Spirit of Aloha Temple et al v. County of Maui et al

Filing 596

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE COUNTY OF MAUI'S DENIAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SATISFIED STRICT SCRUTINY WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS I, VI, AND VIII re 563 . Signed by JUDGE SUSAN OKI MOLLWAY on 9/6/2023. (cib)

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 1 of 9 PageID.15797

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE DISTRICT OF HAWAII
SPIRIT OF ALOHA TEMPLE AND
FREDRICK R. HONIG,

)
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
vs.
)
)
COUNTY OF MAUI,
)
)
Defendant.
)
_____________________________ )

CIVIL NO. 14-00535 SOM/RLP
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT
COUNTY OF MAUI’S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THIS
COURT’S GRANT OF PARTIAL
SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF
PLAINTIFFS ON THE ISSUE OF
WHETHER THE COUNTY OF MAUI’S
DENIAL OF THE SPECIAL USE
PERMIT SATISFIED STRICT
SCRUTINY WITH RESPECT TO
COUNTS I, VI, AND VIII

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI'S MOTION FOR
RECONSIDERATION OF THIS COURT'S GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT
IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON THE ISSUE OF WHETHER THE COUNTY OF
MAUI'S DENIAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SATISFIED
STRICT SCRUTINY WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS I, VI, AND VIII
I.

INTRODUCTION
On August 11, 2023, this court granted partial summary

judgment in favor of Plaintiffs, determining that the County’s
actions did not satisfy strict scrutiny in the context of Counts
I, VI, and VIII.

See ECF No. 540.

On August 25, 2023, the

County of Maui filed a motion for reconsideration of that part of
the order, arguing that partial summary judgment should have been
granted in favor of the County on those counts based of the
advisory jury verdict issued in a previous trial.
563, 392.

See ECF Nos.

This court disagrees and denies the motion for

reconsideration.

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 2 of 9 PageID.15798

II.

RECONSIDERATION STANDARD.
A successful motion for reconsideration must

demonstrate why the court should reconsider its prior decision
and must set forth facts or law of a strongly convincing nature
to induce the court to reconsider its ruling.

See Barnes v. Sea

Haw. Rafting, LLC, 2020 WL 4722377, at *4 (D. Haw. Aug. 13,
2020); Matubang v. City & Cty. of Honolulu, 2010 WL 2176108, *2
(D. Haw. May 27, 2010).

Three grounds justify reconsideration:

(1) an intervening change in controlling law; (2) the
availability of new evidence; and (3) the need to correct clear
error or prevent manifest injustice.

See Smith v. Clark Cty.

Sch. Dist., 727 F.3d 950, 955 (9th Cir. 2013); Mustafa v. Clark
County Sch. Dist., 157 F.3d 1169, 1178–79 (9th Cir. 1998).
III.

ANALYSIS.
The advisory jury from the trial held earlier in this

case had been instructed that
the words “religious,” “assembly,” and
“institution” should be given their ordinary
or natural meanings.
A “religion” is a system of faith and
worship that often involves, but need not
involve, a belief in a supreme being
and a moral or ethical code.
An “assembly” is a company of persons
collected together in one place for some
common purpose, or a group of persons
organized and united for some common purpose.

2

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 3 of 9 PageID.15799

An “institution” is an established
society, organization, or corporation.
ECF No. 427, PageID # 8702.
In relevant part, the advisory jury determined that
Plaintiffs had failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence
that Spirit of Aloha Temple was a “religious assembly or
institution” in connection with a RLUIPA equal terms claim:

See Verdict Form, ECF No. 392, PageID # 7139.
Based on this finding, the County argues that this
court erred in granting partial summary judgment in favor of
Plaintiffs with respect to Counts I, VI, and VIII on the strict
scrutiny prongs of those claims.

The County posits that the

advisory jury’s verdict is determinative of those claims because
the advisory jury did not find that Spirit of Aloha Temple was a
“religious assembly or institution.”

This court disagrees, as

the advisory jury did not determine whether Spirit of Aloha
Temple was discriminated against based on religion, only that
Plaintiffs had not proven that Spirit of Aloha Temple was a
“religious assembly or institution.”

These are separate issues.

The advisory jury examined only whether Spirit of Aloha Temple
3

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 4 of 9 PageID.15800

was a “religious assembly or institution” that had been treated
by the County on less than equal terms compared to a
“nonreligious assembly of institution.”

It did not examine

whether the County discriminated against Spirit of Aloha Temple
by substantially burdening its exercise of religious rights.
A.

Count I (RLUIPA Substantial Burden Claim).

With respect to Count I (RLUIPA substantial burden
claim), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(a) prohibits a government from
imposing or implementing a land use regulation that is a
“substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person,
including a religious assembly or institution,” unless a strict
scrutiny test is satisfied.

This court noted:

RLUIPA substantial burden claims proceed in
two sequential steps:
First, the plaintiff must
demonstrate that a government
action has imposed a substantial
burden on the plaintiff’s religious
exercise. Second, once the
plaintiff has shown a substantial
burden, the government must show
that its action was “the least
restrictive means” of “further[ing]
a compelling governmental
interest.”
Int'l Church of Foursquare Gospel v. City of
San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1066 (9th Cir.
2011); see also New Harvest Christian
Fellowship v. City of Salinas, 29 F.4th 596,
601 (9th Cir. 2022) (stating that only when a
plaintiff proves that the denial of an
application imposed a substantial burden on
its religious exercise does the burden shift
to the government to show that its denial was
4

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 5 of 9 PageID.15801

narrowly tailored to accomplish a compelling
governmental interest); 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-2(b) (“If a plaintiff produces prima
facie evidence to support a claim alleging a
. . . a violation of section 2000cc of this
title, the government shall bear the burden
of persuasion on any element of the claim,
except that the plaintiff shall bear the
burden of persuasion on whether the law
(including a regulation) or government
practice that is challenged by the claim
substantially burdens the plaintiff’s
exercise of religion.”).
ECF No. 540, PageID #s 15089-90.
In Footnote 4 of its order, this court stated: “The
advisory verdict that determined that Spirit of Aloha Temple had
failed to prove that it was a ‘religious assembly or institution’
does not preclude Plaintiffs from maintaining their RLUIPA
substantial burden claim, as RLUIPA prohibits ‘a substantial
burden on the religious exercise of a person, including a
religious assembly or institution.’”

Id., PageID # 15090.

County argues that this statement is incorrect.

The

It argues that

the Special Use Permit Application sought to use the
agriculturally zoned land for “CHURCH ACTIVITIES,” including
“conduct[ing] church services and related activities” such as a
“weekly Sunday service” and “[w]edding ceremonies.”
6, PageID #s 2803-04.

ECF No. 183-

The County’s position is that Plaintiffs

failed to prove by a preponderance of the evidence that Spirit of
Aloha Temple was a “church,” and that no religious burden was
imposed when the County denied the Special Use Permit for “CHURCH

5

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 6 of 9 PageID.15802

ACTIVITIES.”

But the advisory jury’s determination that Spirit

of Aloha Temple had not proven by a preponderance of the evidence
that it was a “church” does not necessarily mean that Spirit of
Aloha Temple was not exercising religious rights or that the
County did not discriminate against it based on that exercise.
In simplified terms, Spirit of Aloha Temple was seeking
permission to use the Haumana Road property as a church.

The

County’s denial of that use could have been a burden on Spirit of
Aloha Temple’s exercise of religious rights because it was not
allowed to use the property as a location for its church.

Even

if the advisory jury found that Spirit of Aloha Temple had not
proven by a preponderance of the evidence that it was, in fact, a
church, such a finding would have no bearing on whether the
County prevented Spirit of Aloha Temple from becoming a church or
on whether the County discriminated against Plaintiffs based on
their exercise of religion.

Those issues were not before the

advisory jury, which did not determine whether Spirit of Aloha
Temple was exercising religious rights.
The court is unpersuaded by the County’s argument that
Spirit of Aloha Temple and Honig could not have been exercising
religious rights because they are only claiming that they were
doing so through participation in assemblies that the advisory
jury determined were not religious.

The advisory jury was not

asked to determine whether Spirit of Aloha Temple or Honig were

6

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 7 of 9 PageID.15803

prevented from exercising religious rights.

It only determined

that Plaintiffs had failed to proved that “Spirit of Aloha Temple
is a religious assembly or institution.”

ECF No. 392, PageID

# 7139.
Moreover, as this court noted in its order, the RLUIPA
substantial burden claim examines whether any person, including
an assembly or institution, was substantially burdened in its
exercise of religion, not whether a “religious assembly or
institution” was subjected to such a burden.

Thus, the plain

language of a RLUIPA substantial burden claim does not require
Spirit of Aloha Temple to have been a church.

The advisory

jury’s determination that Spirit of Aloha Temple was not a
“religious assembly or institution” does not necessarily mean
that Spirit of Aloha Temple could not have been exercising
religious rights.
religion.

One need not be a “church” to exercise

For example, even a for-profit business might

sometimes exercise religious rights.

See Burwell v. Hobby Lobby

Stores, Inc., 573 U.S. 682, 719 (2014) (recognizing that a forprofit closely held corporation may assert claims under the
Religious Freedom Restoration Act of 1993).
Because the County fails to establish that Frederick
Honig or Spirit of Aloha Temple were not subjected to a
substantial burden on their exercise of religion, its motion for

7

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 8 of 9 PageID.15804

reconsideration with respect to the RLUIPA claim in Count I is
unpersuasive.
B.

Count VI (Free Exercise of Religion Claim) and
Count VIII (Free Exercise of Religion Claim Under
the Hawaii Constitution).

Counts VI and VIII assert that the County of Maui
deprived and is depriving Plaintiffs of their First Amendment
right to freely exercise their religion, actionable under 42
U.S.C. § 1983 and the Hawaii constitution.
The County argues that, because the advisory jury
determined that Plaintiffs had failed to prove by a preponderance
of the evidence that Spirit of Aloha Temple was a “religious
assembly or institution,” the County could not have prohibited
Plaintiffs’ free exercise of religion.

The reasons set forth

above with respect to Count I apply also to Counts VI and VIII.
The County’s reconsideration motion is denied with respect to
Counts VI and VIII.
IV.

CONCLUSION.
The court denies the County’s motion for

reconsideration.

8

Case 1:14-cv-00535-SOM-WRP Document 596 Filed 09/06/23 Page 9 of 9 PageID.15805

IT IS SO ORDERED.
DATED: Honolulu, Hawaii, September 6, 2023.

/s/ Susan Oki Mollway
Susan Oki Mollway
United States District Judge

Spirit of Aloha Temple, et al. v. County of Maui, Civ. No. 14-00535 SOM/RLP;
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT COUNTY OF MAUI'S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF THIS
COURT'S GRANT OF PARTIAL SUMMARY JUDGMENT IN FAVOR OF PLAINTIFFS ON THE ISSUE
OF WHETHER THE COUNTY OF MAUI'S DENIAL OF THE SPECIAL USE PERMIT SATISFIED
STRICT SCRUTINY WITH RESPECT TO COUNTS I, VI, AND VIII

9