Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 1 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Ashley M. Gjovik, JD
`Pro Se Plaintiff
`
`2108 N St. Ste. 4553
`Sacramento, CA, 95816
`
`(408) 883-4428
`
`legal@ashleygjovik.com
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`ASHLEY GJOVIK, an individual,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`
`
`APPLE INC, a corporation,
`
`
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`Case No. 3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE
`IMPROPER NON-PARTY AMICUS BRIEF
`IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT’S MOTION
`TO STRIKE
`(DOCKET NO. 62)
`
`
`NOTICE OF MOTION
`
`MEMORANDUM OF POINTS &
`AUTHORITIES IN SUPPORT OF MOTION
`
`
`
`
`HEARING:
`
`Dept: Courtroom 5, 17th Floor (Virtual)
`
`Date: May 16, 2024
`
`Time: 1:30 p.m.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`i
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 2 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`I. NOTICE .............................................................................................................................................. 1
`
`II. PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE.. 1
`
`A. STATEMENTS OF FACTS ................................................................................................................. 1
`
`B.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED ................................................................................................................... 3
`
`C. THE DOCUMENT IS AN IMPROPER DECLARATION. ...................................................................... 3
`
`D. THE DOCUMENT IS AN IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF. ...................................................................... 4
`
`E. APPLE DID NOT FILE APPLESEED’S DECLARATION AND APPLESEED WAS NOT APPROVED TO
`
`FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF. .......................................................................................................................... 6
`
`F. AN AMICUS BRIEF OR DECLARATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A MOTION TO STRIKE. ....... 6
`
`G. AN AMICUS BRIEF OR DECLARATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A MOTION TO DISMISS FOR
`
`FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM. ................................................................................................................. 7
`
`H. THE AMICUS DECLARATION VIOLATES THE RULES OF EVIDENCE............................................ 9
`
`I. PREJUDICE .................................................................................................................................... 15
`
`III. CONCLUSION ................................................................................................................................. 16
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`ii
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 3 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`CASES
`
`ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pacific R. Co., 765 F.3d 999, 89 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 554 (9th Cir. 2014). - 8
`
`Banerjee v. Bd. of Trustees of Smith College, 648 F.2d 61, 65 n. 9 (1st Cir. 1981). ---------------- 5
`
`Boro Hall Corporation v. General Motors Corporation, 124 F.2d 822 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1942).--- 7
`
`Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977). ---------- 4
`
`El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016). ------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Faiveley Transport USA, Inc. v. Wabtec Corp., 758 F. Supp. 2d 211, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2010). ----- 7
`
`Grid Systems Corp. v. Texas Instruments Inc., 771 F. Supp. 1033, 1036, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA)
`
`1207 (N.D. Cal. 1991). ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Hayes v. Whitman, 264 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir. 2001). ---------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Hoy v. Progress Pattern Co., 217 F.2d 701 (6th Cir. 1954). ------------------------------------------- 7
`
`In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp., Case No. 01-16034 (AJG), Adv. No. 03-92677, Adv. No.
`
`03-92682, 2 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May. 20, 2008). ------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`In re Marriage of Heggie, 99 Cal. App. 4th 28, 30, n.3 (2002). --------------------------------------- 4
`
`Leigh v. Engle, 535 F. Supp. 418, 420 (N.D. Ill. 1982). ------------------------------------------------ 5
`
`Lewis v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1376 (6th Cir. 1998). - 8
`
`Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp., 149 F.R.D. 65, 82 (D.N.J. 1993). ------- 5
`
`Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, Inc. v. New York Athletic Club, No. 94 Civ. 0436, 1995 WL
`
`358777, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 1995). --------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`McKay v. Sazerac Co., 23-cv-00522-EMC, 4 (N.D. Cal. May. 17, 2023). --------------------------- 9
`
`Medevac MidAtlantic, LLC v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, 817 F. Supp. 2d 515, 520 (E.D. Pa.
`
`2011). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d 1061, 1068 (N.D. Cal.
`
`2005). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Oneida Indian Nation of New York v. New York, 194 F. Supp. 2d 104 (N.D. N.Y. 2002). -------- 7
`
`Provenz v. Miller, 102 F.3d 1478, 1483 (9th Cir. 1996). --------------------------------------------- 15
`
`Reynolds v. United States Gov't, 7:22-CV-00178-FL, 8 (E.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2023). ----------------- 6
`
`Rosenberg-Wohl v. State Farm Fire & Cas. Co., 20-cv-09316-DMR, 6 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 28,
`
`2022). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana, 786 F.3d 510
`
`(7th Cir. 2015). -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Ryan v. Commodity Futures Trading Com'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997). ---------------- 5
`
`iii
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 4 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Schy v. Susquehanna Corp., 419 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970). ------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Silver v. Executive Car Leasing Long-Term Disability Plan, 466 F.3d 727, 731 n.2 (9th Cir.
`
`2006). ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 3
`
`Slagle v. U.S., 228 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1956). ------------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567 (5th Cir. 1970) ------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Sweigert v. Cable News Network, Inc., 20-cv-12933, 19-20 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2022). --------- 6
`
`Sweigert v. Cable News Network, Inc., 20-cv-12933, 20-21 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2022). --------- 6
`
`Titan America, LLC v. Darrell, NO. 7:11-CV-52-FL, 9 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 2, 2011). ------------------ 7
`
`United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 163-64 (6th Cir. 1991) ------------------------------------- 4
`
`Wilderman v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1972). --------------------------------------------------- 8
`
`Zamani v. Carnes, 491 F.3d 990, 997 (9th Cir. 2007). ------------------------------------------------ 14
`
`RULES
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 25(b). ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(3) ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- 6
`
`Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), ------------------------------------------------------------------------- 9
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6)---------------------------------------------------------- 7
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 47 and Rule 56 ------------------------------------------------- 4
`
`TREATISES
`
`§ 37:39. Opposition papers—Evidence, 4 Bus. & Com. Litig. Fed. Cts. § 37:39 (5th ed.) -------- 4
`
`16AA C. Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3975, pg. 383 (2021). ----------- 6
`
`C. Rembar, The Law of The Land 330 (1980). ----------------------------------------------------------- 5
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`iv
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 5 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`I.
`
`NOTICE
`
`1.
`
`PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on MAY 16 2024 at 1:30PM, in Judge Chen’s
`
`virtual courtroom, before the Honorable Judge Edward Chen, I will, and hereby do, move for an
`
`order granting a Motion to Strike the improper amicus document filed to Docket No. 62. The
`
`motion is based on this Memorandum, and Plaintiff’s concurrently filed Declaration with
`
`attached Exhibits at Docket No. 64-1.
`
`II.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT OF PLAINTIFF’S MOTION
`
`TO STRIKE
`
`2.
`
`Plaintiff, Ashley Gjovik, respectfully submits the following Memorandum of
`
`Points and Authorities in support of Plaintiff’s Motion to Strike the documents at Docket No. 62.
`
`A.
`
`STATEMENTS OF FACTS
`
`3.
`
`On April 19 2024, under Docket No. 62, a non-party filed a Declaration of “In
`
`Support of Defendant's Moton to Strike” at (motion located at Docket No. 49). The document was
`
`dated April 16 2024 and mailed to this Court, arriving on April 19 2024 and entered to the docket
`
`on April 23 2024, per the docket notes.
`
`4.
`
`The non-party identified herself as the person described in Plaintiff’s Complaint as
`
`“Joanna Appleseed.” Non-Party Decl at ¶ 1. Appleseed explained she used to work for Apple’s
`
`Global Security team. Id at ¶ 4. Appleseed also explained she sued Gjovik in 2022. Id at ¶ 5-6.
`
`5.
`
`Appleseed explained she filed the Amicus Declaration after this lawsuit was
`
`“brought to [her] attention” by someone but she does not say who. Id at ¶ 3. Appleseed also notes
`
`she “emailed Apple’s attorney” about Gjovik’s lawsuit asking for “options” to “have [herself]
`
`removed from [the] case.” Id at ¶ 3. Appleseed notes that Apple’s counsel “did not reply” to her.
`
`Id. Appleseed requested in her Declaration that the Court force Plaintiff to remove claims from
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`1
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 6 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiff’s federal lawsuit alleging that Appleseed engaged in unlawful activity which harmed
`
`Plaintiff. Id at at ¶ 2 and 9. Finally, Appleseed also noted that she did not contact Gjovik after
`
`learning of the litigation and prior to filing this Declaration. Id at ¶ 3. Plaintiff denies, disputes,
`
`and objects to all other facts alleged in the non-party’s Declaration.
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff’s Third Amended Complaint references Appleseed as one of the multiple
`
`agents of Apple Inc under Plaintiff’s claims for violations of the RICO Act (TAC at ¶ 112), Bane
`
`Act (TAC at ¶ 187), Ralph Act (TAC at ¶ 197), and IIED/NIED (TAC at ¶ 252-253). Plaintiff
`
`notes the various vicarious liability theories she plans to argue at TAC ¶ 111 and which includes
`
`theories such as negligence, conspiracy, condonation, non-employment agency, ratification, and
`
`other theories (in addition to Respondeat superior). Id. Gjovik also argues association-in-fact
`
`Enterprise membership at TAC ¶ 118-120, applicable here to at least the 18 U.S. Code §§ 1512,
`
`1513 Predicate Act claims.
`
`7.
`
`Apple’s Motion to Dismiss at Docket No. 48 references Appleseed in several
`
`sections, including the Bane Act section, writing: “Plaintiff previously pled that in 2022 ‘Joanna
`
`Appleseed’—while no longer employed at Apple …—filed an FBI report about Plaintiff ….and
`
`‘retaliatory litigation’ against Plaintiff …. Even if such conduct were to violate the Bane Act,
`
`Apple would not be liable as a matter of law.” Def’s Mot. to Dismiss Plaintiff’s TAC at pages 18-
`
`19. Apple also references Appleseed in the Ralph Act section, writing: “Plaintiff alleges that
`
`‘Joanna Appleseed’ filed false reports about Plaintiff … Even if Appleseed’s conduct amounted
`
`to a Ralph Act violation, Apple is not liable for Appleseed’s conduct because, as discussed above,
`
`Plaintiff acknowledges that Appleseed was no longer employed at Apple when any such
`
`purportedly false report was filed.” Def’s Mot. to Dismiss Plaintiff’s SAC at page 21. Gjovik and
`
`Apple Inc have not disputed that Appleseed did the things Gjovik alleged in her TAC, but Apple
`
`does dispute it should be held liable for Appleseed’s conduct.
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`2
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 7 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff did not use Appleseed’s true name in her Complaints out of fear; as noted
`
`in Plaintiff’s Complaints: “Joanna Appleseed… who worked in Apple’s Worldwide Loyalty
`
`team”… “alias because this person tried to sue Gjovik in 2022 for naming her in charges and
`
`legal filings alleging witness intimidation, and Gjovik fears she might try to do it again.” OC at ¶
`
`132; FAC at ¶ 630; SAC at ¶ 430. It is clear Apple knew who Plaintiff was referring to by Apple’s
`
`responses.
`
`B.
`
`ISSUES TO BE DECIDED
`
`9.
`
`First, this Court should decide whether the “Declaration” is a proper filing, and
`
`whether the non-party is allowed to file the document; and if not, the entry at Docket No. 62 should
`
`be stricken in its entirety. Next, if the entry is not stricken in entirety; then this Court should decide
`
`whether parts of the document at Docket No. 62 should be stricken.
`
`10.
`
`Then, if the entire document is not stricken, this Court should decide whether to
`
`consider the remainder of the document as part of its consideration of Defendant Apple’s Motion
`
`to Strike Plaintiff’s TAC. The Court must also consider if this would convert Apple’s Motion to
`
`Dismiss to into a Motion for Summary Judgement.
`
`11.
`
`Finally, the Court may decide if the Amicus Declaration can be used as evidence
`
`by Plaintiff in support of her claims of violations of the RICO Act, Bane Act, and Ralph Act
`
`through interference and attempted interference with Plaintiff’s federal litigation and testimony.
`
`C.
`
`THE DOCUMENT IS AN IMPROPER DECLARATION.
`
`12.
`
`The Amicus Declaration contains numerous legal arguments and attempts to
`
`summarize and characterize legal matters. This is not what Declarations are for. “The purpose of
`
`a declaration is to submit evidence; it is improper to use a declaration to present legal argument.”
`
`Silver v. Executive Car Leasing Long-Term Disability Plan, 466 F.3d 727, 731 n.2 (9th Cir. 2006).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`3
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 8 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`In re Marriage of Heggie, 99 Cal. App. 4th 28, 30, n.3 (2002). The Amicus Declaration offers
`
`very few facts and provides no supporting evidence such as exhibits.
`
`13.
`
`A declaration “must be viewed just as counsel would view live testimony, and may
`
`be attacked for any admissibility deficiency.” § 37:39. Opposition papers—Evidence, 4 Bus. &
`
`Com. Litig. Fed. Cts. § 37:39 (5th ed.) Local Civil Rule 7-5(b) explains: “An affidavit or
`
`declaration may contain only facts, must conform as much as possible to the requirements of Fed.
`
`R. Civ. P. 56(e), and must avoid conclusions and argument. Any statement made upon information
`
`or belief must specify the basis therefor. An affidavit or declaration not in compliance with this
`
`rule may be stricken in whole or in part.” The Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 47 and Rule
`
`56 also explains a similar expectation.1
`
`14.
`
`Affidavits from the moving party may only be considered on a motion to dismiss
`
`where they raise no fact controversy but only a question of law. Data Disc, Inc. v. Systems
`
`Technology Associates, Inc., 557 F.2d 1280 (9th Cir. 1977). This Amicus Declaration is in support
`
`of Apple’s Motion to Dismiss so it’s subject to this expectation.
`
`D.
`
`THE DOCUMENT IS AN IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF.
`
`15.
`
`An amicus curiae is not a party and has no control over the litigation and no right
`
`to institute any proceedings in it, nor can it file any pleadings or motions in the case. See, e.g.,
`
`United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 163-64 (6th Cir. 1991) (disapproving of the "legal
`
`mutant characterized as `litigating amicus curiae'" because it impinged on the inherent rights of
`
`the real parties in interest). NGV Gaming, Ltd. v. Upstream Point Molate, LLC, 355 F. Supp. 2d
`
`1061, 1068 (N.D. Cal. 2005).
`
`
`1 See, Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Rule 47, Notes of Advisory Committee on Rules—
`1944, point 3: “...authorize the use of affidavits when affidavits are appropriate to establish a
`fact.” Rule 56(c)(4), “An affidavit or declaration used to support or oppose a motion must be
`made on personal knowledge, set out facts that would be admissible in evidence, and show that
`the affiant or declarant is competent to testify on the matters stated.”
`4
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 9 of 20
`
`
`
`
`
`16.
`
`The vast majority of amicus curiae briefs are filed by allies of litigants and
`
`duplicate the arguments made in the litigants' briefs, in effect merely extending the length of the
`
`litigant's brief. United States v. Michigan, 940 F.2d 143, 164-65 (6th Cir. 1991). Ryan v.
`
`Commodity Futures Trading Com'n, 125 F.3d 1062, 1063 (7th Cir. 1997). This Amicus
`
`Declaration did support Apple’s arguments in their Oppositions and as such essentially provides
`
`them additional pages and allows them to evade the Rules of Evidence that would have prevented
`
`them from making these types of allegations in their Reply.
`
`17.
`
`The amicus curiae should present an "objective, dispassionate, neutral discussion
`
`of the issues." In re Enron Creditors Recovery Corp., Case No. 01-16034 (AJG), Adv. No. 03-
`
`92677, Adv. No. 03-92682, 2 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. May. 20, 2008). If the information offered
`
`conflates or confuses the issues before the court, the request for leave to file it should be denied. Id.
`
`Long Island Soundkeeper Fund, Inc. v. New York Athletic Club, No. 94 Civ. 0436, 1995 WL
`
`358777, at *1 (S.D.N.Y. June 14, 1995).
`
`18.
`
`If the proffer comes from an individual with a partisan, rather than impartial view,
`
`the motion for leave to file an amicus brief is to be denied, in keeping with the principle that an
`
`amicus must be a friend of the court and not a friend of a party to the cause. C. Rembar, The Law
`
`of The Land 330 (1980). Leigh v. Engle, 535 F. Supp. 418, 420 (N.D. Ill. 1982). Where a
`
`petitioner's attitude toward a litigation is patently partisan, they should not be allowed to appear
`
`as amicus curiae. Liberty Lincoln Mercury, Inc. v. Ford Marketing Corp., 149 F.R.D. 65, 82
`
`(D.N.J. 1993).
`
`19.
`
`The purpose of an amicus curiae brief is "to assist the court on matters of
`
`law." Banerjee v. Bd. of Trustees of Smith College, 648 F.2d 61, 65 n. 9 (1st Cir. 1981). It is not,
`
`however, to be used to assist with respect to evidentiary claims; therefore, it should not offer
`
`factual information favoring a particular party. Id.; see also Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`5
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 10 of 20
`
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`567 (5th Cir. 1970). “An amicus who argues facts should rarely be welcomed.” Id. at *15
`
`(quoting Strasser v. Doorley, 432 F.2d 567, 569 (1st Cir. 1970)). See also, Reynolds v. United
`
`States Gov't, 7:22-CV-00178-FL, 8 (E.D.N.C. Jul. 21, 2023).
`
`20.
`
`Similar to Sweigert v. Cable News Network, Inc., this case also has a non-party
`
`submitting an amicus brief wanting to “share facts and evidence” without seeking concurrence
`
`from either party and the Plaintiff actively opposes the Amicus document. In that case the Court
`
`agreed to strike the amicus filing noting it contained “contain conclusory allegations of Plaintiff
`
`conspiring with a court employee to commit fraud on the court.” Sweigert v. Cable News Network,
`
`Inc., 20-cv-12933, 20-21 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2022). Appleseed’s Amicus Declaration is of the
`
`same character and should be stricken.
`
`E.
`
`APPLE DID NOT FILE APPLESEED’S DECLARATION AND APPLESEED
`WAS NOT APPROVED TO FILE AN AMICUS BRIEF.
`
`21.
`
`There is no right of nonparties generally to submit an amicus brief.” 16AA C.
`
`Wright & A. Miller, Federal Practice and Procedure § 3975, pg. 383 (2021). Instead, “the amicus
`
`must file a motion for leave to file the brief” when consent cannot be obtained. Id. The amicus
`
`brief itself must accompany the motion for leave, Fed. R. App. P. 29(a)(3), and the filings must
`
`be served on all parties. Fed. R. App. P. 25(b). Sweigert v. Cable News Network, Inc., 20-cv-
`
`12933, 19-20 (E.D. Mich. Mar. 21, 2022). Appleseed did not request leave to file the
`
`brief/declaration, nor did she obtain consent from the parties, thus it is improper.
`
`F.
`
`AN AMICUS BRIEF OR DECLARATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A
`MOTION TO STRIKE.
`
`22.
`
`“Motions to strike are to be decided on the pleadings alone.” Medevac MidAtlantic,
`
`LLC v. Keystone Mercy Health Plan, 817 F. Supp. 2d 515, 520 (E.D. Pa. 2011). If there is a
`
`disputed question of fact or law on a motion to strike, the court should defer action on the motion
`
`and leave the sufficiency of the allegations for a determination on the merits. Oneida Indian Nation
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`6
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 11 of 20
`
`
`
`
`of New York v. New York, 194 F. Supp. 2d 104 (N.D. N.Y. 2002). Appleseed’s request is not
`
`appropriate for a 12(f) motion to strike or a 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss.
`
`G.
`
`AN AMICUS BRIEF OR DECLARATION IS NOT APPROPRIATE FOR A
`MOTION TO DISMISS FOR FAILURE TO STATE A CLAIM.
`
`23.
`
`The Court making a Motion to Dismiss for failure to state a claim determination
`
`must assume that the plaintiff's allegations are true, construe the complaint in a light most
`
`favorable to the plaintiff, and resolve every doubt in the plaintiff's favor. Grid Systems Corp. v.
`
`Texas Instruments Inc., 771 F. Supp. 1033, 1036, 20 U.S.P.Q.2d (BNA) 1207 (N.D. Cal. 1991).
`
`Affidavits cannot be treated as proof contradictory to well-pleaded facts in the complaint. Slagle
`
`v. U.S., 228 F.2d 673 (5th Cir. 1956). The court may take cognizance of and consider facts
`
`disclosed otherwise than in the complaint, such as in an affidavit, brief, or argument, only where
`
`such facts are undisputed or the parties consent to their consideration. Boro Hall Corporation v.
`
`General Motors Corporation, 124 F.2d 822 (C.C.A. 2d Cir. 1942).
`
`24.
`
`The Court "is normally required to look only to the allegations on the face of the
`
`complaint" when adjudicating a motion to dismiss. Roth v. Jennings,489 F.3d 499, 509 (2d Cir.
`
`2007). Accordingly, the Court generally cannot consider affidavits and exhibits on a motion to
`
`dismiss. Faiveley Transport USA, Inc. v. Wabtec Corp., 758 F. Supp. 2d 211, 216 (S.D.N.Y. 2010).
`
`For the purpose of testing whether the complaint states facts sufficient to constitute a cause of
`
`action, the allegations of fact cannot be challenged by affidavits to the contrary. Hoy v. Progress
`
`Pattern Co., 217 F.2d 701 (6th Cir. 1954).
`
`25.
`
`Among other issues, this inquiry is not one that is appropriate for resolution at the
`
`Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 12(b)(6) stage, where the court is to determine only whether
`
`a claim is stated, and is not to resolve factual contests or determine the applicability of
`
`defenses. Titan America, LLC v. Darrell, NO. 7:11-CV-52-FL, 9 (E.D.N.C. Sep. 2, 2011).
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`7
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 12 of 20
`
`
`
`
`26.
`
`In considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim, the court will not
`
`consider or pass on extraneous matters or questions or issues not proper for determination. Schy
`
`v. Susquehanna Corp., 419 F.2d 1112 (7th Cir. 1970). Further, where, in an action by an employee
`
`against the employer, the pleadings raise a triable issue of fact, a motion to dismiss the complaint
`
`will be denied. Wilderman v. Nelson, 467 F.2d 1173 (8th Cir. 1972).
`
`27. While it might be appropriate for the court to consider additional facts or legal
`
`theories asserted in a response brief to a motion to dismiss if they are consistent with the facts and
`
`theories advanced in the complaint, the court may not consider allegations or theories that are
`
`inconsistent with those pleaded in the complaint. Hayes v. Whitman, 264 F.3d 1017 (10th Cir.
`
`2001). Nor may the court consider conclusions of law and unwarranted inferences of fact. Lewis
`
`v. ACB Business Services, Inc., 135 F.3d 389, 39 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 1376 (6th Cir. 1998).
`
`28.
`
`Substantive defenses on the merits of the complaint may not be raised in a motion
`
`to dismiss for failure to state a claim. Skala v. Sataloff, 301 F. Supp. 304 (E.D. Pa. 1969). For
`
`defenses such as statute of limitations to be raised on a Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss,
`
`the complaint must clearly show on its face that the affirmative defense is applicable and bars the
`
`action. El-Shaddai v. Zamora, 833 F.3d 1036 (9th Cir. 2016). ASARCO, LLC v. Union Pacific R.
`
`Co., 765 F.3d 999, 89 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 554 (9th Cir. 2014).
`
`29.
`
`Even though affidavits usually constitute “matters outside the pleading” within the
`
`meaning of Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b), an affidavit filed by the plaintiff which merely reiterates the
`
`claim stated in the complaint in general and conclusory language does not convert a Fed. R. Civ.
`
`P. 12(b)(6) motion to one for summary judgment. Aldahonda-Rivera v. Parke Davis & Co., 882
`
`F.2d 590, 14 Fed. R. Serv. 3d 713 (1st Cir. 1989). Further, in opposition to a motion to dismiss for
`
`failure to state a claim, a plaintiff may submit materials outside the pleadings to illustrate the facts
`
`that the plaintiff expects to be able to prove, even if such materials were not attached as exhibits
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`8
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 13 of 20
`
`
`
`
`to the complaint. Fed.Rules Civ.Proc.Rule 12(b)(6), 28 U.S.C.A. Runnion ex rel. Runnion v. Girl
`
`Scouts of Greater Chicago and Northwest Indiana, 786 F.3d 510 (7th Cir. 2015). Plaintiff attaches
`
`several exhibits to her concurrently filed Declaration to show some of the facts she expects to be
`
`able to prove and which are in direct contraction with the unsubstantiated allegations in the Amicus
`
`Declaration.
`
`H.
`
`THE AMICUS DECLARATION VIOLATES THE RULES OF EVIDENCE.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiff objects to numerous statements made in the Amicus Declaration. Many of
`
`the non-party’s allegations are false, and most are unsubstantiated and misleading. Fed. R. Evid.
`
`§ 403 requires a declarant to bear the burden of producing evidence as to the existence of a
`
`preliminary fact, including where the preliminary fact is “the personal knowledge of a witness
`
`concerning the subject matter of his testimony.” Fed. R. Evid. § 403(a)(2). Neither Defendant nor
`
`the non-party have substantiated any of non-party’s allegations. Plaintiff’s objections are as
`
`follows:
`
`Objection
`No.
`
`Material Objected To
`
`Grounds for Objection
`
`Ruling
`
`1
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 4
`
`Location of non-party’s
`previous residence.
`
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. §
`401)
`
`
`
`Confusion (Fed. R. Evid.
`§ 403)
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`2
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 4
`
`Irrelevant (Fed. R. Evid. §
`401)
`
`
`
`Allegations about when or
`how non-party met Plaintiff.
`
`Confusion (Fed. R. Evid.
`§ 403)
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`
`
`3
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 4
`
`Allegations and conclusions
`about non-party’s financial
`interest in Defendant’s
`business
`
`Improper Opinion /
`Speculative (Fed. R. Evid.
`§§ 602, 701, 703)
`
`Out of Context (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 106)
`
`
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`9
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 14 of 20
`
`
`
`
`4
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 4
`
`Legal arguments about
`Apple’s vicarious liability
`for actions of non-party.
`
`5
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 4
`
`Legal argument about
`propriety of naming non-
`party in this lawsuit.
`
`6
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 5
`
`Allegations and
`characterization about
`Plaintiff’s TAC as “false,”
`“misleading,” its “veracity,”
`“improper.”
`
`
`
`7
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 5
`
`Argumentative (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 403)
`
`Opinion and legal
`arguments. Civil L.R. 7-
`5(b)
`
`Improper Opinion /
`Speculative (Fed. R. Evid.
`§§ 602, 701, 703)
`
`Argumentative (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 403)
`
`Improper Opinion /
`Speculative (Fed. R. Evid.
`§§ 602, 701, 703)
`
`Argumentative (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 403)
`
`Opinion and legal
`arguments. Civil L.R. 7-
`5(b)
`
`Argumentative (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 403)
`
`
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`Improper Opinion /
`Speculative (Fed. R. Evid.
`§§ 602, 701, 703)
`
`Argumentative (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 403)
`
`
`
`Unsubstantiated allegations
`about conduct and
`statements by Plaintiff – any
`of which would have been
`statements Plaintiff did not
`make to the non-party and
`thus are Hearsay.
`
`Improper Opinion /
`Speculative (Fed. R. Evid.
`§§ 602, 701, 703)
`
`Out of Context (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 106)
`
`Hearsay (Fed. R. Evid.
`801)
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`8
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 5
`
`Argumentative (Fed. R.
`Evid. § 403)
`
`
`
`Allegations about the
`nature, outcome, and merit
`
`Sustained: _______
`
`PLAINTIFF’S MOTION TO STRIKE IMPROPER AMICUS BRIEF
`
`3:23-CV-04597-EMC
`
`
`APRIL 23 2024
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 3:23-cv-04597-EMC Document 64 Filed 04/24/24 Page 15 of 20
`
`
`
`
`of the non-party’s lawsuit
`against Plaintiff.
`
`Improper Opinion /
`Speculative (Fed. R. Evid.
`§§ 602, 701, 703)
`
`Overruled: _______
`
`9
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 5
`
`Allegations against Plaintiff
`accusing Plaintiff of
`conduct that is
`“defamatory,” “false light,”
`“fabricated narrative,”
`“threaten,” “destructive,”
`“harassed,” “severely,”
`“maliciously.”
`
`10
`
`Docket No. 62 ¶ 5
`
`Allegations about
`Defendant’s status as a
`“witness in defense” for
`Appl