News Reedy Creek Improvement District and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District

GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
Disney Analyst said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old? I'm so lost.
Click to expand...
Yeah it seems pointless to argue this point, but they are desperate to have something I guess. I am guessing why it matters is if Disney failed to properly serve the federal lawsuit papers to the board then the state lawsuit would have been formally started first which gives it more grounds to be heard before the Federal case. If the Federal case started first then they should defer the state case until the federal is resolved. I’m no lawyer so maybe that’s way off base but why else would it matter so much for the state case? If the papers were not served the right way couldn't they just serve them over again? Thats why I assume its related to the timing.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
Disney Analyst said:
Can someone explain this to me like I'm a five year old? I'm so lost.
Click to expand...
In their reply to Disney’s motion to dismiss the state case, the District argued that the state case is actually the first case because Disney didn’t properly serve the District defendants in their federal case. The District argued that Disney’s process server didn’t follow the rules of how to serve government officials laid out in state law. To support this claim, the District included an affidavit (a sworn written statement) from Eryka Washington Perry, the director of communications for the District.

Disney filed their comment on the District’s reply to the motion for dismissal and included two affidavits from the process server, Maranatha Bedford. Bedford’s affidavits are more detailed and suggest a longer interaction than I think is suggested by Perry’s affidavit.

The rules for service of governments and their officials require that certain persons be tried first. You’re supposed to have someone whose job it is to accept such documents (registered agent), and from there you basically work your way down the ladder until you get to the point where you can leave the documents with any employee at the main office. The District’s reply to the motion to dismiss argues these rules were not followed but doesn’t get into the specifics of how the process was not followed and just points to Perry’s attached affidavit.

The District admits they did not have a registered agent (as required by state law), so we know the problem wasn’t with not serving the registered agent. Based on the affidavits, we also know that the defendants were not present at the District headquarters. Statement 5 of Perry’s affidavit acknowledges that she knew the process server was there to serve the board members and district administrator. So what then is the actual problem if there was no registered agent and nobody in the follow up hierarchy was present? I think the clue is in statement 7 where Perry declares that she was not asked for Garcia, Classe and the rest of the board by name and title. I’m guessing that the District is arguing that they were not properly served because Bedford did not stop and ask Perry for each individual by name and title in the proper order even though both knew they were not present and Perry knew Bedford was there serving legal documents.

It’s a good bit of back and forth, but I was trying to figure out how Disney failed to perfect service as has been claimed a few times now. I know courts and lawyers like rules, technical details and procedures, but this just seems a bit ridiculous. How many times was Bedford supposed to ask and be told that individuals were not present before being allowed to move on to the next person on the list? Perry wasn’t even the first person she spoke to regarding the presence of the defendants. Not being allowed to inquire about the presence of multiple persons at once seems nonsensical and is not specifically prohibited by the statute. There might be more specific rules regarding conduct when serving documents with which I’m unfamiliar but it seems like they would have been mentioned.
 
Last edited:
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
Yeah it seems pointless to argue this point, but they are desperate to have something I guess. I am guessing why it matters is if Disney failed to properly serve the federal lawsuit papers to the board then the state lawsuit would have been formally started first which gives it more grounds to be heard before the Federal case. If the Federal case started first then they should defer the state case until the federal is resolved. I’m no lawyer so maybe that’s way off base but why else would it matter so much for the state case? If the papers were not served the right way couldn't they just serve them over again? Thats why I assume its related to the timing.
Click to expand...
Correct. The District is trying to set up their case in state court as the technically first case which should therefore be handled first.

Despite their own declaration and SB 1604, the District has still yet to act in a way contrary to the agreements. My guess is that they understand that they can’t actually act unilaterally and that SB 1604 is of dubious validity. This is the venue where they need that win. Even if they win in federal court, they’d still have to win this case.

On the federal level, getting the contracts declared void ab initio would seriously undermine a lot of Disney’s case. There are no violations of the contracts clause or takings clause if there are no valid contracts in the first place.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
Correct. The District is trying to set up their case in state court as the technically first case which should therefore be handled first.

Despite their own declaration and SB 1604, the District has still yet to act in a way contrary to the agreements. My guess is that they understand that they can’t actually act unilaterally and that SB 1604 is of dubious validity. This is the venue where they need that win. Even if they win in federal court, they’d still have to win this case.

On the federal level, getting the contracts declared void ab initio would seriously undermine a lot of Disney’s case. There are no violations of the contracts clause or takings clause if there are no valid contracts in the first place.
Click to expand...
In theory if the state wins in Federal court doesn’t that validate SB 1604 since that has now been added to the Federal case? So in theory Disney could win in state court but then have the contracts invalidated by SB 1604 if they lose in Federal court.
 
lazyboy97o

lazyboy97o

Well-Known Member
GoofGoof said:
In theory if the state wins in Federal court doesn’t that validate SB 1604 since that has now been added to the Federal case? So in theory Disney could win in state court but then have the contracts invalidated by SB 1604 if they lose in Federal court.
Click to expand...
No, and this gets to Disney’s argument for mootness. If the federal courts uphold SB 1604 there is no state case because the District didn‘t re-enter the agreements as required by the law. SB 1604 does not provide for an opt-out, it requires a second opt-in.
 
GoofGoof

GoofGoof

Premium Member
lazyboy97o said:
No, and this gets to Disney’s argument for mootness. If the federal courts uphold SB 1604 there is no state case because the District didn‘t re-enter the agreements as required by the law. SB 1604 does not provide for an opt-out, it requires a second opt-in.
Click to expand...
Yeah, I’m saying if the state case went first Disney could have a win in court saying the contracts themselves were legal and valid when signed but then if they later lose in Federal court and SB 1604 is upheld as legal then the contracts are invalidated by that bill anyway. Or said another way it makes more sense to decide the Federal case first because if SB 1604 is upheld then the contracts in question in state court don’t exist anymore. If Disney wins in Federal court and SB 1604 is reversed then the district could still win their case in state court to invalidate the contracts. Of course I think one outcome of the Federal case could be the Governor appointed board is replaced with the old RCID structure and then the “district” would likely drop their state lawsuit.
 
JAB

JAB

Well-Known Member
scottieRoss said:
What the hell is it? I could not make hide nor hair of it.
Click to expand...
In a nutshell, an unaffiliated third party (i.e. random person) submitted a bunch of anti-DeSantis claims to the court that have nothing to do with the case - accusing him of bribing law enforcement, misappropriating state funds to bus illegal immigrants to another state, etc. I'm no fan of DeSantis, but this just reads like an ideologue blindly regurgitating political talking points.
 
GCTales

GCTales

Well-Known Member
mkt said:
Over in Disney v DeSantis, one of the craziest amicus briefs I've seen.
Click to expand...
Wow.. talk about deep rabbit hole bat crazy claims

The English is so bad on some of the claims that I had to read it several times to try to figure out what was really being said. I am still not sure I fully comprehend what this person is saying / claiming - other than Mr DeSantis is a bad boy.
 
flyakite

flyakite

Well-Known Member
NOTICE OF MEETING
YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that on July 26 th at 9:30 a.m., or as soon thereafter as practicable, the Board of Supervisors of the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District will meet in regular session at 1900 Hotel Plaza Boulevard, Lake Buena Vista, Florida. At that time, they will consider such business as may properly come before them.
 
drnilescrane

drnilescrane

Well-Known Member
If anybody is particularly bored:

The hearing link set forth below will be available through WebEx for counsel/parties/others to attend remotely. No prior Motion or Order is required.

The WebEx link is: https://ninthcircuit.webex.com/meet/division35

To join by telephone (through WebEx only): (to be used only in the event of technical difficulties with videoconference)
+1-904-900-2303 United States Toll (Jacksonville) +1-408-418-9388 United States Toll
Access code: 2344 322 8983 #

All parties appearing via WebEx shall:
a. identify their last name and organization (as appropriate), on their screen;
b. mute themselves upon entry into the virtual room;
c. remain muted throughout the proceeding. The Court reserves the right to remove any person not complying with this request
Click to expand...
 

Attachments

  • Doc-2.pdf
    135.6 KB · Views: 143

Register on WDWMAGIC. This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.

Back
Top Bottom