Battlefield Ministries v. City of Waconia
Battlefield Ministries, Inc., a Minnesota not for profit corporation; Gal Peremislov; Kayla Bishop; and Ailisha Titus v. City of Waconia, a Minnesota Municipal Corporation
- Laura Provinzino
- 0:24-cv-03753
- U.S. District Court · District of Minnesota
- 18
In Battlefield Ministries v. City of Waconia, Judge Provinzino granted the City's motion for summary judgment, dismissing with prejudice the sober home operator's Fair Housing Act and Americans with Disabilities Act claims as barred by a prior Minnesota state court judgment.
Operators of sober homes or other residential facilities for people in recovery from drug and alcohol addiction who seek to challenge municipal zoning enforcement under the Fair Housing Act or Americans with Disabilities Act should be aware that if those claims are raised as defenses in a prior state court enforcement action and result in a final judgment, a federal court may bar relitigation of those same claims under res judicata. Residents of such facilities may also be bound by a state court judgment even if they were not named parties, if their interests are found to be identical to those of parties who did litigate.
What happened
Battlefield Ministries, Inc. v. City of Waconia involves a sober home operator, a property owner, and two residents who sued the City of Waconia, Minnesota, claiming the City violated the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA) by enforcing its zoning ordinances against a six-person sober home and by denying a request for a reasonable accommodation to allow that many residents. The Property was located in the City's R-2 zoning district, which limits unrelated adults in a single-family home to no more than four and requires a state license for residential facilities serving six or fewer persons. Battlefield was not state-licensed, and the City ordered it to stop operating after receiving a complaint. Battlefield sought an ordinance amendment and then a reasonable accommodation, both of which the City denied. The City later sued Battlefield and the property owner in Minnesota state court to enforce its zoning rules, and the state court entered judgment against them, finding that their use of the Property was not protected by the FHA or ADA and that the requested accommodation was unreasonable. Battlefield and the property owner did not appeal that judgment.
After the state court ruling, the City moved for summary judgment in this federal case, arguing that the state court's final judgment barred Plaintiffs from relitigating the same FHA and ADA claims here under the doctrine of res judicata — a legal rule that prevents parties from re-fighting issues already decided by a court of competent jurisdiction. Plaintiffs argued that the City had waived the res judicata defense by not raising it in its initial answer, and that two of the plaintiffs — residents Kayla Bishop and Ailisha Titus — had not been parties to the state court case and therefore could not be bound by it. The Court rejected the waiver argument, noting that the state court judgment came down nearly a year after the City filed its answer, so the City could not have raised the defense earlier, and that Plaintiffs were not unfairly surprised since they were aware of both proceedings.
Judge Provinzino granted the City's motion for summary judgment and dismissed the case with prejudice. The Court found that all four elements for res judicata under Minnesota law were satisfied: the state and federal cases arose from the same facts, involved the same or closely related parties, resulted in a final judgment on the merits, and gave Plaintiffs a full and fair opportunity to litigate. As to Bishop and Titus, the Court found they were in legal privity with Battlefield and the property owner because their interests were identical — all plaintiffs sought the same outcome of allowing Battlefield to operate a six-person sober home — and because Bishop and Titus raised no claims distinct from those already litigated in state court. Because res judicata disposed of all claims, the Court did not reach the merits of the FHA or ADA arguments.
The detailed version
- Battlefield Ministries v. City of Waconia · No. 0:24-cv-03753
- Laura M. Provinzino
- July 20, 2026
Background
Plaintiff Gal Peremislov purchased a six-bedroom house at 415 West 1st Street in Waconia, Minnesota, in 2020. In the summer of 2023, Plaintiff Battlefield Ministries, Inc. ("Battlefield"), which operates sober homes for individuals who have completed residential treatment for alcohol and drug addiction, began leasing the property from Peremislov to use as a sober home. Plaintiffs Ailisha Titus and Kayla Bishop were residents at the property.
The property sits in the City's R-2 zoning district. Under the City's ordinances, no more than four unrelated adults may reside in a single-family dwelling. State-licensed residential facilities serving six or fewer persons are permitted with special restrictions, but Battlefield was not licensed by the State of Minnesota. There were no City ordinances specifically targeting sober homes. Battlefield began accepting up to six residents in August 2023 without first researching the applicable zoning rules.
After receiving a complaint in September 2023, the City investigated, determined Battlefield's use was not permitted, and ordered it to stop by December 31, 2023. Battlefield proposed an amendment to the zoning ordinance that would have allowed unlicensed residential facilities with up to six residents; the Planning Commission recommended approval, but the City Council denied the amendment on April 1, 2024.
On April 14, 2024, Battlefield submitted a formal reasonable-accommodation request under the Fair Housing Act (FHA) and the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA), arguing its residents' substance use disorders constituted a federally protected disability. After additional proceedings and public hearings, the City Council denied the request, finding: (1) insufficient evidence of financial viability; (2) failure to establish that more than three residents were necessary to create a therapeutic environment; (3) undue administrative burden given Battlefield's history of disregarding zoning rules; and (4) the accommodation would require a fundamental alteration of the City's zoning policy. The City ordered Battlefield to cease operations by August 2, 2024.
State Court Proceedings
On September 12, 2024, the City filed suit against Battlefield and Peremislov in Minnesota state court to enforce its zoning ordinances (the "State Court Action"). Battlefield and Peremislov answered on September 27, 2024, asserting as an affirmative defense that the City's actions violated the FHA and the ADA. On the same day, Plaintiffs filed the present federal lawsuit.
The state court declined to stay the State Court Action pending the outcome of the federal case. On October 8, 2025, the state court entered summary judgment in the City's favor, finding that Battlefield and Peremislov failed to establish their use of the property was protected by the FHA or ADA, that the requested accommodation was unreasonable because it would require a fundamental alteration of the zoning code and would impose undue administrative burden, and that there was no evidence of discrimination. Battlefield and Peremislov moved for reconsideration, which was denied on March 11, 2026. They did not appeal, and the time for appeal elapsed.
Federal Proceedings
Plaintiffs alleged in federal court that the City enforced its zoning ordinances in a discriminatory manner and unlawfully denied Battlefield's reasonable-accommodation request, in violation of the FHA and ADA. The City moved for summary judgment on March 2, 2026, arguing primarily that the state court's final judgment barred relitigation under res judicata (claim preclusion and issue preclusion), and alternatively arguing that Plaintiffs' FHA and ADA claims failed on the merits. After receiving multiple extensions, Plaintiffs filed their response on April 21, 2026. The Court held a hearing on June 9, 2026.
Analysis: Res Judicata
Waiver
Res judicata is an affirmative defense that ordinarily must be pleaded in a defendant's answer. The City did not specifically plead res judicata in its November 15, 2024 answer, though it did raise "estoppel" as an affirmative defense. The Court found no waiver for two reasons. First, the state court judgment did not issue until October 8, 2025 — nearly a year after the City filed its answer — so the defense was not available at that time. Second, Plaintiffs could not claim unfair surprise: Battlefield and Peremislov were parties to the State Court Action, the state court itself noted that the federal case would likely be fully resolved by its ruling, and Plaintiffs had a full opportunity to brief and argue the res judicata issue before this Court.
Elements of Res Judicata Under Minnesota Law
Because the first judgment was rendered by a Minnesota court, Minnesota law governs the res judicata analysis. Under Minnesota law, a claim is precluded if: (1) the earlier claim involved the same factual circumstances; (2) the earlier claim involved the same parties or their privies; (3) there was a final judgment on the merits; and (4) the estopped party had a full and fair opportunity to litigate.
Same factual circumstances
Both the State Court Action and the federal case arose from the same facts — Battlefield's operation of a six-person sober home at the property, the City's zoning enforcement, and the denial of Battlefield's reasonable-accommodation request. Both Battlefield and Peremislov asserted FHA and ADA defenses in state court, and Plaintiffs assert the same FHA and ADA claims in federal court.
Same parties or privies
The City, Battlefield, and Peremislov were parties to both proceedings. Bishop and Titus were not parties to the State Court Action, but the Court found they were in privity with Battlefield and Peremislov. Under Minnesota law, privity exists when a person's interests are represented by a party to the action or when a person is so identified in interest with another that they represent the same legal right. Here, Bishop and Titus raised no claims distinct from those of Battlefield and Peremislov, were not individually identified in the complaint beyond their introductory paragraphs, and sought the same relief — declaratory and injunctive relief establishing Battlefield's right to operate a six-person sober home. The Court also noted that Bishop and Titus, both residing at the property when the State Court Action commenced, did not seek to intervene in that proceeding.
Final judgment on the merits
The state court issued a thorough merits ruling on October 8, 2025. Battlefield and Peremislov did not appeal, and the 60-day appeal window under Minnesota rules elapsed, making the judgment final and binding.
Full and fair opportunity to litigate
Battlefield and Peremislov asserted FHA and ADA defenses from the outset of the State Court Action, briefed those issues at summary judgment, moved for reconsideration, and then chose not to appeal. The Court also noted that Plaintiffs' FHA and ADA claims almost certainly were compulsory counterclaims under Minnesota Rule of Civil Procedure 13.01 — claims that arise out of the same transaction and must be raised in the same proceeding — which would independently bar their relitigation.
Disposition
The Court concluded that all four elements of res judicata under Minnesota law were satisfied as to all Plaintiffs. The City's motion for summary judgment was granted, and the case was dismissed with prejudice. The Court expressly declined to reach the City's alternative arguments regarding the merits of the FHA and ADA claims.
Read the full 18-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.