Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00334/USCOURTS-cand-5_19-cv-00334-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 290
Nature of Suit: Other Real Property Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

NEW HARVEST CHRISTIAN 

FELLOWSHIP,

Plaintiff,

v.

CITY OF SALINAS,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-00334-SVK 

ORDER IN PREPARATION FOR 

ORAL ARGUMENT ON MOTIONS 

FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

Re: Dkt. Nos. 28, 35

To assist the parties in preparing for oral argument on the motions for summary judgment 

(Dkt. 28, 35), the Court provides the following tentative rulings and questions the parties should 

be prepared to address.

I. Tentative Rulings

A. All evidentiary objections are overruled.

B. Plaintiff’s Request for Judicial Notice (Dkt. 41) is granted.

II. Preliminary Findings of Fact and Conclusions of Law

A. Plaintiff bears the burden of persuasion as to whether the City zoning ordinance, or 

the City’s application of that ordinance to Plaintiff, “substantially burdens” 

Plaintiff’s exercise of religion. San Jose Christian College v. City of Morgan Hill, 

360 F.3d 1024, 1034 (9th Cir. 2004). Even if Plaintiff establishes a prima facie 

case of violation of RLUIPA such that the burden shifts to the government, the 

burden of establishing “substantial burden” remains with Plaintiff. Centro 

Familiar Cristiano Buenas Nuevas v. City of Yuma, 651 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 

2011) (citing 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc-2(b)).

Case 5:19-cv-00334-SVK Document 52 Filed 04/08/20 Page 1 of 3
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. If Plaintiff establishes a prima facie violation of RLUIPA’s “equal terms” 

provision — (1) imposition of a land use regulation; (2) by the government; (3) on 

religious assembly; (4) on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly —

the burden of persuasion shifts to the government on all elements. Corp. of the 

Catholic Archbishop of Seattle v. City of Seattle, 28 F. Supp. 3d 1163, 1167 (W.D. 

Wash. 2014) (citing Centro Familiar, 651 F.3d at 1171). 

1. Section 37-40.310(a)(2), (3) does not, on its face, establish a prima facie

violation of RLUIPA.

III. In oral argument, the Court would like the parties to address the following:

A. The Court must first find that the disputed regulation creates a “substantial burden” 

before reaching the question of “compelling interest.” Three key factors in 

determining “substantial burden” are (1) feasible alternative; (2) uncertainty, delay, 

expense; and (3) Plaintiff’s own actions. See Int’l Church of the Foursquare 

Gospel v. City of San Leandro, 673 F.3d 1059, 1068 (9th Cir. 2011); Spirit of Aloha 

Temple v. County of Maui, 322 F. Supp. 3d 1051, 1065 (D. Hawai’i 2018) (citing 

Livingston Christian Schools v. Genoa Charter Township, 858 F.3d 996, 1004 (6th 

Cir. 2017)). Considering these factors, the Court would like the parties to address 

the following:

1. At this stage, it appears to be undisputed that the Church’s current location 

is not a feasible alternative. Looking at other sites, both parties submit 

evidence in the form of declarations regarding the availability of 

alternatives. How should the Court evaluate this evidence?

2. As for factors (2) and (3), how does the fact that the Church purchased the 

property with knowledge of the zoning limitation impact the substantial 

burden analysis?

Case 5:19-cv-00334-SVK Document 52 Filed 04/08/20 Page 2 of 3
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

B. On “equal terms,” the Court views the key inquiry to be as set forth in Centro 

Familiar: the City violates the equal terms provision only when a church is treated

on less than equal basis with a secular comparator, similarly situated with respect to 

accepted zoning criteria. See Centro Familiar, 651 F.3d at 1172 (citing River of 

Life Kingdom Ministries v. Village of Hazel Crest, 611 F.3d 367, 373 (7th Cir. 

2010) (en banc)). Thus, a key issue in the Court’s view is whether weekend theater 

uses, such as the Ariel Theatre, and weekend church uses are similarly situated with 

respect to the “vibrant downtown” plan. The Court would like the parties to 

address the evidence before the Court in making this determination.

SO ORDERED.

Dated: April 8, 2020

SUSAN VAN KEULEN

United States Magistrate Judge

Case 5:19-cv-00334-SVK Document 52 Filed 04/08/20 Page 3 of 3