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

[JohnD]

I think you missed where he said

" and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because “when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.” In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2015). "

He basically shutdown Disney's claims of retaliation purely on the Hubbard case.

I saw that part. It also said "Plaintiff’s claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim."

So, again, the court said, in effect, re-work your case and state a claim against CFTOD clearly.

 

[Nevermore525]

The ramifications of a single share of Disney stock owned by a distant relative. Can’t fully speak to whether the first judge would’ve dismissed but my opinion he’d have allowed it to proceed.

 

[mmascari]

Some excerpts:

Before the legislative amendments, Disney enjoyed voting rights in the district that regulated its property. See ECF No. 87 ¶ 39. Now it does not. Now it faces land use decisions by a board over which it has no control.4 Disney’s loss of control is enough to constitute a constitutional injury. And that injury is clearly traceable to the board that now makes land-use decisions affecting Disney.

Looks like it says they suffered a constitutional injury.

In fact, Disney has not alleged any specific injury from any board action. Its alleged injury, as discussed above, is its operating under a board it cannot control. That injury would exist whether or not the Governor controlled the board, meaning an injunction Case 4:23-cv-00163-AW-MJF Document 114 Filed 01/31/24 Page 6 of 177precluding the Governor from influencing the board would not redress Disney’s asserted injury.

But, not a more specific harm traced directly from the Governor. Seems to read that lacking evidence of a direct request from the Governor to the board, not just some implied thing, where that action causes harm, the court is saying just appointing someone isn't enough to show the Governor caused harm.

This feels like the quid pro interpretations that rule a wink and nudge isn't enough and there needs to be a bag with dollar signs on it.

But it is settled law that “when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.”

This is like the other state employee ruling. Didn't that get sent back to the lower court on appeal recently? This is the one that creates a horrible first amendment interpretation. It effectively says if they're not directly regulating speech, the fact that the action was done to restrict speech doesn't matter. It's a massive loophole that severely undermines the first amendment.

 

[mmascari]

If Universal were in Disney's position, they may very well take a different view.

One wrong move or statement, and they could be in the same position.

 

[Surferboy567]

One wrong move or statement, and they could be in the same position.

How awful is it that this is actually being discussed? This shouldn’t even be possible.

 

[Disney Analyst]

Can anyone confirm, is there still a federal case? Or was all relying upon this state case? Or was this the federal case?

 

[JohnD]

It get's appealed to the 11th circuit, being dismissed prior to trial is an even higher bar that has to be reached by the judge. So I wouldn't say it's Highly unlikely to succeed. At least at this point.


A federalist society member whos views directly align with trump and desantis. Frankly it was expected.

I agree. It would be one thing if the case were heard and the judge ruled against Disney. They would have ruling they could appeal. But that didn't happen. He said Disney didn't have standing so he dismissed the case. It sure would take a lot for a higher court to pick up a dismissed case. Of course, Disney could file a new suit against CFTOD. We'll just have to wait and see what they have up their sleeve.

 

[JohnD]

Can anyone confirm, is there still a federal case? Or was all relying upon this state case? Or was this the federal case?

CFTOD sued Disney in state court. I forget where that is right now. This was a federal suit that Disney brought.

 

[Surferboy567]

Can anyone confirm, is there still a federal case? Or was all relying upon this state case? Or was this the federal case?

I think this was the federal one, correct me if I’m wrong.

 

[JohnD]

I think this was the federal one, correct me if I’m wrong.

Yes.

 

[peter11435]

Can anyone confirm, is there still a federal case? Or was all relying upon this state case? Or was this the federal case?

This was the federal case

 

[mkt]

Can anyone confirm, is there still a federal case? Or was all relying upon this state case? Or was this the federal case?

This was the federal case.

Best bet is to wait for actual monetary damages to arise as a result of this and then file suit again.

 

[Disney Analyst]

This was the federal case.

Best bet is to wait for actual monetary damages to arise as a result of this and then file suit again.

Shocking it takes monetary damage for a case like this to potentially be heard. I think anyone with an ounce of brain can see what happened here was incorrect.

 

[Disgruntled Walt]

[enters thread briefly] I'm so incredibly sick of this entire thing. See you all in the parks' threads. [leaves thread once more]

 

[flynnibus]

I saw that part. It also said "Plaintiff’s claims against the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board members are dismissed on the merits for failure to state a claim."

So, again, the court said, in effect, re-work your case and state a claim against CFTOD clearly.

No - it doesn't

 

[mkt]

I'm chatting with one of my drinking crew, a person is an old friend of mine who is a planner for Disney.

TL;DR: CFTOD is actively delaying permits. They can't even get basic ones like snack stands, much less attractions.

Environmental rules might be Disney's saving grace in this one, in case CFTOD decides to mess with the water table to spite the mouse.

(those who saw the screenshots know what was said specifically)

 

[mkt]

Shocking it takes monetary damage for a case like this to potentially be heard. I think anyone with an ounce of brain can see what happened here was incorrect.

They drew an "originalist" judge.

 

[flynnibus]

I agree. It would be one thing if the case were heard and the judge ruled against Disney. They would have ruling they could appeal. But that didn't happen. He said Disney didn't have standing so he dismissed the case.

No he didn't. There are TWO conclusions here. The whole standing thing is PURELY about the Gov and Sec of State being defendants... That's it. Then he dismissed the case against the CFTOD due to lack of merit because of his application of standards from Hubbard.

 

[Wendy Pleakley]

This was the federal case.

Best bet is to wait for actual monetary damages to arise as a result of this and then file suit again.

They've lost the independence the old agreement gave them, while still paying more than they would otherwise if the district didn't exist.

I'd argue damages already exist.

 

[JohnD]

First Epic. Now this. Not a good week for Disney.