Beldock v. Microsoft Corp.

1

JUSTIN BELDOCK, et al., Plaintiffs, v. MICROSOFT CORPORATION, et al., Defendants.

No. C22-1082JLR

United States District Court, W.D. Washington, Seattle

December 9, 2022

ORDER

JAMES L. ROBART, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the court are two motions for leave to file amici curiae briefs in support of Defendants Microsoft Corporation, the Board of Trustees of Microsoft Corporation the 401(k) Administrative Committee of the Microsoft Corporation Savings Plus 401(k) Plan, and Does Nos 1-20's (collectively, “Defendants”) motion to dismiss (see MTD (Dkt. # 27)) filed by (1) a group comprised of American Benefits Council, ERISA Industry Committee, American Retirement Association, and Committee on Investment of Employee Benefit Assets, Inc. (collectively “ABC”) (see ABC Mot. (Dkt. # 31)), and (2) the Chamber of Commerce of the United States of America (the “Chamber”) (see Chamber Mot. (Dkt. # 39); Chamber Reply (Dkt. # 48)). Plaintiffs Justin Beldock, Gordon Broward, and Shaadi Nezami (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) oppose both motions. (See Resp. to ABC Mot. (Dkt, # 43); Resp. to Chamber Mot. (Dkt. # 47).) Defendants do not oppose either motion. (See Dkt.) The court has reviewed the parties' submissions, the relevant portions of the record, and applicable law. Being fully advised, the court GRANTS ABC's and the Chamber's motions to file amicus briefs in support of Defendants' motion to dismiss.

District courts may consider amicus briefs from non-parties “concerning legal issues that have potential ramifications beyond the 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.” Macareno v. Thomas, 378 F.Supp.3d 933, 940 (W.D. Wash. 2019) (quoting NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F.Supp.2d 1061, 1067 (N.D. Cal. 2005)) (internal quotation marks omitted). The court has “broad discretion” to appoint amici curiae. Hoptowit v. Ray, 682 F.2d 1237, 1260 (9th Cir. 1982), abrogated on other grounds by Sandin v. Conner, 515 U.S. 472 (1995).

The court finds that ABC and the Chamber each have unique perspectives that may help the court decide the legal questions at issue in Defendants' motion to dismiss. See Macareno, 378 F.Supp.3d at 940. Accordingly, the court GRANTS ABC's motion to file an amicus brief in support of Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 31) and GRANTS the Chamber's motion to file an amicus brief in support of Defendants' motion to dismiss (Dkt. # 39)^[1].

---------

^[1] The Chamber's motion is labeled as a “motion for leave to participate as amicus curiae.” (See Chamber Mot. at 1.) The court only permits the Chamber to...