1 2 3 4 5 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 6 FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 7 8 CHRISTIAN CATHEDRAL, Case No. 20-cv-03554-CRB

9 Plaintiff, ORDER DENYING TEMPORARY 10 v. RESTRAINING ORDER

11 ERICA PAN, 12 Defendant.

13 Christian Cathedral requests a temporary restraining order “enjoining the enforcement of a 14 public health order which allows school graduation ceremonies of up to 25 persons but does not 15 allow religious worship services held with identical numbers and health protocols.” Mot. (dkt. 7) 16 at 3. Because the current record does not adequately support Christian Cathedral’s crucial factual 17 allegation that Alameda County treats graduation ceremonies and worship services differently, the 18 request for a TRO is denied. 19 A TRO is an “extraordinary remedy” that should only be awarded upon a clear showing 20 that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief. See Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, Inc.,

(2008). The party seeking a TRO must establish: (1) a likelihood of success on the merits; 22 (2) a likelihood of irreparable harm absent preliminary relief; (3) that the balance of equities tips in 23 the plaintiff’s favor; and (4) that an injunction is in the public interest. See id. at 20. 24 Alternatively, the moving party must demonstrate that “serious questions going to the merits were 25 raised and the balance of hardships tips sharply in the plaintiff’s favor,” and that the other two 26 Winter elements are met. Alliance for Wild Rockies v. Cottrell,

, 1134–35 (9th Cir. 27 2011). The “[l]ikelihood of success on the merits is the most important Winter factor.” Disney 1 omitted). 2 On the current record, Christian Cathedral fails to satisfy this standard. Its constitutional 3 claims depend on its contention that Alameda County allows in-person graduation ceremonies 4 which comply with certain strict safety protocols, but not in-person worship services that comply 5 with identical requirements. See Mot. at 3. But Christian Cathedral’s evidence does not 6 adequately support this allegation. 7 Because the church has a K-12 school, Patten Academy, it received guidelines for in- 8 person graduation ceremonies from the Alameda County Health Officer. Montgomery Decl. 9 (dkt. 7-1) ¶¶ 7–8. Among other rules, those guidelines require that any attendee showing signs of 10 infection with COVID-19 “enter a separate room . . . and be sent home as soon as possible.” 11 Compl. Ex. 1 (dkt. 1-1) at 2. Christian Cathedral surmised from the reference to “a separate 12 room” that an in-person graduation ceremony could itself be held in a room—that is to say, 13 indoors. Mot. at 4. It also reasoned that if an in-person graduation ceremony was allowed, an in- 14 person worship service should be too, so long as it followed the same guidelines. Montgomery 15 Decl. ¶ 8. Christian Cathedral wrote the County to inquire whether in-person worship services 16 could be conducted pursuant to the guidelines issued for graduation ceremonies. Compl. Ex. 2 17 (dkt. 1-1). The County did not respond. Montgomery Decl. ¶ 8. The church then sent another 18 letter, indicating that it planned to hold both a graduation ceremony and worship services in its 19 sanctuary. Compl. Ex. 3 (dkt. 1-1). The County’s Health Officer, Dr. Erica Pan, responded that 20 both events were prohibited by the County’s public health orders, because they were to be held 21 indoors. Compl. Ex. 4 (dkt. 1-1). Dr. Pan clarified that only outdoor graduation ceremonies were 22 allowed under the guidelines.1

23 This record does not support Christian Cathedral’s contention that worship services are 24 treated less favorably than graduation ceremonies. On the contrary, it shows that the proposed 25 graduation ceremony and worship services were prohibited for the same reason: because they were 26 1 The Court rejects Christian Cathedral’s characterization of Dr. Pan’s letter as “walk[ing] back” 27 the rules for graduation ceremonies. See Mot. at 8. It appears that Dr. Pan simply sought to 1 to be held indoors. Christian Cathedral does not appear to dispute that the Constitution allows 2 || identical public health restrictions on worship services and graduation ceremonies. See generally 3 Mot.; see also South Bay United Pentecostal Church v. Newsom, 590 U.S.__, No. 19A1044, at 2 4 (2020) (Roberts, C.J., concurring). At most, this record shows that the County promulgated 5 confusing guidelines, not that it violated the First or Fourteenth Amendments. 6 Because Christian Cathedral has not satisfied the demanding standard for a temporary 7 || restraining order, its request is denied. Denial is without prejudice to a later motion for a 8 || preliminary injunction based on a more adequate record. 9 IT IS SO ORDERED. co f 10 Dated: June 6, 2020 CHARLES R. BREYER 11 United States District Judge 12

13

© 15 16

= 17

Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28