Laserfiche WebLink
e 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page l3 of 18 Page ID #:192 <br />2 <br />3 <br />4 <br />5 <br />6 <br />7 <br />8 <br />9 <br />10 <br />11 <br />12 <br />13 <br />14 <br />15 <br />16 <br />17 <br />18 <br />19 <br />20 <br />21 <br />22 <br />23 <br />24 <br />25 <br />26 <br />27 <br />28 <br />862 F. Supp. at 544) (noting that one of the "five Pillars of Islam" includes giving "alms <br />to the poor"; one of Hinduism's "five daily obligations of worship" includes "giving <br />food or aid to the poor"; and that religious worship in Judaism includes tendering "food <br />for the hungry[] and benevolence to the needy"). <br />B. MW plausibly alleged that the City's complete refusal to allow it to <br />provide food or drinks to homeless individuals "imposes a substantial <br />burden" on its religious exercise under RLUIPA. <br />Government conduct that "impose[s] a significantly great restriction or onus upon <br />[religious] exercise" may create a substantial burden in violation of RLUIPA. San Jose <br />Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, 360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004). A land use <br />regulation may impose a substantial burden if it exerts "substantial pressure on an <br />adherent to modify his behavior and to violate his beliefs." Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of <br />Yuba City v. County of Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (citing Thomas v. <br />Review Bd. of the Ind. Employment Sec. Div., 450 U.S. 707, 717-18 (1981)). <br />Whether a land use regulation substantially burdens religious exercise is a highly <br />fact -dependent question that requires examining the "totality of the circumstances." <br />New Harvest Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas, 29 FAth 596, 602 (9th Cir. 2022), <br />cert. denied, 143 S. Ct. 567 (2023). "[D]etermining whether a burden is substantial ... <br />is ordinarily an issue of fact." Acad. of Our Lady of Peace v. City of San Diego, No. <br />09CV962-WQH-AJB, 2010 WL 1329014, at * 11 (S.D. Cal. Apr. 1, 2010) (quoting <br />World Outreach Conf. Ctr., 591 F.3d at 539)). <br />Here, MW has pleaded sufficient facts to plausibly show that the City has imposed <br />a substantial burden on MW's religious exercise by denying its COO. Under the City's <br />G Indeed, cases cited by the City underscore that a substantial burden analysis is a fact - <br />specific inquiry that requires examination of a complete record. See New Harvest <br />Christian Fellowship v. City of Salinas, 29 FAth 596, 599 (9th Cir. 2022), cent. denied, <br />143 S. Ct. 567 (2023) (appeal of grant of summary judgment); San Jose Christian, 360 <br />F.3d at 1027 (same); Scot. Rite Cathedral Assn of Los Angeles, 156 Cal. App. 4th at 114 <br />(appeal of denial of writ of administrative mandamus). <br />12 <br />