Plaintiff's Reply in Support of Injunction Pending Appeal — Calvary Chapel v. Sisolak

Record facts

U.S. District Court for the District of Nevada · No. 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF · Doc. 53 · 2020-06-18 · 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
Jason D. Guinasso (SBN# 8478) 
500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Suite 980 
Reno, NV 89521 
Telephone: (775) 853-8746 
jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 
Kristen K. Waggoner (AZ Bar 032382)* 
Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* 
Jeremiah Galus (AZ Bar 030469)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
15100 N. 90th Street 
Scottsdale, AZ  85260 
Telephone: (480) 444-0020 
kwaggoner@adflegal.org 
rtucker@adflegal.org 
jgalus@adflegal.org 
David A. Cortman (GA Bar 188810)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE 
Ste. D-1100 
Lawrenceville, GA 30043 
Telephone: (770) 339-0774 
dcortman@adflegal.org 
*Admitted pro hac vice 
 
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 
DISTRICT OF NEVADA 
 
CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY, 
 
 
Plaintiff, 
v. 
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, 
 
 
Defendants. 
 
Case No.: 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF 
 
 
 
PLAINTIFF’S REPLY TO 
DEFENDANTS’ OPPOSITION TO 
PLAINTIFF’S EX PARTE 
MOTION AND MEMORANDUM 
IN SUPPORT FOR AN 
INJUNCTION PENDING APPEAL  
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 53   Filed 06/18/20   Page 1 of 5

 
1 
 
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
INTRODUCTION 
Plaintiff Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley submits this reply to Defendants 
Sisolak and Ford’s opposition, ECF No. 52, and Defendant Hunewill’s limited 
opposition, ECF No. 51, to the Church’s Ex Parte Motion and Memorandum in 
Support For an Injunction Pending Appeal, ECF No. 47, under Local Rule 7-2(b). 
Now that briefing on the Church’s motion is complete, Calvary Chapel requests that 
this Court rule swiftly on its motion without scheduling oral argument. Time is of 
the essence: each day Nevada burdens Calvary Chapel’s First Amendment rights 
causes irreparable harm. Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976).   
ARGUMENT 
Defendants Sisolak and Ford contend that this Court should deny Calvary 
Chapel’s motion for an injunction pending appeal under Federal Rule of Civil 
Procedure 62(d) because granting the motion would “alter the status quo” or 
“materially alter the status of the case on appeal.” State Def.’s Opp. to Pl.’s Mot. & 
Mem. in Supp. of an Inj. Pending Appeal 4. Yet the one case they cite addresses 
whether a district court can modify a previously-granted, merits injunction that is 
the subject of an existing appeal. E.g., Mayweathers v. Newland, 258 F.3d 930, 935 
(9th Cir. 2001) (“Appellants challenge the district court's jurisdiction to grant a 
second injunction pending an interlocutory appeal of the first.”); id. (discussing 
Natural Res. Def. Council Inc. v. Sw. Marine Inc., 242 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2001), 
where the court granted a merits injunction, stayed its key enforcement provisions 
for an appeal, and then lifted the stay and modified the injunction’s enforcement 
provisions while the appeal was ongoing). 
When it comes to the grant of an injunction on the merits that is the subject of 
an existing appeal, it makes sense to allow modifications only to preserve the status 
quo and to bar changes that would alter the appeal’s status. District courts could 
otherwise moot cases after a notice of appeal was filed and deprive appellate courts 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 53   Filed 06/18/20   Page 2 of 5

 
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
of a chance to rule. But those concerns are not present when a district court denies 
a merits injunction and a party seeks only temporary relief that spans the gap 
between a notice of appeal and an appellate-court ruling. Even if the district court 
grants temporary relief, the denial of injunctive relief on the merits and the order 
that is the subject of an existing appeal stay the same. So the issues in Mayweathers 
and this case are entirely different.   
Defendants Sisolak and Ford do not cite a single opinion in which the district 
court denied a merits injunction and a party sought an injunction pending appeal 
from the district court. But those rulings exist and not one of them questions the 
court’s “jurisdiction.” State Def.’s Opp. 3 (cleaned up); e.g., S. Bay United 
Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, No. 20-cv-865, 2020 WL 2529620, at *1 (S.D. Cal. 
May 18, 2020) (denying an injunction pending appeal for the “same reasons stated 
on the record at the telephonic [merits] hearing”); Andrews v. Countrywide Bank, 
No. 15-cv-0428, 2015 WL 1599662, at *2 (W.D. Wash. Apr. 9, 2015) (denying an 
injunction pending appeal because the case did not involve “difficult legal questions 
[or] any novel interpretations of the law”).  
In fact, district courts sometimes grant temporary injunctive relief even when 
they have denied an injunction on the merits. E.g., Am. Beverage Ass’n v. City & 
Cty. of S.F., No. 15-cv-3415, 2016 WL 9184999, at *2 (N.D. Cal. June 7, 2016) 
(granting an injunction pending appeal because “there is at least a close question as 
to whether Plaintiffs have raised serious questions on the merits”). They do so 
because a case involves “difficult legal questions” or novel applications of the law. 
Andrews, 2015 WL 1599662, at *2. And, if nothing else, Calvary Chapel has 
established that this case involves difficult constitutional issues and new legal 
interpretations, which alone justifies an injunction pending appeal. Id.  
Because the rest of Defendants’ briefing simply rehashes old arguments, 
Calvary Chapel simply notes that this Court should reject them for the reasons 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 53   Filed 06/18/20   Page 3 of 5

 
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
stated in its prior briefs: the foremost being that gatherings for commercial activity 
cannot be treated better than gatherings for religious activity. 
CONCLUSION 
For these reasons, Calvary Chapel merits an injunction pending appeal that 
allows it to meet at 50% of fire-code-capacity in keeping with social distancing and 
the Church’s comprehensive health and safety plan. But whatever this Court rules, 
Calvary Chapel implores it to do so quickly so that the Church can take whatever 
steps are necessary to defend its First Amendment rights. Nevada’s broad limits on 
“religious services, together with its haven for numerous secular exceptions, cannot 
co-exist with a society that places religious freedom in a place of honor in the Bill of 
Rights; the First Amendment.” Roberts v. Neace, 958 F.3d 409, 416 (6th Cir. 2020).  
Submitted this 18th day of June, 2020. 
/s/ Ryan J. Tucker  
 
 
Kristen K. Waggoner (AZ Bar 032382)* 
Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* 
Jeremiah Galus (AZ Bar 030469)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
15100 N. 90th Street 
Scottsdale, AZ  85260 
Telephone: (480) 444-0020 
kwaggoner@adflegal.org 
rtucker@adflegal.org 
jgalus@adflegal.org 
 
David A. Cortman (GA Bar 188810)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE 
Ste. D-1100 
Lawrenceville, GA 30043 
Telephone: (770) 339-0774 
dcortman@ADFlegal.org 
 
*Admitted pro hac vice  
 
Jason D. Guinasso (SBN# 8478) 
500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Suite 980 
Reno, NV 89521 
Telephone: (775) 853-8746 
jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 53   Filed 06/18/20   Page 4 of 5

 
4 
 
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 hereby certify that on June 18, 2020, I caused the foregoing to be filed with 
the Clerk of the Court using the ECF system, which will provide electronic copies 
to counsel of record. 
 
/s/ Ryan J. Tucker  
 
 
Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* 
ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 
15100 N. 90th Street 
Scottsdale, AZ  85260 
Telephone: (480) 444-0020 
rtucker@adflegal.org 
 
 
 
 
 
 
*Admitted pro hac vice 
 
 
 
Case 3:20-cv-00303-RFB-VCF   Document 53   Filed 06/18/20   Page 5 of 5

File and source

File

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.53.0.pdf

Size

98,136 bytes

SHA-256

e0bdb6234d8bff11e1a2e83d8b8ed6f70dec6cd9e426e2feb60176769c3d5e0a

Our copy

gov.uscourts.nvd.143509.53.0.pdf

Original

archive.org