Pacific Bell Telephone Company d/b/a AT&T California v. John Reynolds, in his official capacity as President of the California Public Utilities Commission; Darcie L. Houk, Karen Douglas, Matthew Baker, and Christine
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Linda Lopez (author)
Analysis
The court considered two motions for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae in a dispute over California's carrier of last resort rules. The court granted both motions, deeming the proposed amicus briefs filed.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Grant USTelecom's motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS USTelecom’s Motion.” | agree with court The court applied the standard that amicus participation is useful or desirable and that the issues have ramifications beyond the parties. USTelecom's motion was unopposed, and the court found the amicus shared the plaintiff's interest in grandfathering legacy telephone service. This follows standard district court practice for unopposed amicus motions where the brief is relevant. |
Grant County Group's motion for leave to file brief as amicus curiae“Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the County Group’s Motion, and the proposed amicus brief filed simultaneously with its Motion [ECF No. 33 at 5-34] shall be deemed filed.” | agree with court The court addressed the timeliness concern (filed after the reply brief) by noting that the plaintiff had the opportunity to oppose the motion and the merits of the brief. The court cited a recent N.D. Cal. case supporting the grant of leave in similar circumstances. The court found the issues had potential ramifications beyond the parties. This is a defensible exercise of discretion. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard for amicus participation (broad discretion, useful/desirable participation, ramifications beyond parties). It addresses the specific procedural issue of the late-filed amicus motion by citing a recent, analogous district court decision and noting that the opposing party had the opportunity to respond. The reasoning is concise but sufficient for a procedural order granting leave to file amicus briefs.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 PACIFIC BELL TELEPHONE Case No.: 26cv3148-LL-JAC COMPANY d/b/a AT&T CALIFORNIA, 12 Plaintiff, 13 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS v. FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEFS AS 14 AMICUS CURIAE JOHN REYNOLDS, in his official 15 capacity as President of the California 16 Public Utilities Commission; DARCIE L. [ECF Nos. 17, 33] HOUK, KAREN DOUGLAS, 17 MATTHEW BAKER, and CHRISTINE 18 HARADA, in their official capacities as Commissioners of the California Public 19 Utilities Commission; ROB BONTA, in 20 his official capacity as Attorney General of the State of California, 21 Defendants. 22 23 24 Before the Court are two motions for leave to file briefs as amicus curiae filed by (1) 25 USTelecom – The Broadband Association (“USTelecom”) in support of Plaintiff’s motion 26 for preliminary injunction [ECF No. 17] and (2) Rural County Representatives of 27 California (RCRC), The Utility Reform Network (TURN), Communications Workers of 28 America (CWA), and the California State Association of Counties (CSAC) (collectively 1 “County Group”) in support of Defendants [ECF No. 33-1]. No opposition was filed to 2 USTelecom’s Motion. Defendants filed an Opposition to the County Group’s Motion [ECF 3 No. 34], and the County Group filed a Reply [ECF No. 35]. 4 The classic role of amicus curiae is to “assist[] in a case of general public interest, 5 supplement[] the efforts of counsel, and draw[] the court’s attention to law that escaped 6 consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 7 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici 8 curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds 9 by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be 10 established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an individual seeking to appear as amicus 11 must merely make a showing that his participation is useful or otherwise desirable to the 12 court.” California by & through Becerra v. United States Dep’t of the Interior, 13 381 F. Supp. 3d 1153, 1164 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (citation omitted). 14 The Court finds it appropriate to grant USTelecom’s unopposed Motion. USTelecom 15 members include communication businesses that share the same interest as Plaintiff in 16 grandfathering legacy telephone service over copper wire networks. ECF No. 17 at 2. 17 Accordingly, the Court GRANTS USTelecom’s Motion. See Nat’l Petrochemical & 18 Refiners Ass’n v. Goldstene, No. CVF10-163 LJO DLB, 2010 WL 2228471, at *1 (E.D. 19 Cal. June 3, 2010) (“[P]articipation of amicus curiae may be appropriate where legal issues 20 in a case have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved.” (citation 21 omitted)). The proposed amicus brief submitted simultaneously with USTelecom’s Motion 22 [ECF No. 17-1] shall be deemed filed. 23 Similarly, the Court also finds it appropriate to grant the County Group’s Motion 24 because the legal issues in this case “have potential ramifications beyond the parties 25 directly involved.” See id. The County Group members contend they will be harmed if 26 Plaintiff’s motion for an injunction of California’s carrier of last resort rules is granted. 27 ECF No 35 at 2. Although the County Group filed its Motion two days after Plaintiff filed 28 its reply brief on the motion for preliminary injunction, Plaintiff submitted responses to the | || proposed brief in its Opposition to the amicus Motion. See Mobley v. Workday, Inc., No. 2 23-CV-00770-RFL, 2026 WL 636719, at *1 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 6, 2026), motion to certify 3 ||appeal denied sub nom. DEREK L. MOBLEY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. WORKDAY, INC., 4 || Defendant., No. 23-CV-00770-RFL, 2026 WL 1906986 (N.D. Cal. July 2, 2026) (granting 5 || leave to file an amicus brief that was submitted after a reply when the opposing party had 6 ||the “opportunity to oppose both the motion and the merits of the amicus brief”). 7 || Accordingly, the Court GRANTS the County Group’s Motion, and the proposed amicus 8 || brief filed simultaneously with its Motion [ECF No. 33 at 5-34] shall be deemed filed. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. 10 || Dated: July 15, 2026 NO 1] QF | 12 Honorable Linda Lopez 3 United States District Judge 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28