Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01185/USCOURTS-caed-2_09-cv-01185-3/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 950
Nature of Suit: Constitutionality of State Statutes
Cause of Action: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

---

1 

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

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

IVAN PENA, et al., 

Plaintiffs, 

v. 

STEPHEN LINDLEY, 

Defendant. 

No. 2:09-CV-01185-KJM-CKD 

ORDER 

 Glock, Inc. moves for leave to file an amicus curiae brief, EFF No. 56, in 

support of plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, ECF No. 61, in the above-captioned 

matter. The court decided the matter without argument and, for the reasons below, GRANTS 

the motion. 

Although Federal Rule of Appellate Procedure 29 outlines the manner and 

circumstances in which an amicus brief may be filed in appellate court, the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure lack a trial-court counterpart. Nonetheless, the Ninth Circuit has held that “the 

district court has broad discretion to appoint amici curiae,” such that the appellate court will not 

reverse absent abuse of discretion. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), 

abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Connor, 515 U.S. 472, 487 (1995). Amicus briefs are 

“frequently welcome . . . concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the 

Case 2:09-cv-01185-KJM-CKD Document 71 Filed 11/14/13 Page 1 of 2
2 

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

parties directly involved or if the amicus has unique information or perspective that can help 

the court beyond the help that the lawyers for the parties are able to provide.” N.G.V. Gaming, 

Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, L.L.C., 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005) (citations 

and internal quotation marks omitted). 

The touchstone is whether the amicus is “helpful,” and there is no requirement 

“that amici must be totally disinterested.” Hoptowit, 682 F.2d at 1260. However, “in the 

absence of exceptional circumstances, . . . [the court does] not address issues raised only in an 

amicus brief.” Artichoke Joe’s Cal. Grand Casino v. Norton, 353 F.3d 712, 719 n.10 (9th Cir. 

2003) (citing Swan v. Peterson, 6 F.3d 1373, 1383 (9th Cir. 1993)); see also Santiago v. 

Rumsfeld, 425 F.3d 549, 552 n.1 (9th Cir. 2005) (“We follow our general rule in declining to 

address . . . arguments not raised by the parties.”). 

Given the Second Amendment issues in the instant case, the case has “potential 

ramifications beyond the parties directly involved.” N.G.V. Gaming, Ltd., 355 F. Supp. 2d at 

1067. Glock, Inc. correctly cites several district courts that have permitted amici in Second 

Amendment cases, even when opposed. Mot. for Leave to File Br. of Amicus Curiae 2–3. 

Further, although interested in the outcome, Glock, Inc., a large firearms manufacturer, is likely 

to lend a unique perspective on the Second Amendment. The court concludes Glock, Inc.’s 

supplemental briefing will be helpful in adjudicating plaintiffs’ pending motion for summary 

judgment. 

Glock, Inc.’s motion for leave to file an amicus curiae brief is GRANTED. 

 IT IS SO ORDERED. 

Dated: November 13, 2013. 

Case 2:09-cv-01185-KJM-CKD Document 71 Filed 11/14/13 Page 2 of 2