Scholl v. Mnuchin

[3] 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA [6] 7 COLIN SCHOLL, et al., Case No. 20-cv-05309-PJH 8 Plaintiffs, 9 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF FOR AMICI 10 STEVEN MNUCHIN, et al., CURIAE 11 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 40 [13] 14 Before the court is a motion for leave to file brief for amici curiae. Dkt. 40. No 15 party opposes the motion. 16 “The district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae.” Hoptowit v. Ray, [17] 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982). “There are no strict prerequisites that must be 18 established prior to qualifying for amicus status; an individual or entity seeking to appear 19 as amicus must merely make a showing that his/its participation is useful to or otherwise 20 desirable to the court.” In re Dynamic Random Access Memory (DRAM) Antitrust Litig., 21 No. 02-md-01486-PJH, 2007 WL 2022026 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. July 9, 2007). “District courts 22 frequently welcome amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues that have 23 potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has ‘unique 24 information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the 25 parties are able to provide.’” NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. 26 Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (quoting Cobell v. Norton, 246 F. Supp. 2d 59 , 62 27 (D.D.C. 2003)). 1 GRANTS the motion for leave to file a brief for amici curiae. The subject briefs are 2 deemed filed as of the date of the filing of the request for permission, and if opposed, no 3 replies are permitted. 4 IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 Dated: September 9, 2020 6 /s/ Phyllis J. Hamilton PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON 7 United States District Judge