United Farm Workers v. The United States Department of Labor ( 2020 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 UNITED FARM WORKERS, et al., No. 1:20-cv-01690-DAD-JLT 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF 14 THE UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, et al., (Doc. No. 32) 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 Before the court is a motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief addressing plaintiffs’ 19 motion for a preliminary injunction currently pending before the court. The motion seeking such 20 leave was filed by the State of California (“California”). (Doc. No. 32.) According to California, 21 the pending motion is unopposed, but defendants reserve the right to seek leave to respond to the 22 proposed amicus brief. (Id. at 2.) 23 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not set forth the manner and circumstances in 24 which an amicus brief may be filed in district courts. District courts therefore rely on Federal 25 Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 in addressing such requests. See California v. United States 26 Dep’t of Labor, No. 2:13-cv-02069-KJM-DAD, 2014 WL 12691095, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 27 2014). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he district court has broad discretion to appoint amici 28 curiae,” and the appellate court will reverse “only if the district judge has abused his discretion.” 1 | Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. 2 | Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “The touchstone is whether the amicus is ‘helpful,’ and there is no 3 | requirement ‘that amici must be totally disinterested.’” United States Dep’t of Labor, 2014 WL 4 12691095 at *1 (citing Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260.) The court will not consider issues that are 5 | raised only in an amicus brief unless the circumstances are exceptional. Id. 6 In this case, California argues that its proposed amicus curiae brief offers a detailed 7 | outlook of the potential impact of the United States Department of Labor’s (“DOL”) Final Rule 8 | that is at issue in this action. (Doc. No. 32 at 3-4); see also Adverse Effect Wage Rate 9 | Methodology for the Temporary Employment of H-2A Nonimmigrants in Non-Range Occupations 10 | in the United States, 85 Fed. Reg. 70,445 (Nov. 5, 2020) Specifically, California states that its 11 | brief will shed light on the effects that not enjoining the DOL will have on the state and its 12 | domestic farmworkers. (/d. at 4.) According to California, the proposed brief will offer a unique 13 || perspective on how the state’s labor protections, housing, public health, and social services 14 | programs—designed to provide a safety net to California’s poorest and most vulnerable 15 | population—will face greater strains as the DOL’s Final Rule places downward pressure on the 16 | wages of domestic farmworkers who are already laboring under difficult circumstances. (/d.) 17 | California argues that this impact falls squarely outside Congress’s intent in promulgating the H- 18 | 2A guest worker program. (/d.) 19 Finding good cause, the court grants the motion. The amicus curiae brief submitted with 20 || the request (Doc. No. 32-1) shall be deemed filed. 21 | IT IS □□ ORDERED. me □ Dated: _ December 10, 2020 a 4 A a anys 23 UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 24 25 26 27 28