Bell v. City of Winter Park, Florida, 6:12-cv-01560

Plaintiffs challenge Winter Park Ordinance No. 2886-12 prohibiting targeted residential picketing within a 50-foot buffer around a dwelling.
The ordinance was adopted after an August 2012 protest outside Jenna Tosh’s home, involving signs and distress to residents.
Plaintiffs allege the ordinance facially burdens speech, religion, and equal protection.
Defendants move to dismiss the City Commission and police chief in official capacity as duplicative and argue the City Commission is not a sueable entity.
Court denied preliminary injunction and granted dismissal with prejudice; case closed."

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Facial constitutionality of the ordinance under the First Amendment	Bell et al. contend it bans residential protest.	City argues the rule is content-neutral and narrowly tailored.	Faced with likelihood of success, court finds ordinance constitutional on its face.
Free Exercise impact of the ordinance	The ordinance burdens religious protestors.	Law is neutral and generally applicable.	Court holds neutrality and general applicability; no Free Exercise violation.
Whether official-capacity claims against City Commission and officers are duplicative and improper	Claims should proceed against city entities and officials.	Official-capacity claims duplicate municipality claims; City Commission not a legal entity.	Claims against Commissioners and Police Chief in official capacities are dismissed as duplicative; City Commission claims also dismissed.
Sufficiency of the complaint under Rule 8 and plausibility standards		Pleading fails to state a plausible First Amendment claim.	Court adopts plausibility standard; facial challenges found without substantial likelihood of success.

Frisby v. Schultz, 487 U.S. 474 (U.S. 1988) (content-neutral, targeted residential picketing with buffer tailored to protect home privacy)
Hill v. Colorado, 530 U.S. 703 (U.S. 2000) (content-based vs. content-neutral distinction in speech regulation; broad reach of content-based rules rejected)
Burk v. Augusta-Richmond County, 365 F.3d 1247 (11th Cir. 2004) (rejected as inapt comparison; permit scheme differed from Burk's discretionary regime)
Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (U.S. 1989) (governmental regulation of sound amplification; relevant to content-neutral regulations and tailoring)
Carey v. Brown, 447 U.S. 455 (U.S. 1980) (recognizes significant government interest in protecting residential privacy; supports substantial government interest)
Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (U.S. 2009) (plausibility standard for pleadings; courts must accept well-pled facts as true)
Twombly v. Bell Atlantic, 550 U.S. 544 (U.S. 2007) ( plausibility standard for pleading; mere labels and conclusions insufficient)