Disney fails in its latest attempt to prevent Gina Carano from being tried for firing her

Unless there is a shift in legal power or a large-sum settlement, Disney and Gina Carano will face off in court next year over the former mixed martial artist's firing in 2021 The Mandalorian.

More specifically, the trial begins on September 29, 2025.

After fending off an attempt by the Mouse House and its Daniel Petrocelli-led legal team to dismiss her Elon Musk-backed gender discrimination and wrongful discharge lawsuit earlier this year, Carano scored another winner this week: A federal judge denied Disney's request for a stay of the proceedings and an interim appeal.

“After considering the parties’ submissions, the relevant law and the record in this case, the court denies the motion,” U.S. District Judge Sherilyn Peace Garnett wrote earlier this week. Refusing to green light Disney's hopes of taking the matter to another court and overturning its July 24 decision denying its motion to dismiss, the ruling has kicked off the trial.

With her earlier decision challenged by the nature of Disney's latest filing and desire for an appeal, Garnett has effectively ensured that any notion that Disney and its outside lawyers may have had of gaining the upper hand was dashed.

“Defendants, however, do not explain how a Ninth Circuit opinion affirming the court's order would relieve the burden of responding to plaintiff's discovery to date, nor is it apparent to the court how such an order would provide such relief.” could bring,” said Garnett writes in the 10-page order. “In any event, disclosure arguments—which, as the court notes, were not at issue in the order—do not appear to have any bearing on the outcome of the litigation and do not persuade the court that certification is appropriate here.”

In other words, don't waste my time, we're all adults here.

The judge may have even expressed her opinion on all this last month when she ruled that no oral argument was required on either the certificate of appeal or the attorneys' stay. On Sept. 19, the filing said, “No appearance required.”

With this new order from Garnett allowing the investigation to move forward, it means Carano and her lawyers will soon have a glimpse into the internal workings at Disney three years ago leading up to the firing of the On the Rise actress Rebel shock trooper Cara Dune played The Mandalorianabout views she has expressed on social media and elsewhere.

Whether this leads to the injunction that gives Carano her job back is a whole other question. Still, Carano secured victory today by also filing a series of unspecified damages claims.

“I certainly welcome the opportunity to move forward with the litigation and disclosure,” she wrote on social media Thursday about the Oct. 15 order. “Although I wish this were not necessary, as it is not my desire to take part in this battle in court, I will not shy away from it because it is hard or unpleasant.”

Disney did not comment on this latest twist in the Carano case when contacted.

In his April 9 motion to dismiss Carano's dismissal lawsuit The MandalorianAs before, Disney insisted that the former martial artist had lost her name recognition star Wars Appearance on the series three years ago over her decision to “publicly trivialize the Holocaust by comparing criticism of political conservatives to the extermination of millions of Jews – especially not 'thousands' – was the final straw for Disney was the last straw.”

After portraying fan-favorite bounty hunter Cara Dune for two seasons, a break came when Carano posted a TikTok post in 2021 comparing the current political climate in America to Nazi Germany.

In May, Carano's lawyers responded to Schaerr Jaffe: “After admitting that they had discriminated against Carano because of her personal The Walt Disney Company, Lucasfilm LTD, and Huckleberry Industries (collectively, “Defendants”) espoused her political beliefs and subjected her to unequal treatment from her equal male co-stars. They claim that the First Amendment to the U.S. Constitution grants them absolute immunity.”

“The defendants are wrong.”

Apparently the judge in this case agrees, at least to some extent.