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
Feb 1, 2013, 8:29 am
#946
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Diet Coke man myself.
Anyways, I read the judges ruling and he and I agree. While the judge was certainly more lenient with the Plaintiff's drafting than I would have been.
Standing:
I am not a huge fan of the argument 1P =/= gold, and I think there were better ways to establish standing it doesn't matter.
Breach of K:
When I laid out how I would proceed with the action if I was plaintiff's counsel. I stated that the best way to plead the case would be to argue that MM program creates an independent contract outside of the MileagePlus contract. The judge seems to agree with that logic, though again I do not think this claim was artfully pleaded by the plaintiff.
What is interesting under this claim, is that the screen shot getting passed around is not relevant to the cause of action. But hell it makes a great rallying cry.
Count II breech of good faith and fair dealing,.
This was non-nonsensical from the beginning. I get that this was some sort of bad faith argument, but it doesn't matter.
Count III Unjust Enrichment.
I concur in part and dissent part here. I don't think the ADA preempts basic contract actions, nor do I think this suit would have an effect on airline operations. That being said, unjust enrichment is fairly nebulous, so I agree in that I would have dismissed the case.
Count IV: Specific Performance
It's a remedy not a cause of action, why the Plaintiff plead it they way they did is bizarre.
Anyways, I read the judges ruling and he and I agree. While the judge was certainly more lenient with the Plaintiff's drafting than I would have been.
Standing:
Premier Executive status for life” and under the new program are denied such benefits. Pl.’s Amend. Compl. at 6. Plaintiff does not base his claims on the fact that his benefits are going to be terminated at some future date. Plaintiff claims the termination of benefits has already occurred. Taking these allegations as true, the Court finds that Plaintiff sets forth an Article III injury sufficiently. As such, the Court denies Defendants Motion to Dismiss Pursuant to Rule 12(b)(1).
Breach of K:
the Court does not find any mention of Million Miler membership or the benefits a member receives after flying 1,000,000 miles. ECF No. 10-1, Ex. 1 & Ex. 2. While Plaintiff’s Complaint states explicitly that the Million Miler Program was part of the Mileage Plus Program, Plaintiff and his proposed class are not mere Mileage Plus members. Instead, the Complaint is clear that Plaintiff and his proposed class are Million Miler Program members. Therefore, at this stage of the litigation, the Court finds it plausible that Defendants had a contract with Million Miler members which differed from the contract they had with other Mileage Plus members.
What is interesting under this claim, is that the screen shot getting passed around is not relevant to the cause of action. But hell it makes a great rallying cry.
Count II breech of good faith and fair dealing,.
This was non-nonsensical from the beginning. I get that this was some sort of bad faith argument, but it doesn't matter.
Count III Unjust Enrichment.
I concur in part and dissent part here. I don't think the ADA preempts basic contract actions, nor do I think this suit would have an effect on airline operations. That being said, unjust enrichment is fairly nebulous, so I agree in that I would have dismissed the case.
Count IV: Specific Performance
It's a remedy not a cause of action, why the Plaintiff plead it they way they did is bizarre.
Feb 1, 2013, 8:36 am
#947
Join Date: Oct 2001
Location: Chicago
Programs: UA 1P (1MM), AA PLT (2MM)
Posts: 709
I'd accept a settlement as a pmUA 1MM to go from lifetime gold to lifetime Plat with promised benefits attached AND the provision that they not be watered down by adding another tier above Plat.
Feb 1, 2013, 8:52 am
#948
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
So much time and effort for this - whatever happens should benefit all of those in the BIS PMUAMMiler Club and those who were close to it.
Feb 1, 2013, 9:01 am
#949
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: SF Bay Area
Programs: UA 1K, Hyatt Globalist, Virtuoso Travel Agent, Commercial Pilot
Posts: 2,117
Anyone who thinks that they're going to see significant gains from a settlement it going to be sorely disappointed. What's really going to happen is that all class members are going to get a few thousand miles and the attorneys are going to pick up a few million dollars. At this point, the attorneys are just trying to certify class status, then they'll be gunning for as quick a settlement as possible, which will mean the smallest compensation that the court will accept for the class members (but a big payout for the attorneys).
Last edited by Sykes; Feb 1, 2013 at 11:58 am Reason: Grammar edits
Feb 1, 2013, 9:04 am
#950
Join Date: Jul 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 4,508
Perhaps a fair settlement would be to offer a one-time, binding choice-between the prior benefits and the new benefits.
Feb 1, 2013, 9:11 am
#951
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Anyone who thinks that they're going to see significant gains from a settlement it going to be sorely disappointed. What's really going to happen is that all class members are going to get a few thousand miles and the attorneys are going to pick up a few million dollars. At this point, the attorneys are just trying to certify class status, then they'll be gunning for as quick a settlement as possible, which will means the smallest compensation that the court will accept for the class members (buta big payout for the attorneys).
Feb 1, 2013, 10:07 am
#952
A FlyerTalk Posting Legend
Join Date: Apr 2001
Location: PSM
Posts: 69,232
Feb 1, 2013, 10:11 am
#953
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: 9,489
Anyone who thinks that they're going to see significant gains from a settlement it going to be sorely disappointed. What's really going to happen is that all class members are going to get a few thousand miles and the attorneys are going to pick up a few million dollars. At this point, the attorneys are just trying to certify class status, then they'll be gunning for as quick a settlement as possible, which will means the smallest compensation that the court will accept for the class members (buta big payout for the attorneys).
For me there’s a moral principle involved – keeping promises - more important than "what I get." IMHO UA broke its promise to me about the lifetime benefits I would receive after flying 1 million BIS miles on UA metal.
If that broken promise turns out to be a legally enforceable principle about a breached contract, so much the better IMHO. Still, UA would have to change a lot about its current operations to make me other than "sorely disappointed."
*Why PMUA Million Milers Will Fail
1. The complainers are simply whining. I like my new lifetime benefits. I’m afraid the whiners will spoil it for me.2. UA has the right to change the T&Cs anytime they want. The word “lifetime” means nothing. People who don’t understand that are naďve.
3. No lawyer would ever take such a case. Such a case would be laughed out of court.
4. The lawyers who sued are incompetent. This case has no merit and will be laughed out of court.
5. Even if UA loses, the only winners will be the lawyers. The customers will get little or nothing.
Feb 1, 2013, 10:11 am
#954
Suspended
Join Date: Jul 2009
Location: DCA
Programs: UA Gold
Posts: 1,653
Feb 1, 2013, 11:25 am
#955
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
snip snip
*Why PMUA Million Milers Will Fail
1. The complainers are simply whining. I like my new lifetime benefits. I’m afraid the whiners will spoil it for me.2. UA has the right to change the T&Cs anytime they want. The word “lifetime” means nothing. People who don’t understand that are naďve.
3. No lawyer would ever take such a case. Such a case would be laughed out of court.
4. The lawyers who sued are incompetent. This case has no merit and will be laughed out of court.
5. Even if UA loses, the only winners will be the lawyers. The customers will get little or nothing.
-
Your revisit of "prior predictions" that were previously posted to this forum is funny and timely.
I find it comical that so many people were incredibly wrong in their thoughts on the direction the class action would take.
Let us hope that UA exercises restraint and does not drag this case on much more. UA's 2012 negative performances (both operationally and financially) had to have been influenced by the unethical way loyal UA customers were treated by the new regime. The mass exodus of former loyal UA customers to other air carriers clearly added to the negative results of UA by way of lost revenue.
If this case is not settled quickly, there will be a repeat of negative operational and financial performance into the current year and beyond.
It is possible that the matter could be resolved quickly. It mainly depends on UA and Smisek.
When one considers that Smisek makes more than thirty million dollars a year (including perks), his ego might get in the way of logic.
Said in another way, someone making that kind of money can never be wrong, in his own mind. To admit that he was and is wrong in breaching the million-mile lifetime commitments could appear as a threat to him and his huge salary and perks.
If Smisek (and the "over entitled" John Rainey) stays out of the settlement negotiations, this case could be brought to a fast and equitable resolution.
-
Feb 1, 2013, 12:04 pm
#956
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Feb 2002
Location: San Francisco/Tel Aviv/YYZ
Programs: CO 1K-MM
Posts: 10,762
When one considers that Smisek makes more than thirty million dollars a year (including perks), his ego might get in the way of logic.
I said earlier, I think a fair resolution would be for United to make whole what they promised, the yearly CR1's and 100% mileage bonus, neither of which is going to be a financial burden for UA.
The cost to providing a CR1 is zero. It just changes the priority order of upgrades from shorter-term loyal customers to longer term. They've already determined they're not going to sell the seat when they release R space.
The cost to providing the additional 50% miles is not zero, but its likely immaterial to them, while it provides a nice incentive to travelers to choose them (something they are increasingly NOT doing).
Feb 1, 2013, 12:11 pm
#957
Join Date: Sep 2006
Location: ORD
Programs: United Plat 2MM, Hilton Gold
Posts: 2,727
I am trying to think of this from United's perspective.
United probably has no problem with sending people to say, "We promised the 50K level, they got the 50K level. The 50K level ain't what it used to be, but then again, what is?"
On the other hand, their CR-1 story is different. "We promised two CR-1's, decided not to honor that promise, and indeed, continued to promise it even after we decided not to honor it. Because of superior lawyering, however, we believe we can get away with it." That would be a PR nightmare, even if UA prevails.
United probably has no problem with sending people to say, "We promised the 50K level, they got the 50K level. The 50K level ain't what it used to be, but then again, what is?"
On the other hand, their CR-1 story is different. "We promised two CR-1's, decided not to honor that promise, and indeed, continued to promise it even after we decided not to honor it. Because of superior lawyering, however, we believe we can get away with it." That would be a PR nightmare, even if UA prevails.
Feb 1, 2013, 12:40 pm
#958
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: Jersey Shore/YYZ
Programs: UA 1K, Marriott Plat, Hilton Diamond, Hertz PC
Posts: 12,521
I am trying to think of this from United's perspective.
United probably has no problem with sending people to say, "We promised the 50K level, they got the 50K level. The 50K level ain't what it used to be, but then again, what is?"
On the other hand, their CR-1 story is different. "We promised two CR-1's, decided not to honor that promise, and indeed, continued to promise it even after we decided not to honor it. Because of superior lawyering, however, we believe we can get away with it." That would be a PR nightmare, even if UA prevails.
United probably has no problem with sending people to say, "We promised the 50K level, they got the 50K level. The 50K level ain't what it used to be, but then again, what is?"
On the other hand, their CR-1 story is different. "We promised two CR-1's, decided not to honor that promise, and indeed, continued to promise it even after we decided not to honor it. Because of superior lawyering, however, we believe we can get away with it." That would be a PR nightmare, even if UA prevails.
Feb 1, 2013, 12:47 pm
#959
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: 9,489
I am trying to think of this from United's perspective.
United probably has no problem with sending people to say, "We promised the 50K level, they got the 50K level. The 50K level ain't what it used to be, but then again, what is?"
On the other hand, their CR-1 story is different. "We promised two CR-1's, decided not to honor that promise, and indeed, continued to promise it even after we decided not to honor it. Because of superior lawyering, however, we believe we can get away with it." That would be a PR nightmare, even if UA prevails.
United probably has no problem with sending people to say, "We promised the 50K level, they got the 50K level. The 50K level ain't what it used to be, but then again, what is?"
On the other hand, their CR-1 story is different. "We promised two CR-1's, decided not to honor that promise, and indeed, continued to promise it even after we decided not to honor it. Because of superior lawyering, however, we believe we can get away with it." That would be a PR nightmare, even if UA prevails.
Feb 1, 2013, 12:55 pm
#960
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Wherever
Programs: UA 1MM for a while now, AS for a minute, BAEC newly minted Gold
Posts: 1,172