Filed 10/27/22 Godspeak Calvary Chapel v. County of Ventura CA2/6

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN THE OFFICIAL REPORTS

California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions 

not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion 

has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115. 

IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

SECOND APPELLATE DISTRICT

DIVISION SIX

GODSPEAK CALVARY 

CHAPEL, et al.,

 Cross-Plaintiffs and 

Appellants,

v.

COUNTY OF VENTURA, 

et al.,

 Cross-Defendants and 

Respondents.

2d Civ. No. B315027

(Super. Ct. No. 56-2020-

00544086-CU-MC-VTA)

(Ventura County)

INTRODUCTION

Respondents County of Ventura and County Health Officer 

Robert Levin, M.D. (County) sought to enjoin appellants 

Godspeak Calvary Chapel and pastor Rob McCoy (Godspeak)

from holding indoor worship services in violation of state and 

local health orders during the COVID-19 crisis. Godspeak crosscomplained against the County, as well as respondents Governor 
2

Gavin Newsom and Acting Public Health Officer Tomas Aragon, 

M.D. (State), alleging the indoor worship restrictions violated its 

members’ First Amendment rights.

The County dismissed its enforcement action in April 2021

after the challenged restrictions were rescinded. Godspeak’s 

cross-claims remained at issue. The County and State demurred 

to Godspeak’s cross-claims for declaratory and injunctive relief as 

moot and claimed immunity from liability for damages. The trial 

court sustained the demurrers without leave to amend and 

dismissed the case. Godspeak appeals.

We affirm. Godspeak’s claims for declaratory and 

injunctive relief are moot. The constitutional violations giving 

rise to those claims are not likely to recur. The State and County 

are immune from liability on any remaining claims for nominal 

and compensatory damages. 

FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

Governor Gavin Newsom declared a state of emergency in 

California on March 4, 2020 in response to a sharp rise in 

COVID-19 infections. A stay-at-home order closed most public

spaces on March 19 and directed residents to heed health 

directives issued by the State Public Health Officer. A four-stage 

reopening began on May 4, 2020, starting with those sectors 

identified as “lower risk” by the California Department of Public 

Health (CDPH).

1 CDPH started publishing a monitoring list 

1 CDPH later replaced the four-stage reopening framework 

with the “Blueprint for a Safer Economy.” The Blueprint created 

a tiered system in which the CDPH assigned each county a color 

based on specified COVID-19 risk-assessment factors. 

(Governor’s Exec. Order No. N-60-20 (May 4, 2020).) 
3

displaying the counties with the highest rates of disease

transmission and hospitalization. 

Infection rates continued to rise statewide in July 2020. 

The State Public Health Officer ordered those counties appearing 

on the monitoring list to close indoor operations in seven 

categories of businesses and activities considered high-risk, 

including “places of worship,” on July 13, 2020.2 (State order.) 

Ventura County was among 32 counties listed at the time. The 

County issued a local order the next day enforcing the closures

(County order.) 

Godspeak held indoor worship services at its Newbury Park 

church despite the restrictions. The County asked Pastor McCoy 

over the phone to comply with the orders and suggested he hold 

services online or outdoors while the orders remained in effect. It 

reiterated this position in a July 31 enforcement letter. The 

County sued for injunctive relief when the indoor services 

continued. The trial court issued a temporary restraining order

in August 2020 and a preliminary injunction in October 2020. 

These prohibited Godspeak from “[c]onducting, participating in, 

or attending worship services . . . in any manner which violates 

any applicable state or local health orders” pending trial.

Godspeak cross-complained against the County and the State for

violating its members’ First Amendment rights. 

The County dismissed the enforcement action in April 2021 

after state and local health officials rescinded the worship 

2 The seven categories included: (1) gyms and fitness 

centers; (2) places of worship; (3) protests; (4) offices for noncritical infrastructure sectors; (5) personal care services (nail 

salons, massage parlors, and tattoo parlors); (6) hair salons and 

barbershops; and (7) malls.
4

restrictions. Only Godspeak’s cross-claims remained. The 

church’s second amended cross-complaint sought declaratory 

relief, injunctive relief, and compensatory damages for past 

violations of its constitutional rights. The County and State 

demurred to the claims as moot. They also argued they were 

immune under both federal and state law to any claim for 

damages.

3

The trial court sustained both demurrers without leave to 

amend and dismissed the case. Godspeak appealed. 

DISCUSSION

A. Appealability

The trial court issued a minute order sustaining the 

demurrers without leave on August 6, 2021 but did not enter 

final judgment until after the parties briefed this appeal.

4 The 

parties attribute the delay to confusion caused by ambiguous 

language in the State’s notice of ruling on the demurrers. We 

3 The State and County argued on demurrer that Godspeak 

did not file a claim under the Government Tort Claims Act 

(GCTA) prior to filing its cross-complaint. (Gov. Code, §§ 905, 

945.4.) The trial court did not address the argument in its 

minute order sustaining the demurrers and the parties did not 

raise GCTA compliance in briefing here. We treat the issue as 

waived. (See People v. Stanley (1995) 10 Cal.4th 764, 793, 

quoting 9 Witkin, Cal. Procedure, (3d ed. 1985) Appeal, § 479, 

p. 469 [“‘[E]very brief should contain a legal argument with 

citation of authorities on the points made. If none is furnished on 

a particular point, the court may treat it as waived, and pass it 

without consideration’”].)

4 The trial court entered the order and judgment dismissing 

the second amended cross-complaint on July 21, 2022.
5

grant Godspeak’s unopposed request for judicial notice of the 

late-filed judgment5 and hear the merits of the appeal. (See 

Nguyen v. Ford (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 1, 10, fn. 4 [“In the absence 

of any objection by [respondent], who has fully briefed the merits 

of this appeal, we exercise our authority to treat Nguyen's notice 

of appeal as timely filed”].)

B. Mootness

Godspeak concedes the health orders restricting indoor 

worship services are no longer in effect. Any claims for injunctive 

and declaratory relief are therefore moot. Appellate courts 

generally refrain from “render[ing] opinions on moot questions or 

abstract propositions, or declare principles of law which cannot 

affect the matter at issue on appeal.” (Daily Journal Corp. v. 

County of Los Angeles (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1550, 1557.) “This 

rule has regularly been applied when injunctive relief is sought 

but, pending appeal, the act sought to be enjoined has been 

performed.” (Ibid.) Godspeak requests we exercise our discretion 

to decide the appeal because it involves a matter of broad public 

interest that is likely to recur. (Steiner v. Superior Court (2013) 

220 Cal.App.4th 1479, 1485-1486; Malatka v. Helm (2010) 188 

Cal.App.4th 1074, 1088.) 

We acknowledge this appeal involves a matter of public 

interest. The restrictions Godspeak challenges were a matter of 

concern to many people of faith throughout the state. Several

churches sued to enjoin local health officials from enforcing 

orders that prohibited indoor worship services but allowed 

5 We refer to “Appellants’ Motion for Judicial Notice, or in 

the Alternate, to Augment Record on Appeal” filed September 14, 

2022. We also grant Godspeak’s motion of the same title filed on 

July 11, 2022. The State and County do not oppose the motions.
6

similar secular activities to reopen. These challenges reached our 

nation’s highest court, which found the restrictions violated the 

Free Exercise Clause by treating “comparable secular activity 

more favorably than religious exercise.” (Tandon v. Newsom

(2021) 593 U.S. __, __ [141 S.Ct. 1294, 1296, 209 L.Ed.2d 355], 

citing Roman Catholic Diocese of Brooklyn v. Cuomo (2020) 592 

U.S. ___, ___, [141 S.Ct. 63, 67, 208 L.Ed.2d 206] (per curiam).)6 

In two of these cases the State stipulated to judgments 

permanently enjoining further enforcement of such restrictions.

7 

Our colleagues in the Sixth District recently pronounced them 

facially unconstitutional in People v. Calvary Chapel San Jose

(2022) 82 Cal.App.5th 235, 255-256. 

We need not add our voice to the chorus. Godspeak’s belief

that religious liberties remain “under constant threat” assumes

officials will reflexively adopt the obsolete measures of 2020 

during future outbreaks. Two stipulated judgments prohibit the 

6 The United States Supreme Court enjoined enforcement 

of California’s indoor worship restrictions in three other cases as 

well: Harvest Rock Church, Inc. v. Newsom (2020) 592 U.S. ___ 

[141 S.Ct. 889, 208 L. Ed.2d 448] (Harvest Rock); South Bay 

United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom (2021) 592 U.S. ___ [141 

S.Ct. 716, 209 L.Ed.2d 22] (South Bay); Gateway City Church v. 

Newsom (2021) 592 U.S. ___ [141 S.Ct. 1460, 209 L.Ed.2d 178].

7 The State stipulated to permanent injunctions in Harvest 

Rock and South Bay on May 14, 2021, and June 1, 2021, 

respectively, when those cases were remanded to the District 

Court. (Harvest Rock Church v. Newsom (C.D. Cal. 2020, No. 

2:20-cv-0614 JGB (KK); South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. 

Newsom (C.D. Cal. 2020, No. 3:20-cv-865-BAS-AHG).) The State 

stipulated to the third judgment on June 14, 2021, in Burfitt v. 

Newsom (Super. Ct. Kern County, 2020, No. BCV-20-102267).
7

State from singling out houses of worship when imposing

restrictions on indoor gatherings in the future. Pandemic-era 

court decisions define the boundaries of public health officials’ 

emergency powers more clearly than before, particularly with 

respect to policies hindering the exercise of religious liberties. 

Courts will evaluate future legal challenges to state authority in 

this post-pandemic context. (See Building a Better Redondo, Inc. 

v. City of Redondo Beach (2012), 203 Cal.App.4th 852, 867 

[resolving moot questions on appeal not justified when a case 

“presents fact-specific issues that are unlikely to recur”].)

C. Damages

Godspeak contends its claims for monetary damages 

against the County are live controversies.8 (See Bernhardt v. 

County of Los Angeles (9th Cir. 2002) 279 F.3d 862, 872.) The 

County insists it is immune from damages under the Eleventh 

Amendment because it acted as the “arms” of the State while 

enforcing the health orders at issue.

9 (See Pitts v. County of Kern

(1998) 17 Cal.4th 340, 348, quoting Howlett v. Rose (1990) 496 

U.S. 358, 365 [110 L.Ed.2d 332] [“‘[T]he State and arms of the 

State . . . are not subject to suit under § 1983 in either federal 

court or state court’”].) Godspeak argues the County cannot 

claim immunity because it acted independently from the State 

8 Godspeak does not appeal the dismissal of its damages 

claims against the State.

9 The Eleventh Amendment to the United States 

Constitution states: “The Judicial power of the United States 

shall not be construed to extend to any suit in law or equity, 

commenced or prosecuted against one of the United States by 

Citizens of another State, or by Citizens or Subjects of any 

Foreign State.”
8

when it adopted and enforced its own worship restrictions. 

(Monell v. New York City Dept. of Social Servs. (1978) 436 U.S. 

658, 690 [56 L.Ed.2d 611].) We look to state law to determine

whether the County acted on behalf of the State under these 

circumstances. (Pitts, at p. 352, citing McMillian v. Monroe 

County (1997) 520 U.S. 781, 786 [138 L.Ed.2d 1] (McMillian).) 

“While this law may give varying responses, we look to “the 

weight of the evidence” to reach a conclusion.” (Pitts, at p. 356, 

citing McMillian, at p. 793.)

The Health and Safety Code contains the statutory 

framework for California’s public health system. State health 

officials assume a greater degree of control over their local 

counterparts during health crises. (See Health & Saf. Code,

§ 131080 [directing CDPH to “control and regulate” the actions of 

local health authorities “when in its judgment the public health is 

menaced . . .”].) The health officer of each county must “enforce 

all orders, rules, and regulations concerning quarantine or 

isolation prescribed or directed by the department” during 

outbreaks of communicable diseases. (Id., § 120195.) The 

dispositive question here, it follows, is whether Godspeak’s claims

arise from acts performed by the County while enforcing State’s 

“orders, rules, and regulations” pursuant to this statutory 

directive. We conclude they do. 

The State order directed those counties appearing on the 

monitoring list to close “places of worship” and six other high-risk 

indoor activities immediately. The County order enforced this 

mandate. It began with the proviso that it was issued “AS 

DIRECTED BY [CDPH] AND UNDER THE AUTHORITY OF 

CALIFORNIA HEALTH AND SAFETY CODE SECTIONS 

101030, 101040, 101085, AND 120175, TITLE 17 CALIFORNIA 
9

CODE OF REGULATIONS SECTION 2501, ARTICLE XI OF 

THE CALIFORNIA CONSTITUTION, AND CALFORNIA 

GOVERNMENT CODE SECTION 8610, 8630, 8634, AND 8665

. . . .” It closed the same seven indoor activities described in the 

State order. The County’s July 31 letter to Godspeak did not 

refer to the local order at all; instead, it requested the church

comply with “the most recent State Health Officer order” and 

attached the State order for reference. It cautioned “that only 

outdoor services, with the appropriate social distancing and use 

of face coverings, are allowed by the State at this time.” (Italics

added.) Finally, the County’s complaint for injunctive relief cited 

only those provisions of the County order implementing the 

State’s heightened restrictions for communities on the monitoring 

list. 

We do not imply the County acted as the State’s adjutant

for all purposes during this crisis. (See, e.g., McMillian, supra,

520 U.S. at p. 785 [“we are not seeking to make a 

characterization of [local officials] that will hold true for every 

type of official action they engage in”].) The County retained 

authority to “take any preventive measure . . . necessary to 

protect and preserve the public health” (Health & Saf. Code, 

§ 101040, subd. (a)), including measures “more restrictive than 

. . . the public health measures imposed on a statewide basis. . . .”

(Governor’s Exec. Order No. N-60-20 (May 4, 2020)). The 

activities at issue here, however, were performed by the County 

pursuant to its statutory obligation to “enforce all orders, rules, 

and regulations concerning quarantine or isolation” issued by the 
10

State. It is therefore immune from claims for damages arising 

from these activities under the Eleventh Amendment.10

DISPOSITION

The judgment of dismissal is affirmed.

NOT TO BE PUBLISHED.

GILBERT, P.J.

We concur:

YEGAN, J.

BALTODANO, J.

10 A county is immune from liability under section 1983 if

the local health officer is found to have “acted in his capacity as a 

state official rather than a . . . policymaker for the county.”

(County of L.A. v. Superior Court, (1998) 68 Cal.App.4th 1166, 

1171, citing McMillian, supra, 520 U.S. at pp. 784-785.)
11

Henry J. Walsh, Judge

Superior Court County of Ventura

______________________________

Tyler & Bursch, Robert H. Tyler and Nada N. Higuera, for 

Cross-Plaintiffs and Appellants Godspeak Calvary Chapel and 

Rob McCoy.

Tiffany N. North, County Counsel, Emily T. Gardner, 

Principal Assistant County Counsel, and Jaclyn S. Smith, 

Assistant County Counsel, for Cross-Defendants and

Respondents County of Ventura and Robert Levin, M.D.

Rob Bonta, Attorney General, Thomas S. Patterson, Senior 

Assistant Attorney General, Paul Stein, Supervising Deputy 

Attorney General, Lisa J. Plank and Todd Grabarsky, Deputy 

Attorneys General, for Cross-Defendants and Respondents Gavin 

Newsom and Erica Pan, M.D.