-
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
danlb_2000
Premium Member
What would an injunction actually look like in this case?
I've been looking at their histories, and it seems that about half of the Trump ones will rule in favor of Disney, and the other half give me Aileen Cannon vibes.
From the Sears case (wish I could figure out how to link a PDF file)
"Sears, Roebuck has a lease with Forbes/Cohen for a store within the Gardens Mall. It attempted to sublease part of its store to Dick’s Sporting Goods. However, the landlord disapproved of the sublease and collaborated with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, unbeknownst to Sears, to enact a resolution to now require both the landlord and the City to agree to any subdivision of space within the Gardens Mall. The issues presented in this case are whether the City’s resolution unconstitutionally impairs Sears’s contract rights and whether that resolution violates substantive due process because it has no criteria stating when approval to subdivide Sears’s leased space may be granted or denied. As a related issue, we consider whether Sears is owed attorney’s fees as a result of the City’s alleged violation of substantive due process. Finally, we consider whether Sears has a contractual right to sublease."
Sound familiar?
"We conclude the City’s resolution is unconstitutional both because it impairs Sears’s right to contract—and the contract rights emanating from the lease between Sears and Forbes/Cohen—and deprives Sears of its substantive due process rights. Consequently, we find Sears is a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 and is owed attorney’s fees. We further conclude that Sears has the contractual right to sublease without authorization from Forbes."
"Sears, Roebuck has a lease with Forbes/Cohen for a store within the Gardens Mall. It attempted to sublease part of its store to Dick’s Sporting Goods. However, the landlord disapproved of the sublease and collaborated with the City of Palm Beach Gardens, unbeknownst to Sears, to enact a resolution to now require both the landlord and the City to agree to any subdivision of space within the Gardens Mall. The issues presented in this case are whether the City’s resolution unconstitutionally impairs Sears’s contract rights and whether that resolution violates substantive due process because it has no criteria stating when approval to subdivide Sears’s leased space may be granted or denied. As a related issue, we consider whether Sears is owed attorney’s fees as a result of the City’s alleged violation of substantive due process. Finally, we consider whether Sears has a contractual right to sublease."
Sound familiar?
"We conclude the City’s resolution is unconstitutional both because it impairs Sears’s right to contract—and the contract rights emanating from the lease between Sears and Forbes/Cohen—and deprives Sears of its substantive due process rights. Consequently, we find Sears is a prevailing party under 42 U.S.C. sections 1983 and 1988 and is owed attorney’s fees. We further conclude that Sears has the contractual right to sublease without authorization from Forbes."
you should be able to upload it.
Prohibit the voiding of the Development Agreement, I'd think for starters. And if SB 1604 passes the House as sent over by the Senate yesterday and signed into law by the governor, stay any acts of the state authorized in the now law.
Last edited:
Sirwalterraleigh
Premium Member
I would think they’d ask for a freeze on all bond decisions, planning, zoning, and changes to pre-existing operation/service contracts as well?
But what’s his name on the board was so excited about drawing the new logo for all the district vehicles
Yes. But staying the nullification of the Agreement and impacts of SB 1604 would be primary.
The filing should/may detail what the request for an injunction includes. I haven't gotten that far in it yet.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
So that's all he's got? Is the same made-up lie?
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
The filing is for "DECLARATORY AND INJUNCTIVE RELIEF" so presumably they are asking for the following immediately:
I suspect the order chosen was in descending order of probability.
IANAL but it would be a stretch temporarily enjoining House Bill 9B and 4C considering the arrangement is already in place. But you could probably handcuff the CFTOD board until such a matter is settled.
JAB
Well-Known Member
"G. Issue an order enjoining Defendants from enforcing the Legislative Declaration;
H. Issue an order enjoining Defendants from enforcing Senate Bill 4C and House Bill 9B;"
Looks like they are asking at a minimum for an injunction to uphold the agreements, but are also going so far as to ask to remove CFTOB while the case is pending.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Yes, cause they know they need a workforce that can afford to live nearby, which is kind of a double-edged sword so they can keep wages low-ish.
lentesta
Premium Member
From the article: "I think they filed in Tallahassee for a reason, because they're trying to generate some district court decision," the governor said.
Or, you know, and I'm just spitballing here, suits against the state are best originated in the district in which the state capitol resides. So filing in the Northern District avoids a court saying "you filed in the wrong jurisdiction" and delaying relief.
I'd be mildly surprised if the defense argues venue.
tissandtully
Well-Known Member
Maybe they should have put pictures in the Feb. meeting minutes and they would have noticed the developer agreement.But what’s his name on the board was so excited about drawing the new logo for all the district vehicles
flynnibus
Premium Member
yeah I guess he's questioning North District vs Middle? Since the District sits in the Middle District's jurisdiction... but the state house is in Northern district.
Curious to the thinking...
drnilescrane
Well-Known Member
It's just him trying to muddy the waters by suggesting that Disney somehow is forum shopping. Like doubling down on the special privileges, not following the law rhetoric. Which will probably be their (amateur) argument in front of the judge.