No. 22-2183 ___________________________

Matthew A. Kezhaya,

lllllllllllllllllllllMovant - Appellant,

v.

City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota,

lllllllllllllllllllllDefendant - Appellee. ____________

Appeal from United States District Court for the District of Minnesota ____________

Submitted: May 11, 2023 Filed: August 25, 2023 ____________ Before SMITH, Chief Judge, COLLOTON and BENTON, Circuit Judges. ____________ COLLOTON, Circuit Judge.

Attorney Matthew Kezhaya appeals an order of the district court* sanctioning him and his co-counsel under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 11. We conclude that there was no abuse of discretion, and therefore affirm the order.

* The Honorable Wilhelmina M. Wright, United States District Judge for the District of Minnesota. I.

Kezhaya represented The Satanic Temple, Inc., in its lawsuits against the City of Belle Plaine, Minnesota. The Temple sued the City on April 25, 2019, claiming that the City opened a limited public forum for a Christian monument, but closed the forum to exclude a Satanic monument. The Temple alleged violations of state and federal constitutions, as well as breach of contract and promissory estoppel.

Both parties moved for judgment on the pleadings. On July 31, 2020, the district court granted the City’s motion in part and dismissed nine of the Temple’s ten counts “without prejudice” for failure to state a claim. The court permitted the Temple’s promissory estoppel claim to proceed.

On December 1, 2020, after the district court’s deadline to amend pleadings, the Temple moved for leave to amend its complaint. The Temple’s proposed amendment sought to reassert its previously dismissed constitutional claims based on the Free Exercise Clause, Free Speech Clause, and Equal Protection Clause. The Temple also sought to add new counts alleging violations of the Establishment Clause and the Due Process Clause.

On January 26, 2021, a magistrate judge denied the Temple’s motion for leave to amend, concluding that (i) the Temple had failed to show “good cause” to amend after the deadline, (ii) the Temple’s proposed amendments were futile on the reasserted constitutional claims, and (iii) it would be inappropriate to allow the Temple to assert the new constitutional claims at the late stage of the litigation. The magistrate judge also denied the Temple’s request to dismiss voluntarily its remaining promissory estoppel claim and to reassert its constitutional claims in a second lawsuit. The judge concluded that the City “would in fact be severely prejudiced if [the Temple] were permitted to reassert its claims anew in a second round of litigation.”

-2- Before objecting to the magistrate judge’s order, the Temple filed a second lawsuit in the district court on February 4, 2021. The second action reasserted the rejected constitutional claims, and added state constitutional claims based on provisions analogous to the federal Establishment Clause and Equal Protection Clause. The complaint acknowledged that its core factual allegations were the same as those underlying the Temple’s first lawsuit, and that a version of the complaint had been proposed and rejected as an amended complaint. The City moved to dismiss the complaint as barred by res judicata and for failure to state a claim. The City also moved for Rule 11 sanctions against Kezhaya.

On February 5, 2021, the City moved for summary judgment on the Temple’s remaining prom