Oct 1, 2013, 3:03 pm
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
Jul 15, 2012, 6:15 pm
#421
Join Date: Jan 2010
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K 1.5MM, DL Silver, AA, Amex Plat, SPG Gold, Hyatt Plat
Posts: 4
Thank you for reporting what you were told.
Considering that the class action was filed with UA's legal department, I highly suspect that the legal department would not share its intentions with rank and file UA employees during the present state of the class action. The complaint was only filed in late May of this year.
The new UA management has been too silent for too long to suddenly make a concession as you were told by an employee who is probably reporting a good faith rumor within UA.
-
Considering that the class action was filed with UA's legal department, I highly suspect that the legal department would not share its intentions with rank and file UA employees during the present state of the class action. The complaint was only filed in late May of this year.
The new UA management has been too silent for too long to suddenly make a concession as you were told by an employee who is probably reporting a good faith rumor within UA.
-
Jul 15, 2012, 8:54 pm
#422
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: IAH / HOU
Programs: UA GS, DL-Plat, Hilton Gold, IHG Platinum, Hyatt Somethingist, Marriott Titanium Lifetime
Posts: 2,853
Jul 15, 2012, 10:10 pm
#423
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Aug 2003
Programs: UA 1K 1MM (finally!), IHG AMB-Spire, HH Diamond
Posts: 60,219
Cutting more benefits will save them little and lose them more customers
If they restore benefits my guess is the spousal match would remain. That would finally qualify as a small change that many customers would like.
Jul 17, 2012, 1:27 pm
#424
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
Off we go!
United did not file an extension, instead the lawfirm Schiff Hardin LLP filed a Motion to Dismiss (MTD) as anticipated. They are stating that it is in their terms and conditions, as expected:
The saga continues...but rather than just elevate the PMUA MM to Platinum, which would probably suffice, they would rather fight this in court, which is fine.
UG
NOTE - THIS IS GOING TO GO ROUND AND ROUND AND THE OUTCOME IS UNKNOWN. THE JUDGE WILL EITHER DEEM THIS AS CLASS-ACTIONABLE OR WILL NOT. EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
"...rectify that deficiency, the complaint still must be dismissed because the express terms of the MileagePlus program, which govern plaintiff’s claim, demonstrate that there has been no breach of contract. Those terms were explicit that United had the right to make modifications to the program."
Now it's the plaintiffs turn to come and answer the allegations within 30 days. In their answer, they state the Million Miler has not been damaged in any way. This goes to show you they are going to fight this to the bitter end AND how arrogant they are:"First, this Court lacks subject matter jurisdiction. Because plaintiff has not alleged that he suffered any injury in fact, he lacks standing to bring the claims he has alleged. Plaintiff merely alleges that supposedly improper changes have been made that impact his status as a member of United’s frequent flyer program, called MileagePlus. But he does not allege that this changed status has injured him in any way. Absent an injury in fact, plaintiff has no standing to bring suit."
This is going to be an interesting case. In the end, with all the legal crapola, it's when you tell your customer you will get "X" for a lifetime, then quite possibly, it doesn't mean a lifetime, it means until the terms and conditions change.The saga continues...but rather than just elevate the PMUA MM to Platinum, which would probably suffice, they would rather fight this in court, which is fine.
UG
NOTE - THIS IS GOING TO GO ROUND AND ROUND AND THE OUTCOME IS UNKNOWN. THE JUDGE WILL EITHER DEEM THIS AS CLASS-ACTIONABLE OR WILL NOT. EITHER ONE OR THE OTHER. THIS IS JUST THE BEGINNING.
Jul 17, 2012, 1:36 pm
#425
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Jul 17, 2012, 1:43 pm
#426
Join Date: Oct 2011
Location: BUR / LAX
Programs: UA MM/Gold; WN A-list; HH something depending; Marriott Gold
Posts: 1,565
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
Last edited by abaheti; Jul 17, 2012 at 1:53 pm
Jul 17, 2012, 2:37 pm
#427
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Read UA's motion to dismiss. Pretty standard stuff really.
12(b)1
Standing
UA is positing that Lagen has not shown any injury since 2012 and therefore cannot sue. Lagen can simply book a ticket on united to cure this I think
12(b)6
Contract
point one
contract expressly allows changes = no breach. This is basically what we have been discussing on here.
Point 2
three quasi-contract claims
good faith and fair dealing
unjust enrichment
specific performance
Argument 1 deregulation act preempts all claims. I am not buying this argument as state contract law claims have gone through before. I think this is the weakest argument in the motion
Argument 2 the expressed contract preempts all quasi-contract claims
I think this is the strongest argument here. There is an expressed contract, therefore the quasi-contract claims of good faith and unjust enrichment are precluded.
in order sustain these claims, Lagen I think needs to plead that United intended to act outside of the expressed contract.
Also IL may not have a cause of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing as such that may not be allowed to stand on its own.
Argument 3
Specific performance is remedy not a claim. This is closest to a no-brainer that the motion pleads. It's a remedy not a claim.
12(b)1
Standing
UA is positing that Lagen has not shown any injury since 2012 and therefore cannot sue. Lagen can simply book a ticket on united to cure this I think
12(b)6
Contract
point one
contract expressly allows changes = no breach. This is basically what we have been discussing on here.
Point 2
three quasi-contract claims
good faith and fair dealing
unjust enrichment
specific performance
Argument 1 deregulation act preempts all claims. I am not buying this argument as state contract law claims have gone through before. I think this is the weakest argument in the motion
Argument 2 the expressed contract preempts all quasi-contract claims
I think this is the strongest argument here. There is an expressed contract, therefore the quasi-contract claims of good faith and unjust enrichment are precluded.
in order sustain these claims, Lagen I think needs to plead that United intended to act outside of the expressed contract.
Also IL may not have a cause of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing as such that may not be allowed to stand on its own.
Argument 3
Specific performance is remedy not a claim. This is closest to a no-brainer that the motion pleads. It's a remedy not a claim.
Jul 17, 2012, 2:46 pm
#428
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
Sorry to be a broken record, but while I will celebrate for the pre-3/3 MMs, those of us who are just shy also feel we have been injured. We also worked years to get to MM via BIS, so to watch the status cut from Premier Exec and to watch the CO folks who didn't do BIS doesn't sit well.
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
Read UA's motion to dismiss. Pretty standard stuff really.
12(b)1
Standing
UA is positing that Lagen has not shown any injury since 2012 and therefore cannot sue. Lagen can simply book a ticket on united to cure this I think
12(b)6
Contract
point one
contract expressly allows changes = no breach. This is basically what we have been discussing on here.
Point 2
three quasi-contract claims
good faith and fair dealing
unjust enrichment
specific performance
Argument 1 deregulation act preempts all claims. I am not buying this argument as state contract law claims have gone through before. I think this is the weakest argument in the motion
Argument 2 the expressed contract preempts all quasi-contract claims
I think this is the strongest argument here. There is an expressed contract, therefore the quasi-contract claims of good faith and unjust enrichment are precluded.
in order sustain these claims, Lagen I think needs to plead that United intended to act outside of the expressed contract.
Also IL may not have a cause of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing as such that may not be allowed to stand on its own.
Argument 3
Specific performance is remedy not a claim. This is closest to a no-brainer that the motion pleads. It's a remedy not a claim.
12(b)1
Standing
UA is positing that Lagen has not shown any injury since 2012 and therefore cannot sue. Lagen can simply book a ticket on united to cure this I think
12(b)6
Contract
point one
contract expressly allows changes = no breach. This is basically what we have been discussing on here.
Point 2
three quasi-contract claims
good faith and fair dealing
unjust enrichment
specific performance
Argument 1 deregulation act preempts all claims. I am not buying this argument as state contract law claims have gone through before. I think this is the weakest argument in the motion
Argument 2 the expressed contract preempts all quasi-contract claims
I think this is the strongest argument here. There is an expressed contract, therefore the quasi-contract claims of good faith and unjust enrichment are precluded.
in order sustain these claims, Lagen I think needs to plead that United intended to act outside of the expressed contract.
Also IL may not have a cause of action for breach of good faith and fair dealing as such that may not be allowed to stand on its own.
Argument 3
Specific performance is remedy not a claim. This is closest to a no-brainer that the motion pleads. It's a remedy not a claim.
In argument 12(b)1, this is saying Lagen hasn't flown since the merger? In anticipation of the suit, what about if he didn't want to fly?
One thing is for certain -
United, with this document has publicly taken the position "LIFETIME" as stated in their marketing materials, made to their top customers, mean ZERO, it's all lies.
I would be embarrassed to have this go out to my customers. Such arrogance. Thanks colpuck.
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jul 17, 2012 at 6:50 pm Reason: merge
Jul 17, 2012, 2:51 pm
#429
Suspended
Join Date: Jan 2009
Programs: UA 1k
Posts: 1,208
Sorry to be a broken record, but while I will celebrate for the pre-3/3 MMs, those of us who are just shy also feel we have been injured. We also worked years to get to MM via BIS, so to watch the status cut from Premier Exec and to watch the CO folks who didn't do BIS doesn't sit well.
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
Jul 17, 2012, 3:17 pm
#430
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,910
Sorry to be a broken record, but while I will celebrate for the pre-3/3 MMs, those of us who are just shy also feel we have been injured. We also worked years to get to MM via BIS, so to watch the status cut from Premier Exec and to watch the CO folks who didn't do BIS doesn't sit well.
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
I need very few miles to make it, but have for the most part been avoiding UA. Knowing I would get the benefits I was promised would go a long way toward incenting me to spend money on UA.
And the incentive to me pay UA for flights will go down even further if the pre-3/3 MMs are grandfathered in and I get no chance for the benefits I worked years to earn (based on the same lifetime promise everyone else relied upon).
I hope the attorney involved, the marketing department at UA, and anyone else who has influence keeps us in mind. We're worth a lot of revenue too.
Jul 17, 2012, 3:25 pm
#431
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
In order for any action to go forward a plaintiff has to be able to plead an injury-in-fact. Here it would be the lagen has not pleaded that he has either traveled this year or plans to travel this year.
This standing argument is more of a face slap to P's lawyers for forgetting to plead standing. In short P's attorneys make a rookie mistake.
uploaded documents here
https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B0...Wo0bU9SSjM1Umc
Jul 17, 2012, 3:32 pm
#432
Join Date: Aug 2010
Location: DCA/IAD
Programs: UA*S/Club, Hyatt Plat, Marriott Silver
Posts: 485
12(b)1 is a citation to the federal rules of civil procedure.
In order for any action to go forward a plaintiff has to be able to plead an injury-in-fact. Here it would be the lagen has not pleaded that he has either traveled this year or plans to travel this year.
This standing argument is more of a face slap to P's lawyers for forgetting to plead standing. In short P's attorneys make a rookie mistake.
uploaded documents here
https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B0...Wo0bU9SSjM1Umc
In order for any action to go forward a plaintiff has to be able to plead an injury-in-fact. Here it would be the lagen has not pleaded that he has either traveled this year or plans to travel this year.
This standing argument is more of a face slap to P's lawyers for forgetting to plead standing. In short P's attorneys make a rookie mistake.
uploaded documents here
https://docs.google.com/#folders/0B0...Wo0bU9SSjM1Umc
Jul 17, 2012, 3:36 pm
#433
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Jul 17, 2012, 5:42 pm
#434
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
I just read the motion to dismiss - and wow, United paid some big fees for that motion for dismissal - I also thought the cases they cited of other lawsuits being dismissed for changing the terms and conditions was interesting. United has no desire whatsoever to restore those benefits.
Jul 17, 2012, 5:46 pm
#435
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near SEA
Programs: UA MM, AS MVPG75K, Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 7,969
The most damning thing I see is that UA provided the rules from 1993 when Mr Lagen enrolled in MP, wherein the first rule states that the rules can change at any time.