The Ron DeSantis vs. Disney Reedy Creek Improvement District (“RCID”) battle continues — this time with some key documents that’ll help shape the case going forward.

The District has already been changed dramatically, a new name has been given to it (Central Florida Tourism Oversight District), and a new board is in place that’s already making some big changes. But the fight is far from over. Disney has filed a federal lawsuit against Florida Governor DeSantis and the new board of the District (among others), and now some key documents have been filed in that case.

DeSantis and the Secretary of the Department of Economic Opportunity, and members of the Board of Supervisors of the District have filed their own motions to dismiss the case — essentially telling the court that part or all of Disney’s arguments should be thrown out of court. Let’s break down what they’re arguing.

DeSantis’ Motion to Dismiss

First, we’ll tackle the motion to dismiss filed by the legal team for the state defendants involved in the lawsuit, which includes Governor DeSantis.

In this motion, they argue some general things about the situation, namely:

• The District “gave Disney carte blanche to govern itself.”
• Disney “had an electoral monopoly for every board seat”
• “In the waning days of its corporate kingdom, Disney rushed through a series of collusive agreements between itself and its puppet RCID board.”
• “RCID executed two contracts with Disney—a set of restrictive covenants and a development agreement…Both contracts purport to assign Disney substantial governmental authority.”

They also claim:

• The NEW Board of the District “determined and declared that both the contracts and the comprehensive plan were…void under Florida law.” The motion refers to this as the “CFTOD Declaration.”
• “The Legislature also enacted SB 1604,” which essentially stops the District from complying with the Development Agreement at issue.
• Disney’s “last-ditch power grab” was foiled under state law.

Then, the State Defendants claim that the court lacks jurisdiction over 2 parties Disney has sued in this federal case — specifically, the Governor and Secretary of the Florida Department of Economic Opportunity. Why? The motion claims, “Neither the Governor nor the Secretary enforce any of the laws at issue, so Disney lacks standing to sue them.”

In the motion, they argue that “neither the Secretary nor the Governor enforces SB 1604 or the CFTOD Declaration.” Instead, they claim that the Secretary only maintains the official list of special districts but that has nothing to do with the alleged contracts.

Further, they claim that nothing in the CFTOD Declaration that declared the contracts invalid endows Governor DeSantis with any power. What about Senate Bill 1604? Well, the Governor argues that it prevents the District from complying with the contracts Disney signed with the old Board but “mentions nothing of the Governor.” According to their claims, the Governor really has nothing to do with it. Instead, “the Board is ‘independent[ly] oblig[ed] to follow’ the Legislature’s command.”

They also argue that it shouldn’t matter that DeSantis can “suspend board members for failing to follow state law” or that DeSantis appoints the members of the Board. The lawsuit makes similar claims with regard to other bills at issue.

They argue that 2 types of immunity would apply too. First, they claim that the Governor and Secretary have sovereign immunity. They claim this through the 11th Amendment which allegedly “bars federal-court litigation against the State unless the immunity is waived or validly abrogated by Congress.” In their view, “neither the Governor nor the Secretary enforces SB 1604, the CFTOD Declaration, SB 4C, or HB 9B. Those acts are enforced, at most, by the Board, either as a party to alleged contracts or as the entity animated by the tandem of SB 4C and HB 9B.”

And even though the Governor signed the laws at issue, signing is not the same as “enforcing” a law, according to their arguments.

They also argue that “The Governor also is entitled to legislative immunity.” They claim that Disney’s argument centers around the Governor passing bills to punish Disney for its speech. But, they argue that because “those acts are ‘legislative'” the Governor has immunity.

According to the motion, “state officials are absolutely immune from suit for actions taken ‘in the sphere of legitimate legislative activity.'” And whether the act is “legislative” turns on the “nature of the act, rather than on the motive or intent of the official performing it.”

They argue that these acts at issue are “exactly the kind of legislative decisions that legislative immunity protects. That is no less true even if the bills targeted” the Reedy Creek District and its contracts with the old Board.

District Board’s Motion to Dismiss

Next up, we have the motion from the members of the new Board of Supervisors for the District. In their memorandum supporting the motion, they claim a few general things at the start, namely:

• “This case is a frontal assault on this bedrock principle of our constitutional order.”
• “Disney has gone to great lengths in its attempt to thwart the will of the people of Florida.”

Then, they say that the Court should stay this case pending the outcome of the state court lawsuit pending that was filed by the District against Disney. Why? Well, according to the new board, “nearly all of Disney’s claims are predicated on ” the argument that “the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are valid contracts under Florida law.” Since that is (according to them) also a critical issue in the state court case, they think the federal court should wait to see what the state court has to say.

In the alternative, they argue that the case should be dismissed and the Court should require Disney to bring the claims in a circuit court for Orange County, Florida. This is because Disney apparently included a clause in its Restrictive Covenants agreement where they agreed to bring any suit in any way “arising out of or pertaining to this declaration” in the circuit court for Orange County, Florida. Thus, they claim the case should be brought there instead of Federal Court.

They argue that this should be the case even though that clause is only in the Restrictive Covenants (not Development Agreement), and even though the Defendants claim that the underlying contracts are unlawful as a whole.

Finally, they argue that Disney’s claims fail because the agreements they entered into with the old board are void as a matter of law.

They raise a number of additional issues with Disney’s arguments including that there was an “important public purpose” behind some of the actions Disney is challenging. For example, they say that the Florida Legislature passed one of the laws at issue to “ensure public control over the District,” while Disney’s agreements with the old Board “attempt to subvert that intent.”

They also claim that even if the Development Agreement is valid, it is subject to state laws that are passed after it, so basically, it is subject to the possibility that a later state law could stop the Board from complying with it.

They also say that if the Development Agreement and Restrictive Covenants are valid, the District hasn’t done anything to “take” them or change Florida law. In their view, the Declaration the Board signed (which declared Disney’s agreements to be void) is — at most — a breach of Disney’s contracts, not a taking of them. So, they argue, Disney can’t bring a claim arguing that the actions violated the Constitution, but instead can only get compensation through a claim for breach of contract.

Additionally, the Board claims that Disney’s First Amendment claims focus on the “illicit motive” behind several bills from the Florida Legislature and the declaration from the new Board, as opposed to something on the face of those items themselves. They claim that this fact (coupled with the related case law) “dooms Disney’s First Amendment retaliation claims.”

According to their motion, one of the principles of constitutional law is that “courts cannot ‘strike down an otherwise constitutional statute on the basis of an alleged illicit legislative motive.” Basically, even if the alleged motive is bad, if the law is otherwise constitutional then Disney might not have a valid claim.

Well, that’s a LOT to take in. A motion to dismiss is an expected step in a lawsuit, so the filing of these documents is not at all surprising. But what happens next? According to a prior Court Order, Disney now has until July 26th, 2023 to respond to these motions to dismiss. After that, the Defendants will have until August 9th, 2023 to file any replies. Then, things will REALLY get moving as the Court will have to make a decision on these key matters.

Will Disney be forced to refile the case in a different court? Will some of Disney’s claims be shut down based on the arguments of these defendants? Will the federal case be stalled while the state case is pending? Or will things move forward with Disney being allowed to argue most (or all) of the claims they have brought? Only time will tell.

We will continue to watch for updates and let you know what we find.