Their motions read as convincing... while the state's read largely as circular logic and hand waving.
Yet which ones ultimately prevailed?
Surely you can share this ruling?
Can you tell me from which year you're traveling from?
Neither.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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 I was speaking to the federal arguments in the motion attached earlier, many of which have been withdrawn in that case.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).
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.
