The doctrine of res judicata bars parties and those in privity with them from relitigating issues that were or could have been raised in a previous action. Claims are barred under this doctrine if the second suit involves the same claim or nucleus of operative facts as the first suit. In Kiryas Joel Alliance v. Village of Kiryas Joel (2d Cir. 2012), members of a dissident population within the Village of Kiryas Joel (the “Village”), sued the Village under the Free Exercise Clause and RLUIPA. The federal district court dismissed the claims because they had already litigated discriminatory claims arising from the same set of facts in state court. The Second Circuit affirmed.

In considering the Villages motion to dismiss, the federal district court was required to accept as true for purposes of the motion the facts alleged in Plaintiffs amended complaint: “The Village [] is an enclave located within the Town of Monroe in Orange County, New York. It was incorporated as a municipality in 1977 by the late Grand Rebbe of Satmar Hasidism, Joel Teitelbaum. Although the Village was created as an enclave for the Satmar Hasidim and remains populated almost exclusively by followers of Satmar Hasidism, a significant rift exists between two Satmar factions in the Village, namely the members of the Villages main congregation and the so-called ‘dissident’ population. The schism primarily stems from a dispute over who should be the proper leader of the Satmar Hasidim. The dissidents do not ‘approve of’ the leadership of the current Grand Rebbe, Aron Teitelbaum. Instead, many of the dissidents believe that Arons brother Zalman should be ‘running’ [Congregation Yetev] instead of Aaron. The Village has approximately 20,000 residents; roughly 8,000 of those residents share plaintiffs dissident views. . . .

“The Amended Complaint further contends that the Village violated both Plaintiffs constitutional rights and their rights under RLUIPA by ‘thwarting’ [Plaintiffs] dissident congregation Bais Yoels attempts to use a piece of residential property as a synagogue (the “Property”). The Property is an apartment annexed to Congregation Yetevs Grand Synagogue. It was originally built in 1975 to house the late Grand Rabbi Joel Teitelbaum and his spouse, Feige Teitelbaum (or the “Rebitzon”). Feige continued to live in the apartment until her death in 2001. Before her death, however, and after Joel Teitelbaums death in 1979, she conveyed her interest in the Property to Bais Yoel. The transfer was akin to conveying a small wing of a house. In other words, Bais Yoel owns a ‘footprint’ of real property within the Grand Synagogues grounds. . . .

“After the Rebitzons death, Bais Yoel began using the Property to hold religious services. By 2004, the Property was operating as a large-scale house of worship, with more than 300 persons visiting the Property on a daily basis. However, after a trial in New York Supreme Court [a state trial court], that court held that the Property could only be used for residential purposes unless Bais Yoel applied for and received municipal approval to use it for religious purposes.” Thereafter, Plaintiffs filed another lawsuit in state court asserting that the Villages requirement that they obtain approval before using the Property for religious services violated RLUIPA. The state court determined that Plaintiffs claims were barred by res judicata and dismissed the suit. Plaintiffs next sued in the federal district court, alleging violations under RLUIPA and the U.S. Constitution. The federal district court also dismissed Plaintiffs claims as barred by res judicata.

On appeal, the Second Circuit affirmed the decision of the federal district court, finding that Plaintiffs “cannot avoid the effects of res judicata by ‘splitting’ [their] claim[s] into various suits, based on different legal theories (with different evidence ‘necessary’ to each suit).” The Court also noted Plaintiffs failure to offer any persuasive reason as to why the claims and facts asserted in the federal suit could not have been raised in the state court suit, both of which involved the application of the Villages zoning laws.

This case is important to municipalities facing the threat of RLUIPA claims for several reasons. First, municipalities should be aware that a plaintiff may bring a RLUIPA claim in either federal or state court, but not both. Second, a plaintiff asserting a violation under RLUIPA cannot get two bites at the apple. If a religious institution asserts a RLUIPA claim in a zoning dispute, the doctrine of res judicata generally will require such a claim to be made along with the zoning challenge. Splitting claims into different lawsuits will likely result in at least one of them being dismissed. Finally, when municipalities fail to recognize potential conflicts with religious institutions when they first arise and resolve them locally and informally, chances are they will find themselves in court.

Print:
Email this postTweet this postLike this postShare this post on LinkedIn
Photo of Evan Seeman Evan Seeman

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of…

Evan J. Seeman is a lawyer in Robinson+Cole’s Hartford office and focuses his practice on land use, real estate, environmental, and regulatory matters, representing local governments, developers and advocacy groups. He has spoken and written about RLUIPA, and was a lead author of an amicus curiae brief at the petition stage before the United States Supreme Court in a RLUIPA case entitled City of San Leandro v. International Church of the Foursquare Gospel.

Evan serves as the Secretary/Treasurer of the APA’s Planning & Law Division. He also serves as the Chair of the Planning & Zoning Section of the Connecticut Bar Association’s Young Lawyers Section, and is the former Co-Chair of its Municipal Law Section. He has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list as a Rising Star in the area of Land Use Law for 2013 and 2014. He received his B.A. in political science and Russian studies (with honors) from Trinity College in Hartford, Connecticut, where he was selected as the President’s Fellow in the Department of Modern Languages and Literature. Evan received his Juris Doctor at the University of Connecticut School of Law, where he served on the Connecticut Law Review. While in law school, he interned with the Connecticut Office of the Attorney General in the environmental department, and served as a judicial intern for the judges of the Mashantucket Pequot Tribal Court. Following law school, Evan clerked for the Honorable F. Herbert Gruendel of the Connecticut Appellate Court.

Read more about Evan Seeman
Show more Show less
Photo of Dwight Merriam Dwight Merriam

Dwight H. Merriam founded Robinson+Cole’s Land Use Group in 1978. He represents land owners, developers, governments and individuals in land use matters, with a focus on defending governments in RLUIPA cases. Dwight is a Fellow and Past President of the American Institute of…

Dwight H. Merriam founded Robinson+Cole’s Land Use Group in 1978. He represents land owners, developers, governments and individuals in land use matters, with a focus on defending governments in RLUIPA cases. Dwight is a Fellow and Past President of the American Institute of Certified Planners, a former Director of the American Planning Association (APA), a former chair of APA’s Planning and Law Division, Immediate Past Chair of the American Bar Association’s Section of State and Local Government Law, Chair of the Institute of Local Government Studies at the Center for American and International Law, a Fellow of the Royal Institution of Chartered Surveyors, a Fellow of the American Bar Foundation, a member of the Rocky Mountain Land Use Institute National Advisory Board, a Fellow of the Connecticut Bar Foundation, a Counselor of Real Estate, a member of the Anglo-American Real Property Institute, and a Fellow of the American College of Real Estate Lawyers.

He teaches land use law at the University of Connecticut School of Law and at Vermont Law School and has published over 200 articles and eight books, including Inclusionary Zoning Moves Downtown, The Takings Issue, The Complete Guide to Zoning, and Eminent Domain Use and Abuse: Kelo in Context. He is the senior co-author of the leading casebook on land use law, Planning and Control of Land Development (Eighth Edition). Dwight has written and spoken widely on how to avoid RLUIPA claims and how to successfully defend against them in court. He is currently writing a book on the subject, RLUIPA DEFENSE, for the American Bar Association.

Dwight has been named to the Connecticut Super Lawyers® list in the area of Land Use Law since 2006, is one of the Top 50 Connecticut Super Lawyers in Connecticut, and is one of the Top 100 New England Super Lawyers (Super Lawyers is a registered trademark of Key Professional Media, Inc.). He received his B.A. (cum laude) from the University of Massachusetts, his Masters of Regional Planning from the University of North Carolina, where he was the graduation speaker in 2011, and his J.D. from Yale. He is a featured speaker at many land use seminars, and presents monthly audio land use seminars for the International Municipal Lawyers Association. Dwight has been cited in the national press from The New York Times to People magazine and has appeared on NBC’s The Today Show, MSNBC and public television.

Dwight also had a career in the Navy, serving for three tours in Vietnam aboard ship, then returning to be the Senior Advisor of the Naval ROTC Unit at the University of North Carolina in Chapel Hill where he taught Defense Administration and Military Management as an Assistant Professor in the undergraduate and graduate curriculum in Defense Administration and Military Management. He left active duty after seven years to attend law school, but continued on for 24 more years as a reserve Surface Warfare Officer with two major commands, including that of the reserve commanding officer of the Naval Undersea Warfare Center. He retired as a Captain in 2009 after 31 years of service.

Show more Show less