Tropical Chill Corp. v. Pierluisi Urrutia

Opinion

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF PUERTO RICO

TROPICAL CHILL CORP.; ALEXANDRA

IRIZZARY; YASMIN VEGA; AND RENE

MATOS,

Plaintiffs CIVIL NO. 21-1411 (RAM)

v.

HON. PEDRO R. PIERLUISI URRUTIA, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS GOVERNOR OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO, HON. CARLOS R. MELLADO LÓPEZ, IN HIS OFFICIAL CAPACITY AS SECRETARY OF HEALTH OF THE COMMONWEALTH OF PUERTO RICO,

Defendants

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER Pending before the Court is aspiring amicus curiae Liberty Justice Center’s (“LJC”) Motion For Leave to File Brief of Amicus Curiae Liberty Justice Center in Support of the Plaintiffs’ Motion for Preliminary Injunction and Opposition to Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss (“Motion”) (Docket No. 34). For reasons stated below, the Court DENIES the Motion. The Court notes that “[w]hether to permit amicus participation is a matter of judicial discretion.” United States v. Keleher, 475 F. Supp. 3d 80, 83 (D.P.R. 2020) (quoting Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970)). Regarding accepting or inviting an amicus brief, the First Circuit has stated that: [W]e believe a district court lacking joint consent of the parties should go slow in accepting, and even slower in inviting, an amicus brief unless, as a party, although short of a right to intervene, the amicus has a special interest that justifies his having a say, or unless the court feels that existing counsel may need supplementing assistance.

Vernet v. Serrano-Torres, 2012 WL 13170257, at *3 (D.P.R. 2012) (quoting Strasser, 432 F.2d at 569). Whereas other Circuit Courts, such as the Seventh Circuit Court of Appeals, have explained that an amicus brief should be permitted “when a party is not represented competently or is not represented at all,” when the amicus “has an interest in some other case that may be affected by the decision in the present case (though not enough affected to entitle the amicus to intervene and become a party in the present case),” or in scenarios where “the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Comm'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997) (citing Miller-Wohl Co. v. Commissioner of Labor & Industry, 694 F.2d 203 (9th Cir. 1982)). Otherwise, a request to file an amicus brief should be denied. See id. After reviewing the arguments set forth in the Motion, the Court is unconvinced LJC’s brief will “aid the Court in achieving the proper resolution of the outstanding issues in this matter.” Vernet, 2012 WL 13170257, at *3. Furthermore, LJC has failed to state with any clarity its “special interest” justifying it having a say in the ongoing case. Lastly, the Court is of the view that the Puerto Rico Institute for Economic Liberty is in no need of assistance in advocating for Plaintiffs. Based on the foregoing, the Court DENIES the Motion at Docket No. 34.

IT IS SO ORDERED. In San Juan, Puerto Rico, this 8th day of October 2021. S/ RAÚL M. ARIAS-MARXUACH United States District Judge