National Labor Relations Board v. Starbucks Corporation

Filing 19

ORDER granting #15 Motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae. Signed by District Judge Judith E. Levy. (WBar)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN
SOUTHERN DIVISION
Elizabeth Kerwin, Regional
Director of the Seventh Region of
the National Labor Relations
Board, for and on behalf of the
National Labor Relations Board,
Petitioner,
v.

Case No. 24-cv-10093
Judith E. Levy
United States District Judge
Mag. Judge David R. Grand

Starbucks Corporation,
Respondent.
________________________________/
ORDER GRANTING WORKERS UNITED’S
MOTION FOR LEAVE TO APPEAR AS AMICUS CURIAE [15]
Before the Court is a motion for leave to appear as amicus curiae
filed by Workers United. (ECF No. 15.) Workers United requests
permission to participate in oral argument, file briefs, and examine
witnesses during any hearings. Workers United indicates in its motion
that Petitioner Elizabeth Kerwin, Regional Director of the Seventh
Region of the National Labor Relations Board, “does [not] oppose [the]
request for amicus status or the requested scope of participation.” (Id.

at PageID.171.) Workers United also indicates that Respondent
Starbucks Corporation “does not oppose [Workers United’s] motion to
participate as amicus ‘with the right to participate as determined and
approved by the court.’” (Id.)
An amicus curiae is traditionally a non-party that becomes
involved in a judicial proceeding to assist a court by providing
information. United States v. State of Mich., 940 F.2d 143, 164 (6th Cir.
1991). “Its [initial] purpose was to provide impartial information on
matters of law about which there was doubt, especially in matters of
public interest.” Id. (emphasis in original) (internal citations omitted).
“Over the years, however, some courts have departed from the
orthodoxy of amicus curiae as an impartial friend of the court and have
recognized a very limited adversary support of given issues through
brief and/or oral argument.” Id. at 165 (emphasis in original) (internal
citations omitted).
“[A]micus has been consistently precluded from . . . participating
and assuming control of the controversy in a totally adversarial
fashion.” Id. (internal citations omitted). “Amicus . . . has never been
recognized, elevated to, or accorded the full litigating status of a named
2

party or a real party in interest” or of an intervening party under
Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 24. Id.; see id. at 166 (“Only a named
party or an intervening real party in interest is entitled to litigate on
the merits . . . .” (internal citations omitted)).
“[P]articipation as an amicus to brief and argue as a friend of the
court” is “a privilege within the sound discretion of the courts.” Id. at
165 (internal quotation marks and citations omitted). The decision to
allow amicus participation “depend[s] upon a finding that the proffered
information of amicus is timely, useful, or otherwise necessary to the
administration of justice.” Id. (internal citation omitted).
In its motion, Workers United states that it “can be of . . .
assistance in this case” by “call[ing] to the Court’s attention law, facts
or other circumstances that may otherwise escape consideration.” (ECF
No. 15, PageID.176.) In addition, Workers United states that its
participation as an amicus curiae “would assist in a complete and
plenary presentation of a number of complex legal issues to this court.”
(Id.)
The Court finds that the information Workers United offers to
provide would be useful to the Court in deciding Petitioner’s request for
3

a preliminary injunction under Section 10(j) of the National Labor
Relations Act, 29 U.S.C. § 160(j). (ECF No. 1.) Moreover, the Court
notes that neither party opposes Workers United’s motion. Accordingly,
the Court GRANTS Workers United leave to appear as an amicus
curiae.
As an amicus, Workers United’s involvement in this case is
subject to the restrictions on amicus participation discussed above. In
light of those restrictions, the scope of its participation as an amicus is
limited to taking part in oral argument and filing briefs. If Workers
United wishes to examine witnesses during hearings, it must seek
permission to do so from the Court on a case-by-case basis.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: February 5, 2024
Ann Arbor, Michigan

s/Judith E. Levy
JUDITH E. LEVY
United States District Judge

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
The undersigned certifies that the foregoing document was served upon
counsel of record and any unrepresented parties via the Court’s ECF System to
their respective email or first-class U.S. mail addresses disclosed on the Notice of
Electronic Filing on February 5, 2024.
s/William Barkholz
WILLIAM BARKHOLZ
Case Manager

4