Complaint

1
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

James A. Sonne, State Bar No. 250759
jsonne@law.stanford.edu
Jared M. Haynie, State Bar No. 294375
jhaynie@law.stanford.edu
Stanford Law School Religious Liberty Clinic
Crown Quadrangle
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
Phone: (650) 723-1422
Fax: (650) 723-4426

Attorneys for Plaintiff

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
WESTERN DIVISION


Harbor Missionary Church
Corporation,

Plaintiff,

v.

City of San Buenaventura; Jeffrey
Lambert, in his official capacity as
Community Development Director;
Mark Watkins, in his official
capacity as City Manager; Cheryl
Heitmann, in her official capacity as
Mayor and presiding City
Councilmember; Erik Nasarenko, in
his official capacity as Deputy Mayor
and City Councilmember; and Neal
Andrews, James L. Monahan, Carl
E. Morehouse, Mike Tracy, and
Christy Weir, in their official
capacities as City Councilmembers;



Case No.:

Complaint for Declaratory and
Injunctive Relief

1. Violation of the Religious
Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act,
42 U.S.C. 2000cc-1
2. Violation of the First
Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution

Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 1 of 20 Page ID #:1

Complaint

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

Dan Long, in his official capacity as
Chair of the Planning Commission;
Nancy Francis, in her official
capacity as Vice Chair of the
Planning Commission; and
Christopher Beck, Scott Boydstun,
Laura Dunbar, David Ferrin, and
Rondi Guthrie, in their official
capacities as Planning
Commissioners,

Defendants.

Introduction
1. This action is brought under the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act of 2000 (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. 2000cc, and the First Amendment
to the Constitution of the United States through 42 U.S.C. 1983.
2. Plaintiff Harbor Missionary Church Corporation is a Christian congregation
in San Buenaventura, California that believes it is called to serve the homeless and
the downtrodden. The church has ministered to the poor in its current location
since 2008, but was recently forced by the City to terminate its ministry to the
poor. Accordingly, Harbor seeks declaratory and injunctive relief to remedy the
deprivation of its religious liberties.
3. Ministry to the poor is a substantial part of Harbors religious exercise. For
approximately five hours per day, Monday through Friday, Harbor provides meals,
clothing, access to laundry and shower facilities, and Bible study and prayer, at its
location in a residential neighborhood.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 2 of 20 Page ID #:2

Complaint

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

4. In 2004, the church purchased the property at its current location from the
Quakers who had used the building as both a church and, on weekdays, a daycare
facility. Because conditional use permits run with the land, upon purchasing the
property Harbor obtained the permit that had been secured by the Quakers with the
same rights and obligations the Quakers had had under the permit.
5. In late 2012, however, City officials determined Harbors permit to operate
as a church did not suffice for the churchs ministry to the poor; the city demanded
the church apply for an additional permit.
6. Because Harbor already had a permit in place (and because it had been
operating its ministry to the poor for more than four years), it was confused by the
Citys request. Because Harbors ministry to the poor was (and is) central to its
doctrine, faith, and practice, it felt that its current permit to operate as a church was
sufficient and that a separate permit was not necessary. Nevertheless, in the spirit
of cooperation it applied for a separate permit and paid the nearly $7,200
application fee.
7. Ultimately, the City denied the permit. In November 2013, the City Planning
Commission denied the permit and categorized the churchs homeless ministry as
secular activity. Harbor appealed to the City Council. In May 2014, the City
Council deadlocked in its deliberations, resulting (by default) in an affirmation of
the Planning Commissions decision.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 3 of 20 Page ID #:3

Complaint

4
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

8. Ministering to the poor, both spiritually and physically, has been and
continues to be a central tenet of the churchs doctrine, faith, and practice. By
forcing Harbor to discontinue its ministry to the poor, the City has substantially
burdened the churchs religious exercise without a legally justifiable reason, in
violation of RLUIPA and the First Amendment.
Jurisdiction and Venue
9. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and
1343.
10. Venue is proper in this district under 28 U.S.C. 1391(b) because at least
one of the defendants resides in this district (and all defendants are residents of
California); and because a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims
alleged herein occurred in this district.
Parties
11. Plaintiff Harbor Missionary Church Corporation is a nonprofit religious
corporation organized under the laws of California. It is located at 3100 Preble
Avenue in San Buenaventura, California.
12. Defendant City of San Buenaventura (the City) is a municipal corporation
created under the laws of California and situated in Ventura County.
13. The City is empowered to act through its officers, employees, and official
bodies. All powers of the City are vested in the City Council (the Council),
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 4 of 20 Page ID #:4

Complaint

5
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

except as otherwise provided for in the City Charter or the California Constitution.
Ventura City Charter 700. The City Council has the authority to issue a
conditional use permit to allow Harbor to continue its homeless ministry at its
current location. Id.
14. Defendant Jeffrey Lambert is Community Development Director for the City
and is sued in his official capacity. As Community Development Director, Mr.
Lambert is charged with enforcing the Citys zoning ordinance, including the terms
and conditions of any land use permit issued by the City Council. Ventura, Ca.,
Mun. Code 24.580.030. He is authorized to arrest persons who violate the Citys
zoning ordinance. Id.
15. Defendant Mark Watkins is City Manager for the City and is sued in his
official capacity. As City Manager, Mr. Watkins is the administrative head of the
City. Ventura City Charter 800. It is his duty to see that all laws, provisions of
[the City Charter,] and acts of the City Council, subject to enforcement by him or
by officers subject to his direction and supervision, are faithfully executed.
Ventura City Charter 802(e).
16. Defendant Cheryl Heitmann is a member of the City Council for the City
(City Councilmember) and is also the Mayor of the City; she is sued in her
official capacity. As Mayor, Ms. Heitmann serves as the presiding City
Councilmember. Ventura City Charter 703.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 5 of 20 Page ID #:5

Complaint

6
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

17. Defendant Erik Nasarenko is a City Councilmember and is also the Deputy
Mayor of the City; he is sued in his official capacity. As Deputy Mayor, Mr.
Nasarenko acts as Mayor in the absence of the Mayor. Id.
18. Defendant Neal Andrews is a City Councilmember and is sued in his official
capacity.
19. Defendant James L. Monahan is a City Councilmember and is sued in his
official capacity.
20. Defendant Carl E. Morehouse is a City Councilmember and is sued in his
official capacity.
21. Defendant Mike Tracy is a City Councilmember and is sued in his official
capacity.
22. Defendant Christy Weir is a City Councilmember and is sued in her official
capacity.
23. Defendant Dan Long is Chair of the Planning Commission and is a Planning
Commissioner; he is sued in his official capacity.
24. Defendant Nancy Francis is Vice Chair of the Planning Commission and is a
Planning Commissioner; she sued in her official capacity.
25. Defendant Christopher Beck is a Planning Commissioner and is sued in his
official capacity.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 6 of 20 Page ID #:6

Complaint

7
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

26. Defendant Scott Boydstun is a Planning Commissioner and is sued in his
official capacity.
27. Defendant Laura Dunbar is a Planning Commissioner and is sued in her
official capacity.
28. Defendant David Ferrin is a Planning Commissioner and is sued in his
official capacity.
29. Defendant Rondi Guthrie is a Planning Commissioner and is sued in her
official capacity.
Statement of Facts
30. Harbor purchased the property at 3100 Preble Avenue in 2004. The property
previously belonged to a Quaker congregation and had been used as a place of
communal worship for decades.
31. When Harbor acquired it, the property had a City-issued permit for church
use and a daycare operation for up to 150 children.
32. In 2007, Sam Gallucci became Harbors pastor and began to focus the
churchs ministry toward fulfilling the gospels command to minister to the poor.
33. Harbor sincerely believes the gospel of Jesus Christ requires it to feed the
hungry and clothe the naked. The central scripture guiding the churchs vision is
the parable of the sheep and the goats, found in the New Testament, where Jesus
taught the significance of feeding the hungry, clothing the naked, and visiting the
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 7 of 20 Page ID #:7

Complaint

8
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

sick and those who are in prison. Jesus said, whatever you did for one of the least
of these brothers and sisters of mine, you did for me. See Matthew 25:34-40.
34. Harbors weekday activities (hereinafter ministry) consist of inviting its
congregants, including the homeless, to gather at the church five days a week for
meals, clothing, showers, laundry, and Christian teaching and fellowship. With the
help of local business and charitable organizations, the church provides breakfast
and lunch, interspersed with songs, prayers, scripture study, and fellowship. During
this time, showers and laundry facilities are made available to those who need
them.
35. Harbors ministry occurs from approximately 8:30 a.m. to 2:00 p.m.,
Monday through Thursday, and from 8:30 a.m. to 11:30 a.m. on Fridays. These
times were worked out with Harbors next door neighborBlanche Reynolds
Elementaryto ensure the churchs ministry would not interrupt the schools daily
operations.
36. In December 2012, the City told Harbor it needed a separate conditional use
permit to continue its ministry.
37. As Harbors ministry is an integral part of its church practice, Harbor
believed its current permit to operate as a church was adequate to allow it to
continue its activities. Nevertheless, in the spirit of cooperation, Harbor complied
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 8 of 20 Page ID #:8

Complaint

9
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

with the Citys request and in February 2013 filed an application for an additional
conditional use permit.
38. The City has a multi-step process for issuing a conditional use permit. First,
City Staff conducts a thorough study of the application. Second, Staff presents its
findings and recommendation to the City Planning Commission on two separate
issues: (1) whether the Planning Commission ought to approve the application and,
if so, subject to what conditions; and (2) whether approval of the application might
have a significant effect on the environment, an analysis mandated by the
California Environmental Quality Act. Third, the Planning Commission reviews
Staffs findings and recommendations, and makes its own determinations.
39. The four findings that must be made to grant a conditional use permit are:
(1) the use conforms to the comprehensive plan and is consistent with the purposes
and requirements of the zoning ordinance; (2) the use will not be detrimental to the
public health, safety, and welfare; (3) the use will be compatible with the scale,
mass, bulk, and orientation of the buildings and structures in the surrounding
vicinity; and (4) the use will be compatible with, and will not adversely affect or be
materially detrimentally to, uses, buildings, or structures in, or the general
character of the surrounding vicinity. See Ventura Municipal Code, 24.520.070.
The Planning Commissions determinations may be appealed to the City Council.
Ventura, Ca., Mun. Code 24.520.100. The City Council considers appeals from
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 9 of 20 Page ID #:9

Complaint

10
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

the Planning Commission de novo; its determination is final. Ventura, Ca., Mun.
Code 24.565.060.
40. On June 19, 2013, City staff issued a Notice of Intent to Adopt a Negative
Declaration under CEQA, specifically finding that Harbors ministry to the poor
COULD NOT have a significant effect on the environment. Staff noted that city
ordinances currently in place control potential noise impacts Harbor could cause.
Further, staff noted that prior police interactions with Harbor had been part of
their normal operations, and that no new police efforts would be required for the
continuation of Harbors ministry.
41. Shortly thereafter, City staff issued its initial report, recommending the
Planning Commission grant the conditional use permit subject to conditions. Staff
specifically found that, subject to conditions, Harbors ministry was fully
compatible with and would not adversely affect or be materially detrimental to the
surrounding uses or the general character of the neighborhood.
42. At the hearing sessions held by the Planning Commission, the
Commissioners devoted little discussion to City Staffs proposed conditions and
ultimately instructed staff to return with new findings that would support a
denial. On November 13, 2013, the Planning Commission voted to deny the
permit.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 10 of 20 Page ID #:10

Complaint

11
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

43. The denial classified Harbors ministry as a secular land use[], refusing to
consider it as part of the churchs religious exercise.
44. The denial was also based on the erroneous assertion that because Harbor
objected to certain proposed conditions, it would be unwilling to comply with any
conditions. Harbor, however, has always been willing to follow reasonable and
legally imposed conditions.
45. The Planning Commission denied the churchs application without applying
RLUIPAs heightened scrutiny for religious land use, and, therefore, never reached
the question of whether the denial was the least restrictive means of furthering a
compelling governmental interest.
46. On November 25, 2013, Harbor filed a timely appeal to the City Council.
Separate appeals were filed by the Unitarian Universalist Church and the Ventura
Interfaith Ministerial Association. Robert Gibson, a Harbor congregant, filed an
appeal but it was rejected for failure to pay the $1,000 filing fee.
47. Two members of the City Council recused themselves.
48. The City Council held three hearing sessions. At the conclusion of the third
session, the four sitting Councilmembers deadlocked, 2-2. (One member of the
City Council was absent at the third session.) Consequently, the City Council took
no action, and the Planning Commissions decision stands. Ventura, Ca., City
Council Protocols III.15 (Sept. 2013).
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 11 of 20 Page ID #:11

Complaint

12
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

49. The process the City used to determine whether to grant Harbors
application for a conditional use permit was one that by its nature required an
individualized assessment of Harbors application.
50. The denial of Harbors application for a conditional use permit prevents
Harbor from continuing its ministry.
51. Relocating the churchs ministry is impracticalat least for the foreseeable
future. Immediate relocation is impossible. Harbor lacks the financial means to
move. And even under ideal conditions, moving will take timetime to find a new
location; to navigate the permitting process; to fund the building, construction, and
moving costs; to remodel a likely industrial shell to suit the needs of a church; and
finally to simply relocate an entire church and its belongings. Such a process
cannot be completed in mere weeks or months. In the meantime, Harbors
congregants need a church. If the church simply shuts its doors, its congregants
will have nowhere to go.
52. Evidence was not presented to the City that would support a compelling
interest in forcing Harbor to close its ministry.
53. Denial of Harbors application for a permit was not the least restrictive
means available to advance any purported governmental interest. At the very least,
restrictions could have been placed on the permit that would allow Harbor to
continue to operate while, at the same time, addressing the Citys concerns.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 12 of 20 Page ID #:12

Complaint

13
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

54. Harbor continued to operate its ministry while the proceedings were pending
before the Planning Commission and the City Council. The City did not attempt to
force Harbor to close its ministry during that period.
55. The City receives federal financial assistance.
Count I
Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act
(42 U.S.C. 2000cc)
56. Harbor re-alleges and incorporates by reference the preceding paragraphs of
this Complaint.
57. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Harbor of its right to the
free exercise of religion, as secured by the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc (RLUIPA).
58. RLUIPA prevents the government from imposing a substantial burden on
the sincere religious belief of a religious assembly or institution unless the
government demonstrates that imposition of the burden is in furtherance of a
compelling governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(1).
59. RLUIPA applies whenever (1) the substantial burden is imposed in a
program or activity that receives Federal financial assistance; (2) the substantial
burden affects, or removal of that substantial burden would affect, commerce . . .
among the several States; or (3) the substantial burden is imposed in the
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 13 of 20 Page ID #:13

Complaint

14
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

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 assessments of the
proposed uses for the property involved. 42 U.S.C. 2000cc(a)(2).
60. Because the City receives federal financial assistance; because the
imposition of the substantial burden on Harbors religious exercise affects
commerce among the several States; and because this case arises out of the
Citys implementation of a land use regulation under which the City made
individualized assessments concerning Harbors proposed use of the property at
3100 Preble Avenue, RLUIPAs terms are binding in this case.
61. Harbor is a religious assembly or institution for purposes of RLUIPA. See
42 U.S.C. 2000cc.
62. The City is a government subject to the requirements of RLUIPA; and the
other Defendants are government officials subject to the requirements of RLUIPA.
See 42 U.S.C. 2000cc, 2000cc-5.
63. Harbors ministry is an integral part of its religious exercise, contrary to the
Citys assertion that the ministry is a secular land use unprotected by RLUIPA.
64. Defendants have unlawfully imposed a substantial burden on Harbors
sincere religious exercise. The Councils denial of the churchs application to
continue its ministry imposes a significantly great restriction or onus on Harbors
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 14 of 20 Page ID #:14

Complaint

15
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

religious exercise. See Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. Cnty. of Sutter, 456
F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
65. If Harbor were to continue its ministry to the poor, it would face potential
criminal prosecution. Ventura, Ca., Mun. Code 24.580.030. The church has
evaluated its relocation options, and moving is highly impracticable given the
churchs financial constraints (and immediate relocation is financially impossible).
Therefore, the denial forces Harbor to abandon its ministry or risk criminal
liability. This burden is oppressive to a significantly great extent. Guru Nanak,
456 F.3d at 988 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
66. No compelling governmental interest justifies Defendants decision.
Defendants carry the burden of demonstrating that Harbors ministry implicates a
compelling interest, and they have not carried that burden.
67. Moreover, there are less restrictive means available than denying Harbors
permit. Defendants carry the burden of demonstrating that outright denial is the
least restrictive means available, and they have not carried that burden.
Count II
Violation of the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution
(42 U.S.C. 1983)
68. Harbor re-alleges and incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 55 of
this Complaint.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 15 of 20 Page ID #:15

Complaint

16
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

69. The First Amendment commands that Congress shall make no law
prohibiting the free exercise of religion. U.S. Const. amend. I. The Free Exercise
Clause of the First Amendment was incorporated against the States by the
Fourteenth Amendment. Cantwell v. Connecticut, 310 U.S. 296, 303, 84 L. Ed.
1213, 1217, 1860 S. Ct. 900, 903 (1940). Municipalities are also bound by the Free
Exercise Clause by operation of the Fourteenth Amendment. See, e.g., Lovell v.
City of Griffin, Ga., 303 U.S. 444, 450, 82 L. Ed. 949, 953, 58 S. Ct. 666, 668
(1938).
70. As a municipality or official agents of a municipality, Defendants are
obliged to comply with the First Amendment.
71. Congress has provided a statutory vehicle to bring challenges to First
Amendment violations by state actors. Under 42 U.S.C. 1983, a person has a
private right of action against any person who, under color of state law, deprives
another of any rights, privileges, or immunities secured by the Constitution. The
private right of action includes an action at law and a suit in equity. Id.
72. Defendants have deprived and continue to deprive Harbor of its right to the
free exercise of religion, as secured by the First Amendment.
73. Harbors ministry to the poor is an integral part of the churchs religious
exercise.
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 16 of 20 Page ID #:16

Complaint

17
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

74. Defendants have unlawfully imposed a substantial burden on Harbors
sincere religious exercise. The Councils denial of the churchs application to
continue its ministry to the poor imposes a significantly great restriction or onus
on Harbors religious exercise. See Guru Nanak Sikh Soc. of Yuba City v. Cnty. of
Sutter, 456 F.3d 978, 988 (9th Cir. 2006) (citation and internal quotation marks
omitted).
75. If Harbor were to continue its ministry to the poor, it would face potential
criminal prosecution. Ventura, Ca., Mun. Code 24.580.030. The church has
evaluated its relocation options, and moving is highly impracticable given the
churchs financial constraints (and immediate relocation is financially impossible).
Therefore, the denial forces Harbor to abandon its ministry or risk criminal
liability. This burden is oppressive to a significantly great extent. Guru Nanak,
456 F.3d at 988 (citation and internal quotation marks omitted).
76. This burden was imposed by a process that necessarily required an
individualized government assessmentthat is, the denial of Harbors permit was
based on a judgment regarding the particular circumstances surrounding the
churchs application. When a substantial burden is imposed through an
individualized government assessment, strict scrutiny applies; in such cases, the
rule or decision imposing the substantial burden violates the Free Exercise Clause
unless it is the least restrictive means of achieving a compelling interest. See
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 17 of 20 Page ID #:17

Complaint

18
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

Employment Div., Dept of Human Res. v. Smith, 494 U.S. 872, 884, 108 L. Ed. 2d
876, 889, 110 S. Ct. 1595, 1603 (1990); Sherbert v. Verner, 374 U.S. 398, 406-07,
10 L. Ed. 2d 965, 972, 83 S. Ct. 1790, 1795-96 (1963).
77. No compelling governmental interest justifies Defendants decision.
Defendants carry the burden of demonstrating that Harbors ministry implicates a
compelling interest, and they have not carried that burden.
78. Moreover, there are less restrictive means available than denying Harbors
permit. Defendants carry the burden of demonstrating that outright denial is the
least restrictive means available, and they have not carried that burden.
Prayer for Relief
79. Harbor seeks a declaration that its ministry is religious exercise; that its
existing permit to operate as a church is sufficient to carry on its ministry; and that
no additional permit is required to continue that ministry at 3100 Preble Avenue.
80. Harbor seeks a declaration that Defendants outright denial of Harbors
application for a permit to continue its ministry at 3100 Preble Avenue violates its
religious liberty rights secured by RLUIPA and the First Amendment to the U.S.
Constitution.
81. Harbor seeks a preliminary injunction restraining Defendants and their
agents, during the pendency of this action, from bringing any enforcement action
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 18 of 20 Page ID #:18

Complaint

19
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

against the church resulting from Harbors denied application for a permit to
continue its ministry at 3100 Preble Avenue.
82. Harbor seeks a permanent injunction directing Defendants to grant Harbors
application for a conditional use permit to continue its ministry at 3100 Preble
Avenue in a manner consistent with Harbors religious liberty protected under
RLUIPA and the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
83. Harbor is entitled to recover attorney fees, 42 U.S.C. 1988(b), and costs,
Fed. R. Civ. P. 54(d).
84. Accordingly, Harbor prays that this Court grant:
A. Declaratory and injunctive relief as set forth in this Complaint;
B. Reasonable attorney fees, litigation expenses, expert fees, and
costs; and
C. All such other and further declaratory and injunctive relief as appears
reasonable and just.
Dated: May 14, 2014
Respectfully submitted,

STANFORD LAW SCHOOL
RELIGIOUS LIBERTY CLINIC

By: /s/ James A. Sonne
James A. Sonne
jsonne@law.stanford.edu
Jared M. Haynie
jhaynie@law.stanford.edu
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 19 of 20 Page ID #:19

Complaint

20
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

Stanford Law School
Religious Liberty Clinic
559 Nathan Abbott Way
Stanford, CA 94305
(650) 723-1422

Attorneys for Plaintiff
Case 2:14-cv-03730 Document 1 Filed 05/14/14 Page 20 of 20 Page ID #:20