Summary
interpreting the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act—which contains practically identical language as the KPRFA—in the same way as RLUIPA's substantial burden provision
Summary of this case from Roman Catholic Archdiocese of Kan. City v. City of Mission WoodsOpinion
No. 13–cv–3794
2014-07-16
Maum Meditation House of Truth, an Illinois not-for-profit Corporation, in its corporate capacity and also on behalf of certain members of the organization, and Sheehyung Sung, Plaintiffs, v. Lake County, Illinois, an Illinois Municipal corporation, Defendant.
John W. Mauck, Jeffrey M. Schwab, Mauck & Baker, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs. Kevin John Berrill, Lisle A. Stalter, Waukegan, IL, for Defendant.
John W. Mauck, Jeffrey M. Schwab, Mauck & Baker, LLC, Chicago, IL, for Plaintiffs.
Kevin John Berrill, Lisle A. Stalter, Waukegan, IL, for Defendant.
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER
Sharon Johnson Coleman, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs, MAUM Meditation House of Truth, certain of its members and Sheehyung Sung (collectively “MAUM” or “plaintiffs”), filed an Amended Complaint after this Court's denial of MAUM's motion for preliminary injunction and MAUM's acquiescence that it should pursue an appeal with the zoning board before proceeding with the instant action. Defendant Lake County moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint for failure to state a claim [34]. MAUM renewed its motion for preliminary injunction [31]. For the reasons set forth below, this Court grants Lake County's motion to dismiss and denies MAUM's motion for preliminary injunction.
Background
MAUM's complaint in this matter requests a permanent injunction and declaratory relief based on Lake County's decision that MAUM needs a “change of use” permit to operate a meditation center in Mr. Sung's residence at 1122 Elm Road, Lake Forest, Illinois, 60045.
MAUM is seeking to use the property as both a residence for Mr. Sung and two meditation guides, and a meditation center comprising two rooms for small group meditation. MAUM estimates that approximately twenty people per day in groups of two to five persons would use the facility. MAUM maintains that they do not need to comply with building code or apply for a “change of use” permit because they are not changing the use of the premises. MAUM contends that the meditation center is an “accessory” use to the residence and thus they are in compliance with the building code without making any renovations.
Lake County supplemented its motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint with the transcripts and findings of the hearings from the Zoning Board of Appeals. On January 21, 2014, and February 11, 2014, the Lake County Zoning Board of Appeals held public hearings on MAUM's request for administrative appeal to reverse an administrative decision by the Chief Engineer and Building Official of the Lake County Planning, Building and Development Department. As a result of those hearings, the Zoning Board of Appeals issued a decision finding that:
1) the proposed use of the property entails the establishment of a place of religious worship in an existing residence;
2) if the existing residence were to also contain the proposed place of religious worship, the building would contain two occupancies as defined by the International Building Code of 2006;
3) as proposed, the existing residence would remain the principle use or purpose of the subject building;
4) the activities that would occur in the proposed place of religious worship would not be necessary for the exiting residence to properly function and could otherwise reasonably exist apart from the existing residence;
5) as such, the proposed place of religious worship would be neither accessory nor ancillary to the existing residence; and
6) the proposed use does not qualify for an exception from the application of Section 508 of the International Building Code of 2006 that applies to “mixed uses and occupancies.”
The Zoning Board of Appeals therefore affirmed the Chief Building Official's determination that the proposed use of a religious institution and residence is a mixed use that does not qualify for an exemption. Further, the mixed use constitutes a change of use under the building code.
In order to comply with Lake County's decision MAUM would have to make a variety of renovations to the residence. Among the alterations which MAUM asserts that it would have to make to the property are the addition of ten parking spaces (one for disabled persons) with 24 feet of clearing lane, moving the sign 10 feet back from the current location, accessibility compliant door handles and hardware, two accessible restrooms of approximately 70 square feet each, emergency lighting, sprinkler system, 1 hour fire rated wall between the meditation center and the residential portion of the house, separate heating and air-conditioning systems, a floor integrity check, wetland delineation, and civil engineering study. MAUM complains that the cost of compliance would be approximately $200,000, which would constitute a substantial burden on MAUM's free exercise of religion.
The Amended Complaint contains five counts against Lake County stemming from the alleged deprivation or burdening of MAUM's religious freedom: Count I alleges violation of the Free Exercise Clause under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 3 of the Illinois Constitution ; Count II alleges a violation of the Illinois Religious Freedom Restoration Act (“IRFRA”), 775 ILCS 35/21; Count III alleges a “class of one” violation of the equal protection clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; Count IV alleges a violation of the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution; and Count V alleges violations of free speech and free association under the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution and Article I, § 4 of the Illinois Constitution.
Legal Standard
To survive a motion to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), “a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’ ” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a)(2) sets forth the basic pleading requirement of a “short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Although Rule 8 does not require a plaintiff to plead particularized facts, the factual allegations in the complaint must sufficiently raise a plausible right to relief above a speculative level. Arnett v. Webster, 658 F.3d 742, 751–52 (7th Cir.2011). When considering a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), the Court must accept as true all well-pleaded factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiff. Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009).
“As the Supreme Court has observed, ‘a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary and drastic remedy, on that should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion. To justify this relief, movants must show that (1) they have a reasonable likelihood of success on the merits; (2) no adequate remedy at law exists; (3) they will suffer irreparable harm which, absent injunctive relief, outweighs the irreparable harm the respondent will suffer if the injunction is granted; and (4) the injunction will not harm the public interest.” (Internal citations omitted). Goodman v. Illinois Department of Financial and Professional Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir.2005).
Discussion
This Court will first address Lake County's motion to dismiss before considering MAUM's motion for preliminary injunction since resolution of the Lake County's motion will impact the preliminary injunction factor of MAUM's likelihood of success on the merits. See Joelner v. Village of Washington Park, Illinois, 378 F.3d 613, 620 (7th Cir.2004) (“When a party seeks a preliminary injunction on the basis of a potential First Amendment violation, the likelihood of success on the merits will often be the determinative factor.”). Lake County moves to dismiss all counts of the Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies or, alternatively, for failure to state a claim.
I. Exhaustion of Administrative Remedies
Lake County argues that MAUM's complaint must be dismissed for failure to exhaust administrative remedies because MAUM had state remedies available for compensation. MAUM responds that it is not required to exhaust its administrative remedies because it is alleging a bona fide equal protection claim and, even if it were required to exhaust its administrative remedies, it has done so by appealing to the Zoning Board of Appeals.
MAUM must exhaust its administrative remedies. All final decisions of the board of appeals are subject to judicial review pursuant to the provisions of the Administrative Review Law. 65 ILCS 5/11–13–13. An aggrieved party may seek judicial review of an administrative decision without complying with the exhaustion of remedies doctrine where the agency cannot provide an adequate remedy or where it is patently futile to seek relief before the agency. Constantine v. Village of Glen Ellyn, 217 Ill.App.3d 4, 159 Ill.Dec. 303, 575 N.E.2d 1363 (2d Dist. 1991). Jurisdiction and venue for judicial review of administrative decisions is vested in the County Circuit Courts. 735 ILCS 5/3–104. Such courts will examine the zoning action de novo for arbitrariness as a matter of substantive due process under the six-part test set forth in La Salle National Bank of Chicag o v. County of Cook, 12 Ill.2d 40, 145 N.E.2d 65 (1957). Our Savior Evangelical Lutheran Church v. Saville, 397 Ill.App.3d 1003, 1027, 337 Ill.Dec. 566, 922 N.E.2d 1143 (2009).
Here, MAUM only appealed to the Zoning Board of Appeals and did not pursue their claims through the Administrative Review Law. MAUM argues that it need not proceed through the Circuit Court of Lake County on an appeal of the zoning board decision because the requirement to exhaust their administrative remedies is inapplicable where there are fundamental rights, a suspect class, or a bona fide equal protection claim at issue. Forseth v. Village of Sussex, 199 F.3d 363, 371 (7th Cir.2000). A bona fide equal protection claim is shown by “governmental action wholly impossible to relate to legitimate governmental objectives.” Id. For reasons set forth fully below, this Court finds that the claims on which MAUM relies to avoid exhaustion of administrative remedies are insufficiently stated and its equal protection claim not bona fide . MAUM must therefore exhaust its administrative remedies by seeking review of the zoning board of appeals decision in the Circuit Court of Lake County. MAUM's Amended Complaint is dismissed on that basis. This Court will examine whether MAUM sufficiently stated a claim under the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for the sake of completeness.
II. Failure to State a Claim
Count I of MAUM's Amended Complaint alleges that by requiring MAUM to comply with a Change of Use permit and make various cost-prohibitive renovations to the property. MAUM asserts that Lake County's building code allows for MAUM's proposed use of the property without a change of use permit and therefore Lake County has imposed a substantial burden on MAUM's free exercise of religion without a compelling government interest applied through the least restrictive means. Lake County argues that MAUM fails to adequately allege a free exercise violation.
Free Exercise Clause analysis begins with an inquiry into whether the law at issue is neutral and generally applicable. Vision Church, United Methodist v. Village of Long Grove, 468 F.3d 975, 996 (7th Cir.2006). The International Building Code, as adopted by Lake County is neutral and generally applicable. The particular provision at issue here is Section 303.1: “A room or space used for assembly purposes with an occupant load of less than 50 persons and accessory to another occupancy [in this case residential] shall be classified as a Group B occupancy or as part of that occupancy... A room or space used for assembly purposes that is less than 750 square feet (70m
III. Preliminary Injunction
Based on the foregoing reasons for granting Lake County's motion to dismiss the Amended Complaint in its entirety this Court finds that MAUM cannot carry its burden of persuasion and make a clear showing that a preliminary injunction is appropriate. This Court's dismissal of the Amended Complaint for failure to exhaust administrative remedies and, additionally, for failure to state a claim compels this Court to find that MAUM is not likely to succeed on the merits. That issue is determinative and this Court need not address the remaining factors for a preliminary injunction.
Conclusion
For the reasons stated herein, this Court grants defendant Lake County's Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint [34] and denies plaintiff MAUM et al. 's Renewed Motion for Preliminary Injunction [31].
IT IS SO ORDERED.