ORLANDO, Fla. (CN) — A Florida judge on Friday rejected The Walt Disney Company's to dismiss a lawsuit filed by a state-backed oversight board seeking to invalidate agreements that gave Disney control of the special district where its theme park is located.
The validity of the agreements “is clearly a question of great public importance,” Orange County Circuit Court Judge Margaret Schreiber wrote in her 14-page order.
“They contradict the legislature’s policies toward the district and, if valid, would permit Disney to control all development rights and land use regulations in one of the most heavily visited areas in Central Florida,” Schreiber wrote. “These issues implicate matters of the state’s sovereignty and are of great interest to its economy and citizenry.”
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District filed the lawsuit in May claiming a developmental agreement passed by the Reedy Creek Development District did not follow proper public notice procedures. Later that month, the Florida Legislature passed SB 1604, a land-use regulation bill that included an amendment that specifically targets the agreement made between Disney and the outgoing board.
In a hearing earlier this month, Disney’s attorneys claimed the new state law voids any previous agreements and, thus moots the case.
But the oversight district argued the law only refers to development agreements made after the statute passed, so a judge still must determine if the earlier agreements have validity.
Schreiber sided with the district.
“The issue of whether the agreements are void ab initio will not be resolved until a court of competent jurisdiction decides the issue in favor of one party or the other,” she wrote. “That issue is alive and active and has real-world consequences for both parties.”
The row between DeSantis and the corporate giant began with Disney’s opposition to the state’s Parental Rights in Education law, known more commonly as the “Don’t Say Gay” law, which bans the teaching of sexual orientation and gender identity topics from kindergarten through third grade.
Disney heavily criticized the bill, which DeSantis signed into law in March 2022, and vowed to end any political contributions to state lawmakers.
The governor responded immediately, attacking Disney as a “woke corporation” and directing the GOP-controlled Florida Legislature to remove Disney’s self-governing status that was in place for more than 50 years.
In February, DeSantis and the Florida legislature renamed the district as the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District and the governor handpicked a new board of supervisors.
But before the previous board members left, they passed an agreement with Disney that allowed the company to control the district, effectively neutering the governor’s new board.
Clearly incensed, DeSantis announced a series of proposals to wrest control of the district from Disney, including placing tolls on roads within the district in addition to new taxes and state inspections of the theme park’s monorail. At one point, noting that the state has several miles of undeveloped land adjacent to the theme park, the governor bounced around the idea of building a prison abutting the district.
Disney responded in turn with a federal lawsuit accusing DeSantis and the board members of a “targeted campaign of government retaliation — orchestrated at every step by Governor DeSantis as punishment for Disney’s protected speech.”
Days later, the oversight district filed the circuit civil lawsuit.
In addition to arguing SB 1604 made the civil complaint moot, Disney contends its federal lawsuit precedes the state-level litigation and asked the judge to at least stay the proceedings.
In her order, Schreiber disagreed.
“If this court determines that the agreements are void, that ruling will have ‘actual effects’ and ‘collateral legal consequences’ in the federal proceeding where Disney’s claims presume the existence of valid agreements,” she wrote. “Currently, four of Disney’s five federal counts contend the agreements are valid. That substantial potential impact keeps this case very much alive, regardless of SB 1604.”
Disney now has 20 days to respond to the oversight board’s complaint.
Follow @alexbpickett
Subscribe to Closing Arguments
Sign up for new weekly newsletter Closing Arguments to get the latest about ongoing trials, major litigation and hot cases and rulings in courthouses around the U.S. and the world.
Additional Reads
-
-
FOIA for Obamacare repeal May 17, 2024