Maybe this is a stupid question - I'm a total beginner at this stuff, but this makes me wary:
Though the Court cannot conclude that the new ordinance is the same as the old without
further litigation, as the Supreme Court did in Northeastern Florida, it is consistent with that case
not to dismiss the instant litigation as moot and instead to let the parties litigate...The Court sees no upside in making the parties start
over with another judge who has less familiarity with the issues and facts of the case than this Court.
I thought it was going well up to this point. But this sounds to me like maybe she wants to rule against Ezell, but she's being careful not to sow the seeds for an appeal, or to allow another judge to decide the case?