AGA Islamic Org V Lilburn 12 09

Case 1:09-cv-03549-TWT Document 1 Filed 12/17/2009 Page 1 of 28
ORIGINAL
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT . .~
,occ ~
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA 720 9
A .G .A . ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION, INC ., }

}
Plaintiff, )
1
v. ) CIVIL ACTION
FILE NO .
CITY OF LILBURN, GEORGIA, a )

Municipal Corporation of the State )
of Georgia ; the CITY COUNCIL of )
1"'UI-CV-35,149
the CITY OF LILBURN ; DIANA PRESTON,)
Mayor of the City of Lilburn ; and )
EDDIE PRICE, SCOTT BATTERTON, TIM )
DUNN, JOHNNY CRIST, individually )
in their Official Capacities as )
Members of the CITY COUNCIL )
of the CITY OF LILBURN, )
1
Defendants . )
APPEAL AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AND MANDAMUS
COMES NOW Plaintiff A .G .A . Islamic Organization, Inc .
("A .G .A ." ) d/b/a Dar-e Abbas Shia Islamic Center ("Dar-e Abbas")
and, by and through its counsel of record, files this Appeal and
Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for
Injunction and Mandamus against Defendants, City of Lilburn,
Georgia ; the City Council of the City of Lilburn ; Diana Preston,
Mayor of the City of Lilburn ; and Eddie Price, Scott Batterton,
Tim Dunn and Johnny Crist, individually in their official
1 40503 1
capacities as members of the City Council (collectively
"Defendants") as follows :
INTRODUCTION
1 .
This Appeal and Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment
and Petition for Injunction and Mandamus is brought pursuant to
the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of
the United States, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized
Persons Act, 42 U .S .C . 2000cc ; ("RLUIPA") ; 42 U .S .C . §§ 1983 and
1988 ; 28 U .S .C . § 2201 and 2202, the Constitution of the State of
Georgia, Article I, section I, paras . 1-4 Article III, section I,
para . 1; and O .C .G .A . H 9-4-1 (declaratory judgment) and 9-6-20
(mandamus) arising from Defendants' denial of Plaintiff's
application for rezoning from the C-1 and R-100 to the RA-200
zoning classification and a Special Use Permit ("SUP") for the
purpose of establishing apace of worship and related cemetery
in Lilburn, Georgia .
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
2 .
This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42
U .S .C . 2000cc, 28 U .S .C . §§ 1331 and 1343 and principles of
pendant jurisdiction under 28 U .S .C . § 1367 . Venue is proper in
this Court under 28 U .S .C . § 1391 because the proposed site is
14050 3_ 1 2
located within this District, all Defendants are residents of
this District, and the acts described herein occurred within this
District .
3 .
Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are
authorized by 28 U .S .C . §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by the general, legal
and equitable powers of this Court . Plaintiff's claim for
damages is made pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983, 42 U .S .C . § 2000cc,
and other applicable law .
PARTIES
4 .
Plaintiff A .G .A . is a non-profit corporation organized and
existing under the laws of the state of Georgia, with its
princ i pal place of business located at the Dar - e Abbas Islamic
Center in Lilburn, Georgia .
5 .
Defendant City of Lilburn, Georgia (the "City") is a
municipal corporation of the State of Georgia, and is subject to
the jurisdiction and venue of this Court .
6 .
Defendant City Council of the City of Lilburn, Georgia (the
"Lilburn City Council") is the governing body of the City of
1 40503_1 3
Lilburn, Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of
this Court .
7 .
Defendant Diana Preston is the Mayor of the City of Lilburn,
Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this
Court .
8 .
Defendants Eddie Price, Scott Batterton, Tim Dunn and Johnny
Crisp, are members of the Lilburn City Council, and are subject
to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court .
FACTS
9 .
This is an appeal of the Lilburn City Council's November 18,
2009 denial of a rezoning and special use permit ("SUP") request
by Plaintiff for a mosque worship center, gymnasium and related
cemetery on 7 .9 acres of real property located at 5064 and 5074
Lawrenceville Highway and 238, 288 and 405 Hood Road, in Land Lot
147 of the 6th District of Gwinnett County, Georgia (the "New
Mosque Property") .
10 .
Plaintiff A .G .A . is the owner of record of approximately 1 .3
acres of real property located at 5064 Lawrenceville Highway, in
Land Lot 147 of the 6th District of Gwinnett County, Georgia at
140503_1 4
which the Dar-e Abbas congregation currently worships . ("Current
Mosque Property") .
11 .
The Current Mosque Property is zoned to the C-1
(Neighborhood Business) zoning district under the Lilburn Zoning
Ordinance .
12 .
The Lilburn Zoning Ordinance allows "churches, temples and
synagogues" as permitted uses in the C-1 zoning district, but
only if those uses are located on a site no less than five (5)
acres ("Five Acre Restriction") .
13 .
The Dar-e Abbas congregation has worshipped on the Current
Mosque Property for eleven (11) years .
14 .
The Five Acre Restriction for religious institutions in the
Lilburn Zoning Ordinance was not in effect when the Dar-e Abbas
congregation began worshipping on the Current Mosque Property
eleven (11) years ago .
15 .
Like churches and other religious institutions throughout
the City, Dar-e Abbas provides a place of worship for its
140503_1 5
members, religious counseling, religious education and
fellowship .
16 .
Over the last few years, membership in the Dar-e Abbas
congregation has continued to grow to approximately 250 members,
requiring Plaintiff to expand its worship facilities in order to
meet the needs of its growing congregation .
17 .
The existing buildings on the Current Mosque Property do not
provide adequate areas for assembly and worship for Plaintiff's
members .
18 .
Integral to the religious exercise of Plaintiff's Shia Islam
faith is the ability to bury the deceased so that they are near
their places of worship and are facing northeast, which requires
burial plots that are oriented from northwest to southeast .
19 .
The Dar-e Abbas congregation has no room on the Current
Mosque Property to bury deceased members of its congregation .
20 .
Because many existing cemeteries do not have this necessary
configuration, members of Plaintiff's congregation must buy large
tracts of existing cemeteries, to reorient the burial plots in
14 050 3_ 1 6
accordance with the practice of their faith, which imposes a
considerable burden on the families of the deceased .
21 .
The inability of the congregation to bury their deceased
family members at the site of their place of worship constitutes
a substantial burden on the exercise of their religion .
22 .
To meet the needs of its growing congregation, Plaintiff
seeks to expand the Current Mosque Property to encompass a total
of 7 .9 acres comprising the New Mosque Property and a cemetery
site .
23 .
The New Mosque Property consists of five (5) parcels on 7 .9
acres in the City of Lilburn, Georgia : the Current Mosque
Property (approximately 1 .3 acres located at 5064 and 5074
Lawrenceville Highway and zoned to the C-1 zoning
classification) ; approximately four (4) acres located at 288 Hood
Road and zoned to the R-100 zoning classification ; and
approximately 2 .6 acres located at 238 and 405 Hood Road and
zoned t o the C-1 and R - 1 0 0 zoning classificat i ons .
1405031 7
24 .
Plaintiff owns the properties at 5064 and 507 Lawrenceville
Highway and has a contract to purchase the properties at 238, 288
and 405 Hood Road_
25 .
Plaintiff's representatives first approached the City of
Lilburn about expanding the Dar-e Abbas congregation during the
fall of 2008 .
26 .
On November 1 0, 2008, the Lilburn City Council amended the
Lilburn Zoning Ordinance to provide the Five Acre Restriction for
religious institutions (churches, temples, and synagogues),
located as a principal use in the C-1 (Neighborhood Business
District), C-2 (General Business District), and C-3 (Highway
Business District) zoning districts .
27 .
The Lilburn Zoning Ordinance does not require a similar
acreage restriction for other institutional uses or places of
assembly located in the C-1, C-2 or C-3 zoning districts,
including community centers, playgrounds, parks, clubs, lodges,
fraternal institutions and meeting halls .
140 5 03 8
28 .
The Lilburn City Council's November 10, 2008 text amendment
imposing the Five Acre Restriction on religious institutions
located in the C-1 zoning classification changed the zoning on
the Current Mosque Property from a legal use to a legal
nonconforming use .
29 .
On or about September 15, 2009, Plaintiff submitted a
rezoning application to the City of Lilburn to change the zoning
classifications on the New Mosque Property from C-1 and R-100 to
RA-200 and an application for a Special Use Permit (collectively
the "Applications") to construct a new place of worship with a
cemetery and a gymnasium .
30 .
The proposed new mosque would consist of rooms normally
associated with a place of worship : a main hall for worship,
classrooms, small offices and a social hail with a kitchen for
meals associated with religious ceremonies and services .
31 .
Plaintiff also requested that a cemetery and gym be
constructed behind the mosque to serve the needs of its members .
1405031 9
32 .
The RA-200 zoning district is the only classification in the
City that would permit a new cemetery associated with a place of
worship .
33 .
The New Mosque Property is designated as Commercial Retail,
Office/Professional, and Low Density Residential in the City's
2030 Comprehensive Plan and is zoned to the C-1 and R-100
classifications respectively .
34 .
The mosque and cemetery proposed by Plaintiff is similar to
cemeteries at other places of worship that are zoned to a
residential classification and are located within both commercial
and residential areas of the City, some of which also have
cemeteries .
35 .
Two (2) churches, both of which have cemeteries, are less
than one mile away from the Property .
36 .
Plaintiff's Application met or exceeded all of the
requirements of the Lilburn zoning ordinance for rezoning and a
special use permit .
140503 1 10
37 .
Normally, the City's Planning and Economic Development
Department Staff reviews zoning and special use permit
applications and makes a recommendation to the City Council .
38 .
However, due to the controversial nature of the
Applications, the City contracted with an independent land use
consultant to review the zoning and special land use permit
application and issue a recommendation to the City Council .
39 .
The independent land use consultant recommended approval of
the Applications with certain conditions, all of which were
acceptable to Plaintiff .
40 .
Nevertheless, on November 18, 2009, Defendants voted to deny
the Applications without any attempt to accommodate Plaintiff's
request to use the New Mosque Property in the exercise of their
religion, and without any factual or legal basis .
41 .
Denial of the Applications forces Plaintiff to operate in
inadequate facilities and prohibits the internment of loved ones
near their place of worship, thereby impeding Plaintiff's
religious exercise .
1405031 11
42 .
The Zoning Ordinance, as applied to Plaintiff, treats
religious organizations and institutions on less than equal terms
with non - religious assemblies and ins t itutions .
43 .
Defendants' conduct was prompted or substantially caused by
Plaintiff's religious exercise in attempting to establish a place
of worship on the New Mosque Property .
44 .
As a result of the denial of the Applications and the
existing zoning classifications on the New Mosque Property,
Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer a significant
detriment .
45 .
In denying the Applications, Defendants made an
individualized land use assessment .
46 .
Defendants' denial of the Applications imposes a substantial
burden on Plaintiff's religious exercise, for which Defendants
have not demonstrated that imposition of the burden is in
furtherance of a compelling governmental interest and is the
least restrictive means of furthering that compelling
governmental interest .
140 50 3_ 1 12
47 .
The denial of Plaintiff's Applications unreasonably limits
religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within the
jurisdiction .
48 .
The Five Acre Restriction on its face unreasonably limits
religious assemblies, institutions, or structures within a
jurisdiction .
49 .
The Five Acre Restriction on its face discriminates against
Plaintiff on the basis of religion .
50 .
Defendants had no constitutionally reasonable basis for
their refusal to approve the Applications .
51 .
Denial of the Applications constitutes an arbitrary and
capricious act with no rational basis therefor .
52 .
Plaintiff has exhausted any and all administrative remedies
available as a result of Defendants' denial of the Applications .
53 .
As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been
damaged irreparably and does not have an adequate remedy at law .
140503_1 13
54 .
As a result of Defendants' actions, Plaintiff has been
forced to engage the services of the undersigned attorneys to
represent its interests herein .
55 .
Plaintiff has a clear legal right to approval of the
Applications . Defendants clearly abused their discretion in
denying the Applications .
56 .
This Complaint presents a case of actual controversy among
the parties, which is appropriate for resolution by declaratory
judgment, as provided in 28 U .S .C . § 2201, FED . R . CIV . P . 57 and
O .C .G .A . § 9-4-1 et seq .
COUNT I
DECLARATORY JUDGMENT
RELIGIOUS LAND USE AND INSTITUTIONALIZED PERSONS ACT
57 .
Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates by reference the
foregoing paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth
herein .
1 40503_] 14
58 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that denial of the
Applications imposes a substantial burden on Plaintiff's
religious exercise for which Defendants have not demonstrated
that imposition of the burden is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of
furthering that compelling governmental interest .
59 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Lilburn
Zoning Ordinance, on its face and as applied to Plaintiff, treats
religious organizations and institutions on less than equal terms
with non-religious assemblies and institutions .
60 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Lilburn
Zoning Ordinance, on its face and as applied to Plaintiff,
discriminates against Plaintiff on the basis of religion or
religious denomination .
61 .
Applications is a violation of RLUZPA, 42 U .S .C . 2000cc .
1 40503 15
COUNT z z
FIRST AMENDMENT TO UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION
62 .
herein .
63 .
The First Amendment to the United States Constitution
provides that
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment

of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof ;
or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press ; or
the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to
petition the Government for a redress of grievances .
U .S . CONST . amend . I .
64 .
Applications is a violation of its First Amendment right to its
free exercise of religion .
65 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Five Acre
Requirements is a violation of its First Amendment right to its
free exercise of religion .
1405031 16
66 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the Denial of
the Applications is a violation of its First Amendment right to
its freedom of speech .
67 .
Restriction is a violation of its First Amendment right to its
freedom of speech .
COUNT III
42 U .S .C . § 1983
68 .
herein .
69 .
All of the Acts of Defendants complained of in this
complaint were performed under color of state law .
70 .
Denial of the Applications is unconstitutional in that it
imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of the
Plaintiff, for which Defendants have not demonstrated that
imposition of that burden is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest and is the least restrictive means of
1405031 17
furthering that compelling governmental interest . 42 U .S .C .
2000cc .
71 .
Defendants' conduct in denying the Applications is
unconstitutional in that Defendants have imposed a land use
regulation in a manner that treats a religious assembly or
institution on less than equal terms with a nonreligious assembly
or institution .
72 .
regulation that discriminates against an assembly or institution
on the basis of religion or religious denomination .
73 .
regulation that unreasonably limits religious assemblies,
institutions, or structures within a jurisdiction .
74 .
unconstitutional in that it constitutes an excessive regulatory
taking of valuable private property rights belonging to
Plaintiff, without provision for prior payment of just and
140503_1 18
adequate compensation in violation of the Fifth and Fourteenth
amendments to the United States Constitution .
75 .
unconstitutional in that Defendants have not articulated any
standards or criteria or any objective factual basis to support
the denial ; and, as such, Defendants have violated Plaintiff's
due process rights, which are protected by the Fifth and
Fourteenth amendments to the United States Constitution .
76 .
unconstitutional in that Defendants' action is arbitrary,
capricious, and without any objective basis, and discriminates
between Plaintiff and other similarly situated individuals in
violation of Plaintiff's rights to equal protection under the
Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States
Constitution .
77 .
Plaintiff has a right of action pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983
for Declaratory Judgment for the redress of the denial of rights
protected by the due process and equal protection clauses of the
Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United
States, the free exercise clause of the First Amendment to the
1aosa3_1 19
Constitution of the United States and the Religious Land Use and
Institutionalized Persons Act, 42 U .S .C . § 2000, et seq .
78 .
Plaintiff is entitled to recover reasonable attorneys fees,
expenses of litigation, and other costs incurred in an effort to
vindicate Plaintiff's constitutionally protected rights under the
First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the
United States as authorized by 42 U .S .C . § 1988 .
COUNT IV
STATE LAW CLAIMS
79 .
herein .
80 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the action taken
by Defendants, denying the Applications, is unreasonable and void
and bears no substantial relation to the public health, safety,
morality, or general welfare .
81 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that Defendants had
no objective factual basis to support the denial of the
Applications ; and, as such, Defendants have violated Plaintiff's
540503_ 1 20
due process rights, which are protected by the Georgia
Constitution Article I, § I, 1 and § III, 1 .
82 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the denial of
the Applications discriminates between Plaintiff and other
similarly situated individuals and businesses in violation of
Plaintiff's right to equal protection under the Georgia
Constitution Article I, § I, II .
83 .
the Applications interferes with Plaintiff's right to worship in
accordance with Plaintiff's freedom of conscience as secured by
Article I, § I, III of the Georgia Constitution .
84 .
the Applications interferes with Plaintiff's right to freedom of
religion as secured by Article T, § Y, IV of the Georgia
Constitution .
85 .
Restriction interferes with Plaintiff's right to worship in
accordance with Plaintiff's freedom of conscience as secured by
Article I, § I, III of the Georgia constitution .
1405031 21
86 .
Restriction interferes with Plaintiff's right to freedom of
religion as secured by Article I, § I, IV of the Georgia
Constitution .
87 .
Plaintiff is entitled to a declaration that the C-1 and
R-100 zoning classifications as applied to the New Mosque
Property is unconstitutional for the reasons stated herein .
88 .
Restriction is unconstitutional for the reasons stated herein .
COUNT IV
INVERSE CONDEMNATION
89 .
herein .
90 .
The actions of Defendants constitute an inverse condemnation
of the Property for which compensation is required by law .
1405 03_ 1 22
COUNT V
MANDAMUS
91 .
herein .
92 .
Plaintiff has a clear legal right to use and develop the
Property as a place of worship with a cemetery as requested in
the Applications .
93 .
A defect of legal justice would ensue if mandamus is not
issued and Plaintiff has no other specific legal remedy .
COUNT VI
INJUN C TI ON
94 .
herein .
95 .
Plaintiff is entitled to the issuance of a temporary
restraining order and interlocutory injunction restraining
1405031 23
Defendants from prohibiting Plaintiff to use the Property as a
place of worship in the free exercise of its religion .
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays as follows :
(a) That this Court declare that the actions of Defendants
constitute a violation of the Free Exercise Clause of the First
Amendment to the United States Constitution and a violation of
the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, 42
U .S .C . 2000cc ;
(b) That this Court declare that the actions of Defendants
constitute a violation of Plaintiff's rights of due process
under the Fifth and Fourteenth amendments to the United States
Constitution and the Georgia Constitution Article I, § I, 1 and
§ III, 1 ;
(c) That this Court declare that the action taken by the
Defendants, denying the Applications, is unconstitutional,
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable, illegal, null and void as
applied to the Property and results in a taking of the
Plaintiff's Property without just compensation in violation of
state and federal law ;
(d) That this Court declare that the existing Lilburn
Zoning Ordinance is unconstitutional, arbitrary, capricious and
unreasonable, illegal, null and void on its face and as applied
140503_1 24
to the Property, and results in a taking of the Plaintiff's
Property, without just compensation ;
(e) That this Court declare that the action taken by the
Defendants, denying the Application, is unconstitutional,
arbitrary, capricious and unreasonable as applied to the Property
and violates Plaintiff's rights to equal protection under the
law ;
(f ) That this Court declare that the action taken by the
Defendants, denying the Applications, is unreasonable, and bears
no rational relationship to the public health, safety, morals and
welfare ;
(g) That this Court declare the actions of Defendants to
have resulted in an inverse condemnation of Plaintiff's Property ;
(h) That this Court declare that Plaintiff has a clear
legal right to approval of the Applications ;
(i) That this Court annul and set aside the denial of the
Applications ;
(j) That a writ of mandamus issue ordering Defendants to
approve the Applications ;
(k ) That this Court award damages to Plaintiff in an amount
sufficient to compensate Plaintiff for the damages incurred as a
result of Defendants, actions in denying the Applications ;
1405031 25
(1) That Plaintiff recover attorneys fees and expenses
incurred in this matter ; and
(m) That Plaintiff has any and all further and other relief
as this Court may deem just and proper under the circumstances
and evidence presented .
Respectfully submitted,
DILLARD & GALLOWAY, LLC
By :
G . Douglas Dillard
State Bar No . 221900
Andrea Cantrell Jones
Lauren M . Hansford
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3500 Lenox Road, N .E ., Suite 760
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
(404) 965-3680
(404 965-3670 (fax)
andrea@dandglaw .com e-mail
1405031 26
VERIFICATION
STATE OF GEORGIA
COUNTY OF FULTON
Personally appeared before the undersigned notary public
duly authorized in the State of Georgia to administer oaths,
SHAJEE ALI SYED, after being duly sworn, deposes and states that
the facts contained in the attached APPEAL AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT
FOR DECLARATORY JUDGMENT AND PETITION FOR INJUNCTION AND MANDAMUS
are true and correct .
This /6'~"Uday of December 2009 .
A .G .A . ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION, INC .
By :
SHAJEE A I SYED, GENERAL SECRETARY
SWORN TO AND SUBSCRIBED

Bef re Me This 16 '~' Day
of~e LL-le {,2Q09 .
(AFFIX N4iT,AR14 ~SEAL)
EXPIRES
Nota ly 16 ~1IA
APRIL 19,201 2
My CATs~,UB~`(F,~
. .y . s
I 5
IIif /1L111 S
140503_1 2 7
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE WITH L .R .5 . 1B
I certify pursuant to L .R . 7 .1D that the above-titled
document complies with L .R . 5 .1B and was prepared using a 12
point Courier font .
Respectfully submitted,
DILLARD & GALLOWAY, LLC
By :
Andrea Cantrell J
State Bar No . 3981
Attorneys for Plaintiff

3500 Lenox Road, N .E ., Suite 760
Atlanta, Georgia 30326
(404) 965-3680
(404) 965-3670 (facsimile)
1405031 28

AGA Islamic Org V Lilburn 12 09

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

AGA Islamic Org V Lilburn 12 09

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Case 1:09-cv-03549-TWT Document 1 Filed 12/17/2009 Page 1 of 28

A .G .A . ISLAMIC ORGANIZATION, INC ., }

CITY OF LILBURN, GEORGIA, a )

APPEAL AND VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR DECLARATORY

COMES NOW Plaintiff A .G .A . Islamic Organization, Inc .

Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment and Petition for

Injunction and Mandamus against Defendants, City of Lilburn,

Georgia ; the City Council of the City of Lilburn ; Diana Preston,

Mayor of the City of Lilburn ; and Eddie Price, Scott Batterton,

Tim Dunn and Johnny Crist, individually in their official

capacities as members of the City Council (collectively

This Appeal and Verified Complaint for Declaratory Judgment

and Petition for Injunction and Mandamus is brought pursuant to

the First, Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of

the United States, the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized

Persons Act, 42 U .S .C . 2000cc ; ("RLUIPA") ; 42 U .S .C . §§ 1983 and

1988 ; 28 U .S .C . § 2201 and 2202, the Constitution of the State of

Georgia, Article I, section I, paras . 1-4 Article III, section I,

para . 1; and O .C .G .A . H 9-4-1 (declaratory judgment) and 9-6-20

(mandamus) arising from Defendants' denial of Plaintiff's

zoning classification and a Special Use Permit ("SUP") for the

purpose of establishing apace of worship and related cemetery

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

This Court has jurisdiction over this matter pursuant to 42

U .S .C . 2000cc, 28 U .S .C . §§ 1331 and 1343 and principles of

pendant jurisdiction under 28 U .S .C . § 1367 . Venue is proper in

this Court under 28 U .S .C . § 1391 because the proposed site is

located within this District, all Defendants are residents of

Plaintiff's claims for declaratory and injunctive relief are

authorized by 28 U .S .C . §§ 2201 and 2202, by Rules 57 and 65 of

the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure and by the general, legal

and equitable powers of this Court . Plaintiff's claim for

damages is made pursuant to 42 U .S .C . § 1983, 42 U .S .C . § 2000cc,

and other applicable law .

Plaintiff A .G .A . is a non-profit corporation organized and

existing under the laws of the state of Georgia, with its

princ i pal place of business located at the Dar - e Abbas Islamic

Center in Lilburn, Georgia .

Defendant City of Lilburn, Georgia (the "City") is a

municipal corporation of the State of Georgia, and is subject to

the jurisdiction and venue of this Court .

Defendant City Council of the City of Lilburn, Georgia (the

"Lilburn City Council") is the governing body of the City of

Lilburn, Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of

Defendant Diana Preston is the Mayor of the City of Lilburn,

Georgia and is subject to the jurisdiction and venue of this

Defendants Eddie Price, Scott Batterton, Tim Dunn and Johnny

to the jurisdiction and venue of this Court .

This is an appeal of the Lilburn City Council's November 18,

2009 denial of a rezoning and special use permit ("SUP") request

by Plaintiff for a mosque worship center, gymnasium and related

cemetery on 7 .9 acres of real property located at 5064 and 5074

147 of the 6th District of Gwinnett County, Georgia (the "New

Plaintiff A .G .A . is the owner of record of approximately 1 .3

acres of real property located at 5064 Lawrenceville Highway, in

Land Lot 147 of the 6th District of Gwinnett County, Georgia at

which the Dar-e Abbas congregation currently worships . ("Current

The Current Mosque Property is zoned to the C-1

(Neighborhood Business) zoning district under the Lilburn Zoning

The Lilburn Zoning Ordinance allows "churches, temples and

synagogues" as permitted uses in the C-1 zoning district, but

acres ("Five Acre Restriction") .