LA county says only judicial order, not enforcement procedures, can get church to stop indoor services

In its fourth attempt to get a 7,000-member Los Angeles church to stop holding indoor services, attorneys for Los Angeles County told a superior court Monday it must get a judicial order because normal enforcement procedures such as notices, citations and fines will not work.

Attorneys for Grace Community Church in Sun Valley said the county's attempts to get a restraining order violate procedural law and the California and U.S. constitutions, and the plaintiff's strategy is aimed at incarcerating the church's 81-year-old pastor, John F. MacArthur.

"They could issue fines. They have not," argued counsel for the church, Paul F. Jonna of LiMandri & Jonna LLP in Rancho Santa Fe. "They have come to this court because, I think, they want to put Pastor MacArthur in jail. I think there is a host of procedural and substantive problems with this request. It's an extreme remedy, it's unnecessary and we're talking about fundamental constitutional rights."

Before taking the arguments under submission, Superior Court Judge Mitchell L. Beckloff asked the county's lawyer, "Is it true that no one from the county has made an effort in citing the church?"

He was answered by Amnon Z. Siegel of Miller Barondess LLP in Los Angeles, "The county has made it very clear that this is not a situation we're going to enforce our way out of. The county would like the church to comply under a valid public health order. Despite what the defendants are saying the health order is the law."

Jonna rebutted, "It's telling that the county has not issued a citation."

In the hearing on remand from the 2nd District Court of Appeal, the county sought a new temporary restraining order against the church for holding indoor services in defiance of a public health order issued July 18. County of Los Angeles; et al. Grace Community Church of the Valley; et al., 20STCV30695 (L.A. Super. Ct., filed Aug. 14, 2020)

The Court of Appeal on Aug. 15 overturned Superior Court Judge James C. Chalfant's original order that the church could hold indoor services with worshipers wearing masks and social distancing until a Sept. 4 full hearing on the restraining order request. The county went back to court last week, appearing before Beckloff, to argue the appellate court ruling meant they could now have the temporary restraining order issued.

But the church's legal team argued Code of Civil Procedures Section 1008b prohibits the county from seeking another temporary restraining order after it had already been denied by Chalfant, unless there are new facts, new law or circumstances.

Beckloff thought otherwise.

"I appreciate the argument and I think it's a good argument but I don't think it's persuasive," Beckloff said. "It is true that all of the prior papers were incorporated. We do address the new decision by the court of appeal and the order by the court of appeal in your opposition so I'm going to overrule any objections to proceeding on a new ex parte application."

The judge added, "I'm not really sure why the court of appeal order doesn't suggest that the county is correct because there really is no new information here. I'm not sure why the court of appeal decision doesn't constitute new law. It certainly informs on the decision previously not to pursue a restraining order with regard to indoor services. It's clear that California has an interest in combating COVID-19 and preventing the spread to its citizens. It's clearly an emergency situation and the health officer has made its orders based on certain scientific data."

While not finalizing his decision, he said, "I'm not sure why the court of appeal should not issue an order restraining the church from practicing indoor service through the renewed application today."

Jonna tried again, "As the court knows, Judge Chalfant heard this exact request and refused to grant the county the TRO they were seeking. The Court of Appeal heard this exact request and did not grant any injunctive relief. They instead said that they could enforce their health order. If the court wants to look at the issue fresh there's a lot of problems with the request."

Siegel's response was: "Judge Chalfant essentially rewrote the public health order to allow indoor religious services based on his order. The Court of Appeal came down on that and said, 'We're not going to allow it.' We have Judge Chalfant say the order is not valid and enforceable, but we had the Court of Appeal order say exactly the opposite of that, saying 'It is valid and enforceable.' Siegel continued, "The Court of Appeal changed what Judge Chalfant did in a very significant way because it went from permitting indoor public services to prohibiting them and I do believe the county is entitled to its temporary relief here on the order that it's seeking. The health orders are law, they have been violated, and we are entitled to enforce them. I do think it's as simple as that."