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
Jan 31, 2013, 6:43 pm
#886
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
Attacking? - - 
- - - -
That is certainly a strong word to use for disagreeing with an incorrect statement made by a poster.
The OP wrote something that is not accurate. One example, was his recent post wherein he made reference to what is supposedly official mandates from UA (a list).
However, the source he referenced was written by UA AFTER the demotions and breach were put in place by UA. It is obvious that an "after-the-fact" "list" to which the OP referred is self-serving for UA and has no bearing on the issue of UA breaching the agreement with million-milers.
-
You are absolutely correct. However, no such personal attack or reprisal was made. I am puzzled at how you could reach such a conclusion.
An incorrect assertion was made by the OP and I corrected the incorrect assertion so that other readers would not be misled by the erroneous information. The OP often posts information that is not correct. Other attorneys have called him out on his posts.
Should I have ignored the incorrect information and allowed other readers to be misinformed and/or misled?
-
- - - - That is certainly a strong word to use for disagreeing with an incorrect statement made by a poster.
The OP wrote something that is not accurate. One example, was his recent post wherein he made reference to what is supposedly official mandates from UA (a list).
However, the source he referenced was written by UA AFTER the demotions and breach were put in place by UA. It is obvious that an "after-the-fact" "list" to which the OP referred is self-serving for UA and has no bearing on the issue of UA breaching the agreement with million-milers.
-
You are absolutely correct. However, no such personal attack or reprisal was made. I am puzzled at how you could reach such a conclusion.
An incorrect assertion was made by the OP and I corrected the incorrect assertion so that other readers would not be misled by the erroneous information. The OP often posts information that is not correct. Other attorneys have called him out on his posts.
Should I have ignored the incorrect information and allowed other readers to be misinformed and/or misled?
-
There's a right way and a wrong way to handle misinformation. [Unduly personalized text edited by Moderator.]
Last edited by Ocn Vw 1K; Jan 31, 2013 at 9:31 pm Reason: Per FT Rules.
Jan 31, 2013, 6:45 pm
#887
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
http://en-maktoob.news.yahoo.com/uni...--finance.html
And the judge's comments:
Nice day to be a million miler with some hope benefits may still be restored.
And the judge's comments:
Nice day to be a million miler with some hope benefits may still be restored.
Jan 31, 2013, 6:55 pm
#888
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
I wasn't as optimistic based on comments from a number of members here that UA could change terms at will and that million milers were bound by the ever-changing Mileage Plus program rules. With the judge finding that it's plausible that the million miler program is different from the Mileage Plus program, it will be interesting how UA resolves this. Easiest solution would be to restore the benefits they promised me and other millions milers over the years.
Jan 31, 2013, 7:02 pm
#889
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
You guys! The court declined UA's Motion To Dismiss! One of the three counts was accepted by the Court, which is HUGE. We are off to discovery!
The Court's ruling was very clear and that the breach of contract claim survives. We are off to discovery and the case now moves forward!
This is for all of PM MMilers who were promised LIFETIME benefits. This is HUGE and LANDMARK because the airlines hide behind their T&C's
WooHoo!
UG
The Court's ruling was very clear and that the breach of contract claim survives. We are off to discovery and the case now moves forward!
This is for all of PM MMilers who were promised LIFETIME benefits. This is HUGE and LANDMARK because the airlines hide behind their T&C's
WooHoo!
UG
Jan 31, 2013, 7:06 pm
#890
Join Date: Feb 2001
Location: Washington, DC
Posts: 515
I wasn't as optimistic based on comments from a number of members here that UA could change terms at will and that million milers were bound by the ever-changing Mileage Plus program rules. With the judge finding that it's plausible that the million miler program is different from the Mileage Plus program, it will be interesting how UA resolves this. Easiest solution would be to restore the benefits they promised me and other millions milers over the years.
I suspect they'll grandfather those in and will reduce the benefits for prospective frequent flyers trying to attain such status.
The question isn't who wins the battle, it's who wins the war. United's ultimately lost sight of the bigger picture.
Jan 31, 2013, 7:10 pm
#891
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
You guys! The court declined UA's Motion To Dismiss! One of the three counts was accepted by the Court, which is HUGE. We are off to discovery!
The Court's ruling was very clear and that the breach of contract claim survives. We are off to discovery and the case now moves forward!
This is for all of PM MMilers who were promised LIFETIME benefits. This is HUGE and LANDMARK because the airlines hide behind their T&C's
WooHoo!
UG
The Court's ruling was very clear and that the breach of contract claim survives. We are off to discovery and the case now moves forward!
This is for all of PM MMilers who were promised LIFETIME benefits. This is HUGE and LANDMARK because the airlines hide behind their T&C's
WooHoo!
UG
Jan 31, 2013, 7:10 pm
#892
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Jan 31, 2013, 7:14 pm
#893
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: HNL
Programs: UA GS4MM, MR LT Plat, Hilton Gold
Posts: 6,447
What are the parts of the case dismissed? And - was it accepted as a class action or simply Lagen v United? I can't tell from the story.
Jan 31, 2013, 7:15 pm
#894
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
There will be a motion for class certification, and a class certification hearing before it is officially a class action.
Jan 31, 2013, 7:19 pm
#895
In Memoriam, FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jun 2000
Location: Benicia CA
Programs: Alaska MVP Gold 75K, AA 3.8MM, UA 1.1MM, enjoying the retired life
Posts: 31,849
Is there more incentive for UA to settle this right now, say, versus settling it a week ago, or is it better for them to drag it out as long as possible?
Jan 31, 2013, 7:22 pm
#896
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 wasn't as optimistic based on comments from a number of members here that UA could change terms at will and that million milers were bound by the ever-changing Mileage Plus program rules. With the judge finding that it's plausible that the million miler program is different from the Mileage Plus program, it will be interesting how UA resolves this. Easiest solution would be to restore the benefits they promised me and other millions milers over the years.
I was on the fence as to how this would go, because it could have gone either way. (removed text because I just don't care anymore)
The claim was filed as a class action. It becomes a class action very soon. What happens shortly is United will have to send to every PMUA Million Miler a notice about the class action and telling them they can opt out.
Also, next is discovery, which means the plaintiff (which is basically all of us) now can see internal documents concerning all of this. Which means the website postings, them changing it, etc.
Whatever the case, United cannot just announce they are going to grandfather the PMUA MMilers, it's too late for that. They should have done it a long time ago.
UG
Last edited by iluv2fly; Jan 31, 2013 at 10:16 pm Reason: merge
Jan 31, 2013, 7:27 pm
#897
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
There is more incentive for UA to settle, but if I was the Plaintiff's attorney I wouldn't. If court certifies this as class action, which the court should do ASAP under rule 23, the settlement will be a huge payday for the plaintiff's attorneys.
Jan 31, 2013, 7:36 pm
#898
Join Date: Oct 2007
Location: USA
Programs: UA (1K, 2MM), AA, Avis, National
Posts: 867
This is an entertaining thread!
I do not know if UA MM benefit promise was legaly binding or not, the court will decide this. However, the promise was clearly misleading. The lawsuit brings UA bad PR and makes consumers aware that miles and other FF perks can be devalued at any time.
I do not know if UA MM benefit promise was legaly binding or not, the court will decide this. However, the promise was clearly misleading. The lawsuit brings UA bad PR and makes consumers aware that miles and other FF perks can be devalued at any time.
Jan 31, 2013, 7:37 pm
#899
Join Date: Jan 2013
Posts: 54
Is there more incentive for UA to settle this right now, say, versus settling it a week ago, or is it better for them to drag it out as long as possible?
Jan 31, 2013, 7:40 pm
#900
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
They dismissed counts 2 and 3, which was anticipated. The FIRST count, the most important was the United BREACHED the CONTRACT between the airline/program and MP Members (MMilers). Which is huge.
The claim was filed as a class action. It becomes a class action. What happens next is every PMUA Million Miler will get a notice about the class action and telling them they can opt out.
Also, next is discovery, which means the plaintiff (which is basically all of us) now can see internal documents concerning all of this. Which means the website postings, them changing it, etc.
Whatever the case, United cannot just announce they are going to grandfather the PMUA MMilers, it's too late for that. They should have done it a long time ago.
UG
The claim was filed as a class action. It becomes a class action. What happens next is every PMUA Million Miler will get a notice about the class action and telling them they can opt out.
Also, next is discovery, which means the plaintiff (which is basically all of us) now can see internal documents concerning all of this. Which means the website postings, them changing it, etc.
Whatever the case, United cannot just announce they are going to grandfather the PMUA MMilers, it's too late for that. They should have done it a long time ago.
UG
does someone have a copy of the ruling they can e-mail to me?