Sheriff Hunewill's Limited Opposition to Injunction Pending Appeal — 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. 51 · 2020-06-17 · 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 4072206_1 6/17/2020 1:59 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 
 
 
DEFENDANT FRANK HUNEWILL’S 
LIMITED OPPOSITION TO 
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION 
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT 
FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING 
APPEAL 
 
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 Opposition to Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Motion and 
Memorandum in Support for an Injunction Pending Appeal [ECF No. 47] filed 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. 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 51   Filed 06/17/20   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 4072206_1 6/17/2020 1:59 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
MEMORANDUM OF POINTS AND AUTHORITIES 
I. 
INTRODUCTION 
On June 9, 2020, this Court conducted a hearing on Plaintiff’s motions for a 
temporary restraining order and preliminary injunction filed on May 28 and May 29, 2020. 
See ECF Nos. 9, 19.  After considering all pleadings, papers and evidence on file and the 
arguments of the parties, the Court issued its Order denying both motions.  See ECF No. 43. 
Plaintiff’s acknowledge the same standard applies to an injunction pending appeal as applied 
to is prior motion and proffer no new evidence or arguments in favor of its position. See 
ECF No. 47 at 2:5-8.  Rather, Plaintiff acknowledges that its pending motion is nothing 
more than the exhaustion of procedural hurdle on its way to the Ninth Circuit. Id. at 3:3-10.  
Given the foregoing, there is nothing new or novel that can or should change this Court’s 
Order. 
II. 
LEGAL ARGUMENT 
In evaluating a motion for an injunction pending appeal, the court considers whether 
the moving party has demonstrated that (1) they are likely to succeed on the merits, (2) they 
are likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, (3) the balance of 
equities tips in their favor, and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Winter v. Nat. Res. 
Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 20 (2008); see also Feldman v. Ariz. Sec’y of State’s Office, 
843 F.3d 366, 367 (9th Cir. 2016) (“The standard for evaluating an injunction pending 
appeal is similar to that employed by district courts in deciding whether to grant a 
preliminary injunction.”). 
Given this Court denied Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction, it must first 
pursue an injunction pending appeal here before it may request one on an emergency basis 
from the Ninth Circuit. See Fed. R. App. P. 8(a)(1)(C); Ninth Circuit Rule 27-3(c)(v). As 
such, the Sherriff incorporates his legal arguments from his prior submission in opposition 
to Plaintiff’s request for a preliminary injunction. See ECF No. 32. In sum, and without 
waiving any specific arguments made therein or at the hearing in this matter, the Sherriff 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 51   Filed 06/17/20   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 4072206_1 6/17/2020 1:59 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
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 wherein it 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 
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). 
See South Bay United Pentecostal Church, et al. v. Newsom, et al. Case No. 19A1044, 2020 
WL 2813056 at *2 (May 29, 2020).  Further, 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).  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). 
Here, each county and their elected officials should be afforded discretion and 
latitude with respect to the enforcement of all such 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 51   Filed 06/17/20   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 4072206_1 6/17/2020 1:59 PM 
MARQUIS AURBACH COFFING 
10001 Park Run Drive 
Las Vegas, Nevada  89145 
(702) 382-0711  FAX:  (702) 382-5816 
III. 
CONCLUSION 
Given the lack of any new arguments, evidence or changes in the state of the law, 
this Court should deny Plaintiff’s Motion so that it can exhaust this procedural hurdle on its 
way to the Ninth Circuit. 
Dated this 17th 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 51   Filed 06/17/20   Page 4 of 5

[SI 
El 
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 4072206_1 6/17/2020 1:59 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 DEFENDANT FRANK 
HUNEWILL’S LIMITED OPPOSITION TO PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE MOTION 
AND MEMORANDUM IN SUPPORT FOR AN INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL 
with the Clerk of the Court for the United States District Court by using the court’s CM/ECF 
system on the 17th 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 51   Filed 06/17/20   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.51.0.pdf

Size

620,232 bytes

SHA-256

394f03031e0c0801b8726ae1b00f636e093629c92a540b252181e4d3201694fe

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.51.0.pdf

Original

archive.org