Yim v. City of Seattle

• Court: District Court, W.D. Washington
• Decided: June 9, 2020
• Docket: 2:18-cv-00736
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

THE HONORABLE JOHN C. COUGHENOUR 1 2 3 4 5 6 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 7 WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON 8 AT SEATTLE 9 CHONG and MARILYN YIM et al., CASE NO. C18-0736-JCC 10 Plaintiffs, ORDER 11 v. 12 THE CITY OF SEATTLE, a Washington municipal corporation, 13 Defendant. 14 15 This matter comes before the Court on GRE Downtowner, LLC’s (“GRE”) motion for 16 leave to file a brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 71). Having 17 considered the parties’ briefing and the relevant record, the Court hereby DENIES the motion for 18 the reasons explained herein. 19 I. BACKGROUND 20 In August 2017, Defendant, the City of Seattle, enacted Seattle Municipal Code § 14.09, 21 known as the “Fair Chance Housing Ordinance.” The Ordinance generally prohibits landlords 22 from considering or inquiring into an applicant’s criminal history when making a rental decision. 23 On May 21, 2018, Plaintiffs filed a complaint alleging that the Ordinance violates the due 24 process and free speech provisions of the Washington Constitution and United States 25 Constitution. (Dkt. No. 1-1 at 14–18.) 26 1 Over the next eight months, the parties briefed dueling motions for summary judgment. 2 (Dkt. Nos. 23, 33, 48, 50.) Those motions raised significant issues of public importance, and 3 several interested third parties sought leave to address those issues in amicus briefs. (Dkt. Nos. 4 26, 28, 39, 42, 44.) The Court directed third parties to file amicus briefs no later than November 5 23, 2018. (Dkt. No. 25 at 1.) In total, eight third parties filed amicus briefs by the deadline. (See 6 Dkt. No. 49 at 2–3.) 7 After the parties and amici had fully briefed the issues raised in the motions for summary 8 judgment, Defendant moved to certify a question to the Washington Supreme Court. (Dkt. No. 9 51.) On February 5, 2019, the Court granted the motion and certified three questions. (Dkt. No. 10 54 at 2–3.) The Washington Supreme Court answered those questions one year later. (Dkt. No. 11 63.) After receiving the Washington Supreme Court’s answers, the parties sought to file limited 12 supplemental briefing. (Dkt. No. 64) The Court granted the parties’ request and ordered the 13 parties to complete their supplemental briefing by May 22, 2020. (Dkt. No. 68 at 1.) 14 GRE now moves to file one last amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ motion for 15 summary judgment. (Dkt. No. 71.) Defendant opposes the motion. (Dkt. No. 74.) 16 II. DISCUSSION 17 District courts have “broad discretion” regarding the appointment of amici. Hoptowit v. 18 Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). District courts frequently welcome amicus briefs from 19 non-parties “concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly 20 involved or if the amicus has ‘unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond 21 the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.’” Skokomish Indian Tribe v. 22 Goldmark, 2013 WL 5720053, slip op. at 1 (W.D. Wash. 2013) (quoting NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. 23 Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005)). 24 GRE argues that the Court should allow it to file an amicus brief because “as a landlord 25 of federally assisted housing, GRE can provide information and perspective not already provided 26 by the parties and the other amici.” (Dkt. No. 71 at 3.) The Court appreciates that perspective. 1 However, the deadline for filing amicus briefs passed a year and a half ago, (Dkt. No. 25 at 1), 2 and the parties and amici have exhaustively discussed the legal issues in this case over the course 3 of 13 briefs, (Dkt. Nos. 23, 33, 38, 39-1, 40, 42-1, 44-1, 48, 50, 69, 70, 76). The Court does not 4 need additional briefing at this time. 5 III. CONCLUSION 6 For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES GRE’s motion for leave to file a brief in 7 support of Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment (Dkt. No. 71). 8 DATED this 9th day of June 2020. A 9 10 11 John C. Coughenour 12 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26