FatWallet Coupons and Deals
Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 10 of 69

Thread: Class Action lawsuit Filed against Diamond Resorts

  1. #1

    Class Action lawsuit Filed against Diamond Resorts

    I guess that small group in Poipu was organized enough to actually get a case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

    My assumption was that they would be suing the AOAO but this is actually against Diamond, Cloobeck and DRI employees on the board of the associations.

    It's rewarding to see the little guy take on the cooperate giant and the group has one of the best law firms in the country representing them.
    Girard Gibbs, LLP out of San Francisco has already won several cases against timeshare developers and joined forces with the law firm in Maui, MCKEON IMLAY MEHLING that filed the case.

  2. #2
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonb334 View Post
    I guess that small group in Poipu was organized enough to actually get a case filed in the United States District Court for the District of Hawaii.

    My assumption was that they would be suing the AOAO but this is actually against Diamond, Cloobeck and DRI employees on the board of the associations.

    It's rewarding to see the little guy take on the cooperate giant and the group has one of the best law firms in the country representing them.
    Girard Gibbs, LLP out of San Francisco has already won several cases against timeshare developers and joined forces with the law firm in Maui, MCKEON IMLAY MEHLING that filed the case.
    In my opinion, Gerard Gibbs is essentially a professional extortion company.

    Their general mode of action is to file a lawsuit such as this. They are skilled at creating enough of an annoyance that the defendant is willing to pay a tidy sum to make them go away. They take a nice cut of the settlement, making a generous profit for their partners. They make sure that whoever signed as the plaintiff on the case is well compensated for their efforts as well.

    The actual corrective action by the defendant is of little or no concern to them as they are not really in the case seeking "justice".

    The end result of this will be a moderately sized legal bill, that will be passed on to thee owners at Point at Poipu in some fashion, which we will pay for through special assessments. Gerard Gibbs and the Hawaii attorneys will make out thieves. The plaintiffs will make out OK. And there will be no significant change in the end. Maybe DRI will graciously consent to not having any more than two positions on the Boards of Directors filled with people who are directly linked to DRI through current or past employment or by blood or marriage. Of course that will not prevent DRI from voting its blocks of shares for whatever candidates it likes.

    ****

    That's how almost all of these suits play out. Oh, sure. You say this one will be different. That's exactly what was said about the RCI lawsuit - even had a TUGger as one of the plaintiffs who was committed to real reform and would only settle for "real reform". Right.

    The rules of this game are set up to reward the attorneys, not to create justice. Because the frickin' attorneys write the rules and run the game.

    I would like to believe this will be different, but over forty years of watching these types of things play out I don't give this any more than a 1% of chance of accomplishing anything other than lining the pockets of the attorneys, increasing fees charged to owners to cover the costs of the litigation, and in the best case, a slap on the wrist for DRI.
    “There are known knowns; these are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, these are things that we now know that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – these are things that we do not know that we don’t know.”

  3. #3
    made post, will edit but not if BIGFRANK CAN HELP IT!
    Join Date
    Jul 2005
    Posts
    13,041
    There are normally only two happy people/parties in lawsuits.
    25-plus years Timesharing/10 weeks owned/140-plus Exchanges***THE TIMESHARE GRIM REAPER~~~Exchanging/Searching/SW Florida/MO/AR/IA/Consumer Advocacy/Estate Planning/Sports/Boating/Fishing/Golf/Lake-living/Retirement

  4. #4
    I don't give this any more than a 1% of chance
    I see you have become something of an optimist...

  5. #5
    What really needs to happen is for legislative bodies, Congress and the State legislatures, to tie approved legal fees to the degree to which injunctive relief obtained cures the problems cited in the complaint. Getting mindless trinkets for the class should count for zero in terms of legal fees being awarded. Also, if there is not meaningful discovery, as there was not in either RCI case, the court should not award legal fees because the attorneys have no valid basis upon which to determine how strong a case they had and therefore whether the settlement was reasonable. However, if part of what the plaintiffs insisted on the attorneys procuring was a membership list for the resort, that alone may be worth it, as it will then give them the tools to take down the DRI developer dictatorship at this resort.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by T. R. Oglodyte View Post

    The end result of this will be a moderately sized legal bill, that will be passed on to thee owners at Point at Poipu in some fashion, which we will pay for through special assessments.
    ****Moderate.... I think it may be a pretty hefty sized legal bill but could be viewed as moderate considering the coffers of the company being sued. It's nice to see that the suit is directly against the company and it's employees versus the association, which will make it more difficult for the fee to be "passed on" to the owners at Poipu, but you do say "in some fashion" but regardless, it will come out of "profit" of the corporate animal.

    Quote Originally Posted by T. R. Oglodyte View Post
    The rules of this game are set up to reward the attorneys, not to create justice. Because the frickin' attorneys write the rules and run the game.
    The attorneys do write the rules and run the game and are rewarded handsomely. But this may be a little different...ok I am being the optimist.


    Quote Originally Posted by T. R. Oglodyte View Post
    I would like to believe this will be different, but over forty years of watching these types of things play out I don't give this any more than a 1% of chance of accomplishing anything other than lining the pockets of the attorneys, increasing fees charged to owners to cover the costs of the litigation, and in the best case, a slap on the wrist for DRI.
    Your 40 years of experience is what makes it great to read your posts and having your input on these timeshare issues.
    But I think your 1% is underestimated. The huge factor is that for 39 of those 40 years, social media was either non-existent or did not have the power that it has now.

    The fact that this case was filed and the group that is responsible for seeing it through to this point, is a direct result and example of power from social media and use of the internet. The Defendant will not be able to sustain a long drawn out court action due to the PR damage that will be spurred by the group and those new plaintiffs that come forward due to the announcement/notification of the Class Action. And now that the group has the knowledge of how to use social media, they will use it to their advantage and the news of this lawsuit will spread like wildfire. I have already found it on 4 websites and the postings are all dated in the past 2 days.

    The existence of this case will need to be "disclosed" to all potential buyers and I'm sure people will make this point (disclosure) well known to officials that regulate timeshare sales, like the department of real estate in Hawaii and other states. If the sales manager of the resorts is made aware of the suit, he is also liable if he does not disclose a material issue or he too will be disciplined by the licensing agency in those states. Simply emailing them (the sales manager and sales staff) from their business cards will be proof that they are aware of the case.

    The plaintiffs do have the leverage in this case "if" the attorneys allow them to use it to produce reform versus monetary gain. Obviously, monetary gain will be a given, but there is an opportunity to force changes through settlement or leverage during negotiations. The plaintiffs cannot forget who they represent which is "the class", and pennies on the dollar are not in the best interest of "the class". This is where the group and new members of the lawsuit need to monitor and keep hammering the issues that will make changes, "permanently" (well almost permanently), which as you know, is the separation of the voting of the Hawaii Collection which maintains the control of the board.

    The case (in my opinion) is a failure if they do not break up the voting rights of the Collection by changing it to the Board of Directors of the actual resort. The votes will need to be divided evenly amongst the Board members and the settlement "must" include removing all DRI employees (except one as permitted under the bylaws) from the current board.

    This is absolutely key!

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonb334 View Post
    The case (in my opinion) is a failure if they do not break up the voting rights of the Collection by changing it to the Board of Directors of the actual resort. The votes will need to be divided evenly amongst the Board members and the settlement "must" include removing all DRI employees (except one as permitted under the bylaws) from the current board.
    I think that is an absolute pipe dream.

    The Collection is a deeded owner at the resort. It pays all of the maintenance fees due on those deeds it owns. It also exercises voting rights with respect to those deeds. I would be very surprised if you can change the rules for one deeded owner without doing the same for all deeded owners.

    *****

    But for arguments sake let's say that suit were successful on that count - essentially making deeds owned by the Collection inferior to the deeds held by others. If I were on the side of that situation I would insist on receiving a reduction in fees I pay to compensate me for my loss of shareholder rights.

    What it would come down to is that if I own 40% of the deeds at the resort but don't get 40% of the vote, there's no way that I accept that deal if I'm still on the hook for 40% of the maintenance fees.
    “There are known knowns; these are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, these are things that we now know that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – these are things that we do not know that we don’t know.”

  8. #8
    Quote Originally Posted by T. R. Oglodyte View Post
    I think that is an absolute pipe dream.

    The Collection is a deeded owner at the resort. It pays all of the maintenance fees due on those deeds it owns. It also exercises voting rights with respect to those deeds.
    Only through the Board of Directors of the Collection that is comprised of DRI employees (majority of course).

    *****
    Quote Originally Posted by T. R. Oglodyte View Post
    But for arguments sake let's say that suit were successful on that count - essentially making deeds owned by the Collection inferior to the deeds held by others. If I were on the side of that situation I would insist on receiving a reduction in fees I pay to compensate me for my loss of shareholder rights.
    I agree, but the shareholders (individuals) really do not have "rights". If you get a chance read the Hawaii Collection documents and the "Club" documents. Amazing what those documents state and of course no one reads them at the time of purchase... basically all the rights (in my opinion) are held by BOD/developer/program operator and the lawsuit that was filed has this issue listed as one of the complaints/allegations.

    Should be an interesting item to follow!

  9. #9
    Quote Originally Posted by T. R. Oglodyte View Post
    Maybe DRI will graciously consent to not having any more than two positions on the Boards of Directors filled with people who are directly linked to DRI through current or past employment or by blood or marriage. Of course that will not prevent DRI from voting its blocks of shares for whatever candidates it likes.
    ... and never mind that the board members are technically "elected" to serve. So would they then need to graciously consent to not run?

  10. #10
    Quote Originally Posted by Jasonb334 View Post

    I agree, but the shareholders (individuals) really do not have "rights". If you get a chance read the Hawaii Collection documents and the "Club" documents. Amazing what those documents state and of course no one reads them at the time of purchase... basically all the rights (in my opinion) are held by BOD/developer/program operator and the lawsuit that was filed has this issue listed as one of the complaints/allegations.

    Should be an interesting item to follow!
    I have read them and I actually read them before I bought. Just as I read the documents for our first purchase (at Marriott Kauai Beach Club) during the rescind period and rescinded because of what I read.

    I bought at Poipu resale and I obtained a copy of the documents before I started scouring for a resale. I knew what I was getting into.

    The timeshare disclosure documents - going back to the mid-1990's were actually quite clear and explicit that there was little chance of owners ever effecting a change in management and that the developer was going to call the shots at the resort.

    That's why much of this lawsuit essentially comes down to - "silly me. I really didn't read the documents at the time I purchased even though I signed a piece of paper that said I had. I know that was stupid of me. Please bail me out of my stupidity."
    “There are known knowns; these are things that we know that we know. There are known unknowns; that is to say, these are things that we now know that we don’t know. But there are also unknown unknowns – these are things that we do not know that we don’t know.”

Page 1 of 7 123 ... LastLast

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •