The Ron-DeSantis Special District, which now oversees Walt Disney World, has asked a judge to dismiss the company’s counterclaims in ongoing state litigation as the company seeks to close a series of development agreements on its Florida to enforce properties.
The Central Florida Tourism Oversight District’s legal team wrote in a filing in state court in Orange County, Florida, that the agreements are “void under state law.” Read the special district filing. Before DeSantis appointees took control of the special district, the board approved agreements with Disney that gave the company continued autonomy over the design and development of its properties.
The filing is the latest development in the legal battle between Disney and DeSantis and his appointees.
In April, Disney filed a federal lawsuit alleging that DeSantis violated First Amendment rights when he tried to disrupt the company’s control of the special district that oversees its theme parks and resorts. Disney claims DeSantis acted in retaliation for the company’s stance against a parental rights law known as the “Don’t Say Gay” law. In late February, DeSantis signed legislation giving him the authority to appoint members to the Reedy Creek Improvement District, which has been renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District.
After the federal lawsuit was filed, the new county executive sued Disney in state court, seeking to invalidate the development agreements.
In its filings in state court, the DeSantis-appointed Central Florida Tourism Oversight District Committee alleged that an improper announcement was made before public meetings in January and February when the district gave the green light to Reedy Creek development agreements with Disney. DeSantis officials later claimed the company was trying to score quick wins by seeking approval for the development agreements, even though it knew it was about to lose control of the special district.
The Central Florida District Court Department also claimed that there was “no legally sufficient consideration” to support the development agreements. In their filing, they wrote: “First, a development agreement for Walt Disney World is highly unusual as development activities have been taking place in the area for over 55 years without any development agreement whatsoever.”
“While Disney continues to plan to further develop Walt Disney World, it is making no commitment to develop in exchange for the expanded authority and obligations it has received from the District,” they wrote. “Instead, in exchange for the expanded powers and promises granted to Disney by the development agreement, Disney promised not to charge more than fair market value for any Disney-owned land that the district may need for the construction of the public facilities that Disney will need. .” “could possibly.” build. Require the district to build in accordance with the development agreement.”
In August, Disney filed its counterclaim in the District of Central Florida’s lawsuit, asking the judge to declare the development agreements valid. The company’s legal department maintained that the development agreements were approved with sufficient public notice and that other procedures were followed and that members of the press were present at the special meetings of the district council.
The company also alleged that the Central Florida District violated the Free Speech Clause of the Florida Constitution.
“The [DeSantis-appointed] “The District’s retaliatory interference with its contracts through the Statutory Declaration and its predicates has weakened and continues to weaken Disney’s protected speech,” the company’s legal department wrote.
Source: Deadline
Mary Crossley is an author at “The Fashion Vibes”. She is a seasoned journalist who is dedicated to delivering the latest news to her readers. With a keen sense of what’s important, Mary covers a wide range of topics, from politics to lifestyle and everything in between.
