A years-long dispute between SeaWorld and the city of San Diego over unpaid rent during the pandemic has come to an end, with the payment Thursday of $8.5 million by the theme park.
The wired funds came just a day after a federal judge dismissed a 2023 lawsuit San Diego filed against SeaWorld seeking back rent, plus interest and penalty fees totaling more than $12 million. The two parties ultimately agreed to a settlement of $8.5 million, which is close to the $8.8 million that city officials originally said was unpaid.
While the settlement was reached in mid-December, it wasn’t until this week that U.S. District Court Judge Thomas Whelan granted a t motion by San Diego and SeaWorld requesting dismissal of the case, which included a counter claim by SeaWorld. Whelan’s dismissal was “with prejudice,” meaning that his ruling permanently ends the case and prevents the parties from refiling the same claim.
The litigation and settlement stems from longstanding efforts by the city to persuade SeaWorld that it was required to pay its minimum rent despite being shut down in the early months of the pandemic.
In March of 2022, the theme park was first informed by the city that it was in default of the conditions of its lease related to the payment of rent. At the time, it was told that if it agreed to a 24-month repayment plan that was made available to all city tenants facing financial hardships because of the pandemic San Diego would waive any added fees and penalty charges, leaving a balance of more than $8.8 million.
SeaWorld stood its ground and would not pay, ultimately leading to the city’s lawsuit alleging breach of the lease that governs rent for the park’s Mission Bay site. SeaWorld later filed a countersuit contending that the city’s forced closure during the pandemic was a violation of its lease and it, therefore, owed nothing to the city.
Although the court-mediated settlement does not give the city everything it had demanded, it does call for lease “sweeteners” — beyond the $8.5 million — that will require SeaWorld to provide complimentary ission to teachers, active-duty military, veterans and school districts over a specified period of time.
In addition to dismissing the case, Whelan denied a motion by PETA to intervene in the case so that it could formally object to the settlement, which it had called a “sellout.” PETA had argued that SeaWorld should have paid the full amount sought by the city. Whelan concluded that in light of the case’s dismissal, PETA’s motion is moot.
