Memorandum of Decision and Order — Accordius Health at Asheville, LLC v. United States Small Business Administration (Dkt. 41, W.D.N.C.)

Summary

A Memorandum of Decision and Order in Accordius Health at Asheville, LLC v. United States Small Business Administration, Isabella Casillas Guzman, Janet Yellen, and the United States of America, Civil Case No. 1:23-cv-00129-MR, in the U.S. District Court for the Western District of North Carolina, signed May 1, 2024. The order describes the case as a consolidated action of 48 cases under the Administrative Procedure Act seeking review of the denial of the plaintiffs' applications for forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Program loans. The court finds that the American Hotel & Lodging Association's proposed amicus brief is not helpful and presents issues not relevant to what is before the court, and denies its motion for leave (Doc. 37). It denies the defendants' motion to respond (Doc. 39) as moot.

Summary drafted by a model from the document's text below and checked by script against that text before publication. It is a navigation aid, not a reading of what the document proves. Where AI is used

Record facts

Full text

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
        FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA
                      ASHEVILLE DIVISION
                CIVIL CASE NO. 1:23-cv-00129-MR


ACCORDIUS HEALTH AT             )
ASHEVILLE, LLC,                 )
                                )
                   Plaintiff,   )
                                )
         vs.                    )              MEMORANDUM OF
                                )             DECISION AND ORDER
UNITED STATES SMALL             )
BUSINESS ADMINISTRATION,        )
ISABELLA CASILLAS GUZMAN,       )
JANET YELLEN, and               )
THE UNITED STATES OF AMERICA, )
                                )
                   Defendants.  )
_______________________________ )

     THIS MATTER is before the Court on the American Hotel & Lodging

Association’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief [Doc. 37] and the

Defendants’ Motion for Leave to File a Response to Brief of the American

Hotel & Lodging Association as Amicus Curiae [Doc. 39].

I.   PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

     This case, a consolidated action of 48 cases, was originally filed on

May 16, 2023, by Plaintiff Accordius Health at Asheville, LLC, against

Defendants United States Small Business Administration; Isabella Casillas

Guzman, in her official capacity as Administrator of the Small Business



      Case 1:23-cv-00129-MR   Document 41   Filed 05/01/24   Page 1 of 5

Administration (the “Administrator”); Janet Yellen, in her official capacity as

United States Secretary of Treasury; and the United States of America

(collectively, “Defendants”), pursuant to the Administrative Procedure Act

(“APA”), 5 U.S.C. §§ 500, et. seq, seeking judicial review of a final agency

action. [Doc. 1]. These actions arise out of the Defendants’ denial of the

Plaintiffs’ applications for forgiveness of Paycheck Protection Program

(“PPP”) loans. [Id.]. Specifically, the Plaintiffs seek relief under 5 U.S.C.

§ 706(2)(C), alleging that the denial of Plaintiffs’ applications for loan

forgiveness, under the Coronavirus Aid, Relief, and Economic Security Act

(the “CARES Act”), 15 U.S.C. §§ 9001, et seq., was “in excess of statutory

jurisdiction, authority, or limitations, or short of statutory right.” 5 U.S.C. §

706(2)(C); [Doc. 1 at ¶ 81].

      The parties have now filed cross motions for summary judgment.

[Docs. 32, 34]. On April 5, 2024, the American Hotel & Lodging Association

(“AHLA”) filed a Motion for Leave to file an Amicus Brief in support of the

Plaintiffs. [Doc. 37]. AHLA represents in their Motion that the parties both

consent to the filing.1 [Id. at 4]. On April 26, 2024, the Defendants filed a

Motion for Leave to file a response to said brief. [Doc. 39].


1
 The Defendants’ consent was conditioned on the AHLA and Plaintiffs’ consent to the
Defendants filing, no later than April 26, a motion for leave to submit a response. [Doc.
37 at 4].


                                         2
       Case 1:23-cv-00129-MR       Document 41      Filed 05/01/24   Page 2 of 5

      This matter is now ripe for disposition.

II.   DISCUSSION

      “Since an amicus does not represent the parties but 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.”

Alexander v. Hall, 64 F.R.D. 152, 155 (D.S.C. 1974). As there is no Federal

Rule of Civil Procedure that applies to motions for leave to appear as amicus

curiae in a federal district court, district courts have discretion whether to

grant or deny such leave. Am. Humanist Ass’n v. Maryland-Nat’l Cap. Park

& Plan. Comm’n, 303 F.R.D. 266, 269 (D. Md. 2014). “At the trial level, where

issues of fact as well as law predominate, the aid of amicus curiae may be

less appropriate than at the appellate level where such participation has

become standard procedure.” Yip v. Pagano, 606 F. Supp. 1566, 1568

(D.N.J. 1985), aff’d, 782 F.2d 1033 (3d Cir. 1986), cert. denied, 476 U.S.

1141 (1986).

      At the appellate level, the Federal Rules prescribe that a motion for

leave to file should include “the reason why an amicus brief is desirable and

why the matters asserted are relevant to the disposition of the case.” Fed.

R. App. P. 29(a)(3)(B). The Supreme Court’s rules for amici state:

            An amicus curiae brief that brings to the attention of
            the Court relevant matter not already brought to its

                                     3
      Case 1:23-cv-00129-MR    Document 41       Filed 05/01/24   Page 3 of 5

            attention by the parties may be of considerable help
            to the Court. An amicus curiae brief that does not
            serve this purpose burdens the Court, and its fling is
            not favored.

Sup. Ct. R. 37.1.

      Here, the AHLA argues that the outcome of this case has implications

for the hotel and hospitality industry because “many hotels share common

owners among individual hotel properties, yet ownership in each property is

held by a unique special purpose legal entity.” [Doc. 37-1]. However, the

Court’s decision in this case is confined to the administrative record before

it, and not hypothetical harm cautioned by third parties. The AHLA has not

cited any examples of distinct entities being denied loan forgiveness under

the interim final rule at issue in this case and does not refute that such an

entity would be entitled to challenge such a denial under those

circumstances.      Instead, the AHLA asks this Court to consider abstract

scenarios that materially differ from the facts before it in this case.

      Furthermore, the AHLA largely repeats the same arguments against

the rule as the Plaintiffs already have and does not bring any additional

relevant matter to the attention of the Court. For all these reasons, and in

the exercise of its discretion, the Court denies the AHLA’s Motion for Leave

to File Amicus Curiae Brief.




                                      4
      Case 1:23-cv-00129-MR     Document 41    Filed 05/01/24   Page 4 of 5

III.   CONCLUSION

       In its discretion, the Court finds that the AHLA’s proposed amicus brief

is not helpful to the Court in this case and presents issues not relevant to the

record before this Court. Accordingly, the motion is denied.



                                      ORDER

       IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the American Hotel & Lodging

Association’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief [Doc. 37] is

DENIED.

       IT IS FURTHER ORDERED that the Defendants’ Motion for Leave to

File a Response to Brief of the American Hotel & Lodging Association as

Amicus Curiae [Doc. 39] is DENIED AS MOOT.

       IT IS SO ORDERED.

                               Signed: May 1, 2024




                                       5
       Case 1:23-cv-00129-MR     Document 41         Filed 05/01/24   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.ncwd.112035.41.0.pdf

Size

136,887 bytes

SHA-256

72c8db17e54e8722e9233410425770c8d35f21099aaad2322a460a02d4d619dc

Our copy

gov.uscourts.ncwd.112035.41.0.pdf

Original

storage.courtlistener.com