Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
Arguing Class Actions is a monthly column for the National Law Journal.
February 03, 2025 at 06:00 AM
7 minute read
Rule 29 of the Federal Rules of Appellate Procedure generally controls who can file amicus curiae briefs in a federal appellate court, when they may do so, and what the briefs must contain. In August 2024, the Judicial Conference Committee on Rules of Practice and Procedure proposed amendments to Rule 29, which, among other things, impose a new requirement that amici must move for leave from the court to file their briefs, even if none of the parties object to the filing. This proposed judicial consent requirement, coupled with the proposed “Purpose” section of the Rule, could radically limit the ability of third parties to file amicus briefs, while simultaneously creating additional, unnecessary work for judges’ chambers.
Currently, Rule 29 allows the authors of amicus briefs to file their briefs with the consent of the court or with the consent of all parties. See FRAP 29(a)(2). The proposed amendments remove the option to file with consent of the parties, leaving judicial consent as the only possible avenue for a prospective amicus. See Comm. on R. of Practice and Proc. of the Judicial Conf. of the United States, Proposed Amendments to the Federal Rules of Appellate and Bankruptcy Procedures, and the Federal Rules of Evidence (Aug. 2024) (committee proposal) at 29. If these recommended amendments are adopted, the appellate courts will be taking the exact opposite approach to amici as the Supreme Court has, which removed all consent requirements for amicus brief filing in 2023, when it amended Supreme Court Rule 37.2.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllCrypto Exchange’s ‘Meteoric Rise’ Leads to Nationwide Class Action Trend
4 minute read'The Tobacco Industry of This Decade': Slew of Class Actions Accuse DraftKings of Creating Addicts
5 minute readPentagon Settles Suit Seeking to Clear Records of Service Members Discharged for Being LGBTQ
3 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Veritext Legal Solutions Announces the Past Acquisitions of Three Alternative Dispute Resolution Firms
- 2Sarno da Costa D’Aniello Maceri LLC Announces Addition of New Office in Eatontown, NJ, and Named Partner
- 3LSU General Counsel Quits Amid Fracas Over First Amendment Rights of Law Professor
- 4An Eye on ‘De-Risking’: Chewing on Hot Topics in Litigation Funding With Jeffery Lula of GLS Capital
- 5Arguing Class Actions: With Friends Like These...
Who Got The Work
J. Brugh Lower of Gibbons has entered an appearance for industrial equipment supplier Devco Corporation in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The suit, accusing the defendant of selling knock-off Graco products, was filed Dec. 18 in New Jersey District Court by Rivkin Radler on behalf of Graco Inc. and Graco Minnesota. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Zahid N. Quraishi, is 3:24-cv-11294, Graco Inc. et al v. Devco Corporation.
Who Got The Work
Rebecca Maller-Stein and Kent A. Yalowitz of Arnold & Porter Kaye Scholer have entered their appearances for Hanaco Venture Capital and its executives, Lior Prosor and David Frankel, in a pending securities lawsuit. The action, filed on Dec. 24 in New York Southern District Court by Zell, Aron & Co. on behalf of Goldeneye Advisors, accuses the defendants of negligently and fraudulently managing the plaintiff's $1 million investment. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Vernon S. Broderick, is 1:24-cv-09918, Goldeneye Advisors, LLC v. Hanaco Venture Capital, Ltd. et al.
Who Got The Work
Attorneys from A&O Shearman has stepped in as defense counsel for Toronto-Dominion Bank and other defendants in a pending securities class action. The suit, filed Dec. 11 in New York Southern District Court by Bleichmar Fonti & Auld, accuses the defendants of concealing the bank's 'pervasive' deficiencies in regards to its compliance with the Bank Secrecy Act and the quality of its anti-money laundering controls. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Arun Subramanian, is 1:24-cv-09445, Gonzalez v. The Toronto-Dominion Bank et al.
Who Got The Work
Crown Castle International, a Pennsylvania company providing shared communications infrastructure, has turned to Luke D. Wolf of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani to fend off a pending breach-of-contract lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 25 in Michigan Eastern District Court by Hooper Hathaway PC on behalf of The Town Residences LLC, accuses Crown Castle of failing to transfer approximately $30,000 in utility payments from T-Mobile in breach of a roof-top lease and assignment agreement. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Susan K. Declercq, is 2:24-cv-13131, The Town Residences LLC v. T-Mobile US, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Wilfred P. Coronato and Daniel M. Schwartz of McCarter & English have stepped in as defense counsel to Electrolux Home Products Inc. in a pending product liability lawsuit. The court action, filed Nov. 26 in New York Eastern District Court by Poulos Lopiccolo PC and Nagel Rice LLP on behalf of David Stern, alleges that the defendant's refrigerators’ drawers and shelving repeatedly break and fall apart within months after purchase. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Joan M. Azrack, is 2:24-cv-08204, Stern v. Electrolux Home Products, Inc.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250