waltography
Well-Known Member
Man, I miss Disneyland pre-June 15. What a time.
-
Welcome to the WDWMAGIC.COM Forums!
Please take a look around, and feel free to sign up and join the community.
Disneyland passholder lawsuit alleges Magic Key deceptively advertises no blockout dates - OCR
- Thread starter AJFireman
- Start date
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Meh. Wearing a mask outdoors in 85+ wasn’t that fun.
waltography
Well-Known Member
Very easy trade-off given no crowds and no lines. I didn't love all aspects of pandemic Disneyland (the lack of entertainment was/still is a big turn-off), but as someone who prioritizes rides I'd never had more productive and relaxed days. Perhaps the last time I'll ever be able to do 20+ rides in a day on my own schedule.
mickEblu
Well-Known Member
Yeah their were nice-ish things about it. I had a great day there in late May that happened to be a beautiful 70 degrees but the following two days rose 10 degrees each day. By the time our trip ended it was 90. I also missed the window of when their were truly no lines which happened to end around mid May. So I’d say for me the mask trade off would probably only be worth it for those first two weeks in May. Still though under no condition would I ever prefer having to wear a mask outside to a moderately crowded park with no masks.
The other trip I took to DCA pre 6/15, post Avengers Campus opening, which was hot with masks required outside in a crowded park was a bust.
CastAStone
5th gate? Just build a new resort Bob.
Does anyone have a docket number or a link for this lawsuit? I’d like to keep tabs on it
Yeah, here's the info on it.
It was originally filed in the Superior Court of California for Orange County on 11/9/2021, as Jenale Nielsen v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. et al (case number 30-2021-01230857-CU-BT-CXC).
It was removed to U.S. District Court for the Central District of California on 12/15/2021, as Jenale Nielsen v. Walt Disney Parks and Resorts U.S., Inc. et al (case number 8:21-CV-02055).
I think generally you'd need a PACER account to access the case fully since it's federal, but it looks like you can at least monitor the register of actions through this site: https://unicourt.com/case/pc-db5-jenale-nielsen-v-walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc-et-al-1098013.
please keep us lazy ones posted.
I can't make any promises but I'll see what I can do.please keep us lazy ones posted.
In the meantime, for those interested, here's a copy of the Notice of Removal to federal court: https://www.classaction.org/media/nielsen-v-walt-disney-parks-and-resorts-us-inc.pdf.
The Notice includes as its Exhibit A (starting on page 9) a copy of the original summons and complaint, which consists of six causes of action (legal theories as a basis for relief from the court):
1. Violations of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act California Civil Code sections 1750 et seq.
2. Violations of the False Advertising Law California Business and Professions Code sections 17500 et seq.
3. Violations of the Unfair Competition Law California Business and Professions Code sections 17200 et seq.
4. Breach of Contract
5. Negligent Misrepresentation; and
6. Concealment/Non-disclosure
However, according to the register of actions (from that link I posted above), the plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint on 2/4/2022. The amended complaint supersedes the original complaint. I don't have a copy of the amended complaint so I'm not sure to what extent the complaint was amended.
Disney filed a motion on 2/11/2022 requesting an extension of time to file an answer to the amended complaint. An answer is basically a response to the allegations of the complaint that admits or denies the allegations. It also may contain allegations of its own that constitute affirmative defenses (i.e. legal theories why relief should not be granted by the court; the counterpart to causes of action). The answer is generally due within 21 days after service of the summons and complaint (or 14 days after service of an amended complaint). For whatever reason, Disney's lawyers determined that they needed more time to answer the amended complaint's allegations. It appears that is the next matter for the court's consideration and is set for hearing on 3/14/2022.
Finally, for those wondering what the goals of the lawsuit are, with the caveat that the complaint has been amended, you can get at least some idea by looking at the complaint's "Prayer." This is the list of all the things the plaintiff wants the court ordered be done by Disney. Among other things, the lawsuit wants Disney to "conduct a corrective advertising campaign," to "recall and destroy all misleading and deceptive advertising materials," and an order "enjoining Disney from engaging in the unfair, unlawful, and deceptive business practices and false advertising" alleged in the lawsuit.
Last edited:
What I think is interesting about this is how Disney totally inverted the pyramid of who they prioritize for admission when the park gets close to capacity.
Pre-reservation system, with their “phase closing,” the FIRST thing to stop was the sale of day tickets. The LAST people they were to stop admitting was APs. I don’t know how common that knowledge was specifically, but I’d imagine longtime AP holders were accustomed to being prioritized over day ticket holders, and they had no reason to suspect that that was suddenly flipped.
And I don’t know if this lady tried to make a reservation day of her intended visit at any point, but I would be incredibly ed as a Key Holder (if I were one) to be denied entry because the park simply HOPED some poor schmuck was still coming to potentially buy a ticket for that day. To me, once the park opens for the day, any capacity that isn’t reserved should at that point be opened for anyone to reserve.
But that’s just little ol’ me saying that, and I’m no one important.
Pre-reservation system, with their “phase closing,” the FIRST thing to stop was the sale of day tickets. The LAST people they were to stop admitting was APs. I don’t know how common that knowledge was specifically, but I’d imagine longtime AP holders were accustomed to being prioritized over day ticket holders, and they had no reason to suspect that that was suddenly flipped.
And I don’t know if this lady tried to make a reservation day of her intended visit at any point, but I would be incredibly ed as a Key Holder (if I were one) to be denied entry because the park simply HOPED some poor schmuck was still coming to potentially buy a ticket for that day. To me, once the park opens for the day, any capacity that isn’t reserved should at that point be opened for anyone to reserve.
But that’s just little ol’ me saying that, and I’m no one important.
If I remember, she bought the most expensive pass with "no blockout days". She was blocked out one day when there were still reservations available for day tickets.
Oh no, I get that. I’m just wondering if she was trying to use her key the same day she wanted to get in, or if she was making a reservation in advance. It doesn’t really matter, I think the whole thing is stupid (my WDW AP had the same problem, so I let it expire. I still have my husband’s spouse pass, but it’s even worse. I can pretty much never go these days).
I was just making the point that, imo, Disney should open up any unclaimed reservations on the actual day for anyone to claim. For instance, if I’m trying to make a reservation for a park, but it’s “full” for my type of ticket, if there is still open availability on the actual day, once the park opens, I think they should just open the reservation availability for anyone with a ticket.
My point is that I would imagine this lady was mad if she couldn’t make a reservation in advance with her Key, but day ticket holders could…but I bet she’d be even MORE angry if it was the actual day she was trying to get in. Because that means that Disney is willing to risk NO one buying a day ticket that day and letting it go to waste, thus blocking the lady out for no reason and making 0 additional dollars. As opposed to just letting the lady use the open availability to enter, where I guarantee she would have probably spent at least SOME money.
According to paragraph 13 of her complaint (link to the original complaint in my post above), she alleges that on October 19, 2021 she tried to use her key to make a reservation for admission for November 2021.
In my opinion, the crux of the lawsuit is found in paragraph 16 of her complaint:
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
I still think she has no case. Disney said subject to availability. They do not have to define their availability nor capacity calculations. Its poor business on Disney's part, but they still don't owe her anything. She received what she paid for; a pass that has no blackout dates but limited number of availability when it comes to reservations.
Right, I'm sure Disney will vehemently argue that point and probably file a motion for summary judgment to dismiss the case. The plaintiff's lawyers seem to have anticipated this and have tried to address this argument early with paragraph 16, which refers repeatedly to what would be considered a "reasonable" expectation. My guess is that plaintiff's lawyers are hoping to use this argument to survive a motion to dismiss and then use that as leverage for a settlement offer of some kind by Disney. I recall hearing (I think on this forum), that previously with APs, that when capacity reached restrictions would be imposed in phases, with day passes restricted first, and APs last. With keys, Disney apparently reversed this. Perhaps plaintiff could argue that this history of APs given priority would lead a reasonable person to come up with her interpretation. I agree with you that Disney's disclaimers give it a strong argument, but I wouldn't go quite so far as to say she has no case whatsoever.
Incidentally, this isn't directed to you specifically, but as a side note, there was some question earlier about whether plaintiff's lawyers are working on contingency. I don't think they are. The reason being is that the complaint includes a cause of action for unfair competition and with that basis requests attorney fees. Procedurally, the way attorney fees are generally awarded requires submitting a motion to the court with a declaration (and exhibits of any invoices, etc) to show the attorney fees have been incurred. I guess they could work on contingency and still log their billable hours, but I think it'd be tough to request attorney fees that haven't truly been incurred by the plaintiff. So, since they request attorney fees, I think that they're billing her by the hour.
CaptinEO
Well-Known Member
It was never stated pass owners had different availability than day guests.
The terms just said subject to availability. In their case the parks had plenty of availability, yet they couldn't use their pass.
That being said, I hope she wins, but I know lawsuits only work out for those who can continually pay legal fees to keep things going.
Phroobar
Well-Known Member
The only ones that win in a civil lawsuit is the lawyers.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
I completely agree. In fact, if you dig deep enough into the terms & conditions (which most people don't read before clicking "buy") there are two conditions that will most likely swing in Disney's favor:
3. Passes are nonrefundable, nontransferable and remain the property of Disney. Restrictions apply including, but not limited to, capacity constraints and other closures. Passes may not be used for commercial purposes and are void if altered or misused.
That's right, you don't own your pass, Disney does. They are just kind enough to let you use it.
7. Disney reserves the right to cancel, suspend or revoke any Pass or deny theme park admission to any Passholder at any time for any reason.
ANY REASON.
At the bottom:
All terms, conditions and benefits including, but not limited to, admission privileges, blockout dates, prices, Pass type availability, parking locations, benefits and discounts are subject to restrictions, availability, and change or cancellation without notice at any time.
This is all typical boilerplate CYA stuff. Their legal team knows what they are doing.
chadwpalm
Well-Known Member
- In the Parks
- No
In the legal world, omission of something doesn't automatically imply the opposite is true.
The terms (as I stated above) also say you don't own your pass and Disney can revoke your ability to use your pass for any reason.
Professortango1
Well-Known Member
The parks had availability for General Admission, but they had no more availability for Key Holders. Subject to availability and the available Key Holder slots were taken already.
Disney can't afford to let her win. Disney knew when they put this plan in place that people would be upset about not being able to get in with passes. They had lawyers already go through the contracts to ensure that angry APers couldn't sue. This lady just needs to decide if the pass is still worth it to her. If she goes once or twice a month, she's still saving a ton of money. If its a hinderance, she should not renew. There's no need to sue.
flynnibus
Premium Member
It never promised equal availability either.
And APs would have a hard time arguing they should assume all admission forms are equal -- given APs love to tell Disney how they are different and need special everything