Briggs v. Yi et al

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF ALASKA
JOSHUA D. BRIGGS,
Plaintiff,
v.
OREAN YI, et al.,
Defendants.
Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG
ORDER RE REQUEST FOR RECONSIDERATION OF ORDER GRANTING
PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Before 	the 	Court 	at 	Docket 	74 	is 	Plaintiff 	Brigg’s 	Request 	for
Reconsideration of Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment. The Court has
reviewed the request and declines to reconsider its order, as the Court is not
persuaded that it made a manifest error of law. 	Of note, the Court finds that one
of the cases Plaintiff cites, Miller v. City of Excelsior, Minnesota, 618 F. Supp. 3d
820 (D. Minn. 2022), is inapposite. That case, and the other cases it cites, involved
ordinances that prohibited all unpermitted amplified sound that can be heard at the
property line from where the sound emanates. 	In invalidating the ordinance, the
district court noted that “[m]ost problematically, the ordinance’s reach is not limited
to loud, raucous, or disturbing sound . . . .It forbids amplified sound of just about
any audible volume.” 	The district court added it would thus extend to a person’s
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 75 Filed 08/28/23 Page 1 of 2

Case No. 3:22-cv-00265-SLG, Briggs v. Yi, et al.
Order re Request for Reconsideration of Order Granting Partial Summary Judgment
Page 2 of 2
use of a cell phone’s speaker feature while walking on the sidewalk.1 	Here, in
contrast, the ordinance applies only to noise that is “loud enough to inhibit the
ability of the average person in the same place to converse freely without leaving
the public place.”2
Accordingly, the motion to reconsider at Docket 74 is DENIED.
DATED this 28th day of August, 2023, at Anchorage, Alaska.
/s/ Sharon L. Gleason
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
1 Miller, 518 F. Supp. 3d at 835.
2 AMC 8.30.129(B)(2).
Case 3:22-cv-00265-SLG Document 75 Filed 08/28/23 Page 2 of 2