International Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro et al

Filing 173

CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS. Signed by Judge Hamilton on 1/9/2012. (pjhlc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 1/9/2012)

Download PDF
1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 2 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 3 4 5 6 INTERNATIONAL CHURCH OF THE FOURSQUARE GOSPEL, 7 Plaintiff(s), 8 9 CASE MANAGEMENT ORDER; ORDER DISMISSING CLAIMS CITY OF SAN LEANDRO, Defendant(s). _______________________________/ 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 v. No. C 07-3605 PJH 12 The parties appeared for a case management conference on January 5, 2012, 13 following remand by the Court of Appeal for the Ninth Circuit. This court had previously 14 granted defendant’s motion for summary judgment on all claims raised in plaintiff’s 15 complaint including those arising under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized 16 Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc (“RLUIPA”) and under the First and Fourteenth 17 Amendments pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Defendant appealed this court’s judgment on 18 all claims, but the Ninth Circuit reached only one claim, reversing and remanding the 19 substantial burden claim under RLUIPA for further proceedings, but not addressing the 20 equal terms claim under RLUIPA or the five constitutional claims. 21 A conference was convened to discuss what those further proceedings would be 22 and to address the parties’ and the court’s interest in avoiding piecemeal litigation in view of 23 footnote 2 of the Ninth Circuit opinion which permits plaintiff to raise again on appeal, 24 should it not prevail on remand, its challenge to that portion of this court’s judgment 25 disposing of the claims the circuit did not reach. Based on this discussion and the 26 stipulation of the parties, the court orders as follows: 27 28 1. Plaintiff voluntarily dismissed all constitutional claims brought under 42 U.S.C. § 1983. Accordingly, the claims for violation of plaintiff’s First Amendment rights of 1 free exercise, free speech and free assembly/association, and for violation of plaintiff’s 2 Fourteenth Amendment right to equal protection and due process are DISMISSED with 3 prejudice. 4 2. Pursuant to the agreement of the parties, they may file cross-motions 5 for summary judgment or adjudication of the two RLUIPA claims in view of the developing 6 nature of the case law on this relatively new statute and in light of recent Ninth Circuit 7 authority that was not available when this matter was adjudicated in 2008. The parties 8 specifically wish to address the standards set forth on the substantial burden question in 9 the opinion remanding this case, Int’l Church of the Foursquare Gospel v. City of San Leandro, et al., 634 F.3d 1037 (9th Cir. 2011), and the standards set forth on the equal 11 For the Northern District of California United States District Court 10 terms question in the opinion in Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 12 651 F.3d 1163 (9th Cir. 2011). 13 3. In addition to these two issues, the parties’ motions shall address 14 whether there is a right to a jury trial under RLUIPA, and if so, as to which issues, 15 specifically setting forth which matters must be decided by the court and which matters 16 must be decided by a jury, should the cross-motions for summary judgment or adjudication 17 not dispose of plaintiff’s claims. 18 4. Lastly, the parties’ cross-motions shall also address the scope and 19 type of damages allowable under RLUIPA, including whether they are to be decided by the 20 court or by a jury. 21 The parties shall meet and confer about a briefing schedule and submit a stipulation 22 to the court. To the extent that plaintiff wishes to seek modification of the pretrial schedule 23 so that discovery can be reopened, plaintiff shall file a motion seeking that relief in 24 accordance with the local rules. 25 26 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: January 9, 2012 ______________________________ PHYLLIS J. HAMILTON United States District Judge 27 28 2

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?