Hindu Am. Found. v. Kish
| Docket Number | 2:22-cv-01656-DAD-JDP |
| Decision Date | 30 August 2023 |
| Parties | HINDU AMERICAN FOUNDATION, INC., Plaintiff, v. KEVIN KISH, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS
This matter is before the court on defendant s motion to dismiss under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) on the grounds that plaintiff lacks standing and under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) on the grounds that plaintiff's complaint fails to state a claim upon which relief can be granted. (Doc. No. 8.) On August 24, 2023, the court took the matter under submission pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc No. 19.) For the reasons explained below, the court will grant defendant's motion to dismiss, in part.
On September 20, 2022, plaintiff Hindu American Foundation, Inc. initiated this action seeking declaratory and injunctive relief against Kevin Kish, in his official capacity as the director of the California Civil Rights Department (“Department”), for allegedly violating the constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans. (Doc. No. 1.)
In its complaint, plaintiff alleges as follows. The Department is pursuing enforcement actions brought under the California Fair Employment and Housing Act (“FEHA”) that are wrongly asserting “that a caste system and caste-based discrimination are integral parts of Hindu teachings and practices.” (Id. at 2.) In those enforcement actions, the Department purportedly “alleges that a caste system is ‘a strict Hindu social and religious hierarchy,' which requires discrimination by ‘social custom and legal mandate' and that Hindu Americans, therefore, adhere to this strict and discriminatory religious hierarchy in violation of the FEHA.” (Id.) According to plaintiff, it is “the largest and most respected Hindu educational and advocacy institution in North America” and it has consistently maintained throughout its history that a caste system or discrimination based on caste is not a legitimate part of Hindu beliefs, teachings, or practices; vehemently opposes all types of discrimination; and “takes great exception to the State of California defaming and demeaning all of Hinduism by attempting to conflate a discriminatory caste system with the Hindu religion.” (Id.) Plaintiff specifically identifies only one enforcement action that the Department initiated in the Santa Clara County Superior Court.[1] (Id. at ¶ 9.)
Plaintiff also alleges that through its enforcement action the Department is seeking to “adopt a legal definition of Hinduism that incorrectly includes caste, a caste system and castebased discrimination.” (Id. at ¶ 13.) In doing so, the Department is “attempting to define Hinduism against the beliefs of an overwhelming number of its own adherents” and “in direct violation of the constitutional right[s] . . . of all Hindu Americans.” (Id. at ¶¶ 14-15.) In fact, according to plaintiff, by wrongly seeking to define Hinduism to include a caste system, the Department is encouraging discrimination on the basis of caste because employers could be required, in accordance with state and federal law, to accommodate a religious belief that embraces caste discrimination. (Id. at ¶¶ 16-22.) The result, plaintiff alleges, is that employers “might arguably be required to accommodate” employee requests to avoid working with, being supervised by or supervising a person perceived to be of the “wrong” caste. (Id. at ¶¶ 21-22.) Thus, according to plaintiff, by “wrongly tying Hindu beliefs and practices to the abhorrent practice of caste-discrimination” the Department is undermining the laudable goal of stopping caste-based discrimination while also violating the constitutional rights of all Hindu Americans. (Id. at 3.)
Based on these allegations, plaintiff brings three claims against defendant under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 for: (1) violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment; (2) denial of procedural due process (without reference to a provision of the U.S. Constitution); and (3) violation of the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. (Doc. No. 1 at ¶¶ 23-47.) As to each of its three claims, plaintiff alleges that it has “associational standing to bring this claim on behalf of its Hindu American members.” (Id. at ¶¶ 24, 32, 43.) In terms of relief, plaintiff seeks an order (i) declaring that the Department's actions, as described in its complaint, violate the First Amendment, due process, and equal protection rights of Hindu Americans, and (ii) enjoining the Department from: (a) “engaging in any act or practice that seeks to define Hinduism as including a caste system or any other belief or practice”; (b) “bringing any religious discrimination action based on the premise that Hindu belief and practice includes a caste system”; and (c) “ascribing religious or moral beliefs or practices to persons or groups who expressly disclaim any such beliefs or practices.” (Id. at 12.)
On February 2, 2023, defendant filed a motion to dismiss plaintiff's complaint pursuant to Rules 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) and a request for judicial notice. (Doc. Nos. 8, 10.) On June 29, 2023, plaintiff filed its opposition to defendant's pending motion and its own request for judicial notice. (Doc. No. 15, 16.) Defendant filed his reply on August 4, 2023. (Doc. No. 18.)
Both defendant and plaintiff filed unopposed requests for judicial notice in support of their motion to dismiss and opposition brief, respectively. (Doc. Nos. 10, 16.)
“Judicial notice under Rule 201 permits a court to notice an adjudicative fact if it is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute.'” Khoja v. Orexigen Therapeutics Inc., 899 F.3d 988, 999 (9th Cir. 2018) (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)). “A fact is ‘not subject to reasonable dispute' if it is ‘generally known,' or ‘can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.'” Id. (quoting Fed.R.Evid. 201(b)(1)-(2)). The court “must take judicial notice if a party requests it and the court is supplied with the necessary information.” Fed.R.Evid. 201(c)(2).
In defendant's unopposed request for judicial notice, he requests that the court take notice of the following five documents: (1) the Department's state court complaint against Cisco Systems, Inc., and of its two supervisors (collectively “Cisco”), which was filed in the Santa Clara County Superior Court on October 16, 2020 (CRD v. Cisco Systems, Inc., et al., Case No. 20-cv-372366) (“Santa Clara action”), and is referenced in plaintiff's complaint (Doc. No. 1 at ¶ 9); (2) plaintiff's motion to intervene and its proposed complaint in intervention, which were filed in the Santa Clara action on January 7, 2021; (3) plaintiff's filed IRS Form 990 for Tax Year 2019 as published by the IRS (retrieved from the IRS's website on January 16, 2023); (4) plaintiff's filed IRS Form 990 for Tax Year 2020 as published by the IRS (retrieved from the IRS's website on January 16, 2023); and (5) plaintiff's filed IRS Form 990 for Tax Year 2021 as published by the IRS (retrieved from the IRS's website on January 16, 2023). (Doc. No. 10.)
In plaintiff's unopposed request for judicial notice, it requests that the court take notice of the following three documents: (1) non-party Catholic League's filed IRS Form 990 for Tax Year 2019 as published by the IRS (retrieved from the IRS's website on June 28, 2023); (2) the IRS's instructions for Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt Form Income Tax for Tax Year 2019, which are posted on the IRS's website (retrieved from the IRS's website on June 28, 2023); and (3) the IRS's instructions for Form 990 Return of Organization Exempt Form Income Tax for Tax Year 2022, which are posted on the IRS's website (retrieved from the IRS's website on June 28, 2023). (Doc. No. 16.)
The court will grant both defendant's and plaintiff's unopposed requests to notice all of the documents described above, which are properly the subject of judicial notice as public records, court documents, and government documents obtained from the IRS's official public website. See Lemoon v. Cal. Forensic Med. Grp., Inc., 575 F.Supp.3d 1212, 1230 (N.D. Cal. 2021) () (citing Holder v. Holder, 305 F.3d 854, 866 (9th Cir. 2002)); Full Circle of Living & Dying v. Sanchez, No. 2:20-cv-01306-KJM-KJN, 2023 WL 373681, at *2 (E.D. Cal. Jan. 24, 2023) () (citations, internal quotation marks, and brackets omitted); Africare, Inc. v. Xerox Complete Document Sols. Maryland, LLC, 436 F.Supp.3d 17, 45 n.21 (D.D.C. 2020) ().
In addition to its request for judicial notice, defendant contends that the complaint filed in the Santa Clara action should be considered as incorporated by reference into plaintiff's complaint. (Doc. No. 10 at 3.) “The doctrine of incorporation by reference is distinct from judicial notice.” Al -Ahmedv. Twitter, Inc. 603 F.Supp.3d 857, 866 (N.D. Cal. 2022). “[T]he requirements for the documents that are relied on by the complaint to be incorporated is that: ‘(1) the complaint refers to the document; (2) the document is central to the plaintiff's claim; and (3) no party questions the authenticity of the copy attached to the 12(b)(6) motion.'” Id. (quoting Marder v. Lopez, 450 F.3d 445, 448 (9th Cir. 2006)). Documents that are incorporated by reference “may be...
To continue reading
Request your trial