Facts

FACTS: In 2010, Miaolan Lee purchased a property in the City of Freemont (City), which consisted of 29 acres and was situated on a hillside where the slope of the land was 15 percent or higher, in a very high fire hazard area, and an earthquake-induced landslide zone. The property was zoned as "open space" and "hill (beyond ridgeline)" under City law. Among the purposes of the City's open space district was to permit limited but reasonable use of open lands while protecting the public health, safety and welfare from the dangers of seismic hazards and unstable soils.
After Lee purchased the property, , she initiated additional construction on the property. In March 2018, Lee deeded ownership of the property to the Temple of 1001 Buddhas, a private religious 501(c)(3) California Corporation, but Lee continued to live there and used it for private religious worship.
The property contained the following structures: Hindu God House Structure (120-square-foot gazebo with pond); modular home with a carport; meditation hall; main Buddha Hall; green house; retreat house (a two-story dwelling until built to house individuals attending religious retreats); solar panels; main residence; and treehouse.
The City ultimately issued to Lee three Notices and Orders to Abate Nuisance, listing numerous violations of the Freemont Municipal Code and ordered Lee to immediately cease habitation and occupancy of all unpermitted structures. Lee appealed the final Notice and Order to Abate Nuisance.
Before the hearing on Lee's appeal of the final Notice and Order to Abate began, Lee and Temple of 1001 Buddhas filed an action against the City of Freemont.

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS: Plaintiffs contended that defendant violated their constitutional rights or otherwise burdened their religious practice when it enforced thirteen violations of state and municipal laws against their property, including, but not limited to, the California Building Code, Electrical Code, and Plumbing Code. Plaintiffs argued that defendant initiated and maintained criminal investigations, code enforcement, and abatement proceedings based upon religious animus against the religious beliefs of plaintiffs. Plaintiff Lee also claimed that defendant retaliated against her for her opposition to discrimination. Plaintiffs listed nine instances of speech or activity they alleged was protected by the First Amendment: complaints about her neighbors; complaints about inspections; and accusations that defendant engaged in racial and religious discrimination. For example, plaintiff Lee alleged that her neighbors had also engaged in construction on their properties without required permits; and plaintiffs asserted that defendant's Building Department Chief retaliated for their complaints of discrimination to the Mayor and City Council by issuing a Notice and Order to Vacate.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant filed three motions to dismiss, contending that Plaintiffs failed to sufficiently plead facts to state a claim for relief. In particular, Plaintiffs failed to plead compliance with the tort claim presentation requirements to support their state law claims for monetary damages; did not plead sufficient facts to establish Monell liability in support of their constitutional claims; alleged Fourth Amendment violations which were barred by the statute of limitations; pleaded violations of RLUIPA based on an erroneous interpretation of the City's zoning ordinance; and did not plead sufficient facts to show any substantial burden on their religious practice.

Result

After plaintiffs had two opportunities to amend their complaint, defendant's motion to dismiss plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint was granted without leave to amend.