Robert L. Vazzo v. City of Tampa, Florida

• Court: Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit
• Decided: February 2, 2023
• Docket: 19-14387
• Status: Unpublished

Opinion

USCA11 Case: 19-14387 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 1 of 4

[DO NOT PUBLISH]

In the

United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit

____________________

No. 19-14387 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________

ROBERT L. VAZZO, LMFT, individually and on behalf of his patients, SOLI DEO GLORIA INTERNATIONAL, INC., individually and on behalf of its members, constituents and clients d.b.a. New Hearts Outreach Tampa Bay, Plaintiffs-Appellees, DAVID H. PICKUP, LMFT, individually and on behalf of his patients, Plaintiff, versus CITY OF TAMPA, FLORIDA, USCA11 Case: 19-14387 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 2 of 4

2 Opinion of the Court 19-14387

Defendant-Appellant,

SAL RUGGIERO, in his official capacity as Manager of the City of Tampa Neighborhood Enhancement Division,

Defendant.

Appeal from the United States District Court for the Middle District of Florida D.C. Docket No. 8:17-cv-02896-WFJ-AAS ____________________

Before ROSENBAUM, LAGOA, and ED CARNES, Circuit Judges. PER CURIAM: We held this case in abeyance pending the issuance of the mandate in Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 981 F.3d 854 (11th Cir. 2020). In Otto, we held that city and county ordinances banning sexual orientation change efforts (“SOCE”) were unconstitutional under the First Amendment. 981 F.3d at 870. The City of Tampa’s SOCE ordinance here is substantively the same as the ordinances at issue in Otto. Accordingly, we are bound by our prior-panel- precedent rule to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judg- ment to the Plaintiffs-Appellees. See Scott v. United States, 890 USCA11 Case: 19-14387 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 3 of 4

19-14387 Opinion of the Court 3

F.3d 1239, 1257 (11th Cir. 2018); see also Aaron Priv. Clinic Mgmt. LLC v. Berry, 912 F.3d 1330, 1335 (11th Cir. 2019) (acknowledging that we may affirm on any ground supported by the record, whether or not that ground was relied on or even considered by the district court). AFFIRMED. 1

1 The Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion to lift the stay is GRANTED. The Plaintiffs- Appellees’ motion to strike the Appellant’s reply brief and impose sanctions is DENIED. The Defendant-Appellant’s motion to dismiss the appeal as moot is DENIED. The Plaintiffs-Appellees’ motion to lift stay, for summary affir- mance is DENIED AS MOOT, given our ruling. USCA11 Case: 19-14387 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 4 of 4

19-14387 ROSENBAUM, J., Concurring 1

ROSENBAUM, Circuit Judge, Concurring in the Judgment: I agree that we are bound by our prior-panel-precedent rule to apply Otto here and affirm. Nevertheless, I continue to believe that Otto was wrongly decided for the reasons I explained in my dissent from the denial of rehearing en banc. See Otto v. City of Boca Raton, 41 F.4th 1271, 1285 (11th Cir. 2022) (Rosenbaum, J., dissenting). See also Tingley v. Ferguson, ___ F.4th ___, Nos. 21- 35815, 21-35856, 2022 WL 4076121, *16–20 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2022).