Skip to Content

Judge Denies New Motion in the Disney vs. DeSantis Lawsuit

Judge Denies New Motion in the Disney vs. DeSantis Lawsuit

For a stress-free Disney or Universal Studios vacation, let the FREE expert planners at Royal Carriage Vacations take care of every detail including dining reservations, applying discounts, and onboard cruise credit.

The Disney vs. DeSantis battle continues. And now the judge just struck down an important motion.

Disney vs. Desantis


By now most people are aware of the ongoing legal turmoil brewing between Florida Governor Ron DeSantis and Dinsey. Now, since Disney and DeSantis are involved in MULTIPLE lawsuits, three to be exact, it is important to note that the federal lawsuit Disney waged against DeSantis is the one we are referencing today.

If you need to catch up on what is going on, here is some reading material for you. Disney sued DeSantis in federal court with claims that DeSantis is punishing the Walt Disney Company for practicing free speech. You can get up to speed on the federal case HERE, the state CFTOD HERE, and the Countersuit HERE.

The New Motion

Credit: Katie

Disney made a motion to amend its April 22, 2023 complaint against defendant Ron DeSantis. It seems as if Disney’s goal in filing this amendment is to avoid overlap in contractual claims between this federal case and the state case the CFTOD has brought against Disney.

Now, Disney is trying to streamline the federal case so that it only addresses the constitutional issue of Disney’s First Amendment challenge to the retaliatory reconstitution of the Reedy Creek Improvement District. The amendment seeks to withdraw the issues being addressed in lower courts.

Motion Denied

Credit: Donna

Judge Allen Winsor almost immediately stuck the motion down. Has a quicker decision ever been reached in court?

Windsor’s order states, “Plaintiff’s motion to amend is DENIED without prejudice because it does not comply with Local Rule 7.1(C), which requires a certificate confirming compliance with Rule 7.1(B)’s attorney-conference requirement.”

Judge Windsor DENIED Disney’s Motion almost immediately.

However, Disney still has a chance to fight for the motion. The order goes on to say, “Plaintiff may refile the motion after conferring with Defendants and otherwise complying with the Local Rules.” So perhaps the judge will consider this motion to amend if proper protocol is followed. Additionally, the motion to amend is unnecessary if the defendants agree to it during the conversation.

Credit: Katie P.

It does not seem highly likely that DeSantis and others named in the suit will happily agree to any Disney-initiated motion. However, since DeSantis did claim he has moved on from the battle with Disney, perhaps an agreement can be reached here. Of course, if the defendants say “no,” then Disney will have to file a new motion and await another decision from Windsor.

Do you think that DeSantis’s legal team will agree to the proposed amendment? Or, do you think Disney will have to refile the motion after discussing it with the defendants? Let us know in the comments. And, feel free to share the story with others.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.


Monday 4th of September 2023

Thanks for reading and for your thoughts


Monday 4th of September 2023

Any "freedom of speech " issue that antagonizes 1/2 of your customers is a dumb idea. Disney stock is way down due to many management missteps.


Monday 4th of September 2023

Richie September 3, 2023 At 10:49 am "Without Disney we wouldn’t have the revenue we have in this state tourism would decline drastically."

Incorrect, Disney does not bring anywhere close to the revenue that this state brings in. You can look this up with the Florida Department of Revenue and find that they account for less than 2% of the sales taxes brought in.

Elliot September 3, 2023 At 12:40 pm "made a contract with a board (legal) that was being removed"

No, the contract did not follow state law. For example, they failed to post proper notice under the law required such as posting the full agenda instead of just the title, they failed to notify property owners (Disney is not the sole property owner in the former RCID), the contract had no consideration for RCID, the list goes on. The contract is void ab initio.

"However, Florida has made a bill that only targets Disney" No, it targeted 6 districts. You can read SB 4-C and the analysis and see the title.  Bradford County Development Authority (Bradford County)  Sunshine Water Control District (Broward County)  Eastpoint Water and Sewer District (Franklin County)  Hamilton County Development Authority (Hamilton County)  Reedy Creek Improvement District (Orange and Osceola Counties)  Marion County Law Library (Marion County) "has removed a board" The Legislature dissolved the board.


Monday 4th of September 2023

Well I thought I was replying to people which would show my replies under themr names but it turns out it's just bumping my replies to the top with no indications to who I was replying to.

Ronnie September 2, 2023 At 11:21 pm Rick Nelson September 3, 2023 At 12:31 am CD72 September 3, 2023 At 8:54 am Debbie Munholand September 3, 2023 At 9:27 am Blake P September 3, 2023 At 10:12 am roy Vazquez September 3, 2023 At 10:34 am Mara Tage September 3, 2023 At 10:41 am

These are who I replied to.


Monday 4th of September 2023

They just have one in another state obviously. Tokyo is a licensed park which is not owned by Disney. Disney does not outright own Shanghai or Hong Kong but as minority owners so their revenues for DPEP are extremely low. Disney Paris is a money loser. Disney cannot afford to build another park in the United States either because of massive speculators would make it cost prohibitive. The reason Disney World exists was because Disney used shell companies to hide the large land purchases in the first place. In today's world, people will figure it out rather quickly.

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.