City claims Anti-Paid Parking Group is not a legal PAC in seeking dismissal of injunction

The City of Fernandina Beach has asked a Nassau County judge to dismiss a lawsuit seeking to halt its proposed paid parking ordinance, arguing that the group behind the challenge lacks legal standing and that the courts may not intervene in the city’s legislative process.

In a 14-page memorandum filed Tuesday, the city urged the court to deny an emergency request for a temporary injunction filed by Citizens Against Paid Parking, a group opposing the implementation of paid parking in downtown Fernandina Beach. A hearing to consider the city’s motion to dismiss is scheduled for 1:30 p.m. today.

The injunction request seeks to block the City Commission from considering or adopting the ordinance at its Jan. 6 meeting.

At the core of the city’s argument is its claim that Citizens Against Paid Parking is not legally authorized to bring the lawsuit. According to the filing, the group describes itself as a Florida political action committee but is neither incorporated nor registered with the state Division of Elections or the Division of Corporations.

“Under Florida law, unincorporated associations such as Paid Parking lack the capacity to sue or be sued in their own names,” the city’s attorneys from Weiss Serota wrote, asserting that the case must be dismissed on that basis alone.

Even if the group were deemed legally capable of suing, the city argues that the request for an injunction improperly asks the court to interfere with an ongoing legislative process. The filing cites Florida’s separation of powers doctrine, which limits judicial involvement in legislative decision-making before final action is taken.

According to the city, the paid parking ordinance remains under consideration and has not yet been adopted. The commission could approve it, amend it, or reject it outright at the second reading, making any court intervention premature.

“The Legislature is concerned, it is only the final product of the legislative process that is subject to judicial review,” the city’s filing states, quoting Florida Supreme Court precedent.

The city further contends that Citizens Against Paid Parking has failed to meet the legal standards required for a temporary injunction. To obtain such relief, plaintiffs must demonstrate a substantial likelihood of success on the merits, irreparable harm, the absence of an adequate remedy at law, and that the injunction would serve the public interest.

The filing argues that the group has failed on all counts.

City attorneys describe the alleged harms cited by the plaintiffs — including impacts on downtown businesses, churches, and residents — as speculative and unsupported. The memorandum notes that paid parking has not yet been implemented and that any claimed injuries depend on future events that may never occur.

The city also disputes claims that the ordinance would infringe on constitutional or statutory rights, including arguments raised under the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act, the federal Religious Land Use and Institutionalized Persons Act, and the First Amendment. According to the filing, the plaintiffs lack standing to assert those claims and have not demonstrated that paid parking would substantially burden religious exercise or protected speech.

In addition, the city argues that even if paid parking were eventually approved, voters would still retain the right to decide the issue through a referendum process. The filing characterizes the lawsuit as an attempt to short-circuit that process rather than allow it to unfold.

“The public interest favors allowing both the City to perform its legislative functions and the voters to be heard regarding the referendum,” the memorandum states Paid parking city motion to dis….

The ordinance itself passed its first reading on Dec. 2 by a 3–1 vote, with one commissioner abstaining. A second, final reading is scheduled for Jan. 6, at which point the commission could take final action.

Opponents of paid parking, organized as Citizens Against Paid Parking, have said they expect the court to intervene before that vote. The group has argued that paid parking would harm downtown retail businesses, alter the city’s small-town character, and undermine its historic charm.

The court has not yet ruled on the city’s motion. If the judge agrees with the city’s arguments, the injunction request would be denied and the lawsuit could be dismissed, clearing the way for the City Commission to proceed with its vote next week.

If the court allows the case to move forward, the legal challenge would be heard next Monday, the day before the city commission vote.