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 5, 2013, 12:58 pm
#1096
Join Date: Dec 2010
Location: Chicago
Programs: AA EXP, UA former 1K (1.9MM and gone), Marriott LT Plat, Hilton Diamond, SPG Plat
Posts: 1,111
Originally Posted by NiceLanding
Okay, found it. Your assertions of loss fall into two categories:
1) Loss of ability to count all EQMs towards MM status.
Yes, you lost this, although I suspect that getting bumped up a level at each MM milestone will more than compensate for most CO MMs. In fact, that's an additional benefit that you got immediately, rather than something that might or might not help you reach some higher level in the future. (That's particularly relevant given your lawyerly distinction between benefits already earned vs. expected, but as yet unearned.)
2) Dilution of earned level by additional levels at the top.
Obviously UA MMs have suffered this same dilution. Unlike CO MMs, we were not bumped a level, so it's much worse for us.
On the whole, your arguments about CO MMs being hurt more than UA MMs are remarkably weak, which may be why you've been reluctant to repeat them here. Or did I miss something important in that very long thread you referenced?
Okay, found it. Your assertions of loss fall into two categories:
1) Loss of ability to count all EQMs towards MM status.
Yes, you lost this, although I suspect that getting bumped up a level at each MM milestone will more than compensate for most CO MMs. In fact, that's an additional benefit that you got immediately, rather than something that might or might not help you reach some higher level in the future. (That's particularly relevant given your lawyerly distinction between benefits already earned vs. expected, but as yet unearned.)
2) Dilution of earned level by additional levels at the top.
Obviously UA MMs have suffered this same dilution. Unlike CO MMs, we were not bumped a level, so it's much worse for us.
On the whole, your arguments about CO MMs being hurt more than UA MMs are remarkably weak, which may be why you've been reluctant to repeat them here. Or did I miss something important in that very long thread you referenced?
Feb 5, 2013, 1:28 pm
#1097
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
you continue to take shots at me, but you will not engage with me despite the judge agreeing with me. I am not sure what you want to achieve, I'd be delighted to hear it though.
Feb 5, 2013, 1:49 pm
#1098
Moderator: Midwest, Las Vegas & Dining Buzz
Join Date: Jun 2001
Location: Chicago, Illinois
Posts: 17,976
Let's get back to the topic instead of the back-and-forth between posters. I't's really getting old.
iluv2fly
Moderator, UA
iluv2fly
Moderator, UA
Feb 5, 2013, 2:29 pm
#1099
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
Fifteen days before more news comes about the case
On February 21st, there will be a status meeting/hearing with the plaintiff's attorneys and UA's attorneys.
Until that time, there will not be any reportable activity on the case unless UA reconsiders the damages done to the million-milers and reinstates the advertised lifetime benefits.
Now, that would be a treat to have this fiasco related to our breached lifetime benefits brought to a positive resolution.
-
Until that time, there will not be any reportable activity on the case unless UA reconsiders the damages done to the million-milers and reinstates the advertised lifetime benefits.
Now, that would be a treat to have this fiasco related to our breached lifetime benefits brought to a positive resolution.
-
Last edited by dgcpaphd; Feb 10, 2013 at 11:03 pm Reason: wrong date
Feb 7, 2013, 12:12 pm
#1100
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
In the above quote, the person will become a million-miler this year. He or she does not become part of the class action because he or she was not a class member as of the beginning of 2012. New million-milers are not part of the class action that was filed last year.
Just because there will not be any reports from the court until February 20, does not mean that the discussions should stop in this thread or that the lawsuit should be discussed in the other million-mile thread. Discussions related to the lawsuit belong in this thread.
-
Just because there will not be any reports from the court until February 20, does not mean that the discussions should stop in this thread or that the lawsuit should be discussed in the other million-mile thread. Discussions related to the lawsuit belong in this thread.
-
Feb 7, 2013, 12:27 pm
#1101
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
According to the first amended complaint:
I'll admit to not really reading class definition before hand but there are two problems with this statement. 1) it excludes people who earned their 1 millionth mile on December 31, 2011, with no real reason to exclude them from the class.
and
2) according to my reading of this paragraph, it appears the Plaintiff's concede that the million miler program is a part of mileage plus. (subjecting the program to MP terms and conditions.)
I wonder how UA's lawyers missed that. Oops.
All persons, as of midnight, December 31, 2011, who were members of the million miler program under United Airlines' Mileage Plus frequent flyer program
I'll admit to not really reading class definition before hand but there are two problems with this statement. 1) it excludes people who earned their 1 millionth mile on December 31, 2011, with no real reason to exclude them from the class.
and
2) according to my reading of this paragraph, it appears the Plaintiff's concede that the million miler program is a part of mileage plus. (subjecting the program to MP terms and conditions.)
I wonder how UA's lawyers missed that. Oops.
Feb 7, 2013, 12:30 pm
#1102
Join Date: Jul 2012
Location: @LAS
Programs: Concorde Connoisseur, ua 1mm
Posts: 152
If this lawsuit does cause some changes to the MM program, I wonder what will happen to people in my position. At the time the changes were made to the MM program, I had 900,000 UA miles. This year I will reach 1MM. I too have spent a lot of money on united but I was only 90% of the way to MM.
of us writing that attorney right now ...
Feb 7, 2013, 1:27 pm
#1103
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 1999
Location: Ewa Beach, Hawaii
Posts: 10,909
But maybe the Plaintiff can bring it up during the case. Still a wait and see.
Feb 7, 2013, 1:55 pm
#1104
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
Colpuck, this does include all who pass the 1 millionth mile on Dec 31st. But not all is lost, we will see what happens. Or maybe someone with deep pockets can file a second class action to include those under 1MM on UA metal And Those in the CO program who feel shafted can file their own class action. We could keep UA in litigation for a LONG time.
But maybe the Plaintiff can bring it up during the case. Still a wait and see.
But maybe the Plaintiff can bring it up during the case. Still a wait and see.
The plaintiff can't just "bring up" people outside of the class. The class should certified according to the pleadings which exclude non-million milers at that time.
Also, the claim for those that hadn't reach million-miler status before the change over is suspect at best. UA's offer was pretty zero-sum, you fly 1,000,000 miles you get cool benefits, you don't fly 1,000,000 miles you get nothing.
Feb 7, 2013, 2:25 pm
#1105
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
Could that be deliberate to keep the CO flyers out of the mix and only include those who did the actual million miles on UA metal? If the plaintiff was never a CO flyer, I could see why he would only want to focus on UA and not on a merged UA/CO program which, when merged, also included miles from partners. My million miles was strictly UA metal and the last 100K came from partner activity when they added that on with the merger.
Feb 7, 2013, 2:55 pm
#1106
Join Date: Apr 2008
Posts: 2,358
V. Class Action Allegations
31. This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the following proposed class (“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.
That language is pretty clear and to the point. It was good enough to satisfy the judge who denied UA's motion to dismiss.
Notice that the attorney separated the million-mile program from the remainder of Mileage Plus program which is contrary to what you wrote.
Again, perhaps you are confusing the million-mile class action with some other case.
In less than two weeks the status conference will be held. We million-milers will be happy and UA management will be unhappy, if all goes in our favor.
-
Could that be deliberate to keep the CO flyers out of the mix and only include those who did the actual million miles on UA metal? If the plaintiff was never a CO flyer, I could see why he would only want to focus on UA and not on a merged UA/CO program which, when merged, also included miles from partners. My million miles was strictly UA metal and the last 100K came from partner activity when they added that on with the merger.
-
It was intentional to include only the UA side of the merged company. This is because only the UA side required all UA metal to qualify for the status being challenged. There were also a few other issues why the class action only includes the UA side but those issues were not devious.
In your case, since your million-miles was BIS UA million miles, you definitely are a bonafide class member of the suit.
Let us keep our fingers crossed for the outcome to be positive for us.
-
Last edited by FlyinHawaiian; Feb 7, 2013 at 6:39 pm Reason: merge
Feb 7, 2013, 3:37 pm
#1107
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
The below quote is taken exactly from the complaint on file with the court. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the wording that describes the class participants. Here is the portion you said was "the attorney's shoddy work-product."
V. Class Action Allegations
31. This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the following proposed class (“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.
That language is pretty clear and to the point. It was good enough to satisfy the judge who denied UA's motion to dismiss.
Notice that the attorney separated the million-mile program from the remainder of Mileage Plus program which is contrary to what you wrote.
You might want to read the complaint again. It does not support what you just posted. The plaintiff did not do as you wrote. Perhaps you have confused the case with another case.
There was no claim in the complaint for those that hadn't reached million-mile status before the change over. I am puzzled where you found that claim as I have read the entire complaint and found no such claim.
Again, perhaps you are confusing the million-mile class action with some other case.
In less than two weeks the status conference will be held. We million-milers will be happy and UA management will be unhappy, if all goes in our favor.
-
V. Class Action Allegations
31. This action is brought as a class action by Plaintiff on behalf of himself and the following proposed class (“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.
That language is pretty clear and to the point. It was good enough to satisfy the judge who denied UA's motion to dismiss.
Notice that the attorney separated the million-mile program from the remainder of Mileage Plus program which is contrary to what you wrote.
You might want to read the complaint again. It does not support what you just posted. The plaintiff did not do as you wrote. Perhaps you have confused the case with another case.
There was no claim in the complaint for those that hadn't reached million-mile status before the change over. I am puzzled where you found that claim as I have read the entire complaint and found no such claim.
Again, perhaps you are confusing the million-mile class action with some other case.
In less than two weeks the status conference will be held. We million-milers will be happy and UA management will be unhappy, if all goes in our favor.
-
FTR nothing of what you wrote makes any kind of sense. Seriously it doesn't. I am trying to understand what your wrote but I am getting a divide by 0 error.
I don't know where to begin other than by repeating what I said. I wont though. I will only say Baze and others were asking about adding others to the class and my response was is not possible.
Feb 7, 2013, 3:44 pm
#1108
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 know what the attorney meant to write, but that contrasts with what he actually wrote. I don't think it is an issue, but it is just another example of the attorney's shoddy work-product.
The plaintiff can't just "bring up" people outside of the class. The class should certified according to the pleadings which exclude non-million milers at that time.
Also, the claim for those that hadn't reach million-miler status before the change over is suspect at best. UA's offer was pretty zero-sum, you fly 1,000,000 miles you get cool benefits, you don't fly 1,000,000 miles you get nothing.
The plaintiff can't just "bring up" people outside of the class. The class should certified according to the pleadings which exclude non-million milers at that time.
Also, the claim for those that hadn't reach million-miler status before the change over is suspect at best. UA's offer was pretty zero-sum, you fly 1,000,000 miles you get cool benefits, you don't fly 1,000,000 miles you get nothing.
But because I truly care about my fellow Million Mile Flyers and those who were close to BIS MM, I wish to state the following -
To the FT Members who were PMUA MM or close to it before the merger:
90% of what one specific poster writes is completely wrong and does not know what they are talking about and the assumptions of what is happening behind the scenes are off. Reader beware, and know this to be true in the back of your mind. As long as you know this, I don't care anymore what is posted.
Knowledge is indeed power, lack of knowledge is dangerous.
Yes, the suit is for those who hit the 1MM mark before the merger, period, otherwise it would have been difficult to have a leg to stand on. However, those who have put their hard-earned money into this thinking they would get LIFETIME benefits and were close to MM, pre-merger, hold tight, whatever happens with this, may create a ripple effect for everyone else. The effort will be made to address everyone. It may work, it may not. We shall see. But it's incredible what EFFORT can accomplish.
Legally, the lawyer who is handling the case can't promise anything, but for those who were at the threshold, please send him an e-mail telling him not to forget you. The squeaky wheel gets the attention.
[email protected] (John Edgar)
Hang tight everyone, this is only the beginning. There's a lot more ahead, right now suit has to get class action certified which should happen in the next couple of weeks. If the court sides with the Plaintiff, then it all begins.
Good luck!
UG
Last edited by UrbaneGent; Feb 7, 2013 at 3:49 pm
Feb 7, 2013, 3:53 pm
#1109
FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jul 2007
Location: DFW
Programs: UA Pleb, HH Gold, PWP General Secretary
Posts: 23,199
To the FT Members who were PMUA MM or close to it before the merger:
90% of what one specific poster writes is completely wrong and does not know what they are talking about and the assumptions of what is happening behind the scenes are off. Reader beware, and know this to be true in the back of your mind. As long as you know this, I don't care anymore what is posted.
90% of what one specific poster writes is completely wrong and does not know what they are talking about and the assumptions of what is happening behind the scenes are off. Reader beware, and know this to be true in the back of your mind. As long as you know this, I don't care anymore what is posted.
Feb 7, 2013, 5:47 pm
#1110
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
Does that exclude you from the class, too? I can't recall you posting that you had a million miles on UA metal prior to the merger.