DeSantis, Central Florida Special District Target Disney Lawsuit
Disney filed a federal lawsuit alleging constitutional violations related to a series of events that the entertainment giant says are rooted in retaliation by Gov. Ron DeSantis and his political allies.
June 27, 2023 at 11:43 AM
4 minute read
Gov. Ron DeSantis and a revamped Central Florida special district sought to scuttle a federal lawsuit in which Walt Disney Parks and Resorts contends its constitutional rights have been violated amid a long-running feud with DeSantis.
Attorneys for the state filed a motion contending that DeSantis and Meredith Ivey, acting secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity, should be dismissed from the lawsuit. Meanwhile, attorneys for the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District argued the federal case should be put on hold until a separate case in Orange County circuit court is resolved — or, as an alternative, the federal case should be dismissed.
Disney filed the federal lawsuit in April, alleging constitutional violations related to a series of events that the entertainment giant says are rooted in retaliation by DeSantis and his political allies.
A key issue is a law passed this spring invalidating development-related agreements that Disney reached with the former Reedy Creek Improvement District board, which for decades had been controlled by Disney. The Legislature did away with the Reedy Creek board and gave DeSantis authority to appoint members of the successor Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board.
In the motion to dismiss Monday, lawyers for the state argued, in part, that Disney lacked legal standing to sue DeSantis and Ivey over the issues. DeSantis, Ivey and Central Florida Tourism Oversight District officials are the named defendants in the case.
"Although Disney has grabbed headlines by suing the governor, Disney — like many litigants before it who have challenged Florida's laws — has no basis for doing so," the motion said. "Neither the governor nor the secretary enforce any of the laws at issue, so Disney lacks standing to sue them."
The motion also took aim at what it described as a "sweetheart deal" that Disney enjoyed with the Reedy Creek district, which the state created in the 1960s.
"Local taxes? Disney set them," the motion said. "Building and safety codes? Disney set those, too. Caps on land development? Disney made the final call. Disney could exercise eminent domain, permitting it to annex territory even outside the District's borders, all without legislative approval. It could build and operate an airport, or even a nuclear power plant."
DeSantis and Disney began clashing last year after company officials opposed a new law that restricted instruction about sexual orientation and gender identity in schools.
The Republican-controlled Legislature and DeSantis passed a measure that would have dissolved the Reedy Creek district. But early this year, they stopped short of dissolution and decided to replace the Reedy Creek board.
Shortly before the switch to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, the outgoing Reedy Creek board and Disney reached development-related agreements. The new board sought to undo the agreements, and lawmakers later passed a measure (SB 1604) aimed at invalidating them.
In the federal lawsuit, Disney raises a series of arguments, including that the state violated the company's rights under what is known as the Contracts Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
"As alleged in this complaint, the contracts were abrogated as part of an explicit campaign of official government retaliation against Disney for expressing a viewpoint the governor and Legislature disagreed with," said an amended version of the lawsuit filed May 8.
The lawsuit added, "Neither CFTOD (the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District) nor the Legislature has identified any legitimate reason or need to treat the contracts differently from long-term development agreements entered into by developers in other special districts."
But the new district board countered in May by filing a lawsuit in Orange County circuit court seeking a ruling that the agreements reached by Disney and the former Reedy Creek board are "null and void."
In documents filed Monday, attorneys for the new district argued that U.S. District Judge Allen Winsor should put the federal case on hold until the issues are resolved in circuit court. A hearing in that case is scheduled July 14 in Orlando.
Jim Saunders reports for the News Service of Florida.
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2025 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 AllSpecial Counsel Jack Smith Prepares Final Report as Trump Opposes Its Release
4 minute readNorth Carolina Courts Switch to Digital, Face Extreme Weather in 2024
'Serious Disruptions'?: Federal Courts Brace for Government Shutdown Threat
3 minute readDivided State Court Reinstates Dispute Over Replacement Vehicles Fees
5 minute readTrending Stories
- 1Supreme Court Takes Up Challenge to ACA Task Force
- 2'Tragedy of Unspeakable Proportions:' Could Edison, DWP, Face Lawsuits Over LA Wildfires?
- 3Meta Pulls Plug on DEI Programs
- 4On the Move and After Hours: Meyner and Landis; Cooper Levenson; Ogletree Deakins; Saiber
- 5State Budget Proposal Includes More Money for Courts—for Now
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