Cody v. Movado Group, Inc.
- Proceeding
- district
- Area
- civil
- Panel
- Marilyn L. Huff (author)
Analysis
The National Retail Federation (NRF) moved for leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of the defendant's pending motion to dismiss. The court granted the motion, allowing NRF to file the brief.
| What the court decided | The model |
|---|---|
Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief granted“Accordingly, Court grants the motion and NRF’s amicus curiae brief (Doc. No. 6) shall be filed.” | agree with court The court exercised its discretion to allow the brief based on the specific content of the brief, which identified other cases and unique legal arguments, despite noting that such briefs are rare at the district court level on motions to dismiss. |
The order itself: sound — The order is a short procedural ruling. It correctly identifies the standard for the underlying motion (Twombly) and cites a district court case (NGV Gaming) to support the discretion to accept amicus briefs. The reasoning is sufficient for the specific procedural decision made.
Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 8 9 ANNETTE CODY, individually and on Case No.: 3:23-cv-00015-H-KSC behalf of all others similarly situated, 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR Plaintiff(s), 11 LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE v. BRIEF 12 MOVADO GROUP, Inc., a New York 13 corporation dba MOVADO.COM; and [Doc. No. 6.] 14 DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, 15 Defendant(s). 16 17 On January 20, 2023, Defendant Movado Group, Inc. (“Movado”) filed a motion to 18 dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. (Doc. No. 5.) On February 3, 2023, the 19 National Retail Federation (“NRF”) requested leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support 20 of Movado’s pending motion to dismiss. (Doc. No. 6.) Movado consented to NRF’s 21 request and Plaintiff Annette Cody (“Plaintiff”) opposed it. (Id.) 22 The Court notes that it is rare to receive an amicus brief at the district court level 23 especially on a motion to dismiss where the pertinent question is whether the complaint 24 contains “enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Bell Atl. Corp. 25 v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007). Nonetheless, because NRF’s amicus brief 26 identifies a litany of other publicly filed cases and introduces unique legal arguments, the 27 Court, in this instance, finds it appropriate to permit NRF to file its amicus curiae brief but 28 discourages the filing of amicus curiae briefs in other cases. See NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. 1 || Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 335 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005). Accordingly, 2 Court grants the motion and NRF’s amicus curiae brief (Doc. No. 6) shall be filed. 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED: February 8, 2023 | | Ju 0 JI ( 5 MARILYN W. HUFF, Distri ge 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 8 9 10 1] 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28