Court Rejects Injunction Against Fernandina Beach Paid Parking Ahead of August Referendum

By Mike Lednovich/Editor

Nassau County Circuit Judge Marianne Aho dismissed a request by the political committee Paid Parking to temporarily block the City of Fernandina Beach’s paid parking program, clearing the way for the program to begin Feb. 16 as scheduled.

After hearing arguments from attorneys for both sides Wednesday, Aho granted the city’s motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ Second Amended Complaint, but did so “with leave to amend as to all five counts.”

“I am going to grant the motion to dismiss with leave to amend as to all five counts,” Aho said, directing city attorney Samuel Zeskind of Weiss Serota Helfman Cole & Bierman to draft a proposed order reflecting her ruling.

The judge later amended the ruling, dismissing one count with prejudice, meaning it cannot be amended going forward.

The lawsuit was filed by the political action committee Paid Parking and resident McDonald S. Morriss challenging the legality of the city’s ordinances implementing paid parking in the downtown “Red Zone.” The plaintiffs had sought a temporary injunction to suspend the program pending an August referendum vote on prohibiting paid parking in the city unless approved by a majority of city voters.

Counts One and Two of the complaint alleged the paid parking program substantially burdened religious exercise in violation of the Florida Religious Freedom Restoration Act and constitutional protections.

Aho said she was required to accept the complaint’s factual allegations as true at the motion-to-dismiss stage but found the claims legally deficient as pleaded.

“But I find that as pled, the religious freedom claims included within counts one and two are legally insufficient as plaintiffs have not adequately stated the causes of action as to how the paid parking ordinance has substantially burdened plaintiffs’ exercise of religion.” the judge ruled.

AHO noted plaintiffs could add more detailed factual allegations if they choose to amend the complaint going forward.

The plaintiffs’ filings had argued that congregants and clergy rely on previously free public parking in the Red Zone and that new fees and enforcement could burden worship and religious events, including overflow parking during holidays. The complaint also challenged the city’s discretion to grant waivers for certain events while not expressly providing exemptions for religious gatherings, according to the plaintiffs’ response filed Feb. 6 plaintiff response to opposition.

Count Three had alleged the ordinances violated state law governing land development regulations, arguing that the paid parking measures amended Fernandina Beach’s Land Development Code in a more restrictive manner.

Aho said she did not find that plaintiffs had stated a valid cause of action under state statutes. She dismissed that count with prejudice at the request of the plaintiff's attorney.

Counts Four and Five challenged the placement and effect of the August referendum and alleged the ordinance was unconstitutionally vague.

The court dismissed both counts, finding the claims sought an advisory opinion and that plaintiffs lacked standing.

“As to counts four and five, I do find that as pled that the plaintiffs are seeking an advisory opinion and the court does not have jurisdiction to render advisory opinions,” Aho said.

She added that plaintiffs “do not have standing” on the vagueness claim in Count Five because “no plaintiff has been harmed by whatever portion of the paid parking ordinance is claimed to be unconstitutionally vague.”

Aho’s ruling does not end the case outright, but it does prevent an immediate appeal as a matter of right. Because she dismissed the complaint with leave to amend and without prejudice, the order is not considered “final” under Florida appellate rules. Only final orders can typically be appealed directly to a district court of appeal.

The committee Paid Parking and resident McDonald S. Morriss — cannot automatically take the case to the Fifth District Court of Appeal at this stage. Instead, they must first decide whether to revise and refile their complaint in circuit court.

The judge signaled that Counts One and Two, which allege the paid parking program substantially burdens religious exercise, could potentially be amended with more detailed factual allegations. She also indicated that Count III — involving whether the ordinance qualifies as a land development regulation under state law — would be difficult to plead differently, but she would not consider it frivolous if plaintiffs restated it to preserve the issue for potential appellate review.

If the plaintiffs choose not to amend, they could ask the court to enter a final dismissal with prejudice. That would create a final order, which could then be appealed. Alternatively, they could attempt a limited non-final appeal arguing the ruling effectively denies their request for an injunction, though such appeals are allowed only in narrow circumstances under Florida law.

For now, absent further court action, the city’s paid parking program will proceed as scheduled, while the plaintiffs weigh whether to amend their complaint or shift the fight to an appellate court.

In earlier filings, plaintiffs argued that because the city had already enacted and begun implementing paid parking, the August ballot measure would be rendered ineffective or misleading, raising a present controversy rather than a hypothetical one plaintiff response to opposition. The judge disagreed at this stage.

Paid Parking has 30 days to amend its case and could seek a stay in the paid parking proceedings.

Pre-registration for permits began earlier this month, and the program becomes active in the downtown zone on Feb. 16.

The referendum question is slated for the Aug. 18, 2026 ballot.