Disney Files Countersuit In State Court Against Ron DeSantis-Appointed Special District Board; Company Seeks Damages And Claims Retaliation | CPT PPP Coverage

Cryptopolytech (CPT) Public Press Pass (PPP)
News of the Day COVERAGE

200000048 – World Newser
•| #People |•| #World |•| #Online |•| #Media |•| #Outlet |

View more Headlines & Breaking News here, as covered by cryptopolytech.com

The Walt Disney Co. filed a counterclaim against the Ron DeSantis-appointed board of a special district that covers its Florida theme parks, seeking damages and the enforcement of a set of development contracts.

The company’s lawsuit, filed in Florida state court in Orange County, FL, was a response to litigation filed by the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board, which was appointed by DeSantis in late February after the state moved to strip Disney of its 55 years of control over the special district.

Read the Disney Reedy Creek counterclaim.

In the counterclaim, the company’s legal team, led by Dan Petrocelli, wrote that Disney is seeking unspecified damages and wants a court order that the board comply with a development contracts between the special district and Walt Disney World.

In February, the Disney-controlled board of the special district approved the development contracts, ensuring that the company’s Florida theme parks and resorts still maintained a degree of autonomy even after state law was changed later in the month. That bill allowed DeSantis to appoint his own members to the board of the district, which was renamed the Central Florida Tourism Oversight Board.

“As a direct and proximate result of the District’s anticipatory repudiations and, in the alternative, material failure to perform its duties under both contracts, Disney has suffered and will continue to suffer damages, including consequential damages,” Disney attorneys wrote.

In their own state court lawsuit, the DeSantis-controlled board claimed that the Disney-Reedy Creek contracts were a “backroom deal” intended to “tie the hands of the new, independent board.” DeSantis also led a state legislative effort to invalidate those contracts.

Disney, however, insisted that the development contracts were approved with proper public notice and other procedures followed, with members of the press present for the special district board meetings. The district’s previous name was the Reedy Creek Improvement District.

In April, Disney filed a federal lawsuit against DeSantis and the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District board, claiming that the governor violated its First Amendment and other constitutional rights. Disney accused the governor of retaliation after the company publicly opposed a parental rights bill, which detractors dub the “don’t say gay” law, last year.

In its state countersuit, Disney also raised similar claims, citing the free speech clause of the Florida constitution.

“The district’s retaliatory interference with the contracts, via the legislative declaration and its predicates, has chilled and continues to chill Disney’s protected speech,” Disney’s legal team wrote.

“This unconstitutional chilling effect is particularly offensive here due to the express retaliatory and punitive intent that has motivated the District’s and the State Legislature’s actions, at the Governor’s directive,” the company’s legal team added.

The judge in the case, Margaret H Schreiber, last month declined to toss out the DeSantis-appointed board’s lawsuit against Disney.

The board earlier this week filed a motion for summary judgment, again asserting that the development contracts were approved with a “host of procedural and substantive flaws.” Among other things, the special district board claimed that the contracts were an unlawful delegation of governmental authority to a private entity, claiming that the contracts “do not merely freeze in place existing land development regulations applicable to Disney’s property. Instead, they substitute Disney for the District as the final authority on all land use decisions for all landowners within the District (including the District itself)—for the next 30 years.”