Temple of 1001 Buddhas v. City of Fremont

Background

Miaolan Lee and the Temple of 1001 Buddhas challenged the City of Fremont’s enforcement of thirteen state and municipal code violations concerning property at 6800 Mill Creek Road. The property included structures Lee used for private religious worship, including a Meditation Hall, Main Buddha Hall, and Retreat House. The City’s notices stated that the structures were unlawful, unsafe, and unfit for human occupancy, and the City ultimately issued an amended notice requiring demolition of three buildings.

The plaintiffs alleged that the City violated their constitutional rights and burdened their religious practice through discriminatory code enforcement, retaliation, and other actions. Their second amended complaint asserted seven claims: three claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1983, a federal civil-rights statute; one claim under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act; and three claims under the California Constitution. The City moved to dismiss.

Three Newly Added Claims

Lee added three claims that had not appeared in the earlier complaints: a § 1983 claim based on due process and equal protection, and two claims for declaratory relief under the California Constitution. The court struck those claims under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(f), which permits a court to remove immaterial or improper matter from a pleading. The court concluded that those claims were outside the scope of the limited permission previously given to amend.

Federal Civil-Rights Claims

The plaintiffs alleged under § 1983 that the City discriminated against them because of religion and retaliated against them for opposing discrimination. Because the defendant was a city, the plaintiffs also had to plausibly allege that a municipal policy, custom, or final policymaker caused the constitutional violation.

The court found it plausible that Gary West, the City’s building official, could have been a final policymaker for local code-enforcement activities. But it concluded that the complaint did not plausibly allege that West committed or approved religious discrimination. The court stated that the allegations did not show that similarly situated secular properties with violations as serious or extensive as those on the Temple’s property received more favorable treatment. It also concluded that the alleged limits on using three buildings did not substantially burden religious exercise because Lee could worship elsewhere on the property.

The retaliation claim also failed. The court found no substantial causal connection between Lee’s complaints and the City’s enforcement actions. In particular, the City had identified property violations before Lee complained about discrimination, and the complaint did not allege that West knew about Lee’s later letter to the Mayor and City Council before issuing the notice to vacate. The court dismissed both § 1983 claims without leave to amend because it had already dismissed them twice and concluded that further amendment would be futile.

Religious Land Use Claim

The plaintiffs challenged a Fremont ordinance under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, or RLUIPA. The ordinance did not allow certain quasi-public religious uses in the property’s “Hill (beyond Ridgeline)” zoning area. The court held that the plaintiffs lacked standing, meaning they had not shown a concrete injury that the court could likely remedy.

The plaintiffs alleged that they currently used the property for private worship and might someday pursue a use serving the general public. The court found no concrete or imminent injury because they did not describe a specific proposed quasi-public use or allege an intention to pursue one soon. The court also stated that other legal violations independently required substantial changes to or demolition of the buildings. It dismissed this claim with prejudice.

California Free-Exercise Claim

The plaintiffs sought a declaration that the City’s enforcement of building codes violated the California Constitution’s Free Exercise Clause. The court assumed the stricter legal standard for religious-exercise claims applied but concluded that the plaintiffs had not plausibly alleged a substantial burden. The City’s enforcement prevented use of three buildings but did not prevent religious practice elsewhere on the 29-acre property or in other buildings. The court therefore found that the claim failed and denied leave to amend.

Disposition

The court granted the City’s motion to dismiss without leave to amend. It struck Claims 3, 5, and 7; dismissed the two § 1983 claims without leave to amend; dismissed the RLUIPA claim with prejudice; and denied leave to amend the California Free Exercise Clause claim. Judge Charles R. Breyer signed the order.