Seventh Circuit Holds Withstanding Dismissal in a Parallel RLUIPA Case in a Totally different Jurisdiction did Not Represent an Extraordinary Circumstance that

This submit was authored by Matthew Loescher, Esq.

In 2020, Phrase Seed sought to buy property for worship providers in Homewood, however the village’s zoning ordinance required Phrase Seed to acquire a particular use allow. Phrase Seed sued Homewood alleging that the particular use allow requirement violated RLUIPA’s provisions on equal phrases, unreasonable limitations, and substantial burdens, and the Fourteenth Modification’s Equal Safety Clause. The district courtroom discovered that Phrase Seed didn’t undergo an damage as a result of it didn’t apply for a particular use allow, and dismissed the go well with for lack of standing.

On enchantment, Phrase Seed argued that whereas they did not argue future damage earlier than judgment was entered on this case, the truth that they withstood dismissal in a parallel litigation—a go well with involving a special village and pending earlier than a special district decide in the identical federal district—was a rare circumstance that warranted reduction. The courtroom rejected this place, noting that it’s well-settled {that a} movement to rethink just isn’t the correct car to boost new arguments that might and may have been raised previous to judgment. Right here, Phrase Seed makes an attempt to beat this well-settled precept by arguing that their profitable litigation in a parallel go well with constituted “a major change within the regulation.” The courtroom held {that a} resolution by one other district decide was not controlling precedent, and due to this fact couldn’t represent a major change within the regulation. As Phrase Seed failed to point out any extraordinary circumstances on this case, the district courtroom’s resolution to disclaim Phrase Seed’s Rule 60(b) movement was upheld.

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