Ram v. Lal

• Decision Date: 21 November 2012
• Docket Number: No. 12 CV 4336(CLP).,12 CV 4336(CLP).
• Citation: 906 F.Supp.2d 59
• Parties: Sansara RAM, Harnam Rattu, Paramjit Lal, and Madan Singh Badhan, individually and on behalf of Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York, Inc., Plaintiffs, v. Nand LAL, Nirmal Singh Daroch, Iqbal Singh, and Bhola Klair, Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Eastern District of New York

906 F.Supp.2d 59

Sansara RAM, Harnam Rattu, Paramjit Lal, and Madan Singh Badhan, individually and on behalf of Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York, Inc., Plaintiffs,

v.Nand LAL, Nirmal Singh Daroch, Iqbal Singh, and Bhola Klair, Defendants.

No. 12 CV 4336(CLP).

United States District Court, E.D. New York.

Nov. 21, 2012.

David John Sutton, David J. Sutton, P.C., Garden City, NY, for Plaintiffs.

Michael R. Curran, Michael R. Curran, Attorney at Law, Rego Park, NY, for Defendants.

ORDER

CHERYL L. POLLAK, United States Magistrate Judge.

On August 29, 2012, plaintiffs Sansara Ram, Harnam Rattu, Paramjit Lal, and Madan Singh Badhan (the “Federal Plaintiffs”) ¹ commenced this action, individually and on behalf of Shri Guru Ravidas Sabha of New York, Inc. (“the Temple”), against defendants Nand Lal, Nirmal Singh Daroch, Iqbal Singh, and Bhola Klair (the “Federal Defendants”), pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1983, for alleged violations of the First Amendment of the United States Constitution, as well as the New York State Not–For–Profit Corporation Law (N.Y. Not–for–Profit Corp. Law (McKinney 2012)), and the New York Religious Corporations Law (N.Y. Relig. Corp. LawW (McKinney 2012)). The Federal Plaintiffs, who are four members of the Temple, seek a preliminary injunction to enjoin the Federal “Defendants and any other person, party, or entity, from taking any steps or authorizing any actions that are contrary to the Bylaws” of the Temple. (Pls.' Mem. at 28).

BACKGROUND

According to the Federal Plaintiffs, both the Federal Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants in this case are Ravidasia ² ( id. at 10), and belong to the Temple, which is located at 61–01 Broadway, Woodside, New York 11377. (Defs.' Mem.³ at 1). The Temple has as its revered spiritual figure Shri Guru Ravidas. (Pls.' Mem. at 7; see also Defs.' Mem. at 1; Baker Aff.⁴ ¶ 2). While the Federal Plaintiffs explain that Ravidasia is a religion (Pls.' Mem. at 7), the Federal Defendants assert that Ravidasia “is not a religion, but is to be defined as being a subgroup who have evolved from the Book of Sikh, the Guru Granth Sahib, which has been in existence since 1604.” (Defs.' Mem. at 5).

The Federal Plaintiffs allege that there are “only a handful of Ravidasia temples around the world,” and that the Temple at issue in this case is the only Ravidasia temple on the East Coast. (Pls.' Mem. at 8). The Federal Defendants concur, stating that, in addition to the Temple here in Queens, there are a total of six Ravidasia temples in the United States, with one in Texas and four others in California. (Daroch Aff.⁵ ¶ 4). The Federal Plaintiffs claim that “the Temple is very precious and important to the Ravidasia community in the tri-state region (and beyond).” (Pls.' Mem. at 8).

The Federal Plaintiffs assert that pursuant to the Temple's purpose and according to its Bylaws, only Ravidasia can become members of the Temple. ( Id. at 8–9). The Federal Plaintiffs contend that “[t]o become a member of the Temple, one has to fill out an Application for General Membership,” which requires the pledge: “I belong to the Ravidassia Community, i.e. I am a son/daughter of a Chammar/Addharmi.” ( Id. at 9, Ex. E).

According to the Federal Plaintiffs, there are two factions of Ravidasia within the Temple, a fact which the Federal Defendants do not dispute. ( Id. at 10; see generally Defs.' Mem. at 4–6). The Federal Plaintiffs contend that of the 2,500 members of the Temple, persons taking a position similar to that taken by the Federal Plaintiffs comprise approximately 68% of the Temple membership, and persons affiliated with the Federal Defendants' faction represent the remaining 32%. (Pls.' Mem. at 6). The Federal Defendants reject this assertion, instead arguing that the Temple has between 4,000 and 5,000 worshipers and that the Federal Defendants have “70% backing at the present time.” ⁶ (Defs.' Mem. at 1; Daroch Aff. ¶ 13).

The Federal Plaintiffs contend that the Federal Defendants' faction has been trying to oust the Federal Plaintiffs' faction from control of the Temple “[f]or years” and that to effectuate this end, the Federal Defendants' faction filed a lawsuit in state court in 2008 challenging the results of a 2006 election of the Temple's Management Committee.⁷ (Pls.' Mem. at 11). The Federal Defendants reject the Federal Plaintiffs' contention regarding the 2006 election and instead claim that “[t]here never was any election before the June 14, 2009 General Election, as it was the first in the history of the Temple.” (Defs.' Mem. at 4). The Federal Defendants contend that prior to 2009, the Temple Management Committee Members and Trustees were chosen by “elders or leaders of the Temple” even though, according to the Federal Defendants, this violated the Temple's Constitution and Bylaws.⁸ ( Id.)

The Federal Plaintiffs and the Federal Defendants do agree that an election to appoint the Temple's leadership was held in 2009. (Pls.' Mem. at 12; Defs.' Mem. at 2). According to the Federal Plaintiffs, an independent organization was appointed to oversee the 2009 election, and the Federal Plaintiffs' faction won. (Pls.' Mem. at 12).

The Federal Plaintiffs claim that after the 2009 election, the Federal Defendants “began a campaign of recruiting non-Ravidasia outsiders to become general/voting members of the Temple in an attempt to create a majority of voters to win the next election.” ( Id. at 13).

According to the Federal Plaintiffs, many of the individuals who the Federal Defendants enrolled in the Temple are not Adharmi/Chammar, in contravention of the Temple's Bylaws. ( Id.) The Federal Plaintiffs provide affidavits from six individuals who claim that they signed membership applications to become Temple members even though they admit that they are not members of the Chammar/Addharmi caste. ( Id.) They claim that they did not understand and were not told ⁹ that only members of the Chammar/Addharmi caste were allowed to become members of the Temple.¹⁰ ( Id. at 13–14, Ex. I). Indeed, the affidavits state that they were “informed that the Court was allowing” people who were not members of the Chammar/ Addharmi caste to become members of the Temple. ( Id.) In response, the Federal Defendants accuse the opposing faction of “coerc[ing] individuals to sign a few affidavits” and claim that “the rest were forged.” (Daroch Aff. ¶ 19(a)).

In 2011, three of the four Federal Defendants in this case brought a lawsuit in state court (“the State Case”) ¹¹ against the Temple, the Members of the Management Committee and the Board of Trustees elected on June 14, 2009, and their appointed successors.¹² (Pls.' Mem. at 12–13). The Federal Defendants brought the State Case because they claimed that the 2009 Membership Committee “continued to administer and control the Temple after their two-year elective terms expired on June 14, 2011, in violation of the Temple Constitution and Bylaws.” (Daroch Aff. ¶ 3; see also Defs.' Mem. at 2; Baker Aff. ¶ 3). According to the Federal Plaintiffs, the Federal Defendants sought, among other things, to remove the 2009 Management Committee and hold a new election. (Pls.' Mem. at 13).

On July 13, 2011, the Honorable Duane A. Hart, who presides over the State Case, granted the request of the plaintiffs in that case, and disbanded the 2009 Management Committee. He also appointed a Receiver, Cynthia R. Baker, to control the “assets and operation” of the Temple until a new Management Committee could be elected. (Pls.' Mem. at 13, Ex. P; Baker Aff. ¶ 2). The Receiver, who has been overseeing the membership drive and determining the parameters and procedures for the election, scheduled an election to select a new Management Committee for the Temple.¹³ The election is currently scheduled to occur on November 25, 2012 at 8:00 a.m. at the Temple. (Defs.' Mem. at 1).¹⁴ Three of the named Federal Defendants are running for leadership positions in the Temple.¹⁵ The Federal Plaintiffs assert that although the Federal Defendants are Ravidasia, the Federal Defendants “have aligned themselves with non-Ravidasia outsiders (namely Sikhs), and these non-Ravidasia outsiders are funding and backing defendants' faction in an attempt to take over control of the Temple.” (Pls.' Mem. at 10). Although the Federal Plaintiffs take the position that true members of Ravidasia are not Sikhs ( see Pls.' Mem. at 10), the Federal Defendants reject that characterization. (Defs.' Mem. at 5).

The Federal Plaintiffs contend that both factions have engaged in membership drives to increase their chances of winning the election. (Pls.' Mem. at 15). It is the Federal Plaintiffs' belief that the State Court and the Receiver have acted in direct contravention of the Bylaws of the Temple such that “at least 319 non-Ravidasia [are] being allowed to vote” in the upcoming November 25, 2012 election, which will result in “a Management Committee govern[ing] the Temple who have views contrary to the majority of the members” and “defeat the entire purpose of the Temple's creation.” ( Id. at 27). The Federal Defendants respond that the present litigation is a “last-ditch attempt” to prevent the election from going forward. (Defs.' Mem. at 6; see also Daroch Aff. ¶ 19(c)).

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The Federal Plaintiffs filed their Complaint in this action on August 29, 2012 against Federal Defendants Lal, Daroch, Singh and Klair.¹⁶ (Pls.' Mem. at 18, Ex. B). The Federal Plaintiffs did not name the State Court or the appointed Receiver, Cynthia R. Baker, as parties to this action. ( See Baker Aff. ¶ 5). To date, the Federal Defendants have not filed an Answer, but during a conference with this Court on November 8, 2012, the Federal Defendants indicated their intent to file a motion to dismiss the Complaint in lieu of an Answer. On November 13, 2012, the parties consented to have this case reassigned to the undersigned for all purposes.

In the Complaint, the Federal Plaintiffs requested the following injunctive...