Disney seeks dismissal of lawsuit filed by DeSantis appointees
ORLANDO, Fla. - Disney is asking a Florida judge on Friday to toss out a lawsuit against the company’s efforts to neutralize a takeover of Disney World’s governing district by Gov. Ron DeSantis and his appointees.
It’s a high-profile case with high-profile attorneys. Former Supreme Court Justice Alan Lawson is representing the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District, also known as the CFTOD, while Daniel Petrocelli, who worked a wrongful death case against OJ Simpson, is representing Disney.
The hearing held on Friday in state court in Orlando involves one of two cases between the Disney and DeSantis and his governing district appointees stemming from the takeover, which was retaliation for the company’s public opposition to the so-called Don’t Say Gay legislation championed by DeSantis and Republican state lawmakers.
Disney and DeSantis have been engaged in a yearlong feud that the governor has touted during his run for the 2024 GOP presidential nomination, often accusing the entertainment giant of being too "woke." Disney has accused the governor of violating its free speech rights.
Disney is arguing before Circuit Judge Margaret Schreiber that any decision in state court would be moot since the Republican-controlled Legislature already has passed a law voiding the agreements. If the judge decides not to dismiss the state case, the entertainment giant is asking that the state court case be put on hold until a federal lawsuit in Tallahassee is resolved since they cover the same ground and that lawsuit was filed first.
"The federal case involves the same parties in the same issues," Petrocelli said. However, Lawson argued that "There are no overlapping causes of action in the two cases."
MORE: DeSantis signs bill targeting Walt Disney World
In that case, Disney sued DeSantis and his appointees to the CFTOD in an effort to stop the takeover, claiming the governor was violating the company’s free speech and "weaponizing the power of government to punish private business."
The DeSantis appointees on the district’s board are asking that their case not be dismissed, telling the judge that it isn’t moot and putting it on hold would be improper.
"Disney’s motion is classic Imagineering, inviting the court to make believe that reality is whatever Disney dreams up," attorneys for the oversight district’s board said in a court filing.
The fight between DeSantis and Disney began last year after the company, facing significant pressure internally and externally, publicly opposed a state law banning classroom lessons on sexual orientation and gender identity in early grades, a policy critics call "Don’t Say Gay."
As punishment, DeSantis took over the district through legislation passed by Florida lawmakers and appointed a new board of supervisors to oversee municipal services for the sprawling theme parks and hotels. But before the new board came in, the company made agreements with previous oversight board members who were Disney supporters that stripped the new supervisors of their authority over design and construction.
In response, DeSantis and Florida lawmakers passed the legislation that repealed those agreements.
The second case is over land development agreements, something the old Reedy Creek District Board approved before the new DeSantis-appointed board was formed.
University of Central Florida political science professor Aubrey Jewett explained, "Disney and the old Reedy Creek passed and signed off on two agreements. One was a land development agreement and the other is a restricted covenant."
It gives Disney the power to control 25,000 acres of land in Orange and Osceola counties.
"The lawyers for the board say Disney did this in the dead of the night at the last minute, in secret,' Jewett said, "and Disney’s response is it wasn’t in secret. We had public notices."
The new board members said nothing was posted on the agenda, and they never received anything about this. They argued in court about the delivery of information.
"They don’t think that these agreements are legal and that the judge should dismiss them and say that they’re null and void," Jewett added.