Welcome to Scribd, the world's digital library. Read, publish, and share books and documents. See more
Download
Standard view
Full view
of .
Save to My Library
Look up keyword
Like this
1Activity
0 of .
Results for:
No results containing your search query
P. 1
Harbor Church v Buenaventura Memo

Harbor Church v Buenaventura Memo

Ratings: (0)|Views: 81 |Likes:
Published by Howard Friedman
Memo on motion for preliminary injunction.
Memo on motion for preliminary injunction.

More info:

Published by: Howard Friedman on May 22, 2014
Copyright:Traditional Copyright: All rights reserved

Availability:

Read on Scribd mobile: iPhone, iPad and Android.
download as PDF, TXT or read online from Scribd
See more
See less

06/05/2014

pdf

text

original

 
 
Plaintiff’s Memorandum
 in Supp. of Prelim. Inj.
i
 
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
James A. Sonne, State Bar No. 250759  jsonne@law.stanford.edu Jared M. Haynie, State Bar No. 294375  jhaynie@law.stanford.edu Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic Crown Quadrangle 559 Nathan Abbott Way Stanford, CA 94305 Phone: (650) 723-1422 Fax: (650) 723-4426
 Attorneys for Plaintiff
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA WESTERN DIVISION Harbor Missionary Church Corporation
, Plaintiff, v.
City of San Buenaventura
, et al., Defendants. Case No. 2:14-cv-03730
Plaintiff’s
 Memorandum in Support of Motion for Preliminary Injunction Notice of Hearing:
 Date: June 16, 2014 Time: 10:00 a.m. Judge: _______________
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 6-1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 1 of 24 Page ID #:31
 
 
Plaintiff’s Memorandum
 in Supp. of Prelim. Inj.
ii
 
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
TABLE OF CONTENTS
 TABLE OF AUTHORITIES .................................................................................... iv INTRODUCTION ..................................................................................................... 1 STATEMENT OF THE CASE ................................................................................. 2 A. Harbor begins its ministry. ............................................................................... 2 B. The City requires Harbor to apply for an additional permit to operate its ministry. ....................................................................................................... 3 C. Harbor applies for the permit and City Staff recommends granting
Harbor’s request subject to conditions.
 ............................................................ 3 D. The Planning Commission
denies Harbor’s permit, finding its ministry
 does not constitute religious exercise. ............................................................. 4 E. Harbor appeals to the City Council, which deadlocks 2-2. ............................. 5 SUMMARY OF THE ARGUMENT ........................................................................ 5 ARGUMENT ............................................................................................................. 6 I. Harbor is likely to succeed on the merits. ............................................................ 6 A. Harbor's ministry is religious exercise, which alone requires issuing an injunction against the City
s determination to the contrary. ............................ 7 B.
The permit denial substantially burdens Harbor’s religious exercise
 by forbiding the church from practicing its faith and leaving the church with no ready alternatives. ............................................................................... 8 C.
There is no compelling interest in closing Harbor’s
ministry ....................... 10 D. There were less restrictive alternatives than denying the permit,  but the City refused to consider the matter at all. ......................................... 13 II. Harbor will suffer irreparable harm absent an injunction. .................................. 15
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 6-1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 2 of 24 Page ID #:32
 
 
Plaintiff’s Memorandum
 in Supp. of Prelim. Inj.
iii
 
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
III. The burden imposed on Harbor outweighs any hardship an injunction may cause the City. ........................................................................................... 16 IV. An injunction is in the public interest. Indeed, the City's refusal to apply  binding federal law violates established public policy. .................................... 17 CONCLUSION ........................................................................................................ 17
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 6-1 Filed 05/15/14 Page 3 of 24 Page ID #:33

You're Reading a Free Preview

Download
/*********** DO NOT ALTER ANYTHING BELOW THIS LINE ! ************/ var s_code=s.t();if(s_code)document.write(s_code)//-->