>
Court Dismisses Bid to Block Fernandina Beach Paid Parking Ordinance
In an oral ruling issued today, Judge Marianne Aho granted the city’s motion to dismiss the amended complaint for an injunction filed by the Paid Parking political action committee, dismissing all five counts without prejudice and thus allowing the plaintiffs the option to file another amended complaint.
The lawsuit sought declaratory and injunctive relief to prevent the city commission from considering a second reading of the paid parking ordinance, which is scheduled for Jan. 6. If passed by the commission, the city would then proceed with the paid parking program in historic downtown.
The judge ruled that courts generally may not interfere with a legislative body before it has taken final action, noting that the paid parking ordinance has not yet been enacted and could still be amended or rejected.
Because the ordinance is not final, Judge Aho found that any ruling on its legality would amount to an advisory opinion rather than resolution of a concrete legal dispute. Florida courts are prohibited from issuing advisory opinions outside limited constitutional contexts.
The judge dismissed all counts on two independent grounds: separation of powers and jurisdictional advisory, separate independent basis.
In practical terms, the judge found:
-
The paid parking ordinance has not been enacted
-
Its final language is unknown
-
No one has yet been subjected to enforcement
-
Any claimed harms are speculative
The court did not reach the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims, including allegations related to religious freedom, land-use statutes, or emergency-management law.
City attorneys also argued that paid parking does not qualify as a land-development regulation under Florida law, a position the court accepted in dismissing claims brought under Section 252.422, Florida Statutes.
The ruling also canceled a previously scheduled evidentiary hearing Monday on the plaintiffs’ request for a temporary injunction. That hearing, which had been set for early January, will be formally canceled through a notice filed by city counsel.
The judge directed the city’s attorney, Sam Zestkind of the law firm Weiss Serota, to prepare a proposed dismissal order reflecting the court’s rulings and circulate it to opposing counsel before submission to the court. The dismissal will be entered without prejudice, meaning the plaintiffs may attempt to refile their claims if circumstances change.
Lawyers for the anti-paid parking group had argued that the city had already taken final legislative action by approving several resolutions in November authorizing a contract with a paid parking vendor and placing a referendum on the August ballot. City attorneys countered that the implementing ordinance itself has not yet been adopted and remains subject to legislative discretion.
Comments
5 comments on this item Please log in to comment by clicking here
PaulaM
Guess “you can’t fight City Hall “ comes into play here….
Thursday, January 1 Report this
Mark Tomes
Instead of "you can't fight City Hall," I think the operative phrase here is one must stay within the legal bounds of the law. Also, I was wondering, part of the city's lawsuit claimed that the anti-paid parking group had no standing, i.e., they weren't registered as a PAC. Was there any ruling on that issue?
Thursday, January 1 Report this
Mingnmilo
This makes absolute legal sense considering the city's second public reading of the proposal is standard practice, there has been no substantive 'injury' nor legal rights violation and isn't subject to land development regulation.
I realize this is not popular with those opposing the parking proposal, but it is in according to law and consistent within city commission methodology. The community must stand with the terms of lawful procedure. No one is above the law.
Thursday, January 1 Report this
DouglasM
Looks like the dismissal is due to a lack of "ripeness" since the FBCC has not had their second reading yet. It can be re-filed Wednesday after the FBCC passes the ordinance Tuesday evening.
Friday, January 2 Report this
SandyKerry
While I understand the urgency of filing the complaint to stop the 2nd reading of the ordinance, thereby enacting the ordinance, I am surprised that the basis was upon prior Resolutions passed by city. Anyone familiar with government legislative process knows a Resolution is not binding (a mere statement of council) while an Ordinance is binding as law. They will of course be able to refile after the Ordinance has been adopted.
Sunday, January 4 Report this