El Papel LLC v. Inslee

Opinion

1 2 3 4

5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT TACOMA 9 10 EL PAPEL LLC, et al., CASE NO. 2:20-cv-01323-RAJ-JRC 11 Plaintiffs, ORDER ON UNOPPOSED 12 v. MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI CURIAE IN 13 JAY INSLEE, et al., SUPPORT OF DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO MOTION FOR 14 Defendants. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 15 16 This matter is before the Court on amici curiae City of Chicago’s, together with 16 local 17 governments (collectively “Amici”), unopposed motion for leave to file an amicus brief in 18 support of defendants’ opposition (Dkts. 27, 28) to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction 19 (Dkt. 16). See Dkt. 44. Amici have attached a proposed amicus brief (Dkt. 44-1) to the instant 20 motion and state that they have conferred with all parties as to this motion and that all parties are 21 unopposed to the admission of the proposed amicus brief. See Dkt. 44, at 2. 22 “District courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that 23 have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique 24 ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO 1 information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties 2 are able to provide.” Macareno v. Thomas, 378 F. Supp. 3d 933, 940 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 3 (internal citations omitted). “The ‘classic role’ of amicus curiae is to assist a court in a case of 4 public interest by ‘supplementing the efforts of counsel,” and “generally courts have ‘exercised

5 great liberality’ in permitting amicus briefs.” California v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 381 F. 6 Supp. 3d 1153, 1163–64 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & 7 Indust., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982); Woodfin Suite Hotels, LLC v. City of Emeryville, No. 8 C 06-1254 SBA, 2007 WL 81911, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2007)). 9 Having reviewed the instant motion and proposed amicus brief (see Dkts. 44, 44-1), the 10 Court finds that Amici, a collection of nationwide local cities and counties, have demonstrated 11 that they have an interest in the issues presented to the Court in plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary 12 injunction (Dkt. 16). See California v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d at 1164. The 13 Court further finds that the information contained in the proposed amicus brief (Dkt. 44-1) to be 14 helpful regarding the potential public safety and health ramifications beyond the parties directly

15 involved regarding the impact of plaintiffs’ requested relief on low-income and vulnerable 16 renters. See Macareno, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 940. 17 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion for leave to file the 18 proposed amicus brief. Dkt. 44. Amici shall file the amicus brief on or before October 23, 2020. 19 Dated this 22nd day of October, 2020. 20

21 A 22 J. Richard Creatura 23 United States Magistrate Judge

24 ORDER ON UNOPPOSED MOTION FOR LEAVE TO