Академический Документы
Профессиональный Документы
Культура Документы
3 24.
5 Defendants’ motion.1
26
27 1 This motion was determined to be suitable for decision without
oral argument. E.D. Cal. L.R. 230(g). The hearing was
28 scheduled for July 30, 2019.
2
Case 2:19-cv-00457-JAM-EFB Document 44 Filed 09/19/19 Page 3 of 10
26 Rescue filed the Complaint. Compl., ECF No. 1. Less than one
27 month later, Plaintiffs filed the operative First Amended
4 and Motion for a Temporary Restraining Order. ECF No. 10. This
12
13 II. OPINION
14 A. Standing
19 entertain the suit.” Warth v. Seldin, 422 U.S. 490, 498 (1975).
22 Los Angeles, 279 F.3d 862, 868 (9th Cir. 2002) (internal
12 City of Los Angeles v. Lyons, 461 U.S. 95, 101 (1983). “The
3 494 U.S. 872, 877 (1990). Thus, the government may not
16 students the right “[t]o be free from acts that seek to change
10 prevents him from doing so. The provision in the CCFA that bars
18 560–61.
24 [RVCA] to comply with the scope of the [CCFA] and thus fall under
7 Thus, Williams and the other RVCA parents lack standing to bring
14 Society of the Sisters of the Holy Names of Jesus and Mary, 268
20 language).
21 The FAC alleges that, “by bringing RVCA under the CCFA,
28 not tenable for the Parent Class.” FAC ¶ 101. But the FAC
8
Case 2:19-cv-00457-JAM-EFB Document 44 Filed 09/19/19 Page 9 of 10
20 student who does not accept its faith statement and might request
21 access to non-Christian services that are not provided by RVCA.
8 PREJUDICE.
9 III. ORDER
13 471 F.3d 1100, 1106-07 (9th Cir. 2006) (holding that dismissal
25 IT IS SO ORDERED.
28
10