Update for:
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

There is now an official Notice of Hearing, but no response yet, on #Disney's motion to dismiss the #CFTOD lawsuit seeking to void the #RCID contracts which the #Florida legislature already attempted to void in violation of the Contracts Clause of the US Constitution at the prompting of Governor #DeSantis.

Attorneys and parties are instructed to appear in person at the Orange County Courthouse,
Courtroom 19-B, 425 N. Orange Ave. Orlando, Florida, 32801 on Friday, July 14, 2023 at 2:00 P.M. EDT.

@volkris @Spicewalla @dangillmor

The significant pro-Trump event shown in the RCP graph is March 27-April 3 corresponding to the New York indictment while the Florida (Federal) indictment happened on June 8.

Also during the March 27-April 3 period was a flurry of press about Disney outwitting #DeSantis retaliation scheme replacing the #RCID with the #CFTOD.

Since Trump and DeSantis have always been the front-runners, one's loss is the other's gain so it is unclear from polling alone to what extent Trump is strengthening or DeSantis is weakening.

https://www.npr.org/2023/03/29/1166925827/disney-world-board-desantis-power-florida

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Prosecution_of_Donald_Trump_in_New_York

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67490070/united-states-v-trump/

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

Lawyers have to sit down and talk to each other by 2023/06/20
#DeSantis, #FLDEO, #CFTOD motion(s) to dismiss due 2023/06/26
Report on conference due 2023/06/27
#Disney response to motion to dismiss due 2023/07/26
Replies due 2023/08/09

————
Update for:
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

On Thursday, there was an ex parte hearing to address scheduling and to admit uncontested Pro Hac Vice admissions.

Not sure why it is labeled "ex parte" as lawyers for both CFTOD and Disney were there for the six-minute meeting.

We may have a 1-hour hearing on Disney's motion to dismiss on 2023/07/14

@slcw

The results are in:
https://mathstodon.xyz/@Arpie4Math/110474293571938709

• Judge Walker does not recuse as current-news-based hypotheticals are not indicative of bias or prejudgement, just indicative that Judge Walker is paying attention
AND
• Judge Walker "out of an abundance of caution" recuses, over 30 shares of stock belatedly discovered BY THE JUDGE to be owned by some not-very-close relation.

❝[The motion by #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD] is without merit. My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a fully informed, disinterested lay person.

❝Without exploring all the other defects in the motion, for the reasons noted above and as thoughtfully outlined in [#Disney]’s response, Defendants’ motion is wholly without merit. In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping. Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.

❝On Friday, May 26, 2023, I learned, and later confirmed, that a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Plaintiff’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/
On Thursday, Chief Judge Walker sided with #Disney 100% in calling the motion to dismiss as baseless and contrary to law. (Doc 45) Nevertheless, he recused himself over some cousin or grandchild having 30 shares of stock.

❝Defendants’ motion is without merit. My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a fully informed, disinterested lay person.

❝Without exploring all the other defects in the motion, for the reasons noted above and as thoughtfully outlined in Plaintiff’s response, Defendants’ motion is wholly without merit. In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping. Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.

❝On Friday, May 26, 2023, I learned, and later confirmed, that a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Plaintiff’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.

Judge Winsor (appointed in 2019) is up-to-bat.

Also, Thursday:
#DeSantis appoints Charbel Barakat to #CFTOD to fill the vacancy left by Michael Sasso.

————
Update for:
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

On Thursday, there was an ex parte hearing?? Is it about Pro Hac Vice admissions? Is it related to the pending motion to dismiss? No details yet.

@rrogers I think you mean "as a witness" as the defendants are #DeSantis and other #Florida officials in their official capacities. The lawsuit seeks to undo the voiding of the contracts laying out #Disney's further development plans and to void the replacement of the landowner-elected #RCID by the Governor-appointed #CFTOD.

There is, I believe, a steep divide between Disney front-of-house employees (Cast Members) and executive management, so I can't think of how a Cast Member portraying Mickey Mouse would be in any way helpful in addressing the merits of the claims for relief which are rooted in interpretation of the US Constitution.

The biggest potential sideshow which I think might be legally relevant is deposition testimony of how DeSantis apparently was once married at Disneyworld and has now gone to war with it. Is this the work of another Floridian Very Stable Genius™? Was there ever a plan?

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Thursday, #Disney argued against the motion by #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD that seeks to disqualify Chief Judge Walker from hearing the case over contracts executed by #RCID (Doc 43).

In the main, Disney argues that DeSantis and co. are making a mountain out of a molehill and that the law doesn't endorse such a “hair-trigger disqualification standard.”

Disney points to the cartoonish demonstration of bias in the cases cited by the Defendants and argues there is no parallel:

❝Defendants instead base their motion on two year-old hypothetical questions during prior judicial proceedings where the Court accurately referred to widely-publicized statements from Florida legislators about their intent to change the governing structure of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (“RCID”) specifically because Disney expressed a political viewpoint disfavored by the legislators. The Court did not make any findings about those statements, but simply invoked them during oral arguments as examples to test arguments being advanced by counsel addressing different issues under different factual records.

Also, “the Court recently ruled in favor of the relevant State defendants in the very cases cited by defendants here as evidence of potential bias against them. Far from proving bias, the cases confirm the Court’s impartiality. The motion to disqualify should be denied.”

Disney goes on to show more context for the innocuous use by Judge Walker of news reports about the DeSantis-Disney feud, because contextomy is the tool of the scoundrel.

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Monday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD waive service in a joint stipulation with #Disney that also moves the date to respond to the complaint to 2023/06/23. Had the court accepted the sworn affidavits of perfected service, I believe that the initial response was originally due on 2023/05/22 and then bumped to 2023/05/29 by the filing of the First Amended Complaint.

This avoids having a Federal court weigh in on the still-open issue of whether service was perfected according to Florida state law — an issue that Disney lawyers hinted might be raised in the state lawsuit by the CFTOD. As I understand it, CFTOD wanted to be served through its publically noticed process agent and Disney claims as of 2023/05/01 they had not named any such agent on their website.

————
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

@slcw

IANAL, but I see 5 ways this motion to disqualify could go:

• Judge Walker does not recuse as current-news-based hypotheticals are not indicative of bias or prejudgement, just indicative that Judge Walker is paying attention
• Judge Walker declares the motion untimely, as DeSantis has not denied that he is in a retaliatory war with Disney, a fact so obvious that DeSantis should stipulate it or face sanctions for prolonging the proceedings.
• Judge Walker finds technical fault with the transcript excerpts in that without more transcript how are we to know Judge Walker introduced discussion of Disney, as the Governors March 2022 anti-Disney campaign might have been a subject for rhetoric by either plaintiff in the cited cases. (I know I certainly wanted to read more)
• Judge Walker finds some other way to criticize the motion
• Judge Walker "out of an abundance of caution" recuses, basically caving to expected bullying from elements of the 11th Circuit despite a duty not to recuse for frivolous reasons

————
Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Friday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD file a motion (Doc 33) to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker from the lawsuit filed by #Disney in federal court.

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Friday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD file a motion (Doc 33) to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker from the lawsuit filed by #Disney in federal court.

The primary claim is that this judge has made comments on the record in other cases that indicate that he, like all thinking beings, has prejudged that DeSantis was acting in retaliation. And that he was thinking about Disney at the time.

Link v. Corcoran, 4:21-cv-00271, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60036482/link-v-corcoran/

The retaliatory conduct of DeSantis is all over the complaint (Doc 35). Thus it is entirely likely that by 2022/04/01 the judge would have taken judicial notice of the governor's public statements which included Disney.

https://twitter.com/SpencerRoachFL/status/1509119958369902595 was quoted in https://www.newsweek.com/disney-risk-losing-itsown-government-florida-1693955 and might have been the subject matter for the Judge's 2022/04/01 hypothetical: "What’s in the record, for example—is there anything in the record that says we are now going to take away Disney’s special status because they’re woke?"

But a judge's hypothetical about the evidence on a parallel topic is not evidence of prejudgment.

Another cites case is Falls v. Corcoran, 4:22-cv-00166, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63258031/falls-v-corcoran/
(DeSantis was part of the case until 2022/07/08)

Again, the judge asked a question on 2022/06/21: "Does it make any difference ... that funding has been cut ... the face mask?
...
And then Disney is going to lose its status because—arguably, because they made a statement that run afoul—ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party."

Joe Patrice of Above the Law, provides another read of the #Disney motion to dismiss in the state lawsuit filed by #DeSantis' hand-picked #CFTOD.

As a bonus, they provide the full #MTD

https://abovethelaw.com/2023/05/disney-ron-desantis-state-court-moot/

#Disney also takes time to point out some inconvenient facts about the timeline and diligence of the #CFTOD and their lawyers.

❝On May 9, CFTOD filed an amended complaint in this suit that only corrected its signature block. Despite Senate Bill 1604 being signed into law four days prior—the law giving CFTOD the precise relief it requests here—CFTOD added no mention of the law in its amended complaint. Disney was served in this action on May 12.

❝Disney perfected service against all defendants in the Federal Action on May 1—before even the issuance of summons in this action. Federal Action at ECF Nos. 13-20.⁶ CFTOD did not serve Disney in this action until May 12. Under Florida law, jurisdiction therefore attached first in Disney’s federal suit.
————
⁶ On May 15, after two weeks of silence, the CFTOD board member and administrator defendants, through counsel, suggested that it “appear[ed]” they had not yet been properly served with the original complaint. That suggestion is incorrect, and the priority rule applies. As of May 1, CFTOD did not have any registered agent, as identified on its website or on the appropriate Florida state website. As the sworn proofs of service indicate, service was thus perfected on each CFTOD defendant on May 1 through a CFTOD employee “authorized to accept service” and “the liaison to intercept legal documents for the board and director.” ...

Summary of "[#Disney]’s Motion to Dismiss [#CFTOD]’s Amended Complaint as Moot or, in the Alternative, to Stay this Action."

❝[#SB1604] renders Plaintiff’s complaint moot because it makes any order this Court could issue—in either party’s favor—legally irrelevant. If the Court rejects the board’s claims on their merits and agrees with Disney that the contracts complied with any procedural and substantive requirements of state law, the board would still be prohibited from complying with them under the new state statute. For the same reason, even if the Court found merit in the board’s objections to the contracts, any order to that effect would be pointless because the contracts would already be void under the new state statute. In short, any declaration about the contracts’ enforceability, voidness, or validity—either way—would be an advisory opinion with no real-world consequence. Trial courts in #Florida are forbidden from issuing advisory opinions, and this case should be dismissed.

❝In the alternative, Florida law requires that the Court stay this litigation until Disney’s federal action resolves. Disney’s earlier-filed and earlier-served federal action is pending between substantially the same parties, and it involves substantially overlapping issues. In these circumstances, controlling precedents provide that the Court lacks discretion to proceed with this case. Disney regrets that it is compelled to litigate these issues anywhere, but the federal action is the proper vehicle for first hearing the parties’ dispute.

2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

Tuesday, #Disney lawyers filed a 27-page motion to dismiss in the #CFTOD state lawsuit entitled: "Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s Amended Complaint
as Moot or, in the Alternative, to Stay this Action."

Moot? Moot? What possible action could have happened to #DeSantis' retaliation campaign that Disney lawyers would say the CFTOD complaint seeking to void the #RCID contracts was moot? Oh yeah. As documented in Disney's amended complaint in its federal lawsuit, the #Florida legislature passed a law that purported to void the same contracts that the CFTOD was suing over. Using some sort of, I don't know how you'ld describe it, concept of supremacy, the state law would render the actions of the new CFTOD without effect and there goes the basis for the lawsuit from DeSantis' hand-picked panel.

Gifted link to NY Times story: https://www.nytimes.com/2023/05/16/business/media/disney-world-ron-desantis-lawsuit.html?unlocked_article_code=u8Ju9DjsoOXlQe-Yurc7R34CaNGx0cBX2xnAm4oqxK--3VbMUd4wXGOn21dRhm_G6YS3LrpBwQmv3KPYekW0Y-7zbEF5tG03xkfPLBxoKgBlzxFru_RtyaZqrO5xvubFOzbkhTxA2uqrXQiKAvtrIR5hnktMgZQOZ5OKfkqu3BkVfH1K9nVB4-NrhwAqJxvGK_jBFd074VmBaByFUOurPwxFar4jK8xX_p146h0Q6dD5M_DatqrWy2X8tpfaWsPIljTtIWwxr1pdAmv0RKlNtUrVWmuqxLFDHY7Ts5vKzhNSGsdkZ077GFIUcejP9nJMLnnCGFxjo6tkfwCJNQtmDSGXID92yILhxlgKWWO-YsGU6g&smid=url-share

So regarding deadlines in #Disney v. #DeSantis (and #CFTOD) ...

Disney has perfected service upon defendants in the Federal case, Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc. v. DeSantis (4:23-cv-00163) District Court, N.D. Florida with a response required by 2023/05/22

In the state case of Central Florida Tourism Oversight District v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S. Inc., (2023-CA-011818-O, Ninth District, Orange County, Orlando) which was filed on 2023/05/01 the general practice is that Disney would have 20 (not 21) days to respond after being served. The clerk issued a summons on 2023/05/03 so even if the Leon County Sheriff served the summons on the same day, no response would be required until 2023/05/23.

The Florida Legislature has approved #SB1604 to purportedly retroactively cancel the #RCID contracts made before the CFTOD takeover. Unlike the rest of the bill, section 4 is supposed to take effect immediately after becoming law. This just indicates that they didn't bother to study any of the constitutional issues raised by Disney.

https://xkcd.com/1657/

@lloydian

The above-linked docket is a free copy of Federal court documents accessed originally for about $0.10 per page by various people and organizations.

The State case of #CFTOD v. #Disney was filed on 2023/05/01

I wrote a summary of their claims (+ my snark) here: https://mathstodon.xyz/@Arpie4Math/110297479754519089

2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks And Resorts US Inc

9th Circuit/Orange County Court Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

But the CAPTCHA makes it hard to link to and the 60 MB complaint is slow to download.

The form is a bit messy, but if you first prove your humanity and then paste 2023-CA-011818-O into the Case Number field, it works quickly.

Under conventional motions practice, no one likes to file before a deadline. Thus, knowing deadlines can help one guess the cadence of a lawsuit.

In the Federal case of #Disney v. #DeSantis (and #CFTOD), the defendants have been served and have until 2023/05/22 to respond to the complaint, typically by a motion to dismiss (claiming that the US Constitution doesn't apply to Florida??? claiming that even if Ron DeSantis admitted every part of the plan that doesn't suggest that his hand-picked CFTOD is culpable???) or a paragraph-by-paragraph answer (usual a sterile denial of every possible disputable fact in the complaint and whining that Disney's obvious conclusions about the law aren't appropriate topics to require them to agree or disagree with at this stage).

https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

The subsequently filed state case (2023-CA-011818-O, Ninth District, Orange County, Orlando) by the CFTOD against Disney on these same facts may soon be targeted for removal to Federal court as a proper countersuit.

There may be other motions filed, so both dockets should be watched often.