20240318PUC Opposition to Motion.pdf

RESPONDENT IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S
OPPOSITION TO FRITS VAN MASTRIGT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
1

RAÚL R. LABRADOR
Idaho Attorney General

ADAM TRIPLETT
DEPUTY ATTORNEY GENERAL
IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
P.O. BOX 83720
BOISE, IDAHO 83720-0074
TELEPHONE: [phone]
IDAHO BAR NO. 10221

Attorney for the Respondent on Appeal,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission

IN THE SUPREME COURT OF THE STATE OF IDAHO

SAMUEL and PEGGY EDWARDS,

Complainants-Appellants,

v.

IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION
and PACIFICORP, dba ROCKY MOUNTAIN
POWER COMPANY,

Respondents.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

SUPREME COURT
DOCKET NO. 51238-2023

IPUC CASE NO.
PAC-E-23-05

RESPONDENT IDAHO
PUBLIC UTILITIES
COMMISSION’S
OPPOSITION TO FRITS VAN
MASTRIGT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS
CURIAE BRIEF

COMES NOW the Respondent, Idaho Public Utilities Commission (“Commission”), and
submits this opposition to Frits van Mastrigt’s Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Curiae Brief
supporting Appellants, Samuel and Peggy Edwards. The Commission respectfully requests that
this Court deny the motion because Idaho Appellate Rule 8 does not permit Mr. van Mastrigt to
file an amicus brief without an attorney. Furthermore, Mr. van Mastrigt seeks to raise issues in his
amicus brief that, by his own description, the Edwards neither preserved for appeal nor addressed.
RECEIVED
Monday, March 18, 2024 4:43PM
IDAHO PUBLIC
UTILITIES COMMISSION
RESPONDENT IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S
OPPOSITION TO FRITS VAN MASTRIGT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
2

PROCEDURAL HISTORY
On March 13, 2024, Mr. van Mastrigt moved for leave to file an amicus brief in support of
Appellants Samuel and Peggy Edwards. According to Mr. van Mastrigt, he seeks to clarify legal
and evidentiary matters that the Edwards presented and raise constitutional issues that they did
not. Mr. van Mastrigt asserts that he has a compelling interest in doing this to avoid harm to himself
and his mother and to “advance . . . principles of law and justice.”
ARGUMENT
This Court should deny Mr. van Mastrigt leave to file an amicus curiae brief because his
motion fails to establish that he either is, or is represented by, a licensed attorney authorized to
appear as an amicus under I.A.R. 8. Furthermore, acceptance of his proposed amicus brief would
inject into this appeal legal issues the Edwards did not preserve or address in their brief.
A. Mr. van Mastrigt Cannot Appear as an Amicus without an Attorney
Idaho Appellate Rule 8 governs appearances by amicus curiae. The Rule provides, in
pertinent part, that “[a]n attorney, or person or entity through an attorney, may appear as amicus
curiae” by request or leave of the Idaho Supreme Court. I.A.R. 8(a). A plain reading of the text of
I.A.R. 8 requires those appearing as amicus curiae to either be an attorney or represented by one.
If the intent of I.A.R. 8 was to allow non-attorneys to file amicus briefs pro se, the Rule could have
simply stated that any person or represented entity may appear as amicus curiae. But it does not.
Moreover, construing I.A.R. 8 as allowing only attorneys to file amicus briefs both avoids
rendering the reference to attorneys in I.A.R. 8(a) surplusage and keeps this Court’s practice in
line with that of the United States Supreme Court. U.S. Sup. Ct. R. 37.1 (allowing only attorneys
admitted to practice before the United States Supreme Court to file amicus briefs).
Mr. van Mastrigt’s filings with this Court fail to establish that he is, or is represented by,
an attorney admitted to practice before this Court. Only Mr. van Mastrigt signed his motion and
proposed amicus brief as required by I.A.R. 11.2. However, neither his motion nor his proposed
amicus brief indicate he has an Idaho Bar License Number, nor does he otherwise assert that he is
an attorney licensed to practice before this Court. Accordingly, because Mr. van Mastrigt has failed
RESPONDENT IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S
OPPOSITION TO FRITS VAN MASTRIGT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
3

to show that he is, or is represented by, an attorney permitted to appear as an amicus under I.A.R.
8, his Motion for Leave to File an Amicus Brief should be denied.
B. Amicus Briefs Cannot Raise New or Unpreserved Issues
Additionally, amicus briefs are not vehicles for raising issues that were neither preserved
for appellate review nor addressed in the briefs of the parties—even if new issues are of
constitutional magnitude. See Bogert v. Kinzer, 93 Idaho 515, 517, 465 P.2d 639, 641 (1970).
Rather, an amicus “must take a case as he finds it without attempting to inject new issues or to
tailor the case to suit his needs.” Id.
Although Mr. van Mastrigt contends his proposed amicus brief clarifies legal and
evidentiary matters the Edwards raised, he also states that he will “introduce matters of great
[c]onstitutional concern and relevant to this case” that were not included in the Edwards’ formal
complaint before the Commission nor their Notice of Appeal. Because Mr. van Mastrigt seeks to
inject new issues into this appeal, his request for leave to file an amicus brief should be denied.
CONCLUSION
The Commission respectfully requests that this Court deny Mr. van Mastrigt’s Motion for
Leave to File an Amcius Curiae Brief.
Respectfully submitted this 18th day of March 2024.

Adam Triplett
Deputy Attorney General
Attorney for Respondent on Appeal,
Idaho Public Utilities Commission

RESPONDENT IDAHO PUBLIC UTILITIES COMMISSION’S
OPPOSITION TO FRITS VAN MASTRIGT’S MOTION FOR
LEAVE TO FILE AMICUS CURIAE BRIEF
4

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE

I HEREBY CERTIFY that on this 18th day of March, 2024, served the foregoing
Opposition to Frits van Mastrigt’s Motion for Leave to File Amicus Curiae Brief, in Supreme
Court Docket No. 51238-2023, by forwarding a copy thereof, to the following, via the manner
indicated:
Appellants, pro se

Samuel Z. and Peggy M. B. Edwards
333 Shoshone Ave.
Rexburg, ID 83440

☐ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
☐ Personal Delivery
☐ iCourt
☒ E-Mail [e-mail]

Attorney for Respondent on Appeal
Pacificorp d/b/a Rocky Mountain
Power Company

Joe Dallas
Senior Attorney
Rocky Mountain Power
825 NE Multnomah, Ste. 2000
Portland, OR 97232

☐ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
☐ Personal Delivery
☒ iCourt
☐ E-Mail [e-mail]

Frits van Mastrigt, pro se

Frits van Mastrigt
c/o 3270 E. 17th St. #128
Idaho Falls, ID 83406

☐ U.S. Mail, postage prepaid
☐ Personal Delivery
☐ iCourt
☒ E-Mail [e-mail]

_________________________________
Keri J. Hawker
Legal Assistant to Adam Triplett