Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 1 of 12

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MARYLAND (Southern Division) REACHING HEARTS INTERNATIONAL, INC. 4208 White Tulip Court Burtonsville, Maryland 20866 Plaintiff v. PRINCE GEORGES COUNTY, MARYLAND Serve on: Stephanie P. Anderson County Attorney County Administration Bldg., Room 5121 14741 Governor Oden Bowie Dr. Upper Marlboro, Maryland 20772 Defendant * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * Case No. 11-cv-01959 * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *

COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY RELIEF, PRELIMINARY AND PERMANENT INJUNCTIVE RELIEF, AND DAMAGES Plaintiff, Reaching Hearts International, Inc. (RHI), by undersigned counsel, files this Complaint against Prince Georges County, Maryland (the County), stating as follows: NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. This action seeks a declaratory judgment, injunctive relief and

compensatory damages for violations of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. (RLUIPA). This case emanates from the

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 2 of 12

ongoing efforts by Prince Georges County, Maryland to destroy RHIs ability to exercise its religious freedom and to thwart RHIs attempt to build a church on its property. The factual grounds for this Complaint are a replica of the grounds for RHIs 2005 federal lawsuit against the County, which led to a permanent injunction and over $3.7 million in compensatory damages against the County for substantially burdening and discriminating against RHIs religious exercise. The Countys actions make clear that it believes that it can disregard the laws of the United States and willfully disobey orders of this Court. The Countys unlawful conduct and ongoing campaign to irreparably harm RHI are precisely why Congress enacted RLUIPA. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 2. Jurisdiction of this Court arises under 28 U.S.C. 1331 and 1343 and

42 U.S.C. 2000cc et seq. The Court is authorized to issue preliminary and permanent injunctive relief pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 65. The Court is authorized to award Plaintiff attorneys fees and costs pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1988. 3. Venue is proper in this District because the unlawful actions occurred (and

continue to occur) in Prince Georges County, Maryland. See 28 U.S.C. 1391. PARTIES 4. Reaching Hearts is a church congregation in the Allegheny East Conference

of the Seventh-day Adventist Church. It is formally organized as a Maryland corporation with its principal place of business in Maryland.

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 3 of 12

5.

Prince Georges County is a Maryland home-rule county which adopted a

charter form of government in 1970. The County is authorized to exercise powers set forth in Article 25A, section 5, of the 1957 Annotated Code of Maryland. BACKGROUND 6. The Countys unlawful conduct against RHI spans many years and started

soon after RHI entered into a contract on September 5, 2001 to purchase 17 acres of property in Prince Georges County. The property is in West Laurel and is zoned to permit the building of a church as a matter of right. The County has purposefully thwarted RHIs attempt to build a church on its property at every turn, and now, almost ten years later, construction still has not begun. 7. The property, 6100 Brooklyn Bridge Road, is in Prince Georges County

Councilmanic District 1. The councilman in 2001 was Thomas Dernoga, who was succeeded in 2011 by Mary Lehman. 8. With respect to land use issues, the Prince Georges County Council

operates as a series of separate fiefdoms. The Council defers to each respective council member with respect to land use issues in his or her district. Thus, Dernoga dictated the result on land use issues in Councilmanic District 1, and Lehman has inherited that role. 9. As was the case when it had to file suit against the County in 2005, RHI

currently does not have its own church space. Having a physical space adequate to meet its needs and theological requirements is vital to the existence of RHI and to its exercise of its religion.

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 4 of 12

10.

As with any Seventh-day Adventist Church, the church building is the

communal hub for RHIs members. RHIs activities include bible study groups, vacation bible schools for youths, prayer groups, health training, and community outreach services. Although Seventh-day Adventist worship services are always on Saturdays, church members meet on other days of the week for various services and activities. Seventh-day Adventist churches typically have an elementary school associated with them, and its members believe that they are not supposed to work on the Sabbath. Their services include total immersion baptism, and their churches include a large baptismal font for that purpose. 11. RHI currently holds its weekly religious services pursuant to a lease with

Cedar Ridge Conference Center in Spencerville, Maryland. Under the lease, RHI has access to the auditorium and certain rooms on Saturdays from 9 a.m. to 3 p.m., and to two rooms on Wednesdays from 6:30 p.m. to 9:30 p.m. The driveway to the facility has a large sign that says Cedar Ridge Community Church. The facility includes farm buildings and a silo. 12. The limitations on RHIs religious activities as a Seventh-day Adventist

church that result from the Cedar Ridge lease are described in RHI Intern., Inc. v. Prince Georges County, 584 F. Supp. 2d 766 (D. Md. 2008). Cedar Ridge is not sufficient to house and accommodate RHIs religious services and charitable missions. Cedar Ridge does not have capacity to accommodate attendees of RHIs pre-worship services and worship services. Because of the limited hours under the Cedar Ridge lease, RHI is

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 5 of 12

unable to conduct many of its basic religious activities at the facility. With the limited hours, members of RHI have to depart from their proscription against work on the Sabbath to arrange the facility on Saturday morning simply so that the congregation can actually worship together. 13. A part of RHIs religious mission is growth and spreading the gospel. But

RHI cannot grow without its own church building, and if its congregation cannot grow it will regress. 14. RHI attempted to develop the property to build its church but the County,

led by Dernoga, made it impossible. First, the County denied RHIs 2003 water-sewer application based on entirely pretextual reasons. Next, Dernoga introduced and led the Council in the passage of CB-83-2003, which targeted the RHI property and restricted its lot coverage to 10%. Dernoga then interceded at the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commissions proceeding on RHIs subdivision application, and persuaded the Commission to deny the application. In 2005, Dernoga led the County in denying yet another RHI water-sewer application for pretextual reasons. The result was that the cumulative restrictions made it impossible for RHI to develop the property for its religious needs. 15. RHI sued the County for religious discrimination and RLUIPA violations.

A jury received extensive testimony and evidence on RHIs claims from April 15, 2008 to April 24, 2008. On April 24, the jury returned a verdict in favor of RHI on all of its claims, finding that the Countys actions constituted intentional discrimination in

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 6 of 12

violation of the Fourteenth Amendment and imposed a substantial burden on RHIs exercise of religion in violation of RLUIPA. The jury awarded RHI damages of $3,714,822.36. 16. Thereafter, this Court issued a 35-page memorandum opinion that

thoroughly and thoughtfully considered all of the issues presented. RHI Intern., Inc. v. Prince Georges County, 584 F.Supp.2d 766 (D. Md. 2008). The Court affirmed the jurys findings in every respect. The Court also held as a matter of law that the Countys unlawful conduct was not in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest or the least restrictive means to achieve a compelling governmental interest. The Court also entered the jurys verdict and entered injunctive relief ordering the County to process any further water and sewer applications from RHI without delay and without religious discrimination. The U.S. Court of Appeals for the Fourth Circuit affirmed this Courts findings in their entirety on March 3, 2010. Defendant petitioned for a rehearing and rehearing en banc, which was denied by the Fourth Circuit on March 30, 2010. 17. The County first represented that it was going to petition for certiorari to

the Supreme Court after the Fourth Circuit affirmance. It did not do so, and after the expiration of the time for the petition, RHI began work on building its church. The first step was to apply, as it did in 2003, for a change in water-sewer category. 18. On August 13, 2010, RHI filed an application for a water and sewer plan

change with the Countys Department of Environmental Resources. RHI requested that the application be processed without delay. The application was reviewed by the

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 7 of 12

Department of Environmental Resources (DER), the Washington Suburban Sanitary Commission (WSSC), and the Maryland-National Capital Park and Planning Commission (M-NCPPC) in the normal course of their business. The reviews were forwarded to the County Executive, and the County Executive recommended granting the application and changing the water-sewer category on the property to 4. That recommendation was forwarded to the County Council. 19. Dernoga had a policy of intimidating land owners and their counsel from

exercising their rights. While RHI was prosecuting its first federal case against the County, Dernoga stated to RHIs land use counsel that he did not like the variance for which a member of RHI who resided in District 1 was applying. The variance was completely unrelated to RHIs litigation. Dernoga also stated, with reference to the RHI litigation, I dont like people challenging my laws, and I dont like Reaching Hearts church. 20. Continuing his personal, discriminatory vendetta against RHI, then-Council

chair Dernoga exercised his prerogative to refuse to place the County Executives resolution on the agenda, thus further delaying RHIs development of its church and violating this Courts injunction. 21. Dernogas term as a County councilman ended in 2011. As a private

citizen, he continued his decade-long campaign to violate RHIs religious rights. He organized community opposition to RHIs water-sewer application through the West Laurel Civic Association and other means. He consulted with and advised his successor,

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 8 of 12

Lehman, on how to oppose the application. Dernoga is a lawyer admitted to practice in Maryland, and he performed all of these actions knowing that he was interfering with a federal court injunction. 22. RHIs application became designated as CR-21-2011, a resolution

requested by the County Executive and introduced by the chair of the Council, to advance RHIs water-sewer category to 4. The County Council held a public hearing on the resolution on March 15, 2011. RHI and its representatives spoke in favor of the resolution and reminded the Council that they were subject to a federal court injunction. As a result of the efforts of Dernoga and Lehman, 15 witnesses spoke against the resolution. The opposition was based on unsubstantiated environmental concerns and statements to the effect that the church would affect the quality of life and property values in the community, and the fact that the church is tax exempt. 23. On June 23, 2011, the Transportation, Housing and Environment

Committee of the County Council held a hearing on CR-21-2011. Council members Lehman, Olson, Toles and Patterson were present. CR-21-2011 was the only item on the agenda. Committee staff testified that CR-21-2011 was proposed by the County Executive and recommended category 4. Appropriate referrals to WSSC and M-NCPPC had been made, and the Office of Law had determined that the resolution was in appropriate legal form. A DER representative testified that the application met the criteria for approval and that traffic, environmental, and public safety issues would have to be dealt with in the subdivision process. In a well-scripted proceeding, Chair Olson

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 9 of 12

then called on Lehman, who read a memo dated June 23, 2011 setting forth her opposition to the resolution. The memo, attached as Exhibit A, includes a number of blatant misrepresentations. Most remarkably, however, the memo refers to the July 2003 denial of RHIs water and sewer category change, and the fact that the denial was upheld by the Maryland courts. In a telling demonstration of the Countys contempt for the federal courts, the memo does not mention the federal litigation or injunction. 24. Following the script, after Lehman read her memo, Olson asked her if she

had a motion. She then made a motion to retain the property in water-sewer category 5. Patterson immediately seconded the motion. Olson called for a vote, and all four committee members voted aye and then walked out the room. 25. On July 12, 2011, the Prince Georges County Council held a meeting at

which they considered CR-21-2011. At the meeting, Chairman Turner called on Lehman, who moved to substitute Draft 2 for Draft 1 of the resolution. Draft 2 is attached as Exhibit B. Contrary to Draft 1, which was the County Executives resolution recommending category 4, Draft 2 recommends retaining the property in category 5. The committee members voted in favor of substituting Draft 2 for Draft 1. Lehman then moved to adopt the resolution and Olson seconded her motion. A roll call was made and all council members voted in favor of the resolution, thus again denying RHIs application for a water-sewer category change. Exhibit B contains Lehmans purported reasons for opposing RHIs application, each one of which is either false or misleading. Once again, neither Lehman nor any member of the Council addressed the federal

# 425692

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 10 of 12

litigation or injunction. Lehmans purported reasons are the same as the purported reasons used by the County to reject the 2003 and 2005 water-sewer applications, which were rejected by the jury and the Court in the prior case. 26. A change in water-sewer category is the first step in the development

process which would lead to RHIs building its church. The Countys action therefore prevents RHI from proceeding, and is designed to discourage RHIs congregation and force it to move away. 27. Thus, after ten years of work, RHI has made no progress in building its

church. The Countys actions have, once again, fundamentally inhibited RHIs ability to practice its religion, by, among other things, preventing it from building its worship site. The Countys actions have caused RHI to expend a substantial amount of money and to incur substantial delay and uncertainty in building its church. The Countys actions also have pressured RHI to depart from its religious beliefs. As RHI demonstrated in its prior case, Cedar Ridge is inadequate for its theological requirements and there are no reasonable alternatives. There is no compelling justification for the Countys actions, which have substantially burdened RHIs religious exercise. COUNT I (Violation of RLUIPA) 28. The allegations set forth in the preceding paragraphs are incorporated

herein by reference.

# 425692

10

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 11 of 12

29.

The Countys conduct, including denying RHIs water and sewer change

application constituted the imposition and implementation of a land use regulation, under which the government made an individual assessment of the proposed use for RHIs property. 30. 31. RHIs intended use of its property to build its church is a religious exercise. The Countys conduct in denying RHIs application imposed a substantial

burden on RHIs religious exercise without any compelling government interest and without using the least restrictive means to further any compelling government interest. 32. The County's conduct, including denying RHI's water and sewer change

application, imposes and implements a land use regulation in a manner that treats RHI on less than equal terms with nonreligious assemblies and institutions. 33. The County's conduct, including denying RHI's water and sewer change

application, imposes and implements a land use regulation that discriminates against RHI on the basis of religion or religious denomination. 34. RHI has suffered and continues to suffer damages as a result of the

Countys unlawful conduct. WHEREFORE, RHI respectfully prays that the Court grant: A. A declaratory judgment holding that the actions of the County that prevent

the religious use of RHIs property are unlawful under RLUIPA; B. Preliminary and permanent injunctive relief requiring the County to grant

RHIs water and sewer change application, and injunctive relief to prohibit Defendant

# 425692

11

Case 8:11-cv-01959-RWT Document 1 Filed 07/18/11 Page 12 of 12

from preventing RHIs construction of a church on its property and utilization of its property for its religious exercise; C. D. Compensatory damages against the County in the amount of $4 million; Costs, expenses and attorneys fees to Plaintiff to the full extent permitted

by law arising out of the Countys actions, land use decisions and this litigation; and E. Granting such other, further and different relief as this Court deems just,

proper and equitable. Respectfully submitted, /s/ Ward B. Coe, III, Federal Bar #00282 David W. Kinkopf, Federal Bar #23366 Brian T. Tucker, Federal Bar #27485 GALLAGHER EVELIUS & JONES LLP 218 North Charles Street, Suite 400 Baltimore, Maryland 21201 (410) 727-7702 Attorneys for Plaintiff Date: July 18, 2011

# 425692

12