#cftod — Public Fediverse posts
Live and recent posts from across the Fediverse tagged #cftod, aggregated by home.social.
-
The #legislation prohibits instruction on matters related to #gender #identity & #SexualOrientation in #PublicSchool.
#DeSantis fired back by pushing for legislation dismantling the #ReedyCreekTax district (aka #RCID aka #CFTOD), which for decades has managed the 25k acres that encompass Walt #Disney World in central #Florida. Opponents of the governor saw it as a retaliatory #power grab.#law #CultureWars #Racism #Heterosexism #MaleSupremacy #WhiteSupremacy #WhiteChristianNationalism #LGBTQ+
-
The #legislation prohibits instruction on matters related to #gender #identity & #SexualOrientation in #PublicSchool.
#DeSantis fired back by pushing for legislation dismantling the #ReedyCreekTax district (aka #RCID aka #CFTOD), which for decades has managed the 25k acres that encompass Walt #Disney World in central #Florida. Opponents of the governor saw it as a retaliatory #power grab.#law #CultureWars #Racism #Heterosexism #MaleSupremacy #WhiteSupremacy #WhiteChristianNationalism #LGBTQ+
-
The results are in:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Arpie4Math/110474293571938709• Judge Walker does not recuse as current-news-based hypotheticals are not indicative of bias or prejudgement, just indicative that Judge Walker is paying attention
AND
• Judge Walker "out of an abundance of caution" recuses, over 30 shares of stock belatedly discovered BY THE JUDGE to be owned by some not-very-close relation.❝[The motion by #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD] is without merit. My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a fully informed, disinterested lay person.
❝Without exploring all the other defects in the motion, for the reasons noted above and as thoughtfully outlined in [#Disney]’s response, Defendants’ motion is wholly without merit. In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping. Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.
❝On Friday, May 26, 2023, I learned, and later confirmed, that a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Plaintiff’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.
-
The results are in:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Arpie4Math/110474293571938709• Judge Walker does not recuse as current-news-based hypotheticals are not indicative of bias or prejudgement, just indicative that Judge Walker is paying attention
AND
• Judge Walker "out of an abundance of caution" recuses, over 30 shares of stock belatedly discovered BY THE JUDGE to be owned by some not-very-close relation.❝[The motion by #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD] is without merit. My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a fully informed, disinterested lay person.
❝Without exploring all the other defects in the motion, for the reasons noted above and as thoughtfully outlined in [#Disney]’s response, Defendants’ motion is wholly without merit. In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping. Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.
❝On Friday, May 26, 2023, I learned, and later confirmed, that a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Plaintiff’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.
-
Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/
On Thursday, Chief Judge Walker sided with #Disney 100% in calling the motion to dismiss as baseless and contrary to law. (Doc 45) Nevertheless, he recused himself over some cousin or grandchild having 30 shares of stock.❝Defendants’ motion is without merit. My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a fully informed, disinterested lay person.
❝Without exploring all the other defects in the motion, for the reasons noted above and as thoughtfully outlined in Plaintiff’s response, Defendants’ motion is wholly without merit. In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping. Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.
❝On Friday, May 26, 2023, I learned, and later confirmed, that a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Plaintiff’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.
Judge Winsor (appointed in 2019) is up-to-bat.
Also, Thursday:
#DeSantis appoints Charbel Barakat to #CFTOD to fill the vacancy left by Michael Sasso.————
Update for:
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsOn Thursday, there was an ex parte hearing?? Is it about Pro Hac Vice admissions? Is it related to the pending motion to dismiss? No details yet.
-
@rrogers I think you mean "as a witness" as the defendants are #DeSantis and other #Florida officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit seeks to undo the voiding of the contracts laying out #Disney's further development plans and to void the replacement of the landowner-elected #RCID by the Governor-appointed #CFTOD.
There is, I believe, a steep divide between Disney front-of-house employees (Cast Members) and executive management, so I can't think of how a Cast Member portraying Mickey Mouse would be in any way helpful in addressing the merits of the claims for relief which are rooted in interpretation of the US Constitution.
The biggest potential sideshow which I think might be legally relevant is deposition testimony of how DeSantis apparently was once married at Disneyworld and has now gone to war with it. Is this the work of another Floridian Very Stable Genius™? Was there ever a plan?
-
Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/On Thursday, #Disney argued against the motion by #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD that seeks to disqualify Chief Judge Walker from hearing the case over contracts executed by #RCID (Doc 43).
In the main, Disney argues that DeSantis and co. are making a mountain out of a molehill and that the law doesn't endorse such a “hair-trigger disqualification standard.”
Disney points to the cartoonish demonstration of bias in the cases cited by the Defendants and argues there is no parallel:
❝Defendants instead base their motion on two year-old hypothetical questions during prior judicial proceedings where the Court accurately referred to widely-publicized statements from Florida legislators about their intent to change the governing structure of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (“RCID”) specifically because Disney expressed a political viewpoint disfavored by the legislators. The Court did not make any findings about those statements, but simply invoked them during oral arguments as examples to test arguments being advanced by counsel addressing different issues under different factual records.
Also, “the Court recently ruled in favor of the relevant State defendants in the very cases cited by defendants here as evidence of potential bias against them. Far from proving bias, the cases confirm the Court’s impartiality. The motion to disqualify should be denied.”
Disney goes on to show more context for the innocuous use by Judge Walker of news reports about the DeSantis-Disney feud, because contextomy is the tool of the scoundrel.
-
IANAL, but I see 5 ways this motion to disqualify could go:
• Judge Walker does not recuse as current-news-based hypotheticals are not indicative of bias or prejudgement, just indicative that Judge Walker is paying attention
• Judge Walker declares the motion untimely, as DeSantis has not denied that he is in a retaliatory war with Disney, a fact so obvious that DeSantis should stipulate it or face sanctions for prolonging the proceedings.
• Judge Walker finds technical fault with the transcript excerpts in that without more transcript how are we to know Judge Walker introduced discussion of Disney, as the Governors March 2022 anti-Disney campaign might have been a subject for rhetoric by either plaintiff in the cited cases. (I know I certainly wanted to read more)
• Judge Walker finds some other way to criticize the motion
• Judge Walker "out of an abundance of caution" recuses, basically caving to expected bullying from elements of the 11th Circuit despite a duty not to recuse for frivolous reasons————
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/On Friday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD file a motion (Doc 33) to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker from the lawsuit filed by #Disney in federal court.
-
IANAL, but I see 5 ways this motion to disqualify could go:
• Judge Walker does not recuse as current-news-based hypotheticals are not indicative of bias or prejudgement, just indicative that Judge Walker is paying attention
• Judge Walker declares the motion untimely, as DeSantis has not denied that he is in a retaliatory war with Disney, a fact so obvious that DeSantis should stipulate it or face sanctions for prolonging the proceedings.
• Judge Walker finds technical fault with the transcript excerpts in that without more transcript how are we to know Judge Walker introduced discussion of Disney, as the Governors March 2022 anti-Disney campaign might have been a subject for rhetoric by either plaintiff in the cited cases. (I know I certainly wanted to read more)
• Judge Walker finds some other way to criticize the motion
• Judge Walker "out of an abundance of caution" recuses, basically caving to expected bullying from elements of the 11th Circuit despite a duty not to recuse for frivolous reasons————
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/On Friday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD file a motion (Doc 33) to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker from the lawsuit filed by #Disney in federal court.
-
Joe Patrice of Above the Law, provides another read of the #Disney motion to dismiss in the state lawsuit filed by #DeSantis' hand-picked #CFTOD.
As a bonus, they provide the full #MTD
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/disney-ron-desantis-state-court-moot/
-
Joe Patrice of Above the Law, provides another read of the #Disney motion to dismiss in the state lawsuit filed by #DeSantis' hand-picked #CFTOD.
As a bonus, they provide the full #MTD
https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/disney-ron-desantis-state-court-moot/
-
#Disney also takes time to point out some inconvenient facts about the timeline and diligence of the #CFTOD and their lawyers.
❝On May 9, CFTOD filed an amended complaint in this suit that only corrected its signature block. Despite Senate Bill 1604 being signed into law four days prior—the law giving CFTOD the precise relief it requests here—CFTOD added no mention of the law in its amended complaint. Disney was served in this action on May 12.
❝Disney perfected service against all defendants in the Federal Action on May 1—before even the issuance of summons in this action. Federal Action at ECF Nos. 13-20.⁶ CFTOD did not serve Disney in this action until May 12. Under Florida law, jurisdiction therefore attached first in Disney’s federal suit.
————
⁶ On May 15, after two weeks of silence, the CFTOD board member and administrator defendants, through counsel, suggested that it “appear[ed]” they had not yet been properly served with the original complaint. That suggestion is incorrect, and the priority rule applies. As of May 1, CFTOD did not have any registered agent, as identified on its website or on the appropriate Florida state website. As the sworn proofs of service indicate, service was thus perfected on each CFTOD defendant on May 1 through a CFTOD employee “authorized to accept service” and “the liaison to intercept legal documents for the board and director.” ... -
#Disney also takes time to point out some inconvenient facts about the timeline and diligence of the #CFTOD and their lawyers.
❝On May 9, CFTOD filed an amended complaint in this suit that only corrected its signature block. Despite Senate Bill 1604 being signed into law four days prior—the law giving CFTOD the precise relief it requests here—CFTOD added no mention of the law in its amended complaint. Disney was served in this action on May 12.
❝Disney perfected service against all defendants in the Federal Action on May 1—before even the issuance of summons in this action. Federal Action at ECF Nos. 13-20.⁶ CFTOD did not serve Disney in this action until May 12. Under Florida law, jurisdiction therefore attached first in Disney’s federal suit.
————
⁶ On May 15, after two weeks of silence, the CFTOD board member and administrator defendants, through counsel, suggested that it “appear[ed]” they had not yet been properly served with the original complaint. That suggestion is incorrect, and the priority rule applies. As of May 1, CFTOD did not have any registered agent, as identified on its website or on the appropriate Florida state website. As the sworn proofs of service indicate, service was thus perfected on each CFTOD defendant on May 1 through a CFTOD employee “authorized to accept service” and “the liaison to intercept legal documents for the board and director.” ... -
Summary of "[#Disney]’s Motion to Dismiss [#CFTOD]’s Amended Complaint as Moot or, in the Alternative, to Stay this Action."
❝[#SB1604] renders Plaintiff’s complaint moot because it makes any order this Court could issue—in either party’s favor—legally irrelevant. If the Court rejects the board’s claims on their merits and agrees with Disney that the contracts complied with any procedural and substantive requirements of state law, the board would still be prohibited from complying with them under the new state statute. For the same reason, even if the Court found merit in the board’s objections to the contracts, any order to that effect would be pointless because the contracts would already be void under the new state statute. In short, any declaration about the contracts’ enforceability, voidness, or validity—either way—would be an advisory opinion with no real-world consequence. Trial courts in #Florida are forbidden from issuing advisory opinions, and this case should be dismissed.
❝In the alternative, Florida law requires that the Court stay this litigation until Disney’s federal action resolves. Disney’s earlier-filed and earlier-served federal action is pending between substantially the same parties, and it involves substantially overlapping issues. In these circumstances, controlling precedents provide that the Court lacks discretion to proceed with this case. Disney regrets that it is compelled to litigate these issues anywhere, but the federal action is the proper vehicle for first hearing the parties’ dispute.
-
Summary of "[#Disney]’s Motion to Dismiss [#CFTOD]’s Amended Complaint as Moot or, in the Alternative, to Stay this Action."
❝[#SB1604] renders Plaintiff’s complaint moot because it makes any order this Court could issue—in either party’s favor—legally irrelevant. If the Court rejects the board’s claims on their merits and agrees with Disney that the contracts complied with any procedural and substantive requirements of state law, the board would still be prohibited from complying with them under the new state statute. For the same reason, even if the Court found merit in the board’s objections to the contracts, any order to that effect would be pointless because the contracts would already be void under the new state statute. In short, any declaration about the contracts’ enforceability, voidness, or validity—either way—would be an advisory opinion with no real-world consequence. Trial courts in #Florida are forbidden from issuing advisory opinions, and this case should be dismissed.
❝In the alternative, Florida law requires that the Court stay this litigation until Disney’s federal action resolves. Disney’s earlier-filed and earlier-served federal action is pending between substantially the same parties, and it involves substantially overlapping issues. In these circumstances, controlling precedents provide that the Court lacks discretion to proceed with this case. Disney regrets that it is compelled to litigate these issues anywhere, but the federal action is the proper vehicle for first hearing the parties’ dispute.
-
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsTuesday, #Disney lawyers filed a 27-page motion to dismiss in the #CFTOD state lawsuit entitled: "Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
as Moot or, in the Alternative, to Stay this Action."Moot? Moot? What possible action could have happened to #DeSantis' retaliation campaign that Disney lawyers would say the CFTOD complaint seeking to void the #RCID contracts was moot? Oh yeah. As documented in Disney's amended complaint in its federal lawsuit, the #Florida legislature passed a law that purported to void the same contracts that the CFTOD was suing over. Using some sort of, I don't know how you'ld describe it, concept of supremacy, the state law would render the actions of the new CFTOD without effect and there goes the basis for the lawsuit from DeSantis' hand-picked panel.
-
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsTuesday, #Disney lawyers filed a 27-page motion to dismiss in the #CFTOD state lawsuit entitled: "Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
as Moot or, in the Alternative, to Stay this Action."Moot? Moot? What possible action could have happened to #DeSantis' retaliation campaign that Disney lawyers would say the CFTOD complaint seeking to void the #RCID contracts was moot? Oh yeah. As documented in Disney's amended complaint in its federal lawsuit, the #Florida legislature passed a law that purported to void the same contracts that the CFTOD was suing over. Using some sort of, I don't know how you'ld describe it, concept of supremacy, the state law would render the actions of the new CFTOD without effect and there goes the basis for the lawsuit from DeSantis' hand-picked panel.
-
#Disney moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the #ReedyCreek / #CFTOD lawsuit seeking to invalidate the agreements the District entered right before the takeover.
Argument is that state law prohibits the District from complying with the contract, so the issue is moot until the federal case is resolved. I think the Court will likely dismiss or stay the case given the Federal case on the same issues, and I don't think it matters much which one.
I have a dumber comment though...
1/2
-
#Disney moved to dismiss, or in the alternative, to stay the #ReedyCreek / #CFTOD lawsuit seeking to invalidate the agreements the District entered right before the takeover.
Argument is that state law prohibits the District from complying with the contract, so the issue is moot until the federal case is resolved. I think the Court will likely dismiss or stay the case given the Federal case on the same issues, and I don't think it matters much which one.
I have a dumber comment though...
1/2
-
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsToday, #Disney lawyers (the same local firm as in their federal case) appeared for the first time in the #CFTOD state lawsuit attempting to void the contracts with #RCID. Possibly this means an answer, motion to dismiss, removal to federal court, or other filing is going to appeal in the next 3 weeks. (I expect removal and I expect it much earlier.) No idea if this appearance is subsequent to the service of the complaint on Disney.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. v. #DeSantis (4:23-cv-00163) District Court, N.D. Florida
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/The court in Disney's federal lawsuit against CFTOD, DeSantis, and #FLDEO is meanwhile dealing with the type of pro se "intervenor" who really just wants to be heard on an unrelated issue. Famous lawsuits and parties (I'm looking at you, Mr. Trump) tend to attract these.
-
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsToday, #Disney lawyers (the same local firm as in their federal case) appeared for the first time in the #CFTOD state lawsuit attempting to void the contracts with #RCID. Possibly this means an answer, motion to dismiss, removal to federal court, or other filing is going to appeal in the next 3 weeks. (I expect removal and I expect it much earlier.) No idea if this appearance is subsequent to the service of the complaint on Disney.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. v. #DeSantis (4:23-cv-00163) District Court, N.D. Florida
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/The court in Disney's federal lawsuit against CFTOD, DeSantis, and #FLDEO is meanwhile dealing with the type of pro se "intervenor" who really just wants to be heard on an unrelated issue. Famous lawsuits and parties (I'm looking at you, Mr. Trump) tend to attract these.
-
Second Claim: Takings Clause
⁋174→191: Expanded
⁋175→192: Citation improved
⁋175-176→193-194: Expanded
Third Claim: Due Process
⁋179→197: Expanded
⁋181-183→199-201: Expanded
Fourth Claim: #1stAmendment (Political speech cannot be retaliated against by the voiding of contracts)
⁋185→204 Subject-verb agreement (Speech ... occupies).
⁋186-187→205-206: Expanded
⁋188→207: Expanded. Added "He also said that he had worked with “both leaders of the House and Senate” on a “bill that will be put out in the Florida legislature that will make sure that” the Contracts “are revoked.”"
⁋190→209: Expanded.
Fifth Claim: #FirstAmendment (Speech chilled by the dissolution of #RCID and formation of #CFTOD)
This last is largely orthogonal to the other claims since it is about #DeSantis' initial #unconstitutional temper tantrum (and the attempt to fix it) and not the direct economic damage of actually voiding the contracts.
#Disney still wants the original landowner-elected RCID back, so these paragraphs look the same.
Finally comes the Prayer for Relief.
Expanded by adding Senate Bill 1604 to the Legislative Findings of the CFTOD as things that should be declared Unconstitutional in 4 different ways and also enjoined from enforcement (in say the state court case of CFTOD v. Disney)¹.
————
¹ Added in Edit. See also:2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks And Resorts US Inc (Alleging technical fact-based reasons why the contracts are void, which is the conclusion they sought to find)
9th Circuit/Orange County Court Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsBut the CAPTCHA makes it hard to link to and the 60 MB complaint is slow to download.
-
Second Claim: Takings Clause
⁋174→191: Expanded
⁋175→192: Citation improved
⁋175-176→193-194: Expanded
Third Claim: Due Process
⁋179→197: Expanded
⁋181-183→199-201: Expanded
Fourth Claim: #1stAmendment (Political speech cannot be retaliated against by the voiding of contracts)
⁋185→204 Subject-verb agreement (Speech ... occupies).
⁋186-187→205-206: Expanded
⁋188→207: Expanded. Added "He also said that he had worked with “both leaders of the House and Senate” on a “bill that will be put out in the Florida legislature that will make sure that” the Contracts “are revoked.”"
⁋190→209: Expanded.
Fifth Claim: #FirstAmendment (Speech chilled by the dissolution of #RCID and formation of #CFTOD)
This last is largely orthogonal to the other claims since it is about #DeSantis' initial #unconstitutional temper tantrum (and the attempt to fix it) and not the direct economic damage of actually voiding the contracts.
#Disney still wants the original landowner-elected RCID back, so these paragraphs look the same.
Finally comes the Prayer for Relief.
Expanded by adding Senate Bill 1604 to the Legislative Findings of the CFTOD as things that should be declared Unconstitutional in 4 different ways and also enjoined from enforcement (in say the state court case of CFTOD v. Disney)¹.
————
¹ Added in Edit. See also:2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks And Resorts US Inc (Alleging technical fact-based reasons why the contracts are void, which is the conclusion they sought to find)
9th Circuit/Orange County Court Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20RecordsBut the CAPTCHA makes it hard to link to and the 60 MB complaint is slow to download.
-
⁋90→91: Improved citation format
⁋97→98: Removed comma
⁋114→115: Footnote citation 70 shortened
⁋118→119: Correct a clause numbering error (two vii's) which had been bothering me for a while. Thanks, #Disney Lawyers!
⁋119→120: One plan implies one confirmation, striking plural in the original #complaint.
⁋146→147: Removed: "He added that efforts were underway to give the state new authority to override safety inspections at Walt Disney World, as well as to regulate Disney’s monorail transportation systems." (but see ⁋168)
Removed ⁋148, footnote citation 102 (moved to ⁋160)
Removed ⁋159, footnote citation 110, because it was about anticipated legislation which has happened.
Added ⁋⁋159-174 (new sub-section): Political collusion to retaliate by passing new legislation (#SB1604) revoking contracts. New pending legislation (#HB1305) targeting famous monorail.
⁋160→175: Same conclusion to the Factual Background: "Having exhausted all other options, Disney is left with no choice but to bring this Complaint asking the Court to stop the State of Florida from weaponizing the power of government to punish private business."
⁋161,173,178,184,191→176,189,195,202,210: The format of the incorporation statement changed; any allegations in one cause no longer daisy chain to the rest.
Added ⁋177,190,196,203,211: State all Defendants at fault for each cause
⁋162→178: Added Legislature for voiding contracts
⁋163→179: Expanded, citations improved
⁋165→181: Expanded
⁋166→182: Citation improved
⁋169→185: Expanded, added "legitimate" in anticipation of pretextual reasons to be raised in some half-assed defense.
⁋170→186: Replaces #CFTOD with "the State", Citation improved
⁋171-172→187-188: Expanded
-
⁋90→91: Improved citation format
⁋97→98: Removed comma
⁋114→115: Footnote citation 70 shortened
⁋118→119: Correct a clause numbering error (two vii's) which had been bothering me for a while. Thanks, #Disney Lawyers!
⁋119→120: One plan implies one confirmation, striking plural in the original #complaint.
⁋146→147: Removed: "He added that efforts were underway to give the state new authority to override safety inspections at Walt Disney World, as well as to regulate Disney’s monorail transportation systems." (but see ⁋168)
Removed ⁋148, footnote citation 102 (moved to ⁋160)
Removed ⁋159, footnote citation 110, because it was about anticipated legislation which has happened.
Added ⁋⁋159-174 (new sub-section): Political collusion to retaliate by passing new legislation (#SB1604) revoking contracts. New pending legislation (#HB1305) targeting famous monorail.
⁋160→175: Same conclusion to the Factual Background: "Having exhausted all other options, Disney is left with no choice but to bring this Complaint asking the Court to stop the State of Florida from weaponizing the power of government to punish private business."
⁋161,173,178,184,191→176,189,195,202,210: The format of the incorporation statement changed; any allegations in one cause no longer daisy chain to the rest.
Added ⁋177,190,196,203,211: State all Defendants at fault for each cause
⁋162→178: Added Legislature for voiding contracts
⁋163→179: Expanded, citations improved
⁋165→181: Expanded
⁋166→182: Citation improved
⁋169→185: Expanded, added "legitimate" in anticipation of pretextual reasons to be raised in some half-assed defense.
⁋170→186: Replaces #CFTOD with "the State", Citation improved
⁋171-172→187-188: Expanded
-
#DeSantis and the #Florida legislature have extended their campaign of retribution against #Disney for protected speech on a matter of public interest, so Disney has amended their Federal #lawsuit to seek additional relief.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. v. DeSantis (and #CFTOD) (4:23-cv-00163) District Court, N.D. Florida
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/The (First!) Amended Complaint (doc 25) adds a new subsection of about 6 pages to the Factual Background: Governor DeSantis and the Legislature Void the Contracts by Statute and Expand the Retribution Campaign.
They also add a money quote demonstrating it is all retribution:
“[T]his all started, of course, with our parents’ rights bill.”
—Governor Ronald D. DeSantis, May 5, 2023.⁋3 Minor changes in tense. "Days later, the State Legislature enacted and Governor DeSantis signed legislation rendering these contracts immediately void and unenforceable"
⁋9 "This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see." → "Indeed, just days ago, reaffirming the unequivocal intent of his retribution campaign and trumpeting its perceived success, Governor DeSantis openly celebrated: “Since our skirmish last year, Disney has not been involved in any of those issues. They have not made a peep.”"
New ⁋10: This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see.
⁋17→18: Adds agency of Legislature in acts purporting to void contracts
⁋20→21: Adds Senate Bill 1604 as "among others" DeSantis requested to punish Disney for its speech.
⁋23-26→24-27: Adds word Defendant clarifying the position the CFTOD board members are in.
⁋33→34: Adds Senate Bill 1604
⁋37→38: Improved citation format
-
#DeSantis and the #Florida legislature have extended their campaign of retribution against #Disney for protected speech on a matter of public interest, so Disney has amended their Federal #lawsuit to seek additional relief.
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. v. DeSantis (and #CFTOD) (4:23-cv-00163) District Court, N.D. Florida
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/The (First!) Amended Complaint (doc 25) adds a new subsection of about 6 pages to the Factual Background: Governor DeSantis and the Legislature Void the Contracts by Statute and Expand the Retribution Campaign.
They also add a money quote demonstrating it is all retribution:
“[T]his all started, of course, with our parents’ rights bill.”
—Governor Ronald D. DeSantis, May 5, 2023.⁋3 Minor changes in tense. "Days later, the State Legislature enacted and Governor DeSantis signed legislation rendering these contracts immediately void and unenforceable"
⁋9 "This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see." → "Indeed, just days ago, reaffirming the unequivocal intent of his retribution campaign and trumpeting its perceived success, Governor DeSantis openly celebrated: “Since our skirmish last year, Disney has not been involved in any of those issues. They have not made a peep.”"
New ⁋10: This is as clear a case of retaliation as this Court is ever likely to see.
⁋17→18: Adds agency of Legislature in acts purporting to void contracts
⁋20→21: Adds Senate Bill 1604 as "among others" DeSantis requested to punish Disney for its speech.
⁋23-26→24-27: Adds word Defendant clarifying the position the CFTOD board members are in.
⁋33→34: Adds Senate Bill 1604
⁋37→38: Improved citation format
-
Under conventional motions practice, no one likes to file before a deadline. Thus, knowing deadlines can help one guess the cadence of a lawsuit.
In the Federal case of #Disney v. #DeSantis (and #CFTOD), the defendants have been served and have until 2023/05/22 to respond to the complaint, typically by a motion to dismiss (claiming that the US Constitution doesn't apply to Florida??? claiming that even if Ron DeSantis admitted every part of the plan that doesn't suggest that his hand-picked CFTOD is culpable???) or a paragraph-by-paragraph answer (usual a sterile denial of every possible disputable fact in the complaint and whining that Disney's obvious conclusions about the law aren't appropriate topics to require them to agree or disagree with at this stage).
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/
The subsequently filed state case (2023-CA-011818-O, Ninth District, Orange County, Orlando) by the CFTOD against Disney on these same facts may soon be targeted for removal to Federal court as a proper countersuit.
There may be other motions filed, so both dockets should be watched often.
-
#DeSantis' hand-picked #CFTOD has sued #Disney in Orlando on 2023/05/01. (9th District, Division 33)
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks And Resorts US Inc
Deadline has the complaint.
https://deadline.com/2023/05/disney-ron-desantis-countersuit-retaliation-dont-say-gay-law-1235352970/They allege
• #RCID failed to mail a notice to all affected property owners (but fail to name any or cite case law interpreting the statute)
• RCID didn't pass necessary enabling legislation to give them the ability to enter development agreements under the Local Government Development Agreement Act (again no case law or even full statues cited)
• They complain that Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista are affected non-parties (but there were separate bilateral agreements between Disney and those cities, yes?)
• Something cray-cray about Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 12 that seems conjured out of thin air
• A technical argument that because am alleged failure of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista to communicate a 2018/11/14 plan, the agreements between Disney and RCID are invalid
• An argument that all binding Development Agreements are illegal delegation of local government's legislative powers
• Claims that what's good for Ron DeSantis is good for the USA (I mean public policy), and the contracts are against public policy, unconscionable, and lack any consideration (despite whining that the contracts have obligations for both parties)They also complain:
"Disney continues to assert that the agreements are valid and enforceable, including filing a lawsuit based on claims purportedly arising under federal law that seeks to revive and assert rights under the Development Agreement and the Restrictive Covenants."See: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/
-
#DeSantis' hand-picked #CFTOD has sued #Disney in Orlando on 2023/05/01. (9th District, Division 33)
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks And Resorts US Inc
Deadline has the complaint.
https://deadline.com/2023/05/disney-ron-desantis-countersuit-retaliation-dont-say-gay-law-1235352970/They allege
• #RCID failed to mail a notice to all affected property owners (but fail to name any or cite case law interpreting the statute)
• RCID didn't pass necessary enabling legislation to give them the ability to enter development agreements under the Local Government Development Agreement Act (again no case law or even full statues cited)
• They complain that Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista are affected non-parties (but there were separate bilateral agreements between Disney and those cities, yes?)
• Something cray-cray about Florida Constitution Article VII, Section 12 that seems conjured out of thin air
• A technical argument that because am alleged failure of Bay Lake and Lake Buena Vista to communicate a 2018/11/14 plan, the agreements between Disney and RCID are invalid
• An argument that all binding Development Agreements are illegal delegation of local government's legislative powers
• Claims that what's good for Ron DeSantis is good for the USA (I mean public policy), and the contracts are against public policy, unconscionable, and lack any consideration (despite whining that the contracts have obligations for both parties)They also complain:
"Disney continues to assert that the agreements are valid and enforceable, including filing a lawsuit based on claims purportedly arising under federal law that seeks to revive and assert rights under the Development Agreement and the Restrictive Covenants."See: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/