Christian Assembly Rios de Agua Viva v. City of Burbank, Illinois

Filing 113

OPINION AND ORDER. Signed by the Honorable Sara L. Ellis on 2/21/2017:Mailed notice(rj, )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS
EASTERN DIVISION
CHRISTIAN ASSEMBLY RIOS DE AGUA
VIVA,
Plaintiff,
v.
CITY OF BURBANK, ILLINOIS,
Defendant.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

No. 13 C 622
Judge Sara L. Ellis

OPINION AND ORDER
Looking for a new home for its growing congregation, Plaintiff Christian Assembly Rios
de Agua Viva (the “Church”) entered into a contract to purchase property in the City of Burbank,
Illinois (the “City”). In order to use that property for religious purposes, the Church had to
obtain a special use permit (“SUP”). After the City denied the SUP, the Church terminated the
contract and filed this lawsuit, seeking to recover damages from the City for alleged violations of
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc, the
First and Fourteenth Amendments, the Illinois Constitution, and Illinois state laws.1 The parties
have now filed cross-motions for summary judgment. The City seeks summary judgment on the
Church’s RLUIPA substantial burden and equal terms claims, the remaining equal protection
claim, and the free exercise claim, while the Church asks the Court to find that it is entitled to
judgment as a matter of law on the equal terms claim and set that claim for trial on damages.
Because the Church had no reasonable expectation of using the property for religious purposes,
any delay, uncertainty, and expense the Church experienced or incurred while the City
1

Prior to this case’s removal to federal court, the state court dismissed the Church’s state law claims. The
Church included the state law claims in the Fourth Amended Complaint solely for purposes of preserving
the claims for a potential appeal. See Doc. 92 at 26–38. The Court dismissed the Church’s due process
and class of one equal protection claims in its ruling on the City’s motion to dismiss. Doc. 38.

considered the SUP application and amended its zoning ordinance did not constitute a substantial
burden. Thus, the Court grants the City summary judgment on the substantial burden and free
exercise claims. But because the City has not produced evidence justifying the treatment of
churches on less than equal terms than seemingly similar secular institutions under the ordinance
requiring the Church to obtain an SUP, the Court finds that that ordinance violated RLUIPA’s
equal terms provision. And because the Court concludes that the Church may recover damages
for this violation even though the City denied the SUP application under the amended ordinance,
which does not have an equal terms problem, a jury must determine the Church’s damages.
Finally, as neither party meaningfully addresses the equal protection claim so as to allow a merits
decision at this stage, that claim also will proceed to a jury trial.
BACKGROUND2
The Church, with a largely Hispanic membership of approximately 250 individuals who
attend weekly services, meets at 6132 S. Kedzie in Chicago, Illinois. But because that facility
does not meet all its needs and many of the Church’s members had moved to the suburbs, the
Church began searching for a new location in the suburbs. Its search extended to southwest
suburban Burbank, where the Church’s pastor, Luis Ruiz, and at least twelve other member
families lived.
In August 2010, after an approximately three and a half year search, the Church entered
into a contract to purchase property at 8100 South Parkside Avenue in Burbank. The
approximately four acre property includes four structures totaling approximately 27,000 square
feet. The Church planned to renovate the property to accommodate a 428 seat sanctuary,
allowing it to grow slowly and without the limits of the space of its current location. Ruiz
thought moving to Burbank would grow the church and make it easier for those members living
2

The facts in this section are derived from the parties’ joint statement of undisputed facts, Doc. 106.

2

in the suburbs to attend services. The property also provided the Church with the opportunity to
offer additional classes on Sundays. Ruiz further envisioned developing a more effective youth
outreach program at the property.
A restaurant—the Old Barn—previously occupied the property, but the property stood
vacant since October 2008, when the owners of the property filed for bankruptcy. As of October
2010, the property had an appraised as-is market value of $1,445,000 and an as-complete market
value of $2,260,000. The Church, however, agreed to a purchase price of $900,000 with the
bankruptcy estate. The bankruptcy court approved the contract on September 22, 2010, and the
Church paid $50,000 in an escrow money deposit. The contract included a zoning contingency,
which provided that if the Church did not obtain the requested zoning approvals on or before
January 28, 2011, it could terminate the contract and receive back its earnest money.
The property, located in the “C” commercial district, is the second largest commerciallyzoned property in the City. Before December 15, 2010, Burbank’s zoning code (the “Prior
Ordinance”) listed 114 permitted uses in the “C” commercial district. This included various nonreligious assembly uses, including dance studios, schools, and halls; physical fitness facilities;
business associations; labor associations; civic, social, and fraternal associations; political
organizations; and undertaking and funeral parlors. Under the Prior Ordinance, churches could
locate as of right in two of the City’s four residential districts. But to locate in the “C”
commercial district, churches had to obtain a SUP.3 The Prior Ordinance also listed forty-nine
specific uses that required a SUP to be allowed in any district, residential or commercial.
The City has a standard procedure to process zoning applications, including SUPs. After
SUP applications are filed, the Building Commissioner (who, at all relevant times, was Frank
3

Approximately thirteen churches exist in Burbank. The property is surrounded by two: Burbank Manor
Presbyterian Church (which may also rent out its building to La Iglesia Divino Redentor for services) and
St. Albert the Great Catholic Church.

3

Kainrath) reviews them. The Building Commissioner then refers the matter to the City’s Zoning,
Planning, and Development Commission (the “Zoning Commission”), a three-member advisory
body that conducts a public hearing and makes a recommendation on the SUP application to the
City Council. The Zoning Commission typically meets the first Tuesday evening of every
month. A notice of the public hearing must be published in a local newspaper no less than
fifteen and no more than thirty days before the date of each hearing. Before the public hearing,
the Building Commissioner makes an administrative recommendation on the SUP application to
the Zoning Commission. The Zoning Commission then conducts a public hearing, after which it
takes an oral vote on the SUP application. The recommendation is not finalized until the next
monthly meeting, however, when the Zoning Commission approves the minutes of the prior
meeting. At that point, the Zoning Commission forwards its recommendation to the City
Council. The City Council first considers the Zoning Commission’s recommendation at a
regularly scheduled Committee of the Whole meeting and then votes on it at a City Council
meeting. Although the City Council typically meets three times per month, in December it only
holds one formal City Council meeting and one Committee of the Whole meeting, where it
discusses pending items but takes no votes. Kainrath testified that the SUP decisionmaking
process typically takes three to four months.
On October 8, 2010, the Church applied for a SUP, tendering the $1,200 filing fee and
indicating in a cover letter to Kainrath that it tendered the application at that time so that it “can
be on the originally scheduled November calendar for Committee and Council hearings and for
decision before the City in December.” Doc. 107-2 at 2. The Church further indicated that
“[t]iming is of the essence with regard to this particular transaction in that it is in the Bankruptcy
Court and delay could cause the Church to lose its contract on the property given the Court’s

4

demanding timetable.” Id. Kainrath reviewed the application and submitted a report to the
Zoning Commission, indicating that he did not recommend approval of the SUP as the property
was “the last large “C” district left in Burbank for development” and felt “it is not in the best
interest of the community due to the loss of the historic use and tax monies.” Doc. 107-1 at 2.
Although the Zoning Commission typically meets on the first Tuesday of every month, it
did not meet on November 2, 2010, the first Tuesday of November, which happened to be
election day. Michael Looney, chairman of the Zoning Commission, testified that as the
Stickney Township Democratic Committeeman, he was performing election-related work from
about 5:00 a.m. until 10:00 p.m. that day. Similarly, the remaining members, Robert Schmidt
and Robert Contreras, also engaged in political activities that day. Knowing of these election
activities at least a month beforehand, the Zoning Commission never scheduled its November
meeting and did not publish the required notice of hearing. The decision not to hold the meeting,
however, was made on October 8, the same day the City received the Church’s SUP application.
But the decision not to hold a meeting on election day was not without precedent. The Zoning
Commission also had not held November meetings due to elections in 2002, 2004, 2008, and
2012, although it did call its regular meeting in 2006 during an election year.
On November 12, 2010, attorneys for the Church sent the Zoning Commission a letter
requesting the issuance of the SUP application in a timely manner. The letter explained that the
Prior Ordinance violated RLUIPA and the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth
Amendment because the Prior Ordinance permitted non-religious assemblies, but not religious
assemblies, as of right in the “C” commercial district. The Church indicated it might consider
legal action if the City denied the Church’s SUP application.

5

At the same time the City was purportedly considering the Church’s SUP application, it
also set about to amend the Prior Ordinance to require uses in “C” commercial districts to be tax
generating. When Burbank’s mayor, Harry Klein, learned of the Church’s SUP application, he
spoke to Ruiz and told Ruiz that he wanted to maintain the property as a tax-producing property.
Klein determined the City should preserve the property for future commercial use, referring the
matter to the City’s attorneys to determine if anything in the Prior Ordinance would “seriously
hurt any commercial real estate” in the City. Doc. 106 ¶ 30. This led the City attorneys to draft
a zoning amendment.
On November 18, 2010, the City published a Legal Notice of Public Hearing in the
Burbank-Stickney Independent newspaper, announcing a December 15, 2010 hearing to consider
this proposed amendment to the Prior Ordinance. The Legal Notice read in part:
Permitted and special uses in “C” Commercial Districts are
proposed to be limited to commercial retail stores, service
establishments, and professional offices that generate tax revenues,
maintain the City’s tax base, and allow for convenient locations for
the public to shop, obtain services and conduct business. All tax
exempt uses, residential uses and uses otherwise permitted or
allowed as special use in a residential zoning classification are
proposed to be prohibited.
Doc 107-6 at 2.
The Church learned of the proposed amendment on November 29, 2010. In response, the
Church filed suit against the City in federal court on December 3 but then voluntarily dismissed
the case on December 13. Despite knowing of the proposed amendment, the Church proceeded
with its SUP application. The Zoning Commission held its initial hearing on the application on
December 7, unanimously recommending denial of the SUP because of the loss of taxable real
estate. A hearing on the SUP application was scheduled before a committee of the City Council
on January 19, 2011 and before the full City Council on January 26, 2011. On December 13,
6

2010, the Church filed another complaint, but this time in the Circuit Court of Cook County,
seeking an injunction ordering the City to allow the Church to use the property as a church. On
December 14, the day before the hearing on the proposed change to the Prior Ordinance, the state
trial court denied the Church’s motion for preliminary injunction.
On December 15, 2010, the City Council held a public hearing on the proposed
amendment. The City Council appointed itself as the Zoning Commission to conduct a hearing
on the amendment. Klein indicated this was for the Church’s benefit, “in the interest of time due
to respect to [the Church’s members]” so that they would “know where [they] stand.” Doc. 106
¶ 35. After adjourning the Zoning Commission hearing, the City Council reconvened and passed
the amendment. The amendment (the “Amended Ordinance”) allows churches, temples, and
places of worship in “R” single family residence districts, “R-1” single family residence districts,
“R-2” limited multi-family residence districts, and “R-3” multi-family residence districts. All
tax exempt uses, residential uses, and uses otherwise permitted or allowed as special uses in
residential zoning classifications are expressly prohibited in “C” commercial districts, however.
This means that, under the Amended Ordinance, unless they are grandfathered, no churches may
locate in “C” commercial districts.
Despite the passage of the Amended Ordinance and the Zoning Commission’s
recommendation against approval of the SUP application, the Church pressed forward. The
Church appealed the denial of its TRO and preliminary injunction to the Illinois Appellate Court
on December 29, 2010. Counsel for the Church also contacted the City attorney to inquire
whether the January 19, 2011 hearing on the Church’s SUP application would go forward with
the Church being able to present witnesses. The City attorney responded that the City Council
Committee of the Whole would hold its regular meeting that day and that the Church and the

7

public would be allowed to speak. The City attorney further indicated that the Church could
proceed with its petition or withdraw it. On January 19, 2011, at its Committee of the Whole
meeting, the City Council received the Zoning Commission’s recommendation on the Church’s
SUP application and indicated that the City Council would take up the matter the following
week. At that January 26, 2011 meeting, the City Council unanimously denied the SUP
application based on the fact that the Amended Ordinance did not allow the applied for use as a
special use in the “C” commercial district.
The contract for the property allowed the Church to terminate the contract if it did not
obtain zoning approval within 120 days or as extended at the Church’s option for two additional
thirty-day periods. On January 31, 2011, the parties amended the contract to reduce the sales
price to $850,000, waive the zoning approval requirement, and schedule the closing within
twenty-one days from the date of the amendment. But the closing never occurred. On February
22, 2011, the Illinois Appellate Court heard oral argument on the Church’s appeal of the state
trial court’s preliminary injunction denial and issued a bench ruling advising that it would affirm
the denial.4 Additionally, back taxes and liens on the property had accumulated to the point that,
by February 2011, the Trustee for the bankruptcy estate could not deliver clear title to the
property to the Church at the reduced purchase price.5
The Church used the Trustee’s inability to deliver clear title as the reason to terminate the
contract for the property on March 22, 2011. The Church later admitted that it also determined
not to move forward because it had become clear it was unlikely to obtain the right to use the

4

A written ruling issued on March 31, 2011.

5

As of September 2010, the back taxes, interest, and penalties for the property were approximately
$872,000. At the end of January 2011, the back taxes, interest, and penalties had increased to
approximately $905,207.87, and totaled over $928,000 by the end of February 2011. The South Stickney
Sanitary District and City liens totaled $11,749.38 as of December 15, 2010.

8

property for religious assembly. The Church received all but $200 of its earnest money back.
But it did not recover other expenses expended in pursuit of the property, including attorneys’
fees and $6,000 on a survey that was to be credited to the Church at closing. Because the
bankruptcy estate had no assets, the Church has no means to recover this amount.
On November 13, 2015, the Church acquired an existing church building at 9000 S.
Ridgeland in Oak Lawn for $1,200,000.
LEGAL STANDARD
Summary judgment obviates the need for a trial where there is no genuine issue as to any
material fact and the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56.
To determine whether a genuine issue of fact exists, the Court must pierce the pleadings and
assess the proof as presented in depositions, answers to interrogatories, admissions, and
affidavits that are part of the record. Fed. R. Civ. P. 56 & advisory committee’s notes. The party
seeking summary judgment bears the initial burden of proving that no genuine issue of material
fact exists. Celotex Corp. v. Catrett, 477 U.S. 317, 323, 106 S. Ct. 2548, 91 L. Ed. 2d 265
(1986). In response, the non-moving party cannot rest on mere pleadings alone but must use the
evidentiary tools listed above to identify specific material facts that demonstrate a genuine issue
for trial. Id. at 324; Insolia v. Philip Morris Inc., 216 F.3d 596, 598 (7th Cir. 2000). Although a
bare contention that an issue of fact exists is insufficient to create a factual dispute, Bellaver v.
Quanex Corp., 200 F.3d 485, 492 (7th Cir. 2000), the Court must construe all facts in a light
most favorable to the non-moving party and draw all reasonable inferences in that party’s favor.
Anderson v. Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 255, 106 S. Ct. 2505, 91 L. Ed. 2d 202 (1986).

9

ANALYSIS
I.

RLUIPA Substantial Burden Claim (Count I)
In ruling on the City’s motion to dismiss, the Court narrowed the scope of the Church’s

RLUIPA substantial burden claim, finding that the Church could proceed based only on the
theory that “the delay, uncertainty, and expense that accompanied its SUP application, which
allowed the City time to amend the Prior Ordinance so as to prohibit the Church from using the
property as it wished” constituted a substantial burden.6 Doc. 38 at 10 (citing Sts. Constantine &
Helen Greek Orthodox Church, Inc. v. City of New Berlin, 396 F.3d 895, 900–01 (7th Cir.
2005)). The City argues that the Church cannot demonstrate a genuine issue of fact exists on this
claim, while the Church contends that the issue is a factual one that a jury should decide.7
The Church has the initial burden of establishing that the delay, uncertainty, and expense
it incurred in pursuing its SUP application, ultimately having the application denied because the
City amended the Prior Ordinance to prohibit the Church from using the property for religious
purposes, implicated and substantially burdened its religious exercise. See Affordable Recovery
Housing v. City of Blue Island, No. 12-cv-4241, 2016 WL 5171765, at *6 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 21,
6

After the Court issued its Opinion and Order on the City’s motion to dismiss, the Supreme Court
clarified that to find a substantial burden, the Court need only consider whether the requirement in
question “seriously violates” the Church’s religious exercise. Schlemm v. Wall, 784 F.3d 362, 364 (7th
Cir. 2015) (citing Holt v. Hobbs, --- U.S. ----, 135 S. Ct. 853, 862, 190 L. Ed. 2d 747 (2015), and Burwell
v. Hobby Lobby, --- U.S. ----, 134 S. Ct. 2751, 2775, 189 L. Ed. 2d 675 (2014)). The Church does not
argue that the Court should broaden the scope of the substantial burden claim based on this revised
standard, however.

7

The Church does not substantively respond to the City’s arguments concerning why the established facts
do not amount to a substantial burden, failing to address the caselaw cited by the City or provide its own
caselaw in support of its claim that any delay, uncertainty, or expense it faced imposed a substantial
burden on its religious exercise. The Church’s argument on its substantial burden claim in its cross-reply
brief could be read as an attempt to broaden the claim from one solely for uncertainty, delay, and expense,
but doing so in its cross-reply—intended to address arguments related to the Church’s partial motion for
summary judgment on the equal terms claim and not to raise additional arguments opposing the City’s
motion for summary judgment on the substantial burden claim—is inappropriate. See Dexia Credit Local
v. Rogan, 629 F.3d 612, 625 (7th Cir. 2010) (“[A]rguments raised for the first time in a reply brief are
waived.”).

10

2016). Once the Church has done so, the burden shifts to the City to “demonstrate that the
burden is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means
of furthering that interest.” Id. Determining whether a land use regulation imposes a substantial
burden is ordinarily a question of fact, with the substantiality of the burden depending “on its
magnitude in relation to the needs and resources of the religious organization in question.”
World Outreach Conference Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 591 F.3d 531, 539 (7th Cir. 2009).
The City contends that the Church cannot show that it experienced any substantial burden
where the Church had no reasonable expectation of receiving a SUP and any delay, uncertainty,
and expense amount to ordinary inconveniences inherent in the zoning process. As the Court
previously noted, the Illinois Appellate Court found in litigation over the same property that the
Church had no reasonable expectation of obtaining a SUP. Doc. 38 at 9 (quoting Christian
Assembly Rios de Agua Viva v. City of Burbank, Ill., 948 N.E.2d 251, 256, 408 Ill. App. 3d 764,
350 Ill. Dec. 182 (2011) (“Although there was a possibility that the city could grant [the
Church’s] request to conduct church services on the property, since such use was not a
permissible use under the zoning ordinance, [the Church] did not have a reason to believe that
the city probably would permit such use.”)). This means that the Church assumed the risk that
the City would amend its ordinance to ban the Church’s desired use of the property, which is
exactly what happened. See Petra Presbyterian Church v. Vill. of Northbrook, 489 F.3d 846,
849 (7th Cir. 2007) (in buying property, church assumed the risk that the village would amend its
ordinance to ban its desired use of the property).
Nonetheless, despite assuming the risk that the City would not approve its SUP
application or that the City would amend the Prior Ordinance so as to completely foreclose the
use of the property for religious purposes, the Church proceeded with its SUP application,

11

expending time and money and facing uncertainty in the process over a three to four month
period. But the expenditure of time or money alone does not constitute a substantial burden. See
Eagle Cove Camp & Conference Ctr., Inc. v. Town of Woodboro, Wis., 734 F.3d 673, 681 (7th
Cir. 2013) (“[T]he fact that Eagle Cove has spent considerable time and money on various
applications for rezoning does not constitute, prima facie, a substantial burden.”). Instead, as the
Court noted in its Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss, the delay, uncertainty, and
expense must be accompanied by some additional arbitrary action or bad faith by the City. See
Doc. 38 at 10. For example, in New Berlin, the Seventh Circuit found a substantial burden where
the city acted in bad faith in the face of the church’s willingness to meet the city’s demands.
New Berlin, 396 F.3d at 900–01 (substantial burden existed where church was forced to either
sell the land and find a suitable alternative property or “be subjected to unreasonable delay by
having to restart the permit process to satisfy the Planning Commission about a contingency for
which the Church has already provided complete satisfaction”); see also Eagle Cove, 734 F.3d at
681 (substantial burden claim in New Berlin for “delay, uncertainty, and expense” was based on
“indicia of bad faith by the City that led the Court to find no compelling governmental interest
that the City could put forth to justify its substantial burden on the Church”); Irshad Learning
Ctr. v. City of Chicago, 804 F. Supp. 2d 697, 714–15 (N.D. Ill. 2011) (“[I]t is significant that in
[New Berlin], as in this [case], the religious institution has alleged a willingness to meet the
demands of both the professional planning staff and elected officials, but has seen its request
rebuffed nonetheless.”). But the Court finds New Berlin distinguishable; in New Berlin, the
“religious organization . . . had a reasonable expectation that it would be granted the permit it
sought and was arbitrarily denied those permits,” while here, the Church had no reasonable
expectation of using the property for religious purposes and assumed the risk of the SUP’s denial

12

and any zoning changes preventing use of the property as a church.8 See Calvary Temple
Assembly of God v. City of Marinette, Wis., No. 06-C-1148, 2008 WL 2837774, at *8 (E.D. Wis.
July 21, 2008) (finding no claim for delay, uncertainty, and expense because, when the church
bought the property, the church assumed the risk of having to sell the property and find an
alternative site); Andon, LLC v. City of Newport News, Va., 813 F.3d 510, 515 (4th Cir. 2016)
(city’s denial of variance did not “cause [plaintiffs] to suffer delay and uncertainty in locating a
place of worship” because plaintiffs “never had a reasonable expectation that the property could
be used as a church,” meaning that any “burdens they sustained . . . were self-imposed
hardships,” which do “not support a substantial burden 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”).
The Church does not explain how the City’s actions, combined with delay, uncertainty,
and expense, imposed a substantial burden on the Church so as to rebut the cases cited by the
City. Instead, the Church merely recites a timeline of the events surrounding its SUP
application, the City’s adoption of the Amended Ordinance, and the services the Church could
not develop because it did not purchase the Burbank property. This litany of facts, however,
without any further explanation as to how the facts fit into the legal framework for a substantial
burden claim based on undue delay, uncertainty, and expense, does nothing to rebut the City’s
arguments. Nor will the Court make the Church’s arguments for it, as the Church is represented
by counsel and has had several opportunities at this point to develop a coherent substantive legal

8

In World Outreach, the Court found a substantial burden where the plaintiff was given the runaround in
its attempt to operate as a community center in a particular district. 591 F.3d at 536–37. But in World
Outreach, the plaintiff had originally been told it needed a SUP to operate as a community center when it
needed no such permit because it was entitled to continue the use of the center as a lawful nonconforming
use. Id. at 537. Thus, as in New Berlin and unlike in the case here, the plaintiff could be said to have had
a reasonable expectation of operating as a community center on which the city infringed.

13

argument on the issue. See Nelson v. Napolitano, 657 F.3d 586, 590 (7th Cir. 2011) (the court is
not “obliged to research and construct legal arguments for parties, especially when they are
represented by counsel”); United States v. Elst, 579 F.3d 740, 747 (7th Cir. 2009) (“Perfunctory
and undeveloped arguments as well as arguments unsupported by pertinent authority are
waived.”).
But even taking into account the Church’s listed facts, the Court cannot find a material
issue of fact on the substantial burden issue. Aside from the fact that the Church did not have a
reasonable expectation that it could use the property as a matter of law, further evidenced in the
contract’s contingency provision, the delays, expenses, and uncertainties that the Church faced
amount to ordinary inconveniences involved in the zoning process. See Vision Church, United
Methodist v. Vill. of Long Grove, 397 F. Supp. 2d 917, 930 (N.D. Ill. 2005) (“That Vision paid
substantial fees and expenses, or was subjected to the same ordinance as other developers who
wish to build in the Village, does not create a substantial burden for Vision.”). Although the
Church appears to make much of the fact that the Zoning Commission did not meet in
November, it cannot point to nefarious reasons for the lack of such a meeting. The scheduled
meeting date fell on election day, a day when the Zoning Commission’s members had political
commitments. No meeting notice had been published and then withdrawn upon receipt of the
Church’s SUP application, and such meetings had not occurred on election day in years past.
Regardless, the month delay cannot be considered material; Kainrath testified the City typically
took three to four months to provide decisions on SUP applications, Mayor Klein advised Ruiz
soon after the Church filed its SUP application that it conflicted with the City’s desire to
maintain the property’s commercial character, the City acted quickly in adopting the Amended
Ordinance, and all told the Church knew in January—a little over three months after filing its

14

SUP application—that it could not use the property for religious purposes. Such a short period
of time does not rise to the level of a substantial burden.9 See Family Life Church v. City of
Elgin, 561 F. Supp. 2d 978, 987–88 (N.D. Ill. 2008) (eight-month application process does not
rise to level of substantial burden).
Because the Church had no reasonable expectation of using the property for religious
purposes, any delay, uncertainty, and expense the Church experienced or incurred while the City
considered the SUP application and adopted the Amended Ordinance did not constitute a
substantial burden. The Court grants summary judgment for the City.
II.

First Amendment Free Exercise Claim (Count V)
The Court previously analyzed the Church’s RLUIPA substantial burden and First

Amendment free exercise claims together. See Doc. 38 at 8 In Holt, the Supreme Court
specifically noted that the district court in that case had “improperly imported a strand of
reasoning from cases involving prisoners’ First Amendment rights,” 135 S. Ct. at 862, indicating
that courts should not analyze RLUIPA substantial burden and First Amendment claims together,
see Walker v. Scott, No. 13-3153, 2015 WL 5450497, at *4 (C.D. Ill. Sept. 15, 2015) (analyzing
free exercise claim separately from RLUIPA substantial burden claim, using substantial burden
standard from pre-Holt cases). In moving for summary judgment on the free exercise claim,
however, the City argues only that because summary judgment is proper on the RLUIPA
substantial burden claim, it also follows that summary judgment should be granted on the free
exercise claim. The Church does not substantively disagree, referring the Court to its discussion
of the RLUIPA substantial burden claim. Based on these concessions, and because the Court has

9

Additionally, Ruiz testified that the delay only amounted to about a month, meaning that without such a
delay and assuming the SUP application was approved, a closing would have occurred in February 2011.
But even at that point, the tax liability for the property exceeded the original or amended purchase price
for the property, keeping the Trustee from being able to provide the Church with clear title.

15

found the Church cannot prevail on its RLUIPA substantial burden claim, the Court similarly
grants the City summary judgment on the free exercise claim. See Affordable Recovery Housing,
2016 WL 5171765, at *11 (deciding not to “revisit Plaintiff’s RLUIPA-eligible claims in
assessing Plaintiff’s First Amendment claims”).
III.

RLUIPA Equal Terms Claim (Count II)
Both the City and the Church seek summary judgment on the Church’s RLUIPA equal

terms claim. The Church argues that the Court should grant it summary judgment as to the
substantive violation, leaving the issue of damages for trial. The City, on the other hand,
contends that the Church’s equal terms claim fails because the Church cannot recover damages
for an equal terms violation where its SUP application was denied under the Amended
Ordinance, not the Prior Ordinance. Alternatively, the City contends that the Church has not
carried its burden in establishing an equal terms violation. The Court first addresses the issue of
a substantive violation and then takes up the question of whether the Church can recover
damages for the Prior Ordinance’s violation of the equal terms provision.
A.

Substantive Violation of the Equal Terms Provision

RLUIPA’s equal terms provision provides that “[n]o government shall impose or
implement a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less
than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution.” 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1). The
provision “is violated whenever religious land uses are treated worse than comparable
nonreligious ones, whether or not the discrimination imposes a substantial burden on religious
uses.” Digrugilliers v. Consolidated City of Indianapolis, 506 F.3d 612, 616 (7th Cir. 2007).
The Court considers how the land use regulations at issue affect similarly situated institutions
with respect to accepted zoning criteria, such as sufficiency of parking space, traffic control, or

16

generation of significant taxable revenue. See River of Life Kingdom Ministries v. Vill. of Hazel
Crest, Ill., 611 F.3d 367, 371, 373 (7th Cir. 2010).
Here, the Church brings a facial challenge to the Prior Ordinance, claiming that at the
time it entered into the contract to purchase the property and applied for the SUP, the Prior
Ordinance violated RLUIPA’s equal terms provision.10 The Church argues that because the
Prior Ordinance allowed certain non-commercial, tax exempt uses as of right in the “C”
commercial districts but required churches to obtain SUPs to locate there, it has made a prima
facie case that the Prior Ordinance treated religious assemblies unequally. Based on this
showing, the Church claims that the burden shifts to the City to demonstrate that “the less-thanequal-terms are on account of a legitimate regulatory purpose, not the fact that the institution is
religious in nature.” Centro Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163,
1172–73 (9th Cir. 2011) (“The burden is not on the church to show a similarly situated secular
assembly, but on the city to show that the treatment received by the church should not be deemed
unequal, where it appears to be unequal on the face of the ordinance.”); see also 42 U.S.C.
§ 2000cc-2(b) (“If a plaintiff produces prima facie evidence to support a claim alleging . . . a
violation of section 2000cc of this title, the government shall bear the burden of persuasion on
any element of the claim[.]”).11
10

The contours of the Church’s equal terms claim are not clear from the Fourth Amended Complaint, see
Doc. 92 ¶¶ 53–57, despite the fact that the Church filed this latest version of its complaint after the Court
ruled on the motion to dismiss, which addressed the confusion concerning the parameters of the Church’s
claims, see Doc. 38 at 5–7. But in its memorandum in support of its request for partial summary
judgment on the equal terms claim, the Church clarifies that it pursues a facial challenge to the Prior
Ordinance. See Doc. 105 at 8–9.

11

The court’s decision in Truth Foundation Ministries, NFP v. Village of Romeoville, that the church had
not provided evidence to support its facial challenge linking the uses for a church and other institutions
(in that case, a museum and art gallery) by reference to accepted zoning criteria, thus failing to show a
likelihood of success on the merits, is distinguishable. --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2016 WL 757982, at *14–15
(N.D. Ill. Feb. 26, 2016). In Truth Foundation Ministries, the court considered whether to issue a
preliminary injunction, where the plaintiff bears the burden of proving their likelihood of success on the

17

The Prior Ordinance allowed dance studios, schools, halls, business associations, labor
associations, civic, social, and fraternal associations, political associations, and funeral parlors as
permitted uses in the “C” commercial district. Churches, however, required a SUP to locate in
the “C” commercial district. On its face, the Prior Ordinance appears to treat similar assemblies
on less than equal terms, then, because the secular institutions do not necessarily generate
significant tax revenue and are non-commercial in nature. See River of Life, 611 F.3d at 373–74
(noting that “should a municipality create what purports to be a pure commercial district and
then allow other uses, a church would have an easy victory if the municipality kept it out,” while
approving of an ordinance that created a commercial district that excluded churches, community
centers, meeting halls, and libraries because “these secular assemblies, like churches, do not
generate significant taxable revenue or offer shopping opportunities”); Digrugilliers, 506 F.3d at
614–15 (noting issues with code that permitted assembly halls, funeral homes, civic clubs, and
junior colleges and other schools as of right in commercial district but required churches to apply
for a variance to locate there). Indeed, in amending the Prior Ordinance to restrict the “C”
commercial district to only tax generating uses, all these non-secular assembly uses pointed out
by the Church are no longer allowed, except for “commercial dance studios, schools, and halls,”
Doc. 107-7 at 32, suggesting that the Prior Ordinance had an equal terms problem the Amended
Ordinance sought to correct by appealing to acceptable zoning criteria—tax generation.12 The
burden thus shifts to the City to demonstrate that the apparently unequal treatment is based on
legitimate zoning criteria, such as traffic flow, parking concerns, or tax revenue generation.

claim, regardless of who carries the ultimate burden on the merits. Goodman v. Ill. Dep’t of Fin. & Prof’l
Regulation, 430 F.3d 432, 437 (7th Cir. 2005). Here, however, the burden reverts back to the City, which
carries the ultimate burden on the merits.
12

Indeed, the Church pointed out the equal terms problem to the City in a letter just days before the City
issued its public notice concerning the Amended Ordinance.

18

Although the City argues that special uses are presumptively permissible provided they
meet certain criteria and thus no equal terms violation exists, the need for a SUP alone
differentiates treatment of a church from a non-religious assembly allowed in the “C”
commercial district as of right. See Digrugilliers, 506 F.3d at 615 (considering whether
requiring a church to obtain a variance to lease space for religious services in a commercial
district treated a religious assembly on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly). The
City also does not provide any evidence to substantiate treating churches differently than nonreligious assemblies allowed as of right in the “C” commercial district under the Prior
Ordinance. Although it argues, without evidence, with respect to the equal protection claim that
churches “are unique uses – particularly with regard to the core land use considerations of traffic
and parking – because of the peaks-and-valley nature of a church operation,” Doc. 97 at 15, such
unsupported generalization cannot defeat a motion for summary judgment or create a material
issue of fact on the issue.13 See Thornton v. M7 Aerospace LP, 796 F.3d 757, 768 (7th Cir.
2015) (“[S]urviving summary judgment requires evidence, not assumptions.”). Similarly, its
speculation that dance studios do not present significant traffic concerns, relying solely on
counsel’s say-so without citation to evidence, cannot be credited at this stage. Cf. Truth
Foundation Ministries, 2016 WL 757982, at *15 (noting that city provided some evidence of the
criteria supporting different treatment of churches and museum and art galleries even at
preliminary injunction stage, suggesting potentially valid reasons for why museums and art
galleries might be allowed in the challenged district but religious assemblies not). As the City
13

The City does cite to an Illinois Supreme Court case that found that “[a] church may be an appropriate
special use because, depending upon its size and location, it may create traffic or parking problems within
the neighborhood in which it is located.” City of Chicago Heights v. Living Word Outreach Full Gospel
Church & Ministries, Inc., 749 N.E.2d 916, 926, 196 Ill. 2d 1, 255 Ill. Dec. 434 (2001). But this does not
provide evidence of the City’s reasons for requiring churches to obtain SUPs but allowing dance studios,
schools, halls, business, labor, civic, social, fraternal, and political associations, and funeral parlors to
locate in the “C” commercial district as of right.

19

itself quoted in response to the Church’s presentation on the substantial burden claim,
“[s]ummary judgment ‘is the put up or shut up moment in a lawsuit, when a party must show
what evidence it has that would convince a trier of fact to accept its version of events.’” Johnson
v. Cambridge Indus., Inc., 325 F.3d 892, 901 (7th Cir. 2003) (quoting Schacht v. Wis. Dep’t of
Corr., 175 F.3d 497, 504 (7th Cir. 1999)). Because the City has not carried its burden, the Court
finds that the Prior Ordinance violated the equal terms provision on its face.
B.

Entitlement to Damages

The question then becomes whether the Church can recover for the equal terms violation.
In its Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss, the Court noted that neither side identified
authority as to whether an equal terms claim could proceed challenging a repealed ordinance.
See Doc. 38 at 12. The City argues that because it denied the Church’s SUP application based on
the Amended Ordinance, not the Prior Ordinance, the Church never suffered any damages under
the offending ordinance. Specifically, the City maintains that the Church must have received a
final decision on its SUP application under the Prior Ordinance for it to be entitled to damages,
regardless of whether the Court treats the challenge as facial or as applied. The City relies on
CMR D.N. Corp. v. City of Philadelphia, a Third Circuit case in which the city rescinded its
application of a height restriction to plaintiff’s property. 703 F.3d 612, 621 (3d Cir. 2013).
Based on this change in the ordinance, the Third Circuit found that the plaintiff could not pursue
damages for a facial challenge to the height restriction because facial challenges aim not to
award a plaintiff damages but rather to serve “the broad societal purpose of striking an
unconstitutional statute from the books.” Id. at 624 (quoting Weissman v. Fruchtman, 700 F.
Supp. 746, 753 (S.D.N.Y. 1988)); see also id.at 627 (“In keeping with our obligation to not
entertain speculative claims, and in the interest of highlighting the importance of the finality rule,

20

we hold that compensatory damages are not available to a plaintiff challenging a zoning
ordinance under the theory that the mere enactment of an ordinance harmed such plaintiff, unless
the plaintiff applies for and is denied a permit under the offending statute.”). But CMR limited
itself to rejecting damages “for a facial due process challenge to a zoning ordinance,” id. at 625,
noting that another case in the Third Circuit, Lighthouse Institute for Evangelism v. City of Long
Branch, 510 F.3d 253 (3d Cir. 2007), allowed damages in a facial challenge under the First
Amendment and RLUIPA. But the City here, as the CMR court noted may be the case, argues
that Lighthouse does not allow damages for facial challenges under RLUIPA where a plaintiff
never received an adverse decision under that ordinance. See Lighthouse, 510 F.3d at 259
(plaintiff had applied for and been denied a permit under the repealed ordinance); CMR, 703
F.3d at 625 n.8 (“The compensation permitted in [Lighthouse] was therefore connected to a
specific application of the ordinance to the plaintiff. It is thus not clear that Lighthouse actually
permitted a damages claim to go forward in connection with a facial challenge, as opposed to an
as-applied challenge.”). But Lighthouse never made such a denial requirement explicit.
Other cases allowing plaintiffs to pursue damages for a facial challenge to a repealed
ordinance under RLUIPA’s equal terms provision have also involved plaintiffs who have been
denied a permit or variance before the ordinance was amended or repealed. See, e.g., Covenant
Christian Ministries, Inc. v. City of Marietta, Ga., 654 F.3d 1231, 1237–38, 1245–46 (11th Cir.
2011) (affirming award of nominal damages to plaintiff whose rezoning application had been
denied before ordinance that facially violated equal terms provision was amended); Riverside
Church v. City of St. Michael, --- F. Supp. 3d ----, 2016 WL 4545310, at *9 (D. Minn. Aug. 31,
2016) (compensatory damages claim related to prior ordinance under RLUIPA not moot based

21

on fact that ordinance had been amended after city denied church’s planning application).14 But
as in Lighthouse, neither of these cases specifically premised the decision to allow the plaintiffs’
claims under the repealed ordinance to go forward on the fact that the plaintiff had received a
final decision from the city.15
The Seventh Circuit has not squarely addressed the issue presented here, although its
Petra decision provides the Court with some guidance. The Petra court first suggests that no
equal terms claim, regardless of the relief sought, is viable where a city amends an ordinance to
correct an equal terms violation. See Petra, 489 F.3d at 849 (church “knew or should have
known that [the city] could redo its ordinance to comply with the ‘less than equal terms’
provision of RLUIPA in one of two ways: by permitting religious organizations in the industrial
zone, or by forbidding all membership organizations in the zone”). If that were the case,
however, the court would have had no need to proceed to find a damages claim for an equal

14

In its Opinion and Order on the motion to dismiss, the Court also cited Family Life Church v. City of
Elgin as a case it had located suggesting that, at least at the motion to dismiss stage, a damages claim
under RLUIPA could proceed despite the fact that the city had acted to correct an alleged violation. See
Doc. 38 at 12 (citing Family Life Church, No. 07 CV 0217, 2007 WL 2790763, at *5 (N.D. Ill. Sept. 24,
2007)). At the summary judgment stage in Family Life Church, the plaintiff’s equal terms claim turned
out to be an as applied challenge, comparing the treatment of the religious organization’s permit
application to operate a homeless shelter to that of a non-religious organization’s application to do the
same. See Family Life Church, 561 F. Supp. 2d at 989.

15

The other cases the City cites in support of a finality rule under RLUIPA do not involve repealed
ordinances but rather situations where plaintiffs filed suit prior to pursuing variances or relief from the
municipality under existing ordinances, which is not the case here. See Guatay Christian Fellowship v.
County of San Diego, 670 F.3d 957, 979 (9th Cir. 2011) (finding plaintiff’s RLUIPA claims unripe where
plaintiff had not submitted a permit application); Murphy v. New Milford Zoning Comm’n, 402 F.3d 342,
352 (2d Cir. 2005) (requiring plaintiffs to proceed before zoning board of appeals before coming to
court). Even these cases recognize certain exceptions to the doctrine, such as where obtaining final
approval would be futile. See Guatay, 670 F.3d at 981 (futility exception to finality “refers to conditions
that make the process itself impossible or highly unlikely to yield governmental approval of the land use
that claimants seek—such as government obstinacy,” although applicant must still at least submit a
complete application before benefiting from futility exception). Here, to the extent any finality
requirement applies, the Church qualifies under the futility exception because it submitted a complete
SUP application but a final decision on that application under the Prior Ordinance was rendered
impossible by the City’s actions in amending that ordinance.

22

terms violation under a repealed ordinance time-barred. See id. at 849–50. As relevant to this
case, the court acknowledged that “[m]ere knowledge of the existence of an invalid law that
might be applied to one is not an injury” but then concluded that the church’s injury under the
prior ordinance arose when the Church entered into a contract to buy property for which it
needed special permission from the village to operate as a church. Id. The court continued that
“[i]f the ordinance was invalid and therefore religious organizations had the same rights in the
industrial zone as other membership organizations that, so far as appears, differ from religious
ones only in being secular, then were it not for the ordinance Petra would have purchased the
property without conditions and begun operating the warehouse as a church without facing an
injunction.” Id. at 850. Thus, according to the Seventh Circuit, the injury did not depend, as the
City contends, on a permit denial or an adverse action under the repealed ordinance but rather on
the immediate effect that the ordinance had on the church’s right to operate on the same terms as
other secular organizations. See id. Drawing from this analysis in Petra, the Court concludes
that the Church may recover damages for the equal terms violation here. As in Petra, had it not
been for the Prior Ordinance, which treated religious organizations on less than equal terms than
similar secular ones in the “C” commercial district, the Church would have purchased the
property without conditions and begun operating the property as a church, instead of being
forced to abandon the contract, lose the money it invested in purchasing the property, and restart
its search for a new home for its congregation.
The Seventh Circuit’s recent decision in Six Star Holdings, LLC v. City of Milwaukee
also supports the Court’s conclusion that the Church can pursue damages for the equal terms
violation under the Prior Ordinance. See 821 F.3d 795, 804 (7th Cir. 2016) (“Courts routinely
entertain suits for damages stemming from repealed laws.”). In Six Star Holdings, the plaintiff

23

chose not to apply for a license under the prior ordinances, preventing the city from deciding on
its application, but the court nevertheless found he was entitled to damages for lost profits
stemming from the unconstitutionality of those ordinances. Id. at 803. Although the court
treated the challenge as an as applied challenge, the court found little difference in construing the
plaintiff’s challenge to the ordinances as an applied or facial challenge because the ordinance
kept him from engaging in protected speech. Id. Here, the same reasoning applies—regardless
of whether the Church’s equal terms claim is considered a facial or as applied challenge, the
Church “already suffered an injury from the unconstitutional ordinance[ ]” because it could not
purchase the property under the terms of its original contract as a result of the Prior Ordinance.
Id. Damages would redress the harm the Church suffered as a result of not being allowed to
operate the property as a church without facing the SUP process. Thus, the Court finds that the
Church may pursue damages for its equal terms claim, which must be submitted to a jury.
IV.

Equal Protection Claim (Count IV)
Although the City purports to move for summary judgment on the Church’s equal

protection claim, it fails to properly support its arguments as to why the Court should grant
summary judgment on this claim. Initially, the City combines its analysis on the equal terms and
equal protection claims, while focusing its arguments on why the Church’s equal terms claim
fails. See Doc. 97 at 8–14. The City does then address the equal protection claim independently
but without providing citations to supporting facts or law. Id. at 15; see also Doc. 108 at 14–15.
The Church cannot escape blame either, as it similarly devotes only approximately half a page to
the equal protection claim without citing any facts or caselaw in support. See Doc. 105 at 14–15.
Neither side has properly addressed the claim at the summary judgment stage, and the Court
refuses to research the law and construct the parties’ arguments for them. See Carmichael v.

24

Vill. of Palatine, Ill., 605 F.3d 451, 460 (7th Cir. 2010) (burden of defeating summary judgment
did not shift to non-movant where movants did not cite the “basic facts and law which, in their
view, warranted summary judgment on this claim”); Dal Pozzo v. Basic Mach. Co., 463 F.3d
609, 613 (7th Cir. 2006) (“An advocate’s job is to make it easy for the court to rule in his client’s
favor[.]”). Therefore, the equal protection claim, as limited in the Court’s Opinion and Order on
the motion to dismiss, see Doc. 38 at 15, will proceed to trial.
CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the Court grants in part and denies in part the City’s motion
for summary judgment [94]. The Court grants the Church’s motion for partial summary
judgment [104]. The Court grants summary judgment for the City on the RLUIPA substantial
burden claim (Count I) and the First Amendment free exercise claim (Count V). The Court
grants partial summary judgment for the Church on the RLUIPA equal terms claim (Count II),
finding that the Prior Ordinance violated RLUIPA’s equal terms provision, with the Church
entitled to damages as determined by a jury. The equal protection claim (Count IV) will also
proceed to trial.

Dated: February 21, 2017

______________________
SARA L. ELLIS
United States District Judge

25