True Return Systems, LLC v. MakerDAO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK ----------------------------------------------------------X : TRUE RETURN SYSTEMS LLC, : : Plaintiff, : : 22-CV-8478 (VSB) -against- : : ORDER MAKERDAO, : : Defendant. : : ----------------------------------------------------------X VERNON S. BRODERICK, United States District Judge: On February 20, 2023, Crypto Council for Innovation (“CCI”) moved for leave to participate as amicus curiae in the above-captioned case. (Doc. 38 (the “Motion).) “It is wellestablished that a district court has broad discretion to grant or deny an appearance as amicus curiae in any given case.” Picard v. Greiff, 797 F. Supp. 2d 451, 452 (S.D.N.Y. 2011). The role of an amicus is “to aid the court and offer insights not available from the parties.” S.E.C. v. Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., No. 03-CV-2937 (WHP), 2003 WL 22000340 , at *5 (S.D.N.Y. Aug. 25, 2003) (quoting United States v. El-Gabrowny, 844 F.Supp. 955 , 957 n.1 (S.D.N.Y.1994)). While there is certainly no requirement that amici be totally disinterested, courts consider whether a proposed amicus is attempting to assist the Court by clarifying issues “as an objective, neutral, dispassionate friend of the court.” New York SMSA Ltd. P’ship v. Town of Bedford, No. 21-CV-03742 (PMH), 2022 WL 718641 , at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Mar. 10, 2022) (internal quotation marks omitted). Here, CCI argues that its participation as amicus “would ensure that complex patent law issues are properly presented to the Court” and raise issues “with respect to the requested remedies[.]” (Doc. 39 at 2, 6.) However, CCI does not have a unique point of view that is not available to the Court from the parties in the underlying actions. There are indeed complex patent law issues in this case, but it is the job of counsel for the parties, and not CCI, to explain those issues as they relate to the allegations in this case. “This alone is a sufficient basis to deny [ ] amici status,” (Bear, Stearns & Co. Inc., 2003 WL 22000340 , at *5), but I also do not believe that CCI is seeking to serve as an “objective, neutral, dispassionate friend of the court.” (/d. at 6) (internal quotation marks omitted.) As raised by Plaintiff and confirmed by CCI, “some of [CCIs] members hold MakerDAO tokens and thus might benefit from CCI’s participation in this case.” (See Doc. 19; Doc. 39 at 1-2.) As some of CCI’s members would benefit from its participation in this case, I find that CCI cannot provide “neutral assistance in analyzing the issues before [me.]” Picard, 797 F. Supp. 2d at 452 (quoting Jn re Baldwin—United Corp., 607 F. Supp. 1312, 1327 (S.D.N.Y. 1985)). Accordingly, it is hereby ORDERED that CCI’s motion to appear as amicus curiae in this action is DENIED. IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that Defendant retain counsel!, who shall file a notice of appearance by June 30, 2023. The Clerk of the Court is respectfully directed to close the open motion at Doc. 38. SO ORDERED. Dated: June 21, 2023 2 ( New York, New York “TPANDSO GCUIR 1a Vernon S. Broderick United States District Judge Consulting v. Farrington Mfg. Co., 604 F. Supp. 2d 684, 684 (S.D.N.Y. 2009) (citing 28 U.S.C. § 1654 ). This rationale “applies equally to all artificial entities.” Lattanzio v. COMTA, 481 F.3d 137, 139 (2d Cir. 2007) (quoting Rowland v. Cal. Men’s Colony, Unit IT Men's Advisory Coun., 506 U.S. 194, 202 (1993)).