Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04484/USCOURTS-cand-3_04-cv-04484-15/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 440
Nature of Suit: Other Civil Rights
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRISTIAN LEGAL SOCIETY CHAPTER

OF UNIVERSITY OF CALIFORNIA,

HASTINGS COLLEGE OF THE LAW, a/k/a

HASTINGS CHRISTIAN FELLOWSHIP,

Plaintiff,

 v.

MARY KAY KANE, et al.,

Defendants.

 /

No. C 04-04484 JSW

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S

MOTION TO AMEND OR ALTER

JUDGMENT

This matter comes before the Court upon consideration of the motion of plaintiff

Christian Legal Society Chapter of University of California, Hastings College of the Law, a/k/a

Hastings Christian Fellowship (“CLS”) to alter or amend the judgment entered in this case

based on the Court’s order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Having

considered the parties’ pleadings, the record in this case, and relevant legal authority, the Court

finds this matter suitable for disposition without oral argument. See N.D. Civ. L.R. 7-1(b).

CLS moves to amend the judgment pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 59(e). 

“A district court has considerable discretion when considering a motion to amend a judgment

under Rule 59(e).” Turner v. Burlington Northern Santa Fe Railroad, 338 F.3d 1058, 1063 (9th

Cir. 2003). While “Rule 59(e) permits a district court to reconsider and amend a previous order,

the rule offers an extraordinary remedy, to be used sparingly in the interests of finality and

conservation of judicial resources.” Kona Enterprises, Inc. v. Estate of Bishop, 229 F.3d 877, 

Case 3:04-cv-04484-JSW Document 135 Filed 05/19/06 Page 1 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

 CLS made the following allegations in its complaint:

4.2. [CLS] maintained, consistent with a Biblically orthodox faith, that it

would still consider religion and sexual orientation in the selection of its officers and

members.

...

4.9. [CLS] objects to the Policy on Nondiscrimination that requires HCF to

open its membership and officer positions to all students regardless of religion and

sexual orientation.

...

4.12. By enacting and enforcing the Policy on Nondiscrimination forbidding

[CLS] to discriminate on the basis of religion or sexual orientation, refusing to

recognize [CLS]’s constitutional right to an exemption from said policy ... Hastings

has engaged in discrimination against [CLS] ... . 

CLS alleges the language quoted above from paragraph 4.12 or substantially similar language

in paragraphs 5.2, 6.2, 7.2, 9.2. and 10.2 of its complaint as well. CLS continued to proffer

the same allegations in its amended complaint.

2

890 (9th Cir. 2000) (internal quotations omitted). CLS moves to alter or amend the judgment on

the ground that such amendment is necessary to correct a manifest error of law or fact on which

the judgment is based. See id. Specifically, CLS asks the Court to amend its order on the

parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment to delete the word “admittedly” from the sentence

on the second page of its order, which reads:

This case concerns whether a religious student organization may compel a public

university law school to fund its activities and to allow the group to use the

school’s name and facilities even though the organization admittedly discriminates

in the selection of its members and officers on the basis of religion and sexual

orientation.

(Docket No. 124 at 2.)

CLS contends that it never admitted to discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation. 

However, CLS’s original and amended complaint are replete with allegations that: (1) CLS

seeks to discriminate in the selection of its members and officers on the basis of religion and

sexual orientation; (2) CLS seeks an exemption to Hastings’ Nondiscrimination Policy requiring

it not to discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual orientation; and (3) Hastings’ refusal to

grant an exemption and allow CLS to discriminate on the basis of religion and sexual

orientation violates CLS’s constitutional rights. (See Compl., ¶¶ 4.2, 4.9, 4.12, 5.2, 6.2, 7.2, 9.2,

10.2; Amended Compl., ¶¶ 4.2, 4.9, 4.12, 5.2, 6.2, 7.2, 9.2.)1 These allegations are binding on

CLS as judicial admissions. See American Title Ins. Co. v. Lacelaw Corp., 861 F.2d 224, 226

(9th Cir. 1988) (“Factual assertions in pleadings and pretrial orders, unless amended, are

Case 3:04-cv-04484-JSW Document 135 Filed 05/19/06 Page 2 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

considered judicial admissions conclusively binding on the party who made them. ...A statement

in a complaint ... is a judicial admission.”).

Moreover, on April 12, 2005, this Court issued an order denying in part and granting in

part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. In that order, the Court noted that CLS “informed

Defendants that it would consider religion and sexual orientation in the selection of its officers

and members” and that CLS “admitted to Defendants that it would not abide by the

nondiscrimination policy and that it intended to exclude members and officers based on their

religion and sexual orientation.” (See Docket No. 31 at 2, 9.) CLS did not object to the Court’s

characterization of its allegations in that order. 

Even if CLS could change its position and distance itself from its binding admissions at

this late stage in the litigation by arguing that it only seeks to discriminate based on

“homosexual conduct” rather than sexual orientation, as the Court noted in its order on the

parties’ cross motions for summary judgment, this is a distinction without a difference. (Docket

No. 124 at 11 n.2 (citing Lawrence v. Texas, 539 U.S. 558, 583 (2003) (O’Connor, J.,

concurring) (rejecting attempt to distinguish statute discriminating against “homosexual

conduct” from one discriminating on the basis of sexual orientation: “While it is true that the

law applies only to conduct, the conduct targeted by this law is conduct that is closely correlated

with being homosexual. Under such circumstances, [the State] sodomy law is targeted at more

than conduct. It is instead directed toward gay persons as a class.”); see also Karouni v.

Gonzales, 399 F.3d 1163, 1173 (9th Cir. 2005) (finding “no appreciable difference between an

individual ... being persecuted for being a homosexual and being persecuted for engaging in

homosexual acts”).)

///

///

///

///

///

///

Case 3:04-cv-04484-JSW Document 135 Filed 05/19/06 Page 3 of 4
U

nite

d

States District C

o

u

rt

For the Northern District of California

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

4

The Court thus concludes that CLS fails to demonstrate the Court made a “manifest error

of ... fact” in its order on the parties’ cross-motions for summary judgment. Turner, 338 F.3d at

1063. Accordingly, the Court DENIES CLS’s motion to alter or amend judgment.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: May 19, 2006 

JEFFREY S. WHITE

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 3:04-cv-04484-JSW Document 135 Filed 05/19/06 Page 4 of 4