Opinion ID: 754638
Heading Depth: 4
Heading Rank: 1

Heading: Is Vazquez Aggrieved by the District Court's Judgment?

Text: 15 The plaintiffs argue that Vazquez received all the relief she wanted when the district court found in her favor on the plaintiffs' FACE claims. They therefore contend that she is not aggrieved by the district court's decision and cannot appeal from it. See, e.g., Spencer v. Casavilla, 44 F.3d 74, 78 (2d Cir.1994) (A party who receives all that he has sought generally is not aggrieved by the judgment affording the relief and cannot appeal from it.) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Vazquez responds that the lower court's judgment in her favor simply established that the Governments failed to prove that she violated FACE at discrete points in the past. Such a ruling, she claims, does nothing to protect her against future schizophrenic and unconstitutional restrictions and applications of FACE by the Governments. 16 Moreover, in her counterclaims, Vazquez had requested that the district court [p]ermanently enjoin Plaintiffs from applying FACE to [her] speech-related activities.... And she did not get this relief. The district court's opinion, in fact, suggested that 17 Vazquez has, on occasion, engaged in conduct which bordered on a violation of FACE. If Vazquez, independently or in response to this ruling, should heighten the level of her activity and render passage by clinic escorts or clients any more difficult than it already is, the court may, in a future proceeding, find that her conduct violates the provisions of FACE. 18 Scott, 958 F.Supp. at 777. Accordingly, we hold that Vazquez was sufficiently aggrieved by the district court's dismissal of her First Amendment counterclaim to permit her to bring an appeal. 2 19