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

N.D. California

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

DecidedSeptember 11, 2019

Docket4:19-cv-04717

StatusUnknown

This text of City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services (City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services) is published on Counsel Stack Legal Research, covering District Court, N.D. California primary law. Counsel Stack provides free access to over 12 million legal documents including statutes, case law, regulations, and constitutions.

Bluebook

City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, (N.D. Cal. 2019).

Pincite

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04717-PJH 8 Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH Plaintiffs, Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH 9

v. 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LEAVE TO FILE AMICI BRIEFS 11 SERVICES, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13

14 15 Before the court are nine motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs. See Case 16 No. 19-cv-04717-PJH, Dkts. 56 & 61; Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH, Dkts. 48, 57 & 58; 17 Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH, Dkts. 51, 56, 70 & 71. No party opposes any of the nine 18 motions. 19 “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 20 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be 21 established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an individual or entity seeking to appear 22 as amicus must merely make a showing that his/its participation is useful to or otherwise 23 desirable to the court.” In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 24 Case No. 02-md-01486-PJH, 2007 WL 2022026, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2007). “District 25 courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that 26 have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has 27 ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the 1 Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 2 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). 3 Having reviewed the motions, and for good cause shown, the court hereby 4 GRANTS each of the above-identified motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. 5 The subject briefs are deemed filed as of the date of the filing of the request for 6 permission, and if opposed, no replies are permitted. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 11, 2019 9 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

7 CITY AND COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO, et al., Case No. 19-cv-04717-PJH 8 Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH Plaintiffs, Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH 9

v. 10 ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS FOR U.S. CITIZENSHIP AND IMMIGRATION LEAVE TO FILE AMICI BRIEFS 11 SERVICES, et al.,

12 Defendants. 13

14 15 Before the court are nine motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs. See Case 16 No. 19-cv-04717-PJH, Dkts. 56 & 61; Case No. 19-cv-04975-PJH, Dkts. 48, 57 & 58; 17 Case No. 19-cv-04980-PJH, Dkts. 51, 56, 70 & 71. No party opposes any of the nine 18 motions. 19 “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, 20 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be 21 established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an individual or entity seeking to appear 22 as amicus must merely make a showing that his/its participation is useful to or otherwise 23 desirable to the court.” In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 24 Case No. 02-md-01486-PJH, 2007 WL 2022026, at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2007). “District 25 courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that 26 have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has 27 ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the 1 Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 2 F. Supp. 2d 59, 62 (D.D.C. 2003)). 3 Having reviewed the motions, and for good cause shown, the court hereby 4 GRANTS each of the above-identified motions for leave to file an amicus curiae brief. 5 The subject briefs are deemed filed as of the date of the filing of the request for 6 permission, and if opposed, no replies are permitted. 7 IT IS SO ORDERED. 8 Dated: September 11, 2019 9 PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 10 United States District Judge

12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack

Bluebook (online)

City and County of San Francisco v. U.S. Citizenship and Immigration Services, Counsel Stack Legal Research, https://law.counselstack.com/opinion/city-and-county-of-san-francisco-v-us-citizenship-and-immigration-cand-2019.

Opinion

Related

Cite This Page — Counsel Stack