287 F. Supp. 3d 290
E.D.N.Y.2018Background
- Plaintiffs are Falun Gong practitioners (or perceived practitioners) who operate a Spiritual Center and five nearby sites in Flushing, Queens, and allege repeated harassment, threats, and physical attacks while distributing religious materials or participating in parades.
- Defendants: Chinese Anti‑Cult World Alliance (CACWA) (incorporated 2008) and individuals (Chu, Huahong, Zirou, Hongjuan) alleged to organize and carry out an overseas "douzheng" (crackdown) campaign against Falun Gong in Flushing, including distributing violent anti‑Falun Gong materials.
- Complaint alleges ~25 incidents of verbal/physical attacks, false reports to police (leading to an arrest and public posting of arrest photo), and intimidation suggesting CACWA influence over NYPD.
- Plaintiffs assert claims under 42 U.S.C. § 1985(3) (both the "deprivation" and "hindrance" clauses) for conspiracy motivated by religious animus and under 18 U.S.C. § 248 (FACE) for interference with religious exercise.
- Defendants moved to partially dismiss under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6); Magistrate Judge Scanlon recommended denial in full and the district judge accepted the report as law of the case; trial scheduling to follow.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| §1985(3) "Deprivation" clause — conspiracy to deprive equal protection/right to intrastate travel | Plaintiffs: defendants conspired with class‑based (religious) animus to assault/intimidate practitioners and thus impede their intrastate travel and access to public streets | Defendants: allegations are vague/conclusory; dispute religious‑animus basis; some acts predate limitations | Court: allegations (repeated attacks, anti‑Falun Gong materials, CACWA mission) sufficiently plead meeting‑of‑minds, class‑based animus, and plausibly impaired intrastate travel — deny dismissal |
| §1985(3) "Hindrance" clause — conspiracy to hinder state authorities from securing equal protection | Plaintiffs: defendants interfered with and sought to manipulate police (false reports, intimidation, claimed NYPD infiltration), aiming to deny protection and access to streets | Defendants: no proof; small operation; alternative explanation of speech and activity | Court: plausible allegations that defendants acted to hinder authorities and targeted protected class; purpose and effect allegations suffice to survive 12(b)(6) — deny dismissal |
| FACE (18 U.S.C. §248) — interference with religious exercise at place of worship | Plaintiffs: Falun Gong is a religion; Spiritual Center and associated sites are places of worship; defendants used force/threats/obstruction at those sites | Defendants: Falun Gong is not a religion/place of worship; FACE intended for clinic contexts; allegations vague | Court: accepts plaintiffs' factual allegations at pleading stage; FACE text covers religious worship sites; complaint alleges force/threats at sites — deny dismissal |
| Doctrinal defenses (state‑action, intracorporate conspiracy, First Amendment, statute of limitations) | Plaintiffs: rights at issue (intrastate travel) are susceptible to private encroachment; ongoing conspiracy tolls limitations; speech may be true threats or used as evidence of animus | Defendants: §1985 requires state action; intracorporate doctrine shields CACWA and agents; speech protected by First Amendment; many acts time‑barred | Court: state‑action not required for travel right claim; intracorporate doctrine inapplicable or inapplicable where entity formed to discriminate or individuals pursued personal ends; threats not protected speech and can be evidentiary; continuing violation plausibly tolls limitations — defenses do not warrant dismissal |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard; plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (pleading must plead more than labels and conclusions)
- Spencer v. Casavilla, 903 F.2d 171 (2d Cir.) (private conspiracy can violate intrastate travel right under § 1985(3))
- Bray v. Alexandria Women’s Health Clinic, 506 U.S. 263 (class‑based animus requirement discussion in § 1985 context)
- United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners, Local 610 v. Scott, 463 U.S. 825 (state‑action requirement for some § 1985 claims)
- LeBlanc‑Sternberg v. Fletcher, 67 F.3d 412 (conspiracy may be inferred from tacit understanding)
- Nat’l Abortion Fed’n v. Operation Rescue, 8 F.3d 680 (9th Cir.) (Hindrance clause plausibly pleaded where defendants negotiated/altered police conduct to block clinics)
- Wisconsin v. Mitchell, 508 U.S. 476 (use of speech evidence to establish motive; hate/animus context)