Court Refuses To Decide RLUIPA Claim On Ripeness Grounds

Congregation Etz Chaim v. City of Los Angeles, 2009 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 42345 (CD CA, May 5, 2009), is the latest decision in a dispute that began in 1996 over whether the city of Los Angeles would issue a conditional use permit to members of a synagogue to allow them to conduct religious services at a house in Los Angeles. A 2001 settlement of a RLUIPA lawsuit filed by the congregation was overturned by the 9th Circuit in 2007 on the ground that the settlement process cannot be used to evade state law requirements for notice and a hearing for the affected community before a conditional use permit is granted. (See prior posting.) In May 2008 the Congregation filed a new conditional use permit application with the city, but also asked the court to move ahead with a decision on its original RLUIPA claim. The court refused to do so on ripeness grounds, holding:

Over ten years have passed since the City denied plaintiff's CUP application, and the Congregation has recently filed a second application, which the City is currently considering. This second CUP application presents the first opportunity for the City to consider the Congregation's request in light of RLUIPA..... [G]ranting of the second CUP application would moot the instant action. Furthermore, it does not appear that the Congregation will be immediately harmed by the Court's decision to dismiss the instant action on ripeness grounds. The City has not taken any action to date to enforce the original denial of the CUP.... [T]he threat of hardship to the Congregation remains speculative.