Lyons v. York Cnty. Bd. of Comm'rs

• Decision Date: 22 February 2022
• Docket Number: 4:21-CV-3296
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of Nebraska
• Parties: JOHN J. LYONS, Plaintiff, v. YORK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants.

JOHN J. LYONS, Plaintiff,
v.
YORK COUNTY BOARD OF COMMISSIONERS, et al., Defendants.

No. 4:21-CV-3296

United States District Court, D. Nebraska

February 22, 2022

ORDER

JOHN M. GERRARD UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

This matter is before the Court on the motion (filing 18) of an interested party, the Nebraska County Attorney's Association (hereinafter, the County Attorneys), for leave to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of a ruling in the plaintiff's favor on his pending motion for judgment on the pleadings (filing 15). The Court will grant the County Attorneys' motion.

There is no governing standard, rule or statute prescribing the procedure for obtaining leave to file an amicus brief in the district court. Soos v. Cuomo, 470 F.Supp.3d 268, 284 (N.D.N.Y. 2020); seeOr.-Cal. Trails Ass'n v. Walsh, 467 F.Supp.3d 1007, 1073 (D. Colo. 2020); City of Columbus v. Trump, 453 F.Supp.3d 770, 785 (D. Md. 2020). So, the Court has broad discretion to permit or deny the participation of amici curiae in a given case. Id.; see, e.g., Levin Richmond Terminal Corp. v. City of Richmond, 482 F.Supp.3d 944, 951 n.1 (N.D. Cal. 2020); United States v. Feng Tao, 499 F.Supp.3d 940, 972 (D. Kan. 2020); Walsh, 467 F.Supp.3d at 1073. Factors the Court considers may include the parties' own representation, the interest of the prospective amicus, and whether any parties will be prejudiced. See Soos, 470 F.Supp.3d at 284; Levin Richmond, 482 F.Supp.3d at 951 n.1; Walsh, 467 F.Supp.3d at 1073; Edgar v. Coats, 454 F.Supp.3d 502, 522 (D. Md. 2020), aff'd sub nom. Edgar v. Haines,

1

2 F.4th 298 (4th Cir. 2021); City of Columbus, 453 F.Supp.3d at 78586; Richland/Wilkin Joint Powers Auth. v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng'rs., 38 F.Supp.3d 1043, 1054 (D. Minn. 2014).

In this case, the plaintiff is certainly well-represented. But given the importance of the substantive state law questions at issue, and the County Attorneys' institutional experience and interest in those questions, the Court is persuaded that they should be heard. Nor does the Court find that the defendants will be prejudiced by the County Attorneys' participation in the limited function of filing an amicus brief on questions of law.

Accordingly, the Court will...