Class Action lawsuit Filed against Diamond Resorts

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

Let me repeat: this lawsuit has more to gain than a monetary settlement!

While there might be more to gain than money, in the end, this will be like any other class action in that a few people, mostly lawyers, will walk away with a lot of money and the owners will get the bill and little more.

I have yet to hear of a class action lawsuit where people didn't say there was a lot more at stake than the money. They all start out professing noble intentions.

In the end everyone of them has been about the money. I fail to see anything at all to believe this is any different from the hundreds of other "noble causes" impelling these types of litigation.

****

Please understand, I'm not saying those efforts were all mercenary to start. Many of them only got started because someone was outraged. But inevitably, as the litigation proceeded and dragged along, the sense of outrage inevitably fades and it pretty much becomes about the money. Everyone involved soon is happy just seeing it end.

[Jasonb334 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jasonb334]

Please understand, I'm not saying those efforts were all mercenary to start. Many of them only got started because someone was outraged. But inevitably, as the litigation proceeded and dragged along, the sense of outrage inevitably fades and it pretty much becomes about the money. Everyone involved soon is happy just seeing it end.

Unfortunately, fair and speedy trial does not pertain to civil cases such as this one. And the longer it takes, the less interest it draws.

[dougp26364 Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close dougp26364]

Unfortunately, fair and speedy trial does not pertain to civil cases such as this one. And the longer it takes, the less interest it draws.

And the more money it will eventually cost all DRI owners. In the end, it will be about the money. Who walks away with the cash (lawyers mostly) and who ends up paying the bill (DRI owners).

[JLB Please excuse me, I'm a Dick. Not a moron just a Dick Find all posts View Profile Close JLB]

And the longer it takes, the less interest it draws.

Not to be confused with my certificates of deposit.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Just to be clear, unfair is not to be confused with illegal.

In consumer protection law, they are one and the same. Every state consumer protection law I have read uses language generally similar to that of North Carolina which reads ''unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or effecting commerce are unlawful''.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

In many class actions, whatever transgression led to the lawsuit is corrected early on, and then the only real issue is whether they had been wrong to begin with and what compensation (usually minimal to the class) should be paid. Most of the credit card class actions went that way. The transgression was indeed fixed.

Those like the RCI class action are more troubling, as the defendant refuses to budge on fixing the problem, so the lawyers try to get paid off to go away. In that one, they did not even bother to do discovery to find out how strong their case was. These cases had a legitimate cause, as otherwise there is a Rule 11 danger. If the court decides the case was frivolous, they can make the plaintiffs lawyers pay the defendants legal fees under Rule 11.

If there is a legitimare case as there seems to be, hopefully the money has been raised to pay the lawyers by the hour instead of them hoping to collect under consumer protection laws, as in that case they are likely to sell out their clients for the cash like in the RCI case. For example, the timeshare members at Dunes South on the OBX hired lawyers to kick their developer, First Flight Builders, out of both management and HOA board control. That was fought all the way to the NC Supreme Court with the timeshare members kicking the developers butt at every stage. Members at another First Flight resort, Ocean VIllas II, had also hired lawyers for the same purpose, and after the Supreme Court decision on Dunes South, the developer waved a white flag and settled, giving up management, board control, and all of his remaining developer weeks, as well as paying a six figure sum in cash.

Are these lawyers in the posture of those in the Dunes South case or like those in the RCI case? Unless we have an in with someone in the inner group, we will have to wait and see.

There are many lawsuits over timeshares that are not of the cut and run variety. The one with Worldmark that went all the way to the California Supreme Court over access to membership lists is one example. On the OBX, OBBC I and II were succesfull in a lawsuit against former developer Peppertree-Equivest, and part of their relief that was granted was a court order that the individual members of Peppertree-Equivest's points club got the HOA votes for the weeks at those resorts, not the board of the points club. If the same could be accomplished against DRI, that would be a huge win for consumers.

I have yet to hear of a class action lawsuit where people didn't say there was a lot more at stake than the money. They all start out professing noble intentions.

In the end everyone of them has been about the money. I fail to see anything at all to believe this is any different from the hundreds of other "noble causes" impelling these types of litigation.

****

Please understand, I'm not saying those efforts were all mercenary to start. Many of them only got started because someone was outraged. But inevitably, as the litigation proceeded and dragged along, the sense of outrage inevitably fades and it pretty much becomes about the money. Everyone involved soon is happy just seeing it end.

[singlemalt_18 Junior Member Find all posts View Profile Close singlemalt_18]

In consumer protection law, they are one and the same. Every state consumer protection law I have read uses language generally similar to that of North Carolina which reads ''unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or effecting commerce are unlawful''.

That is all well and good. Laws help to define the "spirit" of the Law; rules help to define the "exception" to the rule. Unfairness in the eyes of the law is one thing, but unfairness in the eyes of an individual intent on being a member of the victim class is quite another.

Accusations of illegal behavior should not be made casually... I continue to believe this lawsuit will go nowhere.

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Actually, ''unfairness'' is not established by what a plaintiff thinks it is or what a defendant thinks it is not. Rules like the T&C do not protect a defendant because the T&C themselves may be the problem and be determined to be unfair or deceptive. Ultimately, ''unfairness'' is what a judge or jury determines it to be. Rather than rules, what will impact the court's determination will be case law, either controlling case law from the same jurisdiction that is right on point or persuasive case law that is from a different jurisdiction or deals with different but related facts.

Illegal behavior itself comes in two varieties. The type alleged in this lawsuit amounts to a civil wrong. A more serious variety, that is not at least explicitly alleged in this complaint would be illegal behavior that would violate criminal laws.

There is an interesting article on this case in the current issue of Timesharing Today magazine, and if the facts to back up the allegations can be proven, then I suspect the lawyers will get somewhere with it if that is their intention. Of course, as I pointed out earlier, all of the resort-specific timeshare cases I can think of involved lawyers who were prepared and did take the case over the goal line.

That is all well and good. Laws help to define the "spirit" of the Law; rules help to define the "exception" to the rule. Unfairness in the eyes of the law is one thing, but unfairness in the eyes of an individual intent on being a member of the victim class is quite another.

Accusations of illegal behavior should not be made casually... I continue to believe this lawsuit will go nowhere.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

.. if the facts to back up the allegations can be proven, then I suspect the lawyers will get somewhere with it if that is their intention.

Is there any case of any type that statement would not apply to?

[Carolinian Super Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close Carolinian]

Is there any case of any type that statement would not apply to?

You might want to hang around civil court on motion days. From time to time a case will be dismissed for failure to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted (Rule 12b6), meaning that even if the plaintiff proved everything in the complaint, it still would not add up to a case upon which the court could grant relief.

[Jasonb334 Member Find all posts View Profile Close Jasonb334]

Class Action - Update

Class Action - Update
Agreed Settlement waiting for court approval

http://www.poipuowners.org/uploads/Settlement.pdf

Looks like they wanted to settle this fast and remove the liability for the former employees that were referenced in the suit but not yet named as defendants
.....they had them on the ropes and didn't deliver the knock out punch.
There are some positive changes but not enough safeguards to protect the owners.
Too many items were not addressed!!
But the door is still slightly open for an aggressive push by Class members that want to contact the court and object to the settlement.

[Carlos Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Carlos]

Class Action - Update
Agreed Settlement waiting for court approval

http://www.poipuowners.org/uploads/Settlement.pdf

Looks like they wanted to settle this fast and remove the liability for the former employees that were referenced in the suit but not yet named as defendants
.....they had them on the ropes and didn't deliver the knock out punch.
There are some positive changes but not enough safeguards to protect the owners.
Too many items were not addressed!!
But the door is still slightly open for an aggressive push by Class members that want to contact the court and object to the settlement.

I think that when the facts came out there was not much to the lawsuit. As angry as the owners were, they would not have let up if there was any type of opening for them to stick it to DRI. What did they get in this agreement? Not much at all. That's because in my opinon all they had was anger with very little substance. They were not being denied anything they were entitled to and believe me if they were or there was something DRI was doing wrong, they would have stuck it to them.

Okay so you get to know who works or is a relative on the board. Okay, you get extra time to pay the special assessment. You still have to pay it.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

I think that when the facts came out there was not much to the lawsuit. As angry as the owners were, they would not have let up if there was any type of opening for them to stick it to DRI. What did they get in this agreement? Not much at all. That's because in my opinon all they had was anger with very little substance. They were not being denied anything they were entitled to and believe me if they were or there was something DRI was doing wrong, they would have stuck it to them.

Okay so you get to know who works or is a relative on the board. Okay, you get extra time to pay the special assessment. You still have to pay it.

From the settlement:

G. Following the mediations, Class Counsel had the opportunity to conduct
discovery to confirm certain of its assumptions upon which the terms of this Settlement
Agreement are based.

H. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel believe that the claims asserted in the
Litigation have merit. However, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel recognize and
acknowledge the expense and length of continued proceedings necessary to prosecute
the Litigation against the Defendants through trial and through appeals. Plaintiffs and
Class Counsel also have taken into account the uncertain outcome and the risk of any
litigation, especially in complex actions such as the Litigation, as well as the difficulties
and delays inherent in such litigation. Plaintiff and Class Counsel are also mindful of
the inherent problems of proof under, and possible defenses to, the statutory and
common law violations asserted in the Litigation. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel
acknowledge that continued litigation could delay the commencement or disrupt the
completion of the necessary repairs to the Resort. Plaintiffs and Class Counsel believe
that the settlement set forth in this Settlement Agreement confers substantial benefits on
the Class, and based on their evaluation, Plaintiffs and Class Counsel have determined
that the settlement set forth herein is in the best interests of Plaintiffs and the Class.

Translated out of legal talk - they had mediation sessions, in which Diamond pretty much established that the plaintiff's case was pretty weak. Plaintiff's then had an opportunity to conduct additional discovery to investigate and check the accuracy of what DRI said in the mediation. After conducting the additional discovery, plaintiffs concluded that DRI's defense was solid enough that it wasn't worth continuing their efforts. So they got DRI to agree to some changes which are basically burrs under the saddle.

As regards the big issues though --- the Water Intrusion Assessment Project continues apace, with plaintiffs apparently admitting to its necessity. And there is no structural change that would dilute in any significant manner DRI's ability to dominate the resort HOA Board of Directors via it's sheer voting power.

Yeah - there are now procedures that will inhibit DRI's ability to sanitize and limit owner communications. I'm not sure what the practical effect is when DRI controls nearly 50% of the voting power.

[Fisch Senior Member Find all posts View Profile Close Fisch]

Actually they did reduce the total SA by almost $5.7 million.
From COPP:
They are also going to assume the expense of the defaults ($4M) as they are also collecting the deeds on those intervals. Further, they have agreed to drop $1M of the $1.7M management fees.

So we get to pay less over two more years. As an owner that planned on paying the full amount. I consider paying less a win of sorts. Especially when all is said and done the entire place will be redone. They are redoing the interiors(furniture,carpets, painting, etc) as they complete the Water Intrusion work on each building.

[T. R. Oglodyte Moderator Find all posts View Profile Close T. R. Oglodyte]

Actually they did reduce the total SA by almost $5.7 million.
From COPP:
They are also going to assume the expense of the defaults ($4M) as they are also collecting the deeds on those intervals. Further, they have agreed to drop $1M of the $1.7M management fees.

So we get to pay less over two more years. As an owner that planned on paying the full amount. I consider paying less a win of sorts. Especially when all is said and done the entire place will be redone. They are redoing the interiors(furniture,carpets, painting, etc) as they complete the Water Intrusion work on each building.

Yes - good points. Those are definite successes and I was remiss in not mentioning them. Nevertheless none of what i thought were the key issues that the plaintiffs asserted at the start survived.