 53499)
100 Tunnel Rd
Berkeley, CA 94705
Tel: [phone]
Fax: [phone]
E-mail: [e-mail]

v.

25 CITY OF RICHMOND, CALIFORNIA, a
26 municipality, and MORTGAGE
RESOLUTION PARTNERS LLC,
27
Defendants.
28

Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO
MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO PARTICIATE
AS AMICI CURIAE IN SUPPORT OF
PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION
Date:
Time:
Judge:

September 13, 2013
10:00 a.m.
Honorable Charles R. Breyer
Courtroom 6, 17th Floor

Defendants’ Opposition to Motions for Leave to Participate as Amici Curiae, Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB

1

Defendants oppose the belated requests by multiple groups of financial industry

2 organizations in which Plaintiffs are members to file briefs amici curiae in support of the
3 preliminary injunction motion. The general practice of undersigned counsel is not to object to such
4 requests, but the situation here is different because (1) briefing on the preliminary injunction
5 motion has concluded and it would be prejudicial for Defendants to have to respond to three late
6 briefs in a short time, and (2) there is no need for more briefs representing Plaintiffs’ perspective.
7

First, briefing on Plaintiffs’ preliminary injunction was completed with the filing of

8 Plaintiffs’ Reply on August 29, 2013. Doc. 45. It does not make sense to start a new round of
9 briefing at this point. Had amici made their request in a timely manner, the issue would be very
10 different. Plaintiffs filed their motion for a preliminary injunction three weeks before the proposed
11 amici sought leave to participate. There is no explanation for the delay. This is not a case like
12 Perry v. Schwarzenegger, on which the proposed amici rely, where, at the time the Court granted
13 the filing of amicus briefs, the parties had already had time to respond to them and did not object to
14 their filing. Case No. 09-cv-2292 (N.D. Cal.), Doc. 630. Here, the parties are on a tight
15 preliminary injunction timetable and having to respond to three amicus briefs in very little time
16 would be burdensome and unfair. Defendants already have a reply memorandum due on their
17 motion to dismiss the entire case for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, which presents the
18 threshold issue before the Court.
19

Second, two separate requests to file amicus briefs are already before the Court and a third

20 is on its way. Doc. 44 at 1; Doc. 50 at 2. The various groups all represent the financial industry,
21 but nevertheless seek to file three separate amicus briefs on top of the over-long opening and reply
22 briefs filed by Plaintiffs, who are also part of the financial industry. There is no need for
23 duplicative briefing that represents the same hysterical perspective of the financial industry – that
24 the City of Richmond’s attempt to solve the devastation wrought by the housing crisis (and
25 exacerbated by some in the financial industry) would end the world as we know it. Plaintiffs have
26 already presented this view, which is incorrect, and there is no need for further explication.
27

Accordingly, the Court should deny the motions for leave to participate as amici curiae.

28
1
Defendants’ Opposition to Motions for Leave to Participate as Amici Curiae, Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB

1 Dated: August 30, 2013

Respectfully submitted,

2

/s/ Scott A. Kronland
Scott A. Kronland

3
4
5
6
7
8

Stephen P. Berzon
Scott A. Kronland
Jonathan Weissglass
Eric P. Brown
Altshuler Berzon LLP
Attorneys for Defendants
City of Richmond and
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

9

11

Bruce Reed Goodmiller
Carlos A. Privat
City of Richmond

12

Attorneys for Defendant City of Richmond

13

William A. Falik

14

Attorney for Defendant
Mortgage Resolution Partners LLC

10

15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

2
Defendants’ Opposition to Motions for Leave to Participate as Amici Curiae, Case No. CV-13-3663-CRB