Free Order on Motion for Miscellaneous Relief - District Court of Delaware - Delaware

Case 1:04-cv-01499-GMS

Document 62

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 1 of 2

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

ISIDORE CORWIN AND BONNIE CORWIN, Plaintiffs, v. B'NAI B'RITH SENIOR CITIZEN HOUSING, INC., SOUTHEASTERN PROPERTIES MGMT., AND LYNN ROTAN, Defendants.

) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Civil Action No. 04-1499 (GMS)

ORDER Presently before the court is the Corwins' motion to enforce the terms of the settlement order of March 31, 2006. (D.I. 57.) The settlement order resolved the parties' dispute over religious freedom and expression in the B'nai B'rith House ("BBH"), where the plaintiffs reside. (D.I. 48.) The order required the parties to obey all applicable lease provisions and BBH rules and included the parties' mutual release of any and all claims they may have had against each other before the entry of the order. (Id. at 4.) According to the order, "BBH will continue to allow plaintiffs to display the iron crucifix attached to their balcony wall." (Id.) Also according to the order, "BBH will continue to allow residents to display religious symbols and images of their choice (Mezuzahs, Crucifixes, etc.) on the outside of their apartment doors and on their individual mailboxes." (Id.) The Corwins now argue that a BBH rule that prevents them from hanging their American flag from their balcony violates the settlement order. (D.I. 57.) The rule in dispute prohibits

Case 1:04-cv-01499-GMS

Document 62

Filed 02/19/2008

Page 2 of 2

hanging objects, including the flag of the United States, from BBH residents' balconies due to safety concerns: objects hanging from balconies could fall on other residents. (Id. at Ex. C.) While it prohibits balcony hangings, however, the rule does not prohibit other methods of balcony display. (Id. at Ex. D.) The court has considered the Corwins' positions as set forth in their papers and finds that their arguments are without merit. The settlement order in this case did not relate to nonreligious expression, including display of the American flag. (D.I. 48.) In any case, the generally applicable, content-neutral BBH rule designed to protect residents against falling objects does not unduly restrict the Corwins' non-religious expression. (D.I. 57 at Ex. C, D.) The rule, which prohibits balcony hangings but not balcony displays, does not bar the Corwins from displaying their flag or other objects on their balcony, so long as the displayed objects do not pose a risk of falling on others. (Id. at Ex. D.) IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that: The plaintiffs' motion to enforce the settlement order is DENIED.

Dated: February 19, 2008

/s/ Gregory M. Sleet eee CHIEF, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE