Last edit by: Ari
PLEASE READ FIRST: WIKIPOST and MODERATOR NOTE
MODERATOR NOTE:
Please note: Insensitive or attacking posts, discussion about other posters and their motives, and other off-topic posts/comments are not allowed, per FlyerTalk Rules.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you.
N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
--> If you have a question or comment about moderation, use the "Alert a Moderator" button left of every post, or send a PM. Do not post such comments/questions on-thread. Thank you.
N.B. Please do not alter the above message.
• • • • •
[Please post NLY status updates and relevant Q&A here.]
Plaintiff: George Lagen, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated
Defendant: United Continental Holdings, Inc. and United Airlines, Inc.
Filed In The United States District Court For The Northern District Of Illinois Eastern Division
Case No. 1:12-cv-04056
Filed: 05/24/2012
Judge Harry D. Leinenweber
Magistrate Judge Young B. Kim
Proposed class: All persons, as of midnight, December 31, 2011, who were members of the Million Mile Program under United Airlines’ Mileage Plus frequent flyer program.
Filings/rulings can be found on www.pacer.gov (requires registration)
12 June 2012 - Amended Class Action Complaint filed
Spring 2013 - Court denies United's request to close case
Spring 2013 - Plaintiff files for suit to become a class action, United asks Judge before he decides if there could be limited discovery (which typically happens after case becomes class-action). Judge allows it.
August 2013 - Depositions/Limited Discovery completed and transcripts were handed over to the court.
22 October 2013 - Pursuant to an order of the Court, both sides filed cross-motions for summary judgment:
Plaintiff contends that he is a United pre-merger Million Miler, that United promised Million Miler fliers certain lifetime benefits on its web site, including two regional upgrades every year and Premier Executive status, which provided certain delineated benefits (e.g., 100% mileage bonus). Plaintiff cites deposition testimony from United stating "lifetime" means: "as long as they were really able to fly … as long as someone is coming on a plane and alive and capable of flying." Plaintiff concludes by stating that United has breached its contract with its pre-merger Million Miler fliers by reducing the lifetime benefits they were promised.
United contends in its motion that Million Miler is part of the MileagePlus program, that United reserved the right to make any changes it wishes to the MileagePlus program, and that the changes it made that plaintiff now complains of are therefore contractually permissible. United does not admit, and does not address, the "lifetime" benefit statements that it made on its website.
23 January 2014 - Judge denies Plaintiff's motion for summary judgment and grants United's cross-motion for summary judgment. Judgment entered in favor of United.
The Judge begins his Opinion with a quote from Job: “The Lord giveth and the Lord taketh away” and then holds that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that UA made him an offer to participate in a separate MM program.
The Court noted that: “The sum total of his evidence is vague references to ‘electronic and written correspondence’ from United, which, in both instances postdates his qualification as a Million Mile flyer and was not directed to him; and a 1997 Newsletter from United announcing the creation of the program he could not remember receiving. However the card he did receive from United, admitting him to MililionMile Flyer Program, shows that his new status is clearly a status within the Mileage Plus Frequent Flyer Program, as does the form letters United sent to applicants advising them of their admission to the MillionMile Flyer program. In fact, Plaintiff in his Complaint alleges that the MillionMile Flyer program was part of the Mileage Plus program. He has not produced any document that comes close to substantiating that the programs were separate and distinct."
Bottom line: The Court agreed with United's position that the Plaintiff had not proved the existence of a separate contract between itself and the Million Milers.
Full decision: http://media.wandr.me/MMerOpinion.pdf
20 February 2014
Plaintiff filed a notice of appeal of the trial court's decision. The record on appeal is due by March 13, 2014.
Appeal docs available at:
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-Appeal-filed-2-20-14.pdf
- http://media.wandr.me/UAL-MM-letter-of-appeal.pdf
8 September 2014
Oral arguments were heard by a three judge panel. Links to the original MP3 of the Court's recording and also some transcription can be found around post 2350 and for several more following that.
http://www.flyertalk.com/forum/23496499-post2361.html
22 December 2014
Affirmed over a dissent.
http://media.ca7.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/rssExec.pl?Submit=Display&Path=Y2014/D12-22/C:14-1375:J:Wood:aut:T:fnOp:N:1474449:S:0
Million Miler Sues United [Judgment for UA Jan 2014] Judgment Affirmed Dec 2014
#1966
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM, Accor Plat, Htz PC, Natl ExEm, other random status
Posts: 2,876
#1967
Join Date: Sep 2000
Location: Denver, CO
Programs: UA 1K 25 years/2MM, Honors LT Diamond, AVIS & Hertz Prez Club
Posts: 4,753
I really get annoyed when I see something like a biblical citation in a legal proceeding - so much for Separation of Church & State. That citation in the judge's ruling adds absolutely no value to the decision and doesn't belong there.
#1968
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 12 stops from ORD
Programs: UA, AA, DL
Posts: 992
I think how strong that leg will be will depend on what happens in the other class actions re change of benefits. I'm much more interested in how those cases turn out, especially considering I could be a class member in one of them.
#1969
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: ORD-LAS
Programs: UA MM 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Marriott Titanium Elite
Posts: 4,419
Yup, expect UA to make changes in the future. This judgement is unfair, the plaintiff had plenty proof.
#1970
Join Date: Sep 1999
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K MM, Accor Plat, Htz PC, Natl ExEm, other random status
Posts: 2,876
I studied Political Science at the University of California, Berkeley. It's hard to find a more godless society than the PoliSci department at Cal, and yet we read and studied Job as a framework for how justice is viewed by society.
In some ways, it's actually an interesting quote, and depending upon the appellate court and how it rules (as I assume there will be an appeal), I could imagine the quote being used in a wry turn of phrase.
Greg
I'd suggest: http://bit.ly/1aNbywO
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 23, 2014 at 2:18 pm Reason: merge
#1971
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Proof of what?
The judge actually acknowledges that the benefits changed:
But that isn't enough.
If there was proof then why was it not produced in court??
The judge actually acknowledges that the benefits changed:
The Court will presume knowledge of the specifics of the so-called “Lifetime Benefits” which were extensively described in the Court’s earlier ruling. Suffice to say that they were materially reduced.
The record shows that Plaintiff has not produced any evidence that United made him (and other putative class members) an offer to participate in a separate MillionMile Flyer program that was separate and apart from the MileagePlus program. The sum total of his evidence is vague references to “electronic and written correspondence” from United which, in both instances, postdates his qualification as a Million Mile Flyer and was not specifically directed to him; and a 1997 Newsletter from United announcing the creation of the program he could not remember
receiving.
receiving.
#1972
Join Date: Jul 2010
Location: London, UK
Programs: BA Gold, UA Nobody, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,372
I find it interesting that issue wasn't taken with the unilateral nature of the "modify at any time" provision in a contract of adhesion such as the MP program. Doesn't this mean that any "lifetime*" promises are essentially worthless in law if the grantor states "*until we decide otherwise"?
In the UK this would be on very shaky ground under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, but I presume no such equivalent legal protection exists in the US?
In the UK this would be on very shaky ground under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, but I presume no such equivalent legal protection exists in the US?
#1973
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
I find it interesting that issue wasn't taken with the unilateral nature of the "modify at any time" provision in a contract of adhesion such as the MP program. Doesn't this mean that any "lifetime*" promises are essentially worthless in law if the grantor states "*until we decide otherwise"?
In the UK this would be on very shaky ground under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, but I presume no such equivalent legal protection exists in the US?
In the UK this would be on very shaky ground under the Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations, but I presume no such equivalent legal protection exists in the US?
The judge basically restated what we already knew. You can't rely on vague statements in light of the terms & conditions of the MP program. Wandering Aramean's post on this ruling is spot on. The plaintiff's muddled complaint and pleadings virtually nullified any chance he had of success.
The judgment also demands that Lagen pay United's costs.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm Reason: merge/unnecessary
#1974
Join Date: Nov 2003
Location: Chicago, IL USA
Programs: UA Premier Platinum 1MM, HH Diamond
Posts: 251
#1976
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: UA*S/Club, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 485
"Costs" are very different from attorney's fees.
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/55
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1920
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/55
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1920
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 23, 2014 at 7:55 pm Reason: quote
#1977
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
"Costs" are very different from attorney's fees.
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/55
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1920
http://federalpracticemanual.org/node/55
http://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/28/1920
#1978
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: EAU
Programs: UA 1K, CO Plat, NW Plat, Marriott Premiere Plat, SPG Plat, Priority Gold, Hilton Gold
Posts: 4,712
The Mileage Plus program is totally different. You can CHOOSE to enroll in Mileage Plus. If you do so, then you earn miles and other benefits. The cost of participating in this program is... NOTHING.
So there isn't really even a contract at all, because the flyer has not provided ANYTHING OF VALUE in exchange for the Mileage Plus benefits. (And no, airfare doesn't count, because everyone who pays the airfare gets to fly. Only people who agree to participate in the Mileage Plus program get Mileage Plus benefits.)
If you don't like the Mileage Plus rules, then don't sign up for the program and don't take the miles.
#1979
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Aug 2005
Location: Chicago
Posts: 11,513
So there isn't really even a contract at all, because the flyer has not provided ANYTHING OF VALUE in exchange for the Mileage Plus benefits. (And no, airfare doesn't count, because everyone who pays the airfare gets to fly. Only people who agree to participate in the Mileage Plus program get Mileage Plus benefits.)
#1980
Join Date: May 2004
Programs: BA blue, LH Senator, KQ (FB) gold
Posts: 8,215
The MP program isn't a contract of adhesion. A contract of adhesion is something like your cellular service contract - it can't be negotiated by the customer, and you *HAVE* to agree to it to get the service you pay for.
The Mileage Plus program is totally different. You can CHOOSE to enroll in Mileage Plus. If you do so, then you earn miles and other benefits. The cost of participating in this program is... NOTHING.
So there isn't really even a contract at all, because the flyer has not provided ANYTHING OF VALUE in exchange for the Mileage Plus benefits. (And no, airfare doesn't count, because everyone who pays the airfare gets to fly. Only people who agree to participate in the Mileage Plus program get Mileage Plus benefits.)
If you don't like the Mileage Plus rules, then don't sign up for the program and don't take the miles.
The Mileage Plus program is totally different. You can CHOOSE to enroll in Mileage Plus. If you do so, then you earn miles and other benefits. The cost of participating in this program is... NOTHING.
So there isn't really even a contract at all, because the flyer has not provided ANYTHING OF VALUE in exchange for the Mileage Plus benefits. (And no, airfare doesn't count, because everyone who pays the airfare gets to fly. Only people who agree to participate in the Mileage Plus program get Mileage Plus benefits.)
If you don't like the Mileage Plus rules, then don't sign up for the program and don't take the miles.