Pandemic Darlings The pandemic economy, in original documents
Home Court filings Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak Sheriff Hunewill's Limited Joinder to State Opposition — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)

Court filing

Sheriff Hunewill's Limited Joinder to State Opposition — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)

Filed June 2, 2020 in Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak; one of 20 filings from this case.

Record facts

CourtUNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
Filed2020-06-02

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF · Doc. 32 · 2020-06-02 · 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
 
Page 1 of 5 
MAC:11779-164 4060589_1 6/2/2020 3:38 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
Marquis Aurbach Coffing 
Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 
Nevada Bar No. 6882 
Brian R. Hardy, Esq. 
Nevada Bar No. 10068 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 
Telephone: (702) 382-0711 
Facsimile: (702) 382-5816 
canderson@maclaw.com 
bhardy@maclaw.com 
Attorneys for Defendant Frank Hunewill 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY, 
 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
vs. 
STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity as 
Governor of Nevada; AARON FORD, in his 
official capacity as Attorney General of 
Nevada; FRANK HUNEWILL, in his official 
capacity as Sheriff of Lyon County, 
 
 
 
Defendant. 
Case Number: 
3:20-cv-00303-LRH-CLB 
 
 
LIMITED JOINDER OF  
SHERRIFF FRANK HUNEWILL  
TO THE OPPOSITION [ECF NO 29] 
FILED BY THE GOVERNOR AND 
ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEVADA 
 
Defendant, Frank Hunewill, in his official capacity as Sheriff of Lyon County, (the 
“Sherriff”), by and through his attorneys of record, the law firm of Marquis Aurbach 
Coffing, hereby files his Limited Joinder to the Opposition [ECF No. 29] filed by the 
Governor and Attorney General of Nevada in the above referenced matter. This Opposition 
is made and based upon the attached Memorandum of Points and Authorities, all pleadings 
and papers on file herein, and any oral argument allowed at the time of the hearing. 
Defendant Frank Hunewill 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
Issuing blanket edicts over an entire state as diverse as Nevada without taking into 
account local needs does not seem narrowly tailored.  For this reason, each County should 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 32   Filed 06/02/20   Page 1 of 5

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
 
Page 2 of 5 
MAC:11779-164 4060589_1 6/2/2020 3:38 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
be afforded discretion with respect to enforcement.   Notably, Lyon County is not a 
“hotspot” for COVID-19.  And, unlike the larger Nevada counties, Lyon County has been 
able to weather the effects of COVID-19 without a single death.  Consequently, while Lyon 
County law enforcement officers have been diligent in monitoring and assisting in the 
COVID-19 efforts, enforcement of recommendations from the Centers for Disease Control 
(the “CDC”) and the executive directives of the Governor have not been given priority over 
any other law enforcement functions.  Lyon County law enforcement officers have not and 
will not be using their limited resources monitoring church attendance and/or parishioners’ 
adherence to social distancing recommendations.  Simply put, whether the Plaintiff’s 
services include more than the Governor’s recommended number of parishioners or whether 
such parishioners adhere to the recommended social distancing during the worship services 
is not a priority of Lyon County law enforcement officials.  Lyon County law enforcement 
officials are optimistic that the residents of the county will reasonably adhere to all CDC 
guidelines and encourage Lyon County residents to act appropriately to assure they and their 
neighbors remain safe and healthy.  However, if there is a call, complaint or issue reported, 
then such will be investigated and afforded the appropriate response necessary under the 
circumstances.   
II. 
LEGAL ARGUMENT 
The Sherriff files this limited joinder to the Opposition filed by the Governor and 
Attorney General.  Notably, the Sherriff acknowledges that the United States Supreme Court 
recently issued a determination denying similarly sought injunctive relief for a church 
challenging California’s temporary restrictions on public gatherings in light of COVID-19.  
See South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v. Newsom, et al. Case No. 19A1044, 2020 
WL 2813056 (May 29, 2020).  See State Opposition [ECF No. 29] at Exhibit B.  
The Supreme Court in South Bay United stated: 
The precise question of when restrictions on particular social activities should 
be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter subject 
to reasonable disagreement. Our Constitution principally entrusts “[t]he 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 32   Filed 06/02/20   Page 2 of 5

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
 
Page 3 of 5 
MAC:11779-164 4060589_1 6/2/2020 3:38 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
safety and the health of the people” to the politically accountable officials of 
the States “to guard and protect.” Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11, 38 
(1905). When those officials “undertake[ ] to act in areas fraught with 
medical and scientific uncertainties,” their latitude “must be especially 
broad.” Marshall v. United States, 414 U. S. 417, 427 (1974). Where those 
broad limits are not exceeded, they should not be subject to second-guessing 
by an “unelected federal judiciary,” which lacks the background, 
competence, and expertise to assess public health and is not accountable to 
the people. See Garcia v. San Antonio Metropolitan Transit Authority, 469 U. 
S. 528, 545 (1985). 
Id., 2020 WL 2813056 at *2. 
The Sheriff affirms that the “question of when restrictions on particular social 
activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and fact-intensive matter 
subject to reasonable disagreement.” Id. (emphasis added).  And, that such questions of fact 
may not be best accomplished through general directives.  Rather, it is important for the 
officials entrusted to “to guard and protect” the “safety and health of the people” to act in 
such areas.  Id. (citing Jacobson, 197 U.S. at 38). 
For this reason, each county and their elected officials should be afforded discretion 
and latitude with respect to the enforcement of such general directives and restrictions. Here, 
the Sheriff has not and will not be using his limited law enforcement resources to monitor 
church attendance and/or parishioners’ adherence to social distancing recommendations.  
Rather, the Sherriff is optimistic that his fellow Lyon County residents will reasonably 
adhere to all CDC guidelines and he encourages Lyon County residents to act appropriately 
to assure they and their neighbors remain safe and healthy.  Nevertheless, if there is a call, 
complaint or issue reported, then such will be investigated and afforded the appropriate 
response necessary under the circumstances. 
. . . 
 
. . . 
 
. . . 
 
. . . 
 
. . . 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 32   Filed 06/02/20   Page 3 of 5

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
 
Page 4 of 5 
MAC:11779-164 4060589_1 6/2/2020 3:38 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
Based upon the foregoing, the Sherriff respectfully requests that this Court follow the 
directives of the United States Supreme Court and affirms that he will adhere to any orders 
of this Court resulting therefrom. 
Dated this 2nd day of June, 2020. 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
By /s/ Brian R. Hardy, Esq. 
 
Craig R. Anderson, Esq. 
Nevada Bar No. 6882 
Brian R. Hardy, Esq. 
Nevada Bar No. 10068 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada 89145 
Attorney(s) for Defendant Frank Hunewill 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 32   Filed 06/02/20   Page 4 of 5

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
 
Page 5 of 5 
MAC:11779-164 4060589_1 6/2/2020 3:38 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I hereby certify that I electronically filed the foregoing LIMITED JOINDER OF 
SHERRIFF FRANK HUNEWILL TO THE OPPOSITION FILED BY THE 
GOVERNOR AND ATTORNEY GENERAL OF NEVADA with the Clerk of the Court 
for the United States District Court by using the court’s CM/ECF system on the 2nd day of 
June, 2020. 
 
I further certify that all participants in the case are registered CM/ECF users 
and that service will be accomplished by the CM/ECF system. 
 
I further certify that some of the participants in the case are not registered 
CM/ECF users. I have mailed the foregoing document by First-Class Mail, postage prepaid, 
or have dispatched it to a third-party commercial carrier for delivery within 3 calendar days 
to the following non-CM/ECF participants: 
Jason D. Guinasso 
500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Ste 980 
Reno, NV 89521 
jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 
 
Craig A. Newby 
Office of the Attorney General 
100 N. Carson St. 
Carson City, NV 89701 
Attorney for Defendant Steve Sisolak and 
Aaron Ford 
 
Kristen K. Waggoner 
Ryan J. Tucker 
Jeremiah Galus 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
15100 N. 90th St. 
Scottsdale, AZ 85260 
kwaggoner@adflegal.org 
rtucker@adflegal.org 
jgalus@adflegal.org 
 
 
David A. Cortman 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE Ste. D-1100 
Lawrenceville, GA 30043 
dcortman@ADFlegal.og 
pro hac vice fapplication forthcoming 
Attorneys for Plaintiff Calvary Chapel 
Dayton Valley 
 
 
 
/s/ Michelle Monkarsh 
 
an employee of Marquis Aurbach Coffing 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 32   Filed 06/02/20   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File
gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.32.0.pdf
Size
150,606 bytes
SHA-256
a1579e0e9c476c055ac02748f28cbb945eeeac4a907afc76e0dffcf53520634a
Our copy
gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.32.0.pdf
Original
archive.org
  1. State's Opposition to Emergency Motion for Preliminary Injunction — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev., 2020-06-02)same docket · 2020-06-02
  2. Second Emergency Motion for TRO and PI — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2020-05-29
  3. Exhibit: Nevada Emergency Directive 021 (Phase Two Reopening Plan) — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2020-06-04
  4. Order Denying Reconsideration of Emergency-Basis Denial — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2020-05-29
  5. State's Response to Plaintiff's Supplement Brief — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2020-06-07
  6. Order Denying Emergency Consideration — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolaksame docket · 2020-05-29
  7. Motion for Leave to File Post-Hearing Supplemental Brief — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2020-06-10
  8. Verified First Amended Complaint — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolaksame docket · 2020-05-28
  9. Order Denying Emergency Motions for TRO and Preliminary Injunction — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same case · 2020-06-11
  10. Emergency Motion for TRO and Preliminary Injunction — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same case · 2020-05-28
  11. State's Opposition to Post-Hearing Supplemental Brief Motion — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev., 2020-06-11)same case · 2020-06-11
  12. Declaration of Counsel Jason D. Guinasso — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same case · 2020-05-28
  13. Sheriff Hunewill's Limited Opposition to Injunction Pending Appeal — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same case · 2020-06-17
  14. Declaration of Pastor Garry D. Leist — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolaksame case · 2020-05-28
  15. State's Opposition to Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same case · 2020-06-17
  16. Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Injunction Pending Appeal — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolaksame case · 2020-06-18
  17. Order Denying Motion for Injunction Pending Appeal — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2020-06-19
  18. Joint Status Report and Proposed Order (Certiorari Pending) — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev.)same docket · 2021-01-05
  19. Consent Decree — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolaksame docket · 2021-05-13

Part of: Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley v. Sisolak · U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · Pandemic unemployment insurance · Other civil cases · Briefs and memoranda · 2020 · Court filings

Back to top