Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioners
CASE NUMBER: 26CV-0211092 Tentative Ruling on Motion for Leave to File Amicus Brief in Support of Petitioners: Several advocacy organizations including Asian Americans Advancing Justice, Southern California, Asian Law Caucus, Disability Rights California, League of Women Voters of California Education Fund, League of Women Voters of Redding Area, ACLU of Northern California, ACLU of Southern California, and ACLU of San Diego & Imperial Counties seek leave to file an amicus brief in this matter. The motion is opposed by Real Parties in Interest (RPI) Jim Burnett, Kari Chilson, Richard Gallardo, Laura Hobbs, and Diedre Holliday. Petitioners The People of the State of California, ex rel, Rob Bonta, Attorney General of the State of California, and Shirley N. Weber PH.D., in her 10
official capacity as Secretary of State and Respondents County of Shasta and Clint Curtis, in his official capacity as Shasta County Clerk and Registrar of Voters do not oppose the motion.
The Petition in this matter seeks a Writ of Mandate and both injunctive and declaratory relief related to Measure B, which passed with a majority vote in the June 2, 2026, primary election. The proposed amici in this matter are all non-profit organizations with a history of advocating for voting rights.
Amici curiae, literally “friends of the court,” perform a valuable role for the judiciary precisely because they are nonparties who often have a different perspective from the principal litigants. “Amicus curiae presentations assist the court by broadening its perspective on the issues raised by the parties. Among other services, they facilitate informed judicial consideration of a wide variety of information and points of view that may bear on important legal questions.”
Connerly v. State Personnel Bd. (2006) 37 Cal. 4th 1169, 1177 quoting Bily v. Arthur Young & Co. (1992) 3 Cal. 4th 370, 405 fn.
14.
Amicus curiae briefs are common at the appellate level and permitted in the Court of Appeal pursuant to CRC 8.200(c). There is no corresponding rule at the trial court level. Instead, whether to grant leave to file an amicus curiae brief is left to the sound discretion of the Court. In the absence of a specific rule, the Court looks to the rules that exist for other courts. The Court notes that the proposed amici filed a motion that contains all the information required by CRC 8.200(c). The motion was made on a standard noticed timeframe. While RPI argued very strenuously that the timing of the motion was intended to prejudice RPI, the Court does not find any merit to that argument. One of two counsel being on vacation does not result in a halt to litigation, especially in a time sensitive matter such as this Petition.
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
RPI also argue that the proposed brief raises new issues not raised by Petitioners. The general rule is that amicus curiae must accept the issues made and propositions urged by the parties and that any additional questions presented in a brief filed by an amicus curiae will not be considered. California Assn. for Safety Education v. Brown (1994) 30 Cal. App. 4th 1264. It does not appear that significant new issues are raised. The Court finds that the proposed amicus brief would assist the Court in this matter. The Court exercises its discretion to grant leave to allow the filing of the proposed brief.
The motion is GRANTED. Proposed Amici provided a proposed Order that will be executed by the Court. The proposed brief is attached to the moving papers. The Court accepts the brief attached to this motion as appropriately “combined” with the application. (CRC 8.200(c)(4).) Pursuant to CRC 8.200(c)(6), the Court grants any party 10 court days to file an answer to the amicus brief, should they wish to do so.
TILTON PACIFIC CONSTRUCTION, INC, VS. JSK JJ INVESTMENTS, LLC