Rodney v. City of New York
- Lewis Kaplan
- 1:22-cv-01445
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 1
In Rodney v. City of New York, Magistrate Judge Wang allowed two nonparties to file an amicus brief opposing dismissal.
Nonparties LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the Office of the Public Advocate were permitted to file an amicus brief opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss; the defendant could respond by filing a reply by November 18, 2022.
What happened
Rodney v. City of New York involved whether two nonparties could participate by filing a brief supporting a position in the case. The order does not explain the underlying claims or the reasons for the pending motion to dismiss.
LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the Office of the Public Advocate had not offered reasons for submitting an amicus brief, but the court allowed them to file one opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss by November 1, 2022. Any replies were due by November 18, 2022.
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang issued the October 6, 2022 order after reviewing ECF Nos. 45 and 46. The order addressed permission to file an amicus brief; it did not decide the motion to dismiss.
The detailed version
- Rodney v. City of New York · No. 1:22-cv-01445
- Lewis Kaplan
- Oct. 6, 2022
Background
The order states that the court reviewed ECF Nos. 45 and 46. It concerns requests by nonparties LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the Office of the Public Advocate to file an amicus brief—an outside party’s submission offering arguments relevant to a case—in opposition to the defendant’s motion to dismiss. The opinion does not identify the underlying claims or explain the arguments in that motion.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the District Court has broad discretion to allow or deny an amicus appearance. Although LatinoJustice PRLDEF and the Office of the Public Advocate had not given reasons for submitting an amicus brief, the court permitted them to file one.
Ruling and schedule
Magistrate Judge Ona T. Wang ordered that the amicus brief opposing the defendant’s motion to dismiss could be filed by November 1, 2022. Replies, if any, were due by November 18, 2022. The order did not rule on the motion to dismiss itself.
Read the full 1-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.