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

Background

Communities for a Better Environment, San Francisco Baykeeper, and Natural Resources Defense Council, collectively called the Proposed Amici, moved for permission to file a brief supporting Athletics Investment Group, LLC’s opposition to Schnitzer Steel Industries, Inc.’s motion for summary judgment. Schnitzer opposed the request.

The Proposed Amici represented that they had sought adequate regulation of metal-shredding facilities in California, particularly Schnitzer’s, and that they had a unique perspective because they were nonprofit organizations while Athletics Investment Group and Schnitzer were for-profit entities.

Court’s reasoning

The court explained that district courts may consider briefs from nonparties about legal issues with consequences beyond the parties or when an outside group can provide unique information or a perspective that the parties’ lawyers cannot provide. Here, however, the proposed brief addressed only whether one of Athletics Investment Group’s claims was barred by the statute of limitations. The Proposed Amici took the same position on that issue as Athletics Investment Group in its opposition to summary judgment. The court therefore found that the proposed brief did not provide unique information or a perspective that would assist the court beyond the parties’ submissions.

Ruling

Judge Maxine Chesney denied the Motion for Leave to File Brief as Amici Curiae.