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
May 27, 2012, 12:31 pm
#76
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
Thanks for your fine observations.
Ignoring for a moment the grammatical and typographical errors contained in the filed complaint, there is the critical error of erroneously excluding from participation in the class action, those UA customers who achieved million-mile status after the erroneous date shown in paragraph 31 of the complaint.
According to paragraph 31, the complaint excludes UA million-mile fliers from participating in the class action unless they were members “- - - prior to the merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines on October 1, 2010.”
I achieved UA million-mile status in November of 2010, which obviously excludes me from the class action participation, based on the erroneous complaint filed with the court. Needless to say, I am not pleased at the error and carelessness shown in the filed complaint.
The two entities, United Airlines, Inc. and Continental Airlines, Inc. merged on October 1, 2010 (as correctly stated in the complaint). The third entity, UA’s Mileage Plus, LLC (a separate company) did not merge with Continental Airlines (One Pass) until December 31, 2011 (fifteen months after the merger of the two airlines).
Consequently, the incorrect date in paragraph 31 of the Complaint (October 1, 2010 instead of December 31, 2011), erroneously excluded countless other million-milers who reached million-mile status between October 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011.
UA’s own web sites and e-mailings to customers confirmed that the Mileage Plus and the Continental Airlines frequent flier program would not and did not merge until December 31, 2011.
In addition, those UA customers who reached million-mile status after the merger of the two airlines (October 1, 2010) but prior to December 31, 2011, received their three promised one-time system wide upgrades plus the two annual regional upgrades. These two events further corroborate that Mileage Plus had not merged until December 31, 2011.
Obviously, the complaint needs to be amended for this damaging error.
-
Ignoring for a moment the grammatical and typographical errors contained in the filed complaint, there is the critical error of erroneously excluding from participation in the class action, those UA customers who achieved million-mile status after the erroneous date shown in paragraph 31 of the complaint.
According to paragraph 31, the complaint excludes UA million-mile fliers from participating in the class action unless they were members “- - - prior to the merger of United Airlines and Continental Airlines on October 1, 2010.”
I achieved UA million-mile status in November of 2010, which obviously excludes me from the class action participation, based on the erroneous complaint filed with the court. Needless to say, I am not pleased at the error and carelessness shown in the filed complaint.
The two entities, United Airlines, Inc. and Continental Airlines, Inc. merged on October 1, 2010 (as correctly stated in the complaint). The third entity, UA’s Mileage Plus, LLC (a separate company) did not merge with Continental Airlines (One Pass) until December 31, 2011 (fifteen months after the merger of the two airlines).
Consequently, the incorrect date in paragraph 31 of the Complaint (October 1, 2010 instead of December 31, 2011), erroneously excluded countless other million-milers who reached million-mile status between October 1, 2010 and December 31, 2011.
UA’s own web sites and e-mailings to customers confirmed that the Mileage Plus and the Continental Airlines frequent flier program would not and did not merge until December 31, 2011.
In addition, those UA customers who reached million-mile status after the merger of the two airlines (October 1, 2010) but prior to December 31, 2011, received their three promised one-time system wide upgrades plus the two annual regional upgrades. These two events further corroborate that Mileage Plus had not merged until December 31, 2011.
Obviously, the complaint needs to be amended for this damaging error.
-
. He Could have put a concise complaint using half as much space but more accuracy. IMHO, it's a moot point. I don't believe any judge will let it see the light of day after reading UA's brief
May 27, 2012, 1:33 pm
#77
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,508
There is a lot in that complaint that needs to be fixed. Longer does not always mean better (ask my GF . He Could have put a concise complaint using half as much space but more accuracy. IMHO, it's a moot point. I don't believe any judge will let it see the light of day after reading UA's brief
. He Could have put a concise complaint using half as much space but more accuracy. IMHO, it's a moot point. I don't believe any judge will let it see the light of day after reading UA's brief
May 28, 2012, 6:11 pm
#78
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: OSL/IAH/ZRH (time, not preference)
Programs: UA1K, LH GM, AA EXP->GM
Posts: 38,265
f already earned miles?My previous but one post was about this.
UA definitely made MMs believe that they would get CR1s and 100% bonus miles for life.
May 28, 2012, 6:18 pm
#79
Join Date: Aug 2007
Location: Near SEA
Programs: UA MM, AS MVPG75K, Marriott Lifetime Gold
Posts: 7,969
May 28, 2012, 6:27 pm
#80
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
No, but can you imagine that it won't at least be professional and well thought out (as opposed to this suit which has so many mistakes). That was my point. I don't have to read UAs brief to know it will be more factual and better prepared then the suit, the way it was filed
May 28, 2012, 6:35 pm
#81
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: Dubai / NYC
Programs: EK-IO, UA-1K2MM, ETIHAD-GOLD, SPG-PLAT LIFETIME, JUMEIRAH SERIUS GOLD
Posts: 5,220
Thanks to George.
Does anyone seriously think that any reputable company would defend United's treatment of MMilers?
UA promised lifetime benefits that were spelled out in numerous formats over the years. UA did not offer a footnote (or even hint) that "lifetime" was qualified in some manner, e.g., "UA reserves the right to change the benefits and benefit period in the future". If UA had reserved this right, then "lifetime" would have had no meaning
.
Does anyone seriously think that any reputable company would defend United's treatment of MMilers?
UA promised lifetime benefits that were spelled out in numerous formats over the years. UA did not offer a footnote (or even hint) that "lifetime" was qualified in some manner, e.g., "UA reserves the right to change the benefits and benefit period in the future". If UA had reserved this right, then "lifetime" would have had no meaning
.
May 28, 2012, 6:40 pm
#82
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,508
No, but can you imagine that it won't at least be professional and well thought out (as opposed to this suit which has so many mistakes). That was my point. I don't have to read UAs brief to know it will be more factual and better prepared then the suit, the way it was filed
May 28, 2012, 7:55 pm
#83
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: 9,490
No, but can you imagine that it won't at least be professional and well thought out (as opposed to this suit which has so many mistakes). That was my point. I don't have to read UAs brief to know it will be more factual and better prepared then the suit, the way it was filed
I gather that such complaints can be amended and maybe this one will be. Is the purpose of the opening salvo of a complaint at least partly to get a foot in the door, so to speak?
Not being a lawyer, I was interested to learn awhile ago that the definition of a "deceptive trade practice" includes the presentation of information that is confusing - it doesn't have to be deliberately deceptive. I have no idea if that has any applicability to a civil suit but who was it again who described those infamous Q & A entries as "regrettable and confusing?" I'll be interested to see if that forms part of the suit.
As to the moral component, we all have our own opinions. IIRC you mentioned in that gone-viral thread you started that the UA executive who called you after you canceled all that business told you that devaluing the PMUA MMers was a "conscious strategy" or words to that effect. In other words, it was not a simple oversight or misunderstanding. I've previously noted that strategies are what the military employs to defeat the enemy.
I for one will have to be content to see the legal issues, which may or may not coincide with the moral issues, argued by real lawyers rather than on the Internet.
May 28, 2012, 8:25 pm
#84
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA GS 2MM
Posts: 947
I think there's a little bit of merit to the case - in particular the 2011 emails that CR1s were continuing and then zero notice to allow a modification in travel patterns. The "right to change the program at any time" is a little like those blanket disclaimers you see declining all responsibility in places like dry cleaners. Just because they put it up there doesn't absolve them.
Isn't there a lawyer or two on the board that could help the guy get a better written complaint??
Isn't there a lawyer or two on the board that could help the guy get a better written complaint??
May 28, 2012, 8:38 pm
#85
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: DEN
Programs: UA Gold-MM, AA Gold-MM, F9-Silver, Hyatt Something, Marriott Gold, IHG Plat, Hilton Diamond
Posts: 6,393
Eh, at least Jeff is well-positioned to mount a defense.... after all, he actually has training in law, as opposed to running airlines! 
May 28, 2012, 10:17 pm
#86
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Sunny SYDNEY!
Programs: UA Million Miler. (1.9M) Virgin Platinum. HH Diamond + SPG Gold
Posts: 32,330
"All those over-entitled Million Milers wanting their measly 2 x CR1 we proposed them IN WRITING .. tell them to go pound sand"
.
May 28, 2012, 10:28 pm
#87
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Honolulu / DC
Programs: UA 1K /2mm / Marriott Lifetime Titanium , Hilton Diamond
Posts: 1,051
Brilliantly said. Of course, we all have our opinions and the PMUA MM issue has now been brought to the forefront. Everyone has their own opinions on this matter and this is why as a country we have courts where arguments can be presented in a proper manner.
Personally, I understand the year to year changes an airline can make to their frequent flyer program. But what happens, as many others have stated on this site (and on others as well), when a company promotes over years and years "lifetime benefits" only to change it? That's the question -
UG
This change was communicated at a phase in the ff cycle that gave people no real choice. It discounted years, decades sometimes, of loyalty placed for a purpose. With no remedy.
The case may or may not have legal merit - I'm not a lawyer. But it is awful customer service. And to the most loyal fliers. Some of whom are denegrated by management as over entitled, but others of us who simply remained loyal to an airline we tried hard to like and stay with.
That is the basis for a mutiny if not a successful lawsuit.
May 28, 2012, 11:13 pm
#88
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
The case may or may not have legal merit - I'm not a lawyer. But it is awful customer service. And to the most loyal fliers. Some of whom are denegrated by management as over entitled, but others of us who simply remained loyal to an airline we tried hard to like and stay with.
That is the basis for a mutiny if not a successful lawsuit.
That is the basis for a mutiny if not a successful lawsuit.
May 29, 2012, 1:02 am
#89
Join Date: Jan 2000
Location: London; Bangkok; Las Vegas
Programs: AA Exec Plat; UA MM Gold; Marriott Lifetime Titanium; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 8,745
As a full-time practicing lawyer, I just have to tell you how amusing it is to read all the ignorant posts by people who have no idea what the law actually provides or how the legal system really works.
You simply cannot legally tell someone specifically that they have earned two regional upgrades each year for life after earning Million Miler and then take it away that benefit after it has been earned by relying on a general provision that provides you can change the rules at any time.
But keep posting away. It's good for a few laughs.
You simply cannot legally tell someone specifically that they have earned two regional upgrades each year for life after earning Million Miler and then take it away that benefit after it has been earned by relying on a general provision that provides you can change the rules at any time.
But keep posting away. It's good for a few laughs.
May 29, 2012, 2:35 am
#90
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Benicia, California, USA
Programs: AA PLT,AS,UA PP,J6,FB,EY,LH,SQ,HH Dmd,Hyatt Glbl,Marriott Plat,IHG Plat,Accor Gold
Posts: 10,820
Haven't read the whole thread, but...
This just about hits the nail on the head. The point of such a lawsuit is not necessarily to win a court victory, but to bring pressure on the opponent in other ways. In this case, those other ways include the publicity, the discovery process, etc. Whatever the wording of UA's small print, via its advertising and other public pronouncments it certainly has promised more than it has delivered re MM benefits and a host of other perks. More power to the litigant here for bringing these to light in various ways.
I think this lawsuit is more about using potential adverse publicity against UA as leverage to get them to restore the lost benefits rather than winning outright. If the suit goes forward (and it's a big "if") the plaintiff can use Discovery to closely examine UA about both MP and the MM program. UA obviously would not want that.