Laserfiche WebLink
C� <br />e 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 15 of 18 Page ID #:194 <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 />RLUIPA. See also First Lutheran Church, 326 F.Supp.3d at 761-62 (holding that 20- <br />person capacity limitation and "No Trespassing" sign requirement imposed a substantial <br />burden in violation of RLUIPA on church's religious exercise because it interfered with <br />efforts to assist homeless persons). In any event, the Complaint contains ample facts <br />establishing that food distribution to homeless persons is an important part of MW's <br />religious exercise and is not "merely incidental." Compl. %4, 27, 42, And MW's facts <br />must be accepted as true, and all reasonable inferences drawn in favor of MW, on a <br />motion to dismiss. Murguia v. Langdon, 61 F.4th 1096, 1106 (9th Cir. 2023). <br />Further, although not required at the pleading stage, MW alleges that it lacks <br />readily available alternatives and that it is effectively precluded from changing <br />locations.' For example, MW alleges that moving locations would be "impossible" due <br />to the costs and unlikelihood of finding a landlord willing to rent to an organization that <br />serves homeless individuals, and that it cannot relocate without experiencing significant <br />uncertainty, delay, or expense, or otherwise violating its religious purpose. Comps. ¶39. <br />These allegations further support plaintiff's substantial burden claim under RLUIPA. <br />See New Harvest, 29 F.4th at 602-04 (evidence that other available properties are <br />unsuitable because of "size, configuration, safety, or current uses" can support <br />substantial burden finding); Int'1 Church of Foursquare Gospel, 673 F.3d at 1067 <br />(finding evidence of lack of other suitable sites in the city to house the church's <br />expanded operation supported substantial burden claim). <br />Moreover, MW has also plausibly alleged that the City could apply the same <br />reasoning to deny any future COO applications, even if MW were to relocate. In 2021, <br />the mayor directed various staff and departments to identify a basis for removing MW <br />' While the City makes passing reference to "ready alternatives" as a factor in the <br />substantial burden analysis, the City cites no case where a RLUIPA plaintiff was <br />required to plead that it lacked adequate alternative locations to withstand a motion to <br />dismiss. Cases discussing the availability of alternative locations have done s0 in the <br />context of summary judgement. See, e.g., New Harvest, 29 F_4th at 603; San Jose <br />Christian Coll., 360 F.3d at 1035. <br />14 <br />