New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas ( 2020 )


Menu:
  • 1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 NEW HARVEST CHRISTIAN Case No. 19-cv-00334-SVK FELLOWSHIP, 8 Plaintiff, ORDER IN PREPARATION FOR 9 ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTIONS v. FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT 10 CITY OF SALINAS, Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 35 11 Defendant. 12 13 To assist the parties in preparing for oral argument on the motions for summary judgment 14 (Dkt. 28, 35), the Court provides the following tentative rulings and questions the parties should 15 be prepared to address. 16 I. Tentative Rulings 17 A. All evidentiary objections are overruled. 18 B. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 41) is granted. 19 II. Preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law 20 A. Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion as to whether the City zoning ordinance, or 21 the City’s application of that ordinance to Plaintiff, “substantially burdens” 22 Plaintiff’s exercise of religion. San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 23 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004). Even if Plaintiff establishes a prima facie 24 case of violation of RLUIPA such that the burden shifts to the government, the 25 burden of establishing “substantial burden” remains with Plaintiff. Centro 26 Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 27 2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b)). 1 B. If Plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation of RLUIPA’s “equal terms” 2 provision — (1) imposition of a land use regulation; (2) by the government; (3) on 3 religious assembly; (4) on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly — 4 the burden of persuasion shifts to the government on all elements. Corp. of the 5 Catholic Archbishop of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1167 (W.D. 6 Wash. 2014) (citing Centro Familiar, 651 F.3d at 1171). 7 1. Section 37-40.310(a)(2), (3) does not, on its face, establish a prima facie 8 violation of RLUIPA. 9 III. In oral argument, the Court would like the parties to address the following: 10 A. The Court must first find that the disputed regulation creates a “substantial burden” 11 before reaching the question of “compelling interest.” Three key factors in 12 determining “substantial burden” are (1) feasible alternative; (2) uncertainty, delay, 13 expense; and (3) Plaintiff’s own actions. See Int’l Church of the Foursquare 14 Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2011); Spirit of Aloha 15 Temple v. County of Maui, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1065 (D. Hawai’i 2018) (citing 16 Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, 858 F.3d 996, 1004 (6th 17 Cir. 2017)). Considering these factors, the Court would like the parties to address 18 the following: 19 1. At this stage, it appears to be undisputed that the Church’s current location 20 is not a feasible alternative. Looking at other sites, both parties submit 21 evidence in the form of declarations regarding the availability of 22 alternatives. How should the Court evaluate this evidence? 23 2. As for factors (2) and (3), how does the fact that the Church purchased the 24 property with knowledge of the zoning limitation impact the substantial 25 burden analysis? 26 27 1 B. On “equal terms,” the Court views the key inquiry to be as set forth in Centro 2 Familiar: the City violates the equal terms provision only when a church is treated 3 on less than equal basis with a secular comparator, similarly situated with respect to 4 accepted zoning criteria. See Centro Familiar, 651 F.3d at 1172 (citing River of 5 Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 373 (7th Cir. 6 2010) (en banc)). Thus, a key issue in the Court’s view is whether weekend theater 7 uses, such as the Ariel Theatre, and weekend church uses are similarly situated with 8 respect to the “vibrant downtown” plan. The Court would like the parties to 9 address the evidence before the Court in making this determination. 10 SO ORDERED. 11 Dated: April 8, 2020 Sess SUSAN VAN KEULEN United States Magistrate Judge 15 16 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Document Info

Docket Number: 5:19-cv-00334

Filed Date: 4/8/2020

Precedential Status: Precedential

Modified Date: 6/20/2024