Cross Culture Christian Ctr., Non-Profit Corp. v. Newsom

• Decision Date: 05 May 2020
• Docket Number: No. 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD,2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD
• Parties: CROSS CULTURE CHRISTIAN CENTER, a California Non-profit Corporation; Pastor Jonathan Duncan, an individual, Plaintiffs, v. Gavin NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of California; Sonia Angell, in her capacity as California Public Health Officer; Maggie Park, in her official capacity as Public Health Officer, San Joaquin County; Marcia Cunningham, in her official capacity as Director of Emergency Services, San Joaquin County; City of Lodi; Tod Patterson, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of Lodi, California, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California

445 F.Supp.3d 758

CROSS CULTURE CHRISTIAN CENTER, a California Non-profit Corporation; Pastor Jonathan Duncan, an individual, Plaintiffs,

v.Gavin NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; Xavier Becerra, in his official capacity as the Attorney General of California; Sonia Angell, in her capacity as California Public Health Officer; Maggie Park, in her official capacity as Public Health Officer, San Joaquin County; Marcia Cunningham, in her official capacity as Director of Emergency Services, San Joaquin County; City of Lodi; Tod Patterson, in his official capacity as Chief of Police of Lodi, California, Defendants.

No. 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD

United States District Court, E.D. California.

Signed May 5, 2020

Dean Robert Broyles, National Center for Law & Policy, Escondido, CA, Robert H. Tyler, Advocates for Faith & Freedom, Murrieta, CA, for Plaintiffs.

ORDER DENYING EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR TEMPORARY RESTRAINING ORDER

JOHN A. MENDEZ, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Cross Culture Christian Center ("Cross Culture Christian" or the "Church") and its pastor, Jonathan Duncan, filed a ten-count complaint against the City of Lodi, its police chief, and several State and County officials. Compl., ECF No. 1. They allege the stay-at-home orders Governor Newsom and San Joaquin County enacted to slow the spread of COVID-19 ("State Order" and "County Order") impermissibly infringe upon their constitutional and statutory rights to speak, assemble, and practice religion as they choose. Plaintiffs then filed an ex parte application for a temporary restraining order. Ex parte Application for TRO ("TRO"), ECF No. 4. They request the Court enjoin enforcement of the State and County orders against Cross Culture Christian so long as the church complies with the CDC's social distancing guidelines while conducting its in-person services.¹ TRO at 2. The State Defendants opposed Plaintiffs' motion. Opp'n by Sonia Angell, Xavier Becerra, Gavin Newsom ("State Opp'n), ECF No. 15. The County and City Defendants filed a joint opposition. Opp'n by City of Lodi, et al. ("Local Opp'n"). The Court also granted leave for Americans United for the Separation of Church and State to file a brief as amicus curiae in support of Defendants. ECF No. 18. Plaintiffs then filed a reply. ECF No. 21.

For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' request for a temporary restraining order.

I. FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Cross Culture Christian is a church in Lodi, California led by Pastor Duncan. Compl. ¶¶ 17, 18. Cross Culture Christian used to hold Wednesday and Sunday services in the sanctuary of a building it rented from Bethel Open Bible Church. Compl. ¶ 56. But in March 2019, Governor Newsom and San Joaquin County began issuing stay at home orders to combat the rapid spread of COVID-19. Compl. ¶¶ 31, 36. The Lodi Police Department, enforcing these orders, eventually required the Church to stop holding in-person services. Compl. ¶ 75.

In early March, Governor Newsom enacted Executive Order N-33-20, a statewide "stay at home order." Compl. ¶ 31. The order directed California residents to "stay home or at their place of residence except as needed to maintain continuity of operations of the federal critical infrastructure services." Compl. ¶ 32; Ex. A to Compl., ECF No. 1-1. Governor Newsom reserved authority to "designate additional sectors as critical [to] protect the health and well-being of all Californians." Id. On March 21, San Joaquin County followed suit. Compl. ¶ 36. It issued a stay at home order directing "all businesses and governmental agencies to cease non-essential operations at physical locations in the county" and prohibiting "all non-essential gatherings of any number of individuals." Ex. 2 to Compl., ECF No. 1-2. The County order also incorporated Executive Order N-33-20 by reference. Id. at 1.

As COVID-19 continued to spread, Governor Newsom and County officials issued amendments containing increasingly stringent restrictions. Compl. ¶¶ 31-46. California's March 22 order set forth with more specificity its list of "Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers." Compl. ¶ 33; Ex. 6 to Compl., ECF No. 1-6. The amendment designates "[f]aith based services that are provided through streaming or other technology" as an essential part of the "Other Community-Based Government Operations and Essential Functions" sector. Ex. 6 to Compl. at 11. The list otherwise makes no mention of faith, churches, religion, religious workers, Christianity, worship, or prayer. The County's March 26 order removed an exemption in the earlier order that allowed six or fewer nonrelatives to meet at someone's home or place of residence. Ex. 3 to Compl., ECF No. 1-3. Cross Culture Christian nevertheless continued to hold in-person services throughout the month of March. Compl. ¶¶ 63-65.

In response to the Church's continued operation, three Lodi police officers posted a notice on the building, explaining that its non-essential use of the facility was a public nuisance. Compl. ¶ 73. Two days later, on April 3, a County Public Health Officer issued an Order Prohibiting Public Assembly to the Church's lessor, Bethel Open Bible Church. Compl. ¶ 43; Ex. 4 to Compl., ECF No. 1-4. The order stated that allowing a tenant to hold in-person services violated the State and County stay at home orders. The order concluded, "[a]ny person who refuses or willfully neglects to comply with this emergency order is guilty of a misdemeanor, punishable by fine and/or imprisonment." Id. Bethel Open Bible Church could, however, continue to operate its child-care facility "consistent with the order of the State Public Health Officer." Id.

The following Sunday, Duncan returned to Cross Culture Christian. His landlord had changed the locks. Compl. ¶ 75. Lodi law enforcement barred access to the property under threat of citation. Compl. Id.

II. OPINION

A. Judicial Notice

District courts may take judicial notice of "a fact that is not subject to reasonable dispute because it: (1) is generally known within the trial court's territorial jurisdiction; or (2) can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned." Fed. R. Evid. 201(b). To this end, a court may take judicial notice "of court filings and other matters of public record," Reyn's Pasta Bella, LLC v. Visa USA, Inc., 442 F.3d 741, 746 n.6 (9th Cir. 2006), including "government documents available from reliable sources on the internet," California River Watch v. City of Vacaville, No. 2:17-cv-00524-KJM-KJN, 2017 WL 3840265, at *2 n.1 (E.D. Cal. Sept. 1, 2017).

The State Defendants request the Court take judicial notice of various filings, rulings, and hearing transcripts related to motions for temporary restraining orders in the following cases: Gish v. Newsom, No. 5:20-cv-00755-JGB-KK (C.D. Cal.) ; Abiding Place Ministries v. Wooten, No. 3:20-cv-00683-BAS-AHG (S.D. Cal.); Nigen v. New York, No. 1:20-cv-01567-EK-PK (E.D.N.Y.); Tolle v. Northam, No. 1:20-cv-00363-LMB-MSN (E.D. Va.); Binford v. Sununu, NO. 217-2020-cv-00152 (N.H. Sup. Ct.); On Fire Christian Ctr., Inc. v. Fischer, No. 3:20-cv-264-JRW (W.D. Ky.); Temple Baptist Church v. City of Greenville, No. 4:20-cv-00064-DMB-JMV (N.D. Miss.). Grabarsky Decl. to State Opp'n ¶¶ 8-14, ECF No. 15-1. The City and County Defendants ("Local Defendants") request judicial notice of the following documents issued by the state and federal government:

• State of California's Proclamation of a Statewide Emergency, from the Executive Department, State of California, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 4, 2020;

• State of California Department – Health and Human Services Agency, California Department of Public Health, Public Guidance for the Prevention of COVID-19 Transmission for Gatherings, dated March 16, 2020;

• Executive Order N-33-20, from the Executive Department of the State of California, signed by Governor Gavin Newsom on March 19, 2020;

• U.S. Department of Homeland Security Advisory Memorandum on Identification of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers During COVID-19 Response, from Director Christopher C. Krebs, dated March 28, 2020; and

• State of California Public Health Officer Designation of Essential Critical Infrastructure Workers, dated April 28, 2020.

Local Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, ECF No. 17.

The court filings and government documents Defendants reference are all proper subjects of judicial notice. The Court therefore GRANTS Defendants' requests. In doing so, the Court judicially notices "the contents of the documents, not the truth of those contents." Gish v. Newsom, No. EDCV 20-755-JGB(KKx), 2020 WL 1979970, at *2 (C.D. Cal. April 23, 2020).

B. Legal Standard

A party seeking a temporary restraining order must establish (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in his favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008) ; see also Stuhlbarg Intern Sales Co., Inc. v. John D. Brush and Co., Inc., 240 F.3d 832, 839 n.7 (9th Cir. 2001). In the Ninth Circuit, courts may also issue temporary restraining orders when there are "serious questions going to the merits" and a "balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff" so long as the remaining two Winter factors are present. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1135 (9th Cir. 2011). When applying either test, courts operate with the understanding that a temporary restraining order, much like a preliminary injunction, is an "extraordinary and drastic remedy." Cf. Munaf v. Geren, 553 U.S. 674, 690, 128 S.Ct. 2207, 171 L.Ed.2d 1 (2008). "The propriety of a temporary restraining order, in particular, hinges on a significant threat of irreparable injury [ ] that must be imminent in nature." Gish, No. EDCV 20-755-JGB(KKx), 2020 WL 1979970,...