Community Health Center Alliance for Patient Access v. Lightbourne ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 COMMUNITY HEALTH CENTER No. 2:20-cv-02171-DAD-KJN ALLIANCE FOR PATIENT ACCESS, et 12 al., 13 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING UNOPPOSED MOTIONS FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS 14 v. CURIAE BRIEFS 15 WILLIAM LIGHTBOURNE ,et al., (Doc. Nos. 81, 84) 16 Defendants. 17 18 Before the court is a motion for leave to file an amicus brief filed on behalf of non-party 19 California Primary Care Association (“CPCA”) on January 24, 2023 (Doc. No. 81), and a motion 20 for leave to file an amicus brief filed on behalf of non-party National Association of Community 21 Health Centers (“NACHC”) on February 6, 2023 (Doc. No. 84). The two proposed amicus briefs 22 are not submitted in support of any of the parties but are rather intended to provide relevant and 23 useful information to assist the court in resolving the motions to dismiss (Doc. Nos. 61, 66) that 24 are pending before the court. (Doc. Nos. 81 at 2; 84 at 2.) Neither the plaintiffs nor the 25 defendants in this action oppose the pending motions for leave to file amicus briefs. (See id.) 26 The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure do not set forth the manner and circumstances in 27 which an amicus brief may be filed in district courts. District courts therefore rely on Federal 28 Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 in addressing such requests. See California v. United States 1 Dep’t of Labor, No. 2:13-cv-02069-KJM-DAD, 2014 WL 12691095, at *1 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 14, 2 2014). The Ninth Circuit has held that “[t]he district court has broad discretion to appoint amici 3 curiae,” and the appellate court will reverse “only if the district judge has abused his discretion.” 4 Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), overruled on other grounds by Sandin v. 5 Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995). “The touchstone is whether the amicus is ‘helpful,’ and there is no 6 requirement ‘that amici must be totally disinterested.’” United States Dep’t of Labor, 2014 WL 7 12691095 at *1 (citing Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260.) The court will not consider issues that are 8 raised only in an amicus brief unless the circumstances are exceptional. Id. 9 In this case, plaintiffs have sued defendants under the federal Administrative Procedure 10 Act and 42 U.S.C. § 1983 to challenge the approval by Centers for Medicare and Medicaid 11 Service (“CMS”) of Medi-Cal Rx as arbitrary and capricious, and because Medi-Cal Rx allegedly 12 violates plaintiffs’ right to reimbursement guaranteed under federal law. (Doc. No. 45 at 2.) 13 In CPCA’s pending motion, CPCA asserts that its amicus brief will “offer[] a perspective 14 that can help the Court to understand the purposes and the present and historical industry 15 practices surrounding the Medi-Cal pharmacy reimbursement issues present in this case.” (Doc. 16 No. 81 at 3.) In NACHC’s pending motion, NACHC asserts that the issues raised in this case 17 will “significantly impact” the beneficiaries of a certain drug discount program created by 18 Congress, and the proposed amicus brief would “provide the Court with the perspective of those 19 beneficiaries, explain current national challenges facing the [that] program, and highlight the 20 potential national impact of this Court’s decision.” (Doc. No. 84 at 3.) 21 Having considered the pending motions for leave to file an amicus brief and the potential 22 helpfulness of the proposed amicus briefs, and in light of the parties’ non-opposition to those 23 motions, the court will grant the two pending motions for leave to file an amicus brief. See 24 United States Dep’t of Labor, 2014 WL 12691095, at *1 (“Amicus briefs are frequently welcome 25 . . . concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the parties directly involved 26 or if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help the court beyond the help that 27 the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.”); see also Full Circle of Living & Dying v. 28 Sanchez, No. 2:20-cv-01306-KJM-KJN, 2022 WL 348166, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Feb. 4, 2022) 1 || (granting motion for leave to file an amicus brief where the “proposed brief provides helpful 2 | context”). 3 Accordingly, 4 1. California Primary Care Association’s motion for leave to file an amicus brief 5 (Doc. No. 81) is granted; 6 2. National Association of Community Health Centers’ motion for leave to file an 7 amicus brief (Doc. No. 84) is granted; 8 3. Within seven (7) days from the date of entry of this order, amicus California 9 Primary Care Association and amicus National Association of Community Health 10 Centers shall file their respective amicus briefs on the docket in this action; and 11 4. The Clerk of the Court is directed to update the docket to reflect the addition of 12 amicus California Primary Care Association and amicus National Association of 13 Community Health Centers. 14 IT IS SO ORDERED. | Dated: _February 13, 2023 Da A. 2, eel 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICY JUDGE 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28