Athletics Investment Group, LLC v. Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.

— 1 — — 2 — — 3 — 4 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA — 6 — 7 ATHLETICS INVESTMENT GROUP, Case No. 21-cv-05246-MMC LLC, — 8 — Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 9 LEAVE TO FILE BRIEF AS AMICI v. CURIAE — 10 — SCHNITZER STEEL INDUSTRIES, 11 INC., Defendant. — 12 — 13 Before the Court is the "Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae in Support 14 of Plaintiff's Opposition to Defendant's Motion for Summary Judgment" ("Motion for 15 Leave"), filed March 29, 2024, by Communities for a Better Environment, San Francisco 16 Baykeeper, and Natural Resources Defense Council's (collectively, "Proposed Amici"). 17 Defendant Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc. ("Schnitzer"), has filed opposition thereto. 18 Having read and considered the Motion for Leave and the opposition, the Court rules as 19 follows. 20 As Proposed Amici state, and as Schnitzer acknowledges, district courts have 21 found it appropriate to consider "amicus briefs from non-parties concerning legal issues 22 that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved or if the amicus has 23 unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that the 24 lawyers for the parties are able to provide." See NGV Gaming Ltd. v. Upstream Point 25 Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005.) 26 Here, Proposed Amici represent that they have sought "adequate regulation of 27 metal shredding facilities in California, particularly Schnitzer's," including by filing amicus 1 rules at metal shredders” (See Motion for Leave at 3:3-5), and that, as a non-profit 2 || agency, they have a unique perspective on the controversy between Schnitzer and 3 || plaintiff Athletic Investment Group, LLC's ("AlG"), each of which is a for-profit entity. The 4 || sole issue addressed in their proposed brief, however, is whether one of AIG's claims is, 5 || as Schnitzer asserts in its pending motion for summary judgment, barred by the statute of 6 || limitations and, in that regard, the position set forth by Proposed Amici is the same 7 || position taken by AIG in its opposition to Schnitzer's motion for summary judgment. See 8 1O Group, Inc. v. Veoh Networks, Inc., 2007 WL 2433385 , at *1 (N.D. Cal. August 22, 9 || 2007) (denying non-party's motion for leave to appear as amici curiae for purposes of 10 || briefing "issues raised in Summary judgment motion," where proposed brief did not 11 provide "unique information or perspective"). 12 Accordingly, the Motion for Leave is hereby DENIED. 5 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. Oo 15 || Dated: April 5, 2024 lal lf Chat INE M. CHESNEY 0 16 United States District Judge g 17 — 19 — — 20 — — 21 — — 22 — — 23 — — 24 — — 25 — — 26 — — 27 — — 28 —