Seventh Circuit Holds Withstanding Dismissal in a Parallel RLUIPA Case in a Completely completely different Jurisdiction did Not Characterize an Extraordinary Circumstance that

This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

In 2020, Phrase Seed sought to purchase property for worship corporations in Homewood, nevertheless the village’s zoning ordinance required Phrase Seed to accumulate a specific use permit. Phrase Seed sued Homewood alleging that the actual use permit requirement violated RLUIPA’s provisions on equal phrases, unreasonable limitations, and substantial burdens, and the Fourteenth Modification’s Equal Security Clause. The district courtroom docket found that Phrase Seed did not endure an harm on account of it did not apply for a specific use permit, and dismissed the swimsuit for lack of standing.

On attraction, Phrase Seed argued that whereas they did not argue future harm sooner than judgment was entered on this case, the reality that they withstood dismissal in a parallel litigation—a swimsuit involving a particular village and pending sooner than a particular district select within the an identical federal district—was a uncommon circumstance that warranted discount. The courtroom docket rejected this place, noting that it is well-settled {{that a}} motion to rethink is not the appropriate automobile to carry new arguments that may and can have been raised earlier to judgment. Proper right here, Phrase Seed makes an try to beat this well-settled principle by arguing that their worthwhile litigation in a parallel swimsuit constituted “an enormous change throughout the laws.” The courtroom docket held {{that a}} alternative by one different district select was not controlling precedent, and subsequently could not symbolize an enormous change throughout the laws. As Phrase Seed failed to point any extraordinary circumstances on this case, the district courtroom docket’s option to disclaim Phrase Seed’s Rule 60(b) motion was upheld.

Phrase Seed Church v Village of Homewood, 2022 WL 3095971 (seventh Cir. CA 8/4/2022)

Scroll to Top