Forge Group Power Pty Ltd.

Filing 25

ORDER by Judge Hamilton granting 19 Administrative Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief. (pjhlc1S, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 6/28/2017)

Download PDF
1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 8 Case No. 17-cv-02045-PJH 9 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 In re: FORGE GROUP POWER PTY LTD. (in liquidation) (receivers and managers appointed), Debtor in a Foreign Proceeding 13 14 ORDER GRANTING REQUEST OF AMICI CURIAE FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF APPELLANT AND REVERSAL; ORDER GRANTING APPELLEE’S REQUEST TO EXTEND TIME FOR FILING RESPONSIVE BRIEF; AND ORDER DENYING APPELLEE’S REQUEST FOR ADDITIONAL PAGES 15 16 Before the court is the request of amici curiae Professor Jay L. Westbrook, Daniel 17 M. Glosband, Ralph R. Mabey, and Leif M. Clark for leave to file an amicus brief in 18 support of appellant Martin Jones, in his capacity as Foreign Representative and 19 Liquidator of Forge Group Power Pty Ltd., and in support of reversal; and the request of 20 appellee APR Energy Holdings Ltd. for an extension of time to file the responsive brief 21 and additional pages. 22 The request for leave to file the amicus brief is GRANTED. The district court has 23 broad discretion to appoint amicus. See Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 24 1982). “The classic role of amicus curiae . . . [is to assist] in a case of general public 25 interest, supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the court's attention to law 26 that escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus., 694 F.2d 203, 27 204 (9th Cir.1982). In this case, the court exercises its discretion to allow amici to 28 participate because, while the court has not yet reviewed the voluminous record, it 1 appears that their contribution might assist the court in resolving certain complex issues 2 raised in this appeal. 3 “[T]here is no rule that amici must be totally disinterested.” Funbus Sys., Inc. v. 4 State of Calif. Pub. Utils. Comm’n, 801 F.2d 1120, 1125 (9th Cir. 1986). On the other 5 hand, an amicus curiae is merely a “friend of the court,” not a party to the action, and to 6 that end, an amicus may not assume the functions of a party, nor may it initiate, create, 7 extend, or enlarge the issues. Miller-Wohl, 694 F.2d at 204. Bearing this in mind, the 8 court notes that it will be inclined to give less consideration to any efforts by amici to 9 litigate the issues raised by the actual parties to this bankruptcy appeal. 10 United States District Court Northern District of California 11 12 With regard to the requests by appellee APR Energy Holdings, the court GRANTS the request for an extension of time to file the responsive brief to August 18, 2017. The request for additional pages is DENIED. Under Federal Rule of Bankruptcy 13 Procedure 8015(a)(7)(A), “[a] principal brief must not exceed 30 pages.” However, under 14 Federal Rule of Bankruptcy Procedure 8015(a)(7)(B)(i), “[a] principal brief is acceptable” 15 regardless of the number of pages if it “contains no more than 14,000 words” or if “uses a 16 monospaced font and contains no more than 1300 lines of text.” Appellant Martin Jones 17 has provided a “Certification of Compliance” pursuant to Rule 8015(a)(7)(C), certifying 18 that the opening brief contains 10,600 words, which is less than the 14,000 words 19 permitted by the Rule. 20 Appellees are entitled to file a brief that complies with Rule 8015(a)(7). The court 21 finds no justification for permitting additional pages or words beyond the limits set forth in 22 the Rule. 23 24 IT IS SO ORDERED. 25 Dated: June 28, 2017 26 27 __________________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 28 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?