515 F.Supp.3d 1202
M.D. Fla.2021Background
- In July 2020 Collier County issued emergency mask orders (Order 5 → Order 6 → Order 7); Order 7 requires masks in businesses when social distancing is not possible and authorizes citations only to businesses; municipalities could opt in.
- Plaintiffs: Francis A. Oakes, III (owner), Oakes Farms, Inc. (operates Seed to Table grocery), and Seed to Table, LLC; the County previously cited Plaintiffs’ stores under Order 5.
- Plaintiffs amended to assert four counts: (1) Equal Protection (facial and as-applied), (2) First Amendment (facial and as-applied), (3) Florida Administrative Procedure Act rulemaking violations, and (4) trespass.
- Collier County moved to dismiss; Court evaluated viability of claims after Orders changed and after prior partial mootness rulings.
- Court applied Rule 12(b)-style pleading standards and constitutional tests (rational-basis for non-suspect, non-fundamental-right regulations; intermediate scrutiny for content-neutral First Amendment time/place/manner restrictions).
- Rulings: Count 1 (Equal Protection) dismissed with prejudice; Count 2 (First Amendment) dismissed with prejudice as to Oakes Farms and without prejudice as to Francis Oakes for lack of standing; Counts 3–4 (state-law claims) dismissed without prejudice (court declined supplemental jurisdiction).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Equal Protection — facial challenge to Order 7 | Order 7 irrationally discriminates by applying only to unincorporated areas (should be Countywide) | Order 7 rationally advances public health and reasonably permits municipalities to opt in; classification is permissible | Dismissed: Order 7 passes rational-basis review; classification between incorporated/unincorporated areas is rational |
| Equal Protection — as-applied / class-of-one selective enforcement | County selectively enforced Orders against Plaintiffs’ stores and treated them differently than businesses in municipalities | Plaintiffs failed to identify any comparator similarly situated in all relevant respects; location/municipal status makes comparators dissimilar | Dismissed: Plaintiffs did not plead similarly situated comparators and cannot overcome rational-basis rationale |
| First Amendment — standing (Francis Oakes) | Oakes claims assembly/association rights at Seed to Table | County notes Order 7 authorizes citations only to businesses; Oakes was not cited | Dismissed for lack of standing: no concrete, particularized, imminent injury alleged by Oakes |
| First Amendment — merits (Oakes Farms) | Order 7 prevents assembly/association unless masks worn, infringing protected expressive assembly | Order 7 is content neutral, serves substantial public-health interest, is narrowly tailored as a time/place/manner restriction, and leaves ample alternatives | Dismissed: Intermediate scrutiny satisfied; Order 7 does not violate First Amendment |
| Supplemental jurisdiction over state-law claims | Plaintiffs want federal adjudication of state claims | County impliedly argued dismissal appropriate after federal claims fall | Court declined supplemental jurisdiction; Counts 3–4 dismissed without prejudice |
Key Cases Cited
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (pleading standard: plausibility requirement)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (plausibility pleading test)
- FCC v. Beach Communications, Inc., 508 U.S. 307 (rational-basis review and burden to negative conceivable bases)
- Jacobson v. Massachusetts, 197 U.S. 11 (state power to protect public health in emergency)
- Dandridge v. Williams, 397 U.S. 471 (imperfect classifications do not violate Equal Protection)
- McGowan v. Maryland, 366 U.S. 420 (territorial uniformity not required by Equal Protection)
- Ward v. Rock Against Racism, 491 U.S. 781 (time, place, manner intermediate scrutiny for content-neutral regulations)
- McCullen v. Coakley, 573 U.S. 464 (narrow-tailoring and ample alternative channels in time/place/manner analysis)
- Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife, 504 U.S. 555 (Article III standing requirements)
- Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins, 136 S. Ct. 1540 (injury-in-fact must be concrete and particularized)
- Ga. Elec. Life Safety & Sys. Ass'n v. City of Sandy Springs, 965 F.3d 1270 (Eleventh Circuit applying rational-basis review to pandemic measures)
- Nordlinger v. Hahn, 505 U.S. 1 (Equal Protection permits classifications so long as similar persons are treated alike)