Disney Sues Desantis

Generally speaking, great attorneys are out litigating cases (or doing whatever work they do, whether that's transactional, regulatory, etc.). They aren't making YouTube videos. So I'm usually distrustful of legal analysts on YouTube.

They are capable of explaining general legal concepts in a way people can understand. That can be useful. And I tip my cap to those who use their channels for that purpose. But when it comes to judging the merits of a complex lawsuit, I would be very skeptical.

That said, I took a look (out of fairness), watched the video of him explaining the federal claims, and the guy doesn't know his shit. I'd consider his sort of content to be entertainment along the lines of punditry on Fox News or MSNBC, not serious legal analysis.

While I am not an expert on the Contracts Clause, I am an expert on First Amendment law. And very little of what he said about the First Amendment causes of action was relevant, much less insightful. He didn't discuss the operative law and frankly seemed completely unknowledgeable about the inquiry in general.

 

Have you seen anyone examining the land use issues and the lawsuit the board initiated in state court?

 

My understanding is that he while he's never handled anything for Disney he has done a fair number of special district contracts(not sure if that's the exactly you would call it) in the state of Florida which is why I suggested him. I appreciate your response and insight. I think @GatorJMDZ, you and I agree that he's definitely not the most interesting lawyer on youtube.

 

He claims that and to be a top expert in the area, but check his YouTube history. He started off posting videos two years about avoiding DUIs, police encounters and analyzing celebrity news. The latest area of his claimed expertise is very technical. You are generally not going to find attorneys specializing in that area in DUI court. He is a self-proclaimed expert in the legal issue du jour.

 

I wasn't totally sold on him even before yours and gator_lawyer's comments and I'm still keeping an open mind but just to play devil's advocate...

If you're starting a youtube channel, discussing DUIs and celebrity news is probably going to attract more views than discussing a very obscure, and technical branch, of contract law(I assume it's contract law). I don't know how technical DUIs are but I would infer from your post that the answser is, "Not very" which would mean, to me, that most lawyers could do a passible job discussing them even if they've never been to court. I would assume that celebrity news probably varies case to case.

 

I saw an article a few days ago that discussed the former issue. But I don't practice land use law, so I don't know if the guy is full of it or not:
Disney v. Ron DeSantis: The Florida Lawsuit Explained – IndieWire

That might explain why he was focused on the wrong issues. If his practice was in advising the government on how to set up special districts, he's likely not somebody who was litigating complex constitutional claims, which is what this lawsuit is really about.

 

Thanks. Some of that was new in terms of describing the powers but I would love to read something on the claim that other non contiguous owners were entitled to mailed notice, sufficiency of agenda description, public policy on private delegation, calling this agreement a de facto second reading of a 2018 amendment that triggered certain other requirements for a second reading that were not met (assuming the characterization of de facto second reading is correct).

Also they talk about the fact that the Fed lawsuit would moot the state lawsuit. But I bet the state seeks some form of Younger abstention till the state court action is decided. Probably doesn’t apply, but might be immediately appealable (haven’t checked) and that is the kind of legally arcane, stealth outcome determinative but not to layman approach a hackish panel of the Eleventh might jump on.

Just some thoughts.

 

Having dealt with Younger, I don't think they'll win on that for a few reasons. The most salient is the fact that Disney filed suit first, so there was no pending state proceeding. It's also worth noting that the federal courts (including the Eleventh Circuit) disfavor abstention.

 

I tend to be more cynical. They may not meet the elements and they may disfavor abstention in other circumstances, but the right panel rehearsing to replace Thomas might show the same “flexibility “ to reach the desired outcome, accompanied by some barely disguised rhetoric about reminiscing about when Disney was a simple “family “ entertainment company rather than some gigantic experimental type, something like that.

 

DUI law is technical if you know what you are doing. No, Joe Lawyer off the street would not understand the nuances of the law, just be able to deal with it in broad strokes and the things they would not be familiar with are quite significant. I periodically go to all day seminars just for updates in DUI law and I have prosecuted and defended DUIs for decades. There is also a scientific aspect to it, absorption and elimination rates, retrograde extrapolation, etc.

The point I was trying to make before is you don't see lawyers in his claimed area of expertise in criminal court. The guy is a clown, holds himself out as a "renegade" lawyer and has just jumped on this Disney stuff because it's the latest hot topic. Disney has access to MUCH better lawyers than this guy. You, of course, are welcome to watch all of his videos and espouse his positions if you like. Most lawyers would not.

 

Of course he wanted “clicks”, that’s likely how he makes money… rather than actually practicing law.

It’s kind of like those who pitch medical advice on YouTube. They also get paid by clicks and selling ads (or direct marking “supplements” or other products). You have to ask yourself, would a real practicing medical doctor be on YouTube selling supplements on the side? Almost certainly not. Assuming any of those YouTube “experts” even have an JD or MD at all, the fact they have “channels” on YouTube likely means they are not actively practicing in their field or have found they can make more $$$ doing this than actually practicing. Unfortunately as we saw with COVID, a lot of these personalities are peddling bad info for $$$. A guy peddling legal analysis isn’t doing damage like a supposed medical doctor going the “quack” route, but also needs to be taken with a grain of salt as to the depth of their expertise.

I find this “YouTube as source of information” phenomenon pretty bizarre. I thought most people were tired of TV talking heads. So why are we seeking out… internet talking heads? I don’t get it.

 

Thank you for the correction on DUI. As I said before, I didn't know I was simply inferring and I inferred wrong.

I was not arguing for or against his competence. The point I was making is that even if he's the world's foremost expert in special district law(I'm not saying he is) very few people would've watched a "special district law" youtube video before this lawsuit so the fact that none of his previous videos mention it doesn't actually tell us a whole lot. There's other reason's to be skeptical of his take, on this issue, but I don't find that line of reasoning to be terribly persuasive.

 

To be clear, Disney's federal lawsuit is not truly a case about special district law. That's an ancillary issue. It's a civil liberties case. The state lawsuit is more about special district law.

 

This is a question not an argument.

As I understand it, Florida/Desantis replaced an old special district with a new special district who's governing board was appointed directly by the state. The outgoing board of the old special district made covenants with Disney. The governing board of the new district nullified the those covenants. Disney is filing suit to re-instate those covenants on the grounds that they were nullified as punishment for protected political speech made by Disney. Is that correct?

 

No, it's broader than that. Disney is suing to both invalidate the setting aside of their contracts and reverse the bills that dissolved Randy Creek and put the DeSantis Crony Board in place. They're arguing that Governor and Legislature enacted those bills to retaliate against Disney for exercising its First Amendment rights (when it criticized Don't Say Gay).

 

Plus, I’m not sure if Disney is trying to re-instate those covenants. It’s unclear whether they will be enforced until someone tries to violate them with a transaction

 

https://www.cnbc.com/2023/05/08/disney-lawsuit-against-desantis-expanded.html

seems Disney is done talking, they are just going to win in court and call it a day.

 

First off, I appreciate you and @GatorJMDZ 's insight on this issue. I have another question.

If Disney is seeking restoration of the old special district, then would that make special districts more than an ancillary issue? Is it possible that in the course of these precedings things come to light that look bad for Disney and, possibly, are illegal? Such that they win their case against Desantis but take bunch of black eyes in the process and ultimately don't get their old special district back?

 

It is possible.

 

For someone spending so much time in fantasyland imagining himself as an omnipotent king, this DeSantis feud with Disney is a real head scratcher.