Disney Asks Judge to Dismiss DeSantis-Appointed Board's Lawsuit
Disney's motion to dismiss was the latest twist in legal battles being played out in federal and state courts among the entertainment giant, Gov. Ron DeSantis and the DeSantis-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
May 17, 2023 at 12:22 PM
4 minute read
Disney asked a state judge to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a governing board appointed by Gov. Ron DeSantis to oversee Disney World, claiming the company has been the victim of the "weaponizing" powers of government aimed at punishing it for opposing a law dubbed "Don't Say Gay" by critics.
Disney's motion to dismiss filed in state court in Orlando was the latest twist in legal battles being played out in federal and state courts among the entertainment giant, DeSantis and the DeSantis-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. The fight is over who controls the special governing district which decides what gets built at Disney World and runs the municipal-like services on the 25,000 acres that make up the theme park resort.
"Just over a year ago, Disney expressed a political view that Governor DeSantis did not like. In response, the Governor unleashed a campaign of retaliation, weaponizing the power of government to punish Disney for its protected speech," Disney said in the motion.
The lawsuit Disney is seeking to dismiss was filed by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District earlier this month in Orange County, Florida. It seeks to void agreements Disney made with previous board members made up of Disney supporters before the new DeSantis-appointed board members held their first meeting.
The agreements gave design and construction authority to the company, which the DeSantis-appointed supervisors said stripped them of power. The DeSantis-appointed board's lawsuit said the agreements "reek of a backroom deal," weren't properly noticed and that the Disney supporters unlawfully delegated governmental authority to a private entity.
In the company's motion Tuesday, Disney defended the deals. When "faced with a newly hostile state administration," Disney executed the deals to protect its investments in central Florida, including billions of dollars in new projects and thousands of jobs, the company said.
Last month, Disney filed a First Amendment lawsuit against DeSantis and the DeSantis-appointed board in federal court, asking a federal judge to void the governor's takeover of the theme park district, as well as the oversight board's actions, on the grounds that they were violations of company's free speech rights.
Disney and DeSantis have been engaged in a tug-of-war for more than a year that has engulfed the GOP governor in criticism as he prepares to launch an expected presidential bid in the coming weeks.
The feud started last year after Disney, in the face of significant pressure, publicly opposed a state law that bans classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades, a policy critics call "Don't Say Gay."
As punishment, DeSantis took over Disney World's self-governing district through legislation passed by Florida lawmakers and appointed a new board of supervisors. Before the new board came in, the company signed the agreements with the old board, stripping the new supervisors of design and construction authority.
In response, the Republican-controlled Florida Legislature passed legislation allowing the DeSantis-appointed board to repeal the Disney agreements and made the theme park resort's monorail system subject to state inspection when it previously had been done in-house.
The new legislation repealing the Disney agreements makes the state court lawsuit moot, and litigation filed first in federal court takes priority over subsequent litigation in state court if both cases are dealing with similar issues and parties, under Florida law, Disney said in Tuesday's motion arguing for the state lawsuit to be dismissed.
The creation of Disney's self-governing district by the Florida Legislature was instrumental in the company's decision in the 1960s to build near Orlando. The company had told the state at the time that it planned to build a futuristic city that would include a transit system and urban planning innovations, so the company needed autonomy in building and deciding how to use the land. The futuristic city never materialized and instead morphed into a second theme park that opened in 1982.
Mike Schneider reports for the Associated Press.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readSecond Circuit Ruling Expands VPPA Scope: What Organizations Need to Know
6 minute read'They Got All Bent Out of Shape:' Parkland Lawyers Clash With Each Other
Trending Stories
- 1'Largest Retail Data Breach in History'? Hot Topic and Affiliated Brands Sued for Alleged Failure to Prevent Data Breach Linked to Snowflake Software
- 2Former President of New York State Bar, and the New York Bar Foundation, Dies As He Entered 70th Year as Attorney
- 3Legal Advocates in Uproar Upon Release of Footage Showing CO's Beat Black Inmate Before His Death
- 4Longtime Baker & Hostetler Partner, Former White House Counsel David Rivkin Dies at 68
- 5Court System Seeks Public Comment on E-Filing for Annual Report
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250