lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
It’s not just all over the news. The Board called a special meeting and filed their own suit in response. Garcia even had a whole speech about how Disney was making them do it by suing them first.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District
- Thread starter castlecake2.0
- Start date
GCTales
Well-Known Member
Can we have @castlecake2.0 post all the links as a faq in post one (since that is the OP).
I am seeing all the same old arguments, plus a few new ones in various fb groups. Would really be convenient to have the links quick.y available to provide the truth ( I know the kool-aid blinds people to reality and an inability to leave the echo chamber).
Chi84
Premium Member
This is the best-researched and most comprehensive explanation of RCID I could find. It’s long and a bit complex but worth it.
Stripes
Premium Member
Right, but that would mean the suit that CFTOD filed in state court would take precedent.
Although Disney did file a motion to dismiss on the grounds that the CFTOD suit filed is moot. Which I suspect CFTOD lawyers may not have expected.
Stripes
Premium Member
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
Section 9, ch. 2022-190, amended subsection (1), effective January 2, 2023, to read:
(1) Process against any municipal corporation, agency, board, or commission, department, or subdivision of the state or any county which has a governing board, council, or commission or which is a body corporate shall be served:
(a) On the registered agent; or
(b) If the municipal corporation, agency, board, or commission, department, or subdivision of the state does not have a registered agent, or if the registered agent cannot otherwise be served after one good faith attempt:
1. On the president, mayor, chair, or other head thereof; and in the absence of all persons listed in this subparagraph;
2. On the vice president, vice mayor, or vice chair; and in the absence of all persons listed in subparagraph 1. and this subparagraph;
3. On any member of the governing board, council, or commission, the manager of the governmental entity, if any, or an in-house attorney for the governmental entity, if any; and in the absence of all the persons listed in subparagraph 1., subparagraph 2., and this subparagraph;
4. On any employee of the governmental entity at the main office of the governmental entity.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
It's really hard to claim that they weren't properly served when there's evidence that they were. Do they intend to perjur themselves in court and throw a District employee under the bus in the process? This strategy certainly won't do any favors for their case. Of course, if there's one thing we've learned throughout this situation it's that neither the governor nor his hand-picked board knows when to fold so it isn't a total shock to see them proceed with such a blatantly false argument.
Chi84
Premium Member
Court rules of procedure exist to move the proceedings along in an orderly fashion and ensure fairness to both sides. They are not intended to be used by the parties to trap the other side into making mistakes and losing their rights in the lawsuit. Parties who play these games are not looked upon favorably by courts.
I think they would lie through their teeth if they thought they could get away with it. Heck, pretty much everything stated by the state of Florida has been a total lie so far, so why stop now.
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
Agreed, although the governor's comments to date have not been made in any legal setting so his risk has been limited to making himself look foolish and helping Disney build their case against him. For the District to make this claim in a legal document is an additional step beyond that and could blow up in their (and maybe their lawyers') faces.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
I think the argument is probably going to be that one of the higher level persons listed above were "available" (with them tying to litigate the definition of that word - oh I was in my office in Saratota, I was "available") and so therefore the employe they did serve wasn't the correct person.
Despite RCID for the 50 years prior most likely having a process where all summons were automatically accepted by whomever was in Washington-Perry's role should the administrator not be "available". One of those situations where the bureaucracy of RCID doesn't align with the CFTOD's new "vision".
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The difference now is that lying to a court is a crime and that’s going to give most lawyers pause about putting it in writing.
Chi84
Premium Member
It does more than give pause. I doubt this is going to be a serious issue.
TomboyJanet
Well-Known Member
Without Theme parks they can only hope that International Tourists are going to fly over just to see a string of T-shirt shops and sleezy wing joints with inappropriate "Kids Eat Free" specials
It sounds like they are trying to say they weren't served properly for the amended complaint? But from limited searching, it appears Disney has 21 days to file one amended complaint. And the fact that the defendants didn't respond to the initial complaint before the amended complaint there is no need to serve again.
I could be wrong, but that was the information I found irt serving an amended complaint.
I could be wrong, but that was the information I found irt serving an amended complaint.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
I'll use their logic against them: "If the state didn't think it has done anything wrong, why are they so adamant about dismissing the case?"
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Because that’s exactly what you do when you believe there is no case to be made.
I was sued in my capacity of work but never received the summons. All summons were given to Administrations. In fact I never received the actual summons. The case was dismissed as the Agency handled it. In these two Florida cases, the CFTOD, Garcia said on the record that the only reason they voted to file the state case is they were sued by Disney. He never said he wasn't served. He knows he is taking actions to harm Disney and thd rezoning he wants to do is in retaluation to Disney's free speech. The labd Disney purchased was to be used for Disney, not what Garcua and DeSantis want. Florida knew in the 1960s when the RCID was established that if the Legislature voted no, Disney would have sold the land and left Florida.
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
Another interesting case filed today in the Orange County Court - 2023-CA-012345-O.
AMC is suing the property appraiser over the appraisal of the AMC Pleasure Island Theaters multiplex (what else is new) and has included CFTOD as a party in the case.
The complaint states:
Plenty of these tax collector suits have been filed in the past, by AMC and other Disney affiliated taxpayers, and RCID/CFTOD haven't been a party to them.
I know CFTOD wanted to be a party to these lawsuits, but it seems like AMC sued them preemptively here? Anybody got any insight?
AMC is suing the property appraiser over the appraisal of the AMC Pleasure Island Theaters multiplex (what else is new) and has included CFTOD as a party in the case.
The complaint states:
Plenty of these tax collector suits have been filed in the past, by AMC and other Disney affiliated taxpayers, and RCID/CFTOD haven't been a party to them.
I know CFTOD wanted to be a party to these lawsuits, but it seems like AMC sued them preemptively here? Anybody got any insight?
Chip Chipperson
Well-Known Member
They may be seeking to recover some taxes paid to RCID in addition to the excess taxes they claim the County charged since the RCID taxes are based on the County's assessed valuation.