U.S. District Court Eastern District of California - Live System (Sacramento) CIVIL DOCKET FOR CASE #: 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC

Calvary Chapel of Ukiah et al v. Newsom et al Assigned to: Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller Referred to: Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota Cause: 42:1983 Civil Rights Act

Date Filed: 07/15/2020 Jury Demand: None Nature of Suit: 440 Civil Rights: Other Jurisdiction: Federal Question

Plaintiff
Calvary Chapel of Ukiah a California Non-Profit Corporation

represented by Abigail A. Southerland , PHV American Center for Law and Justice 625 Bakers Bridge Ave. Suite 105-121 Franklin, TN 37067 615-599-5572 Fax: 615-599-5180 Email: asoutherland@aclj.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward L. White III , PHV American Center for Law and Justice 3001 Plymouth Rd Suite 203 Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734-680-8007 Fax: 734-680-8006 Email: ewhite@aclj.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Erik Michael Zimmerman , PHV American Center for Law and Justice 3001 Plymouth Road Suite 203H Ann Arbor, MI 48105 734-680-8007

Plaintiff Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg a California Non-Profit Corporation
Plaintiff River of Life Church a California Non-Profit Corporation

Fax: 734-680-8006 Email: ezimmerman@aclj.org LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Tyler Tyler & Bursch, LLP 25026 Las Brisas Road Murrieta, CA 92562 951-600-2733 Fax: 951-600-4996 Email: rtyler@tylerbursch.com ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abigail A. Southerland , PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Edward L. White III , PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Michael Zimmerman , PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Tyler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Abigail A. Southerland , PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Edward L. White III , PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Erik Michael Zimmerman , PHV (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY PRO HAC VICE ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Robert H. Tyler (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

V. Defendant Gavin Newsom in his official capacity as Governor of California
Defendant Sonia Angell M.D., in her official capacity as California Public Health Officer

represented by Todd Grabarsky Office of the Attorney General 300 S. Spring St., Ste. 1700 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213-269-6044 Fax: 916-731-2124 Email: todd.grabarsky@doj.ca.gov LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
Jonathan Michael Eisenberg California Department of Justice Government Law Section 300 South Spring St. Suite 1702 Los Angeles, CA 90013 213-269-6246 Email: jonathan.eisenberg@doj.ca.gov ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Todd Grabarsky (See above for address) LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Defendant Noemi Dooham M.D., in her official capacity as Public Health Officer, Mendocino County
Defendant Ngoc-Phuong Luu M.D., in her official capacity as Butte County Public Health Officer

Jonathan Michael Eisenberg (See above for address) ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Christian Meyer Curtis Office of the Mendocino County Counsel 501 Low Gap Rd Room 1030 Ukiah, CA 95482 707-234-6885 Email: curtisc@mendocinocounty.org LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED
represented by Bradley J. Stephens Butte County Counsel 25 County Center Dr. Suite 210 Oroville, CA 95965 530-552-4070 Email: bstephens@buttecounty.net LEAD ATTORNEY ATTORNEY TO BE NOTICED

Date Filed

# Docket Text

07/15/2020 1

COMPLAINT against all defendants by all plaintiffs. Attorney Tyler, Robert H. added. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-8997011) (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Civil Cover Sheet)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 07/15/2020)

07/16/2020

2 SUMMONS ISSUED as to *Sonia Angell, Noemi Dooham, NgocPhuong Luu, Gavin Newsom* with answer to complaint due within *21* days. Attorney *Robert H. Tyler* *Tyler & Bursch, LLP* *25026 Las Brisas Road* *Murrieta, CA 92562*. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 07/16/2020)

07/16/2020 07/17/2020 07/20/2020
07/21/2020 07/23/2020 07/24/2020 07/24/2020

3 CIVIL NEW CASE DOCUMENTS ISSUED; Initial Scheduling Conference set for 11/19/2020 at 02:30 PM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Standing Order, # 2 Consent Form, # 3 VDRP) (Benson, A.) (Entered: 07/16/2020)
4 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church for attorney Edward L. White III to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 225, receipt number 0972-9002022) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A: Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Attachment B: List of Admitted Courts)(Tyler, Robert) Modified on 7/20/2020 (Zignago, K.). (Entered: 07/17/2020)
5 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller ORDERING this matter REFERRED to Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota for pretrial scheduling. Accordingly, the Status (Pretrial Scheduling) Conference set for 11/19/2020 before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller is VACATED, and will be reset by Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. Plaintiffs' shall serve a copy of this minute order on Defendants not yet appearing. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C) (Entered: 07/20/2020)
6 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Pine for Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota: This matter is set for an Initial Scheduling Conference on 11/18/2020 at 10:00 AM at 2986 Bechelli Lane, Redding, California, before Magistrate Judge Dennis M. Cota. Plaintiff shall serve a copy of this minute order on defendants not yet appearing. (Pine, C) (Entered: 07/21/2020)
7 PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/22/2020. Added attorney Edward L. White III, PHV for all Plaintiffs. (Huang, H) (Entered: 07/23/2020)
8 [WITHDRAWN - see 16 Withdrawal of Motion] MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah. Motion Hearing SET for 8/21/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration of Nada Higuera, # 2 Proposed Order) (Tyler, Robert) Modified on 8/12/2020 (Michel, G.). (Entered: 07/24/2020)
9 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Expedited Briefing Schedule Related to Plaintiffs' 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah. (Tyler, Robert) Modified on 7/27/2020 (Becknal, R). (Entered: 07/24/2020)

07/28/2020 07/29/2020
07/31/2020 08/03/2020 08/04/2020
08/06/2020 08/12/2020 08/12/2020

10 NOTICE of RELATED CASE(S) 2:20-cv-00832-JAM-CKD, 2:20cv-00853-JAM-CKD, 2:20-cv-00691-JAM-CKD by Sonia Angell, Gavin Newsom. Attorney Eisenberg, Jonathan Michael added. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 07/28/2020)
11 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church for attorney Abigail A. Southerland to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 225, receipt number 0972-9024250) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A: Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Attachment B: List of Court Admissions)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 07/29/2020)
12 RESPONSE by Plaintiffs to 10 Notice of Related Case(s). (Tyler, Robert) Modified on 8/3/2020 (Mena-Sanchez, L). (Entered: 07/31/2020)
13 PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 7/31/2020. Added attorney Abigail A. Southerland, PHV for Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, and River of Life Church. (Huang, H) (Entered: 08/03/2020)
14 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: On the court's own motion, the hearing as to Plaintiff Calvary Chapel of Ukiah and Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg's Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 8 , set for 8/21/2020 is RESET for 8/27/2020 at 10:00 AM before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Motion briefing deadlines are reset as provided by Local Rule 230. Plaintiffs shall serve a copy of this Minute Order on Defendants not yet appearing. (Text Only Entry) (Schultz, C) (Entered: 08/04/2020)
15 FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT against Sonia Angell, Noemi Dooham, Ngoc-Phuong Luu, Gavin Newsom by Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church, Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit A, # 2 Exhibit B, # 3 Exhibit C, # 4 Exhibit D, # 5 Exhibit E, # 6 Exhibit F, # 7 Exhibit G, # 8 Exhibit H, # 9 Exhibit I, # 10 Exhibit J)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 08/06/2020)
16 WITHDRAWAL OF MOTION re 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction filed by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
17 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Waiver sent to Sonia Angell on 8/6/2020, Answer due 10/5/2020; Gavin Newsom on 8/6/2020, Answer due 10/5/2020 (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 08/12/2020)

08/12/2020
08/12/2020 08/12/2020 08/14/2020 08/27/2020 08/28/2020 09/01/2020
09/08/2020 09/22/2020

18 MINUTE ORDER issued by Relief Courtroom Deputy G. Michel for Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: In light of the plaintiffs' Withdrawal of Motion, ECF No. 16 , the Motion Hearing re Plaintiffs' 8 Motion for Preliminary Injunction set for 8/27/2020 is hereby VACATED. [TEXT ONLY ENTRY] (Michel, G.) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
19 MOTION for PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church. Motion Hearing set for 9/25/2020 at 10:00 AM in Courtroom 3 (KJM) before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. (Attachments: # 1 Proposed Order)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
20 CORPORATE DISCLOSURE STATEMENT by Plaintiffs Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 08/12/2020)
21 SUPPLEMENT by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church re 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction. (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 08/14/2020)
22 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Waiver sent to Ngoc-Phuong Luu on 8/6/2020, Answer due 10/5/2020 (Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 08/27/2020)
23 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Waiver sent to Noemi Dooham on 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Curtis, Christian) Modified on 8/31/2020 (Kaminski, H). (Entered: 08/28/2020)
24 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: On the court's own motion, the hearing as to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 19 , set for 9/25/2020 is RESET for 10/16/2020 at 10:00 AM before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller. Motion briefing deadlines are reset as provided by Local Rule 230. (Text Only Entry)(Schultz, C) (Entered: 09/01/2020)
25 AMENDED 23 WAIVER of SERVICE RETURNED EXECUTED: Waiver sent to Noemi Dooham on 8/6/2020. (Attachments: # 1 Proof of Service)(Curtis, Christian) Modified on 9/9/2020 (Huang, H). (Entered: 09/08/2020)
26 STIPULATION to Extend Defense Deadline to Respond to First Amended Complaint by Sonia Angell, Noemi Dooham, NgocPhuong Luu, Gavin Newsom. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) Modified on 9/23/2020 (Kastilahn, A). (Entered: 09/22/2020)

09/24/2020
09/29/2020 10/01/2020 10/07/2020
10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020

27 PRO HAC VICE APPLICATION and PROPOSED ORDER submitted by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church for attorney Erik M. Zimmerman to appear Pro Hac Vice. (Filing fee $ 225, receipt number 0972-9139139) (Attachments: # 1 Attachment A: Certificate of Good Standing, # 2 Attachment B: List of Court Admissions)(Tyler, Robert) (Entered: 09/24/2020)
28 PRO HAC VICE ORDER signed by Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller on 09/28/20 adding attorney Erik Michael Zimmerman, PHV for Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah and for River of Life Church. (Benson, A.) (Entered: 09/29/2020)
29 STIPULATION and PROPOSED ORDER for Modified Briefing Schedule and Hearing Date re 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction by Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah, River of Life Church. (Zimmerman, Erik) Modified on 10/1/2020 (Huang, H). (Entered: 10/01/2020)
30 MINUTE ORDER issued by Courtroom Deputy C. Schultz for Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller: The parties' Stipulated Request to Modify Briefing Schedule, ECF No. 29 is ADOPTED. Accordingly, the hearing as to Plaintiffs' Amended Motion for a Preliminary Injunction, ECF No. 19 , set for 10/16/2020 is RESET for 11/6/2020 at 10:00 AM before Chief District Judge Kimberly J. Mueller with Defendants opposition to be filed by 10/16/2020, and Plaintiffs' reply to be filed by 10/30/2020. (Text Only Entry)(Schultz, C) (Entered: 10/07/2020)
31 OPPOSITION by Noemi Dooham to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Attachments: # 1 Declaration, # 2 Supplement)(Curtis, Christian) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
32 JOINDER by Ngoc-Phuong Luu in re 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction, filed by River of Life Church, Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg, Calvary Chapel of Ukiah. Attorney Stephens, Bradley J. added. Bradley J. Stephens (Stephens, Bradley) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
33 OPPOSITION by Sonia Angell, Gavin Newsom to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
34 DECLARATION of Crabtree-Ireland in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
35 DECLARATION of Eisenberg in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020 10/16/2020

36 DECLARATION of Quirarte in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
37 DECLARATION of Lyons in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
38 DECLARATION of Bell in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
39 DECLARATION of Watt in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)
40 DECLARATION of Rutherford in opposition to 19 Motion for Preliminary Injunction,. (Attachments: # 1 Exhibit, # 2 Exhibit)(Eisenberg, Jonathan) (Entered: 10/16/2020)

PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt

PACER Login:

10/18/2020 07:46:36

CRClearinghouse:2563377:0

Client Code:

Description: Docket Report

Search Criteria:

Billable Pages:

6

Cost:

SawyerKaplan
2:20-cv01431-KJMDMC
0.60

 
 Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 1 of 20

1 Robert H. Tyler, Esq., CA Bar No. 179572 rtyler@tylerbursch.com
2 Nada N. Higuera, Esq. CA Bar No. 299819

3 nhiguera@tylerbursch.com

4

TYLER & BURSCH, LLP 25026 Las Brisas Road

5 Murrieta, California 92562

6 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996
7

8 Jay Alan Sekulow* Jsekulow@aclj.org
9 Jordan Sekulow*

10 jordansekulow@aclj.org

11

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E.

12 Washington, DC 20002

13 Tel: (202) 546-8890 Fax: (202) 546-9309
14

15 Dean R. Broyles, Esq., CA Bar No. 179535

16

dbroyles@nclplaw.org NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & POLICY

17 539 West Grand Avenue

18 Escondido, California 92025 Tel: (760) 747-4529
19 Fax: (760) 747-4505

20 Attorneys for Plaintiffs
21

22

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

23

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

24

REDDING OFFICE

25

26 CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, a

Case No.:

California Non-Profit Corporation;

27 CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG, a VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR

28 California Non-Profit Corporation; and DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE

1 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 2 of 20

1 RIVER OF LIFE CHURCH, a California RELIEF Non-Profit Corporation,
2

3

Plaintiffs,

4

vs.

5

6

GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; SONIA

7 ANGELL, M.D., in her official capacity as

8 California Public Health Officer; NOEMI DOOHAM, M.D., in her official capacity
9 as Public Health Officer, Mendocino

10 County; and NGOC-PHUONG LUU,

11

M.D., in her official capacity as Butte County Public Health Officer,

12

13

Defendants.

14

15

INTRODUCTION

16

1. This Action presents facial and as applied challenges to Defendants’ GAVIN

17 NEWSOM, SONIA ANGELL, M.D., NOEMI DOOHAM, M.D., and NGOC-PHUONG

18 LUU’s (collectively, “Defendants”) ban on singing and chanting activities (“Worship

19 Ban”) in places of worship while permitting the same activities in all other similarly

20 situated indoor uses within the counties where Plaintiffs are located.

21

2. This Worship Ban and Defendants’ enforcement violates Plaintiffs’

22 CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG, and RIVER

23 OF LIFE CHURCH’S (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) constitutional rights under the First and

24 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

25

PARTIES – PLAINTIFFS

26

3. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH (“Calvary Ukiah”) is a

27 California non-profit corporation, organized exclusively for religious purposes. Calvary

28 Ukiah is a Christian Church located in Ukiah, Mendocino County, California.

2 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 3 of 20

1

4. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG (“Calvary Fort Bragg”) is a

2 California non-profit corporation, organized exclusively for religious purposes. Calvary

3 Fort Bragg is located in Fort Bragg, Mendocino County, California.

4

5. Plaintiff RIVER OF LIFE CHURCH (“River of Life”) is a California non-

5 profit corporation, organized exclusively for religious purposes. River of Life is located

6 in Oroville, Butte County, California.

7

PARTIES – DEFENDANTS

8

6. Defendant GAVIN NEWSOM (“Newsom”) is the Governor of the State of

9 California and is sued in his official capacity only. The California Constitution vests the

10 “supreme executive power of the State” in the governor, who “shall see that the law is

11 faithfully executed.” Cal. Const. Art. V, §1.

12

7. On or about March 19, 2020, Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20

13 which required Californians to follow the directives issued by the California Public

14 Health Officer.

15

8. Defendant SONIA ANGELL, M.D. (“Dr. Angell”) is the California Public

16 Health Officer. She is sued in her official capacity only. Under the authority of the March

17 19, 2020 Executive Order N-33-20, Dr. Angell created the “COVID-19 INDUSTRY

18 GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural

19 Ceremonies” on behalf of the California Department of Public Health (hereinafter,

20 “Worship Guidance”). A true and correct copy of the Worship Guidance is attached

21 hereto as Exhibit A.1 The Worship Guidance includes the Worship Ban.

22

9. Defendant NOEMI DOOHAM, M.D. (“Dr. Dooham”) is the Public Health

23 Officer for Mendocino County, California. She is sued in her official capacity only. She

24 is responsible for enforcing the Worship Guidance and observing all orders of the State

25 Public Health Officer and all statutes relating to public health, including the Worship

26 Ban.

27

28 1 As of the date of this filing, the Worship Guidance may also be found online at the following URL:
https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship.pdf.

3 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 4 of 20

1

10. Defendant and NGOC-PHUONG LUU, M.D. (“Dr. Luu”) is the Public

2 Health Officer for Butte County, California. She is sued in her official capacity only. She

3 is responsible for enforcing the Worship Guidance and observing all orders of the State

4 Public Health Officer and all statutes relating to public health, including the Worship

5 Ban.

6

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7

11. This civil rights action raises federal questions under the United States

8 Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and under federal law,

9 particularly 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

10

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant

11 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

12

13. This Court has authority to grant the requested declaratory relief under the

13 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, implemented through Rule 57

14 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court is also authorized to grant injunctive

15 relief and damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

16 Civil Procedure, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

17

14. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2) because all

18 Defendants are situated in this judicial district or reside in the State of California in which

19 this judicial district is located, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

20 to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.

21

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

22 A. State and County Orders

23

15. On or about March 4, 2020, Newsom declared a State Emergency because

24 of the threat of COVID-19.2

25

16. On or about March 19, 2020, Newsom issued Executive Order N-33-20

26 (“State Order”), which prohibited all in-person worship services in California for an

27

28 2 As of the date of this filing, the Proclamation of a State of Emergency may be found online at the following URL:
https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-SOE-Proclamation.pdf.

4 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 5 of 20

1 indefinite period until the threat of the pandemic has subsided as determined exclusively

2 by Newsom. A true and correct copy of this Executive Order is attached as Exhibit B.

3

17. On or about May 25, 2020, Newsom announced the re-opening of places of

4 worship in California. This was accomplished by the California Department of Public

5 Health issuing initial guidance for places of worship to support a safe, clean environment

6 for staff and congregants.

7

18. On or about July 1, 2020, the California Department of Public Health

8 updated its Worship Guidance to include the Worship Ban. Specifically, the Worship Ban

9 mandates that places of worship “must therefore discontinue singing and chanting.”

10 Exhibit A.

11

19. On or about July 11, 2020, a spokeswoman for California’s Office of

12 Emergency Services, Ali Bay, confirmed that the Worship Ban “must be followed,”

13 reiterating that it “has the same authority as all of California Department of Public

14 Health’s other guidance, directives, and orders, which the governor has ordered residents

15 to heed.”3

16

20. On or about July 13, 2020, Newsom issued yet another order governing

17 indoor operations. Under this most recent order, worship services, together with protests,

18 fitness centers, offices for non-essential actors and personal care services, as well as day

19 camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, tv and film

20 production are permitted to remain open in the counties in which Plaintiffs are located.

21 However, singing and chanting is only banned in worship services. Such activities are

22 still permissible for all other indoor activities, including protests. A true and correct copy

23 of this July 13, 2020 Order is attached as Exhibit C.4

24

21. On July 13, 2020, the Mendocino County Department of Public Health

25 issued an order which incorporates the Worship Ban. A true and correct copy of this order

26 is attached as Exhibit D.

27 3 Don Thompson, Church Singing Ban Strikes Sour Note With California Pastor (July 11, 2020),
https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/church-singing-ban-strikes-sour-note-with-california-pastor/2324470/.
28 4 As of the date of this filing, Governor Newsom’s July 13, 2020 order may also be found online at the following URL:
https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/.

5 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 6 of 20

1

22. Failure to comply with the Mendocino County Order “constitutes an

2 imminent threat to public health and menace to public health, constitutes a public

3 nuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.” Exhibit D.

4

23. Butte County Department of Public Health has also directed all residents to

5 abide by all State guidance, which includes the Worship Ban.

6 B. Singing and Chanting Not Restricted in Secular Gatherings

7

24. The singing and chanting ban is only applicable to places of worship.

8

25. On or about July 1, 2020, at the time Defendants announced the new

9 Worship Ban prohibiting singing and chanting in places of worship, all dine-in

10 restaurants/bars/wineries, casinos, family entertainment centers, day camps, hotels,

11 shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, tv and film production remained

12 open and were not subject to the ban on singing or chanting.5

13

26. Following Newsom’s more recent order issued on or about July 13, 2020,

14 worship services, together with protests, fitness centers, offices for non-essential actors

15 and personal care services, as well as day camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare

16 centers, schools, and music, tv and film production are permitted to remain open in the

17 counties in which Plaintiffs are located. Singing and chanting, however, is only banned

18 in places of worship.

19

27. Despite the ongoing and even increasing restrictions on the protected First

20 Amendment rights to freely assemble and engage in religious exercise as it relates to

21

22

23 5 As of the date of this filing, the California guidance for each listed category, respectively, may be assessed online at the

following URLs:
24 Restaurants/bars/wineries: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-restaurants-bars.pdf

Casinos: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-casinos.pdf
25 Family entertainment centers: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-family-entertainment.pdf

Day camps: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-daycamps.pdf
26 Hotels: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pf/guidance-hotels.pdf

Shopping malls: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-shopping-centers.pdf
27 Childcare centers: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-childcare--en.pdf

28

Schools: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-schools.pdf Music, tv and film production: per https://covid19.ca.gov/industry-guidance/#top, music, tv and film production is only

subject to “Office and Workspace” guidelines: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-office-workspaces.pdf.

6 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 7 of 20

1 places of worship, Newsom has been unwavering in his support of massive protests in

2 California.

3

28. On or about May 30, 2020, Newsom tweeted that “millions of people are

4 lifting their voices in anger -- rightfully outraged at the systemic racism that persists in

5 America.” A true and correct copy of Newsom’s relevant tweets are attached as Exhibit

6 E.

7

29. On or about May 30, 2020, Newsom also issued a written statement

8 explaining the following: “I want to thank all those who helped protect human life last

9 night and today – from community members who exercised their right to protest

10 peacefully and encouraged others to do the same, to the law enforcement officers who

11 faced what were, at times, challenging conditions.” A true and correct copy of this

12 statement is attached as Exhibit F.

13

30. On or about June 1, 2020, Governor Newsom stated the following during a

14 press conference: “For those of you out there protesting, I want you to know that you

15 matter. To those who want to express themselves… God bless you. Keep doing it. Your

16 rage is real.”6

17

31. On or about June 5, 2020, Newsom tweeted that “protestors have the right

18 to protest peacefully” showing further support of mass protests. Exhibit E.

19

32. On or about June 19, 2020, Newsom promoted, by retweeting pictures, the

20 gathering of hundreds of people to paint Black Lives Matter street art in front of City

21 Hall. Exhibit E.

22

33. On or about July 2, 2020, following implementation of the Worship Ban,

23 when asked to explain whether people should heed Newsom’s mandate and avoid large

24 crowds and gatherings, Newsom refused to place the same restrictions on protestors and

25 explained “we have a Constitution, we have a right to free speech,” and further stated that

26

27

28 6 Hannah Wiley, “Your rage is real,” Gavin Newsom Tells California Protesters (Published 2:55 p.m. PST, July 1, 2020),
https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-alert/article243173056.html.

7 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 8 of 20

1 “we are all dealing with a moment in our nation‘s history that is profound and pronounced

2 . . Do what you think is best. . .”7

3

34. On or about June 26, 2020, at a news conference, Dr. Angell admitted that

4 people who attended protests have been affected by COVID: “We don’t have exact

5 numbers, but we do know from speaking to our counties that it is a contributor. Of course,

6 it is difficult to tease out exactly because at the same time, the people were going out for

7 these protests, we were also seeing increased movement for other reasons.” Yet she did

8 not condone or ban chanting at mass protests.8

9 C. The Religious Beliefs and Practices of Calvary Ukiah, Calvary Fort Bragg, and

10 River of Life

11

35. Plaintiffs are evangelical Christian churches committed to the teachings of

12 the Bible.

13

36. Plaintiffs believe the Bible is God’s Word to all people. It is written by

14 human authors under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. Because it was inspired

15 by God, the Bible is truth without error and is completely relevant to our daily lives.

16

37. According to sincerely held religious beliefs and the commands of the Bible,

17 Plaintiffs hold weekly worship services that consist of various forms of worship including

18 singing, prayer, recitation of scripture, and a sermon preached by the pastor.

19

38. Singing and praying aloud as a body of Christ is an integral part of worship

20 for believers and Plaintiffs. The book of Ephesians in the Bible commands that Plaintiffs

21 “[b]e imitators of God,” and “live a life of love, just as Christ loved us . . . be filled with

22 the Holy Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and

23 make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for

24 everything.” Ephesians 5:1-2, 18-20.

25

26 7 Eric Ting, Gavin Newsom asked to reconcile support for protests with new warnings on gatherings (Published 1:50 p.m.
PDT, July 2, 2020), https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-protests-coronavirus-July-Fourth-ask-
27 15383112.php.
8 Cheri Mossburg, Recent protests have contributed to California's coronavirus case increase, state official says (Published
28 4:48 p.m. ET, June 26, 2020), https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-news/coronavirus-pandemic-06-26-20-
intl/h_b3a9aa753b4c05ea71479065f58bf534.

8 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 9 of 20

1

39. The Psalms in the Bible emphasize the importance of singing and worship.

2 Psalm 89:1 says, “I will sing of the Lord’s great love forever; with my mouth I will make

3 your faithfulness known through all generations.” Psalms 9:1 says, I will give thanks to

4 you, Lord, with all my heart . . . I will be glad and rejoice in you; I will sing the praises

5 of your name, O Most High.” Psalm 95 speaks of the importance and necessity of singing

6 together, as a body of Christ: “Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to

7 the Rock of our salvation. Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with

8 music and song.”

9

40. According to these sincerely held religious beliefs, Calvary Ukiah holds

10 weekly worship services, which include singing and chanting, every Sunday at 10:00

11 A.M. at its sanctuary located at 140 N. Spring Street Ukiah, CA 95482.

12

41. According to these sincerely held religious beliefs, Calvary Fort Bragg holds

13 weekly worship services, which include singing and chanting, every Sunday at 10:00

14 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. and every Wednesday at 7:00 P.M.

15

42. According to these sincerely held religious beliefs, River of Life holds

16 weekly worship services, which include singing and chanting, every Sunday at 10:00

17 A.M.

18

43. To prohibit group singing and chanting is to effectively prohibit corporate

19 Christian worship.

20

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

21 THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE

22

OF RELIGION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.

23

CONSTITUTION

24

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

25

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Dooham;

26

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

27

44. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

28 43, as if fully set forth herein.

9 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 10 of 20

1

45. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States

2 Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits Defendants

3 from abridging Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion.

4

46. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in religious text, that

5 singing and chanting are integral and required forms of worship.

6

47. The Worship Ban and Defendants’ enforcement, on its face and as applied,

7 prohibits all signing and chanting in places of worship, even if Plaintiffs follow Center

8 for Disease Control and Prevention and state guidelines for social distancing and mask

9 wearing etc., which is a violation of Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion.

10

48. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, targets Plaintiffs’ sincerely

11 held religious beliefs and practices.

12

49. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, impermissibly burdens

13 Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, compel Plaintiffs to either change those beliefs

14 or to act in contradiction to them, and force Plaintiffs to choose between the teachings

15 and requirements of their sincerely held religious beliefs or the mandates in Defendants’

16 Worship Ban.

17

50. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, places Plaintiffs in an

18 irresolvable conflict between compliance with the orders and adherence to their sincerely

19 held religious beliefs.

20

51. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, puts substantial pressure on

21 Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by ignoring the fundamental

22 teachings and tenets of their religious texts including those tenets requiring singing and

23 chanting.

24

52. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, is neither neutral nor generally

25 applicable, but rather specifically and discriminatorily targets places of worship.

26

53. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, constitutes a substantial burden

27 on Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs as they are prevented from practicing the

28 teachings of their religious texts.

10 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 11 of 20

1

54. Defendants lack a compelling, legitimate, and rational interest in banning

2 singing and chanting only in places of worship while allowing the same at similar secular

3 gatherings and secular businesses.

4

55. Even if the Worship Ban were supported by a compelling interest, which it

5 is not, the ban does not employ the least restrictive means to accomplish the government’s

6 purported interest and is not narrowly tailored to that interest.

7

56. The Worship Ban fails to accommodate Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious

8 beliefs. Instead, the Worship Ban intentionally aims to frustrate Plaintiffs’ practices.

9

57. The Worship Ban specifically targets Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious

10 beliefs, and the Worship Ban sets up a system of individualized exemptions that permit

11 other similarly situated businesses or gatherings to sing and chant while only prohibiting

12 places of worship from singing and chanting in the counties where Plaintiffs are located.

13

58. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, constitutes a religious

14 gerrymander. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534,

15 (1993).

16

59. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, has caused, is causing, and will

17 continue to cause Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm, and actual and undue

18 hardship.

19

60. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

20 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

21

61. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

22 as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.

23 ///

24 ///

25 ///

26 ///

27 ///

28 ///

11 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 12 of 20

1

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

2 THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES THE ESABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE

3

FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

4

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

5

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Dooham;

6

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

7

62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

8 43 above, as if fully set forth herein.

9

63. The Worship Ban and Defendants’ enforcement violates the First

10 Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. The Establishment Clause of the

11 “First Amendment mandates governmental neutrality between religion and religion, and

12 between religion and nonreligion.” McCreary Cty., Ky. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of

13 Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005) (citing Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968)).

14 The Establishment Clause applies to the states through the Due Process Clause of the

15 Fourteenth Amendment. Everson v. Board of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

16

64. The Worship Ban, as stated, advances no secular purpose especially where

17 Center for Disease Control and Prevention and California guidelines for social distancing

18 are being followed.

19

65. Defendants have made numerous exceptions to the Worship Ban, permitting

20 similarly situated secular activities and allowing other secular businesses and gatherings

21 to engage in singing and chanting.

22

66. The Worship Ban has the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity.

23

67. Defendants have failed to avoid excessive government entanglement with

24 religion. Defendants permit only some forms of religious observance, such as silent

25 prayer and at-home religious activities.

26

68. There is no historical precedent in the United States for inhibiting religious

27 practices on terms more restrictive than those imposed on identical secular activities, as

28 Defendants do now.

12 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 13 of 20

1

69. The Worship Ban is impermissibly hostile toward religion.

2

70. The Worship Ban invades Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to autonomy and

3 against unlawful governmental invasion or direction of religious practices.

4

71. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, has caused, is causing, and will

5 continue to cause Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm, and actual and undue

6 hardship.

7

72. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

8 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

9

73. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

10 as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.

11

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

12 THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

13 SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

14

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

15

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Dooham;

16

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

17

74. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

18 43 above, as if fully set forth herein.

19

75. The Worship Ban and Defendants’ enforcement violates the right to

20 Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

21

76. Plaintiffs engage in protected speech at their respective places of worship

22 through singing religious songs and hymns and chanting prayers and religious text.

23

77. Defendants’ imposition of the Worship Ban is unreasonable and has a

24 chilling effect on protected speech by outright banning singing and chanting in places of

25 worship even where Center for Disease Control and Prevention and California guidelines

26 for social distancing are being followed, under threat of criminal penalty, including fines

27 and imprisonment.

28

13 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 14 of 20

1

78. The Worship Ban is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore void as a

2 matter of law, both of its face and as applied.

3

79. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, has caused, is causing, and will

4 continue to cause Plaintiffs’ immediate and irreparable harm, and actual and undue

5 hardship.

6

80. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

7 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

8

81. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

9 as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.

10

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

11

THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL

12 PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.

13

CONSTITUTION

14

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

15

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Dooham;

16

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

17

82. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

18 43 above, as if fully set forth herein.

19

83. The Worship Ban and Defendants’ enforcement violates the Fourteenth

20 Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs. The Fourteenth Amendment of the

21 Constitution provides that “[n]o State shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction

22 the equal protection of the laws.” Equal protection requires the state to govern

23 impartially—not draw arbitrary distinctions between individuals based solely on

24 differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental objection.

25

84. The Worship Ban intentionally and arbitrarily bans singing and chanting

26 only in places of worship. Singing and chanting is not restricted at protests, fitness

27 centers, offices for non-essential actors and personal care services fitness centers, day

28

14 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 15 of 20

1 camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, tv and film

2 production in the counties where Plaintiffs are located.

3

85. Strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause applies where, as here, the

4 classification impinges on a fundamental right, including the right to practice religion

5 freely and the right to free speech.

6

86. Strict scrutiny applies to the Worship Ban because it mandates that Plaintiffs

7 refrain from singing and chanting in places of worship, impinging on their fundamental

8 rights to freedom of religion and speech. The Worship Ban does not permit Plaintiffs to

9 exercise these rights, even while conforming to Center for Disease Control and

10 Prevention and California guidelines for social distancing.

11

87. The Worship Ban is not “narrowly tailored” to further any compelling

12 governmental interest. Defendants allow singing and chanting at every secular location.

13 Since singing and chanting are allowed at other secular gatherings, for example, public

14 protests, Defendants must therefore permit Plaintiffs to engage in equivalent

15 constitutionally-protected activities.

16

88. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

17 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

18

89. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

19 as hereinafter set forth in the prayer for relief.

20

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

21

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

22

A. That this Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary

23 Injunction, and a Permanent Injunction enjoining Defendants, Defendants’ officers,

24 agents, employees, attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participation with

25 them, from enforcing the Worship Ban and the County Orders enforcing the Worship

26 Ban;

27

28

15 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 16 of 20

1

B. That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment declaring that the Worship

2 Ban, on its face and as applied, is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth

3 Amendments of United States Constitution;

4

C. That this Court award Plaintiffs nominal damages against County

5 Defendants for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;

6

D. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal

7 relations within the subject matter here in controversy so that such declaration shall have

8 the full force and effect of final judgment;

9

E. That this Court retain jurisdiction over the matter for the purposes of

10 enforcing this Court’s order;

11

F. That this Court declare Plaintiffs are a prevailing party and award Plaintiffs

12 the reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including reasonably attorney’s fees in

13 accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1988; and

14

G. That this Court grant such other and further relief as this Court deems

15 equitable and just under the circumstances.

16

17

Respectfully submitted,

18 19 20 Dated: July 15, 2020 21 22 23 24 25 Dated: July 15, 2020 26 27 28

TYLER & BURSCH, LLP
/s/ Robert H. Tyler, Esq. Robert H. Tyler Attorney for Plaintiffs
AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
Jay Alan Sekulow* Jordan Sekulow* 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 546-8890 Facsimile: (202) 546-9309

16 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 17 of 20

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 * Pro hac vice application forthcoming 15 16 17 18 Dated: July 15, 2020 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Jsekulow@aclj.org Jordansekulow@aclj.org
Edward L. White III* Erik M. Zimmerman* 3001 Plymouth Road, Suite 203 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Tel. 734-680-8007 Fax. 734-680-8006 ewhite@aclj.org ezimmerman@aclj.org
Abigail A. Southerland* 625 Bakers Bridge Ave., Suite 105-121 Franklin, Tennessee 37067 Tel. 615-599-5572 Fax: 615-599-5180 asoutherland@aclj.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & POLICY
/s/ Dean R. Broyles, Esq. Dean R. Broyles Attorney for Plaintiffs

17 VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 18 of 20

1

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2

3

On behalf of CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, I, Pastor Les Boek, declare as

4 follows:

5

1. I am a party to this action.

6

2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know of the contents thereof.

7

3. Based on my own knowledge, the contents of paragraphs 3, 35-40, and 43

8 of the foregoing complaint are true and correct.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

10 that the foregoing is true and correct.

11

12

Executed on July 15, 2020, at Ukiah, California.

13

14

/s/ Les Boek *

Pastor Les Boek

15

Calvary Chapel Ukiah

16

*original signature retained by attorney Robert Tyler

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 19 of 20

1

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2

3

On behalf of CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG, I, Kevin Green, declare as

4 follows:

5

1. I am a party to this action.

6

2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know of the contents thereof.

7

3. Based on my own knowledge, the contents of paragraphs 4, 35-39, 41, and

8 43 of the foregoing complaint are true and correct.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

10 that the foregoing is true and correct.

11

12

Executed on July 15, 2020, at Fort Bragg, California.

13

/s/ Kevin Green*

14

Kevin Green

15

Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg

16

*original signature retained by attorney Robert Tyler

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 1 Filed 07/15/20 Page 20 of 20

1

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2

3

On behalf of RIVER OF LIFE CHURCH, I, Pastor Scott Thomson, declare as

4 follows:

5

1. I am a party to this action.

6

2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know of the contents thereof.

7

3. Based on my own knowledge, the contents of paragraphs 5, 35-39, and 42-

8 43 of the foregoing complaint are true and correct.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

10 that the foregoing is true and correct.

11

12

Executed on July 15, 2020, at Oroville, California.

13

14

/s/ Scott Thomson*

Pastor Scott Thomson

15

River of Life Church

16

*original signature retained by attorney Robert Tyler

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

 
 Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 1 of 22

1 Robert H. Tyler, Esq., CA Bar No. 179572 rtyler@tylerbursch.com
2 Nada N. Higuera, Esq., CA Bar No. 299819

3 nhiguera@tylerbursch.com

4

TYLER & BURSCH, LLP 25026 Las Brisas Road

5 Murrieta, California 92562

6 Tel: (951) 600-2733 Fax: (951) 600-4996
7

8 Jay Alan Sekulow* sekulow@aclj.org
9 Jordan Sekulow*

10 jordansekulow@aclj.org

11

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E.

12 Washington, DC 20002

13 Tel: (202) 546-8890 Fax: (202) 546-9309
14 * Pro hac vice application forthcoming

15

16

Dean R. Broyles, Esq., CA Bar No. 179535 dbroyles@nclplaw.org

17 NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & POLICY

18 539 West Grand Avenue Escondido, California 92025
19 Tel: (760) 747-4529

20 Fax: (760) 747-4505

21 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

22

23

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

24

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

25 CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, a
26 California Non-Profit Corporation;

Case No. 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC

27 CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG, a VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED

28 California Non-Profit Corporation; and

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

1
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 2 of 22

1 RIVER OF LIFE CHURCH, a California AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Non-Profit Corporation,
2

3

Plaintiffs,

4

vs.

5

6

GAVIN NEWSOM, in his official capacity as Governor of California; SONIA

7 ANGELL, M.D., in her official capacity as

8 California Public Health Officer; NOEMI DOOHAN, M.D., in her official capacity
9 as Public Health Officer, Mendocino

10 County; and NGOC-PHUONG LUU,

11

M.D., in her official capacity as Butte County Public Health Officer,

12

13

Defendants.

14

15

INTRODUCTION

16

1. This Action presents facial and as applied challenges to Defendants GAVIN

17 NEWSOM, SONIA ANGELL, M.D., NOEMI DOOHAN, M.D., and NGOC-PHUONG

18 LUU’s (collectively, “Defendants”) ban on singing and chanting activities (“Worship

19 Ban”) in places of worship while permitting the same activities in other similarly situated

20 indoor uses, and outdoor uses, within the counties where Plaintiffs are located.

21

2. This Worship Ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, violate Plaintiffs

22 CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG, and RIVER

23 OF LIFE CHURCH’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) constitutional rights under the First and

24 Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution.

25

PARTIES – PLAINTIFFS

26

3. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH (“Calvary Ukiah”) is a

27 California non-profit corporation, organized exclusively for religious purposes. Calvary

28 Ukiah is a Christian Church located in Ukiah, Mendocino County, California.

2
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 3 of 22

1

4. Plaintiff CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG (“Calvary Fort Bragg”) is a

2 California non-profit corporation, organized exclusively for religious purposes. Calvary

3 Fort Bragg is located in Fort Bragg, Mendocino County, California.

4

5. Plaintiff RIVER OF LIFE CHURCH (“River of Life”) is a California non-

5 profit corporation, organized exclusively for religious purposes. River of Life is located

6 in Oroville, Butte County, California.

7

PARTIES – DEFENDANTS

8

6. Defendant GAVIN NEWSOM (“Newsom”) is the Governor of the State of

9 California and is sued in his official capacity only. The California Constitution vests the

10 “supreme executive power of the State” in the governor, who “shall see that the law is

11 faithfully executed.” Cal. Const. Art. V, § 1.

12

7. On or about March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-

13 33-20, which required Californians to follow the directives issued by the California

14 Public Health Officer.

15

8. Defendant SONIA ANGELL, M.D. (“Dr. Angell”) is the California Public

16 Health Officer. She is sued in her official capacity only. Under the authority of the March

17 19, 2020 Executive Order N-33-20, Dr. Angell created the “COVID-19 INDUSTRY

18 GUIDANCE: Places of Worship and Providers of Religious Services and Cultural

19 Ceremonies” on behalf of the California Department of Public Health (hereinafter,

20 “Worship Guidance”). A true and correct copy of the Worship Guidance dated July 1,

21 2020 is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The Worship Guidance includes the Worship Ban.

22

9. Defendant NOEMI DOOHAN, M.D. (“Dr. Doohan”) is the Public Health

23 Officer for Mendocino County, California. She is sued in her official capacity only. She

24 is responsible for enforcing the Worship Guidance and observing all orders of the State

25 Public Health Officer and all statutes relating to public health, including the Worship

26 Ban.

27

10. Defendant NGOC-PHUONG LUU, M.D. (“Dr. Luu”) is the Public Health

28 Officer for Butte County, California. She is sued in her official capacity only. She is

3
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 4 of 22

1 responsible for enforcing the Worship Guidance and observing all orders of the State

2 Public Health Officer and all statutes relating to public health, including the Worship

3 Ban.

4

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

5

11. This civil rights action raises federal questions under the United States

6 Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and under federal law,

7 particularly 42 U.S.C. § 1983.

8

12. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over the federal claims pursuant

9 to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1343.

10

13. This Court has authority to grant the requested declaratory relief under the

11 Declaratory Judgment Act, 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, implemented through Rule 57

12 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. This Court is also authorized to grant injunctive

13 relief and damages under 28 U.S.C. § 1343, pursuant to Rule 65 of the Federal Rules of

14 Civil Procedure, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988.

15

14. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)(1)–(2) because all

16 Defendants are situated in this judicial district or reside in the State of California in which

17 this judicial district is located, and a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise

18 to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this district.

19

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

20 A. State and County Orders

21

15. On or about March 4, 2020, Governor Newsom declared a State Emergency

22 because of the threat of COVID-19.1

23

16. On or about March 19, 2020, Governor Newsom issued Executive Order N-

24 33-20 (“State Order”), which prohibited all in-person worship services in California for

25 an indefinite period until the threat of the pandemic has subsided as determined

26

27 1 As of the date of this filing, the Proclamation of a State of Emergency may be found online at 28 the following URL: https://www.gov.ca.gov/wp-content/uploads/2020/03/3.4.20-Coronavirus-
SOE-Proclamation.pdf.

4
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 5 of 22

1 exclusively by Governor Newsom. A true and correct copy of this Executive Order is

2 attached as Exhibit B.

3

17. On or about May 25, 2020, Governor Newsom announced the re-opening of

4 places of worship in California. This was accomplished by the California Department of

5 Public Health issuing initial guidance for places of worship to support a safe, clean

6 environment for staff and congregants.

7

18. On or about July 1, 2020, the California Department of Public Health

8 updated its Worship Guidance to include the Worship Ban. Specifically, the Worship Ban

9 mandates that places of worship “must therefore discontinue singing and chanting.” A

10 true and correct copy of this order is attached as Exhibit A.

11

19. Upon information and belief, at the time the Worship Ban was enacted on

12 July 1, 2020, singing and chanting were still activities permitted at protests, including

13 those taking place indoors.

14

20. On July 6, 2020, the Worship Guidance was updated to ban only indoor

15 singing and chanting in places of worship. A true and correct copy of this order is attached

16 as Exhibit C.

17

21. On or about July 11, 2020, a spokeswoman for California’s Office of

18 Emergency Services, Ali Bay, confirmed that the Worship Ban “must be followed,”

19 reiterating that it “has the same authority as all of California Department of Public

20 Health’s other guidance, directives, and orders, which the governor has ordered residents 21 to heed.”2

22

22. On or about July 13, 2020, Governor Newsom issued yet another order

23 governing indoor operations. Under this order, worship services, together with protests,

24 fitness centers, offices for non-essential actors and personal care services, as well as day

25 camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, television and film

26 production are permitted in counties not currently on the state’s monitoring list. However,

27 2 Don Thompson, Church Singing Ban Strikes Sour Note With California Pastor (July 11, 28 2020), https://www.nbcbayarea.com/news/california/church-singing-ban-strikes-sour-note-
with-california-pastor/2324470/.

5
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 6 of 22

1 singing and chanting is only banned in places of worship and at protests. Such activities

2 are still permissible for all other indoor activities. A true and correct copy of this July 13,

3 2020 order is attached as Exhibit C.3

4

23. The July 13, 2020 Order also mandated the closure of the indoor operations

5 in all state counties at dine-in restaurants, wineries and tasting rooms, movie theaters,

6 family entertainment centers, and zoos and museums. Id.

7

24. On July 13, 2020, the Mendocino County Department of Public Health

8 issued an order which incorporates the Worship Ban. A true and correct copy of this order

9 is attached as Exhibit D.

10

25. According to the Mendocino County order, failure to comply with it

11 “constitutes an imminent threat to public health and menace to public health, constitutes

12 a public nuisance, and is punishable by fine, imprisonment, or both.” Id.

13

26. Butte County Department of Public Health’s website directs residents to

14 abide by various State guidance and orders and has provided no indication that it will

15 depart from the state’s guidance and orders including the Worship Ban.4

16 B. Singing and Chanting Not Restricted in Secular Gatherings

17

27. The singing and chanting ban discriminates against, and is primarily

18 applicable to, places of worship.

19

28. On or about July 1, 2020, at the time Defendants announced the new

20 Worship Ban prohibiting singing and chanting in places of worship, all protests, dine-in

21 restaurants/bars/wineries, casinos, family entertainment centers, day camps, hotels,

22 shopping malls, childcare centers, schools, or music, television and film production

23 remained open and were not subject to the ban on singing or chanting.5

24
25 3 As of the date of this filing, Governor Newsom’s July 13, 2020 order may also be found
online at the following URL: https://covid19.ca.gov/roadmap-counties/.
26 4 Butte County Public Health Department, https://www.buttecounty.net/publichealth 27 5 As of the date of this filing, the California guidance for each listed category, respectively, may
be assessed online at the following URLs:
28 Restaurants/bars/wineries: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-restaurants-bars.pdf

6
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 7 of 22

1

29. Upon information and belief, on or after July 6, 2020—and following

2 Governor Newsom’s amendment to the Worship Ban on July 6, 2020 clarifying that the

3 ban on singing and chanting applied to indoor services held at places of worship—the

4 State updated the Q&A section of its COVID-19 website under the question, “Can I

5 engage in Political Protest Gatherings?” The Q&A section now includes a statement that

6 indoor protests are permitted “as long as . . . singing and chanting activities are

7 discontinued.” A true and correct copy of a screenshot from the Q&A section is attached

8 as Exhibit E.

9

30. This same Q&A section, while identifying three conditions for indoor

10 protests – i.e. limiting attendance, physical distancing and discontinuing singing and

11 chanting – only threatens enforcement when adequate physical distancing is not

12 maintained: “Failure to maintain adequate physical distancing may result in an order to

13 disperse or other enforcement action.” Id. No state enforcement action, however, is

14 threatened in the Q&A section if protestors engage in singing and/or chanting activities.

15

31. Following Governor Newsom’s order issued on or about July 13, 2020,

16 worship services, together with protests, fitness centers, offices for non-essential actors

17 and personal care services, as well as day camps, hotels, shopping malls, childcare

18 centers, schools, and music, television and film production are permitted to remain open

19 in counties not currently on the state’s monitoring list.

20

21

22 Casinos: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-casinos.pdf

23

Family entertainment centers: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-familyentertainment.pdf

24 Day camps: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-daycamps.pdf

25

Hotels: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pf/guidance-hotels.pdf Shopping malls: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-shopping-centers.pdf

26 Childcare centers: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-childcare--en.pdf

27

Schools: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-schools.pdf Music, TV and film production: per https://covid19.ca.gov/industry-guidance/#top, music, TV

28 and film production is only subject to “Office and Workspace” guidelines:

https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-office-workspaces.pdf.

7
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 8 of 22

1

32. On July 15, 2020, at the time of the filing of the Complaint in this case, all

2 Plaintiffs were located in counties not on the state monitoring list and, therefore, were in

3 locations where indoor religious services were permitted, but those services were unduly

4 and unconstitutionally limited by the indoor Worship Ban.

5

33. On or about July 25, 2020, Butte County was placed on the state’s

6 monitoring list6 and places of worship there, together with several other indoor

7 establishments within Butte County, were forced to cease indoor operations pursuant to

8 Governor Newsom’s order of July 13, 2020.

9

34. On July 24, 2020, after this lawsuit was filed, the Mendocino County

10 Department of Public Health issued a revised order electing to pre-emptively apply and

11 enforce the more severe indoor restrictions California established for counties on the state

12 monitoring list, notwithstanding the fact that Mendocino County had not been placed,

13 and has not subsequently been placed as of the time of filing the First Amended

14 Complaint, on the state’s monitoring list. A true and correct copy of Mendocino County’s

15 web page describing the action taken on July 24, 2020 is attached as Exhibit F.

16

35. Mendocino County’s self-imposed restrictions include a ban on the indoor

17 activities of gyms and fitness centers; places of worship and cultural ceremonies, like

18 weddings and funerals; offices for non-essential sectors; personal care services, like nail

19 salons, body waxing and tattoo parlors; hair salons and barbershops; indoor shopping

20 malls. Id.

21

36. On July 29, 2020, the State updated its Worship Guidance. A true and correct

22 copy of the updated Worship Guidance is attached as Exhibit G.7

23

37. On August 3, 2020, the Mendocino County Department of Public Health

24 issued a revised order which still incorporates the more severe indoor restrictions, even

25 though Mendocino County was still not on the state’s monitoring list. This order restricted

26

27

6 As of the date of this filing, Butte County’s COVID-19 information may be found online at the following URL https://www.buttecounty.net/publichealth

28 7 As of the date of this filing, the Worship Guidance may also be found online at the following

URL: https://files.covid19.ca.gov/pdf/guidance-places-of-worship--en.pdf

8
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 9 of 22

1 outdoor worship, outdoor funerals or memorials, and outdoor protests to a maximum of

2 100 persons. A true and correct copy of this order is attached as Exhibit H.

3

38. Despite the ongoing and even increasing restrictions on the protected First

4 Amendment rights to freely assemble and engage in religious exercise as it relates to

5 places of worship, Governor Newsom has been unwavering in his support of massive

6 protests in California.

7

39. On or about May 30, 2020, Governor Newsom tweeted that “millions of

8 people are lifting their voices in anger -- rightfully outraged at the systemic racism that

9 persists in America.” A true and correct copy of Newsom’s relevant tweets are attached

10 as Exhibit I.

11

40. On or about May 30, 2020, Governor Newsom also issued a written

12 statement explaining the following: “I want to thank all those who helped protect human

13 life last night and today – from community members who exercised their right to protest

14 peacefully and encouraged others to do the same, to the law enforcement officers who

15 faced what were, at times, challenging conditions.” A true and correct copy of this

16 statement is attached as Exhibit J.

17

41. On or about June 1, 2020, Governor Newsom stated the following during a

18 press conference: “For those of you out there protesting, I want you to know that you

19 matter. To those who want to express themselves… God bless you. Keep doing it. Your

20 rage is real.”8

21

42. On or about June 5, 2020, Governor Newsom tweeted that “protestors have

22 the right to protest peacefully,” showing further support of mass protests. A true and

23 correct copy of this statement is attached as Exhibit I.

24

43. On or about June 19, 2020, Governor Newsom promoted, by retweeting

25 pictures, the gathering of hundreds of people to paint Black Lives Matter street art in front

26 of City Hall. A true and correct copy of this statement is attached as Exhibit I.

27 8 Hannah Wiley, “Your rage is real,” Gavin Newsom Tells California Protesters (Published 28 2:55 p.m. PST, July 1, 2020), https://www.sacbee.com/news/politics-government/capitol-
alert/article243173056.html.

9
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 10 of 22

1

44. On or about July 2, 2020, following implementation of the Worship Ban,

2 when asked to explain the extent to which social justice protestors should heed his

3 mandate to avoid large crowds and gatherings, Governor Newsom explained “we have a

4 Constitution, we have a right to free speech,” and further stated that “we are all dealing

5 with a moment in our nation’s history that is profound and pronounced . . . Do what you 6 think is best. . . .”9

7

45. On or about June 26, 2020, at a news conference, Dr. Angell admitted that

8 people who attended large protests have been affected by COVID: “We don’t have exact

9 numbers, but we do know from speaking to our counties that it is a contributor. Of course,

10 it is difficult to tease out exactly because at the same time, the people were going out for

11 these protests, we were also seeing increased movement for other reasons.” However, Dr. 12 Angell did not ban chanting at these mass protests.10

13 C. The Religious Beliefs and Practices of Calvary Ukiah, Calvary Fort Bragg, and

14 River of Life

15

46. Plaintiffs are evangelical Christian churches committed to the teachings of

16 the Bible.

17

47. Plaintiffs believe the Bible is God’s Word to all people and was written by

18 human authors under the supernatural guidance of the Holy Spirit. Plaintiffs believe that,

19 because the Bible was inspired by God, the Bible is truth without error and is completely

20 relevant to our daily lives.

21

48. According to their sincerely held religious beliefs and the commands of the

22 Bible, Plaintiffs hold weekly worship services that consist of various forms of worship

23 including singing, prayer, recitation of scripture, and a sermon preached by the pastor.

24
9 Eric Ting, Gavin Newsom asked to reconcile support for protests with new warnings on
25 gatherings (Published 1:50 p.m. PDT, July 2, 2020), 26 https://www.sfgate.com/politics/article/Gavin-Newsom-protests-coronavirus-July-Fourth-ask-
15383112.php.
27 10 Cheri Mossburg, Recent protests have contributed to California’s coronavirus case increase, 28 state official says (Published 4:48 p.m. ET, June 26, 2020), https://edition.cnn.com/world/live-
news/coronavirus-pandemic-06-26-20-intl/h_b3a9aa753b4c05ea71479065f58bf534.

10
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 11 of 22

1

49. Singing and praying aloud as a body of Christ is an integral part of worship

2 for believers and Plaintiffs. The book of Ephesians in the Bible commands that Plaintiffs

3 “[b]e imitators of God,” and “live a life of love, just as Christ loved us . . . be filled with

4 the Holy Spirit. Speak to one another with psalms, hymns and spiritual songs. Sing and

5 make music in your heart to the Lord, always giving thanks to God the Father for

6 everything.” Ephesians 5:1-2, 18-20.

7

50. The Psalms in the Bible emphasize the importance of singing and worship.

8 Psalm 89:1 says, “I will sing of the Lord’s great love forever; with my mouth I will make

9 your faithfulness known through all generations.” Psalms 9:1 says, I will give thanks to

10 you, Lord, with all my heart . . . I will be glad and rejoice in you; I will sing the praises

11 of your name, O Most High.” Psalm 95 speaks of the importance and necessity of singing

12 together, as a body of Christ: “Come, let us sing for joy to the Lord; let us shout aloud to

13 the Rock of our salvation. Let us come before him with thanksgiving and extol him with

14 music and song.”

15

51. According to their sincerely held religious beliefs, Calvary Ukiah holds

16 weekly worship services, which include singing and chanting, every Sunday at 10:00

17 A.M. at its sanctuary.

18

52. According to their sincerely held religious beliefs, Calvary Fort Bragg holds

19 weekly worship services, which include singing and chanting, every Sunday at 10:00

20 A.M. and 6:30 P.M. and every Wednesday at 7:00 P.M.

21

53. According to their sincerely held religious beliefs, River of Life holds

22 weekly worship services, which include singing and chanting, every Sunday at 10:00

23 A.M.

24

54. To prohibit group singing and chanting is to effectively prohibit corporate

25 Christian worship, which substantially and unduly burdens Plaintiffs’ religious speech

26 and exercise.

27 ///

28 ///

11
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 12 of 22

1

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

2 THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO FREE EXERCISE

3

OF RELIGION UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.

4

CONSTITUTION

5

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

6

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Doohan;

7

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

8

55. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

9 54, as if fully set forth herein.

10

56. The Free Exercise Clause of the First Amendment to the United States

11 Constitution, as applied to the states by the Fourteenth Amendment, prohibits Defendants

12 from abridging Plaintiffs’ right to free exercise of religion.

13

57. Plaintiffs have sincerely held religious beliefs, rooted in religious text, that

14 singing and chanting are integral and required forms of worship.

15

58. The Worship Ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, on its face and as

16 applied, prohibits all signing and chanting in places of worship, even if Plaintiffs follow

17 Center for Disease Control and Prevention and state guidelines for social distancing and

18 mask wearing etc. This is a violation of Plaintiffs’ right to the free exercise of religion.

19

59. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, targets Plaintiffs’ sincerely

20 held religious beliefs and practices.

21

60. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, impermissibly burdens

22 Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs, compels Plaintiffs to either change those

23 beliefs or to act in contradiction to them, and forces Plaintiffs to choose between the

24 teachings and requirements of their sincerely held religious beliefs or the mandates in

25 Defendants’ Worship Ban.

26

61. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, places Plaintiffs in an

27 irresolvable conflict between compliance with the orders and adherence to their sincerely

28 held religious beliefs.

12
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 13 of 22

1

62. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, puts substantial pressure on

2 Plaintiffs to violate their sincerely held religious beliefs by ignoring the fundamental

3 teachings and tenets of their religious texts, including those tenets requiring singing and

4 chanting.

5

63. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, is neither neutral nor generally

6 applicable, but rather specifically and discriminatorily targets places of worship.

7

64. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, imposes a substantial burden

8 on Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious beliefs as they are prevented from practicing the

9 teachings of their religious texts.

10

65. Defendants lack a compelling, legitimate, and rational interest in banning

11 singing and chanting only in places of worship while allowing the same at similar secular

12 gatherings and secular businesses.

13

66. Even if the Worship Ban were supported by a compelling interest, which it

14 is not, the ban does not employ the least restrictive means to accomplish the government’s

15 purported interest and is not narrowly tailored to that interest. Other less restrictive means

16 are available, such as requiring social distancing and the wearing of masks.

17

67. The Worship Ban fails to accommodate Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious

18 beliefs. Instead, the Worship Ban intentionally aims to frustrate Plaintiffs’ practices.

19

68. The Worship Ban specifically targets Plaintiffs’ sincerely held religious

20 beliefs, and the Worship Ban sets up a system of individualized exemptions that permit

21 other similarly situated businesses or gatherings to sing and chant while prohibiting

22 places of worship from singing and chanting in the counties where Plaintiffs are located.

23

69. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, constitutes a religious

24 gerrymander. Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534,

25 (1993).

26

70. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, has caused, is causing, and will

27 continue to cause Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm, and actual and undue

28 hardship.

13
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 14 of 22

1

71. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

2 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

3

72. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

4 as set forth in the prayer for relief.

5

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

6 THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES THE ESABLISHMENT CLAUSE OF THE

7

FIRST AMENDMENT OF THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

8

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

9

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Doohan;

10

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

11

73. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

12 54 above, as if fully set forth herein.

13

74. The Worship Ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, violates the First

14 Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

15

75. The Establishment Clause of the “First Amendment mandates governmental

16 neutrality between religion and religion, and between religion and nonreligion.”

17 McCreary Cty. v. Am. Civil Liberties Union of Ky., 545 U.S. 844, 860 (2005) (citing

18 Epperson v. Arkansas, 393 U.S. 97, 104 (1968)). The Establishment Clause applies to the

19 states through the Due Process Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment. Everson v. Board

20 of Ed. of Ewing, 330 U.S. 1 (1947).

21

76. The Worship Ban advances no secular purpose, especially where Center for

22 Disease Control and Prevention and California guidelines for social distancing are being

23 followed.

24

77. Defendants have made numerous exceptions to the Worship Ban, permitting

25 similarly situated secular activities and allowing other secular businesses and gatherings

26 to engage in singing and chanting.

27

78. The Worship Ban has the primary effect of inhibiting religious activity.

28

14
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 15 of 22

1

79. Defendants have failed to avoid excessive government entanglement with

2 religion. Defendants permit only some forms of religious observance, such as silent

3 prayer and at-home religious activities.

4

80. There is no historical precedent in the United States for inhibiting religious

5 practices on terms more restrictive than those imposed on identical secular activities, as

6 Defendants do now.

7

81. The Worship Ban is impermissibly hostile toward religion.

8

82. The Worship Ban invades Plaintiffs’ constitutional right to autonomy and

9 against unlawful governmental invasion or direction of religious practices.

10

83. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, has caused, is causing, and will

11 continue to cause Plaintiffs immediate and irreparable harm, and actual and undue

12 hardship.

13

84. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

14 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

15

85. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

16 as set forth in the prayer for relief.

17

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

18 THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO FREEDOM OF

19 SPEECH UNDER THE FIRST AMENDMENT TO THE U.S. CONSTITUTION

20

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

21

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Doohan;

22

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

23

86. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

24 54 above, as if fully set forth herein.

25

87. The Worship Ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, violates the right to

26 Freedom of Speech under the First Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

27

88. Plaintiffs engage in protected speech at their respective places of worship

28 through singing religious songs and hymns and chanting prayers and religious text.

15
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 16 of 22

1

89. Defendants’ imposition of the Worship Ban is unreasonable and has a

2 chilling effect on protected speech by banning singing and chanting in places of worship

3 even where Center for Disease Control and Prevention and California guidelines for

4 social distancing are being followed, under threat of criminal penalty, including fines and

5 imprisonment.

6

90. The Worship Ban is unconstitutionally overbroad, and therefore void as a

7 matter of law, both on its face and as applied.

8

91. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, singles out religious worship

9 and other religious speech for disfavored treatment.

10

92. The Worship Ban, on its face and as applied, has caused, is causing, and will

11 continue to cause Plaintiffs’ immediate and irreparable harm, and actual and undue

12 hardship.

13

93. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

14 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

15

94. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

16 as set forth in the prayer for relief.

17

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

18

THE WORSHIP BAN VIOLATES PLAINTIFFS’ RIGHT TO EQUAL

19 PROTECTION UNDER THE FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT TO THE U.S.

20

CONSTITUTION

21

(By all Plaintiffs against Newsom & Dr. Angell;

22

By Calvary Ukiah and Calvary Fort Bragg against Dr. Doohan;

23

By River of Life against Dr. Luu)

24

95. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1 through

25 54 above, as if fully set forth herein.

26

96. The Worship Ban, and Defendants’ enforcement of it, violates the

27 Fourteenth Amendment, both facially and as applied to Plaintiffs.

28

16
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 17 of 22

1

97. The Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution provides that “[n]o State

2 shall . . . deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.” Equal

3 protection requires the state to govern impartially, not draw arbitrary distinctions between

4 individuals based solely on differences that are irrelevant to a legitimate governmental

5 interest.

6

98. The Worship Ban intentionally and arbitrarily bans singing and chanting in

7 places of worship. Singing and chanting is not, however, restricted at similarly situated

8 indoor establishments in the counties where Plaintiffs are located.

9

99. Defendants have given preferential treatment for favored singing and

10 chanting at protests, while banning disfavored singing and chanting at worship services.

11

100. Strict scrutiny under the Equal Protection Clause applies where, as here, the

12 classification impinges on a fundamental right, including the right to practice religion

13 freely and the right to free speech.

14

101. Strict scrutiny applies to the Worship Ban because it mandates that Plaintiffs

15 refrain from singing and chanting in places of worship, impinging on their fundamental

16 rights to freedom of religion and speech. The Worship Ban does not permit Plaintiffs to

17 exercise these rights, even while conforming to Center for Disease Control and

18 Prevention and California guidelines for social distancing.

19

102. The Worship Ban is not “narrowly tailored” to further any compelling

20 governmental interest. Defendants allow singing and chanting at many secular locations.

21 Since singing and chanting are allowed at various secular gatherings. Defendants must

22 permit Plaintiffs to engage in equivalent constitutionally-protected speech and activities.

23

103. Plaintiffs have no adequate remedy at law to correct the continuing

24 deprivation of their constitutional rights.

25

104. WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully pray for the relief against Defendants

26 as set forth in the prayer for relief.

27 ///

28 ///

17
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 18 of 22

1

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

2

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as follows:

3

A. That this Court issue a Temporary Restraining Order, Preliminary

4 Injunction, and a Permanent Injunction enjoining Defendants, Defendants’ officers,

5 agents, employees, attorneys, and all other persons acting in concert or participation with

6 them, from enforcing the Worship Ban and the County Orders enforcing the Worship

7 Ban;

8

B. That this Court render a Declaratory Judgment declaring that the Worship

9 Ban, on its face and as applied, is unconstitutional under the First and Fourteenth

10 Amendments to the United States Constitution;

11

C. That this Court award Plaintiffs nominal damages against the County

12 Defendants for the violation of Plaintiffs’ constitutional rights;

13

D. That this Court adjudge, decree, and declare the rights and other legal

14 relations within the subject matter here in controversy so that such declaration shall have

15 the full force and effect of final judgment;

16

E. That this Court retain jurisdiction over the matter for the purposes of

17 enforcing this Court’s order;

18

F. That this Court declare Plaintiffs are a prevailing party and award Plaintiffs

19 the reasonable costs and expenses of this action, including reasonable attorney’s fees in

20 accordance with 42 U.S.C. §1988; and

21

G. That this Court grant such other and further relief as this Court deems

22 equitable and just under the circumstances.

23

24

Respectfully submitted,

25 26 27 Dated: August 5, 2020 28

TYLER & BURSCH, LLP
/s/ Robert H. Tyler, Esq. Robert H. Tyler Attorney for Plaintiffs

18
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 19 of 22

1 2 3 4 Dated: August 5, 2020 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 * Pro hac vice application forthcoming 22 23 24 25 Dated: August 5, 2020 26 27 28

AMERICAN CENTER FOR LAW & JUSTICE
Jay Alan Sekulow* Jordan Sekulow* 201 Maryland Avenue, N.E. Washington, DC 20002 Telephone: (202) 546-8890 Facsimile: (202) 546-9309 sekulow@aclj.org Jordansekulow@aclj.org
Edward L. White III (admitted PHV) Erik M. Zimmerman* 3001 Plymouth Road, Suite 203 Ann Arbor, Michigan 48105 Tel. 734-680-8007 Fax. 734-680-8006 ewhite@aclj.org ezimmerman@aclj.org
Abigail A. Southerland (admitted PHV) 625 Bakers Bridge Ave., Suite 105-121 Franklin, Tennessee 37067 Tel. 615-599-5572 Fax: 615-599-5180 asoutherland@aclj.org Attorneys for Plaintiffs
NATIONAL CENTER FOR LAW & POLICY
/s/ Dean R. Broyles, Esq. Dean R. Broyles Attorney for Plaintiffs

19
VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 20 of 22

1

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2

3

On behalf of CALVARY CHAPEL OF UKIAH, I, Pastor Les Boek, declare as

4 follows:

5

1. I am a party to this action.

6

2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know of the contents thereof.

7

3. Based on my own knowledge, the contents of paragraphs 3, 46-51, 54- of

8 the foregoing complaint are true and correct.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

10 that the foregoing is true and correct.

11

12

Executed on August 5, 2020, at Ukiah, California.

13

14

/s/ Les Boek *

Pastor Les Boek

15

Calvary Chapel Ukiah

16

*original signature retained by attorney Robert Tyler

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 21 of 22

1

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2

3

On behalf of CALVARY CHAPEL FORT BRAGG, I, Kevin Green, declare as

4 follows:

5

1. I am a party to this action.

6

2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know of the contents thereof.

7

3. Based on my own knowledge, the contents of paragraphs 4, 46-50, 52, 54 of

8 the foregoing complaint are true and correct.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

10 that the foregoing is true and correct.

11

12

Executed on August 5, 2020, at Fort Bragg, California.

13

/s/ Kevin Green*

14

Kevin Green

15

Calvary Chapel Fort Bragg

16

*original signature retained by attorney Robert Tyler

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF

Case 2:20-cv-01431-KJM-DMC Document 15 Filed 08/06/20 Page 22 of 22

1

VERIFICATION OF COMPLAINT

2

3

On behalf of RIVER OF LIFE CHURCH, I, Pastor Scott Thomson, declare as

4 follows:

5

1. I am a party to this action.

6

2. I have read the foregoing complaint and know of the contents thereof.

7

3. Based on my own knowledge, the contents of paragraphs 5, 46-50, 53- 54 of

8 the foregoing complaint are true and correct.

9

I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America

10 that the foregoing is true and correct.

11

12

Executed on August 5, 2020, at Oroville, California.

13

14

/s/ Scott Thomson*

Pastor Scott Thomson

15

River of Life Church

16

*original signature retained by attorney Robert Tyler

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

VERIFIED FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF