Laserfiche WebLink
C4se 8:23-cv-00183-DOC-KES Document 25 Filed 05/09/23 Page 16 of 18 Page ID #:195 <br />I <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 />from its location, Compl. ¶74, and stated his intent to prevent homelessness -related <br />issues "from happening anyplace else in the City," id. ¶102 (emphasis added). <br />Accordingly, MW has plausibly alleged that "the City would [not] agree to provide a <br />COO" to MW in any location. Id. ¶40; see Guru Nanak, 456 F.3d at 989 (reasoning that <br />prior application denials "to a significantly great extent lessened the possibility that <br />future [] applications would be successful"). <br />The City has informed MW that it "will not entertain" any conditions short of MW <br />shuttering its food and beverage service. Compl. 132. MW ceased distributing food and <br />beverages outside of the office and moved this activity indoors in order to address the <br />City's concerns, but these actions have not appeased the City. Id. ¶127-29, 112. The <br />City's complete prohibition on allowing MW to feed homeless individuals at its <br />Resource Center under any circumstances further supports MW's claim that the City has <br />violated RLUIPA by imposing a substantial burden on its religious exercise. See Guru <br />Nanak, 456 F.3d at 991 (upholding substantial burden finding in part because defendant <br />refused to accept mitigation conditions offered by plaintiff or suggest what conditions it <br />would accept to permit religious temple). <br />IV. CONCLUSION <br />MW's Complaint alleges sufficient facts plausibly showing (1) that its food and <br />beverage distribution to homeless individuals is religious exercise protected by RLUIPA, <br />and (2) that the City's denial of its COO application substantially burdens its religious <br />exercise in violation of RLUIPA. Therefore, the City's motion to dismiss MW's <br />RLUIPA claim should be denied. <br />Dated: May 9, 2023 <br />E. MARTIN ESTRADA <br />United States Attorney <br />Respectfully submitted, <br />FOR THE UNITED STATES: <br />KRISTEN CLARKE <br />Assistant Attorney General <br />Civil Rights Division <br />15 <br />