El Papel LLC v. Inslee

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: October 21, 2020
• Docket: 2:20-cv-01323
• Status: Unknown

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 OF AMICI CURIAE 13 JAY INSLEE, et al., 14 Defendants. 15 16 This matter is before the Court on proposed amici curiae’s unopposed motion for leave to 17 file a brief in opposition to plaintiffs’ motion for preliminary injunction (Dkt. 16). See Dkt. 41. 18 Proposed amici curiae attached a proposed brief in opposition to the instant motion. See Dkt. 19 41-1. Proposed amici curiae state that they have conferred with all parties as to this motion and 20 that all parties are unopposed to the admission of the proposed amicus brief. See Dkt. 41, at 1. 21 “District courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that 22 have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique 23 information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties 24 1 are able to provide.” Macareno v. Thomas, 378 F. Supp. 3d 933, 940 (W.D. Wash. 2019) 2 (internal citations omitted). “The ‘classic role’ of amicus curiae is to assist a court in a case of 3 public interest by ‘supplementing the efforts of counsel,” and “generally courts have ‘exercised 4 great liberality’ in permitting amicus briefs.” California v. U.S. Dep't of the Interior, 381 F.

5 Supp. 3d 1153, 1163–64 (N.D. Cal. 2019) (quoting Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Labor & 6 Indust., 694 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982); Woodfin Suite Hotels, LLC v. City of Emeryville, No. 7 C 06-1254 SBA, 2007 WL 81911, at *3 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 9, 2007)). 8 Having reviewed the instant motion and proposed amicus brief (see Dkts. 41, 41-1), 9 the Court finds that proposed amici curiae, a collection of public interest organizations, have 10 demonstrated that they have an interest in the issues presented to the Court in plaintiffs’ motion 11 for preliminary injunction (Dkt 16). See California v. U.S. Dep’t of the Interior, 381 F. Supp. 3d 12 at 1164. The Court further finds that the information contained in the proposed amicus brief 13 (Dkt. 41-1) to be helpful regarding the potential public interest ramifications beyond the parties 14 directly involved regarding the impact of plaintiffs’ requested relief on low-income renters. See

15 Macareno, 378 F. Supp. 3d at 940. 16 Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to GRANT the motion for leave to file the 17 proposed amicus brief. Dkt. 41. Amici curiae shall file the amicus brief on or before 18 October 23, 2020. 19 Dated this 21st day of October, 2020. 20

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