Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Notice To Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction
Notice To Invoke Discretionary Jurisdiction
Defendants-Appellants,
RECEIVED, 08/10/2022 10:29:09 PM, Clerk, First District Court of Appeal
V.
FLORIDA, ET AL.,
Plaintiffs-Appellees.
behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients; INDIAN ROCKS WOMAN’S
CENTER, INC., on behalf of itself, its staff, and its patients; TAMPA
decision of the Supreme Court on the same question of law. See Art.
2
Johanna Zacarias* (N.Y. PLANNED PARENTHOOD
#5919618) FEDERATION OF AMERICA
AMERICAN CIVIL LIBERTIES 123 William Street, 9th Floor
UNION FOUNDATION New York, NY 10038
125 Broad Street (212) 261-4584
New York, NY 10004 [email protected]
(212) 549-2690
[email protected] Attorneys for Appellees Planned
[email protected] Parenthood of Southwest and
[email protected] Central Florida; Planned
Parenthood of South, East and
Attorneys for Appellees Gainesville North Florida; and Shelly Hsiao-
Woman Care, LLC; Indian Rocks Ying Tien, M.D., M.P.H.
Woman’s Center, Inc.; St.
Petersburg Woman’s Health April A. Otterberg* (Ill. #6290396)
Center, Inc.; and Tampa Woman’s Shoba Pillay* (Ill. #6295353)
Health Center, Inc. JENNER & BLOCK LLP
353 N. Clark Street
Autumn Katz* (N.Y. #4394151) Chicago, IL 60654-3456
Caroline Sacerdote* (N.Y. (312) 222-9350
#5417415) [email protected]
CENTER FOR REPRODUCTIVE [email protected]
RIGHTS
199 Water St., 22nd Floor Attorneys for Appellees
New York, NY 10038
(917) 637-3600 Tassity S. Johnson* (D.C.
[email protected] #1049061)
[email protected] JENNER & BLOCK LLP
1099 New York Ave., NW, Ste 900
Attorneys for Appellee A Woman’s Washington, D.C. 20001
Choice of Jacksonville, Inc. (202) 639-6000
[email protected]
3
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE
CERTIFICATE OF COMPLIANCE
No. 1D22-2034
_____________________________
Appellants,
v.
PLANNED PARENTHOOD OF
SOUTHWEST AND CENTRAL
FLORIDA, et al.,
Appellees.
_____________________________
B.L. THOMAS, J.
DeSantis v. Fla. Educ. Ass’n, 325 So. 3d 145, 150–51 (Fla. 1st DCA
2020).
2
the order granting the injunction was automatically stayed when
the State of Florida filed its notice of appeal.
3
To be clear then, Appellees have not asserted a violation of
their own constitutional rights. Instead, they seek to vindicate the
privacy rights of their patients. Yet contrary to the circuit court’s
order ruling that pregnant women cannot adequately challenge
abortion-related legislation, history provides numerous examples
of such legal actions. See, e.g., Renee B. v. Fla. Ag. for Health Care
Admin., 790 So. 2d 1036, 1037 (Fla. 2001); In re T. W., 551 So. 2d
1186, 1189 (Fla. 1989); Burton v. State, 49 So. 3d 263, 264 (Fla. 1st
DCA 2010); see generally, Alterra Health Care Corp. v. Est. of
Shelley, 827 So. 2d 936, 938 (Fla. 2002). Here, Appellees failed to
allege in their complaint that pregnant women cannot assert their
own rights in court. Conversely, the State here and below has
argued that Appellees cannot assert any purported irreparable
harm on behalf of pregnant women.
And we very recently held that a circuit court may not grant
a preliminary remedy in a civil suit, but may only issue a
constitutional writ of injunction, known now as a “temporary
injunction,” which is procedural relief, under the authority of
article V, section 5(b) of the Florida Constitution. Sec’y of State
Cord Byrd v. Black Voters Matter Capacity Bldg. Inst., Inc., 47 Fla.
L. Weekly D1152, 2022 WL 1698353, at *1 (Fla. 1st DCA May 27,
2022) (“The function of the writ is solely preservative or
preventative—to preserve the subject matter in controversy until a
final disposition after a trial.” (emphasis added)).
4
While we do not and need not address Appellees’ standing to
obtain declaratory relief, we do hold that they cannot obtain
temporary injunctive relief as they cannot assert the privacy rights
of pregnant women necessary to substantiate a showing of
irreparable harm, an indispensable requirement of a temporary
injunction: “‘irreparable harm cannot be speculative, but must be
real and ascertainable.’” Mayport Hous. P’ship, Ltd. v. Albani, 244
So. 3d 1176, 1177 (Fla. 1st DCA 2018) (citation omitted).
5
Alachua Cnty., 323 So. 3d 246, 250 (Fla. 1st DCA 2021) (“We read
the supreme court’s jurisprudence on the right to privacy to
require that we make a single, threshold, de novo inquiry when
considering a temporary injunction appeal—Does the challenged
law implicate an individual’s right of privacy?”); see generally,
Alterra Health Care Corp., 827 So. 2d at 941–42 (“[E]ven where a
constitutional right to privacy is implicated, that right is a
personal one, inuring solely to individuals.” (emphasis added)).
6
Thus, this Court denies Appellees’ Emergency Motion to
Vacate the Automatic Stay, filed on July 13, 2022.
7
court disposes of the appeal of the non-final order granting the
temporary injunction.
_____________________________
8
We expressly held in another abortion-regulation case that such
plaintiffs had standing to assert the privacy interests of their
patients. State v. N. Fla. Women’s Health & Counseling Servs., 852
So. 2d 254, 259–60 (Fla. 1st DCA 2001), quashed on other grounds,
866 So. 2d 612 (Fla. 2003). We analyzed fully the third-party
standing issue, concluding as follows: “We reject the state’s
contention that none of the plaintiffs has standing to raise the
rights of pregnant minors.” 852 So. 2d at 260. Although the Florida
Supreme Court quashed our decision on the merits, the successful
petitioners in that supreme court proceeding were the same
institutional plaintiffs whose standing we upheld. See N. Fla.
Women’s Health, 866 So. 2d at 615 (listing parties).
9
Parenthood Se., Inc. v. Bentley, 951 F.Supp. 2d 1280, 1282–85
(M.D. Ala. 2013) (finding providers and physicians had standing
“on behalf of themselves, their staff, and their patients” because
“plaintiffs” faced felony charges for violating abortion statute and
“federal courts routinely recognize an abortion provider’s standing
to assert the claims of its patients”).
_____________________________
10
Christopher Mills, Spero Law, LLC, Charleston, South Carolina,
and Chad Mizelle, Tampa, for Amici Curiae Florida Pregnancy
Centers, in support of Appellants.
11
DISTRICT COURT OF APPEAL
FIRST DISTRICT
STATE OF FLORIDA
2000 DRAYTON DRIVE
TALLAHASSEE, FLORIDA 32399-0950
(850) 488-6151
KRISTINA SAMUELS DANA SHARMAN
CLERK OF THE COURT CHIEF DEPUTY CLERK
August 11, 2022
Re: State of Florida, et al. vs Planned Parenthood of Southwest and Central Florida, et
al.
Appeal No.: 1D22-2034
Trial Court No.: 2022-CA-912
Trial Court Judge: Hon. John C. Cooper
If Crim, LT NOA date: N/A
Attached is a certified copy of the Notice Invoking the Discretionary Jurisdiction of the
Supreme Court, pursuant to Rule 9.120, Florida Rules of Appellate Procedure. Attached also
is this Court’s opinion or decision relevant to this case.
___ The filing fee prescribed by Section 25.241(2), Florida Statutes, was received by
this court and is attached.
___ The filing fee prescribed by Section 25.241(2), Florida Statutes, was not received
by this court.
___ Petitioner/Appellant has previously been determined insolvent by the circuit court
or our court in the underlying case.
___ Petitioner/Appellant has already filed, and this court has granted,
petitioner/appellant’s motion to proceed without payment of costs in this case.
No filing fee was required in the underlying case in this court because it was:
___ A summary Appeal, pursuant to Rule 9.141
___ From the Unemployment Appeals Commission
___ A Habeas Corpus proceeding
___ A Juvenile case
___ Other ________________________________________________
If there are any questions regarding this matter, please do not hesitate to contact this
Office. A motion postponing rendition pursuant to Florida Rule of Appellate Procedure
9.020(i) ____ is or ____ is NOT pending in the lower tribunal at the time of filing this
notice.
Sincerely yours,
Kristina Samuels
Clerk of the Court
By:___________________
Deputy Clerk