Jones v. Becerra

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: January 14, 2020
• Docket: 3:19-cv-01226
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 MATTHEW JONES; THOMAS FURRH; Case No.: 3:19-cv-01226-L-AHG 11 KYLE YAMAMOTO; PWGG, L.P. (d.b.a. 12 POWAY WEAPONS AND GEAR and ORDER: PWG RANGE); NORTH COUNTY 13 SHOOTING CENTER, INC.; BEEBE (1) DENYING GIFFORDS LAW 14 FAMILY ARMS AND MUNITIONS LLC CENTER TO PREVENT GUN (d.b.a. BFAM and BEEBE FAMILY VIOLENCE’S MOTION FOR 15 ARMS AND MUNITIONS); FIREARMS LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS BURIAE 16 POLICY COALITION, INC.; FIREARMS BRIEF [Doc. 26] POLICY FOUNDATION; CALIFORNIA 17 GUN RIGHTS FOUNDATION and (2) DENYING EVERYTOWN FOR 18 SECOND AMENDMENT GUN SAFETY SUPPORT FUND’S 19 FOUNDATION, MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF [Doc. 27] Plaintiffs, 20 21 v. (3) DENYING BRADY CENTER TO XAVIER BECERRA, in his official PREVENT GUN VIOLENCE’S 22 capacity as Attorney General of the MOTION TO PARTICIPATE AS AMICUS CURIAE [Doc. 33] 23 State of California, et al., Defendant. 24 25 26 27 1 Pending before the Court are three separate motions for leave seeking to 2 participate in the litigation regarding Plaintiffs’ currently-pending Motion for 3 Preliminary Injunction [doc. 21]. Docs. 26, 27, 33. After reviewing each motion, the 4 Court DENIES each motion. 5 A “district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. 6 Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds, Sandin v. 7 Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “[T]he consideration of an amicus brief is solely within 8 the discretion of the court and is seldom appropriate at the level of the trial level 9 where the parties are adequately represented by experienced counsel. ForestKeeeper 10 v. Elliott, 50 F.Supp.3d 1371, 1380 (E.D. Cal. 2014) (citing Ryan v. CFTC, 125 F.3d 11 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997). 12 Giffords Law Center to Prevent Gun Violence (“Giffords Law Center”) seeks 13 leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ 14 Motion for Preliminary Injunction [doc. 25]. Doc. 26 at 2. Giffords Law Center is a 15 non-profit policy organization dedicated to defending laws to effectively reduce gun 16 violence. Id. As such, the Court finds the Giffords Law Center is more akin to a 17 partisan advocate than an objective third party. In fact, the instant motion asserts that 18 the amicus brief “present[s] data and social science that support California’s 19 restrictions on 18-to-20-year-olds’ ability to purchase an possess firearms.” Doc. 26 20 at 4. While this Court recognizes that “[t]here is no rule . . . that amici must be totally 21 disinterested[,]” Plaintiffs’ objection demonstrates that the Giffords Law Center’s 22 position should be more accurately termed friend to Defendant Xavier Becerra than a 23 friend to the Court. Accordingly, the Court will not consider the Giffords Law 24 Center’s amicus brief as its’ usefulness is diminished at the trial level due to its 25 obvious partisanship. Therefore, Giffords Law Center’s motion for leave to file an 26 amicus curiae brief [doc. 26] is DENIED. 27 1 Everytown for Gun Safety Support Fund (“Everytown”) similarly requested 2 leave to file an amicus curiae brief in support of Defendant’s opposition to Plaintiffs’ 3 preliminary injunction motion. See Doc. 27. Everytown contends that its brief will 4 provide the Court with the historical backdrop necessary to evaluate the Second 5 Amendment challenges to firearms regulations. Id. at 3. However, this is not a 6 perspective beyond what Defendant’s attorneys could provide on their own. 7 Moreover, like Giffords Law Center, Everytown’s partisanship is apparent. The 8 Court finds that the amicus brief may prejudice Plaintiffs on the trial level because 9 the brief allows Defendant to have a proverbial “another bite of the apple” due to 10 partisan influence. See Eugene Temchenko, Discovering the Truth Behind an 11 Amicus Brief, 94 N.D. L. Rev. 95, 104 (2019) (“[A]n amicus brief would focus the 12 court's attention on the relevant piece of evidence as well as amplify its effect. 13 Moreover, the very language that an amicus uses can influence the court.”) 14 Accordingly, Everytown’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief [doc. 27] is 15 DENIED. 16 Brady also seeks leave to participate as amicus curiae and to file a Brief in 17 support of Defendant’s Opposition to Plaintiffs’ Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. 18 See Doc. 33. Unlike the other movants, Brady conferred with the parties’ counsel 19 and obtained Plaintiffs’ counsel’s consent to file the amicus brief on the following 20 conditions: (1) the Court’s permission; (2) a filing deadline of January 3, 2020; (3) a 21 13-page limit on Brady’s brief; and (4) allowing Plaintiffs to either file a separate 22 opposition to the Brady’s brief not to exceed seven (7) pages or file one reply brief 23 not to exceed seventeen (17) pages in order to address both the opposition and amicus 24 brief. Id. at 4. The Supreme Court recognizes that “district courts have the inherent 25 authority to manage their dockets and courtrooms with a view toward the efficient 26 and expedient resolution of cases.” Dietz v. Boudin, 135 S.Ct. 1885, 1892 (2016) 27 1 || (citations omitted). The Court finds that allowance of Brady’s amicus brief an 2 || proposed briefing schedule would disrupt the efficient administration of this case : 3 || the trial level as granting this motion would necessarily mandate Plaintiffs to subm 4 | filing in violation of this Court’s Local Rules. Civil L.R. 7.1.h. (“No repl 5 || memorandum will exceed ten (10) pages without leave of the judge.’’). As such, th 6 | Court DENIES Brady’s motion [doc. 33] in its inherent authority to manage i 7 | docket and its discretion regarding amicus filings. 8 Moreover, the Court hereby DENIES five (5) Requests to Appear Pro Ha 9 | Vice [docs. 41-45] submitted by attorneys attempting to make appearance fc 10 | Everytown. The Court will not be considering Everytown’s amicus brief for th 11 | reasons stated above. Additionally, the Clerk’s Office approved these requests i 12 | error as the form applications are incomplete. Each request fails to disclose that th 13 || requesting attorney has requested pro hac vice status previously which was deniec 14 1 As such, these requests shall not be approved. The Clerk’s Office is instructed t 15 || again deny these requests. 16 IT IS SO ORDERED. 17 JL 18 || Dated: January 14, 2020 19 Hon/X¢. Jamesforenz J United States District Judge 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Bo 19-cv-01226-L-AH