Pickering et al v. AKAL Security, Inc.
Filing
16
ORDER denying 15 Motion for Leave to File. Signed by Judge Beth Bloom on 10/14/2020. See attached document for full details. (amb)
Case 1:20-cv-23151-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 1 of 2
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
Case No. 20-cv-23151-BLOOM/Louis
KAREEM PICKERING and
AARON MUHAMMED,
Plaintiffs,
v.
AKAL SECURITY, INC.,
Defendant.
___________________________/
ORDER
THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon a Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief
in Support of Plaintiffs, ECF No. [15] (“Motion”), filed on October 14, 2020. Specifically, nonparty Nevada Smith requests leave to file an amicus brief in support of Plaintiff’s to “provide this
court [sic] with accurate facts that only Nevada Smith will provide” on the corporate identity of
Defendant and of Defendant’s “Tax-Exempt Religious Cult” parent and subsidiary companies.
ECF No. [15] at 2, 5. The Court has carefully considered the Motion, the record in this case, the
applicable law, and is otherwise fully advised. As explained below, the Motion is denied.
While the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure and the Supreme Court Rules provide for
the filing of amicus curiae briefs, the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure contain no provision
regarding the involvement of amici at the trial court level. However, the district court possesses
the inherent authority to appoint amici to assist in a proceeding. Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v.
Stuart, 764 F. Supp. 1495, 1501 (S.D. Fla. 1991). “Inasmuch as an amicus is not a party and does
not represent the parties but participates only for the benefit of the court, it is solely within the
discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.”
Case 1:20-cv-23151-BB Document 16 Entered on FLSD Docket 10/14/2020 Page 2 of 2
Case No. 20-cv-23151-BLOOM/Louis
News & Sun-Sentinel Co. v. Cox, 700 F. Supp. 30, 31 (S.D. Fla. 1988) (citations and quotations
omitted). Therefore, an amicus participates only for the benefit of the court. A.R. v. Dudek, 2014
WL 12519764, at * 4 (S.D. Fla. Apr. 7, 2014). “Further, acceptance of an amicus curiae should be
allowed only sparingly, unless the amicus has a special interest or unless the Court feels that
existing counsel need assistance.” News & Sun-Sentinel Co., 700 F. Supp. at 32.
Upon review, the Court finds that the instant Motion is not well-founded. The Motion
presents no special interest that would warrant granting Nevada Smith leave to file an amicus brief.
Moreover, the Court does not find that this case presents issues that would warrant the need for
further briefing regarding Defendant’s corporate form.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the Motion, ECF No. [15], is
DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida, on October 14, 2020.
_________________________________
BETH BLOOM
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
Copies to:
Counsel of record
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?