so the disney suit is in federal court and alleges violation of constitutional rights DeS case is in state court and alleges failure to notify and other minor details it would seem to be common sense that the technical details of the state court could be judicated much more swiftly than the bigger freedom of speech issues if not for all of the evidence that DeS and his gang have provided. Will the state judge ask the fed judge to delay the fed case or vice versa? Does it matter which one gets resolved first since they cover different issues? Explainer: How Disney's and DeSantis' dueling lawsuits might play out | Reuters Disney's lawsuit was filed in federal court and alleges that DeSantis violated the company's protections under the U.S. Constitution, including its First Amendment right to free speech. It also alleges the new district board violated of the Due Process, Contracts and the Takings Clauses of the U.S. Constitution by declaring void the company's development agreements that were struck with the old board. Disney is asking the court to strike down laws that created the new board and that voided the agreements with Disney. In contrast, the state court lawsuit against Disney focuses on the procedures the old board followed in approving the agreements with Disney. It alleges those deals were approved at meetings that failed to follow state rules for things like giving the public advance notice. The Florida district is asking the state court to void the Disney agreements. .................... Both cases could proceed simultaneously. While the legal theories are different, both courts were asked to decide if the agreements between Disney and the prior board were valid, so it's conceivable that the judges could reach conflicting answers. In that scenario, it is likely that the side that prevails first would ask the other judge to respect that ruling. The prevailing party would likely cite the doctrine of res judicata, which says that a claim that reaches judgment in one court should not be relitigated in a second.
We talked about abstention - the legal term for the District acting the federal judge (Judge Walker), to stay the lawsuit, earlier in the thread. I don't see Judge Walker doing it, but presuming it is immediately appealable, I could see an Eleventh Circuit panel reversing and abstaining
I will say generally, without digging down, that the parts of the Reedy Creek powers that frustrated others are usually about Disney doing their own police and fire, etc., playing hardball on vendors and access, and only very occasionally about impact from development plans or maintenance within the District itself. In other words, a lot of regional actors have complained that the RCID gave Disney too much power, but not about the matters the DeSantis board is trying to control, like internal development agreements. I don't see how the issues raised in the state lawsuit could be a "black eye" on Disney even if the state wins. Nor do I foresee that RCID internal documents would have anything embarrassing such that the new Board could pull a Bolshevik Winter Palace move. There might be trade secrets that they could start publicizing which Disney would not like. One Disney power move that really irked local officials had to do with the high speed rail Miami/Orlando/Tampa connection. Disney said they would not permit any connection unless the only area stop around the theme parks were on their property and no other. That killed the extension from Orlando through the parks to Tampa, assuming any part of it ever happens. I think I am remembering correctly. That is one example where others might cheer on some limiting of Disney's power. But otherwise, the stuff the DeSantis board wants to reign in (content/wokeness/black mermaids) is not something anyone but their base cares about re: Disney.
I don't think non-abstention could be appealed up-front. They would need to wait for a final judgment and then appeal from that.
I'm not sure why. It's pretty clearly interlocutory as denial of abstention doesn't work as a final determination of any party's rights. It just means the case will proceed. The party seeking abstention would then have the ability to argue their case for that on appeal, consistent with the ordinary process.
Just did a quick non-exhaustive search. You appear to be correct - not immediately appealable. Think that helps Disney here on balance
I've already spent more time on this thread than I intended to but I got sucked in. I learned long time ago to not make absolute statements about leaving a thread but I don't really think I have a whole lot more to add to this thread after this. Keep in mind that this is my non-lawyer summary of what a lawyer is saying. I've already told you who my source for these things is. He may or may not be correct about this. My understanding is that there are around 1 billion dollars in municipal bonds. From what I've gathered, municipal bonds are very heavily regulated both by the state and the Federal government and they can only be used for public purposes. If Disney/RCID have been using those bonds for non-public uses then, I would infer, that there is a significant criminal and financial risk for both Disney and the former RCID governing board. Granted, that's probably more than merely a black eye.
Is the definition of a public use clearly spelled out? Was it when the bonds in question were reviewed and approved by the board? Is increasing demand which generates more visitors a public benefit?
The federal case could moot the state case. The state case cannot moot the federal case. And the state judge has no business asking the federal courts to delay the case. I doubt it would happen, and if it did, I am confident Judge Walker would ignore it. As PerSe said, it's not immediately appeallable, and they'd have to invent a new abstention doctrine to cover it. Because based on my understanding of the existing ones, none would reach this new situation. The Eleventh Circuit is a pain in the ass, but they're not Fifth Circus or Aileen Cannon crazy. (Although, Bill Pryor and Barbara Lagoa sometimes come close.)
I missed your earlier post about your source and bonds. Not my area. But I have a hard time believing that the legal definition of "public purpose" applicable here is not met. That would be initial inclination if we were at Day 0 of the "takeover". But we are at least a month out now (without looking up), and they hired 3 law firms to find matters to attack legally. They haven't made that claim yet, so I am presuming that is not an available avenue. They have made a vague claim (in the lawsuit) about the creation of RCID per se being an unconstitutional delegation of public power to a private entity under the Florida Constitution. Sounds like a thing, but there are so many delegations of public power (always have been, but Jeb really accelerated), like a lot of the state prison system, wastewater treatment, etc. that whatever that provision originally meant, it doesn't mean much now. Ave Maria, etc.
I'm sure you are correct. Remember, I am totally cynical. And I certainly agree about Lagoa and Pryor. And I was addressing a motion by the state, not a judge to judge request. But I stand by my earlier cynical observation that the "outcome" of this litigation will largely turn on the perception of DeSantis' current and future power.
The source is the aforementioned youtube channel in my first post on this thread. As noted, I'm simply relaying what he said. He may or may not be correct. Disney may or may not be able to defend their use of those bonds and, even it is true, it's doesn't necessarily have any bearing on the free speech aspects of the case. That's why I couched the question as a possibility. My personal opinion here, is that free speech is a secondary issue for Disney. It's just convenient legal vehicle for them to get their old deal reinstated. There's nothing inherently wrong with that, imo, but it also raises the possibility that they win their free speech claims but still don't get their old deal reinstated. I'm not a lawyer but, to me, the question of whether or not Desantis violated their free speech rights and the question of whether they should get their old special district back are separate issues and they're separate issues even if Desantis violated their rights. That's just my personal non-lawyer opinion. The lawyers here and the courts may very well disagree with me.
The original plan was to have a station at Disney Springs, but Disney did not say no to it. Brightline actually chose to go with the new Sunshine Corridor that was proposed with SunRail that would be cheaper and quicker to build. That corridor goes to downtown Orlando and not south to Disney. The new corridor was also lobbied by Universal to have SunRail/Brightline use the Orange County Convention Center as that main stop. Universal donated land and apparently $125M to get it because they want to use it to get people to their theme parks, especially their new Epic Universe park opening in a couple years. You know what makes the Universal proposal funny now? They have submitted to the state to create their own special district to design and govern the new rail station. Brightline has said it will still build a stop near Disney Springs right off of Disney property, but it'll be up to guests to make their own transportation plans to Disney resorts and parks because Disney transportation doesn't go off property. Who knows if Disney will in the future support it. Universal Orlando Plans Regional Rail Station for Epic Universe
Interesting. Thanks. Should have looked it up. Was what I described roughly correct at an earlier time in the process? Because I thought it was reliable
This is linked to in the piece, which sounds like what I thought was the case The proposed Brightline expansion from the Orlando International Airport to the Tampa area was supposed to stop at a station in Disney Springs. Brightline's own website detailing the expansion plan even includes the Disney Springs stop. (Well, it did, as of the publication of this post.) But now that plans are in the works for a station near International Drive, Disney is pulling out, according to the Orlando Business Journal. “As many people who are involved in this project are aware, the new route configuration does not support a Disney Springs station and as a result, we don’t anticipate being part of this project," a Disney spokesperson told the Orlando Business Journal's Richard Bilbao. Report: Disney World Drops Out of Florida Rail Plan
