T hi s di s pos i t i on i s nota ppr opr i a t e f orpubl i c a t i on a nd i s notpr e c e de nt * e xc e pta s pr ovi de d by 9th C i r . R . 36- 3. NOT F OR P UB L I CAT I ON UN I TE D STATE S C OU RT OF APPE ALS FOR T HE NI NTH CI RC UI T
P L A N S I N C ., P la in tif

f - A p p e lla n t,
v. SACR AM ENTO CI TY UN I FI ED SC HO OL DI ST RI CT a n d TW I N RI DG ES EL EM ENTARY SC HO OL DI ST RI CT , D efen d an t s - A p p el l ees. N o. 10- 17720 D. C
. No . 2 : 9 8
- c v - 0 0 2 6 6
- F C DEFB
ME MOR AN DU M *

A pp ea l fr om the U ni t ed S t at es D i stri ctC ou rt f o rth e E a s te r n D is tr ic t o f C a lif o r n ia F r a nk C
. D a m r e l l , S e ni orD i s tr i c tJ udge , P r e s i di ng A r gue d a nd S ubm i t t e d M a y 17, 2012 S a n F r a n c is c o , C a lif

o r n ia B efo re: R E IN H A R D T , C L IF T O N , an d N . R . S M IT H , C i rcu i tJu d g es. P L A N S appeal s f

rom the d istrict c ou rt ’ s e nt ry of j ud gm entaf t era bench t ri al
o n th e b a s i s o f a p a r tia l f in d in g u n d e rR u le 5 2 ( c ) o f th e F e d e r a l R u le s o f

C iv il Pr o c e d u r e . Ex e r c i s i n g j u r i s d i c t i o n u n d e r2 8 U . S. C. § 1 2 9 1 , w e a f f i r m. 

# FI LED JU N 07 2012 M OLLY C. DW Y ER, CLERK U
. S. C O U R T OF APPE ALS- 2-

T he di s tr i c tc our t ’ s “ e vi de nt i a r y rul i ngs a r e r e vi e w e d f ora n a bus e of

di s c r e t i on, and w i l l no t be re vers ed abse nt a s ho w i ng of prej ud i ce . ” L arezv. C i t y of L os A ng el es , 9 4 6 F . 2 d 6 3 0 , 6 3 8 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 1 ) . W e h o ld th a t th e d is tr ic t c o u r t d id n o t a b u s e its di s c r e t i on i n e xc l udi ng a l l butone of the e xhi bi t s tha tP L A N S pr opos e d. R e vi e w i ng the di s tr i c t c our t ’ s f i ndi ngs of f

a c tf orc l e a re r r ora nd i t s c onc l us i ons
o f la w d e n o v o , D ub ner v . C i t y & C nt y. of Sa n Francisc o , 26 6 F . 3d 95 9, 96 4 (9t h C i r. 2001) , w e a gr e e tha t P L A N S f a i l e d t o m e e t i t s bur de n of s how i ng tha ta nthr opos ophy i s a re l i gi on for pu rposes of the E st abl i shm ent C l ause . A l tho ug h w e expres s no v i ew
a s t o w he the ra nthr opos ophy c oul d be c ons i de r e d a r e l i gi on on the ba s i s of a f ul l e ror
m ore c om pl et e r ec ord, the re cord as i ti s bef ore us i s s i m pl y to o th in to sust ai n t hat
c onc l us i on. P L A N S a r gue s on a ppe a l tha ta de t e r m i na t i on tha ta nthr opos ophy i s a r e l i gi on i s no t nece ss ar y for i t t o pre vai l on i t s E st abl i shm entC l ause cl ai m . T hi s a rgum entm ay be c or r e c t . P L A N S w a i ve d i t , how e ve r , by f a i l i ng t o r a i s e i tbe l ow , i n r e s pons e t o the
m ot i on f or j udgm e nt unde r R ul e 52( c ) , a nd by tw i c e a gr e e i ng t o the bi f ur c a t i on of

the tr i a l
. P L A N S ’ s c ouns e l s i gne d a J oi nt F i na l P r e tr i a l C onf e r e nc e S t a t e m e ntde s c r i bi ng the qu es t i on “ w het her A nt hrop osop hy i s a re l i gi on ” a s a “ thres ho l d i ss ue, ” w hi ch
w oul d “ be a dj udi c a t e d f i r s t . ” P L A N S f

a i l e d t o obj e c tt o the di s tr i c tc our t ’ s i nc l us i on of t he sa m e l angu age i n t he P re tri al C on fe re nce O rder
. It i s cl ea r fr om the re cord t hat- 3-

t he p a r t i e s a g r e e d , f

o rp u rp o s e s o f

th i s c a s e , th a tu n l e s s a n th r o p o s o p h y i s a r e l i g i on, P L A N S c oul d notprev ai l
. T he r e c oul d be no othe rpurpos e t o the bi f ur c a t i on of

the tr i a l
. “ W e ha ve c ons i s t e nt l y he l d tha ti s s u es notpr e s e r ve d i n the pr e tr i a l or de rha ve been el i m i nat ed fr o m th e act i on . ” S. C al
. R e tai l C l e rk s U ni on & Food E m

p’ rs J oi nt P e ns i on T

r us t Fund v
. B

j orkl und , 72 8 F
. 2d 12 62 , 12 64 (9t h C i r. 19 84 ). P L A N S ha d y e ta nothe roppor tuni ty t o r a i se t h e i s s ue i n r e s pons e t o the defe nd ant s’ m ot i on for j ud gm ent on the basi s of a part i al fi nd i ng : i t coul d h ave a rgued th a t its c la im w a s n o t o n e th a t c o u ld “b e m a in ta in e d o r d e f e a te d o n ly w ith a f

a v o r a b le fi nd i ng on ” the qu es t i on w het her a nt hrop oso p h y is a rel i gi on . F ed. R . C i v. P . 52 (c ). I t m a d e n o s u c h a r g u m e n t. B e c a u s e P L A N S f

a ile d to a r g u e b e lo w th a t it c o u ld p r e v a il e v e n if
a n th r o p o s o p h y is n o t a r e lig io n , w e w ill n o t c o n s id e rth a t a r g u m e n t h e r e . Sm i th v. M a rsh , 1 9 4 F .3 d 1 0 4 5 , 1 0 5 2 ( 9 th C ir . 1 9 9 9 ) ; se e al so Men do za v. B l ock , 27 F
. 3d 13 57 , 13 59 -60 (9t h C i r. 19 94 ). AF F I RME D.