Krishna Lunch of S. Cal., Inc. v. Beck

651 F.Supp.3d 1165

KRISHNA LUNCH OF SOUTHERN CALIFORNIA, INC., Plaintiff, v. Michael J. BECK, Defendant.

CV 22-8265 DSF (PLAx)

United States District Court, C.D. California

Signed January 20, 2023

Robert C. Moest, Brown Law Firm PC, Santa Monica, CA, David M. Liberman, Law Office of David M. Liberman, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff.

Brian A. Sutherland, Raymond A. Cardozo, Reed Smith LLP, San Francisco, CA, Charles P. Hyun, Reed Smith LLP, Los Angeles, CA, for Defendant.

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION FOR PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION (Dkt. 13)

Dale S. Fischer, United States District Judge

Plaintiff Krishna Lunch of Southern California Inc. is a nonprofit religious corporation. Defendant Michael Beck is the Administrative Vice-Chancellor at the University of California, Los Angeles (UCLA) and is involved in the decision making for the permit Krishna Lunch seeks. Krishna Lunch brought this lawsuit against Beck in his official capacity for abridgement of its First Amendment rights. Krishna Lunch now moves for a preliminary injunction. Dkt. 13 (Mot.). Beck opposes. Dkt. 21 (Opp'n). For the reasons stated below, Krishna Lunch's Motion is DENIED.

I. Background

Krishna Lunch "adheres to the evangelical teachings of Krishna consciousness, a religion within 'the broad theological umbrella of the Vaishnava tradition of Bhakti Hinduism." Dkt. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 16. A core tenet of the religion requires followers to meet, interact, and educate people "about the beliefs and practices of Krishna consciousness, including such issues as global warming and climate change, vegetarianism and veganism, animal protection, God-centered ecology, the relationship between science and religion, and the origin of life and the universe." Id. ¶ 17. A core practice of Krishna consciousness is the consumption, distribution, and sharing of sanctified vegetarian and vegan food referred to as prasadam or prasāda. Id. ¶ 18.

In furtherance of its religion mission, Krishna Lunch seeks to distribute its sanctified food on the UCLA campus three hours a day twice a week in Bruin Plaza. Id. ¶ 24. Krishna Lunch's attempts to serve prasadam on campus are not new. Krishna Lunch first sought permission from UCLA in February 2016 to serve prasadam on the Bruin Walk East. Id. ¶ 25. This resulted in a protracted legal battle. See C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-8422. The Ninth Circuit eventually found that some of Krishna Lunch's First Amendment claims survived the motion to dismiss phase. Krishna Lunch of S. Cal., Inc. v. Gordon, 797 Fed. Appx. 311, 313 (9th Cir. 2020). Shortly after the Ninth Circuit's January 2020 opinion was issued, the COVID-19 pandemic hit. UCLA joined universities around the country in shutting down its campus and closing food service. C.D. Cal. Case No. 2:16-cv-8422, Dkt. 77. The litigation subsequently stalled until Krishna Lunch filed a fourth amended complaint with claims predicated on UCLA's complete bans of food service on its campus. Id. at Dkt. 87. This Court ultimately granted a motion for judgment on the pleadings by the defendants in that action in April 2022 because the complete bans due to COVID-19 had been withdrawn. Id. at Dkt. 119.

On May 3, 2022, the UCLA Events Department granted Krishna Lunch provisional approval to serve prasadam twice a week during spring quarter on the Bruin Walk East. Compl. ¶¶ 26, 28. That approval was extended to the summer quarter and ultimately expired on September 15, 2022. Id. ¶¶ 27-28. On August 22, 2022, Krishna Lunch inquired about approval to serve prasadam for the fall quarter which was set to start September 19, 2022. Id. ¶ 29. After several inquiries by Krishna Lunch, a meeting took place between UCLA officials and Krishna Lunch on September 22. At this meeting, Krishna Lunch was informed that there would be a $500 permit fee per day and no location was finalized. Id. ¶ 32. On September 29, 2022, Krishna Lunch requested to serve food at the Bruin Plaza and informed UCLA that it could not afford the $500 permit fee. Id. ¶ 33. UCLA indicated that it would not waive the permit fee. Id. ¶ 34. UCLA also restricted Krishna Lunch to 4-days a quarter. Id. ¶¶ 5, 8, 44, 46, 51.

Krishna Lunch filed this action under 42 U.S.C. § 1983 alleging violations of freedom of speech and of assembly and association. Krishna Lunch requested injunctive relief.

II. Legal Standard

"A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy never awarded as a matter of right." Winter v. Natural Res. Def. Council, 555 U.S. 7, 24, 129 S.Ct. 365, 172 L.Ed.2d 249 (2008). "A plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 20, 129 S.Ct. 365. Where the federal government is the opposing party, the balance of equities and public interest factors merge. Nken v. Holder, 556 U.S. 418, 435, 129 S.Ct. 1749, 173 L.Ed.2d 550 (2009). Although a plaintiff seeking a preliminary injunction must make a showing on each factor, the Ninth Circuit employs a "version of the sliding scale" approach where "a stronger showing of one element may offset a weaker showing of another." Alliance for the Wild Rockies v. Cottrell, 632 F.3d 1127, 1131-35 (9th Cir. 2011). Under this approach, a court may issue a preliminary injunction where there are "serious questions going to the merits and a balance of hardships that tips sharply towards the plaintiff . . . , so long as the plaintiff also shows that there is a likelihood of irreparable injury and that the injunction is in the public interest." Id. at 1135 (internal quotation marks omitted).

III. Analysis

A. Relief Sought

As an initial matter, Beck argues the injunctive relief is not appropriate because Krishna Lunch has requested a location for the lunch program not pleaded in the Complaint. Opp'n at 16. "[T]here must be a relationship between the injury claimed in the motion for injunctive relief and the conduct asserted in the underlying complaint . . . . Absent that relationship or nexus, the district court lacks authority to grant the relief requested." Pac. Radiation Oncology, LLC v. Queen's Med. Ctr., 810 F.3d 631, 636 (9th Cir. 2015).

Krishna Lunch is inconsistent in whether it seeks to operate its program at the Bruin Walk or Bruin Plaza. But this is not fatal to its Motion. The claims in its Complaint are clearly centered on Bruin Plaza. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 2, 44. Bruin Walk is only identified as the location of the lunch program during the spring and summer. See, e.g., Compl. ¶¶ 25, 28, 33. Krishna Lunch's Motion seems to seek both locations at different points, asking for the old terms to be reinstated (Bruin Walk), but then discounting potential issues that might be raised as to Bruin Plaza. Mot. at 1, 15, Dkt. 23 (Reply) at 5-8. Ultimately, however, it seems clear that Krishna Lunch is seeking an injunction against the 4-day-a-quarter restrictions and the $500 fee. Both limitations are associated only with Bruin Plaza: Bruin Walk was not made available at all for the fall. Dkt. 13-2 (Brown Decl.) ¶ 17. The Court, therefore, construes the request as a request to set up the lunch program at Bruin Plaza. This is consistent with the request in its Complaint and is emphasized in the Reply.

B. Merits

Krishna Lunch has not shown that there are serious questions going to the merits.

1. Expressive Conduct

The First Amendment prohibits laws "abridging the freedom of speech." U.S. Const. amend. I. "The First Amendment clearly includes pure speech, but not everything that communicates an idea counts as 'speech' for First Amendment purposes." Anderson v. City of Hermosa Beach, 621 F.3d 1051, 1058 (9th Cir. 2010). Expressive conduct is constitutionally protected if it is "sufficiently imbued with elements of communication," meaning "an intent to convey a particularized message is present, and the likelihood is great that the message will be understood by those who view it." Id. (internal quotation marks omitted) (quoting Spence v. Washington, 418 U.S. 405, 409-11, 94 S.Ct. 2727, 41 L.Ed.2d 842 (1974) (per curiam)). Serving food is not pure speech, it must meet the test for expressive conduct to qualify for protection.

Here Beck disputes whether Krishna Lunch's message is likely to be understood by viewers. The Ninth Circuit previously held that "an onlooker would understand the distribution of food to be communicative" because "[w]hile distributing prasada, the organization plans on chanting the names of God and other devotional hymns and songs, speaking with interested students and others of the University of California, Los Angeles ('UCLA') community, distributing religious literature, and displaying signs depicting reincarnation, animal protectionism, and other topics related to its followers' beliefs." Krishna Lunch of S. Cal., Inc., 797 Fed. Appx. at 314.

Several changes to the facts and procedural posture warrant a different result here. First, this case is at a different stage. A merely plausible pleading is not sufficient to warrant a preliminary injunction. Krishna Lunch must demonstrate a "great likelihood" that its messages "will be understood by those who view them." Edge v. City of Everett, 929 F.3d 657, 669 (9th Cir. 2019) (vacating a preliminary injunction). The Court considers not whether individuals on campus would understand the particular message of Krishna Consciousness, but whether they would understand that the food service is a symbolic message. See Knox v. Brnovich, 907 F.3d 1167, 1181 (9th Cir. 2018) (finding plaintiff did not meet her burden to demonstrate that her message "would reasonably be understood by viewers as conveying any of [her claimed] messages or conveying a symbolic message of any sort").

Second, some of the facts that motivated the Ninth Circuit's prior decision are in dispute or no longer present. Krishna Lunch has not mentioned any...