Beck v. Camp Pendleton and Quantico Housing LLC
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Larry Alan Burns (author)
Analysis
Defendants filed a motion to dismiss based on derivative immunity, and the United States filed a notice of statement of interest urging the court to deny the motion. The court proposed to treat the government's notice as a motion for leave to intervene, vacated the hearing on the motion to dismiss, and extended the deadline for Defendants' reply brief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Propose to treat the government's notice of statement of interest as a motion for leave to intervene“The Court proposes to treat the motion, in part, as a motion for leave to intervene as to the issue raised, which it would be inclined to grant.” | agree with court The court identifies a procedural defect: the government filed a notice of interest without clarifying if it was authorized by the Attorney General under 28 U.S.C. § 517. By proposing to treat it as a motion to intervene, the court addresses the standing issue raised in the cited authority (County of Ocean v. Grewal). This is a reasonable procedural mechanism to resolve the ambiguity of the government's participation. |
Vacate the hearing on the motion to dismiss“The hearing on the motion to dismiss, currently on calendar for Monday, November 23, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. is VACATED, but may be reset if appropriate.” | agree with court The court vacates the hearing to allow time for the government to clarify its status (intervene or withdraw) and for the defendants to file an extended reply brief addressing the government's arguments. This is a standard case management decision to ensure the record is complete before ruling. |
Extend the page limit and deadline for Defendants' reply memorandum“The page limit for their reply is extended to 15 pages, and the reply should be filed by November 30, 2020.” | agree with court The court allows defendants to address the new arguments raised by the government's notice. Extending the deadline and page limit is a fair procedural accommodation given the late addition of the government's position. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a procedural case management order that correctly identifies the procedural defect in the government's filing (lack of clear authorization under 28 U.S.C. § 517) and proposes a logical solution (treat as motion to intervene). It cites relevant authority for the standing issue and manages the briefing schedule fairly. It does not reach the merits of the derivative immunity claim.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 JASON BECK, et al. Case No.: 20cv579-LAB (WVG)
12 Plaintiffs, ORDER PROPOSING TO TREAT 13 v. GOVERNMENT’S NOTICE AS MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 14 CAMP PENDLETON & INTERVENE; AND QUANTICO HOUSING LLC, et al. 15 Defendants. ORDER VACATING HEARING 16 18 19 Defendants filed a motion to dismiss, claiming derivative immunity under 20 Yearsley v. W. A. Ross Constr. Co., 309 U.S. 18 (1940), and its progeny. After 21 Plaintiffs filed their opposition, the United States filed a notice of statement of 22 interest, citing 28 U.S.C. § 517. The notice does not merely give the government’s 23 view of the law generally, but urges the Court to deny the motion based on the 24 facts of the case. These include the terms of the operating agreement and the 25 ground lease, to which Defendants and the government are parties. The notice 26 does not say whether the Attorney General authorized the filing, or whether the 27 decision to file the brief was that of the local U.S. Attorney’s office alone. See § 517 28 (providing that “any officer of the Department of Justice may be sent by the 1 || Attorney General” to attend to the interests of the United States in a case pending 2 ||in federal court). 3 The Court proposes to treat the motion, in part, as a motion for leave to 4 ||/intervene as to the issue raised, which it would be inclined to grant. See County □□ 5 || Ocean v. Grewal, __ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2020 WL 4345317, at *19 (D.N.J. July 29, 6 ||2020) (questioning the government’s standing as a non-party to raise certain 7 ||issues or claims in a notice of interest). If the government objects to this, it must 8 ||promptly either file an amended notice explaining that the Attorney General has 9 || authorized the filing of the notice, or withdraw the notice. 10 The hearing on the motion to dismiss, currently on calendar for Monday, 11 November 23, 2020, at 11:30 a.m. is VACATED, but may be reset if appropriate. 12 ||Defendants may separately address the government's arguments in their reply 13 memorandum. The page limit for their reply is extended to 15 pages, and the reply 14 should be filed by November 30, 2020. If Defendants have already filed a 15 reply brief by the time this order is docketed, they may file an amended brief subject 16 ||/to the terms of this order. 17 18 IT IS SO ORDERED. 19 ||Dated: November 16, 2020 20 Cau A Cammy 21 Honorable Larry Alan Burns 29 Chief United States District Judge 23 24 25 26 27 28