Upsolve, Inc. et al v. James

Filing 35

MEMORANDUM OF LAW in Support re: 34 MOTION to File Amicus Brief . . Document filed by Law Professors..(St. John, Richard)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
UPSOLVE, INC. and REV. JOHN UDOOKON,
Plaintiffs,
-v-

Case No. 1:22-cv-00627-PAC

LETITIA JAMES, in her official capacity as
Attorney General of the State of New York,
Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OF LAW IN SUPPORT OF MOTION OF LAW PROFESSORS FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BRIEF IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION FOR
PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION

On behalf of a group of law professors identified in Appendix A to the accompanying
amicus brief, the undersigned counsel hereby moves the Court for leave to file an amicus curiae
brief in the above-captioned case in support of Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.
Plaintiffs’ counsel has indicated that Plaintiffs consent to the filing of this brief, while
Defendant’s counsel has indicated that Defendant takes no position. As explained below, this
motion satisfies the relevant standard for leave to file as amici curiae.
I.

LEGAL STANDARD
“District courts have broad discretion to permit or deny the appearance of amici curiae in

a given case.” United States v. Yaroshenko, 86 F. Supp. 3d 289, 290 (S.D.N.Y. 2015) (citing
United States v. Ahmed, 788 F. Supp. 196, 198 (S.D.N.Y. 1992)). “The primary reason to allow
amicus curiae briefing is that the amicus curiae offer insights not available from the parties,
thereby aiding the Court.” Andersen v. Leavitt, No. 03-CV-6115 DRHARL, 2007 WL 2343672,
at *2 (E.D.N.Y. Aug. 13, 2007) (internal quotation omitted). Participation of amicus is especially
welcome if the case “involve[s] matters of public interest.” Id.
II.

INTEREST AND EXPERTISE OF AMICUS CURIAE
The law professors who seek to file this amicus curiae brief are a group of scholars who

research and write about access to justice and regulation of the legal profession. They have a
strong common interest in improving access to legal assistance for low- and moderate-income
people facing debt collection actions. Amici are especially interested in this case because it
presents an important question of public interest about whether the First Amendment precludes
the enforcement of laws prohibiting the “unauthorized practice of law” where enforcement
would infringe upon political expression and collective activity.
Amici believe that the arguments in the attached memorandum of law will assist the Court
in understanding how New York’s “unauthorized practice of law” rules expose nonprofits and

advocates such as Plaintiffs to criminal prosecution. In particular, amici cite scholarship
explaining how regulators and courts have endorsed vigorous enforcement of unauthorizedpractice laws, creating a chilling effect that hinders advocacy groups’ efforts to help underserved
individuals obtain meaningful access to the courts. (See Accompanying Mem. of Law at 6-8.)
Accordingly, the arguments of amici are unique and relevant to this matter because they explain
how this case presents justiciable First Amendment questions.
III.

TIMELINESS
This motion is also timely. Although the Southern District does not have rules

specifically governing the timing of amicus curiae briefs, the Court may look for guidance to the
rules of other courts. For example, the District Court for the District of Columbia requires an
amicus motion to be filed “in a timely manner such that it does not unduly delay the Court’s
ability to rule on any pending matter.” D.D.C. Local Rule 7(o)(2). This motion is timely under
that standard because briefing on Plaintiffs’ pending motion for a preliminary injunction remains
ongoing, and Plaintiffs and Defendant will have the opportunity to respond to the arguments
herein in their opposition and reply briefs. Thus, this motion will not unduly delay or hinder this
Court’s ability to consider and rule upon Plaintiffs’ pending motion.
IV.

CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the amici identified in Appendix A to the accompanying

proposed brief respectfully request that the Court grant this motion and accept for filing the
accompanying amicus curiae brief.

DATED:

March 2, 2022

Respectfully submitted,

By: /s/ Richard C. St. John
Richard C. St. John
[e-mail]
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
350 South Grand Avenue, 50th Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90071
Telephone [phone]
Fax
[phone]
David H. Fry (pro hac vice pending)
[e-mail]
Andrew T. Nguyen (pro hac vice pending)
[e-mail]
Munger, Tolles & Olson LLP
560 Mission Street, 27th Floor
San Francisco, CA 94105
Telephone [phone]
Fax
[phone]
Attorneys for Amici Curiae
Law Professors (named in Appendix A of
accompanying brief)