Order Denying Reconsideration of Emergency-Basis Denial — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · No. 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF · Doc. 23 · 2020-05-29 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

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
 
 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 
 
* * * 
 
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY, 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
v. 
 
STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity 
as Governor of Nevada, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
 
Case No. 3:20-cv-00303-MMD-CLB 
 
ORDER 
 
The Court previously denied Plaintiff’s request to consider its Emergency Motion 
for Temporary Restraining Order and Preliminary Injunction (“Motion”) (ECF Nos. 9, 19)1 
on an emergency basis. (ECF No. 16 (“Order”).) As noted in the Order, it is simply 
unreasonable for Plaintiff to file the Motion around 3:30 p.m. on Thursday, May 28, 2020, 
asking the Court to enjoin enforcement of state emergency directives imposed in 
response to COVID-19 to allow Plaintiff to resume in-person worship services by Sunday, 
May 31, 2020. (Id. at 1-2.) Plaintiff seeks reconsideration of the Order, explaining that it 
had hoped Nevada’s Governor would address concerns that Plaintiff’s Pastor, along with 
a group of other religious leaders across the state, had raised with Governor Sisolak.2 
(ECF Nos. 20 at 3-4, 21 at 3-4.) In short, Plaintiff contends that it exercised diligence in 
trying to resolve its dispute before bringing the Motion, though Plaintiff did not offer any 
explanation for its delay in the Motion.  
The Court declines to consider Plaintiff’s explanation. It is not an abuse of 
discretion to refuse to consider new arguments in a reconsideration motion even though 
 
1Plaintiff filed the Motion as one document and later corrected its filing to reflect 
that the Motion encompasses two requests for relief—a temporary restraining order and 
a preliminary injunction.  
 
2The Governor opposes the motion for reconsideration. (ECF No. 22.)  
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 23   Filed 05/30/20   Page 1 of 2

 
2 
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
“dire consequences” might result. See Schanen v. United States Dept. of Justice, 762 
F.2d 805, 807-08 (9th Cir. 1985). 
Moreover, the Court’s Order anticipated and already rejected the reason for waiting 
to file its Motion that Plaintiff’s motion for reconsideration now proffers. The Order 
specifically noted: 
To the extent Plaintiff was not certain how or when this restriction would be 
mitigated under the Governor’s phased reopening plan, Plaintiff still filed 
this action on May 22, 2020, and should have—at a minimum—sought the 
relief sought in the Motion then. Waiting until one business day before 
Pentecost Sunday to ask for emergency relief is simply unreasonable.  
(ECF No. 16 at 2.) Plaintiff’s basis for seeking reconsideration is, in gist, that very 
reason—the uncertainty associated with the Governor’s phased approach caused 
Plaintiff to delay filing the Motion even though Plaintiff filed this action on May 22, 2020. 
(ECF Nos. 20, 21.) Be that as it may, the fact that Plaintiff waited until one business day 
before Pentecost Sunday to file the Motion, when Plaintiff challenges restrictions that 
have been in place for weeks, still put Defendants and the Court in the untenable position 
of having essentially no time to address the Motion on the merits. 
It is therefore ordered that the motion for reconsideration (ECF Nos. 20, 21) is 
denied. 
DATED THIS 29th day of May 2020. 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
 
MIRANDA M. DU 
  
 
 
 
 
 
CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 23   Filed 05/30/20   Page 2 of 2

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.23.0_1.pdf

Size

82,681 bytes

SHA-256

eb438e372c3f1eb01b80c912f83e0c58a84143327333d87039131d071c43b98b

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.23.0_1.pdf

Original

archive.org