I. M. et al v. West Covina Unified School District et al, No. 2:2014cv06996 - Document 28 (C.D. Cal. 2014)
Court Description: ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION 20 by Judge Otis D. Wright, II. (lc). Modified on 12/11/2014 (lc).
Download PDF
<![CDATA[
I. M. et al v. West Covina Unified School District et al Doc. 28 O 1 2 3 4 5 United States District Court Central District of California 6 7 8 9 I. M., a minor by and through his parents 10 ALEX MARTINEX and MYRNA 11 MARTINEZ Case 2:14-cv-06996-ODW(FFMx) ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF’S Plaintiff, 12 MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY v. 13 INJUNCTION [20] 14 WEST COVINA UNIFIED SCHOOL 15 DISTRICT; GORDON PFITZER, 16 individually and in his official capacity as 17 an employee; SHERYL LESIKAR, 18 individually and in her official capacity as 19 an employee; DOES 1-20 Defendants. 20 I. 21 INTRODUCTION 22 Last year, while a first grader at Merced Elementary School, I.M. wanted to 23 hand out candy canes at his class Christmas party.1 Attached to each candy cane was 24 the “Legend of the Candy Cane”— a religious message explaining that Christmas is 25 meant to honor the birth of Jesus Christ. The teacher, principal, and school district 26 determined that the message was religious and therefore could not be distributed 27 during the class Christmas party. This year, I.M. wants to hand out candy canes with 28 1 The student is a minor and therefore the Court will refer to him by his initials. Dockets.Justia.com 1 the same message, but is concerned that he will again be denied permission. By and 2 through his parents, I.M. filed the instant action and seeks a preliminary injunction 3 forcing the West Covina School District to allow him to distribute candy canes with 4 the message at this year’s class Christmas party. For the reasons discussed below, the 5 Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction.2 (ECF No. 20.) II. 6 On December 11, 2013, I.M.’s sister, Alexandra Cantu, shared with him the 7 8 FACTUAL BACKGROUND “Legend of the Candy Cane” (“Legend”), which states: 9 A candy maker wanted to make a candy that would be a witness, 10 so he made the CHRISTmas Candy Cane to incorporate several symbols 11 for the birth, ministry, and death of Jesus Christ. He began with a stick of pure white, hard candy. 12 White, to 13 symbolize the Virgin Birth, the sinless nature of Jesus, and hard to 14 symbolize the Solid Rock, the foundation of the church, and firmness of 15 the promises of God. 16 The candy maker made the candy in the form of a “J” to represent 17 the precious name of Jesus, who came to earth as our savior. It also 18 represents the staff of the “Good Shepherd” with which He reaches down 19 into the ditches of the world to lift out the fallen lambs who, like all 20 sheep, have gone astray. 21 The candy maker stained it with red stripes. He used the three 22 small stripes to show the stripes of the scourging Jesus received by which 23 we are healed. The large red stripe was for the blood shed by Jesus on 24 the Cross so that we could have the promise of eternal life, if only we put 25 our faith and trust in Him. Unfortunately, the candy became known as a Candy Cane—a 26 27 28 2 After carefully considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; L.R. 7-15. 2 1 meaningless decoration seen at Christmas time. But the meaning is still 2 there for those who “have eyes to see and ears to hear.” 3 I pray that this symbol will again be used to witness to the Wonder 4 of Jesus and His Great Love that came down at Christmas and remains 5 the ultimate and dominant force in the universe today. 6 (Mot. 2.) 7 After hearing about the Legend, I.M. told his sister that he wanted to hand out 8 candy canes with the Legend to his classmates to share his belief about Christmas 9 with his friends. (I.M. Decl. ¶ 3.) He and his sister purchased candy canes, 10 construction paper, and ribbon. (Id. ¶ 5.) They printed the Legend, fastened it to 11 decorative red paper, and tied it to each candy cane with a ribbon. (Id.) 12 On December 13, 2013, I.M. attempted to hand out the candy canes with the 13 Legend to his classmates. (Id. ¶ 6.) He asked his teacher, Valerie Lu, for permission. 14 (Id.) She said that she needed to ask the principal, Gordon Pfitzer. (Id.) 15 On December 18, 2013, Lu told I.M. that he could not distribute the candy 16 canes due to the religious content of the Legend. (Id. ¶ 7.) I.M. alleges, and 17 Defendants deny, that Lu told I.M. “Jesus is not allowed in school.” (Id.) She offered 18 to let him distribute the candy canes without the Legend. (Id.) I.M. still wanted to 19 hand out candy canes, so Lu removed the Legend. (Id.) That evening, I.M. explained 20 what happened to his parents and said that he was afraid he was in trouble for trying to 21 share the Legend with his friends. (Id. ¶¶ 8-9.) 22 On December 19, 2013, I.M. and his sister went to the school to speak with Lu. 23 (Cantu Decl. ¶ 10.) Lu explained that she needed permission from the principal due to 24 the religious content of the Legend. (Id.) Lu also explained that students are not 25 allowed to distribute religious messages on school grounds, and based on that policy 26 she could not allow I.M. to distribute candy canes with the Legend in class. (Id.) 27 That evening, Alexandra asked I.M. if he wanted to distribute candy canes at his class 28 3 1 Christmas party the next day. (I.M. Decl. ¶ 10.) He did, so the two spent the rest of 2 the evening attaching copies of the Legend to candy canes. (Id.) 3 On December 20, 2013—the day of the class Christmas party—Alexandra 4 called the principal, Pfitzer, to ask whether I.M. would be permitted to distribute 5 candy canes with the Legend as a gift for the class Christmas party. (Cantu Decl. 6 ¶ 13.) Pfitzer consulted with Sheryl Lesikar at the West Covina School District and 7 reported to Alexandra that the district agreed I.M. should not be allowed to distribute 8 candy canes with the Legend due to the religious content. (Id.) 9 While Alexandra was speaking with Pfitzer, I.M. attended the class Christmas 10 party. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14.) About 10 minutes before school ended, Pfitzer informed 11 Alexandra that I.M. would be permitted to distribute candy canes with the Legend off 12 school grounds as students exited the campus. (Id. ¶ 14.) Alexandra escorted I.M. off 13 campus and waited for his classmates. (Id.) I.M. was able to give some classmates 14 candy canes with the Legend, but not all because not all passed by. (I.M. Decl. 15 ¶¶ 13-14.) 16 When I.M. retuned home, he showed his family the gifts that were exchanged 17 during the class Christmas party. (Cantu Decl. ¶ 15.) The school allowed I.M.’s 18 classmates to distribute secular Christmas messages. (Id.) However, one gift was a 19 chocolate candy cane wrapped in a box with a message that told the story of Jesus as 20 the Good Shepherd. (Id. ¶ 16.) I.M.’s sister believes this message was similar to the 21 Legend. (Id.) 22 On January 6, 2014, Advocates for Faith and Freedom (“AFF”) filed a formal 23 complaint on behalf of I.M. with Merced and the West Covina School District 24 requesting that I.M. be permitted to distribute candy canes with the Legend. (Tyler 25 Decl. Ex. A.) Michael Seaman, the Assistant Superintendent of Human Resources for 26 the school district, investigated the complaint and determined that the school’s 27 decision was made in an effort to remain religious neutrality. (Id. Ex. C.) 28 4 1 On March 7, 2014, AFF appealed Seaman’s findings to the West Covina School 2 Board. (Id. Ex. D.) On March 26, 2014, the school board determined that there was 3 no violation of I.M.’s rights. (Id. Ex. E.) 4 In March 2014, the Superintendent issued a directive to all elementary school 5 teachers clarifying permissible gift exchanges. (Pfitzer Decl. ¶ 11, Ex. 2.) The 6 directive states that no gifts or messages of any kind will be distributed during class 7 time, but students may exchange written materials before school, during recess, and 8 after school.3 9 dismissed from class. (Id.) The directive applies to all students within the district and 10 (Id.) All students are permitted to hand out gifts once they are does not distinguish any particular viewpoints. (Id.) 11 Although I.M. is permitted to distribute candy canes with the Legend before 12 school, during recess, and after school, there is no evidence that he has attempted to 13 distribute the Legend at any of these times. 14 On April 14, 2014, AFF appealed the school board’s decision to the California 15 Department of Education and, as of the instant Motion, has not received a response. 16 (Id. Ex. F, G.) On September 8, 2014, by and through his parents, I.M. filed the 17 instant action, alleging violations of Free Speech and the Establishment Clause under 18 the U.S. Constitution, Free Speech under the California Constitution, and The 19 California Education Code § 48907(a). (Compl. ¶ 1.) Now a second grader, by and 20 through his parents, I.M. seeks a preliminary injunction forcing the West Covina 21 School District to allow him to distribute candy canes with the Legend at this year’s 22 class Christmas party. (Mot. 2.) 23 III. LEGAL STANDARD 24 A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy. Winter v. Natural Res. 25 Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction 26 must establish that: (1) he is likely to succeed on the merits; (2) he is likely to suffer 27 28 3 The Court GRANTS Defendants’ Request for Judicial Notice in Support of Opposition to the instant Motion. 5 1 irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief; (3) the balance of equities tips in 2 his favor; and (4) an injunction is in the public interest. Id. at 20; Perfect 10, Inc. v. 3 Google, Inc., 653 F.3d 976, 979 (9th Cir. 2011). In each case, the court “must balance 4 the competing claims of injury and must consider the effect on each party of the 5 granting or withholding of the requested relief.” Amoco Prod. Co. v. Vill. of Gambell, 6 480 U.S. 531, 542 (1987). Courts of equity should pay particular regard for the public 7 consequences in employing the extraordinary remedy of injunction. Weinberger v. 8 Romero-Barcelo, 456 U.S. 305, 312 (1982). IV. 9 DISCUSSION 10 The Court finds that irreparable harm is not likely because I.M. is permitted to 11 distribute candy canes with the Legend to his classmates before school, during recess, 12 and after school. 13 Likelihood of irreparable injury is “the single most important prerequisite for 14 the issuance of a preliminary injunction...[a]ccordingly, the moving party must first 15 demonstrate that such injury is likely before the other requirements for the issuance of 16 an injunction will be considered” Freedom Holdings, Inc. v. Spitzer, 408 F3d 112, 17 114 (2nd Cir. 2005.) “Past exposure to illegal conduct does not in itself show a 18 present case or controversy regarding injunctive relief…[i]f unaccompanied by any 19 continuing, present adverse effects.” City of Los Angeles v. Lyons 461 US 95, 102 20 (1983) (internal quotes omitted). Thus, even if Plaintiff is likely to succeed on his 21 First Amendment claim, he must still establish the likelihood of irreparable injury, the 22 balance of equities, and that public interest tips in his favor before a preliminary 23 injunction may issue. DISH Network Corp. v. Fed. Commc’ns Comm’n, 653 F3d 771, 24 776 (9th Cir. 2011). 25 Plaintiff is and has been permitted to distribute the Legend to his classmates at 26 school. He is permitted to distribute the Legend before school, during recess, and 27 after school. 28 school to permit him to distribute the Legend in class at the class Christmas party. Plaintiff seeks preliminary intervention from the Court forcing the 6 1 Plaintiff argues that the irreparable harm is the school “requiring I.M. to 2 distribute materials outside the classroom while allowing other students to distribute 3 material inside the classroom.” (Opp’n 1.) However, Plaintiff strategically ignores 4 the 2014 directive that prevents the distribution of gifts or messages by any student 5 during class time. Without acknowledging the 2014 directive, Plaintiff asserts that the 6 district will treat I.M. differently from other students. Plaintiff then relies on this 7 baseless assertion to establish “the single most important prerequisite for the issuance 8 of a preliminary injunction.” The Court finds this approach unpersuasive. 9 The Court is not tasked with determining the constitutionality of the district’s 10 decisions in 2013. The instant Motion seeking a preliminary injunction for the 2014 11 class Christmas party was filed after the March 2014 directive, which changed the 12 district’s policies regarding student distribution of messages in class. Plaintiff should 13 have addressed the directive and provided some reasonable basis for the Court to 14 conclude that the school would, as Plaintiff argues, require I.M to distribute the 15 Legend outside class while allowing other students to distribute messages inside class. 16 That the school permitted some students to hand out secular messages at the 2013 17 class Christmas party does not demonstrate that the school will do so in 2014. In light 18 of the 2014 directive, the Court cannot assume, as Plaintiff has, that the school will 19 require I.M. to distribute the Legend outside class while allowing other students to 20 distribute message inside class. 21 As the moving party, Plaintiff had to establish that irreparable harm is likely 22 before meeting the other requirements. Freedom Holdings, Inc., 408 F3d at 114 (2nd 23 Cir. 2005.) Plaintiff failed to establish that irreparable harm is likely. Therefore, the 24 Court need not address Plaintiff’s likelihood of success on the merits, whether the 25 balance of equities tips in his favor, or whether a preliminary injunction is in the 26 public interest. 27 /// 28 /// 7 V. 1 2 3 4 CONCLUSION For the reasons discussed above, the Court DENIES Plaintiff’s Motion for a Preliminary Injunction. (ECF No. 20.) IT IS SO ORDERED. 5 6 December 11, 2014 7 8 9 ____________________________________ OTIS D. WRIGHT, II UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8
]]>
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You
should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google
Privacy Policy and
Terms of Service apply.
