Al Otro Lado, Inc. v. McAleenan
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- On appeal
- Al Otro Lado v. Alejandro Mayorkas (2024-10-23) — reversed in part; Al Otro Lado v. Kristi Noem (2025-05-14) — reversed in part — the Ninth Circuit's later ruling on this docket
- Panel
- Cynthia Ann Bashant (author)
Analysis
The court considered two unopposed motions for leave to file amicus curiae briefs in connection with a pending motion for summary judgment. The court granted both motions, allowing the amici to file their briefs.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Granting the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief filed by Haitian Bridge Alliance, Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, Ira Kurzban, and Irwin Stotzky.“the Court GRANTS both motions (ECF Nos. 600, 601).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that district courts have broad discretion to appoint amici curiae. The order notes that the motion was unopposed and that the parties consented to the filing, which justifies the grant under the 'great liberality' standard cited in the order. |
Granting the motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief filed on behalf of fourteen organizations advocating for asylum seekers.“the Court GRANTS both motions (ECF Nos. 600, 601).” | agree with court The court correctly applied the standard that district courts have broad discretion to appoint amici curiae. The order notes that the motion was unopposed and that the parties consented to the filing, which justifies the grant under the 'great liberality' standard cited in the order. |
The order itself: sound — The order correctly identifies the standard of review (broad discretion) and cites appropriate authority to support the grant of the motions. It notes the parties' consent, which is a key factor in granting leave to file amicus briefs. The reasoning is sufficient for a procedural order of this nature.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 AL OTRO LADO, Inc., et al., Case No. 17-cv-02366-BAS-KSC 12 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEFS 13 v. AMICI CURIAE 14 CHAD F. WOLF, et. al., (ECF Nos. 600, 601) 15 Defendants. 16 17 Before the Court are two motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs in connection 18 with Plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary judgment. (ECF Nos. 600, 601.) The first 19 is filed by Haitian Bridge Alliance, Institute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti, Ira 20 Kurzban, and Irwin Stotzky. These amici indicate that both parties’ counsel have 21 consented to its filing and that Defendants consented to the filing of a brief not exceeding 22 20 pages no later than October 27, 2020. (Id.) The second motion is filed on behalf of 23 fourteen organizations advocating for asylum seekers.1 (ECF No. 601.) These amici also 24 25 1 The organizations are: Asian Law Alliance; Bet Tzedek; Catholic Charities Community Services, 26 Archdiocese of New York Division of Immigrant & Refugee Services; City Bar Justice Center; HIAS and Council Migration Services, Inc. of Philadelphia, d/b/a HIAS Pennsylvania; Immigrant Defense 27 Project; International Refugee Assistance Project; LatinoJustice PRLDEF; The Legal Project; Michigan Immigrant Rights Center; Pangea Legal Services; The Public Law Center; University of California Irvine 28 1 || represent that the motion is unopposed and Defendants have consented to amicus curiae 2 || briefs filed by October 27, 2020. Cd.) 3 “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 4 || 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, U.S. 472 (1995). This discretion is exercised with “great liberality” and “it is within 6 || [the Court’s] discretion to allow it in any case when justified by the circumstances.” N. 7 || Sec. Co. v. U.S., 191 U.S. 555, 556 (1903). “Even when a party is very well represented, 8 || an amicus may provide important assistance to the court.” Jamul Action Comm. v. Stevens, 9 || No. 13-CV-01920-KJM-KJN, 2014 LEXIS 107582, at *18 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (quotation 10 || omitted). “District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from nonparties concerning 11 || legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the 12 |) amicus has ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help 13 || that the lawyers for the party are able to provide.’” NGV Gaming, Ltd. V. Upstream Point 14 || Molate, LLC, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 15 || 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)); see also Cmty. Ass’n for Restoration of Env’t 16 || (CARE) v. Deruyter Bros. Dairy, 54 F. Supp. 2d 974, 975 (E.D. Wash. 1999). 17 After reviewing the motion for leave and the proposed Amici Curiae briefs and in 18 || view of the parties’ consent, the Court GRANTS both motions (ECF Nos. 600, 601). 19 IT IS SO ORDERED. 20 , fl YZ 21 || DATED: October 28, 2020 CU yu MW Hohe □□ 22 United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28 □□