Land Use— Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000—Challenge To Development of New Synagogue—Federal Court Lacked Subject Matter Jurisdiction Over Federal Claims Asserted Only Against the United States—United States (US) Did Not Waive Sovereign Immunity and Exceptions are Inapplicable—State Claims for Public and Private Nuisance Dismissed—RLUIPA Does Not Permit Enforcement Against Private Individuals—Attorney Fees Claim Under New York Anti-SLAPP Law Denied—Anti-SLAPP Law Inapplicable In Federal Court—Conflict With FRCP 12 and 56—Plaintiffs Claimed That Congregants Would Walk Dimly Lit Streets Without Reflectors and Would Create Noise and Public Safety Issues—Plaintiffs “Misstated” the Law and “Distorted” the Facts

The plaintiffs live on the same street as a single-family residence owned by a synagogue (residence). The synagogue had applied for site plan approval (application) to convert and expand the residence into a house of worship. The Town Planning Board (board) considered the application and understood that the synagogue was relying on the Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act of 2000, 42 USC 2000 cc(a)(i) (RLUIPA). The board drafted a resolution approving the application. However, the board denied the application.