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

[mikejs78]

Quid pro pro

This generally refers to illegal acts, or bribery, especially in legal contexts. I don't think that applies or should be used in reference to Reedy Creek, because everything as far as we know was above board.

 

[UNCgolf]

Probably all of them.

Should be noted though, that it will take YEARS to resolve any case that makes it to court.

Eh, not necessarily. If it goes through appellate proceedings, absolutely, but if DeSantis is no longer governor who knows what happens. The state may give up on the case (and not just this specific case, but any related litigation).

Regardless, I meant in general -- i.e. how many of the current board members would remain if it's clear to them that they're not going to have any real authority to punish Disney.

 

[flynnibus]

This generally refers to illegal acts, or bribery, especially in legal contexts

Not necessarily. But that's not the context it's being used here.. should be obvious. And in fact it's the opposite here.. it's showing there is a value in exchange... establishing quid pro pro, not the absence of it (as one would argue in a lopsided or 'sweetheart' deal)

 

[Kamikaze]

Eh, not necessarily. If it goes through appellate proceedings, absolutely, but if DeSantis is no longer governor who knows what happens. The state may give up on the case (and not just this specific case, but any related litigation).

Regardless, I meant in general -- i.e. how many of the current board members would remain if it's clear to them that they're not going to have any real authority to punish Disney.

Forget appellate. If this lawsuit was filed even today, they would have an initial hearing in a month or two, and the case wouldn't be heard until probably Feb 2024 at the earliest. That's without any delays or posturing. Appeals would be after that. The state might drop the case at some point, sure, but if its this Board suing, that chance is less likely.

You have to remember that these board members are stubborn and think they're right. They'd stay on during any wait for cases to be heard. Once it was clear they weren't getting their way they'd be out in a second, though.

 

[UNCgolf]

Forget appellate. If this lawsuit was filed even today, they would have an initial hearing in a month or two, and the case wouldn't be heard until probably Feb 2024 at the earliest. That's without any delays or posturing. Appeals would be after that. The state might drop the case at some point, sure, but if its this Board suing, that chance is less likely.

You have to remember that these board members are stubborn and think they're right. They'd stay on during any wait for cases to be heard. Once it was clear they weren't getting their way they'd be out in a second, though.

I'm thinking along the lines of a successful motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. With the facts we have, those aren't out of the realm of possibility -- e.g., it's possible a judge could rule the board doesn't have standing (I'm not suggesting a judge actually will make that ruling; just that it's possible). It wouldn't be immediate, but it could be dealt with this calendar year.

 

[Surferboy567]

If this goes to court in the year (let’s say for arguments sake) the time it takes to go to court does the contract stay in place? Does that mean the board can’t do anything in that years time?

 

[lazyboy97o]

Eh, not necessarily. If it goes through appellate proceedings, absolutely, but if DeSantis is no longer governor who knows what happens. The state may give up on the case (and not just this specific case, but any related litigation).

Regardless, I meant in general -- i.e. how many of the current board members would remain if it's clear to them that they're not going to have any real authority to punish Disney.

They don’t have a big bit of the authority they hoped, but they still have other authority that’s been discussed.

 

[UNCgolf]

They don’t have a big bit of the authority they hoped, but they still have other authority that’s been discussed.

They definitely still have some -- but maybe not enough for them to consider it worth the time involved. Especially for someone like Bridget Ziegler, who seems to have legitimately thought she was going to be able to approve Disney's media output like a censorship board.

 

[Figgy1]

If this goes to court in the year (let’s say for arguments sake) the time it takes to go to court does the contract stay in place? Does that mean the board can’t do anything in that years time?

Disney should be able to get an injunction against the board doing anything citing harm should anything go forward before the case is settled

 

[Kamikaze]

If this goes to court in the year (let’s say for arguments sake) the time it takes to go to court does the contract stay in place? Does that mean the board can’t do anything in that years time?

The court would issue a stay and/or injunction (depending on the exact situation) to keep the status quo as the case was litigated.

 

[Kamikaze]

I'm thinking along the lines of a successful motion to dismiss or motion for summary judgment. With the facts we have, those aren't out of the realm of possibility -- e.g., it's possible a judge could rule the board doesn't have standing (I'm not suggesting a judge actually will make that ruling; just that it's possible). It wouldn't be immediate, but it could be dealt with this calendar year.

I doubt any case closes within 2 years of it being filed, forget within 2023.

 

[Chi84]

Disney should be able to get an injunction against the board doing anything citing harm should anything go forward before the case is settled

Harm is only one element for obtaining a preliminary injunction.

 

[Rich Brownn]

Disney's legal team:

Reminds me of the Comedy Warehouse ditty : " Chim Chim cherrie, you miss with Disney you mess with me, Chim chin Charue , cause we're Disney's lawyers and we love to sue"

 

[Figgy1]

Harm is only one element for obtaining a preliminary injunction.

True but it's usually the easiest way to obtain one

 

[CaptainAmerica]

True but it's usually the easiest way to obtain one

It's necessary, but not sufficient.

The harm has to be irreparable. If the thing you're seeking to enjoin would cause you $500,000 of harm, but the defendant has the means to pay you the $500,000 should you prevail in the lawsuit, and the damage done to you is limited to the $500,000, the injunction is unlikely to be issued.

Essentially, the court will allow the harm to occur, because you can be made whole by prevailing in the lawsuit.

 

[lentesta]

Disney should be able to get an injunction against the board doing anything citing harm should anything go forward before the case is settled

An injunction, you say? Interesting hypothetical. BUT NOT THIS WEEK BECAUSE I SPECIFICALLY ASKED FOR NO DRAMA.

 

[Chi84]

It's necessary, but not sufficient.

The harm has to be irreparable. If the thing you're seeking to enjoin would cause you $500,000 of harm, but the defendant has the means to pay you the $500,000 should you prevail in the lawsuit, and the damage done to you is limited to the $500,000, the injunction is unlikely to be issued.

Also there is always a requirement that the party seeking the injunction establish some degree of likelihood that they will succeed on the merits. The exact wording can differ by jurisdiction.

 

[lentesta]

It's necessary, but not sufficient.

The harm has to be irreparable. If the thing you're seeking to enjoin would cause you $500,000 of harm, but the defendant has the means to pay you the $500,000 should you prevail in the lawsuit, and the damage done to you is limited to the $500,000, the injunction is unlikely to be issued.

Essentially, the court will allow the harm to occur, because you can be made whole by prevailing in the lawsuit.

It's three conditions for an injunction, right?

1. Immediate harm
2. Irreparable harm (so, can't be made whole)
3. Likely to prevail on the merits of the case

I'm sure there's other stuff to factor in.

 

[Figgy1]

It's necessary, but not sufficient.

The harm has to be irreparable. If the thing you're seeking to enjoin would cause you $500,000 of harm, but the defendant has the means to pay you the $500,000 should you prevail in the lawsuit, and the damage done to you is limited to the $500,000, the injunction is unlikely to be issued.

Essentially, the court will allow the harm to occur, because you can be made whole by prevailing in the lawsuit.

I'm certain Disney's lawyers will be able to come up with several reasons it will be irreparable.

 

[MR.Dis]

They don’t have a big bit of the authority they hoped, but they still have other authority that’s been discussed.

So I ask, no Boloney, does the board have a case, or are they just spit balling again?