Textscape, LLC v. Google, Inc.

Filing 106

T e x t s c a p e , LLC v. Google, Inc.

D o c . 106

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 U N I T E D STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 N O R T H E R N DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 This matter is before the Court on Plaintiffs' motion for summary judgment and D e f en d a n ts ' cross-motion for summary judgment and permanent injunction. Having considered th e motions, oppositions, replies, record, and applicable law, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs' m o tio n for summary judgment and GRANTS Defendants' cross-motion for summary judgment a n d permanent injunction on the following grounds: 1. Free Speech Claim v. FEDERAL D. GLOVER, et al., D e f e n d a n ts . F A IT H CENTER CHURCH EVANGELISTIC MINISTRIES, et al., Plaintiffs C a s e No. C 04-3111 JSW (P R O P O S E D ) ORDER GRANTING D E F E N D A N T S ' CROSS-MOTION FOR S U M M A R Y JUDGMENT AND P E R M A N E N T INJUNCTION

T h e law of this case was established by the Ninth Circuit in Faith Center Church E v a n g e listic Ministries, et al. v. Federal D. Glover, et al., 480 F.3d 891 (9 th Cir. 2007), cert. d e n ie d , 128 S.Ct. 143 (2007), and requires entry of judgment in favor of Defendants on P lain tiff s' free speech claim. Undisputed evidence in the record supports the Ninth Circuit's f in d in g s that the Antioch library meeting room is a limited public forum and that the afternoon (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION - C 04-3111 JSW 1
Dockets.Justia.com

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

s e ss io n of Plaintiffs' May 29, 2004 event in the Antioch library meeting room was a religious w o rshi p service. The exclusion of Plaintiffs' religious worship service from the Antioch library m e e tin g room did not violate Plaintiffs' free speech rights. 2. Free Exercise Clause

A s a matter of law, Defendants' library meeting room use policy does not violate the F re e Exercise Clause. A regulation does not violate the Free Exercise Clause because it affects a religious organization's operation. At most, Plaintiffs were inconvenienced by Defendants' e n f o rc e m e n t of the library meeting room use policy against Plaintiffs. Under the rational basis tes t, Defendants' enforcement of the County library meeting room use policy was reasonable in o rd e r to prevent the Antioch library meeting room from being transformed into an occasional h o u se of worship, and to preserve the library's purpose of making itself available to the whole c o m m u n ity. Faith Center, 480 F.3d at 911. The exclusion of Plaintiffs' religious worship s e rv i c e from the Antioch library meeting room did not violate Plaintiffs' right to free exercise o f religion. 3. Establishment Clause

A s a matter of law, Defendants' library meeting room use policy does not violate the E s ta b lis h m e n t Clause. Making a limited public forum available to religious groups, where they m a y speak about topics from a religious viewpoint, does not violate the Establishment Clause. The County has allowed the Antioch library meeting room to be used by religious and other g ro u p s , including Plaintiffs, for activities and events that express a religious viewpoint. The meeting room use policy is not hostile toward religion and satisfies all three prongs o f the test established by the Supreme Court in Lemon v. Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602 (1971). First, D e f e n d a n ts have two compelling secular purposes for excluding religious services from its lib ra ry meeting rooms: to preserve them as limited public forums, see Faith Center, 480 F.3d at 9 1 8 -1 9 , and to avoid an Establishment Clause violation by providing financial support for re lig io u s services. Property taxes support the maintenance of library meeting rooms. Second, a re a so n a b le observer would view the prohibition of religious services from library meeting ro o m s as Defendants' effort to preserve library meeting rooms as limited public forums and to (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION - C 04-3111 JSW 2

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

p re s e rv e the library's primary function as a venue for reading, writing and quiet contemplation. Faith Center, 480 F.3d at 910. Third, Defendants' enforcement of its meeting room use policy d o e s not foster excessive entanglement with religion. There is no comprehensive, d is c rim in a tin g , and continuing surveillance of religion by Defendants. Defendants did not e x c es s iv e ly entangle itself with religion on May 29, 2004, because Plaintiffs themselves d is tin g u is h e d between religious worship and other forms of religious speech. Faith Center, 480 F .3 d at 910. 4. Equal Protection Clause

A s a matter of law, Defendants' library meeting room use policy does not violate the E q u a l Protection Clause. Under the rational basis test, the policy is rationally related to a le g itim a te government purpose. Defendants' decision to prohibit Plaintiffs from conducting re lig io u s worship services in the library meeting room was reasonable, both to avoid tra n sf o rm in g the meeting room into an occasional house of worship and to avoid alienating p a tro n s and undermining the library's purpose of making itself available to the whole c o m m u n ity. Faith Center, 480 F.3d at 911. The exclusion of Plaintiffs' religious worship s e rv ic e from the Antioch library meeting room did not violate Plaintiffs' right to equal p r o te c tio n under the laws. T h e re f o re , for the foregoing reasons and for good cause shown, the Court DENIES P lain tiff s' motion for summary judgment, GRANTS Defendants' cross-motion for summary ju d g m e n t , and PERMANENTLY ENJOINS Plaintiffs as follows: P u r s u a n t to the holding of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals in Faith Center Church E v a n g e listic Ministries, et al. v. Federal D. Glover, et al., 480 F.3d 891 (2007), Plaintiffs Faith C e n te r Church Evangelistic Ministries and Hattie Hopkins ("Plaintiffs") are enjoined from u s in g the meeting room in the Antioch branch of the Contra Costa County Library system for re lig io u s worship services in violation of the "Religious Use" provision of the library meeting ro o m use policy adopted pursuant to Contra Costa County Resolution No. 2004/655, entitled " In the Matter of Adopting a Policy for the Use of Meeting Rooms in Libraries" (hereafter " L ib ra ry Meeting Room Use Policy"). (PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION - C 04-3111 JSW 3

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 D a te :

U p o n application to and authorization by the Contra Costa County Library, Plaintiffs m a y use the meeting room in the Antioch Branch of the Contra Costa County Library system for a n y use not prohibited by the Library Meeting Room Use Policy, including but not limited to a c tiv itie s that express a religious viewpoint. Defendants may require Plaintiffs to certify that the activity or activities that will be conducted by Plaintiffs in the Antioch Branch library m e e tin g room will not constitute a religious worship service under the tenets, beliefs, and p ra c tic e s of Plaintiffs' church, religious sect, religious organization, or faith group.

S O ORDERED.

_______________________________ J E F F R E Y S. WHITE U N IT E D STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

(PROPOSED) ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS' CROSS-MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT AND PERMANENT INJUNCTION - C 04-3111 JSW 4