Disney asks court to throw out the DeSantis Central Florida Tourism Oversight District lawsuit

May 16, 2023 in "Reedy Creek Improvement District"

Posted: Tuesday May 16, 2023 3:00pm ET by WDWMAGIC Staff

The Walt Disney Company has filed a motion with a judge to dismiss or stay the state lawsuit brought about by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District which was appointed by Florida Governor Ron DeSantis.

Disney argues that recent actions taken by the state have rendered the litigation irrelevant. Disney also says that Florida law mandates the state court to put the lawsuit on hold until the company's federal case against Governor Ron DeSantis is resolved.

In the motion filed in Florida state court, Disney's lawyers argue that the federal action Disney filed against DeSantis last month involves similar parties and overlapping issues, and the federal case should be the primary court for resolving the dispute.

Disney's federal April 26, 2023 lawsuit was filed in response to Governor DeSantis' attempts to replace the Reedy Creek Improvement District with his own hand-picked board. Disney's lawsuit says that DeSantis' actions violated its First Amendment and other constitutional rights, alleging they were motivated by retaliation due to the company's opposition to the so-called "don't say gay" law related to parental rights in schools.

Discuss on the Forums

Get Walt Disney World News Delivered to Your Inbox

View all comments →

EPCOT-O.G.Less than a minute ago

And who’s cooking it? A new governing body, under new rules they passed last year.

flynnibus3 minutes ago

Because clearly there is more going on then what is in the settlement. If it were such a lopsided win as it appears... Wouldn't you expect DeSantis to be grave dancing and telling everyone about his tremendous achievement? Instead he's toned everything down, and is talking collaboration and NOT taking swipes at Disney when given the opportunity. All that points to dealing that we don't know the full extent of yet.

WoundedDreamer15 minutes ago

Maybe... But Disney has received nothing from this settlement. One thinks they'd have at least got some concession if they could. This was not the posture they struck earlier in the fight. I'm in favor of this settlement from a pragmatic perspective, but I'm surprised they gave up pretty much every piece of leverage they had. This was as lopsided a settlement as any I've seen.

flynnibus15 minutes ago

Study up more... there's a new 2024 developer agreement in the oven.

EPCOT-O.G.19 minutes ago

In what inning does RCID and the 2023 developer agreements come back?

Advisable Joseph26 minutes ago

Isn't the "2020 plan" the one adopted in 2010 which would last through 2020? The plans seem to be named after their end years. The plan RCID approved toward the end of its existence was the "2032" plan. I suppose if the new board is reasonable, necessary amendments could be made.

mkt40 minutes ago

Or a 17 oz glass of bleach.

Sirwalterraleigh50 minutes ago

Some people here need a hug 🫂

lazyboy97o1 hour ago

Why does the comprehensive plan need to be changed? Input can be ignored. What actually requires Disney to be seriously considered? The big tool, the first thing the board changed, the thing they were mad they couldn’t use, is the planning commission. They still have that tool and are free to use it as they desire. How does this actually offer any protection? If they had been proactive and not willing to roll over they could have sought relief beforehand. Going forward after a win, they also could be proactive and seek relief. An established record would help those future battles.

mmascari1 hour ago

Remember this timing. Disney didn’t sue in federal court until the development agreement was challenged. They were prepared to work under the new structure with some guardrails. Presumably Disney thinks this new plan will give them guardrails they can work under. Many of us were surprised at the first plan being good enough for Disney. That this one is the same pattern isn’t a surprise that it doesn’t feel good enough when reading it, but Disney must believe it is. Whatever guardrails come out of the settlement, along with what the status quo was while it was all in dispute, and the new status while it unfolds. Disney must feel they’re good enough to work under. It seems wrong from the outside, but it’s never been clear why Disney was willing to live with any of it. That difference between good and good enough must be a chasm.

flynnibus1 hour ago

You're asking who won in the 5th inning of the game.

flynnibus1 hour ago

I really don't buy into this guy's take that it's everything Disney wanted... To take from his quick closing summary.. "In other words, Disney gets a new, friendly negotiating partner, all the board’s rules tossed, a commitment that the entity can’t mess with the interests Disney cared about, and the parties agree that the company can maintain its most powerful lawsuit as a cocked gun to the temple of the new entity to be invoked if the negotiations don’t go Disney’s way." New board members? Who cares.. they all reported to the same boss. They weren't acting rogue. 'All the board's rules tossed' - The board hadn't done anything to harm Disney yet. And I don't know what he thinks is thrown out.. only the changes Disney shoehorned in before the district came in (the restricted covenants and dev agreement) are being tossed out. The District accepts to not challenge stuff done before they took over. All the stuff like the District changes, employees, budget, etc all that is intact. And he skipped over how Disney loosened the RCES monopoly... and gives the state a free pass on all the BS they did setting all this up. The way I see it, all Disney has is a new negotiating opportunity with the state and gave up all their state legal pressure in return. The only 'gain' they have they didn't before is they got rid of some district board members... which ultimately is something that was at the whim of DeSantis all along.

lazyboy97o1 hour ago

The agreements were created at a time when the land was set to become unzoned. They ensured that Disney didn’t end up stuck with land that would all have to be reviewed and reconsidered for zoning.

flynnibus1 hour ago

I don't know the details... but given the history of how land management is done in the area, including offsets and trades... one can assume those credits are essential to Disney to be able to develop the land that they have, and having them specifically with Disney instead of the district, is probably tied to Disney being a developer/land owner. I don't think this is monetarily driven, but likely just about the power to develop land and the constraints they normally are facing with water management, etc in the region.