It's not an emotional plea. So you understand how law works? It's all about what kind of president they can establish. Serious, question that maybe you can try to respond with without an insult. Do you really think arbitration is good for the plaintiffs in most cases?
Lawsuits have defendants too.
What was the erroneous headline? I believe the article's main point is that Disney has tried to force a legal case to arbitration by citing a streaming service agreement. If I am wrong, I apologize.
There are quite a few, starting with the one cited in your OP. The articles themselves had varying degrees of accuracy, but I read numerous misleading headlines yesterday.
Oh, I thought it was a question that was pretty basic without any hyperbole but apparently wasn't simple enough. BTW the cliff's notes answer is you don't want arbitration if you are the plaintiff, in this case and pretty much the majority of suits.
Replace "tried to force" with " asked the court to consider" and you will have it.
It's also preposterous that Disney is named in the suit to start with. The Plaintiff is claiming that Disney is liable due to the representations made on their website. I posted the allergy statement from the website earlier. I'll post it again:
It is explicitly stated that they don't guarantee anything is allergen free. To me it is ridiculous to claim that the website was relied upon to make the decision to ultimately consume the food containing allergens when the website explicitly states there is no guarantee.
Landlords or companies with similar relationships are made in suits that have some at least thin thread that ties them to the liability. In this case, if there was negligence that caused the death of the woman, it had nothing to do with anything but the owner and operator of the restaurant. Disney has nothing to do with food handling or preparation in the location.
You would contribute more to this conversation if you familiarized yourself with the allegations in the complaint.
I have no idea what you are asking here.
They’re not just the “landlord.” The relationship is unique and the allergy menu was on Disney’s website, and made reference to speaking with Disney Cast members.
Good thing we have a thing called a “trial” where these sorts of factual issues can be sorted out. Disney’s attempt to get this moved to arb based on the D+ subscription is ludicrous.
Then Disney is really ****** stupid because they shouldn’t be referring to them as “cast members.”
The allegation is that Disney made representations that caused the deceased to believe it would be safe to eat at Raglan Road and therefore Disney is liable for Raglan Road.
The relationship isn't all that unique. I can go to the website of every Las Vegas resort and view the menus of tenant operated dining establishments presented in a way that they look like they are part of the resort operation. You can room charge and use resort dining credits just the same as resort owned restaurants.
Are there screenshots of the version that existed at the time? The wayback machine on archive.org shows the same thing in September 2023 as is on the website today. I don't have time to really dig into the code but it's possible that the wayback machine is pulling a live version of dynamic content.
I ask this question with no disrespect, I am genuinely curious - do you practice civil litigation?
To say that Count III is a bit of a stretch is an understatement. It is making allegations of facts that the Plaintiff can not yet have knowledge of. They will need to see the agreements between Disney and Raglan Rd. in order to determine if their allegations have any merit at all. Likely they are going to find things like Raglan Rd. only being allowed to serve Coke products or certain menu items that are exclusive to particular tenants (as is done in leases all the time to prevent competitors in the same shopping center, for example) and then they will try to use those "controls" to argue that Disney had control over the menu and operations of the restaurant.
