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

[flynnibus]

I hadn’t seen this document before. This is Disney‘s Opposition to CFTOD Defendants‘ Motion to Abstain or Dismiss. In this document, Disney provides arguments against the findings in the CFTOD Legislative Declaration, including that certain Florida Statutes that CFTOD raised did not apply to the district. See page 27.

Cc: @lazyboy97o

Their motions read as convincing... while the state's read largely as circular logic and hand waving.

 

[mikejs78]

I hadn’t seen this document before. This is Disney‘s Opposition to CFTOD Defendants‘ Motion to Abstain or Dismiss. In this document, Disney provides arguments against the findings in the CFTOD Legislative Declaration, including that certain Florida Statutes that CFTOD raised did not apply to the district. See page 27.

Cc: @lazyboy97o

I'm guessing Disney will use many of these arguments in the state case if CFTOD is granted standing.

 

[Tha Realest]

Their motions read as convincing... while the state's read largely as circular logic and hand waving.

Yet which ones ultimately prevailed?

 

[Isamar]

I know the Board said back in April that they had no 'desire' to readopt or ratify the agreements, but I don't think they ever formally reviewed them and voted on whether to seek readoption, did they?
(Sorry if this has already been covered elsewhere. I haven't managed to catch up on the whole thread.)

 

[lazyboy97o]

Yet which ones ultimately prevailed?

Surely you can share this ruling?

 

[flynnibus]

Yet which ones ultimately prevailed?

Can you tell me from which year you're traveling from?

 

[mikejs78]

Yet which ones ultimately prevailed?

Neither.

 

[Tha Realest]

Surely you can share this ruling?

It was the ruling yesterday denying the motion to dismiss as moot after Disney elected not to pursue many of these theories in its amended federal complaint.

 

[flynnibus]

It was the ruling yesterday denying the motion to dismiss as moot after Disney elected not to pursue many of these theories in its amended federal complaint.

that's not what any of that meant. Disney amended and was rejected on a procedural point, which the district then filed to allow the changes to happen.

 

[Stripes]

It was the ruling yesterday denying the motion to dismiss as moot after Disney elected not to pursue many of these theories in its amended federal complaint.

The ruling yesterday was simply the judge denying the DeSantis team’s motion to dismiss because their motion pertained to Disney’s first amended complaint. Due to Disney amending their complaint a second time, DeSantis’ motion to dismiss is now moot and DeSantis has to file a new motion. That’s it.

 

[Tha Realest]

The ruling yesterday was simply the judge denying the DeSantis team’s motion to dismiss because their motion pertained to Disney’s first amended complaint. Due to Disney amending their complaint a second time, DeSantis’ motion to dismiss is now moot and DeSantis has to file a new motion. That’s it.

Yes, but Disney’s amended complaint stripped it of most everything but their First Amendment claims. It’s hard to prevail on your federal arguments when you withdraw them.

 

[Stripes]

Yes, but Disney’s amended complaint stripped it of most everything but their First Amendment claims. It’s hard to prevail on your federal arguments when you withdraw them.

Disney is still pursuing their contract claims in state court, including arguments that CFTOD violated the Florida Constitution’s contract clause, takings clause, etc. They could’ve fought them in both federal and state but it makes no sense to fight the same battle twice. The state was always going to rule on the validity of the contracts one way or another.

 

[Tha Realest]

Disney is still pursuing their contract claims in state court. They could’ve fought them in both federal and state but it makes no sense to fight the same battle twice. The state was always going to rule on the validity of the contracts one way or another.

Yes, but the original poster’s statement and referenced motion involved the arguments advanced in the federal case. That was what I was referring to. On the federal level, they’ve chosen to retreat on many of those arguments.

 

[Stripes]

Yes, but the original poster’s statement and referenced motion involved the arguments advanced in the federal case. That was what I was referring to. On the federal level, they’ve chosen to retreat on many of those arguments.

I think your characterization of Disney withdrawing many of their federal claims as a “retreat” is false. It would be illogical for Disney to argue the same claims in two different courts.

Disney withdrawing some of their federal claims was a logical maneuver that will allow them to focus on the state case (which will likely be decided sooner than the federal case) and preserve resources.

 

[drnilescrane]

Disney withdrawing some of their federal claims was a logical maneuver that will allow them to focus on the state case (which will likely be decided sooner than the federal case) and preserve resources.

I'd argue it's more about avoiding a Pullman abstention in the federal case. The issues are more clearly severed and they want the federal case to move forward.

 

[drnilescrane]

... further to the above, trying to get the whole thing into federal court the first time could be described as a Hail Mary.

Hell, the whole development agreements could be described as a Hail Mary. $5m a year to litigate this, and tie CFTOD's hands in the process, is chump change. A single WDW QSR does that in revenue.

 

[Tha Realest]

I think your characterization of Disney withdrawing many of their federal claims as a “retreat” is false. It would be illogical for Disney to argue the same claims in two different courts.

Disney withdrawing some of their federal claims was a logical maneuver that will allow them to focus on the state case (which will likely be decided sooner than the federal case) and preserve resources.

I’m not referring to the state court lawsuit. There could be a wisdom in that approach. I was speaking to the federal arguments in the motion attached earlier, many of which have been withdrawn in that case. Either way, it was still fighting a two-front war in late July when it filed that motion (Disney’s counter suit in state court was in late April).

 

[mikejs78]

trying to get the whole thing into federal court the first time could be described as a Hail Mary.

Not really. They have a good contracts clause case. They decided to change strategy because the state court judge refused to dismiss or stay the state court prexeedings.

the whole development agreements could be described as a Hail Mary.

That's an odd take....

I’m not referring to the state court lawsuit. There could be a wisdom in that approach. I was speaking to the federal arguments in the motion attached earlier, many of which have been withdrawn in that case. Either way, it was still fighting a two-front war in late July when it filed that motion (Disney’s counter suit in state court was in late April).

No, Disney's counter suit in state court was filed a couple of weeks ago. There weren't any court cases at all in April. Disney filed their federal case in early May, and CFTOD filed their state court suit in mid-May.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I hadn’t seen this document before. This is Disney‘s Opposition to CFTOD Defendants‘ Motion to Abstain or Dismiss. In this document, Disney provides arguments against the findings in the CFTOD Legislative Declaration, including that certain Florida Statutes that CFTOD raised did not apply to the district. See page 27.

Cc: @lazyboy97o

I would have sworn it was discussed. I would have thought some he points raised were first in this motion. You are right though that it is more direct about the District’s special powers than the state arguments.

 

[lazyboy97o]

I’m not referring to the state court lawsuit. There could be a wisdom in that approach. I was speaking to the federal arguments in the motion attached earlier, many of which have been withdrawn in that case. Either way, it was still fighting a two-front war in late July when it filed that motion (Disney’s counter suit in state court was in late April).

The two are intertwined. As @drnilescrane noted Disney is likely trying to avoid a Pullman abstention because Disney’s countersuit in state court now brings into play issues that could render those portions of the federal case moot. If the state court rules that Disney’s right to free speech was violated there’s no need for a federal court to consider the same question.