Angga v. Bumble Bee Foods, LLC

[7] 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [10] ANGGA, et al., Case No.: 25-cv-0583-MMA-DEB [11] ORDER DENYING WILLIAM S. 12 Plaintiffs, v. DODGE’S MOTION FOR LEAVE 13 TO FILE A BRIEF OF AMICUS BUMBLE BEE FOODS, LLC, CURIAE [14] 15 Defendant. Doc. No. 25 [18] 19 On July 31, 2025, Professor William S. Dodge (“Professor Dodge”) filed a motion, 20 ex parte, for leave to file a brief of amicus curiae in support of Plaintiffs Akhmad, 21 Muhammad Shrudin, Muhammad Syafi’i, and Angga’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”)1 22 opposition to Defendant Bumble Bee Foods, LLC’s (“Defendant”) motion to dismiss. 23 Doc. No. 25. Attached to the ex parte motion is Professor Dodge’s proposed amicus 24 brief. Doc. No. 25-1. For the reasons below, the Court DENIES Professor Dodge’s ex 25 parte motion. [26] 1 Due to the case’s international nature, the Court infers that the individual plaintiffs listed with only one 27 name are identified as such due to different naming traditions or conventions, rather than Plaintiffs’ error or omission in drafting. In the event the case proceeds past Defendant Bumble Bee Foods, LLC’s [28] 1 I. BACKGROUND 2 This case concerns Plaintiffs’ allegations that Defendant’s “‘trusted network’ of 3 longline fishing vessels,” from which it sources albacore tuna, “ensnared” Plaintiffs into 4 “debt bondage, which meant they would owe money if they quit their jobs.” Doc. No. 1 5 (“Compl.”) ¶¶ 4–5. In this bondage, they were allegedly “subjected to physical abuse and 6 violence, deprived of adequate food, and denied medical care (and put back to work) 7 even when seriously injured.” Id. ¶ 5. Plaintiffs further allege that this pattern of abuse 8 in the longline fishing industry is well-known and widely reported. Id. ¶¶ 36–95. 9 Nonetheless, in their telling: [10] Defendant . . . knowingly benefitted or attempted to benefit from [11] participation in a venture which engaged in the providing or 12 obtaining of labor or services by the means described . . . though it knew, should have known, or was in reckless disregard of the [13] fact that the venture has engaged in the providing or obtaining of 14 labor or services by any of such means. 15 Id. ¶ 255. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring claims: (1) for violation of the Trafficking 16 Victims Protection Reauthorization Act (“TVPRA”), 18 U.S.C. §§ 1589 , 1595; and (2) 17 negligence under California Civil Code § 1714. Id. ¶¶ 252–270. 18 Defendant filed a motion to dismiss Plaintiffs’ complaint on June 6, 2025, 19 consistent with the special briefing schedule issued at the parties’ request. Doc. Nos. 14, 20 22. Professor Dodge now seeks to file an amicus brief in support of Plaintiffs’ opposition 21 to Defendant’s pending motion. Doc. No. 25 at 4. 22 II. LEGAL STANDARD 23 “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, [24] 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982) overruled in part and on other grounds by Sandin v. 25 Connor, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). Amicus participation is generally most appropriate when: 26 (1) proposed amici provide unique information or perspective that would assist the Court 27 in determining the matter before it; (2) they have interest in another, similar case that may 28 be affected by the instant outcome; or (3) a party is unrepresented or not competently 1 represented. See Barnes-Wallace v. Boy Scouts of Am., No. 00CV1726-J (AJB), 2004 2 WL 7334945 *1 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 23, 2004); Gabriel Techs. Corp. v. Qualcomm Inc., No. 3 08CV1992 AJB MDD, 2012 WL 849167 *4 (S.D. Cal. Mar. 13, 2012); see also 4 ForestKeeper v. Elliott, 50 F. Supp. 3d 1371, 1380 (E.D. Cal. 2014); Jones v. Becerra, 5 No. 3:19-CV-01226-L-AHG, 2020 WL 8920621 *1 (S.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2020). However, 6 beyond a requirement that their participation be useful or desirable to the Court, “[t]here 7 are no strict prerequisites that must be established prior to qualifying for amicus status.” 8 WildEarth Guardians v. Haaland, 561 F. Supp. 3d 890 , 905 (C.D. Cal. 2021) (quoting In 9 re Roxford Foods Litig., 790 F. Supp. 987, 997 (E.D. Cal. 1991)). 10 Additionally, “there is no rule that amici must be totally disinterested.” Funbus 11 Sys., Inc. v. State of Cal. Pub. Utilities Comm’n., 801 F.2d 1120 , 1125 (9th Cir. 1986). 12 However, “the classic role of amic[i] curiae” is to “assist[] in a case of general public 13 interest, supplement[] the efforts of counsel, and draw[] the [C]ourt’s attention to law that 14 escaped consideration.” Miller-Wohl Co. v. Comm’r of Lab. & Indus. State of Mont., 694 15 F.2d 203, 204 (9th Cir. 1982). Thus, the Court must consider whether the proposed amici 16 and their briefs will aid the Court in its decisionmaking , or whether they seek to use 17 parties as “mere strawmen to confer standing so that [they] could litigate [their] views.” 18 Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260 ; Feld Ent., Inc. v. Arena Grp. 2000, LP, No. 06CV1077 J 19 (WMC), 2006 WL 8455518 *2 (S.D. Cal. June 2, 2006). 20 III. DISCUSSION 21 Professor Dodge represents that he is “the Lobingier Professor of Comparative 22 Law and Jurisprudence at the George Washington University Law School and Martin 23 Luther King, Jr. Professor Emeritus at the UC Davis School of Law[]” whose expertise 24 and authorship lay in extraterritorial statutory application. Doc. No. 25 at 2.2 His 25 proposed brief asserts “that Plaintiffs’ claims do not require extraterritorial application of 26 the TVPRA . . , that the TVPRA has extraterritorial effect[,]” and that “accepting [28] 1 Defendant’s legal arguments could lead to the conclusion that victims of international 2 trafficking are left without a remedy.” Id. at 3 . 3 As a preliminary matter, Professor Dodge represents that Plaintiffs consent to his 4 participation as amicus, and that “Defendant also consented . . . on the condition that 5 Plaintiffs agreed not to oppose Defendant’s request for an extension of up to five pages 6 for Defendant’s reply. . . .” Id. at 2 . Though the Court is not bound by the parties’ 7 agreements here, their consent to Professor Dodge’s participation weighs in favor of the 8 Court’s granting him leave to do so. Cf. Barnes-Wallace, 2004 WL 7334945 at *1 (citing 9 Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970)). 10 Turning to the considerations articulated above, Plaintiffs are represented by a total 11 of six attorneys of record from two law firms and one non-profit organization. See Doc. 12 Nos. 1, 3–6, 9–10. Defendant is represented by five attorneys from a single law firm. 13 Doc. Nos. 15–21. Each legal team includes at least one member admitted in this District 14 and several appearing pro hac vice. Doc. Nos. 1, 3–6, 9–10, 15–21. The Court is 15 confident that, between the nearly one-dozen attorneys, the parties are well-represented. 16 As to Professor Dodge’s interest in the case, he argues that he “has a substantial 17 interest in the proper application of the presumption against extraterritoriality to federal 18 statutes in general and to the TVPRA in particular.” Doc. No. 25 at 2–3; Doc. No. 25-1 19 at 3. First, the Court finds that a generalized interest in proper administration of law is 20 insufficient to support amicus participation. Were the Court to employ so loose a 21 standard, any person could assert an interest sufficient to submit briefs on any topic. 22 Second, as he is not a party in any case which this decision may implicate, he does not 23 fall within the scope of interests district courts generally consider sufficient to support 24 amicus participation. See Barnes-Wallace, 2004 WL 7334945 at *1; Gabriel Techs. 25 Corp., 2012 WL 849167 at *4. 26 However, though Professor Dodge’s interests are largely professional and 27 academic, this does not necessarily conflict with the Court’s analysis of potential amici: 28 Professor Dodge has considerable expertise in the field, is knowledgeable about its 1 || doctrinal impacts and implications, and seeks to provide information about the law’s 2 history and status, alongside proposed interpretation. See Feld Ent., Inc., 2006 WL 3 8455518 at *1—2 (citing Tiara Corp. v. Ullenberg Corp., No. 87 C 405, 1987 WL 16612 , 4 || *1-2 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 1, 1987)). Though he takes a position favoring Plaintiffs’ 5 arguments, he does not seek to present any “partisan” retelling or position as to the facts. 6 Funbus Sys., Inc., 801 F.2d at 1124-25. Thus, while he does not have a particularly 7 || strong interest in this case—as would, for example, a party to a case considering the same 8 || issue—Professor Dodge has some minimal interest in the matter. 9 Finally, as to the perspective and information Professor Dodge provides, his 10 || proposed amicus brief contains essentially the same arguments as Plaintiffs’ response in 11 || opposition to Defendant’s motion to dismiss, citing to many of the same cases, statutes, 12 || and legislative evidence in support. Compare Doc. No. 23 at 24—30 with Doc. No. 25-1. 13 || Though there are some minor differences in details, the arguments are nearly identical. 14 |//d. It therefore appears that Professor Dodge’s brief would merely retread Plaintiffs’ 15 |}arguments and provide no unique assistance in resolving Defendant’s motion. 16 IV. CONCLUSION 17 Though the parties consent to Professor Dodge’s participation, the parties are well18 represented by counsel, Professor Dodge has only minimal interest in the case, and his 19 || brief contains no new material. Thus, the Court determines Professor Dodge’s 20 || participation would be of little assistance and DENIES his ex parte motion. 21 IT IS SO ORDERED. 22 Dated: August 13, 2025 phd a! Ld = / hts: 23 HON. MICHAEL M. ANELLO 54 United States District Judge [26] 27 {| AA > The Court notes some tension between the general preference for neutral amici and an inquiry into 28 || whether a potential amicus has some particular interest in the case.