Sanchez
DIS Veteran
- Joined
- Aug 26, 2003
Forgive me as I do not have a clear understanding of what should be on the Controversial Topics board and the main board. (I do not participate in that board but did check and I don't see where this has been discussed.) This thread (https://www.disboards.com/threads/i...and-switch’-on-florida-‘a-mousetrap’.3935360/) is still live and so I presume this topic is acceptable on the CB. I know that this case was discussed earlier in the process, but there is nothing recent.
There are two lawsuits stemming from the Disney/Florida controversy. The first is a state court case wherein the new Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (which took over from Reedy Creek) is suing to dismantle covenants and restrictions enacted prior to the legislative decision to dismantle the Reedy Creek setup and implement the CFTOD. The restrictions serve to limit the powers of the CFTOD related to land development matters. This case is still pending.
The second case was pending in federal court. In January the court dismissed Disney's case wherein they claimed that the CFTOD was enacted to retaliate against Disney's First Amendment Speech rights. A dismissal at this stage is based solely on legal issues and limited to the pleadings - the court has to take Disney's pleadings as they are and accept the factual allegations as true and only dismiss if there is no legal path to win.
The judge based the decision on two factors. Firstly, that Disney did not have legal standing to sue. Secondly, assuming all factual allegations against Florida/Governor are true, the legislative act of replacing Reedy Creek with the CFTOD is otherwise legal.
This is the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.463456/gov.uscourts.flnd.463456.114.0.pdf
"In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in Tallahassee, Florida, said Disney lacked standing to sue the governor or the secretary of commerce. He said that, while the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against protected speech, a plaintiff - in this case, Disney - cannot bring a free-speech challenge to an otherwise constitutional law based on the subjective motivations of the lawmakers who passed it." https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ju...uit-accusing-desantis-retaliation-2024-01-31/
From the opinion: "In short, Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because 'when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.' In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2015)."
A cross section of news sources:
https://apnews.com/article/disney-desantis-florida-lgbtq-e92db2d9fe7e6d2a85f90bdc90faf5ff
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/business/judge-dismisses-disneys-lawsuit-against-desantis/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...t-desantis-dismissed-why-explainer-rcna136622
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/judge-dismisses-disney-lawsuit-gov-ron-desantis/story?id=106840357
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/judge-dismisses-disneys-lawsuit-alleging-retaliation-desantis
I have thought that Disney is more likely to win the state court suit - in other words, the CFTOD's claim that the covenants and restrictions enacted prior to the takeover should be invalidated will not succeed. I think that the substantive law is on Disney's side and it appears that the old Reedy Creek board got all of the procedural elements right. This case seems more important to Disney as development standards are locked in - the CFTOD cannot make radical changes in the planning and development process (so no prisons on Disney property for all you conspiracy theorists.)
I also thought that the First Amendment retaliation claim would be more difficult for Disney and was likely in the "would be nice to win but we will survive just fine if we do not" category. It certainly has the lurid facts that garners the attention of most people and was good for Disney PR. Motions to dismiss are not often granted at this stage but the court's logic is sound. Even judges are not immune to facts so I presumed Disney would get by the dismissal stage, but it doesn't appear that there is any conspiracy or miscarriage of justice here.
The case is on appeal which keeps alive a possible settlement. Perhaps a settlement where the covenants and restrictions and the CFTOD remain. Business as usual and everybody gets a win.
There are two lawsuits stemming from the Disney/Florida controversy. The first is a state court case wherein the new Central Florida Tourism Oversight District (which took over from Reedy Creek) is suing to dismantle covenants and restrictions enacted prior to the legislative decision to dismantle the Reedy Creek setup and implement the CFTOD. The restrictions serve to limit the powers of the CFTOD related to land development matters. This case is still pending.
The second case was pending in federal court. In January the court dismissed Disney's case wherein they claimed that the CFTOD was enacted to retaliate against Disney's First Amendment Speech rights. A dismissal at this stage is based solely on legal issues and limited to the pleadings - the court has to take Disney's pleadings as they are and accept the factual allegations as true and only dismiss if there is no legal path to win.
The judge based the decision on two factors. Firstly, that Disney did not have legal standing to sue. Secondly, assuming all factual allegations against Florida/Governor are true, the legislative act of replacing Reedy Creek with the CFTOD is otherwise legal.
This is the opinion: https://storage.courtlistener.com/recap/gov.uscourts.flnd.463456/gov.uscourts.flnd.463456.114.0.pdf
"In his ruling, U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor in Tallahassee, Florida, said Disney lacked standing to sue the governor or the secretary of commerce. He said that, while the First Amendment prohibits government officials from retaliating against protected speech, a plaintiff - in this case, Disney - cannot bring a free-speech challenge to an otherwise constitutional law based on the subjective motivations of the lawmakers who passed it." https://www.reuters.com/legal/us-ju...uit-accusing-desantis-retaliation-2024-01-31/
From the opinion: "In short, Disney lacks standing to sue the Governor or the Secretary, and its claims against the CFTOD Defendants fail on the merits because 'when a statute is facially constitutional, a plaintiff cannot bring a free-speech challenge by claiming that the lawmakers who passed it acted with a constitutionally impermissible purpose.' In re Hubbard, 803 F.3d 1298, 1312 (11th Cir. 2015)."
A cross section of news sources:
https://apnews.com/article/disney-desantis-florida-lgbtq-e92db2d9fe7e6d2a85f90bdc90faf5ff
https://www.cnn.com/2024/01/31/business/judge-dismisses-disneys-lawsuit-against-desantis/index.html
https://www.nbcnews.com/business/bu...t-desantis-dismissed-why-explainer-rcna136622
https://abcnews.go.com/Business/judge-dismisses-disney-lawsuit-gov-ron-desantis/story?id=106840357
https://www.foxbusiness.com/politics/judge-dismisses-disneys-lawsuit-alleging-retaliation-desantis
I have thought that Disney is more likely to win the state court suit - in other words, the CFTOD's claim that the covenants and restrictions enacted prior to the takeover should be invalidated will not succeed. I think that the substantive law is on Disney's side and it appears that the old Reedy Creek board got all of the procedural elements right. This case seems more important to Disney as development standards are locked in - the CFTOD cannot make radical changes in the planning and development process (so no prisons on Disney property for all you conspiracy theorists.)
I also thought that the First Amendment retaliation claim would be more difficult for Disney and was likely in the "would be nice to win but we will survive just fine if we do not" category. It certainly has the lurid facts that garners the attention of most people and was good for Disney PR. Motions to dismiss are not often granted at this stage but the court's logic is sound. Even judges are not immune to facts so I presumed Disney would get by the dismissal stage, but it doesn't appear that there is any conspiracy or miscarriage of justice here.
The case is on appeal which keeps alive a possible settlement. Perhaps a settlement where the covenants and restrictions and the CFTOD remain. Business as usual and everybody gets a win.
