UA's Motion To Dismiss for Premier Silver's Suit DENIED
Mar 7, 2013, 7:57 pm
#1
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
UA's Motion To Dismiss for Premier Silver's Suit DENIED
I'm surprised there isn't anything on here that discusses the lawsuit between the Premier's and United. UA's MTD was DENIED in a Federal Court and the court is asking for a discovery plan.
Anyone have any details of the suit? Someone correct me please, was this because of those members who made Premier in 2012 (qualifying in 2011) but then the benefits were taken away when they became Premier Silver AFTER the merger? (note POST-MERGER)
Did the downgrades of Premier Silver occur on the 1st of January 2012 or March 2012?
I assume this is a class action?
Here's what the document states:
Anyone have any details of the suit? Someone correct me please, was this because of those members who made Premier in 2012 (qualifying in 2011) but then the benefits were taken away when they became Premier Silver AFTER the merger? (note POST-MERGER)
Did the downgrades of Premier Silver occur on the 1st of January 2012 or March 2012?
I assume this is a class action?
Here's what the document states:
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1
Eastern Division
Plaintiff,
United Continental Holdings, Inc., et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
FOR THE Northern District of Illinois − CM/ECF LIVE, Ver 5.1.1
Eastern Division
Plaintiff,
United Continental Holdings, Inc., et al.
Defendant.
NOTIFICATION OF DOCKET ENTRY
This docket entry was made by the Clerk on Friday, March 1, 2013:
MINUTE entry before Honorable John Z. Lee: As set forth in the attached Order,
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10] is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Authority [28] is denied as moot. Status hearing set for 3/14/13 at 9:00 a.m.
to stand. The parties are instructed to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference and
jointly submit a proposed discovery plan to the Court at least three business days prior to
the status hearing. Mailed notice(ca, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Original post states Premier Executive, changed to Premier per member's posts
MINUTE entry before Honorable John Z. Lee: As set forth in the attached Order,
Defendants' Motion to Dismiss [10] is denied. Plaintiff's Motion for Leave to File
Supplemental Authority [28] is denied as moot. Status hearing set for 3/14/13 at 9:00 a.m.
to stand. The parties are instructed to conduct a Fed. R. Civ. P. 26(f) conference and
jointly submit a proposed discovery plan to the Court at least three business days prior to
the status hearing. Mailed notice(ca, )
ATTENTION: This notice is being sent pursuant to Rule 77(d) of the Federal Rules of
Civil Procedure or Rule 49(c) of the Federal Rules of Criminal Procedure. It was
generated by CM/ECF, the automated docketing system used to maintain the civil and
criminal dockets of this District. If a minute order or other document is enclosed, please
refer to it for additional information.
For scheduled events, motion practices, recent opinions and other information, visit our
web site at www.ilnd.uscourts.gov.
Last edited by UrbaneGent; Mar 7, 2013 at 9:34 pm
Mar 7, 2013, 8:05 pm
#2
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Apr 2008
Location: LGA/JFK/EWR
Programs: UA 1K1.75MM, Hyatt Globalist, abandoned Marriott LTT (RIP SPG), Hertz PC
Posts: 21,166
I think it relates to this:
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfr...-economy-plus/
Basically, in 2011 those gunning for Silver thought it would be business as usual for 2012, until 3/4 of the year United takes the axe to Silver for 2012. So a bit of a bait and switch for those flyers.
http://boardingarea.com/blogs/viewfr...-economy-plus/
Basically, in 2011 those gunning for Silver thought it would be business as usual for 2012, until 3/4 of the year United takes the axe to Silver for 2012. So a bit of a bait and switch for those flyers.
Mar 7, 2013, 8:11 pm
#3
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
I'm surprised there isn't anything on here that discusses the lawsuit between the Premier's and United. UA's MTD was DENIED in a Federal Court and the court is asking for a discovery plan.
Anyone have any details of the suit? Someone correct me please, was this because of those members who made Premier Executive in 2012 (qualifying in 2011) but then the benefits were taken away when they became Premier Silver AFTER the merger? (note POST-MERGER)
Did the downgrades of Premier Silver occur on the 1st of January 2012 or March 2012?
I assume this is a class action?
-
Yes, the class action is for UA retroactively taking away promised benefits to those UA customers who achieved "2P" in 2011 for the year 2012.
This is the second class action against UA for breaching the Mileage Plus frequent flier program.
Considering the dismal February 2013 results released by UA today coupled with the two lawsuits going forward despite UA's powerful attorneys filing a Motion to Dismiss both cases, it would appear that the UA management might want to reassess their decisions to intentionally ignore written promises.
"Someone correct me please, was this because of those members who made Premier Executive in 2012 (qualifying in 2011) but then the benefits were taken away when they became Premier Silver AFTER the merger? (note POST-MERGER)"
The above is correct except the suit was filed on behalf of Premiers, not Premier Executives.
Not a pretty picture for UA, by any means.
-
Last edited by dgcpaphd; Mar 7, 2013 at 8:25 pm Reason: omission
Mar 7, 2013, 8:41 pm
#4
Join Date: Nov 2002
Location: SEA/YVR/BLI
Programs: UA "Lifetime" Gold, AS MVPG100K, OW Emerald, HH Lifetime Diamond, IC Plat, Marriott Gold, Hertz Gold
Posts: 9,486
According to Gary Leff's blog, "the individual seeking to create a class action also sued Southwest when they began enforcing expiration dates on their inflight drink coupons..."
IIRC at some point following, WN elected to settle that suit.
IIRC at some point following, WN elected to settle that suit.
Mar 7, 2013, 8:46 pm
#5
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,145
UA's Motion To Dismiss for Premier Silver's Suit DENIED
Not sure if he has a winning case but certainly a Argument.
1P got hosed too - until 9/23/11 UA said get 1P and have 100% RDM bonus - that should have lasted until Feb 1 2013
Big time bait and switch.
1P got hosed too - until 9/23/11 UA said get 1P and have 100% RDM bonus - that should have lasted until Feb 1 2013
Big time bait and switch.
Mar 7, 2013, 8:56 pm
#6
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 12 stops from ORD
Programs: UA, AA, DL
Posts: 992
Yeah, that's exactly what I was thinking. I wonder why they're not part of the case...
Mar 7, 2013, 9:43 pm
#8
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
I would think if this lawsuit becomes a class action, I think it's possible for the lawyer to file on behalf of former Premier Executives and lump them altogether.
I am not familiar so can someone help me out?
Old name Premier, New name Premier. Old benefits? xyz; New benefits? abc
Old name Premier Executive; New name Premier Gold. Former benefits xyz; New benefits abc
Mar 7, 2013, 9:45 pm
#9
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,135
I'd say this is a pretty chilling effect on arrogant airlines (and other vendors with loyalty programs) who think their T+C clause about changing terms and benefits at any time for any reason is cut and dry.
Mar 7, 2013, 9:48 pm
#10
Original Poster
Join Date: Jul 2004
Location: Chicago USA
Programs: *A Junkie, SQ PPS, Skywards Gold, 2 Million Mile Flyer;*wood LT Plat, BA MM
Posts: 1,762
Not when it comes to airline mileage programs and federal court. Lawsuits with regards to the mileage programs are very difficult to take to court. I'm not a lawyer by any means, but this I know!
Mar 7, 2013, 9:53 pm
#11
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 12 stops from ORD
Programs: UA, AA, DL
Posts: 992
If the suit has no merit, the motion is granted - by denying the motion, the judge is taking the position that a group of customers who are claiming that United caused them harm by the unplanned changes in program benefits have a valid case that should proceed to discovery, and either settlement or trial.
I'd say this is a pretty chilling effect on arrogant airlines (and other vendors with loyalty programs) who think their T+C clause about changing terms and benefits at any time for any reason is cut and dry.
I'd say this is a pretty chilling effect on arrogant airlines (and other vendors with loyalty programs) who think their T+C clause about changing terms and benefits at any time for any reason is cut and dry.
Mar 7, 2013, 9:58 pm
#12
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,135
A valid case? That's incorrect. All the denial of the motion to dismiss means is that, assuming everything alleged in the complaint is true, the judge thinks the plaintiff(s) have a plausible claim. Surviving a motion to dismiss really doesn't mean much in the scheme of things.
Between the MM suit and now this one, it's not looking good for UA's decision to arbitrarily make large changes in program benefits with a 'take it or leave it' attitude. It also empowers customers (and lawyers) who could group together and sue UA if MP was radically changed in some way - ie no more CPUs or GPUs, qualification based on full fare only, etc etc.
Mar 7, 2013, 10:21 pm
#13
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: 12 stops from ORD
Programs: UA, AA, DL
Posts: 992
To me valid case = plausible claim - pretty much the same thing. I'm not saying they have a winning case, or even a good case - but their case is valid and not frivolous.
Between the MM suit and now this one, it's not looking good for UA's decision to arbitrarily make large changes in program benefits with a 'take it or leave it' attitude. It also empowers customers (and lawyers) who could group together and sue UA if MP was radically changed in some way - ie no more CPUs or GPUs, qualification based on full fare only, etc etc.
Between the MM suit and now this one, it's not looking good for UA's decision to arbitrarily make large changes in program benefits with a 'take it or leave it' attitude. It also empowers customers (and lawyers) who could group together and sue UA if MP was radically changed in some way - ie no more CPUs or GPUs, qualification based on full fare only, etc etc.
Mar 7, 2013, 10:27 pm
#14
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Sep 2002
Location: LAX/TPE
Programs: United 1K, JAL Sapphire, SPG Lifetime Platinum, National Executive Elite, Hertz PC, Avis PC
Posts: 42,135
Mar 7, 2013, 10:35 pm
#15
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
Between the MM suit and now this one, it's not looking good for UA's decision to arbitrarily make large changes in program benefits with a 'take it or leave it' attitude. It also empowers customers (and lawyers) who could group together and sue UA if MP was radically changed in some way - ie no more CPUs or GPUs, qualification based on full fare only, etc etc.
-
That kind of arrogance is no way to promote future business. Passengers continue to leave UA. The numbers confirm this fact. Why are the passengers leaving? I think the answer is obvious. Shabby treatment and shabby benefits.
The three lawsuits filed against UA for breach of contracts cannot be beneficial to UA's business or for attracting customers to fly with UA.
The awful 2012 operational and financial results and the January and just released February, 2013 results confirm that the decisions made by Smisek and Rainey are not working.
Smisek and Rainey should take the high road and stop treating loyal customers with callous disregard.
-
