The Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine
| Decision Date | 15 September 2021 |
| Docket Number | 21-cv-0336 (WMW/JFD),19-cv-1122 (WMW/JFD) |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Minnesota |
| Parties | The Satanic Temple, Plaintiff, v. City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota, et al., Defendants. The Satanic Temple, Inc., Plaintiff, v. City of Belle Plaine, MN, Defendant. |
In these two related matters, Plaintiff The Satanic Temple (TST) alleges that Defendant City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota (Belle Plaine), violated its rights under federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Minnesota Constitution and should be held liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel. In TST's first-filed case, this Court dismissed TST's constitutional and statutory claims for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. See Satanic Temple v. City of Belle Plaine (Satanic Temple I), 475 F.Supp.3d 950 (D. Minn. 2020). In Satanic Temple I, Belle Plaine now moves for summary judgment as to TST's remaining promissory-estoppel claim. TST opposes Belle Plaine's motion and appeals the magistrate judge's January 26, 2021 Order, which denied in part TST's motion to compel discovery, denied TST's motion to amend the pretrial scheduling order, and denied TST's motion for leave to amend its complaint to re-assert its dismissed constitutional claims and add new constitutional claims.
After the magistrate judge denied TST's motion to amend its complaint in Satanic Temple I, TST commenced a second lawsuit on February 4, 2021. See Satanic Temple Inc. v. City of Belle Plaine (Satanic Temple II), No. 21-cv-0336, Dkt. 1 (D. Minn. Feb. 4, 2021). In Satanic Temple II, TST asserts the same constitutional claims that TST unsuccessfully attempted to assert in its proposed amended complaint in Satanic Temple I. Belle Plaine moves to dismiss TST's complaint in Satanic Temple II, arguing that the claims are barred by res judicata based on Satanic Temple I and, in the alternative, the complaint fails to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Belle Plaine also moves for sanctions against TST's counsel, arguing that the filing of Satanic Temple II is a frivolous attempt to circumvent the rulings in Satanic Temple I and waste judicial resources.
For the reasons addressed below, Belle Plaine's motions for summary judgment, dismissal, and sanctions are granted and the January 26, 2021 Order is affirmed.
On February 21, 2017, the Belle Plaine City Council enacted Resolution 17-020, titled “ESTABLISHING A POLICY REGARDING A LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM IN VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK” (the Enacting Resolution). In relevant part, the Enacting Resolution provides:
On February 23, 2017, TST submitted an application to erect a display in Belle Plaine's Veterans Memorial Park pursuant to the Enacting Resolution. TST received a permit on March 29, 2017. The Belle Plaine Veterans Club also obtained a permit under the Enacting Resolution to erect a display. On June 29, 2017, TST notified the City Administrator that its memorial monument was complete. TST spent “substantial sums in the design and construction of its display” and acquired liability insurance as required by the Enacting Resolution.
On July 17, 2017, Belle Plaine rescinded the Enacting Resolution by enacting Resolution 17-090, titled “RESCINDING THE POLICY AND ELIMINATING THE LIMITED PUBLIC FORUM IN VETERANS MEMORIAL PARK” (the Rescission Resolution). In relevant part, the Rescission Resolution provides:
The policy established in Resolution 17-020 is rescinded and the limited public forum established in the Park is hereby eliminated. Private displays or memorials placed in the Park shall be removed within a reasonable period by the owner thereof or, upon notice to such owner, or they will be deemed abandoned and removed by the City.
The next day, Belle Plaine notified TST by letter that the Belle Plaine City Council adopted the Rescission Resolution and enclosed a check reimbursing TST for its permit-application fee. As a result of the Rescission Resolution, TST never erected its display. Belle Plain Veteran's Club voluntarily removed its display from Veterans Memorial Park before Belle Plaine enacted the Rescission Resolution.
On April 25, 2019, TST commenced its first lawsuit against Belle Plaine, Satanic Temple I.[1] The complaint in Satanic Temple I alleges that Belle Plaine violated TST's rights under federal law, the United States Constitution, and the Minnesota Constitution and should be held liable under the doctrine of promissory estoppel.[2] In a July 31, 2020 Order, this Court dismissed TST's constitutional and statutory claims without prejudice for failure to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Satanic Temple I, 475 F.Supp.3d at 966. As a result, only TST's promissory-estoppel claim remains.
In December 2020, TST moved to compel discovery and amend the pretrial scheduling order. TST also sought leave to amend its complaint to re-assert the constitutional claims that the Court had dismissed and to assert new constitutional claims. In a January 26, 2021 Order, the magistrate judge denied in part TST's motion to compel discovery and denied TST's motion to amend. The magistrate judge concluded that TST had not demonstrated good cause to amend the pretrial scheduling order, which required any motion to amend the pleadings to be filed no later than October 15, 2019. The magistrate judge also concluded that TST had not demonstrated good cause to amend the complaint, observing that TST “does not allege any ‘new' facts [that] could not have with due diligence been asserted in its original Complaint.” In addition, the magistrate judge concluded that TST's proposed amended claims are futile because they fail to correct the deficiencies previously identified by the Court when dismissing TST's constitutional claims.
Belle Plaine moves for summary judgment in Satanic Temple I as to TST's promissory-estoppel claim. TST opposes summary judgment and also appeals the magistrate judge's January 26, 2021 Order denying TST's motion to amend.
On February 4, 2021, after the magistrate judge denied TST's motion to amend in Satanic Temple I, TST filed a second lawsuit against Belle Plaine, Satanic Temple II. The eight-count complaint in Satanic Temple II alleges that Belle Plaine violated TST's rights to free speech, free exercise of religion, equal protection, and due process under the United States Constitution and the Minnesota Constitution. Belle Plaine moves to dismiss TST's complaint in Satanic Temple II. Belle Plaine argues that TST's claims in Satanic Temple II are barred by res judicata and, in the alternative, fail to state a claim on which relief can be granted. Belle Plaine also moves for sanctions against TST's counsel, arguing that the filing of Satanic Temple II is a frivolous attempt to circumvent the rulings in Satanic Temple I and waste judicial resources.
Summary judgment is proper when the record before the district court establishes that there is “no genuine dispute as to any material fact” and the moving party is “entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” Fed.R.Civ.P. 56(a). A genuine dispute as to a material fact exists when “the evidence is such that a reasonable jury could return a verdict for the nonmoving party.” Anderson v Liberty Lobby, Inc., 477 U.S. 242, 248 (1986). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, a district court construes the evidence in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party and draws all reasonable inferences in the nonmoving party's favor. See Windstream Corp. v. Da Gragnano, 757 F.3d 798, 802-03 (8th Cir. 2014). When asserting that a fact is genuinely disputed, the nonmoving party must “submit affidavits, depositions, answers to interrogatories, or admissions on file and designate specific facts” in support of that assertion. Gander Mountain Co. v. Cabela's, Inc., 540 F.3d 827, 831-32 (8th Cir. 2008); see also Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(c)(1)(A). A nonmoving party may not “rest on mere allegations or denials but must demonstrate on the record the existence of specific facts which create a genuine issue for trial.” Krenik v. County of Le Sueur, 47 F.3d 953, 957 (8th Cir. 1995) (internal quotation marks omitted). Belle Plaine moves for summary judgment as to TST's remaining promissory-estoppel claim in Satanic Temple I. Promissory estoppel permits courts to enforce a promise on equitable grounds even if the parties did not enter into a contract. City of St. Joseph v. Sw. Bell Tel., 439 F.3d 468, 477 (8th Cir. 2006). To prevail on its promissory-estoppel claim under Minnesota law, TST must prove three elements: (1) the...
To continue reading
Request your trial