Plans Inc. v. Sacramento City Unified School District

MEMORANDUM

PLANS appeals from the district court’s entry of judgment after a bench trial on the basis of a partial finding under Rule 52(c) of the Federal Rules of Civil Proce dure. Exercising jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1291 , we affirm.

The district court’s “evidentiary rulings are reviewed for an abuse of discretion, and will not be reversed absent a showing of prejudice.” Larez v. City of Los Angeles, 946 F.2d 630, 638 (9th Cir.1991). We hold that the district court did not abuse its discretion in excluding all but one of the exhibits that PLANS proposed.

Reviewing the district court’s findings of fact for clear error and its conclusions of law de novo, Dubner v. City & Cnty. of San Francisco, 266 F.3d 959 , 964 (9th Cir.2001), we agree that PLANS failed to meet its burden of showing that anthropo-sophy is a religion for purposes of the Establishment Clause. Although we express no view as to whether anthroposo-phy could be considered a religion on the basis of a fuller or more complete record, the record as it is before us is simply too thin to sustain that conclusion.

PLANS argues on appeal that a determination that anthroposophy is a religion is not necessary for it…