Judge In Carnival Corporation Libertad Act Lawsuit Says Thanks, But No Thanks To Former Senator Torricelli And Former Representative Burton- But, They Still Want To Attend Hearings As "Observers"
/UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
MIAMI DIVISION
CASE NO. 1:19-cv-21725-JLK
JAVIER GARCIA-BENGOCHEA, Plaintiff,
v.
CARNIVAL CORPORATION d/b/a CARNIVAL CRUISE LINE, Defendant.
ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF BY FORMER CONGRESSMEN
THIS CAUSE is before the Court on the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief by Former Congressmen Dan Burton and Robert Torricelli, filed on February 24, 2020 (ECF No. 89) (the “Motion”), who seek permission to file a brief in support of Plaintiff’s opposition to the pending Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings filed by Defendant Carnival Corporation (ECF No. 54).1 As stated in the Motion, the former Congressmen seek to aid the Court in interpreting the Helms-Burton Act, 22 U.S.C. §§ 6021 et seq. (the “Act”), and discerning congressional intent with respect to Carnival’s argument that Plaintiff cannot pursue his claim under the Act because he inherited his claim to the property after March 12, 1996. See Mot. 2, ECF No. 89.
Carnival opposes the former Congressmen’s Motion, arguing that Plaintiff’s position has already been adequately briefed and represented in his Response in Opposition to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings (ECF No. 61), making the proposed amicus brief unnecessary. See 2 Carnival’s Resp., ECF No. 91. The former Congressmen reply that their brief would assist the Court because while Plaintiff’s Response to the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings focuses on the statutory text, their brief would show that the interpretation advanced by Carnival is also inconsistent with the congressional findings and various statements from the official legislative record. See Reply 7–8, ECF No. 100.
District courts have inherent authority to appoint amici curiae, or “friends of the court,” to assist in their proceedings. See In re Bayshore Ford Trucks Sales, Inc., 471 F.3d 1233, 1249 n.34 (11th Cir. 2006). Because an amicus “participates only for the benefit of the court, it is solely within the discretion of the court to determine the fact, extent, and manner of participation by the amicus.” Resort Timeshare Resales, Inc. v. Stuart, 764 F. Supp. 1495, 1501 (S.D. Fla. 1991) (internal quotations and citation omitted). Upon consideration, the Court finds that the former Congressmen’s request to submit an amicus brief to the Court—though appreciated—is unnecessary to the Court’s determination of the issues in Carnival’s Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings. The Court thus exercises its discretion to decline consideration of the amicus brief.
Accordingly, it is ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREED that the Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief (ECF No. 89) be, and the same hereby is, DENIED.
DONE AND ORDERED in chambers at the James Lawrence King Federal Justice Building and United State Courthouse, Miami, Florida, this 20th day of May, 2020.
JAMES LAWRENCE KING, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
LINK To Previous Post:
