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

[Brian]

Is this normal procedure or is Disney acknowledging the state voided the development agreements?

I think we'd have to read their entire filing to make that determination, though the argument does seem rather mutually exclusive on its face.

 

[lazyboy97o]

Update on the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District lawsuit.

This motion is not yet showing on the Clerk of Court’s website. It seems like an odd strategy as it treats the state law as valid. Disney has essentially opened the door for the District to make changes and start doing things with their property.

 

[Chi84]

This motion is not yet showing on the Clerk of Court’s website. It seems like an odd strategy as it treats the state law as valid. Disney has essentially opened the door for the District to make changes and start doing things with their property.

I think you would have to read the filing to make that determination. Parties can advance conflicting theories to some extent.

 

[mkt]

I think you would have to read the filing to make that determination. Parties can advance conflicting theories to some extent.

It could just be that they want to win in federal court, which could seemingly make any verdict in state court irrelevant.

 

[Brian]

Disney Asks Florida Court To Toss Lawsuit Brought By Ron DeSantis’s Handpicked Board Over Walt Disney World Jurisdiction

The Walt Disney Co. is asking a judge to dismiss or stay a state lawsuit brought by the special district that oversees its Florida resort property. In a motion filed in Florida state court in Orange County (read it here), Disney called the lawsuit “moot,” also claimed that state law requires...

deadline.com

Here is the motion to dismiss, courtesy of Deadline.

 

[Surferboy567]

Update on the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District lawsuit.

How does this process work for the uninitiated?

 

[Brian]

Here is the motion to dismiss, courtesy of Deadline.

As to Disney's argument about the contract, and whether or not the legislative action was valid, see this quote from their motion from page eight:

Dismissal is required here. This is an action by a state board raising questions about the validity of Contracts that are already void and unenforceable by unequivocal legislative fiat.

and further on page nine:

No matter how this Court answers them, CFTOD will not comply with the Contracts because it legally cannot: Senate Bill 1604 provides, without qualification, that CFTOD “is precluded from complying with the terms of” the Contracts.

By rendering any opinion by this Court legally irrelevant, the new statute has deprived this Court of jurisdiction to resolve this case.

 

[Brian]

How does this process work for the uninitiated?

The judge will now consider Disney's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the CFTOD against them in state court over the contract, and if the CFTOD wishes to file any motions to the contrary, those will be considered as well.

In other words, the judge will now have to decide whether to agree with Disney's logic as to why the lawsuit cannot stand, and decide if it should be thrown out, paused (pending the outcome of the federal case), or allowed to proceed for the time being.

 

[Chi84]

I don’t see how they wouldn’t at least get a stay.

 

[JAB]

The judge will now consider Disney's motion to dismiss the lawsuit filed by the CFTOD against them in state court over the contract, and if the CFTOD wishes to file any motions to the contrary, those will be considered as well.

In other words, the judge will now have to decide whether to agree with Disney's logic as to why the lawsuit cannot stand, and decide if it should be thrown out, paused (pending the outcome of the federal case), or allowed to proceed for the time being.

I can't think of why it might be paused vs. dismissed. If Disney wins the federal case, then then the contracts will have already been declared valid, and if Disney loses, 1604 makes the contracts unenforceable. So in either case, CFTOD's suit is moot, so there wouldn't be a benefit to waiting on the outcome of the federal case.

 

[Brian]

I can't think of why it might be paused vs. dismissed. If Disney wins the federal case, then then the contracts will have already been declared valid, and if Disney loses, 1604 makes the contracts unenforceable. So in either case, CFTOD's suit is moot, so there wouldn't be a benefit to waiting on the outcome of the federal case.

I agree, I'm just referencing Disney's secondary ask, should the judge decline to dismiss.

 

[Vacationeer]

If Federal Court finds for Disney Florida's suit is moot. Hearing the Constitutional issues in the Federal suit will take priority because the suits overlap and the matter involves the Contracts Clause, Takings and the First Amendment.

The suits aren't the same but as Disney said in today's motion both suits “Stem from the same nucleus of facts".

Say what you like but Iger is the alpha Dog here.

And sometimes right makes might.

 

[Chi84]

I agree, I'm just referencing Disney's secondary ask, should the judge decline to dismiss.

And it’s always sensible to wait until all the pleadings are filed because issues can change or be sharpened by the other party’s position.

One thing I’ve found is that CFTOD’s pleadings are painful to read when measured against the elegant simplicity of Disney’s. Disney’s team excels at tying their specific arguments to general principles of law. Courts appreciate the effort.

 

[mikejs78]

This motion is not yet showing on the Clerk of Court’s website. It seems like an odd strategy as it treats the state law as valid. Disney has essentially opened the door for the District to make changes and start doing things with their property.

I think this motion is brilliant. They make a compelling argument on motion to dismiss. At all costs, Disney wants to avoid a state court ruling against them, and wants this in federal court. A federal ruling would win out, but federal courts are also very deferential to state court rulings. A finding that the contracts were invalid because they weren't properly executed would somewhat harm Disney's case. A finding tthat the contracts are invalid because the legislature says so plays right into Disney's federal case. So a dismissal for mootness seems to be exactly what they need - and short of that, a stay, which FL law at least from this reading seems very clear about.

Disney hired good lawyers.

 

[mikejs78]

One thing I’ve found is that CFTOD’s pleadings are painful to read when measured against the elegant simplicity of Disney’s. Disney’s team excels at tying their specific arguments to general principles of law.

Kinda shows the magnitude of difference in caliber of the respective side's attorneys.

 

[Chi84]

Kinda shows the magnitude of difference in caliber of the respective side's attorneys.

Courts are not supposed to let that kind of thing no make a difference, but it can. Not in this case, though. They’ll have enough trouble trying to keep the politics out of it - or get the politics in if that’s the goal.

 

[seascape]

Kinda shows the magnitude of difference in caliber of the respective side's attorneys.

I don't believe it's the calber of lawyers. The State and CFTOD hired very good lawyers. The problem is their case stinks.

 

[mkt]

Say what you like but Iger is the alpha Dog here.

We’re in agreement

 

[mkt]

Some uploads, nothing that interesting.

From Disney v DeSantis, a motion for reconsideration to piggyback on this suit by another alleged 1A victim of DeSantis, and another denial.

 

[mkt]

And from CFTOD v Disney, the motion to dismiss and an email designation