Opinion ID: 146572
Heading Depth: 2
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: sufficiency of the evidence

Text: This court reviews de novo the district court's denial of a motion for judgment as a matter of law. Cummings v. Gen. Motors Corp., 365 F.3d 944, 949 (10th Cir.2004) (internal citation omitted). To overturn a denial, we must conclude that, viewed in the light most favorable to the non-moving party, the evidence and all reasonable inferences to be drawn from it point but one way, in favor of the moving party. Praseuth v. Rubbermaid, Inc., 406 F.3d 1245, 1250 (10th Cir.2005). That is, the County must demonstrate that there are no reasonable inferences supporting the jury's verdict. M.D. Mark, Inc. v. Kerr-McGee Corp., 565 F.3d 753, 761 (10th Cir.2009). In reviewing the record, we will not weigh evidence, judge witness credibility, or challenge the factual conclusions of the jury. Hysten v. Burlington N. Santa Fe Ry. Co., 530 F.3d 1260, 1269 (10th Cir.2008) (citation and quotation marks omitted). Most importantly, we may not substitute our judgment for that of the jury. United Phosphorus, Ltd. v. Midland Fumigant, Inc., 205 F.3d 1219, 1226 (10th Cir.2000) (citation and quotation marks omitted). In this case, we review the sufficiency of the evidence against the district court's jury instructions. Although the County raised some objections to the district court's jury instructions below, see Aplt. App. 5176-81, 5185-88, 5211-12, 5214-15, it acknowledged at oral argument that it has not challenged the instructions on appeal. Because the County does not challenge the jury instructions, we neither review them nor express an opinion as to their propriety.
RLUIPA forbids a government from impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly or institution. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(1). To prove this claim, the district court instructed the jury that RMCC must establish that [the County] treated [RMCC] less favorably in processing, determining, and deciding the 2004 special use application of the [RMCC] than [the County] treated a similarly situated nonreligious assembly or institution. Aplt.App. 3084. The County argues that RMCC did not present sufficient evidence for the jury to find that it violated RLUIPA's equal terms provision and that, in any case, it enjoys a full defense because its denial was rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest. Aplt. Br. at 30-34. Specifically, the County argues that the evidence did not show that RMCC was similarly situated to the comparator used at trial, Dawson School. Id. at 31-33. The County approved Dawson School's 1995 special use application for expansion within an Agricultural District. Aplt.App. 4152. The County highlights several differences between RMCC's application and the School's 1995 application. The School's expansion was half the size of RMCC's in terms of raw square footage (132,200 versus about 60,000). Id. at 4725-36, 6460. The School had proposed multiple small buildings compared to RMCC's larger structures. Id. at 4154-55, 4708. And RMCC's resulting traffic would exceed Dawson School's resulting traffic (after their respective expansions) by ten times. Id. at 4710-11. Nonetheless, RMCC presented ample evidence of similarities between the projects at trial. Both Rosi Koopman, RMCC's expert and planning consultant, and Benjamin Herman, the County's expert, testified that the total resulting square footage of the two projects was similar (Dawson School resulted in 196,000 square feet and RMCC would have totaled 240,800). Id. at 4212, 4708, 6460. Both proposals would have expanded existing uses, both would have built gymnasiums of roughly the same size, both would have expanded their student bodies by 120 students, and both properties were located in Agricultural Districts and designated as agricultural lands of importance. Id. at 4152-56. The Dawson School and RMCC applications also proposed similarly sized buffers (the distance between the building and the property line). Id. at 4159. Although the two proposed expansions were not identical, the many substantial similarities allow for a reasonable jury to conclude that RMCC and Dawson School were similarly situated. In the alternative, the County argues that RLUIPA's equal terms provision is subject to an affirmative defense: a generally applicable law that is rationally related to a legitimate governmental interest cannot violate the equal terms provision. Aplt. Br. at 33-34. At the first step, the County may have waived this argument by omitting it from its renewed motion for judgment as a matter of law, Aplt.App. 3155-60. See Unitherm Food Sys., Inc. v. Swift-Eckrich, Inc., 546 U.S. 394, 404, 126 S.Ct. 980, 163 L.Ed.2d 974 (2006) ([T]he precise subject matter of a party's Rule 50(a) motion ... cannot be appealed unless that motion is renewed pursuant to Rule 50(b).); Kellogg v. Energy Safety Servs., Inc., 544 F.3d 1121, 1128 (10th Cir.2008) (failure to raise a specific argument in its pre-verdict and post-verdict motions precludes our review). Even so, the law does not support the defense in this case. Other circuits disagree whether RLUIPA implicitly includes an affirmative defense. This debate centers around whether Congress intended to codify Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence. Compare Midrash Sephardi, Inc. v. Town of Surfside, 366 F.3d 1214, 1232 (11th Cir.2004) with Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism, Inc. v. City of Long Branch, 510 F.3d 253, 269 (3rd Cir.2007). This theory, and the County's argument, rest on a congressional floor statement by one of RLUIPA's sponsors. See Midrash Sephardi, 366 F.3d at 1231-32; Aplt. Br. at 30 (The equal terms provision `enforce[s] the Free Exercise Clause rule against laws that burden religion and are not neutral and generally applicable.' (quoting 146 Cong. Rec. S7774-01, S7776 (2000))). If the equal terms provision includes an affirmative defense based on Free Exercise Clause jurisprudence, a rational basis defense is warranted only for neutral, generally applicable laws. Grace United Methodist Church v. City of Cheyenne, 451 F.3d 643, 649 (10th Cir.2006) (citing Employment Div. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 879, 110 S.Ct. 1595, 108 L.Ed.2d 876 (1990)). By contrast, it is well-settled that rules which are discriminatorily applied are subject to strict scrutiny, not rational basis review. Axson-Flynn v. Johnson, 356 F.3d 1277, 1294 (10th Cir. 2004); see also Church of Lukumi Babalu Aye, Inc. v. City of Hialeah, 508 U.S. 520, 534, 113 S.Ct. 2217, 124 L.Ed.2d 472 (1993) (holding the Free Exercise Clause forbids subtle departures from neutrality and the covert suppression of particular religious beliefs (quotations omitted)). The evidence at trial was sufficient to demonstrate the County applied the zoning ordinance non-neutrally. As noted above, the Church was treated less favorably than Dawson School, a similarly situated comparator. Further, there was evidence the County singled out the Church for adverse treatment in processing and determining its application. For example, the County applied a less advantageous method to calculate whether the Church's proposed use was over-intensive, and treated the Church's application as a new application, even though it was an existing use. Aplt.App. 4186-88. As a result, if an affirmative defense to the equal terms provision exists, only a strict scrutiny defense would apply here. The County has not argued that it should enjoy a strict scrutiny defense to the equal terms provision, and thus the argument is waived. Adler v. Wal-Mart Stores, Inc., 144 F.3d 664, 679 (10th Cir.1998). Given this waiver, we need not decide whether the equal terms provision includes an affirmative defense. Without an affirmative defense to the equal terms provision, the County is left only with its sufficiency of the evidence argument. The district court appropriately denied the County's motion for judgment as a matter of law with respect to the equal terms claim.
RLUIPA forbids a government from impos[ing] or implement[ing] a land use regulation that(A) totally excludes religious assemblies from a jurisdiction; or (B) unreasonably limits religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction. 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc(b)(3). The district court's instruction required RMCC to establish that the County's regulation, as applied or implemented, has the effect of depriving both [RMCC] and other religious institutions or assemblies of reasonable opportunities to practice their religion, including the use and construction of structures, within Boulder County. Aplt. App. 3090. The jury was instructed that it could find that the land use regulation... imposes unreasonable limits even though religious assemblies are not totally excluded from Boulder County. Id. The County claims that RMCC presented no evidence at trial of any limitations on opportunities for churches in Boulder County. Aplt. Br. at 35. It points to testimony by Graham Billingsley, the County's land use director, and Rosi Koopman, RMCC's expert and a previous employee of the County's land use office for twelve years, that the County had approved all other special use applications submitted by churches. Aplt.App. 4144, 4217. However, Ms. Koopman also testified that the County's land use scheme has made it more difficult for churches to operate in Boulder County, Id. at 4213, and has effectively left few sites for church construction, Id. at 4216-22. Another witness, Regina Hyatt, testified that she approached a County commissioner about the possibility of building a synagogue but was told that the County would only allow 100 seats because there will never be another mega church ... in Boulder County. Id. at 4543-44. Further testimony related that another congregation ran out of money going through the County's special use application process and abandoned its building project. Id. at 4178-79. RMCC presented evidence of its unsuccessful attempts to appease the County's concerns. Id. at 4174-75, 4204-06. The church took several steps to minimize the expansion's visual impact on the neighborhood, including hiring a surveyor to confirm that the church's proposed landscaping and berming would block all views of the expanded building from every neighboring home. Id. at 3736-40. The jury also learned of disparate treatment by the County land use staff between the Planning Commission and County Commission hearings. Typically, unless the applicant has changed its application, the County land use staff does not substantially change its report after the Planning Commission meeting, but rather adds a summary description. Id. at 4192. After RMCC's Planning Commission meeting, however, the County land use staff issued a new report with calculations based on erroneous lot sizes and building square footage and an analysis that Rosi Koopman found embellished significantly. Id. at 4192-98. Given the timing of the report's release just before the County Commission hearing, RMCC requested a postponement and spent more time and money responding to the report. Id. at 4198-4201. This testimony was more than adequate for a reasonable jury to find for RMCC on this claim. The jury could choose to weigh evidence of the County's land use regulation effectively excluding churches more heavily than the County's record of approving special use applications. The jury could also conclude that the County's implementation of the land use regulation was unreasonably restrictive in this case. Because sufficient evidence existed for the jury's unreasonable limitations verdict, the district court did not err when it denied the County's motion for judgment as a matter of law.
Because we affirm the permanent injunction on the basis of the equal terms and unreasonable limitations verdicts, as discussed below, we need not review the sufficiency of the evidence of the substantial burden claim.