Brigette Honaker  |  April 13, 2020

Category: Covid-19

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

people praying at church

Two California churches are involved in COVID-19 legal action; one facing a lawsuit for holding public services and another objecting to the lockdown.

On March 19, California Governor Gavin Newson issued an executive order requiring the state’s residents to stay home in light of the global coronavirus pandemic.

Although this order intends to slow the spread of COVID-19 and protect Californians, some churches have chaffed at the restrictions – resulting in legal action by and against these groups.

According to the lawsuit filed by Riverside County, Calif., Church Unlimited continues to hold in-person services despite these gatherings being expressly prohibited by a state shelter in place order. The county argues that these gatherings endanger hundreds of people and increase the risk of COVID-19 spreading.

Do you think churches should remain open during the pandemic? Get legal help by clicking here.

Conversely, Abiding Place Ministries recently took action against San Diego County, Calif. The church argues that banning religious gatherings is a violation of citizens’ constitutional right to free exercise of religion.

Riverside Church Lawsuit

Church Unlimited and its pastor James Moffatt have allegedly violated Governor Newson’s executive order and Riverside County’s health orders by continuing to hold services.

According to the Riverside church lawsuit, the county implemented their own health order on April 4, which specifically prohibits all public events – regardless of their venue or size. The Riverside health order specifically includes language that prohibits religion gatherings.

On April 7, Deputy County Counsel Kelly Moran allegedly had a conversation with James Moffatt, where he was informed that Church Unlimited was unable to hold in-person church services. Despite this, Moffatt reportedly told Moran that he would not conform to the health orders and would potentially be providing Easter Sunday services.

According to the Riverside church lawsuit, these services would have an anticipated attendance of around 500 people.

Following this conversation, the county reportedly sent a cease and desist letter to the church which warned that continuing to hold in-person church services would be a violation of the law. The county argues that, by refusing to comply with the health orders, Church Unlimited can be fined up to $1,000 per day.

“Health care orders are necessary for the health and safety of the citizens of Riverside County and immediate and irreparable injury with result if defendants do not comply,” the Riverside church lawsuit argues.

According to an April 11 Facebook post from Church Unlimited, Moffatt and his church are fighting against the action. Lawyers for the defendants reportedly secured the ability for Church Unlimited Easter services to be held in a drive-in venue.

Riverside Country is represented in house by Gregory P. Priamos, James E. Brown, Kirsten B. Shea, Ronak N. Patel, and Kelly A. Moran.

The Riverside Church Lawsuit is County of Riverside v. Church Unlimited, et al., Case No. PSC2002064, in the Superior Court of California for the County of Riverside.

San Diego Church Lawsuit

While one church is fighting off legal action, another has taken the initiative and filed a lawsuit against the County of San Diego.

Similarly, to Riverside County, San Diego County issued their own health order on April 8, banning public assembly and specifying that religious assembly was not exempt.

Abiding Place Ministries argues that physical assembly is a vital part of their religious worship, especially considering their status as a small congregation with less than 100 people at Sunday services.

The San Diego church lawsuit argues that the church considers itself to be a “family,” because of their close proximity when working with each other.

“Abiding Place Ministries, and its members, who together make up the Church, believe that a physical assembly in one place on the Lord’s day is an essential part of their worship, such that failure to assemble is an unconscionable violation of God’s commands,” the San Diego church lawsuit argues.

According to Abiding Place Ministries, the health order is unconstitutional because it violates the right to free exercise of religion. The church argues that the order could be narrowly tailored to permit “less restrictive means” to achieve a proactive coronavirus policy, without burdening constitutional rights to religious freedom.

“The challenged order specifically prohibits religious gatherings while allowing exceptions for more than one hundred (100) broad categories of non-religious businesses and activities without any limitations, including allowing gatherings of workers and customers of those businesses and activities,” the San Diego church lawsuit notes.

Abiding Place Ministries is represented by Jeremiah Graham of the Law Office of Jeremiah Graham.

The San Diego Church Lawsuit is Abiding Place Ministries v. Wilma J. Wooten, et al., Case No. 3:20-cv-00683-BAS-AHG, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of California.

We tell you about cash you can claim EVERY WEEK! Sign up for our free newsletter.


2 thoughts onCalif. Churches Involved in COVID-19 Legal Action

  1. Amee says:

    The DOJ just put out a statement stating it was unconstitutional in any circumstance to violate religious rights & that state governments are not allowed to violate those rights. They even dismissed fines for people who were persecuted by these tyrannical state governors. This lawsuit will fail. It is unconstitutional to shut down a church.

    1. Darlene Jenkins says:

      The DOJ is NOT a lawmaking body….they are only a Law Enforcement arm…nothing more

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. By submitting your comment and contact information, you agree to receive marketing emails from Top Class Actions regarding this and/or similar lawsuits or settlements, and/or to be contacted by an attorney or law firm to discuss the details of your potential case at no charge to you if you qualify. Required fields are marked *

Please note: Top Class Actions is not a settlement administrator or law firm. Top Class Actions is a legal news source that reports on class action lawsuits, class action settlements, drug injury lawsuits and product liability lawsuits. Top Class Actions does not process claims and we cannot advise you on the status of any class action settlement claim. You must contact the settlement administrator or your attorney for any updates regarding your claim status, claim form or questions about when payments are expected to be mailed out.