Dist. Ct. erred in granting defendant’s motion for partial summary judgment in plaintiff’s action under Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), alleging that defendant placed unwarranted obstacles for plaintiff to operate its facility that contained rooms for plaintiff’s religious services, as well as single-room apartments, even though facility’s prior owner had used building for same purposes without said obstacles. While defendant argued that its requirement that plaintiff obtain special use permit, as well as its filing of state-court action against plaintiff that was eventually dismissed, did not substantially burden plaintiff for purposes of imposing liability under RLUIPA, record showed that requirement for special use permit was unfounded, and that plaintiff was required to spend considerable amount in legal fees to defend itself against frivolous state-court lawsuit, especially where state-court lawsuit could be viewed as part of defendant’s campaign to prevent plaintiff from using its facility to serve religious objectives of its organization. Also, Dist. Ct. could not grant defendant’s motion for summary judgment that concerned portion of plaintiff's lawsuit that sought recovery for two-year delay in plaintiff obtaining permits to operate its facility, where any delay attributable to plaintiff would only serve as off-set to plaintiff’s damages, as opposed to dismissal of its claim.
