Case 9:09-cv-80052-KLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2010 Page 1 of 4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case No. 09-80052-CIV-RYSKAMP/VITUNAC

WESTGATE TABERNACLE and

BISHOP AVIS HILL,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PALM BEACH COUNTY,

Defendant.
________________________________/

ORDER CLOSING CASE

THIS CAUSE comes before the Court sua sponte.

I. FACTS AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

Plaintiff Westgate Tabernacle, Inc. (“Westgate”) is a church located in West Palm Beach,

Florida. Plaintiff Bishop Avis Hill (“Hill”) is an “employee, leader, and member” of Westgate.

In 1998, the County began code enforcement efforts against Westgate for allowing people to

sleep within the church building without the proper zoning permit. On May 10, 2002, Westgate,

Hill and other members of Westgate sued the County in state court for (1) “Violation of Basic

Fundamental Rights under the Florida Constitution”; (2) “Violation of Florida Constitution

Article 1, Section 23"; (3) “Violation of Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act (RFRA)”

(4) “Violation of Plaintiff’s Due Process Rights”; (5) “Violation of Florida Constitution Article

1, Section 3"; and (6) “Equal Protection under the Florida Constitution.” The County moved for

summary judgment on all counts. The trial court granted the motion as to Counts 1, 2 and 4 and

set the case for trial on the remaining counts.

Case 9:09-cv-80052-KLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2010 Page 2 of 4

Shortly before trial, Westgate, Hill and other members of Westgate filed a second state

court action based on the same set of circumstances, alleging violation of the Religious Land Use

and Institutionalized Persons Act and violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983 against the County.

The two cases were consolidated and proceeded to jury trial. The jury sided with the

County on all counts and final judgment was entered for the County. Plaintiffs appealed that

judgment to the Fourth District Court of Appeal.

Westgate and Hill filed this action during the pendency of the appeal of the state court

action. This action alleges the following violations arising from the County’s requirement that

the church obtain a permit: (1) “Violation of Basic Fundamental Rights Under the Florida

Constitution;” (2) “Violation of Article 1, Section 23 of the Florida Constitution;” (3) “Violation

of Florida’s Religious Freedom Restoration Act;” (4) “Violation of Plaintiffs’ Due Process

Rights”; (5) “Violation of Florida Constitution, Article 1, Section 3"; (6) “Equal Protection under

the Florida Constitution”; (7) “Violation of the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons

Act “RLUIPA”; and (8) “Violation of 42 U.S.C. 1983.”

The Court stayed this action on March 26, 2009 pending the outcome of the appeal of the

state action. Plaintiffs did not prevail before the Fourth District. On November 4, 2009, the

Supreme Court of Florida declined to exercise jurisdiction over this action. The Court lifted the

stay in this action on January 5, 2010.

Currently pending is Defendants Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, filed March 4,

2009. The Court, on January 5, 2010, ordered Plaintiffs to respond to this motion by January 25,

2010. Plaintiffs failed to do so, and the Court allowed Plaintiffs until January 29, 2010 to

respond. Plaintiffs did not respond until February 1, 2010.

Case 9:09-cv-80052-KLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2010 Page 3 of 4

II. DISCUSSION

Instead of reviewing the Motion to Dismiss and Motion to Strike, the Court will examine

whether it has subject matter jurisdiction over this action. The court may raise the issue of

subject matter jurisdiction at any stage in a civil action. See Cadet v. Bulger, 377 F.3d 1173,

1179 (11th Cir. 2004) (the Court is “obligated to inquire into subject matter jurisdiction sua

sponte whenever it may be lacking”) (quotation omitted). District courts lack subject matter

jurisdiction under the Rooker-Feldman doctrine in “cases brought by state-court losers

complaining of injuries caused by state-court judgments rendered before the district court

proceedings and inviting district court review and rejection of those judgments.” Exxon Mobil

Corp. v. Saudi Basic Industries, Corp., 544 U.S. 280, 284, 125 S.Ct. 1517, 1522 (2005); see also

Rooker v. Fidelity Trust Co., 263 U.S. 413, 415-16, 44 S.Ct. 149, 150 (1923); see also District of

Columbia Court of Appeals v. Feldman, 460 U.S. 462, 476, 13 S.Ct. 1303, 1311 (1983). The

doctrine provides that federal courts, other than the Supreme Court, have no authority to review

the final judgments of state courts. Goodman ex rel. Goodman v. Sipos, 259 F.3d 1327, 1332

(11th Cir. 2001).

The rule is triggered when “(1) the party in federal court is the same as the party in state

court; (2) the prior state court ruling was a final or conclusive judgment on the merits; (3) the

party seeking relief in federal court had a reasonable opportunity to raise its federal claims in the

state court proceeding; and (4) the issue before the federal court procedure adjudicated by the

state court or was inextricably intertwined with the state court’s judgment.” Amos v. Glynn

County Bd. of Tax Assessors, 347 F.3d 1249, 1265 n.11 (11th Cir. 2003). Federal claims are

inextricably intertwined with the state court judgments where the federal claims succeed only to
Case 9:09-cv-80052-KLR Document 25 Entered on FLSD Docket 02/18/2010 Page 4 of 4

the extent that the state court wrongly decided the issues before it. Goodman ex rel. Goodman,

259 F.3d at 1332. Even if the federal claim and the state court judgment are “inextricably

intertwined,” the Federal Court may exercise jurisdiction if the plaintiff lacked any “reasonable

opportunity to raise his federal claim in state proceedings.” Id.

All of these elements are satisfied here. Westgate Tabernacle and Avis Hill were

plaintiffs in the state court action. The state trial court granted summary judgment for Defendant

on several of the counts, and a jury found for Defendant on the remaining counts. Plaintiffs did

not prevail before the Fourth District, and the Florida Supreme Court declined to exercise

jurisdiction over the matter. Plaintiffs had more than a reasonable opportunity to raise the claims

in this action in the state action; the claims in both actions are identical. The issues before this

Court are “inextricably intertwined” with the issues before the state court because, as already

stated, the issues are identical.

Given that this case satisfies all elements of the Rooker-Feldman doctrine, it is hereby

ORDERED AND ADJUDGED that the above-styled case is DISMISSED for lack of

subject matter jurisdiction. The Clerk of Court shall CLOSE this case and DENY any pending

motions as MOOT.

DONE AND ORDERED at Chambers in West Palm Beach, Florida, this 17th day of

February, 2010.

S/Kenneth L. Ryskamp
KENNETH L. RYSKAMP
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE