South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 SOUTH BAY UNITED Case No. 3:20-cv-865-BAS-AHG PENTECOASTAL CHURCH, et al., 12 ORDER SETTING BRIEFING Plaintiffs, 13 SCHEDULE v. 14 GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official 15 capacity as the Governor of California, et 16 al., 17 Defendant. 18 19 This case arises from the State of California’s regulations limiting the maximum 20 attendance capacity at places of worship during the coronavirus (SARS-CoV-2) pandemic. 21 Since commencing this action in May, Plaintiffs have filed three motions for preliminary 22 relief challenging California’s evolving regulations on places of worship. (ECF Nos. 12, 23 36, 53.) The Court has denied all three motions. (ECF Nos. 32, 39, 71.) 24 Most recently on October 15, 2020, the Court declined to enjoin the State of 25 California’s regulation in effect at the time. The Court had been granted jurisdiction upon 26 the Ninth Circuit’s July 29, 2020 Order, in which the Ninth Circuit remanded the case to 27 this Court for the limited purpose of determining whether the factual developments should 28 change the Court’s injunction analysis. (Order, South Bay United Pentecostal, et al v. 1 Gavin Newsom, et al, No. 20-55533 (9th Cir. Jul. 29, 2020), ECF No. 74.) The Ninth 2 Circuit retained jurisdiction over the appeal and stayed Plaintiffs’ appeal pending the 3 limited remand. (Id.) The stay was lifted upon the Court’s issuance of the October 15, 4 2020 Order denying Plaintiffs preliminary relief. (See Order, South Bay United 5 Pentecostal, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et al, No. 20-55533 (9th Cir. Oct. 22, 2020), ECF No. 6 81.) 7 On November 24, 2020, Plaintiffs filed with the Supreme Court of the United States 8 a Petition for Writ of Certiorari before Judgment. (Pet. for Writ of Cert. before J., South 9 Bay United Pentecostal, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et al (No. 20-746).) A week later, the 10 Ninth Circuit issued an Order deferring the proceedings in Plaintiffs’ appeal, pending the 11 Supreme Court’s resolution of a similar application for injunctive relief in Harvest Rock 12 Church, Inc. v. Newsom, No. 20A94 (Nov. 24, 2020). (Order, South Bay United 13 Pentecostal, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et al, No. 20-55533 (9th Cir. Dec. 1, 2020), ECF No. 14 95.) 15 On November 25, 2020, the Supreme Court vacated the Governor of New York’s 16 restrictions on religious services. Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo, 592 17 U.S. ---- (Nov. 25, 2020), 2020 WL 6948354. Within several days of that ruling, the 18 Supreme Court vacated the district court’s Order in Harvest Rock Church,1 and remanded 19 the case to the Ninth Circuit with instructions to remand to the Central District of California 20 for further consideration in light of the Supreme Court’s ruling in the New York action. 21 Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom, Gov. of CA, --- S.Ct. ----, 2020 WL 7061630 (mem.) 22 (Dec. 3, 2020). 23 On the same day, Plaintiffs in this action filed a renewed motion for a temporary 24 restraining order and application for an injunction pending appeal pursuant to Fed. R. App. 25 P. 8(a)(1)(C). (ECF No. 75.) Plaintiffs concurrently filed a parallel application with the 26 27 1 Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom, No. LACV206414JGBKKX, 2020 WL 5265564 (C.D. 28 1 || Ninth Circuit. (Emergency Mot., South Bay United Pentecostal, et al v. Gavin Newsom, et 2 No. 20-55533 (9th Cir. Dec. 3, 2020), ECF No. 96.) 3 Plaintiffs request this Court to make a ruling prior to the weekend of December 12- 4 || 13, 2020, by requiring Defendants to file their response by December 9, 2020, and allowing 5 || Plaintiffs to file a reply by December 11, 2020. (ECF No. 75 at 3.) California Defendants 6 ||1n turn propose that Plaintiffs file supplemental briefings by December 9, 2020; Defendants 7 || file a response by December 14, 2020; Plaintiffs file any reply by December 16, 2020; and 8 ||a hearing be held on December 18, 2020. (ECF No. 76 at 2.) 9 In light of Plaintiffs’ ongoing appeal and the changing developments concerning 10 || California’s restrictions, the Court finds that further briefing 1s appropriate. The Court thus 11 || adopts the California Defendants’ proposed briefing schedule. Further, provided the Ninth 12 || Circuit has not acted on Plaintiffs’ parallel application before it, the parties should address 13 Court’s jurisdiction in their forthcoming filings. 14 Accordingly, Plaintiffs are to file a supplemental brief on or before December 9, 15 2020. Defendants are to file a response on or before December 14, 2020. Plaintiffs are 16 file any reply on or before December 16, 2020. In addition, the Court ORDERS the 17 || parties to appear in a telephonic hearing on December 18, 2020, at 10:30 AM for oral 18 |] argument on Plaintiffs’ motion.” 19 20 IT IS SO ORDERED. 21 22 ||} DATED: December 7, 2020 ( yi A A (pha 6 23 United States District Judge 24 25 26 27 ? In light of California’s recently issued stay-at-home order, the hearing will be held telephonically. 28 See Regional Stay Home Order, Regional Stay Home Order — NEW (Dec. 3, 2020), https://covid19. ca. gov/stay-home-except-for-essential-needs/#stay-home-order.