Full text
Landreth v. United States
∬ntり 2復 ■112b StHteメ Coutt of∫ 2betttI CIHimメ
No.18-476L
(Filcd:February 8,2019)
THONIAS G.LANDRETH,
Plainti二
V. Motion for Leave to Appear as Amicus Curiae. THE LINITED STATES,
Defendant. Thomas G. Landreth, Hoquiam, WA, pro se.
Isaac B. Rosenberg, Trial Attorney, with whom were Joseph H. Hunt, Assistant Attorney General, Robert E. Kirschman. Jr., Director, L. Misha Preheim, Assistant Director, Commercial Litigation Branch, Civil Division, United Siates Department of Justice, Washington, DC, for defendant.
OPINION
CAMPBELL-SMITH, Judge.
On December 3, 2018, the Quinault Indian Nation (the Nation) filed a motion sgeking leave to appear as amicus curiae in this matter. See ECF No. 18. In evaluating the Nation's motion, the court considered: (l) the Nation's motion to appear as amicus curiae, ECF No, ttl]rl plaintiff s response, ECF No. l9; (3) defendant's response, ECF No. 20; (4) plaintiff s supplemental response, ECF No. 24; (5) plaintiff s second suPPlemental response, ECF No. 25; and (6) the Nation's replyin support of its motion, ECF No. 30. For the following reasons, the Nation,s motion is nnNtbo.
I. Background
Plaintiff is a resident of Washington state 'owho owns private property abutting Lake Quinault . . . within the boundary of the Olympic National park." ECF No. 12 at 5.
In his amended complaint, plaintiff summarizes the facts of this case and the relief he seeks as follows:
Under State and Federal law Lake Quinault, a navigable waterway abutting the Quinault Indian Reservation and located in Washington State, should be open to the public for its use and recreation as well as to those non-tribal property owners with real property abutting the Lake shore such as the plaintiff. However for more than a decade the Quinault Indian Tribe has increasingly asserted 'Jurisdiction" and control over this navigable waterway, forcing out the public and non-tribal property owners in derogation of the Equal Footing Doctrine, Public Trust Doctrine, Constitution of the United States, treaties with foreign nations and the 1856 Treaty of Olympia. In April of 2013, the Quinault Indian Tribe has restricted all uses of the lake for non-tribal members. Through this civil action, the Plaintiff s seek court determination as to the status of Lake Quinault and the property rights of non-tribal property owners abutting the lake, the court determination as to the public's right to access of the lake, its shore and lakebed.
Id. at2-3.
The Nation seeks the court's leave to appear as amicus curiae in order to ,,provide additional factual and legal context for the Court concerning the status of Lake euinault and the substantial interests of the Nation that are implicated by this proceeding.'i ECF No. l8 at l. Specifically, the Nation alleges that it is uniquely positioned to address ,,the ownership and significance of the Lake to the Nation, und th. nature and importance of its regulatory activities." Id. at 3.
Defendant consents to the Nation's appearance as amicus curiae, see ECF No. 20, but plaintiff objects. In response to the Nation's request, plaintiff argues that,,[t]o allow amicus cur[iae] to the [Nation] and deprive all peopie the opportunity to amicui iurliae] seems to be unfair dealing. It would be impossible to enjoin every p.rron that has and potentially will be harmed by the actions of the No. plaintiff fNation]." ECF 19 at9. also appears to labor under the impression that granting the Nation's request would result in a dismissal of this case; he suggests instead that the-Nation has an interest in the case that would support its joinder as a party to this action. see ECF No.24 at2.
In its reply in support of its motion, the Nation presents counter-arguments to plaintiff s concerns regarding dismissal and joinder. See ECF No. 30 at l-4. The Nation then restates its interest in appearing as amicus curiae, as follows:
The Nation has provided unique information regarding the importance of Lake Quinault to the preservation of the Quinau[ nivei sockeye . . . to the
cultural and economic needs of the Quinault people. It has also demonstrated the importance of Lake Quinault to the preservation of that species, and informed the Court about its ongoing efforts to preserve the habitat offered bytheLake.... Id. at 4-5.
II. Legal Standards
brief in this courl; the decision whether to 'oThere is no right to f-rle an arnicus allow participation by amici curiae is left entirely to the discretion of the court." Fluor Ccrrp. v. United States. 35 Fed. Cl.284.285-86 (1996) (citing Am. Satellite Co. v. United States, 22 Cl. Ct. 547. 549 (1991)). In ruling on a motion lbr leave to file an amicus brief " the coufi considers the lbllowing factors: objections from the opposing pafty, intercst of the moving party, partisanship on the part of the amici. adequacy of the movant's representation, and timeliness. See id. The court may also consider whether the additional argument is uselul to the court's analysis, and whether participation of-the amici rvould cause unnecessary delay. See Health Renublic lns. Co. v. United States, 129 Fed. Cl. 115, I 17 (2016).
III. Analysis
The court is convinced by the Nation's briefs that it has a unique perspective on the use and value of Lake Quinault. The court also recognizes that plaintiff s amended complaint, to a great degree, involves allegations against the Nation. See generally ECF No. 12. The Nation's views, however, are not useful to the court at this stage of the proceeding. Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss in which it challenges both this court's jurisdiction and the legal sufficiency of plaintiff s allegations. See ECF No. 18. To the extent that the Nation is able to provide insight into material aspects of this case, the court finds that it will not benefit fiom such insight in reaching its ruling on the legal sufficiency of plaintif-f s ccimplaint.
As such, the court will deny the Nation"s motion at this time. If, however, plaintil'l-s complaint survives def'endant's motion 1o dismiss, the court is willing to reconsider 1he Nation's involvernent in this matter-whether that be as an amicus or as a party.
IV. Conclusion
For the foregoing reasons, the Nation's motion, ECF No. 18, is DENIED. If the court denies defendant's motion to dismiss. the Nation may reassert its interest in the merits determination in this case.
— 4 —