Su v. BCBSM, Inc.
- John Tunheim
- 0:24-cv-00099
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 2
In Su v. BCBSM, Inc., Judge Leung denied PatientRightsAdvocate.Org, Inc.’s request to file an amicus brief supporting the Secretary of Labor.
PatientRightsAdvocate.Org, Inc. was denied permission to file an amicus brief. This order did not decide BCBSM, Inc.’s underlying motion to dismiss.
What happened
In Su v. BCBSM, Inc., PatientRightsAdvocate.Org, Inc. asked to file a brief offering information to the court in support of Acting Secretary of Labor Julie A. Su’s opposition to BCBSM, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. The Secretary consented, but BCBSM opposed the request.
The court said permission to file such a brief is discretionary and depends on whether the information is timely, useful, or helpful. It found that some of the proposed arguments duplicated the Secretary’s arguments and that other arguments concerned contract clauses not involved in the complaint.
Judge Tony N. Leung concluded that the proposed information was not particularly useful or helpful and denied the motion. The court also declined to strike the proposed brief from the record because it had reviewed the brief in deciding whether to allow it.
The detailed version
- Su v. BCBSM, Inc. · No. 0:24-cv-00099
- John Tunheim
- June 12, 2024
Background
PatientRightsAdvocate.Org, Inc. (PRA) moved for permission to file an amicus curiae brief. An amicus brief is a filing by a nonparty that offers information or arguments to assist the court. PRA proposed to support Acting Secretary of Labor Julie A. Su’s opposition to BCBSM, Inc.’s motion to dismiss. Su consented to PRA’s filing, while BCBSM opposed it. The court decided the motion on the written submissions without a hearing.
Court’s analysis
The court explained that allowing an amicus brief is discretionary. In deciding whether to allow one, courts consider whether the proposed information is timely, useful, or otherwise helpful. The court found that some of PRA’s arguments duplicated Su’s opposition, including an argument about whether BCBSM was a fiduciary. It also found that other arguments concerned types of contract clauses not involved in the complaint.
Ruling
The court determined that, overall, PRA’s proposed information was not particularly useful or otherwise helpful to resolving BCBSM’s motion to dismiss. Judge Tony N. Leung denied PRA’s motion for leave to file the amicus brief. In a footnote, the court declined BCBSM’s request to strike the proposed brief from the record because the court had reviewed it when deciding whether to permit the filing.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.