# Anash, Inc. v. Borough of Kingston

> District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania · December 19, 2024

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10764464

## Case

- **Court:** District Court, M.D. Pennsylvania
- **Decided:** December 19, 2024
- **Opinion:** 100trialcourt
- **Cited by:** 0 later opinions in the Frix Law Library

## Citator (automated)

- No negative treatment found by the automated citator. That is not the same as a confirmation that the case is good law; read the citing cases.
- Full citator and citing cases: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10764464

## How later opinions describe it (automated extraction)

- holding that under RLUIPA and the First Amendment, a plaintiff must satisfy an initial burden showing that the government burdened his religious freedom before requiring the government to show that it acted in furtherance of a compelling interest
- applying rational basis review to Zoning Ordinances that prohibit certain religious land uses and finding that such restrictions are constitutional so long as the government acts in accordance with a legitimate regulatory interest
- holding that notice is “constitutionally sufficient if it was reasonably calculated to reach the intended recipient when sent.”

## Opinion text

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ANASH, INC., d/b/a WYOMING
VALLEY YESHIVA, and SHIMON
HELLINGER, individually and in
his capacity as an authorized
representative of Wyoming Valley
Yeshiva and relevant community CIVIL ACTION NO. 3:24-CV-01955
members,
(MEHALCHICK, J.)
Plaintiffs

v.

BOROUGH OF KINGSTON, et al.,

Defendants.

MEMORANDUM
Before the Court is a motion containing a request for a preliminary injunction, filed by
filed by Plaintiffs Anash, Inc., (“Anash”) d/b/a Wyoming Valley Yeshiva (“Wyoming Valley
Yeshiva”), and Shimon Hellinger (“Rabbi Hellinger”), individually and in his capacity as an
authorized representative of Wyoming Valley Yeshiva, and relevant community members
(collectively, “Plaintiffs”) on December 2, 2024, together with a brief in support of the motion.
(Doc. 5; Doc. 6). This case stems from Plaintiffs’ opposition to the condemnation of Plaintiffs’
properties located at 44 Pierce Street (“44 Pierce”) and 239 Pierce Street (“239 Pierce”)
(collectively, the “Properties”) in the Borough of Kingston. Defendants are the Borough of
Kingston (“Borough”), David R. Yefko (“Yefko”), and Robert Suchoski’s (“Suchoski”)
(collectively, “Defendants”). The Properties were used by Plaintiffs for Orthodox Jewish
religious activities. (Doc. 6, at 6). Plaintiffs seek a preliminary injunction prohibiting
Defendants from continuing to restrict access to the Properties, to reverse the condemnation
of the Properties, and invalidate the zoning ordinance at issue. (Doc. 6, at 27).
I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND
Rabbi Hellinger is the owner of the Properties and also acts as a religious leader for
members of the Wyoming Valley Yeshiva and as an authorized agent for the nonprofit
corporation, Anash, Inc., d/b/a Wyoming Valley Yeshiva. (Doc. 1, ¶¶ 6-7). In late 2020,

Rabbi Hellinger purchased both Properties. (Doc. 16-11). Kingston Borough’s 2023 Zoning
Ordinance (“Zoning Ordinance”) sets forth the local zoning laws where the Properties are
located. See KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE (2023). 44 Pierce is located in a C-2 Zone,
meaning that the area is zoned for commercial use, and at the time of purchase by Rabbi
Hellinger, was used as an office, a use Rabbi Hellinger represented he would continue. (Doc.
1-1; Doc. 16-11, at 2-3). 239 Pierce is similarly located in a C-2 Zone, and at the time of
purchase by Rabbi Hellinger, was used as a single-family home.1 Like with 44 Pierce, Rabbi
Hellinger represented that he would continue to use 239 Pierce in this manner, as a single-
family home. (Doc. 1-2; Doc. 16-11, at 4). The conditional approval certificates for the

purchase of both Properties noted that any changes in occupancy or use of the Properties
would render the approval null and void. (Doc. 1-1; Doc. 1-2; Doc. 16-11, at 3-4).
Following the purchase of both Properties, Rabbi Hellinger began to use 44 Pierce as
his personal office, as well as a “yeshiva,” defined roughly by Plaintiffs during the December
12, 2024 hearing, as well as in their complaint, as a place of study. (Doc. 1, ¶ 24). Photos of
the yeshiva provided by the parties as exhibits, as well as provided on the Anash website,

1 When Rabbi Hellinger purchased 239 Pierce, it was being used as a single-family
home in a C-2 district. (Doc. 19, at 98). As a single-family home in a commercial district,
there was a pre-existing non-conforming use designation associated with 239 Pierce. (Doc.
19, at 98). Attorney Mattern, Kingston's Solicitor, testified that this pre-existing non-
confirming use designation means that its continued use as a residential single-family home
in a C-2 district would have been permitted. (Doc. 19, at 98).
show that the yeshiva included desks, books, whiteboards, and other materials typically used
in educational facilities. (Doc. 16-5, at 2; Doc. 16-12; Doc. 16-19). Further, Plaintiffs
advertised the yeshiva on a website that included Rabbi Hellinger’s name and contact
information. (Doc. 16-2; Doc. 16-3; Doc. 16-4; Doc. 16-5). On the website, Plaintiffs
described the yeshiva as a “program” for students seeking to “reach new heights in learning”

and who “want to advance in substantial learning.” (Doc. 16-3, at 1-4). The website further
describes staff as “teachers.” (Doc. 16-4, at 2; Doc. 16-5, at 3). Plaintiffs also began to use 239
Pierce as a housing facility for individuals attending the yeshiva. (Doc. 6, at 7). The website
advertises housing for students and includes photographs of beds and what appear to be dorm
rooms. (Doc. 16-2; Doc. 16-3; Doc. 16-4; Doc. 16-5). Plaintiffs testified that the application
to the yeshiva also refers to students and teachers. (Doc. 19, at 61).
Beginning in the fall of 2023 and into 2024, Defendants submit that they began to
receive complaints from neighbors. (Doc. 16, at 6; Doc. 16-6, at 2). On several occasions
between September 2023 and March 2024, Defendants informed Plaintiffs of the complaints

and that their use of the Properties as a yeshiva and/or dormitory was unlawful. (Doc. 16-6,
at 2; Doc. 16-7, at 2-3; Doc. 16-8, at 2-4; Doc. 16-10). Defendants communicated both directly
with Plaintiffs and with Plaintiffs’ former and current attorneys to explain the unlawful usage.
(Doc. 16-6, at 2; Doc. 16-7, at 2-3; Doc. 16-8, at 2-4; Doc. 16-10). On April 4, 2024, Yefko
sent Rabbi Hellinger a violation notice informing Rabbi Hellinger that using 239 Pierce as a
boarding facility is illegal under the 2023 Zoning Ordinance. (Doc. 1-6, at 2; Doc. 16-16).
April 11, 2024, Yefko sent Rabbi Hellinger a violation notice informing Rabbi Hellinger that
using 44 Pierce as a school violates the relevant Zoning Ordinance. (Doc. 1-3; Doc. 16-13).
The notice violations do not include information about how to appeal the “school” or
“boarding house”/“dormitory” designations but do provide instructions on how to apply for
relief via a variance, such as a Conditional Use or Special Exception permit. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-
3; Doc. 1-6, at 2). On August 22, 2024, Yefko sent Rabbi Hellinger a second notice of violation
for each property, both of which included the same information as the first notices and
expressed frustration that Rabbi Hellinger had not communicated or replied to Defendants’

letters, notices, or other communications. (Doc. 1-4; Doc. 1-7; Doc. 16-15; Doc. 16-17).
On October 1, 2024, due to ongoing health and safety concerns at the Properties, and
Plaintiffs’ failure to respond to the violation notices, Defendants applied for administrative
search warrants, which were approved by Magisterial District Court Judge James Tupper.
(Doc. 1-9; Doc. 1-10; Doc. 1-13; Doc. 1-14; Doc. 16-14). On the same day, Defendants
searched the Properties, determined that the safety concerns were well-founded, and posted
signs to both Properties declaring the Properties unsafe for human occupancy and informing
occupants that it would be unlawful to enter after 6:00 PM. (Doc. 1-11, at 2-3; Doc. 1-15, at
2; Doc. 1-16).

On November 13, 2024, Plaintiffs filed a complaint in this Court asserting 21 causes
of action alleging religious discrimination/religious freedom violations and due process
violations, as well as state law violations related to the condemnation of the Properties. (Doc.
1). Plaintiffs then filed a motion for a temporary restraining order (“TRO”) and preliminary
injunction, along with a brief in support, on December 2, 2024. (Doc. 6). This Court denied
the request for a TRO on December 6, 2024. (Doc. 8). On December 12, 2024, Defendants
submitted their brief in opposition to Plaintiffs’ motion. (Doc. 16). A hearing on the motion
for preliminary injunction was held on December 12, 2024. The motion is thus ripe for
disposition. (Doc. 1; Doc. 6; Doc. 8; Doc. 16).
II. PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION STANDARD
Four factors govern a district court's decision in issuing a preliminary injunction: (1)
whether the movant has shown a reasonable probability of success on the merits; (2) whether
the movant will be irreparably injured by denial of the relief; (3) whether granting preliminary

relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party; and (4) whether granting the
preliminary relief will be in the public interest. Grill v. Aversa, 908 F. Supp. 2d 573, 591 (M.D.
Pa. 2012); Gerardi v. Pelullo, 16 F.3d 1363, 1373 (3d Cir. 1994); SI Handling Systems, Inc. v.
Heisley, 753 F.2d 1244, 1254 (3d Cir. 1985)); see also Highmark, Inc. v. UPMC Health Plan, Inc.,
276 F.3d 160, 170–71 (3d Cir. 2001).
A preliminary injunction is an extraordinary in nature and drastic remedy, one that
should not be granted unless the movant, by a clear showing, carries the burden of persuasion,
and one that should issue only in limited circumstances. See Am. Tel. & Tel. Co. v. Winback &
Conserve Program, Inc., 42 F.3d 1421, 1426–27 (3d Cir. 1994). In order to satisfy this exacting

standard, the party moving for a preliminary injunction must carry its burden of
demonstrating both: (1) likelihood of success on the merits; and (2) the existence of irreparable
injury from the alleged misconduct. Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797
(3d Cir.1989). If the movant fails to carry this burden on these two elements, the motion
should be denied since a party seeking such relief must “demonstrate both a likelihood of
success on the merits and the probability of irreparable harm if relief is not granted.” Hohe v.
Casey, 868 F.2d 69, 72 (3d Cir.1989) (emphasis in original) (quoting Morton v. Beyer, 822 F.2d
364 (3d Cir.1987)). Given the extraordinary nature of this form of relief, a motion for
preliminary injunction places precise burdens on the moving party.
As a threshold matter, it is a movant's burden to show that the “preliminary injunction
must be the only way of protecting the plaintiff from harm.” Campbell Soup Co. v. ConAgra,
Inc., 977 F.2d 86, 91 (3d Cir.1992) (emphasis in original, citations omitted). Therefore, “upon
an application for a preliminary injunction to doubt is to deny.” Madison Square Garden Corp.

v. Braddock, 90 F.2d 924, 927 (3d Cir.1937). A preliminary injunction “may not be used simply
to eliminate a possibility of a remote future injury.” Holiday Inns of Am., Inc. v. B&B Corp., 409
F.2d 614, 618 (3d Cir. 1969). “[T]he irreparable harm must be actual and imminent, not
merely speculative.” Angstadt ex rel. Angstadt v. Midd-West Sch., 182 F. Supp. 2d 435, 437 (M.D.
Pa. 2002). “[M]ore than a risk of irreparable harm must be demonstrated. The requisite for
injunctive relief has been characterized as a ‘clear showing of immediate irreparable injury,’
or a ‘presently existing actual threat . . . .’” Continental Grp., Inc. v. Amoco Chems. Corp., 614
F.2d 351, 359 (3d Cir. 1980) (citations omitted). “A preliminary injunction cannot be issued
based on past harm. The purpose of a preliminary injunction is to prevent future irreparable

harm.” Fisher v. Goord, 981 F. Supp. 140, 168 (W.D.N.Y. 1997) (emphasis in original). Thus,
the relevant inquiry is whether the party moving for injunctive relief is in danger of suffering
irreparable harm at the time the preliminary injunction is to be issued.
Moreover, “[t]he ‘requisite feared injury or harm must be irreparable—not merely
serious or substantial,’ and it ‘must be of a peculiar nature, so that compensation in money
cannot atone for it.’” ECRI v. McGraw-Hill, Inc., 809 F.2d 223, 226 (3d Cir. 1987) (quoting
Glasco v. Hills, 558 F.2d 179, 181 (3d Cir. 1977)). “In order to demonstrate irreparable harm
the plaintiff must demonstrate potential harm which cannot be redressed by a legal or an
equitable remedy following a trial. The preliminary injunction must be the only way of

protecting the plaintiff from harm.” Instant Air Freight Co. v. C.F. Air Freight, Inc., 882 F.2d 797,
801 (3d Cir. 1989) (emphasis added). “The word irreparable connotes ‘that which cannot be
repaired, retrieved, put down again, atoned for ...’.” Acierno v. New Castle County, 40 F.3d 645,
653 (3d Cir.1994) (citations omitted). If the record does not support a finding of both
irreparable injury and a likelihood of success on the merits, then a preliminary injunction

cannot be granted. Marxe v. Jackson, 833 F.2d 1121 (3d Cir.1987).
III. DISCUSSION
As observed previously, a preliminary injunction is an extraordinary remedy, one that
should be ordered only in limited cases, upon a compelling showing. That showing has not
been made in this case. For the same reasons this Court outlined in its denial of Plaintiffs’
request for an emergency temporary restraining order, Plaintiffs fail to meet the first and
second requirements for a preliminary injunction: a likelihood of success on the merits and a
showing that they will suffer irreparable harm. To meet the requirement of likelihood of
success on the merits, the movant must show a “reasonable probability” of success. Punnett v.

Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 583 (3d Cir. 1980) (internal quotation marks omitted); see Singer Mgmt.
Consultants, Inc. v. Milgram, 650 F.3d 223, 229 (3d Cir. 2011) (en banc). To meet the irreparable
harm requirement, “the irreparable harm must be actual and imminent, not merely
speculative.” Angstadt ex rel. Angstadt v. Midd-West Sch., 182 F. Supp. 2d 435, 437 (M.D. Pa.
2002). Further, “the claimed injury cannot merely be possible, speculative or remote.” Dice v.
Clinicorp, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 803, 809 (W.D. Pa. 1995). Plaintiffs do not meet either
requirement.
A. IRREPARABLE HARM
“‘In general, to show irreparable harm a plaintiff must demonstrate potential harm
which cannot be redressed by a legal or an equitable remedy following a trial.’” Leone v. Essex
Cnty. Prosecutor's Off., No. CV2112786SDWESK, 2021 WL 4317240, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 23,
2021) (quoting State Trooper Fraternal Ass'n v. New Jersey, Civ. No. 08-3820, 2008 WL 4378343,
at *4 (D.N.J. Sept. 23, 2008). “[T]he irreparable harm must be actual and imminent, not
merely speculative.” Angstadt ex rel. Angstadt v. Midd-West Sch., 182 F. Supp. 2d 435, 437 (M.D.

Pa. 2002). “[T]he claimed injury cannot merely be possible, speculative or remote.” Dice v.
Clinicorp, Inc., 887 F. Supp. 803, 809 (W.D. Pa. 1995).
Plaintiffs provide no support for their conclusion that the Properties’ current vacancy
will result in “pipes freezing or fires” that “threaten[] irreparable harm for neighboring
residents and countless others.” (Doc. 6, at 25).2 In fact, the harm surrounding the Properties’
vacancy to neighbors is entirely speculative, as Plaintiffs cite no evidence or reason to believe
that the Properties are at-risk for creating a fire or otherwise impacting neighboring people or
properties. Further, Plaintiffs may access the Properties during the day so long as they provide
notice to the Borough. (Doc. 16, at 15; Doc. 19, at 8). Indeed, Plaintiffs have accessed the

Properties to remove belongings. (Doc. 19, at 8). Plaintiffs also provide no support for their
assertion that Rabbi Hellinger’s inability to access the Properties impairs his religious
freedom, ability to act as a religious leader to others, or others’ freedoms. Defendants are not
refusing to allow Rabbi Hellinger to practice his religion in any manner or gather with
members of his congregation in any location other than the Properties. (Doc. 19, at 90).
Plaintiffs concede that they have been able to secure temporary alternative locations to gather
to study Torah and engage in religious activities. (Doc. 19, at 90). While Plaintiffs testified

2 The Court recognizes that Plaintiffs do not argue that the risk of frozen pipes is the
sole source of irreparable harm. (Doc. 19, at 3). Plaintiffs framed the case during the hearing
on this motion about religious freedom rather than property damage. (Doc. 19, at 3).
However, because Plaintiffs argue the property issues their brief, the Court addresses it here.
(Doc. 6).
that the temporary or alternative locations do not allow for the same level of participation or
consistency, the Court does not find that such imperfections show “irreparable harm.” (Doc.
19, at 90); See Leone, 2021 WL 4317240, at *7. Thus, Plaintiffs provide no basis for their
conclusion that they will surely and immediately suffer the harm they anticipate because of

the Properties’ condemnation. (Doc. 6).
Importantly, Plaintiffs have refused to engage in any sort of efforts to compromise or
come to a resolution with the Borough. For example, in the Borough’s communications to
Plaintiffs and Plaintiffs’ present and former attorneys, Defendants repeatedly suggested
actions for Plaintiffs to take that would bring them in compliance with local ordinances and
even offered Plaintiffs instructions about how to apply for exceptions to the relevant Zoning
Ordinances. (Doc. 16-6, at 2; Doc. 16-7, at 2-3; Doc. 16-8, at 2-4; Doc. 16-10; Doc. 19, at 13,
153). Plaintiffs either did not respond to the Borough’s communications or refused to engage.
(Doc. 19, at 13, 153). Such a refusal to engage in communications with defendants to resolve
civil liberties concerns dilutes a plaintiff’s irreparable harm argument. See Leone, 2021 WL

4317240, at *7 (finding no irreparable harm when “[p]laintiff refused to meaningfully engage
in any type of compromise before filing suit based solely on his own testimony that he has
been ‘forced to forgo a prayer practice’ by not being able to work from home”) (citations
omitted).
First Amendment claims require a particularly sensitive irreparable harm analysis. See
Elrod v. Burns, 427 U.S. 347, 373 (1976) (“The loss of First Amendment freedoms, for even
minimal periods of time, unquestionably constitutes irreparable injury.”). However, even this
broad standard requires a showing that First Amendment freedom was lost. Here, as will be
discuss; see also Roswell v. Mayor & City Council of Baltimore, 671 F. Supp. 3d 607 (D. Md.
2023), aff'd, No. 23-1567, 2023 WL 8728503 (4th Cir. Dec. 19, 2023) (finding no irreparable
harm when a plaintiff received a citation for violating a zoning law that restricted his First
Amendment freedom to use A-frame signs outside a Planned Parenthood because plaintiff
was able to continue protesting in other ways); ed infra, Plaintiffs do not make a sufficient

showing that Defendants demonstrated any kind of religious animus. Plaintiffs have conceded
that they are able to practice their religion in alternative locations during the pending
litigation. Thus, Plaintiffs have not shown irreparable injury even under the First Amendment
standard. See Leone, 2021 WL 4317240, at *7 (holding that there is no irreparable injury when
a local prosecutor office refused to allow an employee to work from home indefinitely in order
to pray aloud in nature, an alleged requirement of plaintiff’s religion, when plaintiff made no
efforts to engage in compromises or consider alternative options offered by defendants).
Our sister courts in other Circuits have similarly found no irreparable harm in
analogous circumstances implicating the First Amendment. In Tree of Life Christian Sch. v. City

of Upper Arlington, the court denied a preliminary injunction to plaintiffs seeking to use a
property as a religious school where the zoning laws prohibited the land’s use as a school,
holding “one who purchases property to use as a school knowing that the use as a school is
not permitted does not suffer irreparable harm.” No. 2:11-CV-009, 2011 WL 13311862, at
*15 (S.D. Ohio Apr. 27, 2011). In San Jose Christian Coll. v. City of Morgan Hill, the court found
the plaintiff could not show that the city’s denial of the plaintiff’s use of the property for
religious or education use harmed the plaintiff, a private Christian religious education
institution, where the plaintiff had other locations it could use for religious/educational
activities and stating plaintiff’s “predicament is largely of its own making, having prematurely
announced its plans for the new college campus prior to securing the necessary approval to
use the site. No. C01-20857, 2001 WL 1862224, at *7-8 (N.D. Cal. Nov. 14, 2001).
Plaintiffs have alternative locations, albeit imperfect ones, at which they can host
religious and educational activities. (Doc. 19, at 90). They have refused to engage in any
efforts to communicate with Defendants about the dispute, despite being given instructions

on how to secure legal use of the Properties as educational religious facilities. (Doc. 19, at 8-
10). Finally, Plaintiffs’ contention that there is a fire risk or that pipes will freeze absent a
preliminary injunction is speculative and unfounded, especially given that Plaintiffs may enter
the Properties before 6:00 PM and after giving the Borough notice. (Doc. 6, at 25; Doc. 16, at
15; Doc. 19, at 7-8). Accordingly, Plaintiffs have not shown that they will suffer irreparable
harm absent a preliminary injunction.
B. SUCCESS ON THE MERITS
The Court turns next to Plaintiffs’ likelihood of success on the merits, and notes the
“flexible” approach endorsed by the Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, which requires

courts to consider the factors “taken together,” such that a plaintiff who shows great harm
has leeway to show less success on the merits, or a plaintiff who shows less harm must show
a high likelihood of success on the merits to warrant a preliminary injunction. Reilly v. City of
Harrisburg, 858 F.3d 173 (3d Cir. 2017), as amended (June 26, 2017); see also Northampton Cnty.
Democratic Party v. Hanover Twp., No. CIV.A.04-CV-00643, 2004 WL 887386, at *11 (E.D.
Pa. Apr. 26, 2004) (denying a preliminary injunction request when plaintiffs’ failed to show
irreparable injury in a First Amendment case despite the fact that they successfully showed
some likelihood of success on the merits); see Doe v. Hill Sch., No. CV 23-1210, 2023 WL
2868016, at *3 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 10, 2023) (denying a preliminary injunction after finding only
a “small likelihood” of success on the merits and noting “[h]aving not found a likelihood of
success on the merits, [the court] will only briefly address the remaining factors.”); Word Seed
Church v. Vill. of Hazel Crest, 533 F. Supp. 3d 637, 647 (N.D. Ill. 2021) (“the [c]ourt applies a
‘sliding scale’ approach under which ‘the more likely the plaintiff will succeed on the merits,

the less the balance of irreparable harms need favor plaintiff's position.’”) (quoting Turnell v.
CentiMark Corp., 796 F.3d 656, 662 (7th Cir. 2015)).
To establish a reasonable probability of success on the merits, a movant must produce
sufficient evidence to satisfy the essential elements of the underlying cause of action. Punnett
v. Carter, 621 F.2d 578, 582-83 (3d Cir. 1980). The district court must examine the legal
principles controlling the claim and the potential defenses available to the opposing party. See
BP Chems. Ltd. v. Formosa Chem. & Fibre Corp., 229 F.3d 254, 264 (3d Cir. 2000). A mere
possibility that the claim might be defeated does not preclude a finding of probable success if
the evidence clearly satisfies the essential prerequisites of the cause of action. Highmark, 276

F.3d at 173. In this case, Plaintiffs’ twenty-one causes of action can be generally categorized
in two groups: (1) religious discrimination claims; and (2) due process violations. (Doc. 6, at
12-23; Doc. 16, at 10-11). The Court will address the likelihood of success for each group in
turn.3

3 Plaintiffs also bring claims pursuant to the Fair Housing Act (“FHA”), the Fourth
Amendment, and § 1985 conspiracy claims. Neither party discusses the merits of these claims
in their briefs, and accordingly, the Court assumes that Plaintiffs do not move for a
preliminary injunction based upon on these particular claims. (Doc. 6; Doc. 16).
1. Religious Discrimination Claims Lack Merit
In relevant part, the First Amendment provides that “Congress shall make no law ...
prohibiting the free exercise [of religion].” U.S. Const. amend. I. The Religious Land Use
and Institutionalized Persons Act (“RLUIPA”) states, in pertinent part, as follows:
“[n]o government shall impose or implement a land use regulation in a manner
that imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person, [. . . ],
unless the government demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that
person, assembly, or institution-- (A) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest; and (B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that
compelling governmental interest.”

42 U.S.C. § 2000cc.

RLUIPA similarly prohibits restrictions that treat religious groups on less equal terms than
nonreligious groups, restrictions that discriminate based on religion, and restrictions that
totally exclude or unreasonably limit religious assemblies, institutions, or structures. See 42
U.S.C. § 2000cc. Finally, the Equal Protection Clause of the Fourteenth Amendment provides
that no state shall “deny to any person within its jurisdiction the equal protection of the laws.”
U.S. Const. Amend. XIV, § 1. The Equal Protection Clause does not require that all persons
be treated alike, but rather directs that all similarly situated individuals be treated alike. City
of Cleburne v. Cleburne Living Ctr., 473 U.S. 432, 439 (1985).
The parties agree that the seminal issue for Plaintiffs’ religious discrimination claims,
asserted under RLUIPA, the First Amendment, and the Equal Protection Clause, all require
this Court to determine if Plaintiffs can show evidence that the Zoning Ordinance restricts
their freedom of religion in some way, that Defendants’ actions were somehow motivated by
animus, or that Plaintiffs were treated differently than similarly situated individuals based
upon their religion. (Doc. 6, at 13-21; Doc. 16, at 10-11).4 Plaintiffs have not established any
of these scenarios.
Initially, the Court must determine the appropriate standard of review for Plaintiffs’
religious discrimination claims. See Leone, 2021 WL 4317240, at *3. Here, the Zoning

Ordinance is facially neutral, as schools, dormitories, and even houses of worship are only
some of “numerous uses which are not specifically permitted uses,” 100 F. App'x at 76, and
the purpose of the zoning law at issue is not to regulate free exercise or speech but to, in
relevant part, “promote, protect and facilitate” [. . .] “health, safety, […] general welfare,
coordinated and practical community development, proper density of population,[. . .] vehicle
parking and loading space, [. . . and] schools.” KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE, art. 1,
§ 102 (2023). Accordingly, Defendants need provide only a rational basis for the restrictions
under a First Amendment analysis. See Lighthouse Inst. for Evangelism Inc. v. City of Long Branch,
100 F. App'x 70, 76 (3d Cir. 2004) (applying rational basis review to Zoning Ordinances that
prohibit certain religious land uses and finding that such restrictions are constitutional so long

as the government acts in accordance with a legitimate regulatory interest).
In other words, Zoning Ordinances that exclude educational facilities, such as
yeshivas, houses of worship, or dormitories do not violate federal equal-protection rights or
freedom of religion rights. Though every citizen has a fundamental right to exercise their

4 Plaintiffs’ RLUIPA claims and his constitutional claims that implicate religious
discrimination and religious freedom will all be analyzed together, as each requires a showing
that Defendants placed a burden on Plaintiffs’ freedom of religion, and if the burden exists,
that Defendants acted in furtherance of a compelling interest, or, in the case of an Equal
Protection claim, that the Borough demonstrated religious animus. See Thompson v. Smeal, 54
F. Supp. 3d 339, 352 (M.D. Pa. 2014) (holding that under RLUIPA and the First
Amendment, a plaintiff must satisfy an initial burden showing that the government burdened
his religious freedom before requiring the government to show that it acted in furtherance of
a compelling interest).
religion freely without burdens, the Constitution grants municipalities broad authority to
regulate zoning. See Congregation Kol Ami v. Abington Twp., 309 F.3d 120, 135 (3d Cir. 2002)
(“federal courts have given states and local communities broad latitude to determine their
zoning plans. Indeed, land use law is one of the bastions of local control, largely free of federal

intervention.”); see also FERC v. Mississippi, 456 U.S. 742, 768 n. 30 (1982) (“[R]egulation of
land use is perhaps the quintessential state activity.”).
As discussed supra, Plaintiffs can and have practiced their religion in alternative
locations and may, but have not, apply for a variance to use the Properties as a school,
dormitory, or house of worship. (Doc. 19, at 47-48, 90, 95, 99). There is no convincing
evidence that Plaintiffs’ freedom of religion is legitimately burdened. Further, even if they had
shown such evidence, the Zoning Ordinance is the least restrictive manner of furthering a
compelling government regulatory interest in health and safety, as is noted as the purpose for
the Zoning Ordinance both in its text and through the testimony of the Borough Solicitor,

Attorney Mattern. (Doc. 19, at 117, 142, 154); see KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE, art.
1, § 102 (2023); see also Congregation Kol Ami, 309 F.3d at 136 (holding that “we do not believe
land use planners can assume anymore that religious uses are inherently compatible with
family and residential uses” and describing the conflicting interests of religious freedom with
regulatory zoning interests such that “[a] necessary corollary of the extensive zoning authority
bestowed upon local municipalities, including the authority to create exclusively residential
districts, is the authority to make distinctions between different uses and to exclude some uses
within certain zones.”). The Zoning Ordinance, coupled with Defendants’ clear instructions
to Plaintiffs regarding steps to take to apply for a variance, is the least restrictive means of
achieving this interest. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-3; Doc. 1-6, at 2). There is no evidence that Defendants
enforce their Zoning Ordinances to an unreasonably strict degree. In fact, Defendants waited
over a year to enforce the Zoning Ordinance through condemnation while they attempted to
work with Plaintiffs to bring the Properties into compliance. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-3; Doc. 1-6, at 2;
Doc. 19, at 12-13, 15). To conclude that Defendants should be more lenient in enforcing the
Zoning Ordinance would be to conclude that the Zoning Ordinance is wholly unenforceable

so long as any individual claims that the ordinance violates his or her rights, even without
evidence of such infringement.
Further, Plaintiffs have not established that Defendants treated religious groups
differently than secular groups or other similarly situated religious groups. To the contrary,
the Zoning Ordinance applies zoning procedures equally to all groups. See KINGSTON, PA.,
ZONING ORDINANCE (2023). Just as a secular group would have to apply for a variance or
special use permit to use a property in a manner other than that which is permitted under the
zoned commercial zone, Plaintiffs must apply for such a variance or special use permit. (Doc.
19, at 16). Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Defendants targeted solely religious

properties that did not comply with Zoning Ordinances.
Finally, Plaintiffs cannot show that Defendants’ actions were motivated by animus.
To the contrary, the evidence in the record suggests that Defendants attempted to compromise
and work with Plaintiffs for a year prior to condemning the Properties. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-3; Doc.
1-6, at 2; Doc. 19, at 12-13, 15). Defendants set up meeting with Plaintiffs and their attorneys
and communicated with Plaintiffs repeatedly to explain how to apply for a variance and
zoning relief. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-3; Doc. 1-6, at 2; Doc. 19, at 12-13, 15). Plaintiffs did not make
any efforts to engage with the processes to apply for a zoning variance, such as a Special Use
Exception, instead opting to argue that such applications were unnecessary, as the Properties
were not schools or dormitories, but an office and a home.5 (Doc. 19, at 47-48, 90, 95, 99).
Regardless of the precise language used to describe the Properties, Plaintiffs have not
established that Defendants exhibited or acted with any religious animus or discriminatory
intent and as such, cannot show a likelihood of success on the merits regarding the religious
discrimination claims at this juncture. See Terzian v. Montclair Hosp., LLC, No.

CV224396ESESK, 2023 WL 2473454 (D.N.J. Mar. 10, 2023) (denying a preliminary
injunction where plaintiff could not show she was likely to succeed on the merits of her
discrimination claims when she did not show discriminatory intent); Federoff v. Geisinger Clinic,
571 F. Supp. 3d 376 (M.D. Pa. 2021) (finding plaintiffs are unlikely to succeed on religious
discrimination claims when plaintiffs could not make out a prima facie discrimination case);
431 E Palisade Ave. Real Est., LLC v. City of Englewood, No. 219CV14515BRMJSA, 2023 WL

5 Plaintiffs’ argument that the Properties are not used as a school or dormitory flies in
the face of common sense and the evidence in the record. While Plaintiffs insist that a yeshiva
is not a school, the evidence in the record, including photographs of the properties, clearly
show rooms set up as classrooms, with white boards and books. (Doc. 16-5, at 2; Doc. 16-12;
Doc. 16-19). Plaintiffs’ own website refers to the Properties as a “yeshiva” or a place of
learning. Black’s Law Dictionary similarly defines a school as “an institution of learning and
education” or place where “instruction is given.” School Definition, Black’s Law Dictionary
(12th ed. 2024). Plaintiffs’ website encourages “students” to apply and discusses the presence
of “teachers,” all staples of what is considered a school. Further, other federal courts have
defined “yeshiva” as a school. See Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d 1228, 1231
(11th Cir. 2000) (“Webster's Third defines a ‘Yeshiva’ as ‘a school for advanced Talmudic
study.’” (quoting Webster's Third New International Dictionary 2651 (1993)); Israel v. Avis Rent-
A-Car Sys., Inc., 185 F.R.D. 372, 375 (S.D. Fla. 1999), rev'd sub nom. Rutstein v. Avis Rent-A-Car
Sys., Inc., 211 F.3d 1228 (11th Cir. 2000) (“The word “yeshiva” is defined in The Random
House Dictionary of the English Language (Unabridged Edition) as follows: 1. an Orthodox
Jewish school for the religious and secular education of children of elementary school age. 2.
an Orthodox Jewish school of higher instruction in Jewish learning, chiefly for students
preparing to enter the rabbinate.”).
6121195, at *7 (D.N.J. Sept. 19, 2023) (“[p]laintiffs’ failure to allege discriminatory intent is
fatal to their equal protection claim”).
2. Due Process Claims Lack Merit
The Court next considers whether Plaintiffs’ procedural and substantive due process
claims show a likelihood of success on the merits. “At the core of procedural due process

jurisprudence is the right to advance notice of significant deprivations of liberty or property
and to a meaningful opportunity to be heard.” Abbott v. Latshaw, 164 F.3d 141, 146 (3d Cir.
1998). To establish a prima facie case of a procedural due process violation, a plaintiff must
show: (1) there has been a deprivation of the plaintiff's liberty or property, and (2) the
procedures used by the government to remedy the deprivation were constitutionally
inadequate. See Studli v. Children & Youth Families Central Reg'l Office, 346 F. App'x 804, 813
(3d Cir. 2009); Mulholland v. Gov't of Cty. of Berks, No. 10-CV-5616, 2012 WL 1057446, at *8
(E.D. Pa. Mar. 29, 2012), aff'd, 706 F.3d 227 (3d Cir. 2013). Remedial procedures will be
deemed constitutionally inadequate if “they contain a defect so serious [as to] characterize

the procedures as fundamentally unfair.” See Leonard v. Owen J. Roberts Sch. Dist., No. 08-CV-
2016, 2009 WL 603160, at *4 (E.D. Pa. Mar. 5, 2009) (citing Daniels v. Williams, 474 U.S.
327, 341 (1986) (Stevens, J., concurring)). In other words, “the focus in procedural due
process claims is on the adequacy of the remedial procedure, and not on the government's
actual actions that allegedly deprived the individual of his liberty or property interest.” K.S.S.
v. Montgomery Cty. Bd. of Comm'rs., 871 F. Supp. 2d 389, 397-98 (E.D. Pa. 2012). “The process
that is ‘due’ in a given situation necessarily differs based on the particular circumstances.”
Maple Props., Inc. v. Twp. of Upper Providence, 151 F. App'x 174, 177 (3d Cir. 2005) (citations
omitted).
The Eastern District recently explained:
In the context of property deprivations, the United States Supreme Court “has
never employed an actual notice standard in its jurisprudence. Rather, its focus
has always been on the procedures in place to effect notice.” United States v. One
Toshiba Color Television, 213 F.3d 147, 155 (3d Cir. 2000). Thus, “[d]ue process
does not require that a property owner receive actual notice before the
government may take his property.” Jones v. Flowers, 547 U.S. 220, 226 (2006).
It mandates only that notice be “reasonably calculated under all the
circumstances to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action and
afford them opportunity to present their objections.” Mullane v. Central Hanover
Bank & Trust Co., 339 U.S. 306, 314 (1950); see also Flowers, 547 U.S. at 220
(holding that notice is “constitutionally sufficient if it was reasonably calculated
to reach the intended recipient when sent.”). The Supreme Court has explained
that if, for example, notice sent by certified mail is returned unclaimed, the
municipality must “take additional reasonable steps to attempt to provide
notice to the property owner before selling his property, if it is practicable to do
so.” Flowers, 547 U.S. at 225. The Court recognized that such steps could
include resending the notice by regular mail, addressing otherwise
undeliverable mail to occupant, or posting notice on the front door. Flowers,
547 U.S. at 236-37.

Madar, 2021 WL 2156362, at *8.

Due process requires: (1) the government provide notice to the property owner
reasonably calculated to apprise interested parties of the pendency of the action; and (2) afford
them an opportunity to present their objections. Gordon v. City of Phila., No. 07-5039, 2009
WL 2710247, at *3 (E.D. Pa. 2009) (citing Flowers, 547 U.S. at 220). “A plaintiff cannot
prevail on a Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim if the state has an adequate
post-deprivation procedure or remedy available.” Olarte v. Cywinski, No. 3:12-CV-632, 2012
WL 3757649, at *5 (M.D. Pa. Aug. 28, 2012) (citing Revell v. Port. Auth. Of N.Y. & N.J., 598
F.3d 128, 139 (3d Cir. 2010)). An adequate procedural due process remedy is when a state
provides “reasonable remedies to rectify a legal error by a local administrative body.” Olarte,
2012 WL 3757649, at *5 (quoting Perano v. Twp. of Tilden, 423 F. App'x. 234, 237 (3d
Cir.2011)).
Here, Plaintiffs complain that “[t]here is a facially-evident lack of due process in this
matter.” (Doc. 6, at 14). Plaintiffs contend that such a lack of due process is evidenced by
several of Defendants’ actions, including not notifying Plaintiffs of their opportunity to appeal
the determination letters; closing down Plaintiffs’ Properties; not offering an opportunity to
appeal the condemnations; and broadly “abusing their authority compared to the Zoning

Ordinance’s prescribed enforcement remedies.” (Doc. 6, at 14-15).
However, as noted above, Defendants attempted to resolve the matter amicably and
communicated to Rabbi Hellinger repeatedly about what he would need to do to get a
variance for the Properties. (Doc. 1-3; Doc. 1-4; Doc. 1-6; Doc. 1-7; Doc. 16-13; Doc. 16-15;
Doc. 16-6, at 2; Doc. 16-7, at 2-3; Doc. 16-8, at 2-4; Doc. 16-10). Specifically, the first and
second violation notices for both Properties explain that each is noncompliant with the
Zoning Ordinance and explain how to file an application for a hearing and how to apply for
zoning relief in the form of a Special Exception or a Conditional Use permit. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-
3; Doc. 1-6, at 2). Both violation notices for both Properties state that they were issued “in

accordance with Section 1201.2.k of the Ordinance.” Section 1201.2.k states:
“In the event of a violation of this Ordinance, provide written notice to the
person responsible for such violation, indicating the nature of the violation and
ordering the action necessary to correct the violation. Such written notice may
be served personally or by certified mail. Corrective action may include an
order to cease and desist the illegal use and/or activity of land, buildings, signs,
or structures; or to remove illegal buildings, structures, additions, signs, and/or
structural alterations.”

KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE, art. 12, § 1201.2.k (2023).6

6 Section 1205 of the Zoning Ordinance seems to contradict Section 1201.2.k by
requiring that the Zoning Officer include in the notice of violation that the recipient has the
right to appeal and request a hearing. Compare KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE, art. 12,
§ 1201.2.k (2023) with KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE, art. 12, § 1205 (2023). It is
undisputed that the violation notices provided to Plaintiffs by Defendants did not include the
The violation notices comply with Section 1201.2.k. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-3; Doc. 1-6, at 2). The
Court thus finds that Rabbi Hellinger was afforded actual notice of the Borough’s intent to
restrict access to the Properties if he did not bring them into compliance with the Zoning
Ordinance. (Doc. 1-3, at 2-3; Doc. 1-6, at 2). The Court recognizes, however, the
contradictions in the requirements in the Zoning Ordinance concerning appeals Compare
KINGSTON, PA., ZONING ORDINANCE, art. 12, § 1201.2.k (2023) with KINGSTON, PA.,
ZONING ORDINANCE, art. 12, § 1205 (2023).
To the extent that Plaintiffs’ due process claims set forth a post-deprivation procedural

due process claim, the Court finds that such claim does not present a likelihood of success on
the merits because Plaintiffs have not availed themselves of the remedy available for
condemnation through state systems. See Florimonte v. Borough of Dalton, No. 3:CV-14-0341,
2014 WL 3114071, at *14 (M.D. Pa. July 7, 2014), aff'd, 603 F. App'x 67 (3d Cir. 2015)
(dismissing Fourteenth Amendment procedural due process claim where plaintiff failed to
avail herself of adequate state law post-deprivation remedies available); see also Perano, 423 F.
App'x at 237-38 (dismissing procedural due process claim for failure to take advantage of a
reasonable state remedy under the Eminent Domain Code). Plaintiffs have state law remedies
available and could also challenge the zoning violations through the procedures laid out in

the violation notices, namely by applying for a hearing or for zoning relief. Plaintiffs may not
use the federal courts as a means to circumvent the procedural process made available to
them. See 3909 Realty LLC v. City of Philadelphia, No. CV 21-0030, 2021 WL 2342929, at *6
(E.D. Pa. June 8, 2021) (dismissing plaintiffs' procedural due process claim finding that

particular language notifying Plaintiffs of their right to appeal, but the notices clearly set forth
the procedure by which Plaintiffs could come into compliance with the Zoning Ordinance.
plaintiffs did not avail themselves of procedural protections afforded by City of Philadelphia
because no actions were taken to contest an impending demolition). Plaintiffs have not shown
a sufficient likelihood of success on the merits for a procedural due process claim, as Rabbi
Hellinger received actual notice of the impending condemnation and failed to avail himself
of the zoning relief process prior to and after the condemnation.

The substantive component of the Fourteenth Amendment Due Process Clause bars
certain arbitrary and wrongful government actions that deprive an individual of life, liberty,
or property. U.S. Const., amend. XIV § 1; see also Tazioly v. City of Phila., No. 97-CV-1219,
1998 WL 633747, at *7 (E.D. Pa. Sept. 10, 1998) (citing Zinermon v. Burch, 494 U.S. 113, 125
(1990)). The first step in assessing a substantive due process claim is to identify the
constitutional interest that was allegedly aggrieved. Chainey v. Street, 523 F.3d 200, 219 (3d
Cir. 2008). In order to successfully make out a substantive due process claim in the context of
local land use regulations, “a plaintiff must establish as a threshold matter that he has a

property interest protected by the Fourteenth Amendment's due process clause.” Maple Props.,
Inc. v. Twp. of Upper Providence, No. 00-CV-4828, 2004 WL 2579740, at *2 (E.D. Pa. Nov. 12,
2004) (citing Indep. Enters. Inc. v. Pittsburgh Water & Sewer Auth., 103 F.3d 1165, 1179-80 (3d
Cir. 1997)). Here, Plaintiffs own the Properties that were affected by Defendants’ actions
relating to the Zoning Ordinance and condemnation, establishing the presence of a property
interest entitled to due process protection. See Maple Props., 2004 WL 2579740, at *2 (citing
DeBlasio v. Zoning Bd. of Adjustment for Twp. of W. Amwell, 53 F.3d 592, 600 (3d Cir. 1995)); see
also Cherry Hill Towers, LLC v. Twp. of Cherry Hill, 407 F. Supp. 2d 648, 654 (D.N.J. 2006) (“As
owner of the Cherry Hill Towers property, Plaintiff clearly has a property interest protected

by due process.”).
The second step in the substantive due process analysis is ascertaining whether the
identified property interest has, in fact, been aggrieved by the government. Maple Props., 2004
WL 2579740, at *2. Government action does not violate substantive due process when merely
prompted by an “improper motive.” Cty. Concrete Corp. v. Town of Roxbury, 442 F.3d 159, 169

(3d Cir. 2006). Rather, the standard for determining substantive due process violations is
whether government action rises to the level of “shocking the conscience.” United Artists
Theatre Circuit v. Twp. of Warrington, 316 F.3d 392, 400 (3d Cir. 2003). While there is no
“calibrated yard stick” upon which to measure such conduct, the United States Supreme
Court has recognized that “only the most egregious official conduct” qualifies. Kaucher v. Cty.
of Bucks, 455 F.3d 418, 425 (3d Cir. 2006) (citing Cty. of Sacramento v. Lewis, 523 U.S. 833, 845,
847 n.8 (1998)); see also Cherry Hill Towers, 407 F. Supp. 2d at 655.
Plaintiffs fail to identify evidence of conscience-shocking behavior in Defendants’
Zoning Ordinance or its approach to the Properties. The Supreme Court has observed that

“all property in this country is held under the implied obligation that the owner's use of it shall
not be injurious to the community.” Keystone Bituminous Coal Ass'n v. DeBenedictis, 480 U.S.
470, 491-92 (1987) (quotation omitted). “[T]he public interest demands that all dangerous
conditions be prevented or abated,” and, thus, inspections of private property designed at
ensuring compliance with certain safety standards are not unconstitutional. Camara v.
Municipal Court of San Francisco, 387 U.S. 523, 537 (1967); see Win & Son, 162 F.Supp.3d at
459. Evidence in the record establishes that the Properties implicate safety concerns, as
discussed supra, including exposed electrical wires, a lack of supervision for kids, dangerous
construction that left gaping holes in the floor in the basement, and garbage and trash

improperly disposed of. (Doc. 16-5, at 2; Doc. 16-12; Doc. 16-19). On several occasions, the
Borough’s Zoning Officer notified Plaintiffs of his health and safety concerns and that they
had received ongoing complaints about the Properties’ safety issues from neighbors. (Doc.
16-6, at 2; Doc. 16-7, at 2-3; Doc. 16-8, at 2-4; Doc. 16-10). In demolition proceedings, which
more severely implicate property rights than mere condemnations, courts have found that
“given unsafe structures,” city-led demolitions cannot “shock[] the conscience.” Harmon v.

Sussex Cty., No. CV 17-1817-RGA, 2019 WL 4344635, at *7 (D. Del. Sept. 12, 2019), aff'd,
810 F. App'x 139 (3d Cir. 2020) (citing Davet v. City Cleveland, 456 F.3d 549, 552 (6th Cir.
2006) (affirming district court's holding that plaintiff's substantive due process claim failed
because he could not establish that municipal actions taken pursuant to a valid condemnation
order and in accordance with the procedures mandated by city and state law shocked the
conscience or were arbitrary and capricious)).
Because this Court has not found that Plaintiffs would suffer irreparable harm absent
a preliminary injunction, Plaintiffs need to show a higher level of likelihood of success on the

merits to warrant the extraordinary relief of such a preliminary injunction. Reilly, 858 F.3d
173. This Court has not found that Plaintiffs are likely to succeed on their religious
discrimination claims or substantive due process claims. Further, the Court sees only a very
slight likelihood of success for Plaintiffs’ procedural due process claims, due to the conflicting
nature of the Zoning Ordinance provisions. Accordingly, Plaintiffs do not meet their burden
required to show the necessity of a preliminary injunction.
C. THE REMAINING PRELIMINARY INJUNCTION FACTORS WEIGH AGAINST
PLAINTIFFS
The Court, in an abundance of caution, now looks to the remaining factors of a
preliminary injunction request. Reilly, 858 F.3d 173. Neither favors Plaintiffs. Whether
granting preliminary relief will result in even greater harm to the nonmoving party or other
parties weighs in favor of the Defendants because if the preliminary injunction were issued it
would inarguably dilute the purpose and procedures for zoning laws, a squarely local
governing responsibility, as well as other local ordinances. See Congregation Kol Ami, 309 F.3d
at 136. Rabbi Hellinger explained that his adherence to Judaism is unique because his

interpretation of Jewish law defines prayer and religion as embedded in all activities he
engages in, all the time. (Doc. 19, at 18). Rabbi Hellinger testified that everything he does,
from sleep and eat to study Torah, he considers a religious activity. (Doc. 19, at 18-25, 43).
According to Plaintiffs’ logic, a zoning law or any other local ordinance that impairs or limits
any activity that Plaintiffs would like to engage in necessarily infringes on their freedom of
religion. An invalidation of the relevant Zoning Ordinance based on this assumption would
imply that any religious group could skirt any law with which it disagrees. Such a loophole
would surely result in great harm to local governments attempting to effectuate and promote
safety and health interests in its municipality. See Lyng v. Nw. Indian Cemetery Protective Ass'n,

485 U.S. 439, 452 (1988) (“[G]overnment simply could not operate if it were required to
satisfy every citizen's religious needs and desires”).
Additionally, the evidence in the record shows that the Properties present a safety
concern. Photographs submitted show trash and hot plates that are left out in unfit locations,
accessible to children without any clear adult supervision. (Doc. 16-5, at 2; Doc. 16-12; Doc.
16-19). Defendants further presented evidence that Plaintiffs have begun construction of a
Mikvah, a large pool of water in which Jewish purification rituals are performed, in the
basement of one of the Properties. (Doc. 19, at 10, 84, 117). A basement that opens into a
large hold in the ground, without stairs, could certainly be considered a danger to the children
and younger adults living there. This presents a harm to not only the individuals living in and
frequenting the Properties, including children, but also presents a harm to Defendants, who
are tasked with keeping the public and children safe from fire hazards and other safety
concerns. Such a hardship outweighs Plaintiffs’ concerns presented with minimal concrete
evidence. See Grill, 908 F. Supp. 2d at 591. Finally, neighbors of the properties have

complained to Defendants, citing unsupervised children and potential fire and safety hazards.
For these reasons, granting the preliminary injunction would not be in the public interest. See
Grill, 908 F. Supp. 2d at 591.
In sum, Plaintiffs have failed to show irreparable harm that outweighs the risk of harm
to Defendants or the public interest. The only factor that weighs in favor of Plaintiffs is that
they have shown a slight potential for success on the merits of the procedural due process
claim. However, alone, this is not enough for the extraordinary relief of the issuance of a
preliminary injunction. See Northampton Cnty. Democratic Party, 2004 WL 887386, at *11
(denying a preliminary injunction where no irreparable injury was established, even where

the other factors weighed in favor of issuance of the injunction); Newark Branch, N.A.A.C.P. v.
Millburn Twp., N. J., No. CIV. A. 89-4219, 1990 WL 238747, at *11 (D. N.J. Dec. 27, 1990)
(denying a preliminary injunction where plaintiffs did not establish a probability of irreparable
harm, even where they did show a likelihood of success on the merits); New Jersey Staffing All.
v. Fais, No. 1:23-CV-2494, 2024 WL 4024090, at *7 (D.N.J. Aug. 30, 2024). Accordingly,
Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction will be DENIED.
D. THE COURT DECLINES TO EXERCISE SUPPLEMENTAL JURISDICTION OVER
PLAINTIFFS’ STATE LAW CLAIMS
In addition to the claims brought pursuant to the United States Constitution, Plaintiffs
bring certain claims under the Pennsylvania state constitution and state law. (Doc. 1). Where
a district court has dismissed all claims over which it had original jurisdiction, the Court may
decline to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over state law claims. 28 U.S.C. § 1367(c)(3).
Whether the Court will exercise supplemental jurisdiction is within its discretion. Kach v.
Hose, 589 F.3d 626, 650 (3d Cir. 2009). That decision should be based on “the values of
judicial economy, convenience, fairness, and comity.” Carnegie–Mellon Univ. v. Cohill, 484

U.S. 343, 350 (1988). Ordinarily, when all federal law claims have been addressed and
disposed of and only state law claims remain, the balance of these factors indicates that these
remaining claims properly belong in state court. Cohill, 484 U.S. at 350. Here, the Court has
not found a preliminary injunction appropriate regarding any of the claims over which it has
original jurisdiction. Therefore, declining to exercise supplemental jurisdiction over the
remaining state law claims, a preliminary injunction will not be granted on state law grounds.
IV. CONCLUSION
Pursuant to the foregoing, Plaintiffs have failed to establish irreparable harm or that
they are likely to succeed on the merits of most of their claims. Consideration of the remaining

factors relevant to the issuance of a preliminary injunction also weigh in favor of denying the
injunction. As such, Plaintiffs’ motion for a preliminary injunction (Doc. 5) will be DENIED.
An appropriate Order follows.

Dated: December 19, 2024 s/ Karoline Mehalchick
KAROLINE MEHALCHICK
United States District Judge

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/cases/10764464. Public record. Not legal advice.