Brian
Well-Known Member
Yes. Foronda et al. v. DeSantis.
-
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
MaryJaneP
Well-Known Member
Curious that U.S. District Court Judge to conclude that a federal court lacks standing over a state issue until after the unconstitutional law goes into effect. Kinda a "sticks and stones" approach to the law that seems to obviate predictive behavior.
Federal judge dismisses 1st lawsuit against DeSantis over Disney World’s Reedy Creek district
A federal judge on Tuesday quickly dismissed a lawsuit against Gov. Ron DeSantis over the dissolution of Disney World’s Reedy Creek Improvement District. The suit, filed last week by William …www.sun-sentinel.com
Disstevefan1
Well-Known Member
Another win for DeSantis and Disney...
Brian
Well-Known Member
I've been searching for the order, but it hasn't been posted by any media outlets and I'm not going to pay for it.
That said, the articles seem to indicate that it's not a matter of until it goes into effect, but two distinct issues. The federal court is not the appropriate venue, as posited by several legal analysts following the suit being filed. In addition, because it hasn't even gone into effect yet, the petitioners can't point to any legitimate damages.
As soon as the order gets posted by a news outlet, I'll share it here.
UNCgolf
Well-Known Member
Yeah, I think it's hard to argue you're harmed as a taxpayer when the plan has not been finalized. Feels like they were basically claiming speculative harm -- like maybe our taxes will go up if this law goes into effect and nothing else has been done in the interval.
But my guess is it would have been dismissed for improper venue regardless.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
It’s hard to argue you are being harmed as a taxpayer when your taxes haven’t gone up….yet. This particular lawsuit seemed more like a publicity stunt than an actual attempt to overturn the law.
The only real winners are the lawyers
The state of FL and indirectly the taxpayers have to pay legal fees to defend this stuff. I’d prefer to see less of this, but as they say anyone can sue anyone for anything.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
The original complaint didn’t seem well written. It was mostly based on news reports and didn’t really bother to mention any of the specific laws. It all came across as hearsay and not actual analysis. Even in a state filing I would have expected an explicit “The law says this happens, here are the current costs, here are the current revenues, here’s the difference.”
Vegas Disney Fan
Well-Known Member
Sounds like the lawsuit was done as fast as possible and without much thought, with the intention of getting headlines for political gain, similar to the bill to end Reedy Creek itself.
DisneyDebRob
Well-Known Member
Thanks for the link. There is one sentence in the judges response that i don’t understand. Its this.
“and nothing in the Complaint shows Plaintiffs have a close relationship with Disney.”
Im trying to figure out what exactly that meabs. Does it mean because it’s basically to early to file this because we don’t know what the outcome will be and you are not Disney so it doesn’t matter to you at this point? Or something else? Im tired so if the answer is obvious im sorry.
MagicHappens1971
Well-Known Member
Has anyone established whether or not Disney can claim their first amendment rights have been violated? No I’m not referring to Citizens United, but in it’s founding, it was important that RCID & Disney we’re “separate”, and while they never really have been, on paper they are technically two different entities. Obviously it has been made clear by lawmakers that this was intended to hurt Disney, but since they’re not technically attacking Disney, rather RCID…. Can it be claimed that Disneys rights are being attacked?? I think it’s a tricky situation
JoeCamel
Well-Known Member
That is why we have a court system, too bad we have to use it.
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
Going after others is a pretty classic tactic of governments that seek to undermine rights. It’s part of the chilling effect. The whole purpose of impacting others is still to influence your behavior. It’d be a hard claim if those involved had kept their mouths shut but instead they have repeatedly stated the reasoning.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Yes Disney could claim that, although they probably won't. There are a number of simpler paths to take in FL law first.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I'm sorry, I don't understand.
This particular case never had a chance (or had a very slim chance). Federal court is not the right venue for a tax case, and the people who brought the suit don't have standing. This has nothing to do with the merits of legitimate legal avaenues that both Reedy Creek and Disney have. The analysis on those sites you mentioned is still extremely flawed and really nothing to do with this particular case (which wasn't filed by either Disney or Reedy Creek). For you to claim vindication based on this particular ill-conceived lawsuit validates my analysis that you have absolutely no idea what you're talking about.
In my view, the realistic possible outcomes are (in order of likelyhood):
- Disney negotiates a "face saving" compromise that basically leaves Reedy Creek intact, "reconstituted" with just a few inconsequential changes (like the ability to build a nuclear power plant or an airport).
- Reedy Creek just doesn't dissolve itself, and continues operating, because the bill as written actually doesn't apply to Reedy Creek due to section 2 of the Reedy Creek charter.
- An injunction/lawsuit occurs based on the bonds (by bondholders or by Reedy Creek) and the dissolution is stopped.
- An injunction/lawsuit by the landowners of Reedy Creek, stating that their right to vote on dissolution has been violated
- A first amendment claim in federal court
Last edited:
lazyboy97o
Well-Known Member
I eagerly await the spinning of how discarding 100 years of international intellectual property rights development is a good idea.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
Yup. I can see the argument on not extending copyright past 95 years. I probably even agree with that. But to just throw out 40 years of copyright protection will have implications far beyond Disney. It's irresponsible.
mikejs78
Well-Known Member
I and others were specific - several weeks ago. I feel no need to rehash it, you didn't respond so I assume you don't have the answers. Feel free to dig up the old post and respond to my critique.
GoofGoof
Premium Member
In case anyone was interested in the impact this public dispute between TWDC and the Governor of FL has had on the stock price, yesterday‘s earnings call had zero questions from analysts related to RCID being dissolved. That may be because it’s more than a year away but more likely because it just doesn’t move the needle financially for a company this large. In either case the people looking to draw some conclusions that the recent decrease in stock price was somehow tied to this dispute seem to be way off base. If it mattered there would have been questions, maybe numerous questions.
ParentsOf4
Well-Known Member
Or there was a tacit agreement to follow Disney's lead and keep silent rather than potentially stir a hornet's nest, in the hopes that this gets amicably resolved before there is a financial impact.