Couple sues United for overserving husband!
Jan 9, 2009, 8:31 am
#121
Join Date: Sep 2008
Posts: 350
Perhaps UA is different, but most big companies I know of don't handle litigation in-house, even if it's frivolous. The in-house counsel are mostly there to hire and supervise outside counsel, and also for general internal advising and policy-making. It has a lot to do with professional liability: companies like being able to sue someone else if there's a legal screw-up.
UA has probably hired a cheap Floridian litigation firm to sort this out on their behalf.
UA has probably hired a cheap Floridian litigation firm to sort this out on their behalf.
Last edited by Mark_K; Jan 9, 2009 at 8:37 am
Jan 9, 2009, 5:15 pm
#122
Original Poster
Join Date: Sep 2007
Location: ORD
Programs: UA 1K
Posts: 242
The couple has dropped the suit, according to the trib:
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,7879658.story
http://www.chicagotribune.com/busine...,7879658.story
At the request of the Florida couple who brought the legal action, a U.S. District Court in Tampa has dismissed a lawsuit against United Airlines that claimed the carrier "negligently" overserved alcohol during a flight.
Yoichi and Ayisha Shimamoto asked the court on Dec. 23 to voluntarily dismiss the case, which created headlines for the legal theory involved.
At issue was whether laws that hold bars and restaurants responsible for harm caused by intoxicated patrons apply when the server and drinker are flying at 40,000 feet across international territory.
The lawsuit alleged that United's flight attendants were overly generous in serving wine to Yoichi Shimamoto during a nearly nine-hour flight from Osaka, Japan, to San Francisco, fueling domestic violence involving the couple shortly after the plane landed.
Shimamoto was arrested and accused of disorderly conduct and battery after he struck his wife as they headed through U.S. Customs following the December 2006 flight.
Under the Dram Shop Act, which is in place in most states, commercial suppliers of alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons. California's version of the statute restricts suppliers' liability to damage inflicted by minors.
Yoichi and Ayisha Shimamoto asked the court on Dec. 23 to voluntarily dismiss the case, which created headlines for the legal theory involved.
At issue was whether laws that hold bars and restaurants responsible for harm caused by intoxicated patrons apply when the server and drinker are flying at 40,000 feet across international territory.
The lawsuit alleged that United's flight attendants were overly generous in serving wine to Yoichi Shimamoto during a nearly nine-hour flight from Osaka, Japan, to San Francisco, fueling domestic violence involving the couple shortly after the plane landed.
Shimamoto was arrested and accused of disorderly conduct and battery after he struck his wife as they headed through U.S. Customs following the December 2006 flight.
Under the Dram Shop Act, which is in place in most states, commercial suppliers of alcohol may be held liable for injuries caused by intoxicated patrons. California's version of the statute restricts suppliers' liability to damage inflicted by minors.
Jan 9, 2009, 5:18 pm
#123
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: AA Gold, *wood Gold, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 928
I wish the article said whether they dropped it with or without prejudice.
Jan 9, 2009, 5:23 pm
#124
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
Dismissing with or without prejudice is up to the judge, not the plaintiff dropping the case...but my guess is that if it was the plaintiff dropping it it's probably without prejudice, whereas if it was the defendant winning a motion to dismiss it would have been more likely to be with prejudice...
Jan 9, 2009, 5:25 pm
#125
Join Date: Jun 2005
Programs: AA Gold, *wood Gold, Hilton Honors Gold
Posts: 928
Dismissing with or without prejudice is up to the judge, not the plaintiff dropping the case...but my guess is that if it was the plaintiff dropping it it's probably without prejudice, whereas if it was the defendant winning a motion to dismiss it would have been more likely to be with prejudice...
Jan 9, 2009, 6:40 pm
#126
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
.If United gave them money to settle the case, then United would have insisted on a dismissal with prejudice, or else the plaintiffs could just take the money and turn around and sue again.
From the story, it sounds to me like the plaintiffs unilaterally moved to dismiss, which leads me to guess that UA didn't pay them anything, and they just realized that they didn't have a case. But that's really just a guess. The news story is too short and vague for me to say for sure.
Jan 9, 2009, 10:08 pm
#127
Moderator: Mileage Run, United Airlines; FlyerTalk Evangelist
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: The City/Honolulu
Programs: UA 3MM; Hyatt Glob*****; Hilton Diamond
Posts: 14,473
What? All the lawyers here and no one looked it up on PACER?
DKT #11 ORDER approving without prejudice notice of voluntary dismissal. The Clerk is directed to terminate and (sic) pending motion and close the case.. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 12/29/2008
DKT #11 ORDER approving without prejudice notice of voluntary dismissal. The Clerk is directed to terminate and (sic) pending motion and close the case.. Signed by Judge Steven D. Merryday on 12/29/2008
Jan 9, 2009, 11:07 pm
#128
Formerly known as CollegeFlyer
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: JRA
Programs: UA 1K MM, AA PLT, Hyatt Diamond, Marriott Gold, Hertz 5*
Posts: 6,716
I figured one of the real lawyers would do it soon enough.Although, in retrospect, I could have done it for free because my 8 cents per page wouldn't have added up to $10 for this quarter. Oops.
But hey, at least I correctly guessed that the dismissal was without prejudice! I followed the FT rule..when in doubt, speculate!
So Pat...given that the dismissal was without prejudice, is it fair to conclude that UA probably didn't pay the plaintiffs to drop the case?