Calvary Chapel San Jose v. Cody

Background

The plaintiffs are Calvary Chapel San Jose, its lead pastor Mike McClure, Southridge Church, and its lead pastor Micaiah Irmler. They challenged Santa Clara County policies and emergency orders issued in response to COVID-19. The plaintiffs alleged that the County restricted churches more severely than comparable secular activities, including by banning or limiting indoor worship, restricting singing and chanting, and imposing capacity and masking requirements.

The plaintiffs alleged that they violated the County’s orders and that the County imposed more than $2.8 million in fines. They also alleged that county officials sent letters to Calvary Chapel’s bank stating that the church had been fined more than $1 million and held in contempt. According to the complaint, the bank treated the letters as a threat that the County would take church property and sent a notice of default.

The Fourth Amended Complaint asserted eight claims against Santa Clara County and county officials sued in their official capacities. The claims included federal constitutional claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, claims under the California Constitution, and a claim under California’s Tom Bane Civil Rights Act.

The County’s Motion

The County moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal for failure to state a legally sufficient claim, and Rule 12(f), which allows a court to remove immaterial or improper material from a pleading. The County sought four forms of relief:

Rulings

The court granted the County’s motion as to the first three issues and denied it as to the fourth.

County officials. The plaintiffs conceded at oral argument that the county officials were redundant because the claims against them were asserted only in their official capacities and were also asserted against the County. The court dismissed all claims against the county officials with prejudice. The order also states that the motion to dismiss those claims was granted without leave to amend.

Bank-letter allegations. The court granted the request to strike the allegations about the letters to Cass Commercial Bank. Relying on its earlier ruling in the case, the court held that the County’s enforcement efforts after the judicially approved imposition of fines were incidental to litigation and protected by the Noerr-Pennington doctrine. The court therefore treated the allegations as immaterial to the plaintiffs’ claims and struck them without leave to amend.

Bane Act claim. The court granted the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim without leave to amend. It held that the claim sought money damages because the plaintiffs requested damages and civil penalties that could amount to hundreds of thousands of dollars. The court concluded that the plaintiffs were required to comply with the Government Claims Act’s claim-presentation requirement but had pleaded no compliance. The court rejected the argument that the requested money was merely incidental to the requested declaratory and injunctive relief. It did not reach the County’s separate argument that the plaintiffs had failed to plead threats, intimidation, or coercion.

California constitutional claims. The court denied the request to dismiss or strike any relief sought under the California Constitution. It concluded that these claims sought declaratory and injunctive relief plus only nominal damages. The court held that such nominal damages were incidental to the nonmonetary relief and were not subject to the Government Claims Act’s claim-presentation requirement.

Disposition

The County’s partial motion to dismiss was granted in part without leave to amend and denied in part. Specifically, the court granted the motion to dismiss all claims against the county officials, granted the motion to strike the bank-letter allegations, granted the motion to dismiss the Bane Act claim, and denied the motion to dismiss the damages portion of the plaintiffs’ California constitutional claims.