Source: https://m.openjurist.org/451/f3d/643/grace-united-methodist-church-v-city-of-cheyenne
Timestamp: 2019-05-22 22:56:59
Document Index: 480869331

Matched Legal Cases: ['§ 1', '§ 2111', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 24', '§ 1367', '§ 1367', '§ 1917', '§ 1367', '§ 35', '§ 801', '§ 1367', '§ 24']

451 F. 3d 643 - Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne
451 F3d 643 Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne
451 F.3d 643
In support of its core holding that neutral rules of general applicability normally do not raise free exercise concerns, the Court in Smith attempted to harmonize free exercise jurisprudence by distinguishing Smith from precedent. According to the Court, "[t]he only decisions in which we have held that the First Amendment bars application of a neutral, generally applicable law to religiously motivated action have involved not the Free Exercise Clause alone, but the Free Exercise Clause in conjunction with other constitutional protections." 494 U.S. at 881, 110 S.Ct. 1595. Smith thus carved out an exception for "hybrid rights" claims, holding that a party could establish a violation of the free exercise clause even in the case of a neutral law of general applicability by showing that the challenged governmental action compromised both the right to free exercise of religion and an independent constitutional right. Id. The hybrid rights doctrine is controversial. It has been characterized as mere dicta not binding on lower courts, Knight v. Conn. Dep't of Pub. Health, 275 F.3d 156, 167 (2d Cir.2001); criticized as illogical, Kissinger v. Bd. of Trs. of Ohio State Univ., 5 F.3d 177, 180 (6th Cir.1993); and dismissed as untenable.2 Courts are also divided on the strength of the independent constitutional right claim that is required to assert a cognizable hybrid rights claim, with a number of courts, including this circuit, expressing the view that a litigant is required to assert at least a "colorable" claim to an independent constitutional right to survive summary judgment. Swanson, 135 F.3d at 700; Axson-Flynn, 356 F.3d at 1295.
There is no question that Cheyenne has a substantial interest in regulating the use of its land and that its zoning regulations promote that interest. City of Renton v. Playtime Theatres, Inc., 475 U.S. 41, 50, 106 S.Ct. 925, 89 L.Ed.2d 29 (1986) (asserting that "a city's `interest in attempting to preserve the quality of urban life is one that must be accorded high respect,'" quoting Young v. Am. Mini Theatres, Inc., 427 U.S. 50, 71, 96 S.Ct. 2440, 49 L.Ed.2d 310 (1976) (plurality opinion)). Moreover, the zoning ordinance does not burden any more speech than necessary to further those substantial interests. Not only may Grace United freely disseminate its religious message in the LR-1 zone, but it may disseminate religious speech in any zone in the City. The Church is entitled to operate its daycare center in any one of Cheyenne's 28 zones that is properly zoned for such a facility. Aple. Br. at 17. By invoking the special permit process, Grace United could even attempt to alter the Church property's zone designation to one that permits the operation of daycare facilities. The Church made no attempt to take advantage of the established procedures available to special permit applicants. In sum, because the City has an important governmental interest in regulating land use, and its zoning regulations are unrelated to the suppression of speech and do not burden any more speech than necessary, the challenged ordinance survives intermediate scrutiny.
[B]efore a zoning ordinance can be declared unconstitutional on due process grounds, the provisions must be clearly arbitrary and unreasonable, having no substantial relation to the public health, safety, morals, or general welfare .... If the validity of the land classification is "fairly debatable," the legislative judgment must control.
Id. (citing Village of Euclid v. Ambler Realty Co., 272 U.S. 365, 388, 395, 47 S.Ct. 114, 71 L.Ed. 303 (1926)) (internal citations omitted). As we have already indicated, the ordinance at issue here certainly has a "substantial relation to the public health, safety ... or general welfare" of Cheyenne. Id. We simply cannot conclude that the Board's refusal to grant a variance in a low-density residential zone for a daycare center capable of accommodating one hundred children, eighteen hours a day, seven days a week, is clearly arbitrary and unreasonable. Even "if the validity of the land classification is `fairly debatable,' the legislative judgment [of the City] must control." Id.
The equal protection clause provides that "[n]o state shall ... deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws." U.S. CONST. amend. XIV, § 1. Equal protection "is essentially a direction that all persons similarly situated should be treated alike." City of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439, 105 S.Ct. 3249, 87 L.Ed.2d 313 (1985). Although Grace United asserts that it is treated differently than others, it has not provided even one example of such disparate treatment. In any event, because the Church does not contend it is either a member of a suspect class or was denied a fundamental right, the City's zoning ordinance need only be rationally related to a legitimate government purpose to pass muster under the equal protection clause. Save Palisade FruitLands v. Todd, 279 F.3d 1204, 1213 (10th Cir.2002).
We review de novo whether, as a whole, the district court's jury instructions correctly stated the governing law and provided the jury with an ample understanding of the issues and applicable standards. See Reed v. Landstar Ligon, Inc., 314 F.3d 447, 450 (10th Cir.2002); Morrison Knudsen Corp. v. Fireman's Fund Ins. Co., 175 F.3d 1221, 1235 (10th Cir. 1999) ("Our concern is to ensure that our review does not leave us with substantial doubt whether the instructions, considered as a whole, properly guided the jury in its deliberations." (internal quotation omitted)). "Even if a review of the instructions, read in isolation from the rest of the trial, did leave this court with a substantial doubt, it would then be necessary to determine whether any error prejudiced" Grace United. Id. at 1236; see also Neder v. United States, 527 U.S. 1, 15-16, 119 S.Ct. 1827, 144 L.Ed.2d 35 (1999) (applying harmless error test to jury instructions); Lusby v. T.G. & Y. Stores, Inc., 796 F.2d 1307, 1310 (10th Cir.1986) ("Harmless error analysis normally applies in civil cases. . . and it specifically applies to faulty jury instructions." (citing 28 U.S.C. § 2111; FED.R.CIV.P. 61)).
that to exceed RFRA's "substantial burden" threshold, government regulation — "must significantly inhibit or constrain conduct or expression that manifests some central tenet of ... [an individual's] beliefs; must meaningfully curtail [an individual's] ability to express adherence to his or her faith; or must deny [an individual] reasonable opportunities to engage in those activities that are fundamental to [an individual's] religion."
Thiry, 78 F.3d at 1495 (quoting Werner, 49 F.3d at 1480) (emphasis added). This quotation from Werner mirrors the definition of substantial burden adopted by the district court in Instruction 19. Recognizing the tension between the standard articulated in Lyng and the test laid out in Werner, we noted that Werner's status as a prisoner case "may explain why [the court] failed entirely to address the ... `substantial burden' standard in Lyng," but we also concluded that "[t]he reasoning of Werner... is too broad to permit a prisoner/nonprisoner distinction." Id. We nevertheless found it unnecessary to reconcile Werner's language with Lyng because we agreed with the district court that the Thirys did not establish a substantial burden under any plausible reading of the statute. Id. Thus, while we acknowledged the different and conflicting language used to define substantial burden in Lyng and Werner, we neither endorsed the Werner standard nor resolved the issue in Thiry.
While it is true that the district court correctly articulated the definition of "religious exercise" in Instruction 17, a reasonable juror could have been misled by the court's erroneous articulation of the substantial burden test provided moments later in Instruction 19. Nevertheless, we are convinced a reasonable juror could not have been misled to Grace United's detriment by Instruction 19 because the jury found that the Church failed to prove it was engaged in a sincere exercise of religion.10 As a consequence, the substantial burden issue became irrelevant. Because the jury was never misled about the legal requirements for finding a sincere religious belief, we conclude with confidence that Instruction 19's error had no impact whatsoever on the outcome of the proceedings in the district court. Sanjuan v. IBP, Inc., 160 F.3d 1291, 1296 (10th Cir.1998) ("Evidence admitted in error can only be prejudicial if it can be reasonably concluded that ... without such evidence, there would have been a contrary result."). It necessarily follows that the erroneous description of RLUIPA's substantial burden test in Instruction 19 was harmless as a matter of law.
FED.R.EVID. 801(d)(2) (emphases added). Bishop Brown testified in his deposition that as Bishop of the Rocky Mountain Conference, he is the "general superintendent" with "assigned presidential responsibility over an episcopal area where [he] serve[s] as the president of the corporation... at the annual conference level." Aplt. App., vol. IV at 1800. The "episcopal area" over which Bishop Brown presides "includes the state of Utah, the state of Colorado, and the eastern portion of the state of Wyoming." Id. at 1800-01. With regard to his relationship with Grace United, Bishop Brown testified in relevant part as follows:
A: (Bishop Brown): As a bishop I assign the pastors and essentially am responsible for supervising their work within the terms of the church's understanding. Each local church is given a certain degree of autonomy, but the annual conference becomes sort of the beneficiary or the trust beneficiary. In the event a local church goes out of business, the property and assets of that local church would then revert to the annual conference on behalf of the whole.
Q: (City's attorney): Your relationship to the Grace United Methodist Church in Cheyenne is what?
Grace United also argues that Bishop Brown's letter was inadmissible because his opinions in the letter were not rationally based on his perceptions.12 While opinion testimony admitted pursuant to Rule 701 "requires a lay witness to have first-hand knowledge of the events he is testifying about so as to present only the most accurate information to the finder of fact," United States v. Hoffner, 777 F.2d 1423, 1425 (10th Cir.1985), an admission of a party opponent needs no indicia of trustworthiness to be admitted. United States v. Pinalto, 771 F.2d 457, 459 (10th Cir. 1985) ("The district court erroneously viewed trustworthiness as a separate requirement of admission under Section 801(d)(2)(A)."). Thus, as the court said in Jewel v. CSX Transp., Inc., 135 F.3d 361, 365 (6th Cir.1998), "[t]he admissibility of statements of a party-opponent is grounded not in the presumed trustworthiness of the statements, but on `a kind of estoppel or waiver theory, that a party should be entitled to rely on his opponent's statements.'" (quoting United States v. DiDomenico, 78 F.3d 294, 303 (7th Cir.1996)).
It is also worth noting that Bishop Brown had the right, which he exercised in his May 2003 deposition testimony, to contradict and explain the admissions he made in the May 2001 letter. As the court noted in Murrey v. United States, 73 F.3d 1448 (7th Cir.1996), "[p]eople usually don't make damaging admissions unless they are true. Usually, but not always. People sometimes do make mistaken admissions, which is why an extrajudicial admission. . . is not conclusive on the issue admitted. But it is evidence." Id. at 1455. Grace United itself called Bishop Brown via his deposition for the purpose of bolstering its claim that the daycare center was an important ministry of the Methodist Church. At the minimum, therefore, the City was entitled to impeach that testimony with the Bishop's prior inconsistent statements. It is also important to note the Bishop testified that the opinions contained in his letter were accurate at the time the letter was drafted. Aplt.App., vol. IV at 1804. Hence, the admission of the letter was at most cumulative to the opinion testimony offered by Grace United. For the aforementioned reasons, we conclude the Bishop's statements asserting that the daycare center appeared to be more of a commercial venture and less of a religious function were not inadmissible hearsay.
Grace United further contends that if Bishop Brown is a representative of and authorized to speak for the Church for purposes of Rule 801(d)(2), the statements in his letter constitute protected work product. However, any work product objection was waived by Grace United via production. See, e.g., Simmons, Inc. v. Bombardier, Inc., 221 F.R.D. 4, 8 (D.D.C. 2004) ("The work-product privilege may be waived by the voluntary release of materials otherwise protected by it."); see also Frontier Refining, Inc. v. Gorman-Rupp Co., Inc., 136 F.3d 695, 704 (10th Cir.1998) ("[A] litigant cannot use the work product doctrine as both a sword and shield by selectively using the privileged documents to prove a point but then invoking the privilege to prevent an opponent from challenging the assertion."). Moreover, work product protection only applies to attorneys' or legal representatives' mental impressions, conclusions, opinions, or legal theories authored in anticipation of litigation. FED.R.CIV.P. 26(b)(3); Hickman v. Taylor, 329 U.S. 495, 510-11, 67 S.Ct. 385, 91 L.Ed. 451 (1947); see also Resolution Trust Corp. v. Dabney, 73 F.3d 262, 266 (10th Cir.1995) ("The party asserting a work product privilege as a bar to discovery must prove the doctrine is applicable.... A mere allegation that the work product doctrine applies is insufficient."). The Bishop's letter was drafted more than a year prior to the initiation of the instant litigation by an individual who insists that he had no role in the decision to proceed with this litigation.
Mountview Park Homeowners' Association and Restrictive Covenants
Rule 24(a)(2) Intervention
Grace United contends that the district court erred in permitting Mountview Homeowner's Association to intervene and raise the applicability of the restrictive covenants. Grace United does not claim the district court erred in its application and analysis of the Rule 24(a)(2) factors when it granted Mountview permission to intervene as a matter of right.14 Instead, the Church argues that Mountview had no standing to intervene and that the district court lacked jurisdiction over Mountview's intervention claim. We therefore limit our intervention discussion to these two issues.
Grace United maintains Mountview has no rights under the covenants and therefore no standing to intervene in this action. According to the Church, the association lacks standing to enforce the covenants because it neither has enforcement rights pursuant to original covenant documents nor is it a direct successor to the interests of a party to the covenant. We are not convinced. Supreme Court authority makes clear
that an association has standing to bring suit on behalf of its members when: (a) its members would otherwise have standing to sue in their own right; (b) the interests it seeks to protect are germane to the organization's purpose; and (c) neither the claim asserted nor the relief requested requires the participation of individual members in the lawsuit.
Hunt v. Washington State Apple Adver. Comm'n, 432 U.S. 333, 343, 97 S.Ct. 2434, 53 L.Ed.2d 383 (1977). Mountview satisfies these conditions.
First, there is no question that the individual members of the association have standing in their own right to sue to enforce the covenants. Wyoming treats "restrictive covenants as contractual in nature, and they are to be interpreted in accordance with the principles of contract law." Anderson v. Bommer, 926 P.2d 959, 961 (Wyo.1996). As the Wyoming Supreme Court has explained: "if the covenant runs with the land, it binds the owner whether or not he had knowledge of it, whereas if it does not run with the land, the owner is bound only if he has taken the land with notice of it." Streets v. J M Land & Developing Co., 898 P.2d 377, 379 (Wyo.1995) (citation omitted). The covenants governing the Mountview Park Addition were filed in June 1952 and declare that they "run with the land," and are binding on all parties to the covenants, "their heirs, successors, personal representatives, grantees and assigns, and all persons claiming under them." Aplt.App. vol. VI, at 2571-72. The covenants also direct that if any owner of real property within the development violates or attempts to violate the covenants, "it shall be lawful for any other person or persons owning any real property situated in said development or subdivision to prosecute any proceedings at law or in equity against the persons violating or attempting to violate . . . any of the ... covenants." Id. at 2572-73 (emphasis added). Hence, the covenants are specifically enforceable by any record owner of real property situated in the development, see Anderson, 926 P.2d at 962 ("As a general rule, a restrictive covenant may be enforced by one [for] whose benefit it was made."), against any other record owner of real property situated in the development, even if that record owner obtained legal title to its property without actual notice of the restrictions. The individual members of the association thus have standing to seek an enforcement of the covenant restrictions.
Nor has any contest been raised as to the remaining Hunt requirements. Mountview was created for the purpose of protecting the covenant rights of those who live in the subdivision, and the association sought to protect those rights in the instant suit. Moreover, a determination regarding whether the Church's proposed daycare center would violate the restrictive covenants did not mandate participation of the individual members in the suit. No individualized proof was required to address Mountview's request for a declaration that a daycare center would run counter to the restrictive covenants. The issue therefore, could be "properly resolved in a group context." Hunt, 432 U.S. at 344, 97 S.Ct. 2434. In sum, Mountview had standing to intervene in this law suit.
Grace United also asserts the district court erred in permitting Mountview to intervene because the court lacked jurisdiction over the association's restrictive covenant claim, a state law issue. In making this argument, the Church relies on language from United States v. Martin, 267 F.2d 764 (10th Cir.1959), and Bantel v. McGrath, 215 F.2d 297 (10th Cir.1954). Neither case provides support for the Church's position.
In Martin, this court noted that the motion to intervene there claimed both permissive intervention and intervention as a matter of right. 267 F.2d at 768-69. We then said that a counterclaim "may be permissively joined if [it and the main action] present common questions of law and fact, provided of course the counterclaim rests upon its own jurisdictional footing." Id. at 769 (emphasis added). In Bantel, on the other hand, this court held that intervention as a matter of right was inappropriate because the parties seeking to intervene had done so after the conflict at issue in the underlying action had become moot. 215 F.2d at 299. Alternatively, we held intervention improper because "Rule 24(a) . . . does not grant the right of intervention to try an issue outside the authorized scope of [the statutory] proceedings, for it was not intended to enlarge upon the jurisdiction of the court." Id. at 299. However, the underlying lawsuit was an action by the Attorney General of the United States against a bank to enforce an administrative order under the Trading with the Enemy Act, which had vested in the United States property belonging to German nationals. We said that the issue the intervenors were attempting to raise, namely, the validity of the underlying vesting order, was not within the scope of the enforcement proceeding in which "the determination that the property is enemy-owed is conclusive, even though erroneous." Id.
Grace United relies on the quoted language from Martin and Bantel regarding lack of jurisdiction to contend that intervention should be limited to those controversies in which the district court possesses independent jurisdiction over both the underlying claim and the claims raised by the intervenor. The Church's jurisdictional argument misses the mark.
First, since Martin and Bantel were decided, statutory jurisdictional rules were enacted expressly providing a court may exercise supplemental jurisdiction over intervention claims that are sufficiently related to the main claim over which the court has federal question jurisdiction. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).15 Thus, section 1367(a) provides:
the district courts shall have supplemental jurisdiction over all other claims that are so related to claims in the action within such original jurisdiction that they form part of the same case or controversy under Article III of the United States Constitution. Such supplemental jurisdiction shall include claims that involve the joinder or intervention of additional parties.
Id. (emphasis added). In Kelley v. Michaels, 59 F.3d 1055 (10th Cir.1995), we described the import of § 1367(a) as follows:
Congress included in the Judicial Improvements Act of 1990 a provision, 28 U.S.C. § 1367, clarifying and codifying the federal courts' supplemental jurisdiction. The impetus, in part, was a recognition that recent Supreme Court decisions had cast doubt on the authority of federal courts to hear some claims within supplemental jurisdiction. See H.R.Rep. No. 101-734, 101st Cong., 2d Sess. 28, reprinted in 1990 U.S.C.C.A.N. 6873-76; see also Finley v. United States, 490 U.S. 545, 109 S.Ct. 2003, 104 L.Ed.2d 593 (1989) (denying jurisdiction by a plaintiff against additional, nondiverse defendant over a claim related to the underlying federal action).... Section 1367 intended to supplant the related and somewhat overlapping concepts of ancillary and pendent jurisdiction, principally reinstating pre-Finley case law with some additional clarification. H.R.Rep. No. 101-734, supra at 28-29. The legislative history indicates that "[i]n federal question cases, [§ 1367] broadly authorizes the district courts to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over additional claims, including claims involving the joinder of additional parties." Id. at 28.
Id. at 1058 (emphasis added). See also JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., 6 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 24.22[1] at 24-82 (3d ed. 2005) ("The federal supplemental jurisdiction statute . . . codified the judicial doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction."); David D. Siegel, Practice Commentary, reprinted in 28 U.S.C.A. § 1367, at 829-31 (West 1993) (discussing doctrines of pendent and ancillary jurisdiction).
Prior to the adoption of § 1367, commentary and case law regarding supplemental jurisdiction made clear that when a party was entitled to intervene as a matter of right, the court had pendent jurisdiction over the intervenor's claim and no independent jurisdictional basis was required. See, e.g., Owen Equip. & Erection Co. v. Kroger, 437 U.S. 365, 375 n. 18, 98 S.Ct. 2396, 57 L.Ed.2d 274 (1978); Int'l Paper Co. v. Inhabitants of the Town of Jay, Maine, 887 F.2d 338, 346 (1st Cir.1989); Curtis v. Sears, Roebuck & Co., 754 F.2d 781, 783 (8th Cir.1985); 7C CHARLES ALAN WRIGHT ET AL., FEDERAL PRACTICE & PROCEDURE § 1917, at 464 (2d ed.1986). Conversely, as we said in Martin, permissive intervention did require that the district court possess independent jurisdiction over the intervenor's claim. WRIGHT ET AL., supra, at 464-65; Security Ins. Co. of Hartford v. Schipporeit, Inc., 69 F.3d 1377, 1381 (7th Cir.1995); Greene v. United States, 996 F.2d 973, 978 (9th Cir.1993); Int'l Paper Co., 887 F.2d at 346; Moosehead Sanitary Dist. v. S.G. Phillips Corp., 610 F.2d 49, 52 n. 5 (1st Cir.1979).
Here, the district court permitted Mountview to intervene as a matter of right under Rule 24(a)(2). Thus, no independent jurisdictional basis for Mountview's intervention was required.16 Under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a), the district court properly exercised jurisdiction over Mountview's restrictive covenant claim.
Applicability of the Covenants
Finally, we are not persuaded by Grace United's contentions on the merits that the restrictive covenants do not apply to it and that the district court erred by submitting to the jury the question of whether the Church's proposed daycare center violated the terms of the covenants.
Grace United is bound by the covenants. In its attempt to argue otherwise on appeal, it points out that it is not located on a "lot," which is the reference most of the covenants use, but rather is located on a block.17 It asserts that the covenants only place restrictions on lot use, without giving any indication as to how property on a block must be utilized. For example, Paragraph A of the covenants states that all lots in the neighborhood shall be for single-family residential dwellings. See Aplt. App., vol. II at 590. Grace United argues that its block is not subject to any restrictions regarding how the Church property located thereon might be used.
The Church is wrong. While Paragraph A of the covenants dictates that all lots in the neighborhood shall be used for residential purposes, Paragraph E places additional use restrictions on all land in the subdivision whether that land is described as a lot or block. It directs that "[n]o noxious or offensive trade or activity shall be carried on upon any lot or block nor shall anything be done thereon which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood." Aplt.App., vol. II at 591 (emphasis added). The Church is thus clearly barred from engaging in any activity that could become a nuisance to the neighborhood.
Whether the proposed daycare center would constitute a nuisance was clearly a fact question for the jury to decide. The jury was instructed as follows:
The Defendant/Intervenor Mountview Park Homeowners' Association has the burden of proof to prove that restrictive covenants restrict the plaintiff's use of its property and that the plaintiff's proposed child care or daycare center violates restrictive covenants on the property.
It is for you to determine whether the plaintiff is bound by restrictive covenants and whether such covenants would be violated by the plaintiff's operation of the child care or daycare center.
You're instructed that a nuisance is a class of wrong which arises from an unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working obstruction or injury to the right of another.
App.App., vol. V at 2263-64. The jury was also given a special verdict form on which it was required to answer the following question: "Do you find by a preponderance of the evidence that Grace United Methodist Church's proposed child care or daycare center violates the covenants applicable to that block of property, fifth filing, block 12." Id. at 2275. The jury answered this question in the affirmative. Id.
The jury's findings are supported by the evidence. In light of Paragraph E of the covenants, which barred any activity "which may be or become an annoyance or nuisance to the neighborhood," id., vol. II at 591, the jury was instructed that "a nuisance is a class of wrong which arises from an unreasonable, unwarranted or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working obstruction or injury to the right of another." Id., vol. V at 2264 (emphasis added). This instruction was in complete accord with Wyoming law. See, e.g., Brown v. Johnston, 85 P.3d 422, 430 (Wyo.2004) ("We have defined nuisance as a class of wrongs which arise from an unreasonable, unwarranted, or unlawful use by a person of his own property, working an obstruction or injury to the right of another.") (internal quotations and citation omitted); Edgcomb v. Lower Valley Power & Light, Inc., 922 P.2d 850, 859 (Wyo.1996) (same); Hein v. Lee, 549 P.2d 286, 291 (Wyo.1976) (same). The jury's conclusion in regard to the Church's RLUIPA claim, see Grace United Methodist Church, 427 F.3d at 797 n. 10, was that Grace United's proposed operation of the daycare center was not a sincere exercise of its religion. The evidence supported the conclusion that it was instead, as asserted by the City and Mountview, a commercial activity barred by the specific zoning restrictions for the neighborhood. Because the Church's proposed daycare would have been unlawful under the City's zoning restrictions, the jury could reasonably conclude it would constitute a nuisance in accordance with the instructions provided to it by the court.
For the foregoing reasons, we grant in part Grace United's petition for rehearing and AFFIRM. Grace United's petition for rehearing en banc was circulated to all the circuit judges of the court in regular active service. No judge has requested a poll, and the suggestion for rehearing en banc is therefore denied.
(g) Other uses similar to those permitted in this district. . . .
Even assuming the Church could establish a likelihood of success on any of its constitutional claims, the City would be entitled to qualified immunity on any hybrid rights claim. This is so because even "if a violation could be made out on a favorable view of the parties' submissions, the next, sequential step is to ask whether the right was clearly established."Saucier v. Katz, 533 U.S. 194, 201, 121 S.Ct. 2151, 150 L.Ed.2d 272 (2001). "The relevant, dispositive inquiry in determining whether a right is clearly established is whether it would be clear to a reasonable officer [in the defendant's position] that his conduct was unlawful in the situation he confronted." Id. at 202, 121 S.Ct. 2151. In Axson-Flynn, we expressly held that the hybrid rights exception to Smith's rational basis review was not clearly established prior to the Axson-Flynn decision in 2004. Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277, 1301 (10th Cir. 2004). Any defendant, therefore, whose challenged actions occurred prior to issuance of that opinion was entitled to qualified immunity. Id. Thus, regardless of whether Grace United has a fair probability or likelihood of success on any of its independent constitutional claims, the City is entitled to qualified immunity on the Church's hybrid rights claim because the parameters of the doctrine were not clearly established at the time of the City's actions at issue in this litigation.
(2) Scope of application. This subsection applies in any case in which ...
(C) the substantial burden is imposed in the implementation of a land use regulation or system of land use regulations, under which a government makes, or has in place formal or informal procedures or practices that permit the government to make, individualized assessents of the proposed uses for the property involved.
The City submits that the court decided to admit the Bishop's letter pursuant to Federal Rule of Evidence 804(b)(3). Aple. Br. at 36. The district court admitted the letter as an "admission against interest," without specifically articulating which federal rule it was implicating. Aplt.App., vol. III at 1118. Unavailability of the declarant is a prerequisite to the exception from the hearsay rule of an admission against interest, FED.R.EVID. 804(a), and the parties stipulated that Bishop Brown was physically "unavailable" to provide live testimony during the jury trial. A declarant, however, is considered available for purposes of the exception under Rule 804(b)(3) if the declarant's deposition testimony can be taken for use at trialSee FED. R.EVID. 804(a)(5). Thus, a deposed declarant such as Bishop Brown can never be "unavailable" for purposes of an exception under Rule 804(b)(3). As a result, we assume here that the district court actually relied on Rule 801(d)(2), which deems an admission by a party-opponent to be nonhearsay. See, e.g., Big Apple BMW of N. Am., Inc. v. BMW of N. Am., Inc., 974 F.2d 1358, 1374 (3d Cir.1992) (noting Rule 801(d)(2) "is designated as an admission against interest"); United States v. Johnson, 971 F.2d 562, 574 (10th Cir.1992) (referring to Rule 801(d)(2) as an "admission against interest"); see also DAVID F. BINDER, HEARSAY HANDBOOK § 35-1, at 35-6 (4th ed. 2001) ("An admission of a party-opponent is normally contrary to the interest of the declarant, but there is no requirement that this be so."); JOSEPH M. MCLAUGHLIN ET AL, WEINSTEIN'S FEDERAL EVIDENCE § 801.30[1], at 801-48 (2d ed.2005) (party admissions under Rule 801(d)(2) may, but are not required to be, against interest). In any event, we may affirm the district court on any basis supported by the record. Felix v. Lucent Techs., Inc., 387 F.3d 1146, 1165 (10th Cir.2004).
Under Rule 24(a)(2),
On the other hand, the statute set limits on supplemental jurisdiction when the district court's subject matter jurisdiction is based on diversity. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(b)See JAMES WM. MOORE ET AL., 6 MOORE'S FEDERAL PRACTICE § 24.22[2], at 24-82 (3d ed.2005); see generally Karen Nelson Moore, The Supplemental Jurisdiction Statute: An Important but Controversial Supplement to Federal Jurisdiction, 41 EMORY L.J. 31 (1992).
Our decision inBantel v. McGrath, 215 F.2d 297 (10th Cir.1954), is distinguishable as holding that intervention itself was inappropriate. It was not at all concerned with whether supplemental jurisdiction existed over a pendent claim once intervention was granted.
Paragraph G of the covenants states that a church may be built on block 12, but if it is not, then the block shall be divided into eight lotsSee Aplt.App., vol. II at 591.