Court Opinion

ID: 9368108
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-02-02 20:01:07.547187+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:16:05.478318
License: Public Domain

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                                                    [DO NOT PUBLISH]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).