[DO NOT PUBLISH] IN THE UN ITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE ELE VENTH CIRCUIT

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ No. 1 2- 15 83 2

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ _ D.C. Dock etNo. 3 :1 1- cv -0 05 71 -RV-EM T OCCUPY PENSACOLA, SARA J . BEARD, MIC HAEL B. KIMBERL, GARY PAULL, JR., Pl ai nt iff s- App el la nt s, ve rs us CITY OF PENSACOLA, Defen da nt -Ap pe ll ee.

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ App eal fro m

th e Uni te d S ta te s Di st ric t Co ur t fo r th e Nor th ern Dis tri ctof F lo rid a

__ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ __ (J un e 1 9, 2 01 4) Befo re TJ OFLAT, MARCUS, an d R IPPLE, Cir cu itJu dg es . *

Honora ble Kenne th F. Ripple, United States Circuit J udg e for the Seventh Circuit, * sitti ngby designation. Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 1 of 17RIPP LE, Circu itJu dg e:

Occupy Pens aco la(“ Occupy”) crea te d a n e nc am pm en t o n c it y

lan d i n Pen sa co la , Flo rid a (“ Pen sa co la ” o r th e “ Ci ty”), to co nduc t a p ro te stin 20 11 . The 1 Ci ty clai m edth atOccupy was in vi ol at io n o f it s o rd in an ces an d e vi ct edOccupy fro m it s l an d. Occ up y

th en bro ug htanact io n i n s ta te co ur t t ha t was rem ov edto th e di st ric t co urt. In it s amend edco m pl ai nt , itass ert edfaci al an d a s- ap pl ie d F irs t Am en dm en t ch al le ng es to th e ci ty ord in an ces . It al so setou t a F ou rte en th Am en dm en t s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m in whi ch itall eg edth atth e Ci ty had en fo rcedsel ect iv el y

anord in an ce t ha t p ro hi bi te d t en ts on publ ic lan d wi th ou t au th or iz at io n. The di stric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Pen sa co laon th e se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m . It d et erm in edth atth e p la in ti ffs ha d fa il edto est ab li sh th atth e Ci ty haden fo rcedsel ect iv el y it s o rd in an ce ag ai ns t t he us e o f te nt s o n p ub li c la nd (th e “ Ten t Ord in an ce”) . The co ur t t he n d is m is se d t he rem ai ni ng cla im s. In it s vi ew, itco ul d n otgi ve rel ie f wit h re sp ectto th es e o th er cl ai m s b ecau se each was de pe nd en t o n Occ up y ’s rig htto us e te nt s an d, ex cep t fo r th e se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m whi ch Occupy hadfai le d t o p ro ve , th e Ten t Ord in an ce h adno t b een
Thoug h the Plaintiffs-Appellants include both Occupy and seve ral individuals, we r efe r 1 to them collectively

as Oc cupy . 2 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 2 of 17ch al le ng ed .

Occupy tim el y

ap pe al edth e su m

m ary jud gm en t d eci si on . It l at er fi le d, ho wev er, a m ot io n c ha ll en gi ng ou r ap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on in whi ch itco nt en de d th atth e d is tri ctco urt h adno t en te reda fi na l ju dg m en t b ecau se th e d is tri ctco urt ha d c on si de redon ly the sel ect iv e en fo rcem en t o f th e Ten t Ord in an ce cl ai m an d ha d n otrul edsep arat el y

on each of t he othe r cl ai m s. We di rect edth atth is juri sd ic ti on al ch al le ng e b e carrie d wi th th e cas e. W e n ow d et erm in e th atwe ha ve juri sd ic ti on ov er t he ap pe al be cau se th e di st ric t co urt d idin factad jud ic at e eac h o f th e cl ai m s an d e nt er a fi na l ju dg m en t. W e fu rth er h ol d tha t t he di st ric t co ur t m is ap pr eh en de d t he gi stof the rem ai ni ng fo urcla im s. Inou r vi ew, th es e cl ai m s ar e n otde pe nd en t o n the TentOrdi na nc e an d t he refo re warr an t fu rth er ad jud ic at io n. Acc or di ng ly, we affi rm th e d is tri ct co urt’s jud gm en t wi th res pe ctto th e se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m an d v acat e th e jud gm en t an d re m an d t he cas e to th e d is tri ctco ur t fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs wit h res pe ctto th e rem ai ni ng cla im s. 2

Occ upy makes no substantive a

rgument in its appellate brief with respec t to the 2 alleg ation in Count I V that the spec ial-eve nts ordinance was e nforc ed sele ctively . We theref ore consider that matter to have been a bandoned by

Occ upy . We shall not discuss ithere nor shall the district court re visit t he issue on re mand. 3

Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 3 of 17I BACKGRO UND A. Occ upy ’s Prot es t Occupy Pens aco lais a gr oup o f in di vi du al s wh o d es cri be th em se lv es in th e co m pl ai ntas a n u ni nc or

po rat edass oc ia ti on act iv e “ in educ at in g a ndbri ng in g aware ne ss of p ol it ic al , so ci al , andeco no m ic jus ti ce i ss ue s t hr ou gh de m on st rat io ns , m arch es , ral li es , pre se nt at io ns , di sc us si on s, an d a24 -h ou r ro un d- th e-cl oc k v ig il on publ ic pro pe rty.” Occupy beg an it s p ro te stwit h aral ly on Oct ob er 1 5, 2 01 1, atth e 3 Marti n Lu th er Ki ng , Jr. Pl aza ( “ th e Pl aza” ) in Pen sa co la . Its pro te stco nt in ue d wit ho utpaus e, sa ve foron e ex cep ti on , un ti l t he Cit y ev ic te d Occ up y

fro m cit y la ndon Nov em

be r 18 , 20 11 . The Cit y an d Occ up y

in it ia ll y see m to ha ve ha d aco op erat iv e rel at io ns hi p. At t he Cit y ’s reque st , Occupy bri efl y to okdo wn i ts pro te stde m on st rat io n o n Octo be r 21 to av oi d i nt erfe rin g wi th an ot he r ev en t i n the Pla za. At t he reque stof Pen sa co laMayor Ash to n Hayward, Occ up y als o m ov edit s p ro te stfro m th e Pl aza to th e n orth lawn of P en sa co la ’s City Hall on Octo be r 28 . The Cit y ga ve Occupy a Lett er o f No Ob jecti on da te d Oct ob er 2 6, 2 01 1, st at in g t ha t Occ up y

di d n otne eda pe rm itto en ga ge in it s d em on st rat io n o n t he
R.24 at 2. 3 4 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 4 of 17no rth lawn of C it y Hall fro m

Octo be r 28 th ro ug h No ve m be r 30 . The l et te r no te d th atOccupy’ s “ reque stfora va ria nc e o n t he ‘ no da y or n ig htcam

pi ng ’ [ru le ] ha [d ] be en gra nt ed .” In asep arat e p arag rap h, t he let te r st at edth at“ [i]t i s n otne ces sa ry 4 fo r [Occupy] to ha ve a pe rm itin th e Ci ty L im it s t o e ng ag e in su ch act iv it y ,” bu t ad de d tha t Occ up y

di d “ ne edto be aware t ha t the Cit y reg ul at es vario us act iv it ie s su ch as the crea ti on of n oi se , th e p as si ng ou t o f fl y ers or a ct iv it ie s s uc h a s co ok in g in th e p ark .” The C it y

lat er g av e Occupy a seco ndLett er o f No Ob jecti on da te d 5 Octo be r 28 . The s eco ndlet te r was id en ti cal to th e fi rs t ex cep t i n i ts pro vi si on th at ci ty app ro va l fo r th e p ro te stex pi redon Nov em be r 11 , 20 11 , rat he r th an Nov em be r 30 . On Oct ob er 2 7, t he da y be fo re Occupy m ov edto th e n or th lawn , cit y rep res en ta ti ve s i nf

orm edOccupy tha t t he TentOrdi na nc e p rev en te d Occ up y fro m erec ti ng ten ts . Thatsame day , Occupy sou gh t an d re cei ve d app ro va l fo r it s t en ts fro m th e Ci ty Cou nc il . The m ay orals o app ro ve d Occ up y ’s us e o f te nt s o n t he no rth lawn un ti l No ve m

be r 11 . Occupy’ s p erm is si on to us e te nt s i n i ts pro te stis

6

I d. at 43. 4 I d. 5 At a city

council mee ting on Oc tober 27, Oc cupy members sought and obtained c ity 6 council appr oval of a

resolution permitting te nts until November 11, 2011. The may

or subsequently

consente d to the resolution. I d. at 7. 5 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 5 of 17refl ect edin th e Let te rs of No Object io n i t re cei ve d fr om th e Ci ty. Inth e week s af

te r Occupy recei ve d c it y

ap pr ov al forit s u se of t en ts , ho wev er, t he pro te stgre w si gn ifi can tl y in si ze. Th e en cam

pm en t’s g ro wth sp urred in crea si ng co nc ern s ab ou t h eal th an d s afet y . At a ci ty counc il m eet in g o n Nov em be r 10 , th e Ten t Ord in an ce’s ap pl ic at io n t o the Occupy pro te stwas di sc us se d. Ci ty A dm in is tra to r W il li am Reynol ds erro ne ou sl y

st at edat t ha t m eet in g th atth e Ten t Ord in an ce n ev er h adbe en en fo rcedev en th ou gh itwas m or e th an fo rty y ears ol d. Re yno ld s al so st at edth atth e Ci ty lik el y wou ldno t at te m

ptto en fo rce t he TentOrdi na nc e ag ai ns t Occ up y . Alt ho ug h t he Cit y

ha d a ss ur edOccupy earli er t ha t n o p erm itwas n eed edfor it s p ro te st , th e Ci ty ask edOccupy to app ly for a s pe ci al -ev en ts pe rm iton Nov em be r 16 . Occupy refus edto ap pl y forth e p erm it . The Ci ty the n re vo ke d i ts pe rm is si on forOccupy to u se ten ts on cit y pro pe rty, inf

orm edOccupy tha t i t was in vi ol at io n o f un sp eci fie d c it y ord in an ces , evi ct edOccupy, andfor cedOccupy to ceas e p ro te st in g i n a ny m an ne r on th e n or th lawn be twee n e le ve n a t n ig htan d s ix in th e m orni ng . A no ti ce t o Occ up y da te d No ve m

be r 17 st at ed : Due to th e fai lu re o f [Occupy] to ap pl y fora pe rm itun de r ap pl ic ab le cit y

co de s . . . andforth e p ro te ct io n a ndpro pe r m ai nt en an ce o f pu bl ic area s, t he Mayor . . . has de te rm in edth aty ou r 24 ho ur us e o f pu bl ic lan ds is no lo ng er t en ab le .
6 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 6 of 17. . . . Onc e Ci ty pro pe rty has be enreturne d t o i ts pre -o ccupa ti on st at e, y ou m ay

co nt in ue lawf

ul pro te stact iv it ie s b et ween th e h ou rs of 6 a .m . to 11 p.m . Stru ctur es wil l n otbe pe rm it te d t o b e ere ct eddu rin g th e co ur se of a ny futur e p ro te stact iv it y . 7 [ ] Occupy was ev ic te d o n No ve m be r 18 , 20 11 . Occupy tim el y fil edth is act io n. B. City Ordi na nces A nu m be r of cit y ord in an ces are i m

pl ic at edin th is ap pe al . W e sh al l d es cri be th em bri efl y an d t he n i nd ic at e h ow t he y are i m pl ic at edin Occupy’ s ch al le ng e. 1. Pen sa co la ’s sp eci al -ev en ts pe rm it ti ng sch em e ap pl ie s t o t he “ [t]em po rary us e o f publ ic pro pe rty . . . for t he pu rp os es of c on du ct in g c ert ai n o ut do or , sh ort-t erm

ev en ts su chas afes ti va l, p arad e, ro de o, fu ndrai si ng , walk atho n, bi ke at ho n, jo gg in g a ct iv it y , or any oth er s im il ar o rg an iz edact iv it y . . . whe rei n publ ic st reet s, p ark s, o r ot he r pu bl ic area s ar e to be ut il iz ed .” Pen sa co la , Fla ., Cod e § 1 1- 4- 17 1 (2 01 3) . Sect io n 1 1- 4- 17 2 s pe ci fie s t ha t ap pl ic an ts fora pe rm itm us t 8 pr ov id e as su ran ce t ha t t he y wil l “ m ak e p ro vi si on for ” ad equa te po li ce p res en ce an d g arb ag e cl ean up ass oc ia te d wi th th e sp eci al ev en t. Id . § 1 1- 4- 17 2. Itals o

I d. at 60. 7 The re levant sec tions of the curr ent municipal code are identical to those in eff ect at the 8 time of Occ upy ’s cha lleng e. 7

Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 7 of 17requi res ap pl ic an ts to pro vi de “ [s ]uch othe r in fo rm at io n a s t he m ay orm ay de em ne ces sa ry in ord er t o p ro pe rly pro vi de fortra ffi c-co nt ro l, s tre etan d p ro pe rty m ai nt en an ce an d the pro te ct io n o f th e p ub li c h eal th , saf et y an d wel fare .” Id . A subs eque ntsec ti on , 11 -4 -1 74 , requi res th atanap pl ic an t wh o h as ap pe al edth e de ni al of ape rm itor wa iv er re cei ve a de ci si on fro m th e m ay orwit hi n t en da y s. If th e m ay orals o d en ie s t he pe rm itan d t he ap pl ic an t ap pe al s t he m ay or ’s dec is io n, th e ci ty cou nc il m

us t h ear t he ap pe al by its ne xtreg ul arl y sch edul edm eet in g a fte r rece iv in g n ot ic e o f th e ap pe al . Neig hb orho odbl oc k p art ie s ar e ex em ptfro m th e sp eci al -ev en ts pe rm it ti ng sch em e. W it h re sp ectto th is sch em e, Occupy all eg edin Co un t I o f it s amend ed co m pl ai ntth atth e sc he m e was faci al ly unc on st itut io na l. In Co un t II , Occupy al le ge d t ha t t he sp eci al -ev en ts pe rm it ti ng sch em e was un co ns ti tu ti on al as app li ed to Occupy’ s p ro te st . In C ou ntIV of i ts co m pl ai nt , Occupy all eg edth atth is sch em e ha d b een ap pl ie d s el ect iv el y ag ai ns t i t. 9 2. The TentOrdi na nc e p ro vi de s: It s ha ll be un la wfu l fo r an y pe rs on to ha ve , m ai nt ai n, o ccupy or us e, orcau se to be m ai nt ai ne d, o ccupi edor u se d, an y fen ce,
Count I I I , which cha lleng ed the a pplication of city

park r egulations to the north lawn of 9 City Hall, did not conce rn the spec ial-eve nts permitting sche me. 8 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 8 of 17en cl os ur e, bu il di ng , ho us e, sh ed , ten t o r an y st ru ctur e o r an y ob st ru ct io n wh at so ev er, o n a ny str eet , park o r pr op ert y , or a ny partor po rti on th ereo f, of

th e ci ty, wit ho utth e wri tt enpe rm is si on of t he m ay or , aut ho riz edby reso lu ti on of t he cit y co un ci l, fi rs t h adan d ob ta in ed . Id . § 8 -1 -7 . In C ou ntIV of t he co m pl ai nt , Occupy all eg edth atth is ord in an ce h ad be en sel ect iv el y

en fo rcedag ai ns t i t. 3. The pa rad e p erm it ti ng sch em e ch al le ng edby O ccupy sta te s: No p ro ces si on or p arad e ex cep ti ng th e fo rces of t he Uni te d St at es Arm

y or Na vy, the m il it ary fo rces of t hi s s ta te an d t he for ces of th e p ol ic e an d fi re d ep artm en ts or d es ig na te d fu ne ral pro ces si on , sh al l oc cupy, m arch or p ro ceedalo ng an y streetex cep t i n a cco rd an ce wi th a p erm itis su edby the m ay oran d o th er re gu la ti on s as are s etfor th he rei n wh ic h m ay

ap pl y . Id . § 8 -1 -1 3. In Co un t V o f it s co m pl ai nt , Occupy all eg edth atth is ord in an ce was faci al ly unc on st itut io na l an d u nc on st itut io na l as ap pl ie d t o t he act iv it ie s o f Occupy. 4. Fi na ll y , Occupy chal le ng edth e ap pl ic at io n o f certa incit y pa rk reg ul at io ns . InCo un t II I, itcla im edth atth es e reg ul at io ns were ap pl ie d wro ng fu ll y be cau se th ey were ap pl ie d re tro act iv el y an d i n asel ect iv e m an ne r ag ai ns t the m .

9 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 9 of 17C. Dis tri ct Co urt Pro ceed in gs

Inad di ti on to set ti ng for th th e fi ve co un ts th atwe ha ve jus t d es cri be d, Occupy als o i nc lu de d i n i ts co m pl ai ntfif te en pra y ers forrel ie f, in cl ud in g re qu es ts fo r in jun ct io ns to pre ve ntth e Ci ty from en fo rci ng th e sp eci al -ev en ts pe rm it ti ng sc he m e, th e Ten t Ord in an ce, p arkreg ul at io ns on th e n orth lawn of C it y Hall an d th e p arad e p erm itrequi rem en t. Th e p rayers fo r rel ie f al so so ug htjud ic ia l de cl arat io ns th atth e n orth lawn of C it y Hall is a publ ic forum ; t ha t Occ up y ha s a rig htto pro te stat a ll ti m es on publ ic si de walk s, i nc lu di ng th e in te rio r si de walk s o f Ci ty H al l; th atOccupy has a ri gh t t o m arch wit ho utpe rm it s; th atOccupy has a rig htto ha ve ten ts ; an d t ha t al l o f th e ch al le ng edord in an ces vi ol at e Occupy’ s Fi rs t an d F ou rte en th Am en dm en t ri gh ts . Afte r th e p art ie s fi le d c ro ss m ot io ns forsu m m ary jud gm en t, t he di st ric t co urt g ran te d s umm ary jud gm en t fo r Pen sa co laon th e p artof C ou ntIV th at al le ge d t ha t i t h adsel ect iv el y en fo rcedth e Ten t Ord in an ce. Ithe ldth atOccupy ha d fa il edto est ab li sh it s ca se . The co ur t the n d is m is se d t he res t o f Occupy’ s cl ai m s b ecau se , in it s v ie w, th os e cl ai m s wo ul d “ ha ve no im pa ct ” o n t he cas e’s ou tc om e. In t he di st ric t co urt’s v ie w, th e p it ch in g o f te nt s o n c it y pro pe rty was 1 0 es se nt ia l t o Occ up y ’s cas e; un le ss Occupy was ab le to pro te stby pit ch in g t en ts on R.117 at 6. 1 0 10 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 10 of 17ci ty pro pe rty, it s im pl y co ul d n otco nduc t t he sym bo li c p ro te stth atitde si redto co nduc t. Th e co urt t he n re as on edth at , bec au se Occupy hadfai le d o n i ts on ly ch al le ng e to th e Ten t Ord in an ce, an y rel ie f gr an te d o n the ot he r co un ts wou ldbe in effe ctua l i n a ch ie vi ng Occupy’ s p ur po se . No o th er re li ef wo ul d a ll ow t he pi tc hi ng of t en ts . Any

fur th er re li ef o n t he rem ai ni ng co un ts th eref or e wou ldbe gr atui to us an d a dv is ory . II DISCUSS IO N A. W e fi rs t ad dr es s o urap pe ll at e juri sd ic ti on . Occupy has su gg es te d b y m ot io n th atth e d is tri ctco urt’s d et erm in at io n t ha t i t was un ne ces sa ry to ad dr es s C ou nt s I, II, III a ndV of t he co m

pl ai ntam ou nt s t o afai lu re t o a dju di cat e co m pl et el y th e cas e b efo re i t. Co ns eque nt ly, Occupy con ti nu es , th e d is tri ctco urt’s d eci si on is no t a fi na l d eci si on an d, t he refo re, can no t b e ap pe al edto th is co ur t. Sect io n 1 29 1 o f th e Ju di ci al Co de gi ve s t he co ur ts of app eal s ju ris di ct io n ov er “ fin al de ci si on s” of t he di st ric t co ur ts . W e n eedno t p ro be th e m arg in s o f th e 1 1
The statute pr ovides that “[t] he cour ts of appea ls (other than the United States Court of 1 1 Appea ls for the F eder al Circuit) shall have jurisdiction of appea ls from all final dec isions of the district courts of the United States . . . except where a dire ct re view may be had in the Supre me Court.” 28 U.S.C. § 1291. 11

Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 11 of 17cas e la w def in in g t he co nt ou rs of t hi s au th or it y in ord er t o a dju di cat e th e is su e pr es en te d h ere. Our c as e la w andth e cas e la w of t he Supr em e Co ur t m ak e itcle ar 1 2 th atth e d is tri ctco urt re nd ers a fi na l ju dg m en t wh en th e co ur t ad jud ic at es th e cas e in a m an ne r th atlea ve s n ot hi ng m or e fo r itto do bu t t o e nt er jud gm en t. The 1 3 co rrec tn es s o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s d is po si ti on is no t re le va ntto th is de te rm in at io n. 1 4 For exceptions to the ordinary finality rule, see 15B Charles Alan Wrig ht et al., Fe dera l 1 2 Practice and Proce dure § 3914.28 ( 2d ed. 1991 & Supp. 2013) (discussingfinality of summary judgme nt orders) ; 15A id. § 3911 (discussingcollater al orde rs); id. § 3911.1 (discussinghow to deter mine the finality

of a c ollatera l order) ; id. § 3912 (discussing de ath knell orde rs); id. § 3913 (discussingpragmatic finality and notingthat “[t] he seve ral e x pandable theories that c an be use d to elaborate and qua lify

the re quirement of f

inality under § 1291 a

re still gr owing , and must be confine d with constant vig ilance” ). Ray Haluch Grave l Co. v. Cent. P ension Fund of the Int’l Union of Oper atingEng ’rs 1 3 & Par ticipating E mp’rs, 134 S. Ct. 773, 779, 187 L . Ed. 2d 669 (2014) ( “In the ordinar y course a ‘final de cision’ is one that ends the litig ation on the merits and lea ves nothingfor the c ourt to do but execute the judg ment.”); F irsTier Mortg . Co. v. Investors Mortg . Ins. Co., 498 U.S. 269, 272- 74, 277, 111 S. Ct . 648, 651-53, 112 L . Ed. 2d 743 (1991) ( decliningto decide that a benc h rulingdecidingall claims was not a f inal order); In re Celotex Corp., 700 F.3d 1262, 1265 (11th Cir. 2012) (per

curiam) (“Afinal judg ment or orde r is ‘one which ends the litig ation on the merits and leaves nothingfor the c ourt to do but ex ecute the judgment.’” ( quoting Catlin v. United States, 324 U.S. 229, 233, 65 S. Ct . 631, 633, 89 L . Ed. 911 (1945)) ); see a lso Martinez v. Carnival Corp., 744 F .3d 1240, 1243-44 (11th Cir. 2014) (notingthat the Supreme Court a nd the Eleventh Circuit have “adopte d a func tional test for finality , examining what the district c ourt has done,” a nd that “[w]hat matters is whether the c ase, in a ll practica lity , is finished”); Moya v. Schollenbarg er, 465 F .3d 444, 450 (10th Cir. 2006) (statingthat even a n ambiguous order

may be final whe n the orde r “e vidence s an inten[t] to ext inguish the pla intiff’s ca use of a ction” and “ if a district court orde r expressly and unambiguously

dismiss es a pla intiff’s entire action, that orde r is final and a

ppeala ble” ( alteration in original) ( internal quotation marks omitted)) ; cf. Gr ay son v. K Mart Corp., 79 F .3d 1086, 1094-95 (11th Cir. 1996) (de terminingthat an orde r “f ashioned to be an appe alable or der . . . w as in eff ect non- final” be cause the district court dismissed claims without prejudice so that they could be tra

nsfer red) . See 15A Char les Alan Wrig ht et al., Fe dera l Practice and Proce dure § 3914.6 ( 2d ed. 1 4 1991 & Supp. 2013) ( “Jurisdi ction is not destroy ed by the fa ct that the dismissal was proce durally

or substantively

wrong ; the reme dy

for the e rror

is rever sal, not dismis sal of the appea l.”). 12

Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 12 of 17It s uf

fic es th atth e co urt d eci de d t he is su es be fo re i t i n am an ne r th atm ak es cle ar th atth e co urt h addi sp os edof t he cas e co m pl et el y . 1 5 Here, i t i s cl ear t ha t the di st ric t co ur t d is po se d o f th e cas e co m pl et el y . It fi rs t ad jud ic at edon th e m eri ts th e o ne is su e th atitbe li ev eddi sp os it iv e o f al l t he pl ai nt iff s’ cla im s. Itth en pro ceed edto ex pl ai n wh y a m eri ts -b as edad

jud ic at io n o f th e rem ai ni ng co un ts was n otne ces sa ry an d, i n i ts vi ew, wou ldam ou ntto a gr atui to us pro no un cem en t. Itth en en te redjud gm en t d is po si ng of t he en ti re ca se . The re i s n o d oubtth atth e d is tri ctco ur t ad jud ic at edth e en ti re ca se . Nothi ng fur th er was lef t t o b e d on e. Acco rd in gl y , we are s at is fie d t ha t o urjuri sd ic ti on is sec ur e, an d we p ro ceed to th e m eri ts . B. At t he ou ts et , itis im

po rta ntto no te th atOccupy m ak es no subs ta nt iv e arg um en t t ha t the di st ric t co urt erredin it s d et erm in at io n tha t Occ up y ha d fa il edto pr ov e it s s el ect iv e en fo rcem en t al le ga ti on wit h re sp ectto th e Ten t Ord in an ce. Occupy the refo re h as waiv edan y cla im of e rro r on th is is su e, an d we a ffi rm th e
See Rutan v. Republican Par ty of I ll., 868 F.2d 943, 947 (7th Cir. 1989) (holdingthat 1 5 even though a district cour t errone ously

failed to a ddress a

class ac tion issue it s till i ssued a f inal order when it dismissed the suit because it left nothing to be de cided) , aff ’d in part a

nd rev’ d in part on other

g rounds, 497 U.S. 62, 110 S. Ct . 2729, 111 L . Ed. 2d 52 (1990). 13 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 13 of 17di st ric t co urt’s jud gm en t wi th res pe ctto th e se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t cl ai m .

The di stric t co urt’s o th er d et erm in at io n—th ata m eri ts ad jud ic at io n o f th e rem ai ni ng co un ts is un ne ces sa ry be cau se th e co ur t co ul d re nd er n o re li ef t ha t wou ldpe rm itOccupy to d em on st rat e b y pi tc hi ng ten ts —i s m or e p ro bl em at ic . Our study of t he cas e, wit h t he ass is ta nc e o f co un se l t hr ou gh bri efs an d a t o ral arg um en t, co nv in ces us th atOccupy’ s co m pl ai ntdo es see k ju di ci al rel ie f on th es e co un ts th atis no t t et he redto Occupy’ s d es ire to pi tc h t en ts on cit y pro pe rty. T he pi tc hi ng of t en ts on cit y

pro pe rty was n o d oubtof s ig ni fic an t i m po rta nc e to Occupy. N ev ert he le ss , itals o a sk s t he co ur t t o d ecl are t ha t Occ up y ha s “ a ri gh t t o pr ot es t 2 4 h ou rs a da y

on publ ic si de walk s, i nc lu di ng th e in te rio r si de walk s o f Ci ty H al l.” It a ls o s eek s a d ecl arat io n t ha t Occ up y ha s a “ rig htto m arch witho ut 1 6 pe rm it s.” The re qu es t fo r th is rel ie f is gro un de d i n t he sp eci fic all eg at io ns in th e

1 7 co m pl ai ntco nc ern in g a lt ern at e act iv it y ot he r th anten ti ng in whi ch Occupy wish ed to en ga ge bu t tha t, al le ge dl y , hadbe en im pe de d b y th e Ci ty. Fo r in st an ce, wh en a st at e co urt d ecl in edto gra nttem po rary inju nc ti ve rel ie f ag ai ns t an ev ic ti on no ti ce to th e en cam

pm en t, Occupy un de rto ok , as a n a lt ern at e fo rm of p ro te st , “ a reduc ed ro un d- th e-cl oc k p res en ce o n t he si de walk s atCit y Hall , des pi te th e d is co m fo rt a nd

R.24 at 28. 1 6 I d. 1 7 14 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 14 of 17di ffi cu lt ie s p os edby the weathe r.” Thi s at te m ptres ul te d, ac co rd in g t o the 1 8 al le ga ti on s o f th e co m

pl ai nt , in sev eral di sp ut es as t o t he de fin it io n o f “ si de walk ” —d is pu te s t ha t al le ge dl y were d es ig ne d t o “ ha ras s, i nt im id at e, co nf us e, an d i nju re th e p ro te st or s’ firs t am en dm en t ri gh ts an d s erv e[d ] to pl ace t he m in a po si ti on of no t b ei ng ab le to de te rm in e whe th er t he y w[ou ld ] be subjec t t o a rres t o r no t.” The 1 9 co m pl ai ntfur th er al le ge s tha t “ two in di vi du al s wh o wer e o n t he si de walklo cat ed atth e n orth lawn of C ity

Hall were arres te d fo r tr es pa ss in g.” 2 0 Oth er re li ef s ou gh t i n t he co m pl ai ntals o app ears to see k re dr es s t ha t i s n ot rel at eddi rect ly to Occ up y ’s des ire to pl ace t en ts on cit y pro pe rty. For i ns ta nc e, Occupy ask edfora de cl arat io n t ha t t he no rth lawnof C it y Hall was apubl ic forum an d n ota ci ty parksubjec t t o p arkreg ul at io ns an d t ha t Occ up y ha s a r ig htto pr ot es t t he re t wen ty-fou r ho ur s a d ay . 2 1 Occupy als o m ad e itcle ar i n i ts m em or an du m in supp or t o f it s amend ed
m ot io n fo r su m

m ary jud gm en t t ha t: The re ar e two di st in ctcat eg or ie s o f sp eech at i ss ue inth is cas e. The fir stcat eg ory

is th e p ur e co re p ol it ic al sp eech , in cl ud in g t he

I d. at 11. 1 8 I d. at 14. 1 9 I d. at 15. 2 0 I d. at 28. 2 1 15 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 15 of 17po li ti cal si gn s, u tt eran ces , ass em bl ie s, ra ll ie s, m arch es , andli te ratur e th atPla in ti ffs ha d a ndex erci se d wh il e Occupy Pens aco lawas t ak in g pl ace. . . . The sec on d c at eg ory

of s pe ech in vo lv es sym

bo li c p ol it ic al sp eech an d h as two di sc ret e an d d is ti nc t p art s wh ic h re qu ire in di vi du al fin di ng s b y

th is Co ur t: 1) t en ts , and2) s le ep in g. 2 2 [ ] Occupy thu s m ad e itcle ar t ha t i ts cas e was no t s ol el y de pe nd en t o n i ts ass ert ed rig htto us e te nt s o n c it y

pro pe rty, butals o i nv ol ve d i ts ass ert edrig htto en ga ge in ot he r co m

m un ic at iv e act iv it ie s o n t ha t p ro pe rty. T hi s s am e d is ti nc ti on ha d b een m ad e ear li er i n Occ up y ’s op po si ti on to th e Ci ty’ s m ot io n fo r jud gm en t o n t he pl ead in gs . 2 3 C. Bas edon th is stud y

of t he reco rd , andaid edby the bri efs an d o ral pr es en ta ti on of c ou ns el , we m us t co nc lu de th at , pu tt in g a si de it s ar gu m en ts co nc ern in g t en ti ng as s ym bo li c sp eech , Occupy has rai se d a ndpre se rv ed ad equa te ly alle ga ti on s t ha t i ts co re Fi rs t Am en dm en t ri gh ts ha ve be en vi ol at ed . On rem an d, the di st ric t co urt m us t ad dr es s t he se arg um en ts . W e th in k i t al so ap pr op ria te forth atco urt t o a dd res s i n t he fir stin st an ce an y qu es ti on s o f st an di ng wit h re sp ectto th es e al le ga ti on s. Of co ur se , we exp res s n o o pi ni on on th e m eri ts
R.98 at 7-8. 2 2 R.49 at 5-6. 2 3 16 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 16 of 17of

an y of t he se m at te rs . Con cl us io n Fo r th e rea so ns st at edin th is op in io n, t he jud gm en t o f th e d is tri ctco ur t i s affi rm edwit h re sp ectto it s h ol di ng th atOccupy has fai le d t o e st ab li sh it s cl ai m of se le ct iv e en fo rcem en t o f th e Ten t Ord in an ce o f th e Ci ty of Pen sa co la . The rem ai nd er o f th e d is tri ctco urt’s jud gm en t i s v acat ed , andth e cas e is rem an de d fo r fu rth er p ro ceed in gs co ns is te ntwith t hi s o pi ni on . Occupy m ay reco ve r it s co st s i n th is co urt. AFFIRMED I N PART, VAC ATED I N PART, and REMANDED.

17 Case: 12-15832 Date Filed: 06/19/2014 Page: 17 of 17