IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

EASTERN DIVISION

SONIDA DE ALABANZA, an )
Illinois Religious Corporation; )
) CASE NO.:
Plaintiffs, )
) PRESIDING JUDGE:
v. )
) MAGISTRATE JUDGE:
TOWN OF CICERO, an Illinois Municipal )
Corporation )
) TRIAL BY JURY REQUESTED
Defendant. )

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Sonido de Alabanza (“Sonido” or the “Church”), by its Attorneys Mauck and

Baker, LLC, hereby complain of the Defendant as follows:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is an action to enforce Plaintiff’s rights under the Fourteenth Amendment to

the United States Constitution, First Amendment to the United States Constitution, under the

Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act (RLUIPA), 42 U.S.C. § 2000cc et seq.,

under the Civil Rights Act of 1871, 42 U.S.C. § 1983, and under the Illinois Religious Freedom

Restoration Act (IRFRA), 775 ILCS § 35/15 et seq to prevent the Defendant from substantially

burdening their rights, inter alia, by preventing the Plaintiffs from expanding their church to

preach the gospel of Jesus at 5534-5542 West 25th Street in Cicero.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

2. The Court has jurisdiction over the aforementioned federal claims pursuant to 28

U.S.C. 1331 as they arise under the Fourteenth Amendment to the Constitution of the United

1
States, Section 1, under the First Amendment to the Constitution of the United States, and under

RLUIPA. The state law claims are so closely related to the federal questions as to create

supplemental jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1367(a).

3. Venue is proper in this district and division because the material events occurred

in Cicero, in Cook County, Illinois.

PARTIES

4. Sonido de Alabanza (which translates “Sound of Praise”) is a church, an Illinois

Religious Corporation, that owns and meets at 5510 West 25th Street in Cicero for religious

worship and training. Juan B. Ferraras is the presiding Bishop. Esdras Ferreras is the pastor of

the Church. Sergio Nava is an associate pastor. For the past 23 years, Sonido has been open to

the public seven days a week and conducts numerous ministries at the subject property, all of

which are essential to the religious beliefs of the Church and its members. Sonido is affiliated

with the Mennonite Church USA and its congregation is entirely comprised of Hispanic men,

women, and families. The Church has approximately 1000 members. See Exhibit A, ¶¶ 2-7

(Declaration of Esdras Ferreras) and Exhibit B, ¶¶ 2-5 (Declaration of Sergio Nava).

5. Defendant Town of Cicero (the “Town” or “Cicero”) is a municipal corporation

organized and existing under the statues and constitution of the State of Illinois.

FACTS

6. Sonido de Alabanza is a Spanish language church located at 5510 West 25th

Street in Cicero, which serves the community through Christian worship services, conferences,

workshops, camps, training, celebrations, Christian education, counseling, and services to those

in need, such a food distribution. They have been at this location since May of 1996. Ex. A, ¶¶

2-3; Ex. B, ¶¶ 2-3.

2
 7. The current church building has become too small for the Church’s needs. For

example, the basement of the current church building, on a typical Sunday, hosts Sunday school,

a ministry to feed hungry members of the community, an office (in the form of a desk in the

corner of the room) for counseling, and an office for the two persons who supervise Sunday

school (in the form of a table in the middle of the room). The basement is an open room, and

thus the various ministries being held in this one room are often disruptive of one another. To

make matters worse, the building’s only two bathrooms are located in the basement, which

means that these ministries are frequently interrupted by persons traveling to the rest rooms. Ex.

A, ¶ 8; Ex. B, ¶ 6.

8. On December 12, 2006, Sonido purchased property located at 5534-5542 West

25th Street, Cicero, Illinois. This property is improved with a one-story industrial building and a

two-story industrial building that border each other. The Church intends to use these buildings

as an expansion of their current location, to include their new sanctuary and accommodate their

continuously growing congregation. Ex. A, ¶ 9; Ex. B, ¶ 7.

9. The Church intends to improve the two-story building to house a Christian

bookstore, a nursery, office space, and additional Sunday school classrooms. The Church plans

to knock down the one-story building and build a new building to house the sanctuary. The

Church’s current building will be used for older kid’s Sunday school rooms, food pantry,

kitchen, and meeting space. Ex. A, ¶ 10; Ex. B, ¶ 8.

10. The new church property is located just down the street from the current church

building at a distance of approximately 400 feet. Ex. A, ¶ 11; Ex. B, ¶ 9.

11. This lawsuit is being brought because the Town has unreasonably and deliberately

delayed, misguided, failed to act, failed to cooperate, and failed to advise the Church in the

3
Church’s attempt to obtain an approved building permit. The following paragraphs are a

chronology of the Church’s attempts to obtain a building permit from the Town.

12. On information and belief, Craig Pesek, the Town’s Project Manager, said of

Church’s new property: “I will make sure that Church does not operate in that building.”

13. On information and belief, Craig Pesek told a person, who suggested that

preventing the Church from expanding would cost the Town administration votes, that “I have

sent my spies to the church and we confirmed that it will not cost votes because most cars have

Chicago city stickers.”

14. On January 23, 2007, the Church initiated contact with the Town of Cicero to

begin the process of renovating the building by providing the Town with a comprehensive,

permanent, and professionally-designed alternative to repairing all violations, as specified in the

Certificate of Compliance. Sergio Nava spoke with Frank Zolp, who agreed to allow the church

to submit architectural drawings to redevelop the buildings on the property in lieu of repairing

the violations as specified in the Certificate of Compliance. At that time, Mr. Zolp specified a

process to Mr. Nava by asking for a set of architectural drawings, not an application to be

submitted to the Building Department and the Town Project Manager. Nor did he require that a

contract with a contractor was necessary or that the drawings would need to be certified by an

engineer. Ex. B, ¶ 10.

15. On February 27, 2007, Pastor Sergio Nava personally delivered preliminary

drawings to the Project Management office at the Town of Cicero. Mr. Nava hand-delivered

copies of the preliminary drawings to the offices of Craig Pesek, the Town’s Project Manager,

and Frank Zolp, Code Enforcement Director. At that time, Mr. Zolp told the Church to provide

the final drawings next. No requirement was specified by Mr. Zolp for the Church to have their

4
drawings certified by an engineer or contract with a contractor for the construction of the

building in order to have the plans approved. Ex. B, ¶ 11.

16. On February 27, 2007 when Pastor Nava met with Craig Pesek, he waited two to

three hours at Mr. Pesek’s office to meet with him. When Mr. Pesek finally arrived he was

irritated that Pastor Nava was waiting for him. Mr. Pesek commented to Pastor Nava that the

Church owned a great deal of property. Mr. Pesek stated that the Town was planning a project

on West 25th Street and that churches usually didn’t have as much land as Sonido did. Ex. B, ¶

12.

17. In October 2007, the Church provided the final drawings to the Building and

Planning Departments. Pastors Esdras Ferreras and Sergio Nava met with Mr. Zolp in person

and Mr. Pesek via telephone. Mr. Zolp stated that the Town would take a look at the completed

drawings and contact the Church if there was anything wrong or that the Town didn’t like. Mr.

Zolp and Mr. Pesek still did not require that the drawings be certified by an engineer or that they

be submitted with a contract with a contractor who would do the construction on the building.

Ex. A, ¶ 12; Ex. B, ¶ 13.

18. For a month, Pastor Sergio Nava attempted to contact Mr. Pesek but his phone

calls went unreturned. Ex. B, ¶ 14.

19. On November 21, 2007 Pastor Esdras Ferreras and Pastor Sergio Nava finally met

with Mr. Zolp and Ed Ziemba to discuss the final drawings. At this time, Mr. Zolp and Mr.

Ziemba told Pastors Ferreras and Nava that the drawings were fine. They also requested a

comprehensive parking plan. Again, no requirement that the drawings be certified by an

engineer or that they be submitted with a contract with a contractor who would do the

construction on the building was raised. Ex. A, ¶ 13; Ex. B, ¶ 15.

5
 20. On December 16, 2007, Pastor Nava delivered the comprehensive parking plan to

Mr. Pesek’s office. Mr. Pesek stated that the next step in the process was to have a meeting in

order to discuss the issues concerning the project. Mr. Pesek did not mention that the drawings

submitted were deficient because they did not contain a contract with a contractor to do the

work, or that they needed to be certified by an engineer. Ex. B, ¶ 16.

21. After several failed attempts via telephone and in person by the Church to set up a

meeting with Mr. Pesek over a period of approximately two months, a meeting was finally

scheduled for 2 PM on Monday, February 25, 2008. Ex. A, ¶ 14; Ex. B, ¶ 17.

22. Before the scheduled time of the meeting on February 25, 2008, Mr. Pesek’s

secretary called the Church to cancel the meeting, stating that Mr. Pesek would be unavailable.

However, that same day, at around 2:00 PM, Pastor Juan Ferreras, Pastor Esdras Ferreras, and

Pastor Rudy Nova, a pastor from Mexico affiliated with the Church, witnessed Craig Pesek and

Frank Zolp in a vehicle driving around the church taking video surveillance of the old church

property and building. Ex. A, ¶ 15; Ex. B, ¶ 18.

23. On or about March 3, 2008, Esdras Ferreras sent a letter to Larry Dominick,

Town President of Cicero, expressing their disappointment and frustration with their inability to

meet with Mr. Pesek. See Exhibit C (Letter from Esdras Ferreras to Larry Dominick, dated

March 3, 2008).

24. On or about March 3, 2008, while attempting to drop off Pastor Esdras’s letter

along with a request to meet with the Town President, Sergio Nava spoke with Frank Aguilar,

the Town’s Director of Special Events, who informed Mr. Nava that “We [the Town] prefer for

Churches not to expand. The town is ‘bleeding’ money and needs tax revenue.” Ex. B, ¶ 19.

6
 25. On or about March 15, 2008, Craig Pesek sent a letter to the Church listing a

number of concerns relating to the new church property. That letter also did not mention that the

drawings submitted were deficient because they were not certified by an engineer or that they

were deficient because a contract with a contractor was not submitted with the drawings. See

Exhibit D (Letter from Craig Pesek to Sonido, dated March 15, 2008).

26. On May 13, 2008, the Church’s architect, Jack P. Morgan, sent a response to Mr.

Pesek, addressing each of the concerns listed by number. See Exhibit E (Letter from Jack P.

Morgan to Craig Pesek, dated May 13, 2008).

27. Mr. Pesek’s letter also asked for a traffic impact study to determine the effect that

the redevelopment of the building would have on the area’s traffic flow. Ex. E.

28. On or about August 6, 2008, the Church submitted their Traffic Impact Analysis

through Metro Transportation Group, Inc. See Exhibit F.

29. In response to Mr. Pesek’s March 15, 2008 letter stating that the building codes

used by the architect’s drawings were different from those used by the Town, Sergio Nava hand-

delivered to Mr. Pesek’s office, before August 2008, corrected drawings using the proper code.

While doing so, Pastor Nava spoke to Mr. Pesek’s secretary, Rosa, who told Pastor Nava that the

Church was not going through the correct process: that the Church needed to go through the

Building Department, and submit certified copies of the architectural drawings by the architect

and an engineer, and that the Church needed to submit a contract between it and a contractor who

would do the work on the building, to the Building Department. Rosa gave Pastor Nava a

document entitled “Procedures for Obtaining a Building Permit for New Construction.” Exhibit

G. This was the first time that the Church was informed of any of these requirements. Ex. B, ¶

20.

7
 30. In August 2008, on the same day Pastor Nava spoke with Rosa, he went to the

Building Department, where persons in that Department confirmed the requirements set out by

Rosa. Ex. B, ¶ 21.

31. At no time did Mr. Pesek, Mr. Zolp, or Mr. Ziemba ever inform the Church of the

proper procedure but knowingly advised the Church of an improper method whereby the Town

could delay or block the Church’s development of the property.

32. The Church never received any written policy detailing the requirements related

to the certification by the engineer and architect and the contract for the construction on the

building, until Rosa gave Pastor Nava the “Procedures for Obtaining a Building Permit for New

Construction.” Ex. A, ¶ 17; Ex. B, ¶ 23.

33. Since submitting the final architectural drawings in August 2008, the Church has

not received any communication from any representative from the Town regarding the plans for

their property. Ex. A, ¶ 18; Ex. B, ¶ 24.

34. In August 2008, Pastor Sergio Nava was told by the Building Department that the

process for the Town the review the final architectural drawings takes four weeks. Ex. B, ¶ 22.

35. The “Procedures for Obtaining a Building Permit for New Construction” state that

the first review of the architectural drawings will take 2 to 3 business days. The Church has still

not received a response to their plans since August 2008.

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I
FIRST AMENDMENT: FREE EXERCISE OF RELIGION

36. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

37. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

8
initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church down a separate process which

Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, substantially burdens Plaintiff’s Free Exercise of Religion.

38. The Town cannot provide a compelling government interest in failing to inform

Plaintiff of the “formal” process until a year and half after Plaintiff initiated the process while

providing a separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

39. The Town cannot provide that a compelling government interest was narrowly

tailored in failing to provide Plaintiff with the correct process until a year and half into the

initiation while providing a separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

COUNT II
RLUIPA: SUBSTANTIAL BURDEN

40. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

41. Section 2000cc (a)(1) of RLUIPA provides:

(1) General rule.

No government shall impose or implement a land use regulation that
imposes a substantial burden on the religious exercise of a person,
including a religious assembly or institution, unless the government
demonstrates that imposition of the burden on that person, assembly, or
institution—

9
 (A) is in furtherance of a compelling governmental interest; and
(B) is the least restrictive means of furthering that compelling governmental
interest.

42. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church down a separate process which

Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, substantially burdens Plaintiff’s religious activities.

43. The Town’s failure to take action on the Church’s application, failure to inform

the Church of the “formal” procedure until a year and half after the Church initiated the process,

the Town’s elaboration of a separate process for the Church to follow, and the Town’s failure to

cooperate have exposed the Church to risk in huge increases in the cost of construction, prevents

the Church’s ministries from meeting and being effective, burdens the Church’s ability to grow

by restricting attendance to the size of the current Church building, diminishes church resources,

and burdens church administration due to the limited size of the current Church building.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

COUNT III
FIRST AMENDMENT: FREE SPEECH

44. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

10
 45. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church down a separate process which

Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, substantially burdens Plaintiff’s Free Speech.

46. The Town’s failure to take action on the Church’s application, failure to inform

the Church of the “formal” procedure under a year and half after the Church initiated the process,

the Town’s elaboration of a separate process for the Church to follow, and the Town’s failure to

cooperate have exposed the Church to risk in huge increases in the cost of construction, prevents

the Church’s ministries from meeting and being effective, burdens the Church’s ability to grow

by restricting attendance to the size of the current Church building, diminishes church resources,

and burdens church administration due to the limited size of the current Church building.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

COUNT IV
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: PROCEDURAL DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

47. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

48. Plaintiff possesses a property interest in 5534-5542 West 25th Street, Cicero,

Illinois.

11
 49. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church through a separate process which

Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, unjustifiably interferes with Plaintiffs’ property rights.

50. Plaintiff was not afforded an appropriate level of process by the Town in

approving the Church’s building permit because the representative of the Town misled Plaintiff

about the process by arbitrarily failing to inform them of the proper procedure and by setting up

an ad hoc procedure for Plaintiff to follow.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

COUNT V
FOURTEENTH AMENDMENT: SUBSTANTIVE DUE PROCESS VIOLATION

51. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

52. Plaintiff property possesses a property interest in 5534-5542 West 25th Street,

Cicero, Illinois.

53. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church down a separate process which

12
Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, unjustifiably interferes with Plaintiffs’ property rights.

54. The Town cannot provide a rational basis for in failing to inform Plaintiff of the

“formal” process until a year and half after Plaintiff initiated the process while providing a

separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

55. The practice by the Town of failing to inform Plaintiff of the “formal” process

until a year and a half after Plaintiff initiated the process and setting up an ad hoc procedure for

the Church to follow is random, arbitrary, and irrational and bears no substantial relationship to

public health, safety, or welfare.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

COUNT VI
FIRST AMENDMENT: RIGHT OF ASSEMBLY

56. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

57. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church through a separate process which

Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, substantially burdens Plaintiff’s Right of Assembly.

13
 58. The Town cannot provide a compelling government interest in failing to inform

Plaintiff of the “formal” process until a year and half after Plaintiff initiated the process while

providing a separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

59. The Town cannot provide that a compelling government interest was narrowly

tailored in failing to provide Plaintiff with the correct process until a year and half into the

initiation while providing a separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

COUNT VII
STATE LAW CLAIM
WRIT OF MANDAMUS

60. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

61. Plaintiff submitted architectural drawings in order to obtain approval for a

building permit, and followed the instructions given it by the Building and Planning Department

heads.

62. Plaintiff has not received any response to its architectural plans.

63. The Town’s own procedures for obtaining a building permit state that review of

the site plan will take 2 to 3 business days. See Exhibit G. The Town has failed to act on this

obligation.

14
 64. Defendant is required to approve or deny building permit applications. It has not

fulfilled this duty.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Grant other just relief.

COUNT VII
STATE LAW CLAIM UNDER
ILLINOIS RELIGIOUS FREEDOM RESTORATION ACT (IRFRA)

65. Plaintiff realleges ¶¶ 1-35.

66. 775 ILCS 35/20 (IRFRA) provides that a claim may be raised under IRFRA in

this case:

Sec. 20. Judicial relief. If a person's exercise of religion has been

burdened in violation of this Act, that person may assert that violation as
a claim or defense in a judicial proceeding and may obtain appropriate
relief against a government. A party who prevails in an action to enforce
this Act against a government is entitled to recover attorney’s fees and
costs incurred in maintaining the claim or defense.

67. 775 ILCS 35/15 (IRFRA), provides as follows:

Sec.15. Free exercise of religion protected. Government may not

substantially burden a person's exercise of religion, even if the burden
results from a rule of general applicability, unless it demonstrates that
application of the burden to the person (i) is in furtherance of a compelling
governmental interest and (ii) is the least restrictive means of furthering
that compelling governmental interest.

68. The actions by the Town officials of not informing Plaintiff of the “formal”

procedure of submitting drawings with a contractor contract until a year and a half after Plaintiff

15
initiated the process, while simultaneously leading the Church down a separate process which

Plaintiff believed in good faith to be authorized by the Building Department only later to be told

that this process was not correct, substantially burdens Plaintiff’s religious freedoms under

IRFRA.

69. The Town cannot provide a compelling government interest in failing to inform

Plaintiff of the “formal” process until a year and half after Plaintiff initiated the process while

providing a separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

70. The Town cannot provide that a compelling government interest was narrowly

tailored in failing to provide Plaintiff with the correct process until a year and half into the

initiation while providing a separate process with which Plaintiff complied.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request that the Court:

A. Enter a permanent injunction requiring Defendant to process Plaintiff’s building

permit application;

B. Enter judgment on behalf of Plaintiff and against Defendant for all damages to

which they are entitled;

C. Award attorney fees, expenses and costs pursuant to 42 U.S.C. § 1988(b); and

D. Grant other just relief.

Respectfully submitted,
SONIDO DE ALABANZA,

By: /s/ John W. Mauck

One of their attorneys

16
John W. Mauck
Jeffrey M. Schwab
MAUCK & BAKER, LLC
One N. LaSalle #600
Chicago IL 60602
(312) 726-1243
F:\Clients\1311\01 Sonido v Cicero\Complaint.doc

17