Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00200/USCOURTS-cand-4_06-cv-00200-7/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:2201 Declaratory Judgement

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF MARIN, a

California County,

Plaintiffs,

v.

MARTHA CO., a California

Corporation,

Defendants.

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

No. C06-0200 SBA (BZ)

REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION TO

DENY PROPERTY OWNERS’

REQUEST FOR LEAVE TO FILE A

BRIEF AMICUS CURIAE

By Order dated February 12, 2007, the Honorable Saundra

Brown Armstrong referred to me for report and recommendation

Martha Company’s motion to show cause why the County of Marin

should not be held in contempt of court, and all related

motions. Pending before Judge Armstrong at the time was a

motion for leave to file a brief amicus curiae filed by six

individuals who own property adjacent to the property Martha

seeks to develop. The property owners style their brief as

one in opposition to Martha’s motion for contempt. 

“It is well-settled that a trial court may, in the

exercise of its discretion, permit the filing of an amicus

Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 106 Filed 03/05/07 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

curiae brief.” The Warehouse Restaurant, Inc., et al. v. The

Customs House Restaurant, 1982 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 17556, 2 (N.D.

Cal. 1982). An amicus curiae is not a party to the action,

but merely a “friend of the court,” one whose function is to

advise or to make suggestions to the court. Miller-Wohl Co.,

v. Comm’r. of Labor and Indus. of Mont., 694 F.2d 203, 204

(9th Cir. 1982). Moreover, an amicus may not assume the

functions of a party, nor may it initiate, create, extend, or

enlarge the issues. United States v. Alkaabi, 223 F. Supp. 2d

583, 593 (D.N.J. 2002). 

Here, the property owners were named as defendants in the

underlying suit, and pursued a counterclaim against Martha. 

The claims by and against the owners were dismissed, but no

final judgment has been issued. Nor has Judge Armstrong

expressly directed entry of judgment against the owners. See

Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(b). Judge Armstrong’s Order granting

Martha’s motions to dismiss is subject to revision prior to

entry of judgment and therefore did not terminate the action

as to the owners. See id. As the property owners technically

are still parties to the action, I recommend that they not be

allowed to function as “friends of the court.”

Even if the property owners were not parties, the

recommendation would be the same. The only argument unique to

their amicus brief – that the 1976 judgment is void ab initio

– raises issues that were rejected by Judge Armstrong as

untimely. Neither Martha nor the County dispute the

underlying validity of the judgment. Moreover, as a nonparty

amicus the owners would likely not be bound by a decision on

Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 106 Filed 03/05/07 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

the issues presently before the Court. Kerr-McGee Chem. Corp.

v. Hartigan, 816 F.2d 1177, 1181 (7th Cir. 1987). I am

persuaded that the property owners’ attempt to relitigate an

issue which the County and Martha do not dispute, and to

influence the Court’s decision while avoiding the binding

force of any resulting order, enlarges the disputed issues and

constitutes shadow litigation that should be avoided. 

For these reasons, I recommend that the property owners’

request for leave to file a brief amicus curiae be DENIED.

Dated: March 5, 2007

Bernard Zimmerman 

 United States Magistrate Judge

G:\BZALL\-REFS\COUNTY OF MARIN\REP.RECOM.DENY.AMICUS.2.wpd

Case 4:06-cv-00200-SBA Document 106 Filed 03/05/07 Page 3 of 3