State's Opposition to Post-Hearing Supplemental Brief Motion — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak (D. Nev., 2020-06-11)

Record facts

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT · No. 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF · Doc. 42 · 2020-06-11 · Docket on CourtListener

Full text

Page 1 of 3 
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
AARON D. FORD 
Attorney General 
CRAIG A. NEWBY (Bar No. 8591) 
  Deputy Solicitor General 
State of Nevada 
Office of the Attorney General 
100 North Carson Street 
Carson City, Nevada 89701-4717 
(775) 684-1100 (phone) 
(775) 684-1108 (fax) 
Email: CNewby@ag.nv.gov 
  
Attorneys for State Defendants 
 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 
 
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
 
 
vs. 
 
STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity 
as Governor of Nevada, et al., 
 
Defendants. 
Case No. 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF 
 
 
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ 
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN 
SUPPORT FOR LEAVE TO FILE 
POST-HEARING SUPPLEMENTAL 
BRIEF (ECF NO. 41) 
 
 
The State Defendants respectfully oppose Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley’s 
(“Calvary”) motion for leave for post-hearing supplemental briefing (ECF No. 41). 
Defendants understand that that Calvary disagrees with the court’s preliminary 
decision following Tuesday’s hearing.  However, the supplemental brief is a premature 
motion for reconsideration of the written order forthcoming from the court.  Under such 
circumstances, this court should deny leave for further supplemental briefing.   
 
Brief review of the proposed supplement does not raise anything new that would 
change the court’s preliminary decision.     
First, the provision of Directive 021 addressing live entertainment events was 
addressed by the court at Tuesday’s hearing, after being quoted in full in Defendants’ 
opposition.  ECF No. 29 at 6:12-20.  More pictures that Calvary argues demonstrate 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 42   Filed 06/11/20   Page 1 of 3

 
Page 2 of 3 
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
violation of Directive 021 does not demonstrate a pattern of differential enforcement that 
may warrant a renewed motion pursuant to the court’s preliminary ruling.1   
Second, pictures from the primary election ignore Nevada’s significant efforts to 
reduce in-person voting in light of COVID-19, including the cooperative effort by the 
Secretary of State and each county clerk to mail ballots to each active registered voter.   
See https://www.nvsos.gov/sos/Home/Components/News/News/2823/23 (detailing mail 
primary plan).  The Secretary of State’s mail election efforts withstood multiple court 
challenges.  See Paher, et al. v. Cegavske, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00243-MMD-WGC at ECF 
No. 57 (denying first motion for temporary restraining order) and ECF No. 83 (denying 
second motion for temporary restraining order); Corona, et al. v. Cegavske, et al., Case No. 
20 OC 00064 1 B (1st Jud. Dist. Ct. Nev.).  Again, these pictures do not show a pattern of 
differential enforcement warranting a renewed motion pursuant to the court’s preliminary 
ruling.       
Third, under the guise of clarifying what it considers to be a facial challenge, Calvary 
simply seeks to reassert arguments that the court already rejected at Tuesday’s hearing.  
To the extent Calvary disagrees with the court, it should seek reconsideration or appeal 
the written decision, rather than coerce an additional round of briefing on a decided issue.      
Under these circumstances, leave should not be granted for filing a post –hearing 
supplemental brief.    
Dated: June 11, 2020. 
AARON D. FORD 
Attorney General 
 
By: /s/ Craig A. Newby 
 
 
 
CRAIG A. NEWBY (Bar No. 8591) 
Deputy Solicitor General 
State of Nevada 
Office of the Attorney General 
555 E. Washington Avenue, Suite 3900 
Las Vegas, NV  89101  
                            
1 As noted in Defendants’ Response to Supplement, regulatory authority over gaming 
establishments lies with the Gaming Commission and it would be inappropriate for 
Defendants to comment on whether or what discipline may occur premised on these 
pictures.  ECF No. 39 at 5:28-28.   
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 42   Filed 06/11/20   Page 2 of 3

 
Page 3 of 3 
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
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 
I certify that I am an employee of the State of Nevada, Office of the Attorney General, 
and that on this 11th day of June, 2020, I electronically filed the foregoing document, 
OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFFS’ MOTION AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 
FOR LEAVE TO FILE POST-HEARING SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEF (ECF NO. 41), 
with the Clerk of the Court by using the CM/ECF system. 
 
Participants in the case who are registered CM/ECF users will be served by the 
CM/ECF system. 
 
 
 
/s/ Kristalei Wolfe  
 
Kristalei Wolfe 
 
State of Nevada, 
 
Office of the Attorney General 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 42   Filed 06/11/20   Page 3 of 3

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.42.0.pdf

Size

98,911 bytes

SHA-256

ced54708a44a626a17d3495d44895ecfdd45529d7792044c50d826a02d3a28b1

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.42.0.pdf

Original

archive.org