United States District Court, Central District of California

“ Because Plaintiffs fail to raise a genuine issue of material fact in support of their "as-applied" claims, Defendants' Motion is GRANTED.
I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs – Calvary Chapel Christian School ("Calvary") , five Calvary students, and the Association of Christian Schools International ("ACSI") – brought suit against Defendants – several University of California ("UC") employees – for developing and implementing an admissions process that allegedly violates the Free Speech Clause, the Free Exercise Clause, the Establishment Clause, and the Equal Protection Clause. ”

“ A "material" fact is one that could affect the outcome of the case, and an issue of material fact is "genuine" if "the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party." ”

“ Plaintiffs identify 38 courses [2] proposed by religious schools and rejected by UC that Plaintiffs believe were unconstitutionally denied approval. Defendants argue that they are entitled to summary judgment for numerous procedural and substantive reasons. A. Defendants' Procedural Arguments Defendants offer several reasons why they are entitled to summary judgment as to most of the course rejections without addressing the merits of Plaintiffs' as-applied claims: (1) Plaintiffs do not have standing to challenge UC's decision to reject courses offered by schools other than Calvary ”

“ Plaintiffs' Government expert, Professor Vitz, submitted a declaration concluding that the BJU Government text "appear [s] to give a reasonably adequate presentation of the basic subject matter – the nature of the American government . . . ." (Watters Decl. Ex. X ¶ 55.) However, he does not refute Professor Petracca's conclusions that the text does not acknowledge the commonly-accepted framework for scholarly analysis and contains factual and empirical assertions that are not generally accepted. Professor Vitz also does not opine that Defendants unreasonably rejected the course. ”

“ Plaintiffs challenge Defendants' decision to deny approval for Christianity and Morality in American Literature, an English course submitted by Calvary. (See Pls.' Ex. 617; Costales Decl. Tab 1.)
This course proposed a primary text published by A Beka titled Classics for Christians. Jeanne Hargrove, a UC course reviewer, found this text inappropriate as a primary text in English because its "selection of works and pedagogical apparatus were inconsistent with . . . expectations regarding critical thinking and broad exposure to writers' key works." ”

“ From reading the [reviewed text] , students will have little opportunity to exercise independent judgment, to sharpen their critical thinking skills, or to consider multiple perspectives of those who made our history. ”

“ Clearly, Defendants are prejudiced as they are unable to have their experts rebut the opinions of the Plaintiffs' experts. The sanction of exclusion is "a self-executing, automatic sanction to provide a strong inducement for disclosure of material" and "gives teeth to [the Rule 26 disclosure] requirements . ”

“ Accordingly, there is no genuine issue of material fact as to this issue. Defendants' decisions to reject the courses challenged by Plaintiffs were not motivated by animus.
b. Rational Basis Review
Defendants' course approval decisions are subject to rational basis review. (Prior Order 37.) Under rational basis review, government regulation is "accorded a strong presumption of validity." Heller v. Doe by Doe, 509 U.S. 312, 319 (1993) . Rationality review "is not a license for courts to judge the wisdom, fairness, or logic of government regulation." ”

“ Yet, the court denied associational standing because it "would have [had] to engage in an ad hoc factual inquiry for each landlord who allege [d] that he ha [d] suffered a taking" to determine whether a taking had occurred. ”

“ Until this Motion, Plaintiffs had not identified any as-applied challenges to non-Calvary courses.
Accordingly, Defendants may challenge ACSI's associational standing.
b. ACSI Does Not Have Associational Standing.
Whether an organization satisfies the third Hunt prong depends on the claims it asserts and the relief it requests. The more specific claims and relief are to individual organization members, the less likely it is that the organization has standing. ”

“ Plaintiffs' challenges regarding seven of the course decisions are barred by the statute of limitations; and (3) Plaintiffs' expert opinions are given by individuals addressing subject matter outside their field of expertise. The Court does not address these issues.↑ The first two Hunt prongs "address [] the Article III requirements" for standing and cannot be waived. United Food, 517 U.S. at 555.↑ Defendants argue that "the Ninth Circuit has not treated Hunt's third prong as waivable, instead reviewing challenges to associational standing . ”