Judge Mark E. Walker has provided an update to the process of the lawsuit that Disney has against Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and other Florida leaders. This comes after both sides proposed a briefing schedule that they agreed on. However, this schedule will not be approved until another motion that was filed by DeSantis’ lawyers is determined. This motion was for the disqualification of Judge Walker from the case.
Walker gave the following notice in a filing on Tuesday:
This Notice acknowledges receipt of the parties’ “Joint Stipulation Regarding Briefing Schedule and Service of Process,” ECF No. 34, in which Defendants request (and Plaintiffs do not oppose) a proposed briefing schedule for forthcoming motions to dismiss. This Court will take no action, scheduling or otherwise, in this case until it rules on the pending motion for disqualification.
SO ORDERED on May 23, 2023
s/Mark E. Walker
Chief United States District Judge
The briefing schedule that both sides agreed to is as follows:
- Defendants’ Motions to Dismiss: Due 6/26/23
- Plaintiff’s Responses: Due 7/26/23
- Defendants’ Replies: Due 8/9/23
The Desantis lawyers had motioned to disqualify Judge Walker arguing that his impartiality could reasonably be questioned. Here is the motion to disqualify Judge Walker:
DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISQUALIFY CHIEF JUDGE MARK E. WALKER
Defendants move to disqualify Chief Judge Mark E. Walker (the Court) under 28 U.S.C. § 455(a) because the Court’s impartiality in this matter might reasonably be questioned. This case involves claims that Defendants retaliated against Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. based on Disney’s viewpoints. Yet two previous times, in two unrelated cases, the Court sua sponte offered “Disney” as an example of state retaliation. Those remarks—each derived from extrajudicial sources—were on the record, in open court, and could reasonably imply that the Court has prejudged the retaliation question here. Because that question is now before this Court, and because that question involves highly publicized matters of great interest to Florida’s citizens, the Court should disqualify itself to prevent even the appearance of impropriety.
The lawsuit was filed by Disney immediately after the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District voted to nullify a development agreement that was made between Disney and the former Reedy Creek Improvement District. Since then, the new district has filed a countersuit and the Florida legislature passed a bill that also gave the district the power to nullify the contract. Governor DeSantis then filed it into law.
The conflict began in 2022 when Disney came out against a “Don’t Say Gay” bill. This led to DeSantis leading efforts to rid the state of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. In the end, the district remained mainly intact and in its former state other than some important changes. One of these changed the name to the Central Florida Tourism Oversight District. Another change came to the board, which was now appointed by the Florida Governor. There were also some other reporting and oversight changes that were a part of the new district’s creation.
Before the change was made, Disney and Reedy Creek Improvement District signed a development agreement that charted the future of the district and empowered Disney to keep moving forward. This was done publicly. However, the focus by state officials was on the replacement of the Reedy Creek Improvement District and not on what was actually being done in the district. This has led to unfounded accusations of the deal being made in secret. The controversy since then has continued to escalate.
It is more than likely that the resolution for this conflict will come from the courts, and quite possibly from the case that is currently being presented to Chief Judge Walker, or whoever ends up hearing it.
