Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 1 of 18 1 Jason D. Guinasso (SBN# 8478) 500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Suite 980 2 Reno, NV 89521 3 Telephone: (775) 853-8746 jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 4 Kristen K. Waggoner (AZ Bar 032382)* 5 Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* Jeremiah Galus (AZ Bar 030469)* 6 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 7 15100 N. 90th Street Scottsdale, AZ 85260 8 Telephone: (480) 444-0020 kwaggoner@adflegal.org 9 rtucker@adflegal.org 10 jgalus@adflegal.org 11 David A. Cortman (GA Bar 188810)* ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM 12 1000 Hurricane Shoals Rd. NE 13 Ste. D-1100 Lawrenceville, GA 30043 14 Telephone: (770) 339-0774 dcortman@ADFlegal.org 15 *Pro hac vice application forthcoming 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 17 DISTRICT OF NEVADA 18 CALVARY CHAPEL DAYTON VALLEY, Case No.: 19 Plaintiff, 20 v. VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR 21 DECLARATORY AND 22 STEVE SISOLAK, in his official capacity as INJUNCTIVE RELIEF Governor of Nevada; AARON FORD, in his 23 official capacity as Attorney General of Nevada; FRANK HUNEWILL, in his official 24 capacity as Sheriff of Lyon County, 25 26 27 28 Defendants. Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 2 of 18 1 2 INTRODUCTION 1. This action challenges Governor Steve Sisolak’s emergency orders 3 prohibiting churches and other places of worship from holding in-person worship 4 services of ten or more people, even when such services could be held in accordance 5 with social distancing and public health guidelines (the “Church Gathering Ban”). 6 2. For over two months, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley (the “Church”) 7 has been unable to hold an in-person worship service due to Covid-19 and the 8 Governor’s Church Gathering Ban. The Church has patiently waited for the 9 Governor to restore its First Amendment freedoms, trusting that the Governor 10 would prioritize constitutional rights and allow churches to resume in-person 11 worship services at the earliest opportunity. 12 3. But that trust has been broken. Instead of prioritizing religious 13 freedom, the Governor has moved “non-essential” secular businesses and activities 14 to the front of the line and pushed churches towards the back. Incredibly, the 15 Governor has allowed restaurants and food establishments to resume in-person, on16 site dining at 50% capacity, allowed all retail establishments to open at 50% 17 capacity, and has thrown open the doors of nail care salons, hair salons, and barber 18 shops—businesses that the Governor’s own orders say “promote extended periods of 19 public interaction where the risk of [Covid-19] transmission is high.” In addition, 20 there are numerous other exceptions to the Governor’s gathering restrictions. 21 4. Yet the Governor insists on maintaining the Church Gathering Ban, 22 refusing to allow churches and places of worship to open their doors to ten or more 23 people under any circumstance. 24 5. Regardless of the justifications the Governor may think he has for this 25 disparate treatment, they cannot survive constitutional scrutiny. Under the Free 26 Exercise Clause, a law is not generally applicable when it “fail[s] to prohibit 27 nonreligious conduct that endangers” the government’s interest “in a similar or 28 1 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 3 of 18 1 greater degree” than the prohibited religious conduct. Church of the Lukumi Babalu 2 Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 542 (1993). That is exactly what the 3 exemptions under the Governor’s orders do. 4 6. Indeed, under the Governor’s orders, large numbers of people in Clark 5 County can gather for a similar amount of time as a church service at restaurants, 6 food establishments, non-essential retail establishments, nail salons, hair salons, 7 and barber shops, but it is illegal for the Church—which is located in rural Lyon 8 County—to hold in-person services with ten or more people. 9 7. This is unconstitutional, and it makes no sense. As of May 20, 2020, 10 Carson City Health and Human Services reports that Lyon County has only 16 11 active cases of Covid-19. See Lyon County Covid-19 Data, attached as Exhibit 1. 12 With a population of approximately 57,510, that means the per capita rate of active 13 Covid-19 infections in Lyon County is approximately 0.028%. 14 8. Consistent with its religious beliefs, the Church plans to resume in- 15 person worship services on Sunday, May 31, and has developed comprehensive 16 social distancing and health and safety protocols to govern those services. Despite 17 these health and safety measures, however, the Governor’s Church Gathering Ban 18 threatens the Church with criminal and civil penalties. 19 9. Without a temporary restraining order and injunction, the Church will 20 face criminal and civil penalties for assembling and worshipping God. A temporary 21 restraining order and injunction are therefore needed to preserve the Church’s 22 constitutional rights. 23 24 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. This civil rights action raises federal questions under the United 25 States Constitution, specifically the First and Fourteenth Amendments, and under 26 federal law, particularly 42 U.S.C. § 1983. 27 28 2 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 4 of 18 1 11. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 12. This Court has authority to grant the requested declaratory relief 2 1343. 3 4 under 28 U.S.C. §§ 2201 and 2202, the requested injunctive relief under 28 U.S.C. § 5 1343, and reasonable attorney’s fees and costs under 42 U.S.C. § 1988. 6 13. Venue is proper in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a 7 substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this 8 district and Defendants reside in this district. 9 10 PARTIES 14. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley (the “Church”) is a nonprofit church 11 organized exclusively for religious purposes within the meaning of § 501(c)(3) of the 12 Internal Revenue Code. The Church is in Dayton, Nevada (Lyon County). 13 15. Defendant Steve Sisolak is the Governor of Nevada. Governor Sisolak 14 is responsible for issuing and enforcing the Church Gathering Ban. He is sued in his 15 official capacity only. 16 16. Defendant Aaron Ford is Nevada’s Attorney General. Attorney General 17 Ford is authorized to enforce and prosecute violations of the Church Gathering Ban. 18 He is sued in his official capacity only. 19 17. Defendant Frank Hunewill is the Sheriff of Lyon County. As Sheriff of 20 Lyon County, Defendant Hunewill has the power, both personally and through his 21 subordinates, to enforce the Church Gathering Ban. He is sued in his official 22 capacity only. 23 FACTS 24 Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley 25 18. Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley has operated as a Christian church in 26 Dayton, Nevada since February 5, 2006. 27 28 3 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 5 of 18 1 19. The Church believes that the Bible is the inspired Word of God and 2 infallible rule of faith and practice. 3 20. Thus, the Bible is the foundation upon which the Church operates and 4 is the basis on which it is governed. 5 21. The Church believes, among other things, that the Bible commands 6 Christians to gather together in person for corporate prayer, worship, and 7 fellowship and that such assembly is necessary and good for the Church and its 8 members’ spiritual growth. 9 22. Consistent with that belief, the Church’s mission and purpose is: (1) to 10 continue steadfastly in the apostles’ doctrine and fellowship, in the breaking of 11 bread, and in prayers; (2) to worship God the Father, Son, and Holy Spirit; (3) to 12 build up the Church of Jesus Christ through the teaching of the Word of God and 13 the ministry of the Holy Spirit; and (4) to persuade men and women to repent and 14 confess Jesus Christ as Lord. 15 The Church’s Response to Covid-19 and Plan to Resume In-Person Services 16 17 23. In response to federal, state, and local guidance at the beginning of the 18 Covid-19 outbreak—but before any local or state order prohibited in-person 19 gatherings—the Church voluntarily adopted rigorous social distancing and health 20 safety measures for its services. 21 24. In fact, immediately after the Governor declared a state of emergency 22 on March 12, the Church took proactive steps for its upcoming March 15 services. 23 25. The Church disinfected frequently touched surfaces such as door 24 handles, chairs, and tables before and after services; made hand sanitizer available 25 in multiple locations throughout the building’s common areas; advised church 26 attendees to refrain from personal contact such as handshakes and hugs; instructed 27 28 4 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 6 of 18 1 those who felt sick or lived with someone who felt sick to stay home; and encouraged 2 online giving through the Church’s website, among other things. 3 26. And the next day, on March 16, 2020, the Church temporarily 4 suspended in-person worship services and began streaming its services online. 5 27. More than two months later, the Governor’s intervening Church 6 Gathering Ban has prevented the Church from resuming in-person worship 7 services. 8 28. Although the Church’s initial decision to temporarily suspend in- 9 person services was voluntary, and made in an abundance of caution given the 10 health and safety concerns at the time, the Church believes it is called to resume in11 person worship services, consistent with its religious beliefs about corporate prayer, 12 worship, and fellowship. 13 29. The Church sincerely believes that online services and drive-in 14 services do not meet the Bible’s requirement that the Church meet together in 15 person for corporate worship. 16 30. In addition, some of the Church’s parishioners do not have internet 17 access or the ability to participate in online services. 18 31. The Church thus plans to resume in-person worship services on May 19 31, 2020 (Pentecost Sunday), but the Church Gathering Ban makes such services 20 illegal and would subject the Church to possible criminal and civil penalties. 21 32. Before Covid-19, the Church’s two Sunday services could hold up to 22 200 people each. 23 33. The Church seeks to hold in-person services at 50% of its sanctuary’s 24 capacity while also providing for proper social distancing of at least six feet 25 separation between families and individuals, which would amount to approximately 26 90 people in a service. 27 28 5 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 7 of 18 1 34. In preparation for resuming in-person worship services, the Church 2 has adopted—and will follow—strict social distancing and health and safety 3 protocols. 4 35. These protocols include the following precautions: 5  Holding Sunday and Wednesday services; 6  Strictly limiting Sunday services to 45 minutes (as opposed to the 7 8 usual 90 minutes);  9 10 Holding up to three services each Sunday to guarantee adequate space for social distancing at each service;  11 Providing ½ hour between services to allow for thorough cleaning and sanitizing of sanctuary, hallways, bathrooms, and common surfaces; 12  Posting signs on walls and floors to direct traffic; 13  Posting signs on restroom doors limiting use to one person at a time; 14  Posting signs in the restrooms encouraging proper washing of hands; 15  Making hand sanitizer stations easily accessible to attendees; 16  Encouraging attendees to arrive no earlier than 25 minutes before 17 service; 18  Using parking attendants to direct cars to designated parking areas; 19  Directing all attendees to a designated entrance; 20  Directing attendees to sanctuary seating designed to provide 6-feet of 21 22 separation between families and individuals;  23 Ensuring that all traffic for each service will be in one direction by using “first in, last out” model; 24  Advising attendees of proper social distancing protocols; 25  Encouraging attendees to bring and wear face coverings; 26  Requiring all servants greeting or directing attendees to wear face 27 coverings; 28 6 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 8 of 18 1  2 Prohibiting any handouts or items to be passed to attendees during services; 3  Prohibiting snacks or coffee from being served; 4  Using prepacked Communion elements whenever served; 5  Directing attendees out of the building to the parking area at the end 6 7 of each service;  Instructing attendees to refrain from congregating in the building. 8 9 The Governor’s Orders 36. On March 12, 2020, Governor Sisolak declared a state of emergency in 10 response to the Covid-19 outbreak. See Declaration of Emergency, attached as 11 Exhibit 2. 12 37. Noting that the Nevada Constitution gives him “[t]he supreme 13 executive power of this State,” Governor Sisolak “direct[ed] all state agencies to 14 supplement the efforts of all impacted and threatened counties” and announced that 15 he would “perform and exercise such other functions, powers, and duties as are 16 necessary to promote and secure the safety and protection of the civilian 17 population.” Id. 18 38. Five days later, on March 17, 2020, Governor Sisolak held a press 19 conference and explained steps the State would be taking to mitigate the risks 20 associated with Covid-19. See Press Release (Mar. 17, 2020), attached as Exhibit 3. 21 39. While Governor Sisolak encouraged “faith leaders” during that press 22 conference “to find ways to deliver to your congregation without bringing them 23 together in person,” he assured them that he “cannot and will not say that places of 24 worship should be closed.” Id. at 4. 25 26 27 28 7 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 9 of 18 1 2 “Essential” and “Non-Essential” Businesses 40. Three days later, Governor Sisolak issued an order mandating the 3 closure of all “Non-Essential Businesses.” See Declaration of Emergency Directive 4 003, attached as Exhibit 4. 5 41. The Governor’s order defined “Non-Essential Businesses” to include, 6 among other things, businesses that “promote recreational social gathering 7 activities” and businesses that “promote extended periods of public interaction 8 where the risk of [Covid-19] transmission is high,” including “beauty shops, barber 9 shops, [and] nail salons.” Id., §§ 1, 2. 10 42. Likewise, the Governor’s order limited restaurants and food 11 establishments to “take-out, drive-through, curbside pickup, [and] delivery” service 12 and prohibited them from providing dine-in service to any customers. Id., § 3. 13 43. The Governor’s order did not close “Essential Licensed Business[es]” 14 but rather encouraged them “to continue operation.” Id., § 4. 15 44. In addition, the Governor’s order stated that “[t]he construction, 16 mining, manufacturing, and infrastructure sector labor force may continue 17 operations.” Id., § 6. 18 45. In connection with the Governor’s order, the Nevada Department of 19 Public Safety, Division of Emergency Management, adopted emergency regulations 20 further defining “essential” and “non-essential” businesses. See Emergency 21 Regulations, March 20, 2020, attached as Exhibit 5. 22 46. Businesses not delineated in the Governor’s order or in the emergency 23 regulations could continue operations if they could “implement social distancing 24 safeguards for the protection of their employees” and, “[t]o the extent practicable, 25 provide services without causing members of the Nevada general public to 26 congregate in a manner contrary to social distancing goals of a minimum of six feet 27 of separation for more than incidental contact.” Ex. 4, § 8. 28 8 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 10 of 18 1 47. Because neither the Governor’s order nor the emergency regulations 2 referenced churches or places of worship, they should have been allowed to continue 3 operations and in-person services. 4 5 The Church Gathering Ban 48. A few days later, Governor Sisolak issued another order—this time 6 forbidding the “general public” from “gather[ing] in groups of ten or more in any 7 indoor or outdoor area.” Declaration of Emergency Directive 007, § 1, attached as 8 Exhibit 6. 9 49. The Governor issued his stay-at-home order shortly thereafter. See 10 Declaration of Emergency Directive 010, attached as Exhibit 7. 11 50. And even though Governor Sisolak assured faith leaders that he would 12 not and could not close houses of worship, he imposed a Church Gathering Ban on 13 April 8, 2020, expressly prohibiting “[p]laces of worship” from “hold[ing] in-person 14 worship services where ten or more persons may gather.” Declaration of Emergency 15 Directive 013, § 4, attached as Exhibit 8. 16 51. Related guidance from the Governor’s office claimed that “this is not 17 yet the time to get people together to celebrate their faith” and that “nobody should 18 be physically attending in-person worship services.” Guidance: Directive 013 (Apr. 19 8, 2020), attached as Exhibit 9. 20 52. The Church Gathering Ban is indefinite, with the applicable order 21 stating that it will remain in place “for the remainder of the Declaration of 22 Emergency.” Ex. 8, § 4. 23 24 Secular Exceptions to the Gathering Bans 53. There are numerous secular exceptions to the Governor’s gathering 25 restrictions. 26 27 28 9 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 11 of 18 1 54. For one thing, the Governor’s ban on gatherings of ten or more people 2 does not apply to “the gathering of persons . . . working at or patronizing Essential 3 Licensed Businesses or providing essential services to the public.” Ex. 6, § 1. 4 55. Thus, ten or more people could—and still can—gather for an extended 5 period of time to, among other things, work at or patronize: 6  “Essential infrastructure operations,” including “airport[s]”; 7  “Businesses that ship or deliver goods directly to residences”; 8  “Banks and Financial Institutions”; 9  “Pawnbrokers”; 10  Businesses or entities that provide “social services for economically 11 disadvantaged individuals, vulnerable populations, or victims of 12 crime”; 13  “Laundromats and dry cleaners”; 14  “Warehouses and storage facilities”; 15  “Professional or technical services including legal, accounting, tax, 16 payroll, real estate, and property management services”; 17  “Child care facilities”; and 18  “Newspapers, television, radio, and other media services.” 19 Ex. 5 (NAC 414.XXX(1)). 20 56. What is more, Governor Sisolak’s recent order implementing “Phase 21 One” of the State’s reopening plan has exempted some “non-essential” businesses 22 and activities from the ban, allowing even more gatherings of ten or more people for 23 secular reasons. For example, the Governor’s “Phase One” order allows: 24  All restaurants and food establishments to resume onsite, in-person 25 dining—up to “50% of the maximum seating capacity under normal 26 circumstances”; 27  All retail businesses to reopen at 50% capacity; 28 10 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 12 of 18 1  2 Auto showrooms, furniture showrooms, home furnishing showrooms, and appliance showrooms to reopen at 50% capacity; 3  Cannabis dispensaries to resume in-person sales; and 4  Nail care salons, hair salons, and barber shops to reopen. 5 Declaration of Emergency Directive 018, §§ 13, 15, 16, 17, 22, attached as Exhibit 6 10; see also Ex. 8, § 3. 7 57. By allowing restaurants, food establishments, nail care salons, hair 8 salons, and barber shops to reopen, the Governor has allowed businesses and 9 entities to reopen that the State previously determined “promote extended periods 10 of public interaction where the risk of [Covid-19] transmission is high.” Ex. 4, § 2. 11 58. Yet the Governor has refused to provide a similar accommodation to 12 churches and other places of worship. 13 59. Nor has the Governor given any indication of when churches could 14 expect to resume in-person services of ten or more people. 15 60. In fact, on May 14, 2020, nearly 200 hundred churches (including 16 Plaintiff) sent a letter to Governor Sisolak respectfully asking him to lift the ban on 17 in-person worship services. At a press conference the next day, and in response to a 18 question about whether he received and read the letter from the churches, the 19 Governor first answered no but then said he read “parts of the letter.” He then 20 doubled down on his prior orders, stating that there would be no effort to amend 21 phase one to include churches. 22 61. If the Church does not comply with the Governor’s orders or emergency 23 regulations, it would be “subject to criminal prosecution and civil penalties.” Ex. 4, § 24 9; Ex. 6, § 5; see also Ex. 8, § 11. 25 62. The Nevada Attorney General and “[a]ll law enforcement agencies in 26 the State of Nevada,” including the Lyon County Sheriff’s Office, are authorized to 27 28 11 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 13 of 18 1 enforce the Governor’s orders and the emergency regulations. Ex. 4, § 9; Ex. 6, § 5; 2 see also Ex. 8, § 11. 3 63. Thus, Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley may not hold its planned in- 4 person services without subjecting itself to criminal and civil penalties, even though 5 its services would amount to less than 50% of the building’s capacity and would 6 adhere to strict social distancing and sanitation measures. 7 64. But Governor Sisolak does not have the authority under Nevada law to 8 impose the Church Gathering Ban. 9 65. Rather, the power to investigate and quarantine people with 10 communicable or infectious diseases is given to health authorities, not the 11 Governor. 12 66. Without declaratory and injunctive relief, the Church’s religious 13 exercise will continue to be chilled and the Church will continue to suffer violations 14 of its constitutional rights and irreparable harm. 15 COUNT I 16 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 17 (Free Exercise) 18 67. Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 66. 19 68. Plaintiff’s sincerely held religious beliefs teach that the Bible is the 20 inspired word of God and the sole authority for faith and practice. 21 69. Plaintiff sincerely believes that the Bible teaches the necessity of 22 gathering together for corporate prayer, worship, and fellowship and that such 23 assembly is necessary and good for the Church and its members’ spiritual growth. 24 70. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban substantially burdens 25 Plaintiff’s religion by prohibiting it from holding in-person church services with ten 26 or more persons. 27 28 12 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 14 of 18 1 71. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban interferes with Plaintiff’s 2 religious autonomy and ability to carry out its religious doctrine, faith, and mission. 3 72. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban targets, discriminates against, 4 and shows hostility towards churches, including Plaintiff. 5 73. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban is neither neutral nor generally 6 applicable because it is riddled with exceptions and is based on a system of 7 individualized assessments. 8 74. Defendants do not have a compelling reason for prohibiting Plaintiff’s 9 in-person church services when attendees can practice adequate social distancing, 10 especially when compared to the numerous secular activities exempted under the 11 Governor’s orders. 12 75. Defendants have not selected the least restrictive means to further any 13 purported interest. 14 76. The Church Gathering Ban violates the Free Exercise Clause of the 15 First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied. 16 77. Without declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff will be irreparably 17 harmed. 18 COUNT II 19 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 20 (Right to Assemble) 21 78. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66. 22 79. The First Amendment prohibits Defendants from violating Plaintiff’s 23 right to peaceably assemble. 24 80. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban violates Plaintiff’s right to 25 peaceably assemble because the ban on in-person services does not serve any 26 legitimate, rational, substantial, or compelling governmental interest, especially 27 28 13 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 15 of 18 1 when viewed in light of the numerous secular activities exempted under the 2 Governor’s orders. 3 81. Defendants have alternative, less restrictive means to achieve any 4 interest that it might have. 5 82. The Church Gathering Ban violates the right to assemble under the 6 First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied. 7 83. Without declaratory and injunctive relief, Plaintiff will be irreparably 8 harmed. 9 COUNT III 10 Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution 11 (Free Speech) 12 84. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 66. 13 85. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban violates Plaintiff’s freedom of 14 speech by prohibiting it from engaging in religious speech through its church 15 services, which occur exclusively on private property. 16 86. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban specifically targets meetings of 17 ten or more people for the purpose of religious expression, while permitting 18 meetings of the same or greater size for secular purposes. 19 87. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban is thus is content- and 20 viewpoint-based in violation of the First Amendment. 21 88. The Governor’s Church Gathering Ban gives government officials 22 unbridled discretion with respect to enforcement of the order and the imposition of 23 any penalty, making the order susceptible to both content- and viewpoint-based 24 discrimination. 25 89. Prohibiting or punishing Plaintiff’s religious speech does not serve any 26 legitimate, rational, substantial, or compelling governmental interest. 27 28 14 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 16 of 18 1 90. The State also has alternative, less restrictive means to achieve any 2 interest that it might have. 3 91. The Church Gathering Ban violates the Free Speech Clause of the 4 First Amendment to the United States Constitution, both facially and as applied. 5 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff respectfully requests that the Court: 7 a. Enter a temporary restraining order, preliminary injunction, and 8 permanent injunction prohibiting Defendants from enforcing those portions of the 9 Governor’s orders that limit in-person church services to fewer than 10 persons, 10 thereby allowing Plaintiff and its congregants to resume corporate prayer and 11 worship while following adequate social distancing and public health guidelines. 12 b. Enter a judgment declaring that those portions of the Governor’s 13 orders that limit in-person church services to fewer than 10 persons violate the U.S. 14 Constitution’s Free Exercise and Right to Assemble Clauses, both facially and as15 applied; 16 c. Award Plaintiff court costs and reasonable attorney’s fees; and 17 d. Award such other and further relief as to which Plaintiff may be 18 entitled. 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 15 Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 17 of 18 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 Respectfully submitted this 22nd day of May 2020. s/ Jason D. Guinasso Kristen K. Waggoner (AZ Bar 032382)* Jason D. Guinasso (SBN# 8478) Ryan J. Tucker (AZ Bar 034382)* 500 Damonte Ranch Pkwy, Suite 980 Jeremiah Galus (AZ Bar 030469)* Reno, NV 89521 ALLIANCE DEFENDING FREEDOM Telephone: (775) 853-8746 jguinasso@hutchlegal.com 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 *Pro hac vice application forthcoming 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 16 oo-qcsothwtop?aowooqmoiAwml?to Case 3:20-cv-00303 Document 1 Filed 05/22/20 Page 18 of 18 VERIFICATION I declare under penalty of perjury that the foregoing Veri?ed Complaint has been examined by me and that the factual allegations therein are true to the best of my knowledge, information, and belief. Dated: May 21, 2020 9 Pastor/Garry L?ist Calvary Chapel Dayton Valley