Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

Lawyers have to sit down and talk to each other by 2023/06/20
#DeSantis, #FLDEO, #CFTOD motion(s) to dismiss due 2023/06/26
Report on conference due 2023/06/27
#Disney response to motion to dismiss due 2023/07/26
Replies due 2023/08/09

————
Update for:
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

On Thursday, there was an ex parte hearing to address scheduling and to admit uncontested Pro Hac Vice admissions.

Not sure why it is labeled "ex parte" as lawyers for both CFTOD and Disney were there for the six-minute meeting.

We may have a 1-hour hearing on Disney's motion to dismiss on 2023/07/14

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/
On Thursday, Chief Judge Walker sided with #Disney 100% in calling the motion to disqualify as baseless and contrary to law. (Doc 45) Nevertheless, he DQed himself over some cousin or grandchild having 30 shares of stock.

❝Defendants’ motion is without merit. My use of hypothetical questions referencing facts related to this case, in an earlier case also dealing with the motivations of political actors (including some of the same actors here), cannot raise a substantial doubt about my impartiality in the mind of a fully informed, disinterested lay person.

❝Without exploring all the other defects in the motion, for the reasons noted above and as thoughtfully outlined in Plaintiff’s response, Defendants’ motion is wholly without merit. In fact, I find the motion is nothing more than rank judge-shopping. Sadly, this practice has become all too common in this district.

❝On Friday, May 26, 2023, I learned, and later confirmed, that a relative within the third degree of relationship owns thirty shares of stock in Plaintiff’s parent corporation, The Walt Disney Company.

Judge Winsor (appointed in 2019) is up-to-bat.

Also, Thursday:
#DeSantis appoints Charbel Barakat to #CFTOD to fill the vacancy left by Michael Sasso.

————
Update for:
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

On Thursday, there was an ex parte hearing?? Is it about Pro Hac Vice admissions? Is it related to the pending motion to dismiss? No details yet.

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Thursday, #Disney argued against the motion by #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD that seeks to disqualify Chief Judge Walker from hearing the case over contracts executed by #RCID (Doc 43).

In the main, Disney argues that DeSantis and co. are making a mountain out of a molehill and that the law doesn't endorse such a “hair-trigger disqualification standard.”

Disney points to the cartoonish demonstration of bias in the cases cited by the Defendants and argues there is no parallel:

❝Defendants instead base their motion on two year-old hypothetical questions during prior judicial proceedings where the Court accurately referred to widely-publicized statements from Florida legislators about their intent to change the governing structure of the Reedy Creek Improvement District (“RCID”) specifically because Disney expressed a political viewpoint disfavored by the legislators. The Court did not make any findings about those statements, but simply invoked them during oral arguments as examples to test arguments being advanced by counsel addressing different issues under different factual records.

Also, “the Court recently ruled in favor of the relevant State defendants in the very cases cited by defendants here as evidence of potential bias against them. Far from proving bias, the cases confirm the Court’s impartiality. The motion to disqualify should be denied.”

Disney goes on to show more context for the innocuous use by Judge Walker of news reports about the DeSantis-Disney feud, because contextomy is the tool of the scoundrel.

Update in Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Monday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD waive service in a joint stipulation with #Disney that also moves the date to respond to the complaint to 2023/06/23. Had the court accepted the sworn affidavits of perfected service, I believe that the initial response was originally due on 2023/05/22 and then bumped to 2023/05/29 by the filing of the First Amended Complaint.

This avoids having a Federal court weigh in on the still-open issue of whether service was perfected according to Florida state law — an issue that Disney lawyers hinted might be raised in the state lawsuit by the CFTOD. As I understand it, CFTOD wanted to be served through its publically noticed process agent and Disney claims as of 2023/05/01 they had not named any such agent on their website.

————
2023-CA-011818-O : Central Florida Tourism Oversight District vs. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc, (9th Circuit/Orange County) Records can be accessed at:
https://myeclerk.myorangeclerk.com/Cases/Search?caseType=CV&caseTypeDesc=Civil%20Case%20Records

Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. v. DeSantis, 4:23-cv-00163, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/67271062/walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-v-desantis/

On Friday, #DeSantis, #FLDEO, and #CFTOD file a motion (Doc 33) to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker from the lawsuit filed by #Disney in federal court.

The primary claim is that this judge has made comments on the record in other cases that indicate that he, like all thinking beings, has prejudged that DeSantis was acting in retaliation. And that he was thinking about Disney at the time.

Link v. Corcoran, 4:21-cv-00271, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here:
https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/60036482/link-v-corcoran/

The retaliatory conduct of DeSantis is all over the complaint (Doc 35). Thus it is entirely likely that by 2022/04/01 the judge would have taken judicial notice of the governor's public statements which included Disney.

https://twitter.com/SpencerRoachFL/status/1509119958369902595 was quoted in https://www.newsweek.com/disney-risk-losing-itsown-government-florida-1693955 and might have been the subject matter for the Judge's 2022/04/01 hypothetical: "What’s in the record, for example—is there anything in the record that says we are now going to take away Disney’s special status because they’re woke?"

But a judge's hypothetical about the evidence on a parallel topic is not evidence of prejudgment.

Another cites case is Falls v. Corcoran, 4:22-cv-00166, (N.D. Fla.)
Free copy of docket here: https://www.courtlistener.com/docket/63258031/falls-v-corcoran/
(DeSantis was part of the case until 2022/07/08)

Again, the judge asked a question on 2022/06/21: "Does it make any difference ... that funding has been cut ... the face mask?
...
And then Disney is going to lose its status because—arguably, because they made a statement that run afoul—ran afoul of state policy of the controlling party."