Andon, LLC v. The City of Newport News, VA

Filing

PUBLISHED AUTHORED OPINION filed. Originating case number: 4:14-cv-00076-RGD-LRL. [999751686]. [14-2358]

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 1 of 14

PUBLISHED
UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS
FOR THE FOURTH CIRCUIT

No. 14-2358

ANDON,
LLC;
RECONCILING
MINISTRIES, LLC,

PEOPLE

TOGETHER

IN

FAITH

Plaintiffs - Appellants,
v.
THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, VIRGINIA,
Defendant - Appellee.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Eastern
District of Virginia, at Newport News. Robert G. Doumar, Senior
District Judge. (4:14-cv-00076-RGD-LRL)

Argued:

December 9, 2015

Decided:

February 9, 2016

Before WILKINSON, KEENAN, and HARRIS, Circuit Judges.

Affirmed by published opinion. Judge Keenan wrote the opinion,
in which Judge Wilkinson and Judge Harris joined.

ARGUED: Michael Bruce Ware, SCHEMPF & WARE, PLLC, Yorktown,
Virginia, for Appellants.
Darlene P. Bradberry, OFFICE OF THE
CITY ATTORNEY FOR THE CITY OF NEWPORT NEWS, Newport News,
Virginia, for Appellee.
ON BRIEF: Adrienne Michelle Sakyi,
SCHEMPF & WARE, PLLC, Yorktown, Virginia, for Appellants.

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 2 of 14

BARBARA MILANO KEENAN, Circuit Judge:
In
erred

this

in

appeal,

we

dismissing

with

consider

whether

prejudice

a

the

district

complaint

filed

court
by

two

entities, Andon, LLC, and Reconciling People Together in Faith
Ministries, LLC (collectively, the plaintiffs) against the City
of Newport News, Virginia (the City, or Newport News).

The

plaintiffs’ complaint alleged that the City, acting through its
Board of Zoning Appeals (BZA), violated the Religious Land Use
and

Institutionalized

Persons

Act

(RLUIPA,

or

the

Act),

42

U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq., by denying the plaintiffs’ request for
a variance to permit a certain property to be used as a church
facility.
Upon our review, we conclude that the plaintiffs failed to
state

a

claim

that

the

BZA’s

decision

imposed

a

substantial

burden on the plaintiffs’ right of religious exercise.

We also

conclude that the district court did not abuse its discretion in
denying

the

plaintiffs’

request

to

amend

their

because any such amendment would have been futile.

complaint,
We therefore

affirm the district court’s judgment.

I.
In 2012, Walter T. Terry, Jr. formed a congregation for
religious worship known as Reconciling People Together in Faith
Ministries, LLC (the congregation) in Newport News, and served
2

Appeal: 14-2358

as

Doc: 30

its

Filed: 02/09/2016

initially

pastor.

Although

gathered

to

Pg: 3 of 14

the

worship

members
in

a

of

local

the

congregation

business

owned

by

Terry, they later sought a larger location for their use.
Terry ultimately found a suitable property, which included
an office building (the building) and a small parking lot, that
was offered for “lease or sale” by Andon, LLC (Andon).

The

property is located at 6212 Jefferson Avenue in Newport News
(the property).
Andon had purchased the property, a 0.32-acre parcel of
land, in 2011.

Since 1997, the property continuously has been

classified for commercial use under the City’s zoning ordinance.
The ordinance provides that properties zoned for commercial use
may be used for a “community facility,” including a “place of
worship” or church, only when four conditions are satisfied:
(a) access is provided from a public street directly
to the property; (b) no use is operated for commercial
gain; (c) no building or structure, nor accessory
building or structure is located within 100 feet of
any side or rear property line which is zoned singlefamily residential; and, (d) any parking lot or street
serving such use is located 25 feet or more from a
side or rear property line zoned single family
residential.
Newport News, Va. Municipal Code § 45-519.
Although
conditions,

the
the

property
property

complied
did

not

with
satisfy

three
the

of

these

“setback”

requirement in subsection (c), because the building is located
fewer than 100 feet from the rear and side property lines that
3

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 4 of 14

are adjacent to properties zoned for “single-family residential”
use. 1

Despite

knowledge

entered

into

written

a

of

lease

this

problem,

agreement

the

with

congregation

Andon

that

was

contingent on Andon obtaining “City approval” allowing operation
of a church facility on the property.

Seeking to satisfy this

contingency in the lease agreement, Andon filed with the BZA an
application requesting a variance from the setback requirement.
After

reviewing

Andon’s

application,

the

City

Codes

and

Compliance Department (the Compliance Department) filed a report
with the BZA concerning the variance request.

The report stated

that the BZA, prior to issuing a variance, must first find that:
(1) “strict application of the ordinance would produce an undue
hardship”
other

relating

properties”;

substantial

to

the

(2)

detriment

to

property

such

a

“not

variance

adjacent

shared

generally

“will

property”;

not

and

be

(3)

by
of

“the

character of the district will not be changed” by granting the
variance.
Based

on

See Newport News, Va. Municipal Code § 45-3203(c).
these

restrictions,

the

Compliance

Department

recommended that the BZA deny the variance, because the property
could be used for other purposes without a variance, and because

1

The building is located 33 feet, 85 feet, and 80 feet away
from the rear and side property lines abutting neighboring
residential properties.
4

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 5 of 14

denial of a variance would not cause Andon to suffer a hardship
unique among other commercial property owners in the vicinity.
After

holding

Compliance

public

Department’s

variance request.
Virginia

a

state

hearing,

recommendation

the
and

BZA

adopted
to

voted

the
the

deny

Andon appealed from the BZA decision to a
circuit

court,

which

upheld

the

BZA’s

determination.
The plaintiffs filed the present suit in federal district
court alleging that the BZA’s denial of their variance request
imposed

a

substantial

burden

on

the

plaintiffs’

religious

exercise in violation of RLUIPA, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1) (the
substantial
BZA’s

burden

action

location”

and

claim).

The

plaintiffs

“delay

in

obtaining

“uncertainty

as

caused

to

alleged
a

that

viable

whether

.

the

worship

.

.

the

[c]ongregation will be able to go forward with the lease of the
[p]roperty.”
The

plaintiffs

attached

to

their

complaint

an

affidavit

from Terry, who stated that he “could not find a[n alternate
property] that was the appropriate size, location, and price” to
serve as a place of worship for the congregation.
stated

in

buildings

the
were

affidavit

that

too

and

large

“[m]any
too

congregation.”

5

of

expensive

the
for

He also

[alternative]
[the]

young

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

The

City

Filed: 02/09/2016

moved

to

Pg: 6 of 14

dismiss

the

complaint

with

prejudice

under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6) for failure to
state a claim.

The district court granted the City’s motion,

denied the plaintiffs’ request to file an amended complaint, and
entered judgment in favor of the City. 2

The plaintiffs timely

filed this appeal.

II.
We

review

complaint

under

de

novo

Rule

the

district

12(b)(6)

for

court’s

failure

to

dismissal
state

a

of

a

claim.

United States ex rel. Nathan v. Takeda Pharms. N. Am., Inc., 707
F.3d 451, 455 (4th Cir. 2013).

To survive a motion to dismiss,

a complaint must “state a claim to relief that is plausible on
its face.”

Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

When

reviewing the district court’s action, we consider the factual
allegations in the plaintiffs’ complaint as true.

Bass v. E.I.

DuPont de Nemours & Co., 324 F.3d 761, 764 (4th Cir. 2003).

2

The City also argued in its motion to dismiss that Andon
lacked standing to bring the RLUIPA claim.
The district court
disagreed, and the City does not challenge this ruling on
appeal.
Although
a
litigant’s
standing
presents
a
jurisdictional question that may be considered sua sponte by
this Court, see Benham v. City of Charlotte, 635 F.3d 129, 134
(4th Cir. 2011), we need not address the district court’s ruling
regarding
Andon’s
standing,
because
the
congregation
unquestionably had standing to file suit alleging a violation
under RLUIPA.
6

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

The

Filed: 02/09/2016

plaintiffs

dismissing

their

argue

complaint

Pg: 7 of 14

that
of

a

the

district

RLUIPA

court

violation,

erred

in

contending

that the BZA’s action denying a variance imposed a substantial
burden

on

their

religious

exercise.

Citing

our

decision

in

Bethel World Outreach Ministries v. Montgomery County Council,
706 F.3d 548 (4th Cir. 2013), the plaintiffs assert that they
plausibly alleged a claim under RLUIPA, because, as a result of
the BZA’s action, the congregation has been unable to find a
suitable location in the City for worship, and the plaintiffs
have suffered “delay, expense, and uncertainty” in establishing
a church location and in executing the lease agreement.

The

plaintiffs alternatively contend that the district court abused
its

discretion

complaint.

refusing

their

request

to

amend

their

We disagree with the plaintiffs’ arguments.

RLUIPA
regulation

in

contains
of

land

two

use

provisions

with

respect

limiting
to

governmental

religious

exercise. 3

The first such RLUIPA provision prohibits governmental entities
from imposing land use restrictions that: (1) treat a religious
organization

“on

less

than

equal

3

terms”

with

a

nonreligious

Under RLUIPA, “‘religious exercise’ includes any exercise
of religion, whether or not compelled by, or central to, a
system of religious belief.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-5(7)(A).
And
“[t]he use, building, or conversion of real property for the
purpose of religious exercise shall be considered to be
religious exercise of the person or entity that uses or intends
to use the property for that purpose.”
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc5(7)(B).
7

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 8 of 14

organization; or (2) discriminate against any organization on
the basis of religion.
The

second

regulation

of

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1), (2).

RLUIPA

land

provision

use,

on

which

addressing
the

plaintiffs

governmental
base

their

claim, does not require a showing of discriminatory governmental
conduct.

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1); see Bethel, 706 F.3d at 557.

Instead,

this

provision

prohibits

a

governmental

entity

from

imposing or implementing a
land use regulation . . . that imposes a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a person,
including a religious assembly or institution, unless
the government demonstrates that imposition of the
burden on that person, assembly, or institution (A) is
in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest;
and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.
42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a)(1).
To

state

a

substantial

burden

claim

under

RLUIPA,

a

plaintiff therefore must show that a government’s imposition of
a

regulation

regarding

land

use,

or

application

of

such

a

regulation, caused a hardship that substantially affected the
plaintiff’s right of religious exercise.

See Bethel, 706 F.3d

at 556; Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City v. Cty. of Sutter,
456 F.3d 978, 988-89 (9th Cir. 2006); Civil Liberties for Urban
Believers v. City of Chicago, 342 F.3d 752, 761 (7th Cir. 2003).
We addressed the scope of substantial burden claims under RLUIPA
in our decision in Bethel.

8

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 9 of 14

The plaintiff in Bethel asserted a substantial burden claim
against a county that had adopted two land use regulations after
the

plaintiff

had

purchased

property

for

the

then-permitted

purpose of constructing a large church.

706 F.3d at 553-55.

The

banned

first

regulation

at

issue

in

Bethel

extension

of

public water and sewer services to certain classifications of
property, including the plaintiff’s property.

Id. at 553.

In

response to the county’s implementation of this regulation, the
plaintiff modified its construction plans and proposed to build
a smaller church that operated on a private septic system.
at 554.

Id.

Before those plans were approved, however, the county

adopted

a

property,

second
which

regulation

applicable

prohibited

the

to

the

construction

institutional facilities including churches.

plaintiff’s
of

private

Id.

Although the county regulations we considered in Bethel did
not

target

secular

religious

and

religious

nevertheless

exercise

presented

uses,
a

and

we

applied

concluded

triable

RLUIPA

generally
that

the

claim,

to

both

plaintiff

because

the

regulations substantially pressured the plaintiff to modify and
ultimately
church.

to

abandon

Id. at 556-59.

its

pre-existing

plan

to

construct

a

And, we explained, although other real

property may have been available for the plaintiff to purchase,
the “delay, uncertainty, and expense” of selling the plaintiff’s
property and finding an alternate location increased the burden
9

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 10 of 14

imposed on the plaintiff’s religious exercise.
In

reaching

function

this

of

conclusion,

RLUIPA’s

protect

a

property

for

we

emphasized

substantial

plaintiff’s
religious

reasonable
purposes.

burden

Id. at 557-58.
that

critical

restriction

expectation
Id.

a

is

to

use

real

556-57;

at

to

see

Petra

Presbyterian Church v. Vill. of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846, 851
(7th

Cir.

2007)

(explaining

that

when

an

organization

buys

property “reasonably expecting to obtain a permit, the denial of
the permit may inflict hardship” on the organization).
The

circumstances

of

the

present

case

different from those presented in Bethel.

are

materially

The plaintiffs here

never had a reasonable expectation that the property could be
used

as

a

church.

When

the

plaintiffs

entered

into

the

prospective lease agreement, the property was not a permitted
site for a community facility such as a church, and had not met
applicable

setback

least 14 years.

requirements

for

that

type

of

use

for

at

Before Andon filed the application seeking a

variance, the Zoning Administrator had informed Andon that the
application

would

not

setback requirement.

be

approved

for

failure

to

meet

the

Thus, the plaintiffs assumed the risk of

an unfavorable decision, and chose to mitigate the impact of
such a

result

by

including

the

contingency

provision

in

the

lease.

Accordingly, unlike the governmental action at issue in

Bethel, the BZA’s denial of the variance in the present case did
10

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 11 of 14

not alter any pre-existing expectation that the plaintiffs would
be able to use the property for a church facility, or cause them
to suffer delay and uncertainty in locating a place of worship.
Because the plaintiffs knowingly entered into a contingent
lease

agreement

burdens

they

denying

the

Petra

for

a

sustained
variance,

Presbyterian

non-conforming
were
but

not

imposed

were

Church,

property,
by

the

self-imposed

489

F.3d

at

the

alleged

BZA’s

action

hardships.

851

(because

See
the

plaintiff purchased property with knowledge that the permit to
use the property for a church would be denied, the plaintiff
“assumed the risk of having to sell the property and find an
alternative
generally

site

will

for

not

its

church”).

support

a

A

self-imposed

substantial

burden

hardship

claim

under

RLUIPA, because the hardship was not imposed by governmental
action altering a legitimate, pre-existing expectation that a
property

could

be

obtained

for

a

particular

land

use.

See

Bethel, 706 F.3d at 556-58; Petra Presbyterian Church, 489 F.3d
at 851.

Therefore, we hold that under these circumstances, the

plaintiffs

have

not

satisfied

the

“substantial

requirement of governmental action under RLUIPA. 4

4

We do not reach the
speculative contention that
the property, instead of
agreement, the financial
(Continued)

burden”

See Bethel,

merits of the plaintiffs’ separate,
if the congregation had purchased
entering into a contingent lease
loss sustained would have been
11

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 12 of 14

706 F.3d at 556; Guru Nanak Sikh Soc’y of Yuba City, 456 F.3d at
988-89; Civil Liberties for Urban Believers, 342 F.3d at 761.
Our conclusion is not altered by the plaintiffs’ further
contention that they have been unable to find another property
that

meets

the

congregation’s

budgetary limitations.

desired

location,

size,

and

The absence of affordable and available

properties within a geographic area will not by itself support a
substantial burden claim under RLUIPA.

See Civil Liberties for

Urban Believers, 342 F.3d at 762 (concluding that the “scarcity
of affordable land available” and costs “incidental to any highdensity

urban

associated

land

with

use”

location”

represent
and

do

not

“ordinary
support

difficulties
a

substantial

burden claim under RLUIPA).
We further observe that if we agreed with the plaintiffs
that the BZA’s denial of a variance imposed a substantial burden
on their religious exercise, we effectively would be granting an
automatic

exemption

to

religious

applicable land use regulations.

organizations

from

generally

Such a holding would usurp the

role of local governments in zoning matters when a religious
group

is

religious

seeking
uses

a

over

variance,

and

secular

uses.

impermissibly
See

Petra

sufficient to state a substantial burden claim.
pass judgment on facts not before us.
12

would

favor

Presbyterian

We decline to

Appeal: 14-2358

Doc: 30

Filed: 02/09/2016

Pg: 13 of 14

Church, 489 F.3d at 851 (reasoning that the substantial burden
requirement must be taken seriously, or religious organizations
would be free “from zoning restrictions of any kind”); Civil
Liberties for Urban Believers, 342 F.3d at 762 (explaining that
no

“free

pass

for

religious

land

uses

masquerades

among

the

legitimate protections RLUIPA affords to religious exercise”).
The

plain

result.

language

of

RLUIPA,

however,

prevents

such

a

By requiring that any substantial burden be imposed by

governmental action and by carefully balancing individual rights
and compelling governmental interests, the language of RLUIPA
demonstrates

that

Congress

did

not

intend

for

RLUIPA

to

undermine the legitimate role of local governments in enacting
and implementing land use regulations.

See Petra Presbyterian

Church, 489 F.3d at 851; Civil Liberties for Urban Believers,
342 F.3d at 762.
Finally, we conclude that the district court did not abuse
its discretion in denying the plaintiffs’ request to amend their
complaint.
101

F.3d

See HealthSouth Rehab. Hosp. v. Am. Nat'l Red Cross,
1005,

1010

standard of review).

(4th

Cir.

1996)

(stating

the

applicable

Because the plaintiffs did not have a

reasonable expectation to use the property as a church and any
burden

on

their

religious

exercise

was

self-imposed,

the

plaintiffs cannot articulate any set of facts demonstrating that
an amendment would survive the City’s motion to dismiss.
13

Thus,

Appeal: 14-2358

we

Doc: 30

agree

with

Filed: 02/09/2016

the

district

Pg: 14 of 14

court

complaint would have been futile.

that

any

amendment

to

the

See Scott v. Family Dollar

Stores, Inc., 733 F.3d 105, 121 (4th Cir. 2013) (“Denying leave
to amend is appropriate when . . . the amendment would have been
futile.”).

III.
For these reasons, we affirm the district court’s judgment
dismissing with prejudice the plaintiffs’ complaint against the
City.
AFFIRMED

14