Compass, Inc. and Compass Washington, LLC v. Northwest Multiple Listing Service

Opinion

1 2

3 4 5 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE 7 COMPASS, INC. and COMPASS CASE NO. 2:25-cv-00766-JNW 8 WASHINGTON, LLC, ORDER DENYING LEAVE TO FILE 9 Plaintiffs, AMICUS BRIEF 10 v. NORTHWEST MULTIPLE LISTING 11 SERVICE, 12 Defendant. 13 14 This matter comes before the Court on Movant Gregory V. Alkema’s Motion 15 for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief. Dkt. No. 87. The motion is DENIED. 16 Mr. Alkema claims that his proposed brief “present[s] facts and legal analysis 17 regarding the coordinated off-MLS suppression scheme,” including data showing 18 “an average $302,000 equity loss to senior homeowners[,] the Zillow flip timeline, 19 and the refusals by key executives to use this evidence,” which he says are “directly 20 relevant to whether [Defendants’] rules against pre-market suppression are lawful 21 and in the public interest.” Dkt. No. 87. 22 23 1 “There is no inherent right to file an amicus curiae brief with the Court.” 2 Long v. Coast Resorts, Inc., 49 F. Supp. 2d 1177, 1178 (D. Nev. 1999). District courts

3 have broad discretion to admit amicus briefing. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 4 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 5 (1995). The “classic role” of amicus curiae has been to “assist[ ] in a case of general 6 public interest, supplementing the efforts of counsel, and drawing the court’s 7 attention to law that escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co., Inc. v. Comm’r of 8 Labor & Indus. State of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). There are no strict

9 prerequisites to qualify as amici, although amicus must “‘make a showing that his 10 participation is useful to or otherwise desirable to the court.’” In re Roxford Foods 11 Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991) (quoting United States v. Louisiana, 12 751 F. Supp. 608, 620 (E.D. La. 1990)). 13 The Court finds that the proposed amicus brief is not necessary or 14 appropriate given that both Parties are well represented by counsel and that the 15 proposed amicus brief does not identify any unique information or perspective that

16 will aid the Court in resolving this matter. Accordingly, the Court DENIES the 17 Motion. 18 Dated this 6th day of May, 2026. 19 A Jamal N. Whitehead 20 United States District Judge 21 22 23