Response to ADA Suit

[SueM in MN]

That has to be hard to constantly be guessing and playing what we used to call "twenty one questions" over what your DD wants. It also puts more pressure on you to advocate for your DD. Hang in there. We all have our areas of challenge. ((HUGS))

We are into 21 questions here too.
My DD can't speak (she has a communication device she doesn't always want to use), but she has a large vocabulary of words she understands. The 21 questions get really tough when she answers no to getting her fingernail polish "taken off" because she wanted to be asked if she wanted it "removed".

Sometimes lots of fun

The biggest point of posting our personal experience is that Disney worked with my DD's individual needs with one specific issue where she was experiencing difficulty. We approached Disney with a specific issue and not a general issue such as "the DAS won't work for us."

I think you hit on the biggest thing right there - if a guest has a specific issue of difficulty, they are willing to come up with compromises.

Most of the people in the lawsuit either didn't try at all or tried to make DAS work like they had used GAC by insisting "DAS won't work for us. We need an endless supply of automatic Fastpasses."

 

[fabfemmeboy]

Since it was asked a couple pages ago but never answered: What happens next?

The Plaintiffs are allowed to file a "reply" to Disney's brief, essentially refuting Disney's arguments...though sometimes when the reply brief is poorly written, it serves mostly as a chance to double-down on all your arguments from the complaint. Based on the quality of the complaint, I'm guessing that's what will happen here. Usually Plaintiffs have something like 15 days to reply but it's almost always extended to more like a month. Then Discovery begins, which is a long (very long, in civil suits usually 12-18 months kind of long) process in which the sides request different kinds of information from each other - documents about the decision to implement DAS or do away with GAC, documents about how the change was rolled out and what kind of impact it's had, a series of questions answered in writing ("interrogatories") about the acts of the case and other background matters (i.e. whether plaintiffs have brought similar cases against other companies in the past, medical questions that relate to each plaintiff's limitations, etc.), and depositions. Depending on what kind of protective orders (legal orders stating what information cannot be disclosed to anyone outside the case. When there are minors in the case, let alone medical information pertaining to minors, there will almost certainly be at least some kind of protective order) are put in place, it would not surprise me if the plaintiffs' attorney starts leaking/publicizing any potentially-incendiary documents they receive from Disney.

But other than that, everyone waits awhile.

 

[jcb]

Since it was asked a couple pages ago but never answered: What happens next?

The Plaintiffs are allowed to file a "reply" to Disney's brief, essentially refuting Disney's arguments...though sometimes when the reply brief is poorly written, it serves mostly as a chance to double-down on all your arguments from the complaint. Based on the quality of the complaint, I'm guessing that's what will happen here. Usually Plaintiffs have something like 15 days to reply but it's almost always extended to more like a month. Then Discovery begins, which is a long (very long, in civil suits usually 12-18 months kind of long) process in which the sides request different kinds of information from each other - documents about the decision to implement DAS or do away with GAC, documents about how the change was rolled out and what kind of impact it's had, a series of questions answered in writing ("interrogatories") about the acts of the case and other background matters (i.e. whether plaintiffs have brought similar cases against other companies in the past, medical questions that relate to each plaintiff's limitations, etc.), and depositions. Depending on what kind of protective orders (legal orders stating what information cannot be disclosed to anyone outside the case. When there are minors in the case, let alone medical information pertaining to minors, there will almost certainly be at least some kind of protective order) are put in place, it would not surprise me if the plaintiffs' attorney starts leaking/publicizing any potentially-incendiary documents they receive from Disney.

But other than that, everyone waits awhile.

Disney has not filed a motion or brief, just an answer. The parents don't have an opportunity or right to file a response to the answer (though sometimes folks try and it is often quite helpful).

I agree with most everything else (though these attorneys have filed several lawsuits against DL/WDW and have yet to "leak" anything of any consequence in those). http://www.disboards.com/showpost.php?p=51879641&postcount=249

I can't remember which poster here is a lawyer...

But, what's the typical turnaround for this now that Disney has responded? Would it take another 3 months before a judge decides that it gets thrown out or goes to trial?

Years, not months. Without a motion pending, the court isn't going to rule on anything.

 

[BSmithington]

I agree. It doesn't seem like a bad thing to help a family out by doing this for them if they "need" it. The problem is... it's not just one family. It could be hundreds or thousands of families every day and then we are back to what we had with the GAC. And then suddenly those "accommodations" are not enough because they are expected so when someone isn't given those "accommodations" they get up in arms.

I experienced this first hand. A few years back we used the DAC for medical reasons. We were allowed into the FP line on just about every attraction. I remember "looping" at Peter Pan. It was my family and about four-five other families that must have rode PP at least 10 times. The stand-by was well over 45 minutes. One family was annoyed bc the other families had 4-5 people per unit. They were not getting immediate access and the Mother was complaining that her son's disability required immediate access not a 10 minute wait.

 

[Jedana]

I experienced this first hand. A few years back we used the DAC for medical reasons. We were allowed into the FP line on just about every attraction. I remember "looping" at Peter Pan. It was my family and about four-five other families that must have rode PP at least 10 times. The stand-by was well over 45 minutes. One family was annoyed bc the other families had 4-5 people per unit. They were not getting immediate access and the Mother was complaining that her son's disability required immediate access not a 10 minute wait.

You used the GAC, you mean.


I have 3 nephews who are challenged, although each to a different degree. (All 3 are from one of my sibling's 3 kids--one for each of her kids. All born within a year of each other.)

One is able to attend school, but has trouble staying focused on the work--he'd rather be in his own world, but can pay attention with the tools the parents have given him--they worked with him all the time to get him where he is. He would function fine without a DAS, I think--he understands waiting in lines, time, etc.

One is unable to be potty trained, and cannot attend school without an aide--they aren't sure if he can read or not, he doesn't speak unless he is very agitated (and only says stop or go way), and his parents are not engaged at all. He would need a DAS, but I'm not sure he would understand what it was for.

The third struggles with time and spacing, but his parents did nothing his first 5 years to help him; luckily his aide is very good and works with him, and taught the parents how to do so. He still struggles with waiting in lines or time (you tell him one hour, he thinks it's been an hour when it's been 5 minutes). He would have done extremely well with the old GAC, but I think the DAS would be a struggle for him.

Life is unfair, and all anyone can do is make the best of what you have.

 

[JenniBugInPink]

I experienced this first hand. A few years back we used the DAC for medical reasons. We were allowed into the FP line on just about every attraction. I remember "looping" at Peter Pan. It was my family and about four-five other families that must have rode PP at least 10 times. The stand-by was well over 45 minutes. One family was annoyed bc the other families had 4-5 people per unit. They were not getting immediate access and the Mother was complaining that her son's disability required immediate access not a 10 minute wait.

[If you're not a George Takei fan, you probably won't get the reference. That's ok. I'm getting very punchy. Up in the middle of the night making FP+'s, then at 7AM had to try to get (and mostly failed at) Food & Wine ressies. Will have to try again on the 31st.]

 

[jcb]

I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . . in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."

plaintiffs overwhelmingly reside in Florida or in states which are much closer to Florida than California and their claims arise from alleged facts and circumstances arising in Florida. In fact, the DAS card program was primarily designed by Disney employees at WDWin Florida, and its implementation (including employee training) at the WDW theme parks took place in Florida.

 

[SueM in MN]

I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . . in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."

Thanks for keeping us up to date on this, Jack.

 

[PlutoPony]

I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . . in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."

What's the advantage to the Plaintiffs in having this suit in CA courts instead of FL?

 

[jcb]

What's the advantage to the Plaintiffs in having this suit in CA courts instead of FL?

There is a long-held perception that courts in California are more friendly to unusual claims than are Florida courts.

 

[bidnow5]

I'm sure that why they filed in California. Florida isn't as easy for claims

 

[aaarcher86]

I think I mentioned this in a prior post as a possibility but today Disney asked the California federal court to transfer the lawsuit to the federal court in Orlando Disney argues, "24 of the 26 plaintiffs who brought this case . . . in California only complain of experiences in Florida. Similarly, 24 of the 26 do not reside in California; indeed, most of them live in Florida or in other east coast states."

Thanks for the update.

Just so I have the timeline correct since I was clearly thinking incorrectly before...

Discovery comes BEFORE the judge evaluates and either throws it out or sets a court date, right?

Or will a judge evaluate the claim/response and decide if it goes forward or not, THEN causing everyone to go through discovery if it proceeds forward?

 

[mttmilner]

I think it will also be interested to see if the plantiffs stay away from WDW until this is settled. It seems like future trips would help Disney as opposed to hurting them.

 

[jcb]

Thanks for the update.

Just so I have the timeline correct since I was clearly thinking incorrectly before...

Discovery comes BEFORE the judge evaluates and either throws it out or sets a court date, right?

Or will a judge evaluate the claim/response and decide if it goes forward or not, THEN causing everyone to go through discovery if it proceeds forward?

In federal court (where this case is) judges do not, as a rule, evaluate cases before permitting discovery. A judge can be asked to rule on whether the case will proceed before discovery but generally only does so if the sued party files a motion to dismiss (it can happen in other situations but they don't apply here).

Disney has not filed a motion to dismiss. Its motion to transfer the action to Florida actually makes the point that a lot of the discovery (depositions, mainly) will be of people who are in Orlando or the Southeastern United States. So Disney seems to be contemplating that there will be some discovery at a later time.

Disney still has the ability to file a motion for summary judgment which asks the judge to dismiss the case because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a trial. This can be done before or after discovery but typically is done after discovery.

 

[2tinkerbell]

In federal court (where this case is) judges do not, as a rule, evaluate cases before permitting discovery. A judge can be asked to rule on whether the case will proceed before discovery but generally only does so if the sued party files a motion to dismiss (it can happen in other situations but they don't apply here).

Disney has not filed a motion to dismiss. Its motion to transfer the action to Florida actually makes the point that a lot of the discovery (depositions, mainly) will be of people who are in Orlando or the Southeastern United States. So Disney seems to be contemplating that there will be some discovery at a later time.

Disney still has the ability to file a motion for summary judgment which asks the judge to dismiss the case because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a trial. This can be done before or after discovery but typically is done after discovery.

Thanks so much Jack for your posts and explaining the process for us. I am actually finding this whole situation interesting.

I believe that the plantiff's attorney is in CA. If moved to FL, does the attorney need to have a license in FL in order to proceed?

 

[CPT Tripss]

Never mind. My question was already answered.

 

[LilyWDW]

How much of a chance do you think Disney has in changing the venue? I don't have much experience in there, just a couple corporate law and health care law classes.

 

[aaarcher86]

In federal court (where this case is) judges do not, as a rule, evaluate cases before permitting discovery. A judge can be asked to rule on whether the case will proceed before discovery but generally only does so if the sued party files a motion to dismiss (it can happen in other situations but they don't apply here).

Disney has not filed a motion to dismiss. Its motion to transfer the action to Florida actually makes the point that a lot of the discovery (depositions, mainly) will be of people who are in Orlando or the Southeastern United States. So Disney seems to be contemplating that there will be some discovery at a later time.

Disney still has the ability to file a motion for summary judgment which asks the judge to dismiss the case because the evidence is not sufficient to warrant a trial. This can be done before or after discovery but typically is done after discovery.

Cool. Thanks for explaining.

What's your opinion in regards to this case (if it's okay to say)?

 

[aaarcher86]

Thanks so much Jack for your posts and explaining the process for us. I am actually finding this whole situation interesting.

I believe that the plantiff's attorney is in CA. If moved to FL, does the attorney need to have a license in FL in order to proceed?

It's the opposite, actually. He's in Florida.

 

[Jedana]

I think it will also be interested to see if the plantiffs stay away from WDW until this is settled. It seems like future trips would help Disney as opposed to hurting them.

I wonder, CAN Disney ban them from the parks/DTD/stores during the lawsuit?

If so, WOULD Disney ban them?