SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY OF FRESNO Emered by? ' Civil TITLE Department Non-Limited - OF CASE: r ' l County of Fresno vs Immanuel Schools, a California non—profit corporation ; ' l Case Number: LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER September Hearing Date: 15, 2020 zocficeoz447 Hearing Type: From Chambers Judge: D. Tyler Reporter: Not Reported re: Ruling on App. For issuance of a Preliminary Injunction ‘ 501 Department: Tharpe ‘ Court Clerk: S. Nunez Appearing Parties: Plaintiff: No Appearances Defendant: _ 'Counsel: Counsel: Off Calendar [ ] [ ]Continued [ ] Submitted on points and authorities withlwithout argument. [ ] Upon [ ]Motion [ ]Taken under advisement [ ] [ ]Tentative ruling [J No Appearances No to ]Setfor [ filing of pbints grafited is and at _ Dept. for _ [ ] Matter is argued and submitted. authorities. ]in part [ party requested oral Pursuant to _ _ and denied in part. argument pursuant becomes the order of the CRC 3.1312(a) and to Local court. CCP section 1 No [ ] Motion is denied [ ]with/without prejudice. Rule 2.2.6 and CRC 3.1308(a)(1). further order necessary. 019.5(a), is no further order necessary. is The minute order adopting tentative ruling serves as the order of the court. [X] Service by the clerk See attached copy [ ] will constitute notice of the order. of the Tentative Ruling. [ ]Judgment debtor_ sworn and examined. [ ] _ Judgment debtor failed to appear. Bench warrant issued in the amount of $ _ JUDGMENT: [ entered in the amountof: ]Default ]Other [ [ Costs Total $_ Attorney fees Interest$_ ]denied. Court orders withholdings modified ]Claim of exemption [ ]granted Principal [ _ ]Money damages $_ $_ $_ [ to $_ per_ FURTHER, COURT ORDERS: Monies held by levying officer to be released to judgment creditor. [ returned to judgment debtor. to be released to judgment creditor and balance returned to judgment debtor. [ ] .]Writ to issue Levying Officer, County of_ notified [ ] [X] Other. The matter having been under advisement, the court now rules as follows: See attached ruling on Agplication for lssu_ance of a Preliminag lniunction. [ ] [ ] ] $_ [ § CV—14b R03-18 IA__. _L__. F..-— I LAW AND MOTION MINUTE ORDER the w FULED ERESNO COUNTY SUPERIOR COURT 2 y DEPT.501 8 SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF FRESNO 9 CENTRAL DIVISION 10 ll Case No. 20CECG02447 COUNTY OF FRESNO through JEAN ROSSEAU in his official capacity as Emergency Services Director and County Administrative Officer, M. 12 13 Plaintiff, l4 15 RULING ON PLAINTIFF’S ‘APPLICATION FOR ISSUANCE OF A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION V. vvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvvv 16 l7 18 IMMANUEL SCHOOLS, a California non-profit corporation, and RYAN WOOD, Chief Executive Officer of Immanuel Schools, and DOES 1—50, Defendants. l9 r 20 21 _The parties are in agreement that we are in the midst of a 22 public health crisis, defendants conceding that “COVID—l9 is a 23 deadly global pandemic that has altered the course of history.” 24 What the parties disagree on is the lawfulness and propriety of 25 certain government orders which have the effect of prohibiting in— 26 person class instruction at Immanuel Schools. Defendants contend 27 that the governments’ 28 £3333? $32230 20CECG02 4 47—DTT (o 05) orders are not authorized, 1 unconstitutionally interfere with contractual righté, and violaté 2 the equal protection clause of the State’s Constitufiion. Promptly in response to defendants’ admitted defiance of 3 4 orders to cease in—person class instruction, on August 20, 2020, 5 tfie County of Fresno 6 Injunctive Relief for Violation of Statewide Public Health Officer 7 Order and Local Health Order and for Public Nuisance. On August 8 24, 9 Restraining Oraer and Order to Show Cause ;e Preliminary 2020, (“the County”) filed a Verified Complaint for the County filed an Ex Parte Application for a Temporary 10 Injunction for Violation of Statewide Public Health Officer Order ll and Local Health Order and for Public Nuisance. On August 25, 12 2020, 13 “defendants”) 14 parte application. defendants Immanuel Schools and Ryan Wood (together filed extensive pleadings in opposition to the ex The County’s ex parte application came before the court for 15 l6 hearing on August 25, 2020. Citing California Rules of Court, rule 17 3.1202(c), the court denied the ex parte application stating that 18 the County had failed to make a sufficient affirmative showing of l9 urgency for the matter to‘be heard on an ex parte basis.1 Finding 20 no established urgency, the court issued an Order to defendants 21 commanding them to show cause, if there is any, why they and 22 persons associated with them should not be enjoined and restrained 23 during the pendency of this action from operating their school for 24 Various court rules govern ex parte proceedings, which are designed to afford relief on an essentially emergency basis. “A court will not grant ex parte relief ‘in any but the plainest and most certain cases.’” (People ex rel. Allstate Ins. Co. V. Suh (2019) 37 Cal.App.5th 253, 257.) Entry of any type of injunctive relief has been described as a delicate judicial power, to be exercised with great caution. (Ancora—Citronelle Copp. V. Green (1974) 41 Cal.App.3d 146, 148.) “This is doubly true when granting relief on an expedited basis using an ex parte request for a temporary restrainingvorder rather than a properly noticed preliminary injunction.” (Newsom v. Superior Court (Gallagher) .5th 1093 1097.) (2020) 51 Cal.A 1 25 26 27 28 cigisslgrg 522230 zocgceozmm ' (00%? -2- « in—person instruction in violation of State Health Officer and. County Health Officer Orders. Consistent with a scheduling order, on September 1 and 8, the parties.timely filed assorted pleadings in connectibn 2020, with the Order to Show Cause hearing. In violation of that same scheduling order, the parties filed additional late pleadings. The court has-read and considered all of the recently filed pleadings as well as all of the pleadings previously filed in connection with the ex parte application.2 The court takes judicial notice of 10 assorted pleadings as requested by the County. The Order to Show ll Cause hearing came before the court on September 15, 2020. I 12 Appearances were stated on the record. 13 I l4 THE BURDEN 0F PROOF Although the Order to Show Cause directs defendants to show 15 16 cause, if there is any, why a preliminary injunction should not 17 issue, the burden is ultimately on the County to show all elements 18 necessary to support issuance of a preliminary injunction. 19 (O’Connell v. Superior Court 20 1452, (valenzuela) (2006) 141 Cal.App.4th ¥48l.) 21‘ II STANDARD FOR DETERMINING WHETHER T0 GRANT OR DENY A PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 22 23 “A superior court must evaluate two interrelated factors when 24 25 ruling on a request for a preliminary injunction: (l) the 26 Contrary to defendants’ assertions, the court may accept new evidence in the County’s pleadings submitted in reply to defendants’ response to the Order to Show Cause. Defendants have been given an opportunity to respond‘to any new evidence as the court has considered defendants’ late filing. (Alliant Ins. Servs., Inc. v. Gaddy (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 1292, 1307—1308.) 2 27 28 SUPERIOR COURT County of Fresno 20CECG02447—DTT (005) -3- l likelihood that the plaintiff will prevail on the merits at trial 2 and 3 sustain if the injunction were denied as compared tb the harm the 4 defendant would be likely to suffer if the preliminary injunction 5 were issued.” 6 Cal.App.4th 729, 749; see Brown 7 Cal.App.5th 915, 925.) (2) SUPERIOR COURT County of Fresno (Smith v. Adventist Health System/West v. (2010) Pacifica Found. Inc. 182 (2019) 34 The court’s determination must be guided by a “mix” of the 8 9 the interim harm that the plaintiff would be likely to potential—merit and interim—harm factors; the greater the County’s 10 showing on one, the less must be shown on the other to support an ll injunction. 12 678; 13 discretion to issue preliminary injunction where plaintiff l4 demonstrates high likelihood of success on the merits even if 15 plaintiff is unable to show balance of harm tips in its favor; SB 16 Liberty, LLC l7 280.) 18 regardless of the amount of interim harm, “unless there is some 19 possibility” that the County will ultimately prevail on the‘merits 20 of its claims. 21 Cal.App.5th 356, 362, quoting Butt 22 4 23 Orange (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 29, 49.) King v. (Butt v. State of California (1992) 4 Cal.4th 668, Méése (1987’ 43 Cal.3d 1217, 1226—1227 9 court has V. Isla VErde Ass’n, Inc. (2013) 217 Cal.App.4th 272, This court may not issue a preliminary injunction, (Jamison V. Department of Transp. v. (2016) 4 State of California, supra, Cal.4th at p. 678; Ass’n of Orange County Sheriffs 24 III 25 LIKELIHOOD 0F SUCCESS ON THE LERITS V. County of 26 A preliminary injunction must not issue unless it is 27 “reasonably probable that the moving pagty will prevail on the 28 merits.” (San Francisco Newspaper Printing Co., Inch 20CECG02447—DTT (005) _4_ V. Superior i 2 Employees’ Ass’n 3 309 — no injunction may issue unless'there is at least “some 4 possibility” of success.) (Miller) (1985) V. 442; City of Costa Mésa (2012) 209 Cal.App.4th 298, A comprehensive statutory scheme exists authorizing the State 6 6f California and the County to impose measures to protect the 7 public from infectious diseases and other health threats during 8 declared emergencies and such measures must be complied with. 9 (See, e.g., Gov. Code § 8634; Health & Saf. Code §§ 101040, 120295 and 131082; Title 17, Cal. Code of 10 120175, ll Regulations 12 health emergency to take steps needed to stop the spread of a 13 communicable disease. l4 ll, 15 allowed forced smallpox vaccinations.) l6 States Supreme Court held: l7 paramount necessity, 18 against an epidemic of disease which threatens the safety of its l9 members." 20 pressure of great dangers," constitutional rights may be 21 reasonably restricted "as the safety of the‘general public may 22 demand." 26, 120220, § 2501(a).) 25 S.Ct. (Id. The government has broad power in a public (Jacobsen v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. 358 — compelling interest in public health at p. a In Jacobsen, the United "Upon the principle of self—defense, of community has the right to protect itself 27.) The Court further held that "under the (Ibid.) Based on the méterials before it, the court determines that 23 E3323“, Cost; Mésa City Court 5 £33312? 170 Cal.App.3d 438, l 24 it is reasonably probablé that the County will prevail on the 25 merits in this case. 26 /// 27 /// 28 /// 20c5cso2447—DTT (005) Iv 1 ‘ BALANCING INTERIM HARM 2 While the mere possibility of harm to the Cofinty is 3 4 insufficient to justify a preliminary'injfinction, the County is 5 not required to wait until it has suffered actual harm before it 6 applies for an injunction, but may seek injunctive relief against 7 threats. 8 City of Torrance 9 Inc. 10 ll Riles (1987) 43'Cal.3d 1281, 1292; accord Transitional Living Centers for Los Angeles, 3O Cal.3d 516, 526 — injunctive relief is available where the injury sought to be avoiaed is “actual or threatened.”) In their original Opposition, defendants argued that “the- County would not suffer irreparable harm” should an injunction be l3 denied. l4 by the County amply sfipports a finding that the County and its The evidence is to the contrary. The evidence presented _residents are under the threat of irreparable harm should l6 defendants be allowed to conduct in—person classroom instruction l7 while the County and its résidents are in the throes of the COVID— 18 l9 pandemic. l9 -20 Based on the materials before it, the court determines that the interim>harm the County would be likely to sustain if the 21 injunction were denied is monumental in comparison to the harm 22 defendants would likely suffer if the preliminary injunction were 23 issued. 24 V 25 CONCLUSION 26 S (1982) V. v. 12 15 c0355??? $332; (Maria P. United States Supreme Court Chief Justice John Roberts has 27 observed in a recent consequential concurring opinion that “[tJhe 28 precise question of when restrictions on particularjsocial 20CECG02447—DTT (005) _6_ l activities should be lifted during the pandemic is a dynamic and 2 fact—intensive matter subject to reasonable disagreément. Our 3 Constitution principally entrusts ‘[t]he safety and'the health of 4 the people’ to the politically accountable officials of the Statés When those officials ‘undertake[] to act 5 ‘to guard and protect.’ 6 in areas fraught with medical and scientific uncertainties,’ 7 latitude ’must be especially broad.’” (South Bay United 8 Pentacostal Church 9 1613—1614, quoting Jacobson v. Newsom (2020) 590 U.S. ___, 140 S.Ct. 1613, v. Massachusetts (1905) 197 U.S. and citing Marshall V. United States (1974) lO 38, ll 427.) their 414 U.S. 5, 417, The court grants the CountY’s application for a Preliminary 12 l3 Injunction as follows: Immanuel Schools and Ryan Wbod, as well as their respective officers, employees, agents, representatives, members, volunteers and all persons acting undgr, in concert with, or for them must immediately cease and desist from conducting, participating in or attending in—person class instruction at the Immanuel Schools property located at 1128 South Reed Avenue, Reedley, California, 93654. l4 15 ' l6 , l7 18 The County is directed to promptly prepare and circulate for 19 20 approval as to form a proposed order consistent with the 21 foregoing. The proposed order must be submitted directly to >22 23 Départment 501 no later than 3:00 p.m. on Wednesday, September l6, 2020. $32231}, Rules of Court, rule 3.1150(f).) This ruling is not an adjudication of the ultimate rights in 24 c5353??? (Cal. It merely represents this court’s discretionary 25 the controversy. 26 decision whether defendants should be restrained from exercising 27 /// 28 /// 20CECG02447—DTT (005) 1 claimed rights pending trial. 2 (1985) 4O Cal.3d 277, 3 IT IS SO ORDERED. 4 DATED this 286.) day of September, 2020. D. TYLER THARPE JUDGE 0F THE SUPERIOR COURT 7 lO ll 12 13 l4 15 l6 l7 18 l9 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 £35312? $222; lgéig (Cohen V. Board of Supervisors 2 OCECGoz 4 47—DTT (005) w J \ 1 ' 1 FOR COURTUSE QNL Y SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA - COUNTY 0F FRESNO Civil Department, Central Division 1130 “0" Street i } 93724-0002 (559) 457-2000 Fresno, California 1 _ 1 OF CASE: County of Fresno vs Immanuel Schools, a California non-profit corporation TITLE CLERK'S CERTIFICATE 0F MAILING I certify that l am CZfiEEE'gEfiin not a party to this cause and that a true copy of the: Minute Order from Chambers and Ruling was placed a sealed envelope and placed for collection and mailing on the date and at the place shown below following our ordinary business practice. am readily familiar with this court‘s practice for collecting and processing in I correspondence for mailing. On the same day that correspondence is placed for collection and mailing, in the ordinary course of business with the United States Postal Service with postage fully prepaid. Place of mailing: On Date: Fresno; California 93724-0002 09/1 5/2020 Clerk, by ‘ U Jennifer Fresno County Counsel Tyler 2220 Tulare Fresno, D Bursch & ‘ Murrieta, Clerk's Certificate of Mailing Additional TGN-06b ROS-OG nez Bursch, LLP 25026 Las Brisas Road Street, 5th Floor CA 93721 L. is deposited , Sonia Daniel C.>Cederborg it CA 92562 Address Page Attached CLERK'S CERTIFICATE OF MAILING ‘ 1 Deputy