616 F.Supp.3d 1040
C.D. Cal.2022Background
- Plaintiff E.H., a female student at Cuyama Valley High, earned a varsity wide-receiver spot and was the only female on the team during 2020–21; at a March 13, 2021 scrimmage at Valley Christian, observers realized she was female and she was humiliated.
- Valley Christian, First Baptist, and coach Joel Mikkelson thereafter informed Cuyama Valley that E.H. (and by implication other females) were not welcome on their premises to compete, and Valley Christian canceled games to avoid playing Cuyama Valley while she was on the roster.
- E.H. sued alleging Title IX sex discrimination, California Education Code § 220, and the Unruh Act; she filed a First Amended Complaint and defendants moved to dismiss.
- Court ruled at the motion-to-dismiss stage: injunctive relief dismissed for lack of standing (E.H. no longer attends Cuyama Valley); Title IX and § 220 damage claims against Valley Christian and First Baptist survive; Unruh Act claim dismissed with leave to amend; claims against Mikkelson dismissed with leave to amend.
- Court took judicial notice of Exhibits A–B (SBA FAQ and CIF bylaws) and denied judicial notice for Exhibits C–E (MaxPreps materials).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Standing for injunctive relief | E.H. seeks injunctive relief to stop exclusion of female players generally. | E.H. no longer attends Cuyama Valley so no live controversy. | No standing for injunctive relief; claim dismissed without leave to amend. |
| Title IX — receipt of federal financial assistance | Alleged PPP loan and tax-exempt status render Valley Christian a Title IX funding recipient. | PPP is a guaranty and tax exemption alone is insufficient to confer federal assistance. | Allegations suffice at pleading stage: PPP and tax-exempt benefit adequately alleged; Title IX claim for damages survives. |
| Title IX — zone of interests / non‑student plaintiff | E.H. alleges she was excluded from participation on Valley Christian’s premises; non-students who avail themselves of institution activities fall within Title IX zone. | Title IX protects only participants in the recipient’s own programs; E.H. is a student elsewhere. | E.H.’s alleged exclusion from Valley Christian’s education activity (football on its campus) falls within the zone of interests; claim survives. |
| Title IX — religious‑organization exception | Valley Christian claims exclusion reflects religious tenets. | Defendants invoke the Title IX religious exemption. | At pleadings stage, plaintiff plausibly alleges the ban was pretextual; religious exception not applied now. |
| Title IX — contact sports exception | Defendants argue contact‑sports rules bar claim. | The contact‑sport regulation permits separate teams but does not exempt recipients from Title IX generally. | Contact‑sports regulation does not bar E.H.’s discrimination claim here; claim survives. |
| Cal. Educ. Code § 220 (state mirror of Title IX) | Same analysis as Title IX; state benefit alleged from tax‑exempt status. | § 220 should fail if Title IX analysis fails. | § 220 claim survives for same reasons as Title IX; motion to dismiss denied as to damages claim. |
| Unruh Act — "business establishment" | Valley Christian opened premises to public and joined CIF, so Unruh applies to its actions toward non‑students. | Private religious school is not a "business establishment" under Unruh. | Unruh claim dismissed with leave to amend; Court follows Cal. Lutheran reasoning that the school is an expressive religious organization. |
| Claims against individual (Mikkelson) | E.H. named Mikkelson but alleged no specific claims. | Dismiss Mikkelson for failure to plead. | Claims against Mikkelson dismissed with leave to amend (plaintiff may replead Unruh claim against him). |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading must state a plausible claim).
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility standard for complaints).
- Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. 2007) (incorporation-by-reference exception to Rule 12).
- Coto Settlement v. Eisenberg, 593 F.3d 1031 (9th Cir. 2010) (when a complaint "necessarily relies" on a document).
- North Haven Bd. of Ed. v. Bell, 456 U.S. 512 (1982) (scope of Title IX and use of legislative history).
- Cole v. Oroville Union High Sch. Dist., 228 F.3d 1092 (9th Cir. 2000) (graduated students lack live controversy for injunctive relief).
- Doe v. Brown Univ., 896 F.3d 127 (1st Cir. 2018) (Title IX plaintiff must allege participation or attempted participation in recipient’s programs; clarification that non‑students may sometimes be covered).
- Mercer v. Duke Univ., 190 F.3d 643 (4th Cir. 1999) (interpretation of contact‑sports regulation does not exempt schools from Title IX).
- Maxon v. Fuller Theological Seminary, 549 F. Supp. 3d 1116 (C.D. Cal. 2020) (religious‑organization exemption applied where policy explicitly tied to religious tenets).
- Austin v. Univ. of Oregon, 925 F.3d 1133 (9th Cir. 2019) (Title IX claims in athletics context).