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

[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?

 

[tissandtully]

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

Seeing what's already happened today in other places I think the Gods have denied your request

 

[lazyboy97o]

Since the District would be seeking the dissolution of the contract, I’m not sure an injunction would be necessary at this moment. The court would have to issue some sort preliminary voiding. As of right now, there also isn’t really anything for Disney to have enjoined. The District has not yet moved to change the land use regulations, so even if they’re operating from the view that the contract is void nothing really changes.

 

[GoofGoof]

Since the District would be seeking the dissolution of the contract, I’m not sure an injunction would be necessary at this moment. The court would have to issue some sort preliminary voiding. As of right now, there also isn’t really anything for Disney to have enjoined. The District has not yet moved to change the land use regulations, so even if they’re operating from the view that the contract is void nothing really changes.

I was about to write something similar. I would think the contract still stands unless it’s declared void by the courts. Disney doesn’t need to do anything right now. If the district fails to comply with the contract or attempts to block development then Disney would need to act. The injunction would be to force the district to comply with the contract until a court can rule on it. I don’t know if anything changes if/when the legislature passes their bill allowing the district to void the contract. Then Disney may have to file something to challenge that law.

 

[DCBaker]

 

[Surferboy567]

It’s funny how they try to make it seem like they aren’t trying to target Disney but the wording is specifically tailored toward Disney only.

EDIT: Would this warrant action by Disney? Since it’s now filed as an Amendment.

 

[JAB]

It’s funny how they try to make it seem like they aren’t trying to target Disney but the wording is specifically tailored toward Disney only.

Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."

 

[mkt]

Does the district have to cross county lines? Or just the method of transit contained within?

 

[DCBaker]

Link to the text -

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1250/Amendment/773030/HTML

 

[GoofGoof]

So whenever the Governor decides it’s time for payback he can send in inspectors to shut down the monorail while the inspection takes place. I assume they could even drag it out over multiple days and do it without much notice. Maybe the upcoming July 4th week.

 

[JohnD]

I believe this is the language.

https://www.flsenate.gov/Session/Bill/2023/1250/Amendment/773030/PDF

 

[UNCgolf]

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

I didn't say it was likely (I actually think it's very unlikely), just that it's possible. I've worked on cases that were done in less than 6 months because of dismissal/summary judgment.

 

[JohnD]

Exactly. They never explicitly name Disney, but the criteria are always drafted in a way such that it only applies to Disney. Or as the kids on the InterWebs say these days... "Tell me you're targeting Disney without telling me you're targeting Disney."

Every bill crafted in the Florida Legislature affecting Disney, including exemptions, is always written in such a way to specifically refer to WDW without naming the company or the theme park resort.

 

[Sirwalterraleigh]

I didn't say it was likely, just that it's possible. I've worked on cases that were done in less than 6 months because of dismissal/summary judgment.

…might be a different kinda scale/arena here?

 

[Surferboy567]

Would this effect the WDW Railroad as well?

Skyliner?

Don’t they count as “fixed guideway transportation” system?