I am not a lawyer, but this doesn't look like a "loss" to me. It looks like the judge ruled that Disney's lawsuit was delayed on a technicality, and could be filed again.

Any of the lawyers out there want to give an analysis?

The lawyers would most likely say "premature litigation." Bad luck for Minnie, wouldn't you say?

You'd better clean it up BR. This is a family blog.

Now, BR, as I hope you knew, my question was somewhat rhetorical and questioning Matt's spin that Disney "lost" this lawsuit.

Seems to me like the judge made the smart decision:

"This matter will be settled by the voters, I'm staying out of it!"

Disney certainly knew before they filed their suit what the outcome would be (not ripe).

The Disney purpose of the suit was obviously to punish the City (people) of Anaheim. When you are a multi-billion dollar corporation, you can abuse our legal system and get away with it.

As I read it, out of the TWO lawsuits, the first one was filed prematurely (but Disney was trying to protect its interests) and that 2 parts of are still valid in the the first lawsuit.

The second lawsuit filed after the council approved the zoning change, had NO ruling, other than delaying it until after the June, 2008 election, as the Judge thinks that some or all of the points might be moot after the election.

But the ENTIRE lawsuit is actually still valid, as the first and second lawsuits had the same points.

Jeff--

From a public entity's position, anytime you can eliminate causes of action, it's a good thing. Especially on statute of limitations grounds as that ends that theory. However I would characterize it as the Mouse losing a skirmish--a minor tactical win for SunCal--like a left jab getting thru and the Mouse saying "Is that all you got?".

But ask a public law lawyer---just don't ask the lawyer who advised Habermehl.

Wow. So even when it loses in court, Disney still wins?