Robert L. Vazzo, et al v. City of Tampa, Florida, No. 19-14387 (11th Cir. 2023)
Annotate this Case
Download PDF
USCA11 Case: 19-14387 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Page: 1 of 4 [DO NOT PUBLISH] In the United States Court of Appeals For the Eleventh Circuit ____________________ No. 19-14387 Non-Argument Calendar ____________________ ROBERT L. VAZZO,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 2 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 2 of 4 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-panelprecedent rule to affirm the district court’s grant of summary judgment to the Plaintiffs-Appellees. See Scott v. United States, 890 USCA11 Case: 19-14387 Document: 77-1 19-14387 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 Opinion of the Court Page: 3 of 4 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 PlaintiffsAppellees’ 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 affirmance is DENIED AS MOOT, given our ruling. USCA11 Case: 19-14387 19-14387 Document: 77-1 Date Filed: 02/02/2023 ROSENBAUM, J., Concurring Page: 4 of 4 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. 2135815, 21-35856, 2022 WL 4076121, *16–20 (9th Cir. Sept. 6, 2022).
Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.
This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.
