City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services

Opinion

FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04717-PJH Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH Plaintiffs, Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH

v. ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LEAVE TO FILE AMICI BRIEFS SERVICES, et al.,

Defendants.

Before the court are nine motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs. See Case No. 19-cv-04717-PJH, Dkts. 56 & 61; Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH, Dkts. 48, 57 & 58; Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH, Dkts. 51, 56, 70 & 71. No party opposes any of the nine motions. “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an individual or entity seeking to appear as amicus must merely make a showing that his/its participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the court.” In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., Case No. 02-md-01486-PJH, 2007 WL 2022026, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2007). “District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). Having reviewed the motions, and for good cause shown, the court hereby GRANTS each of the above-identified motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. The subject briefs are deemed filed as of the date of the filing of the request for permission, and if opposed, no replies are permitted. Dated: September 11, 2019 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge