# Class action lawsuit filed against RCI over rental issue



## Carolinian (Mar 15, 2006)

www.classcounsel.com/news/rci.html

This is all the info I have on this at this time.


----------



## dougp26364 (Mar 15, 2006)

Wow, that's interesting. It will be great if the veil of secrecy is finally lifted to see exactly how they're doing business and what happens with the weeks that are deposited. My bet, as I'm sure is the same as the plantiffs, is that RCI is playing a shell game. They switch weeks deposits and say they're points deposits, then rent them out. It should be fun to watch and hopefully encourage RCI to work on customer service to keep their members happy rather than just line their pockets with profits.


----------



## Vodo (Mar 15, 2006)

Very interesting!


----------



## Hoc (Mar 15, 2006)

My suspicion is that favorable trades will increase, and rentals decrease, during the pendency of the action.


----------



## philemer (Mar 15, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> www.classcounsel.com/news/rci.html
> 
> This is all the info I have on this at this time.



Steve,
Are you going to join in the class action suit?

Phil


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 15, 2006)

I'm with HOC.  We need to have more people on the look out for prime weeks so that tuggers can snatch them all up.


----------



## ttt (Mar 15, 2006)

*It's about time *  someone stood up & took action. I nominate Green Welling for lifetime Tug membership. I live in NJ & would join the class action, but RCI closed my account!. Maybe Green Welling will initiate another class action for those of us who have been mistreated by RCI?


----------



## JLB (Mar 15, 2006)

*Amazing.*

I guess that if you protest loud enough, often enough, and long enough, something will eventually come of it.

I wonder what proof of diversion they have, since all that information is proprietary.  You know, how they pick _comparable_ weeks and stuff like that.

I guess Points raiding Weeks could not be far off.


----------



## riverdees05 (Mar 15, 2006)

Looking into my crystal ball, I see exchange fee increasing to pay their legal fees.


----------



## SteveB (Mar 15, 2006)

*Weeks/Points*

I have often posted on the RCI board to ask RCI to add say the most popular 200-300 and least popular 200-300 resorts by number of exchanges, the number of exchanges made into those resorts over the last year or two and percentage exchanges by weeks owners and points owners and put it into the new catalog.  I hear the new catalog is being sent out and will be interesting to see if any of that type of info is in the catalog - I doubt it!.  All of this information can be easily retrieved from their computers.   I would love to see the exchange numbers by points and week owners into the same resort.


----------



## Hoc (Mar 15, 2006)

I have just looked at the complaint in the case (which is filed in state court in New Jersey).  Before you all get too excited about the case, there really are only two claims being made.

The first is a consumer fraud claim under New Jersey law, made on the grounds that, while RCI has language in the contract allowing it to do whatever it wants with the weeks deposited, it did not tell consumers that it was going to take the weeks and rent out the best ones, leaving only the leftovers for exchangers.

The second is a breach of contract claim, but essentially claims that the RCI Member Agreement is Unconscionable (in that RCI has superior bargaining power and the terms of the member agreement are grossly unfair to members).

The lawsuit seeks an injunction, damages, disgorgement of profits and attorneys' fees and costs.

Those are the claims in a nutshell.


----------



## Dani (Mar 15, 2006)

Hoc said:
			
		

> I have just looked at the complaint in the case (which is filed in state court in New Jersey).  Before you all get too excited about the case, there really are only two claims being made.
> 
> The first is a consumer fraud claim under New Jersey law, made on the grounds that, while RCI has language in the contract allowing it to do whatever it wants with the weeks deposited, it did not tell consumers that it was going to take the weeks and rent out the best ones, leaving only the leftovers for exchangers.
> 
> ...




  Hmnn...I wonder how far this will allow them to delve.  I for one would love for RCI to just turn over their records and be done with it already.  Let the truth come out...good or bad.


----------



## Hoc (Mar 15, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> I wonder what proof of diversion they have, since all that information is proprietary.  You know, how they pick _comparable_ weeks and stuff like that.



Normally, when you file a lawsuit, you don't actually have proof.  Merely "probable cause" to believe something is happening.  You find out the proof through discovery.  Since this case was just filed, they don't have any proof yet.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 15, 2006)

Those are the claims ... for now.

But, when it rains, it pours.  I predict that people will come out of the woodwork to complain about other things ... the crossover grid being more favorable to one class of customers than another .... and, my personal favorite, no refunds on RENTAL cancellations when the unit is uninhabitable.  

And, how long do you think it will take the states to join the party now that the tax issue is out in the open?

It's going to get interesting!


----------



## reddiablosv (Mar 15, 2006)

Hoc said:
			
		

> I have just looked at the complaint in the case (which is filed in state court in New Jersey).  Before you all get too excited about the case, there really are only two claims being made.
> 
> The first is a consumer fraud claim under New Jersey law, made on the grounds that, while RCI has language in the contract allowing it to do whatever it wants with the weeks deposited, it did not tell consumers that it was going to take the weeks and rent out the best ones, leaving only the leftovers for exchangers.
> 
> ...




Hoc, Who is the initial litigant?  The attorneys are filing the claim on the behalf of a class  and also an initial litigant that is representative of that class?   Ben


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 15, 2006)

jerseygirl said:
			
		

> Those are the claims ... for now.
> 
> But, when it rains, it pours.  I predict that people will come out of the woodwork to complain about other things ... the crossover grid being more favorable to one class of customers than another .... and, my personal favorite, no refunds on RENTAL cancellations when the unit is uninhabitable.
> 
> ...



I agree with the claim that no refunds on rental cancellations is illegal.  I posted an Act that would suggest that RCI acted illegally in this matter.

However, I don't agree that the current crossover grids are illegal.  If they are, what law is being broken?


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 15, 2006)

*Unlikely to amount to much*

Don't count on anything as this appears to be a professional class action group that hopes to get big bucks. It would most likely result in RCI simply disbanding the weeks system under a settlement and the class members getting a voucher for around $12.48 toward a future fee in about 5-7 years.  Oh yeah, the lawyers will get a few million if they do actually get as far as a settlement.  I doubt it will ever get that far. But stranger thing have happened so it will be interesting to watch. Makes me very glad I don't have a dog in the weeks fight.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 15, 2006)

JLB said:
			
		

> I guess that if you protest loud enough, often enough, and long enough, something will eventually come of it.
> 
> I wonder what proof of diversion they have, since all that information is proprietary.  You know, how they pick _comparable_ weeks and stuff like that.
> 
> I guess Points raiding Weeks could not be far off.



Calling something proprietary doesn't stop the plaintiffs from finding out all of the info through discovery.  It would also be interesting to do depositions of some of the RCI bigwigs.  Ken May and company should have a lot of fun answering questions under oath!


----------



## ragtop (Mar 15, 2006)

IMHO, if the claim depends on proving that RCI rents the "most desirable and highly demanded vacation weeks," one shouldn't hold their breath that this lawsuit will change anything.  RCI surely knows how to anticipate a claim like this and tailor their actions to demonstrate that the most desirable and highly demanded vacation weeks deposited for exchange are in fact available for exchange.  RCI would have to very stupid to actually be exposed to a claim like this.


----------



## Harry (Mar 16, 2006)

*Actually, I am excited*



			
				Hoc said:
			
		

> I have just looked at the complaint in the case (which is filed in state court in New Jersey).  Before you all get too excited about the case, there really are only two claims being made...
> The lawsuit seeks an injunction, damages, disgorgement of profits and attorneys' fees and costs.
> .[/QUOTE}
> 
> Yea, I looked at the complaint too.  It's a good one.  I know nothing about NJ law other than they have some very harsh consumer fraud statutes (the most interesting cause of action).  The Plaintiffs are from NJ but the class could be universal. This could very easily end up in federal court.


----------



## jerseygirl (Mar 16, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> I agree with the claim that no refunds on rental cancellations is illegal.  I posted an Act that would suggest that RCI acted illegally in this matter.
> 
> However, I don't agree that the current crossover grids are illegal.  If they are, what law is being broken?



I don't think there's anything _illegal_ about the crossover grids, but I think they could become relevant to a _civil _ case.


----------



## Dani (Mar 16, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Oh yeah, the lawyers will get a few million if they do actually get as far as a settlement.  I doubt it will ever get that far. But stranger thing have happened so it will be interesting to watch. Makes me very glad I don't have a dog in the weeks fight.


 
   Based upon what HOC wrote about the basis of the claims, my feeling is that there is a very real possibility of summary judgment in favor of RCI.  If this comes to pass, the case will never reach the discovery stage.   As it stands now, on it's face, the allegations seem a little weak IMHO.   However, as you say...stranger things have happened.


----------



## CMF (Mar 16, 2006)

*Discovery*



			
				JLB said:
			
		

> I wonder what proof of diversion they have, since all that information is proprietary.  You know, how they pick _comparable_ weeks and stuff like that.




There is a little thing in litigation called discovery that forces litigants to produce all documents that a relevant to the litigation requested by the opposing party.  Did anyone see _My Cousin Vinny._?

Charles


----------



## riverdees05 (Mar 16, 2006)

The real winners in a class action suit are the Trial Lawyers!  Regardless of the outcome it won't be the RCI members, IMHO.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

jerseygirl said:
			
		

> I don't think there's anything _illegal_ about the crossover grids, but I think they could become relevant to a _civil _ case.



While not criminal, there is an excellent argument that they are illegal.

Consider North Carolina General Statute 75-1.1:

''...Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful''


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

riverdees05 said:
			
		

> The real winners in a class action suit are the Trial Lawyers!  Regardless of the outcome it won't be the RCI members, IMHO.



While I would agree with you on the money aspects of a class action, if they can force some real changes in RCI's shady practices, that alone will be a big win for timesharers.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

philemer said:
			
		

> Steve,
> Are you going to join in the class action suit?
> 
> Phil



I have always thought it would be best for timesharers if these issues could be raised in a consumer protection lawsuit by a state AG.  Their incentive is protecting the consumer, not making a buck, so we would be more likely to see some real changes than a settlement that doesn't go nearly all the way to right the wrong but pays a big fee to a law firm to go away and only makes minor changes.  I hope the initial plaintiff has the stamina to ride these lawyers to insist on real changes in any settlement.

From reading accounts of the complaint, it appears to not cover all of the issues.  It only covers one end of the rental problem, and doesn't address the crossover grids at all.  Of course, they could still probably file an amended complaint on those issues.

I am not a resident of New Jersey, and have no intention to get directly involved.

It is good that somebody is finally doing something, although this is not the way I would have approached the problem myself.  I guess this will be the talk of the ARDA convention which comes up in a week or so.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 16, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> While I would agree with you on the money aspects of a class action, if they can force some real changes in RCI's shady practices, that alone will be a big win for timesharers.



On this point, I completely agree with you, Carolinian.  The problem is that the attorney's don't work for policy reform.  They work for cash.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 16, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> While not criminal, there is an excellent argument that they are illegal.
> 
> Consider North Carolina General Statute 75-1.1:
> 
> ''...Unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful''



I don't agree with your linkage of crossover grids to unfair or deceptive acts.

Here's why.  It's published.  So, they are not trying to deceive anyone.  

Second, there is equal access.  Anyone wanting to crossover from points to weeks can join RCI points to do so.

It's actually kind of funny if you think about it.  The whole concept of timesharing sales IS purposefully deceptive.  And yet, it still continues whether its points or weeks.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 16, 2006)

*Heres the prediction*

Rather than drag this out over the next 4-5 years, which would be the timeframe if anything actually comes of the complaint, here are my predictions for the eventual outcomes. 

Most likely:  Nothing.  Summary judgement and life goes on. 

Second most likely: In 5-7 years RCI will be found guilty of some petty infraction and agree to stop it.  Lawyers will be paid millions, owners get that $12 voucher I mentioned at best. By the time this occurs the weeks system will effectively have ended as a viable trade mechanism and life will go on.  

If you need to see how long this will drag on if it is allowed to move forward just review the old Microsoft case. They were found to be a monopoly and the punishment for that is clearly spelled out in the law. What they got wasn't even a slap on the wrist and, since the products involved were no longer "relevant", a few virually worthless vouchers and fines were assessed and life went on. That was a much bigger case than any claim against RCI could ever be and it turned out to be less than peanuts. In the RCI case we aren't even talking peanut shells. 

Please revisit this message when the case is dismissed OR in 5-7 years when it ends. In the meantime the Holy Grail of a lawsuit has been filed so let it take it's course and then see the results. Two things I can say with absolute certainty. This guarantees that RCI will kill off the weeks system sooner rather than later. They aren't going to fight to keep something they no longer wanted anyway. It's a perfect reason to end it. No need to say anything more until the courts rule one way or the other. The other guarantee is that ruling will be a long time coming.  Conjecture on these boards is so much hot air - the lawsuit being settled or dismissed is the only thing that will have any real meaning.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 16, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Rather than drag this out over the next 4-5 years, which would be the timeframe if anything actually comes of the complaint, here are my predictions for the eventual outcomes.
> 
> Most likely:  Nothing.  Summary judgement and life goes on.
> 
> Second most likely: In 5-7 years RCI will be found guilty of some petty infraction and agree to stop it.  Lawyers will be paid millions, owners get that $12 voucher I mentioned at best. By the time this occurs the weeks system will effectively have ended as a viable trade mechanism and life will go on.   ...


I disagree.  

We're talking the US tort system, so never forget that it is first and foremost about attorney's fees.  Justice is incidental. 

In filing the complaint, the attorneys are doing so because they believe they stand a reasonable chance of being compensated for their efforts.  They wouldn't have carried the case even to this level if they thought it likely to get thrown out on summary judgment.

The attorneys are banking on getting to discovery and finding something useful to flesh out one of their initial complaints.  If they accomplish that, they hit pay dirt, because then they have a strong negotiating position.  If not they hope they make themselves sufficiently annoying to make it worthwhile for the defendant to pay them to go away.  One of the last things the attorneys want is to actually see the case go to trial, because it takes too long to get the conclusion of the trial (meaning they have to wait a long time to collect their fees) and the work of preparing for and conducting  a trial eats into their profits.

So, by far the two most likely outcomes, in descending are: 


A settlement agreement that ensures the attorneys case recover their fees, with a totally unenforceable promise by RCI to behave better in the future.

A settlement agreement that ensures the attorneys case recover their fees, with a pittance provided to members who might have been harmed by RCI business practices, and  a totally unenforceable promise by RCI to behave better in the future.
After the settlement options, the next most likely outcome is probably dismissal on summary judgment.

Outcomes that have virtually no chance of occurring are: 
a trial before judge or jury
a settlement that has teeth or requires any substantive change in business practices.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 16, 2006)

*The only thing likely is more cost*

Steve - We're on the same page but different paragraphs.  Basically we agree this will change nothing but may cost someone money.  Since anything RCI pays is passed on any payment would eventually find it's way to the users pocket. I see no positives for RCI members from this regardless of the outcome. But it should finally put to rest the sabre rattling calling for such an action.  Those calls were answered - lets see what the end result is.


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 16, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> We're talking the US tort system, so never forget that it is first and foremost about attorney's fees.  Justice is incidental.
> 
> ...



Steve,

I completely agree with your post.


----------



## Gadabout (Mar 16, 2006)

Well, one thing that will happen is that some light (not a lot, but some) will be shed on actual business practices, especially if they go all the way back to "the good old days" and see how things have changed. 

Once people have a chance to look at this info, they will then be able to make up their own minds, regardless of what happens in the case, and perhaps choose not to renew their memberships, which would be more of a problem for RCI in the long run.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 16, 2006)

Gadabout said:
			
		

> Well, one thing that will happen is that some light (not a lot, but some) will be shed on actual business practices, especially if they go all the way back to "the good old days" and see how things have changed.
> 
> Once people have a chance to look at this info, they will then be able to make up their own minds, regardless of what happens in the case, and perhaps choose not to renew their memberships, which would be more of a problem for RCI in the long run.


*I want to reemphasize something very important for people.  The US tort legal system is not about justice, it's about attorneys fees.* Before reaching any kind of conclusion or assumption, you first consider what the effect will be on attornieys fees.  Nothing else really matters very much.

You're assuming that the documents go into the public record.  That probably won't happen.  Why not?  Because releasing that information would interfere with or reduce attorney fees.

Most of the information the attorneys obtain is never filed with the court.  If the attorneys find anything, they will use it in negotations.  When a settlement is agreed upon, as pat of the settlement the parties will agree to keep all information discovered confidential.

One of the tactics that plaintiff's attorney's use in cases such as this is threat of revealing confidential buisness information if the defendant doesn't settle.

The plaintiff's attorney's have no problems with sealing the record - the defendant is usualy more willing to settle (and give them money) if they agree to keep information confidential.


----------



## timeos2 (Mar 16, 2006)

*"People" won't see it*



			
				Gadabout said:
			
		

> Well, one thing that will happen is that some light (not a lot, but some) will be shed on actual business practices, especially if they go all the way back to "the good old days" and see how things have changed.
> 
> Once people have a chance to look at this info, they will then be able to make up their own minds, regardless of what happens in the case, and perhaps choose not to renew their memberships, which would be more of a problem for RCI in the long run.


Except for what is presented in open court, which I agree is unlikely to happen at all or only many years down the road, the items found in discovery cannot be publicized especially if it is proprietary in nature as RCI is sure to say it is.  The average owner will learn nothing from the process if they even know it is going on.

Added - Steve is right. The average consumer has no clue as to how perverted the legal system has become and it in no way favors the poor RCI member - only the legal bottom dwellers, the type of lawyer that starts these cases, that will be looking for their big payday.  The members will lose no matter what else happens which is why I have always felt a lawsuit if any type would be counter productive.


----------



## Jimster (Mar 16, 2006)

*class action*

So much is left up in the air here that it is difficult to evaluate what might be the outcome.  It would be interesting to know several things.  For example, what basis does the plaintiff have to sue?  Where and when will the class actually be certified?  How favorable is New Jersey to this kind of consumer suit? Or can this be removed to federal court?  I certainly am opposed to RCI practices but it remains to be seen what if anything this will generate in favor of the average weeks member. Likewise, it sounds like this is still in the formative stages.  Often class actions are filed, withdrawn without prejudice, and refiled as new information becomes available.  Finally, let's not forget that one big variable is how experienced the attorneys are in this kind of litigation.  It is afterall something of a specialty.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> I don't agree with your linkage of crossover grids to unfair or deceptive acts.
> 
> Here's why.  It's published.  So, they are not trying to deceive anyone.
> 
> ...



I would agree that the publication of this table probably would keep if from being deceptive, IF it were published to Weeks members, as well as Points members, which it is not.

Being published, however, does nothing to stop it from being unfair.

Under our consumer protection laws, it is unlawful to be either deceptive OR unfair.

There is not equal access when Weeks members cannot fairly take Points inventory.  Strongarming Weeks members to join Points is NOT fair.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

Of course, a lot depends on the principle plaintiff and how much of a handle he has on the attorneys.  Some of the comments here are part of the reason that I have always suggested that the best route to deal with these problems would be a consumer protection action by a state AG.  For them, the ultimate goal is not about money in their pocket.  They also have the advantage of being able to file the action in their own state, and in many states such as North Carolina, have a nice range of pre-litigation investigatory tools, that quite likely could bring RCI to heel without the necessity of ever filing an action.

One thing this action WILL do is shine more of a light on RCI's sleazy practices for resorts, and hopefully for individual members.  This may help change some of their practices to get them to encourage use of independents, dual affiliation, etc.   II might also see what RCI is going through and put a freeze on expanding its own rentals.


----------



## Gadabout (Mar 16, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Except for what is presented in open court, which I agree is unlikely to happen at all or only many years down the road, the items found in discovery cannot be publicized especially if it is proprietary in nature as RCI is sure to say it is.  The average owner will learn nothing from the process if they even know it is going on.
> 
> Added - Steve is right. The average consumer has no clue as to how perverted the legal system has become and it in no way favors the poor RCI member - only the legal bottom dwellers, the type of lawyer that starts these cases, that will be looking for their big payday.  The members will lose no matter what else happens which is why I have always felt a lawsuit if any type would be counter productive.



True enough. But the fact that a lawsuit has been filed--if it is publicized enough, may be enough to get people who own TS and are in RCI to think about their membership and what it has or has not done for them. I agree that yes, it would be much more effective to have a state AG doing this rather than a law firm that looks like it does this sort of thing for a living.


----------



## geekette (Mar 16, 2006)

Yes, the publicity that the lawsuit gets will enlighten some people and cause them to do their own looking into what RCI does.  And, yes, potentially steer them to the independents.


----------



## Dani (Mar 16, 2006)

T_R_Oglodyte said:
			
		

> I disagree.
> 
> We're talking the US tort system, so never forget that it is first and foremost about attorney's fees.  Justice is incidental.
> 
> ...



 Unfortunately, many, many lawsuits are thrown out every day as they are unable to survive summary judgment motion.   The fact that the attorneys are in it for the compensation has little or nothing to do with this fact.   

  What publicity might do however for this case is root out a potential whistleblower or evidence that would potentially make the case against RCI stronger.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, many, many lawsuits are thrown out every day as they are unable to survive summary judgment motion.   The fact that the attorneys are in it for the compensation has little or nothing to do with this fact.
> 
> What publicity might do however for this case is root out a potential whistleblower or evidence that would potentially make the case against RCI stronger.



I don't know of any attorneys who plow ahead with a case they think is likely to be a loser.  In this type of case, the firm is almost certainly investing some significant funds as well as billable time in it, and would certainly have assured themselves that there was good justification for that investment in the case.  Law firms tend to turn away the dog cases at the door.


----------



## geekette (Mar 16, 2006)

Whistleblower!!  Yes, Dani, I hadn't thought of that!

Think of all those poor VC's that have been yelled at by upset members the last few years.  Some of them understand the plight and may feel bad that they can't help.  Now they can!!


----------



## BocaBum99 (Mar 16, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I don't know of any attorneys who plow ahead with a case they think is likely to be a loser.  In this type of case, the firm is almost certainly investing some significant funds as well as billable time in it, and would certainly have assured themselves that there was good justification for that investment in the case.  Law firms tend to turn away the dog cases at the door.



Carolinian, I find myself agreeing with you a lot these days.  The attorneys believe they will win or get a settlement.  Otherwise, they wouldn't waste their time.


----------



## Dani (Mar 16, 2006)

Carolinian said:
			
		

> I don't know of any attorneys who plow ahead with a case they think is likely to be a loser.




   No they do not, but as I am sure you are well aware, summary judgment motions are frequently granted in this country.   The fact that an attorney decides to file a lawsuit has nothing to do with the merit or lack thereof a lawsuit.  As a result, Courts will indeed grant summary judment in favor of a respondent if they deem it proper.


----------



## Dani (Mar 16, 2006)

BocaBum99 said:
			
		

> Carolinian, I find myself agreeing with you a lot these days.  The attorneys believe they will win or get a settlement.  Otherwise, they wouldn't waste their time.




Boca,

   I normally agree with you     Unfortunately, many attorneys have gone to the courthouse steps believing and thinking that they had a meritorious case only to be turned back by way of summary judgment motion.   This is just a simple fact of life as a litigator.


----------



## T_R_Oglodyte (Mar 16, 2006)

Dani said:
			
		

> Unfortunately, many, many lawsuits are thrown out every day as they are unable to survive summary judgment motion.   The fact that the attorneys are in it for the compensation has little or nothing to do with this fact.
> 
> What publicity might do however for this case is root out a potential whistleblower or evidence that would potentially make the case against RCI stronger.





			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> I don't know of any attorneys who plow ahead with a case they think is likely to be a loser.  In this type of case, the firm is almost certainly investing some significant funds as well as billable time in it, and would certainly have assured themselves that there was good justification for that investment in the case.  Law firms tend to turn away the dog cases at the door.



I agree with Carolinian here.  While suits do get thrown out on summary judgment, but most often those are cases where someone goes to an attorney with a case they want to press, and engages the attorney.  Or where there is little effort involved to fle the case, so the attorney doesn't have much at risk.

But in a class action filing such as this, the law firm doesn't take up something like this unless they are pretty certain it will survive motions summary judgment.

From my experience, the bigger legal hurdle is certification of the class.  That is the defendant's best opportunity to cut the legs out from under the plaintiff.  Settlement discussions don't get earnest until the parties know or are relatively certain if a class will be certified.


----------



## Harry (Mar 16, 2006)

*You heard it here first*

This complaint will survive a Summary Judgment.  I know a little bit about these things.  All one really has to do is look at who the attorneys are, who the members of the class are, who files the response, what courts are involved and what the potential is for new members of the class.  Then look at what we call the causes of action and the potential for amended causes. I looked at all of this before I got excited.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

I have found out a little more about some of those behind this class action, and that gives some encouragement.  The lead plaintiff is a sometime participant on TUG.   One of the attorneys involved is himself an active Weeks timesharer.  With this background, I can hope that they will seek more than just money in their pockets in ultimately settling this action.


----------



## Dean (Mar 16, 2006)

timeos2 said:
			
		

> Don't count on anything as this appears to be a professional class action group that hopes to get big bucks. It would most likely result in RCI simply disbanding the weeks system under a settlement and the class members getting a voucher for around $12.48 toward a future fee in about 5-7 years.  Oh yeah, the lawyers will get a few million if they do actually get as far as a settlement.  I doubt it will ever get that far. But stranger thing have happened so it will be interesting to watch. Makes me very glad I don't have a dog in the weeks fight.


I doubt the members will see anything even if successful.  I'm sure they'll get a coupon to use toward a future exchange, maybe $25 or so per exchange accepted during the time that ends up being covered.  The lawyers will get a chunk and RCI may or may not do better for the future.  In part it depends on what they can prove.  IF they can prove RCI was in violation and was renting high demand weeks that truly should have been available for exchange, some good will come of it, likely for members of all exchange companies.  Otherwise, it's simply a law firm out to hit the lottery.  I hope it works out for the owners and flops for the law firm.


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

While you might not like lawyers, the reality is that is HAS to work out for the lawyers in order to work out for the timesharers!


----------



## CMF (Mar 16, 2006)

*Removal will not happen if RCI is a New Jersey company.*



			
				Jimster said:
			
		

> Or can this be removed to federal court?



The removal doctrine was put in place to protect the defendant from the arguably unfair venue of an out of state plaintiff's state court.  So, if RCI is deemed to be a New Jersey company or if New Jersey is a principal place of business for RCI, the case will not be removed to Federal court.

Charles


----------



## CMF (Mar 16, 2006)

*Thing will change if there's a ruling against RCI.*



			
				Dean said:
			
		

> I doubt the members will see anything even if successful.  I'm sure they'll get a coupon to use toward a future exchange, maybe $25 or so per exchange accepted during the time that ends up being covered.  The lawyers will get a chunk and RCI may or may not do better for the future.  In part it depends on what they can prove.  IF they can prove RCI was in violation and was renting high demand weeks that truly should have been available for exchange, some good will come of it, likely for members of all exchange companies.  Otherwise, it's simply a law firm out to hit the lottery.  I hope it works out for the owners and flops for the law firm.



If the case goes to verdict RCI must comply with the terms of the decision or it will be in contempt of court.  If it settles, RCI must comply with the terms of the settlement agreement or else find itself back in court. Also, Cendant stock may take a hit if the suit generates enough publicity.  If there is enough of a ripple Cendant will want to come to the settlement table to put this behind it and move on.

Charles


----------



## Carolinian (Mar 16, 2006)

RCI's T&C's have a choice of venue provision that requires any action against it by a member be filed in New Jersey (it used to say Indiana), although that certainly wouldn't stop any state AG from filing in its own state courts.


----------



## Dean (Mar 16, 2006)

CMF said:
			
		

> If the case goes to verdict RCI must comply with the terms of the decision or it will be in contempt of court.  If it settles, RCI must comply with the terms of the settlement agreement or else find itself back in court. Also, Cendant stock may take a hit if the suit generates enough publicity.  If there is enough of a ripple Cendant will want to come to the settlement table to put this behind it and move on.
> 
> Charles


I've seen too many of these come through to think much good will come to the plaintiff's.  Several Air lines and computer company vouchers come to mind.



			
				Carolinian said:
			
		

> While you might not like lawyers, the reality is that is HAS to work out for the lawyers in order to work out for the timesharers!


I like lawyers fine, but like any group, they have their underbelly.  Those that solicit class actions suites would fit into that group IMO.  I'm not convinced the only way for members to win is for the lawyers to win also but unfortunately, the reverse is likely true.  The lawyers will get a chunk and the members little if anything.  Still if it helps police the industry that would be a win in my book.


----------



## reddiablosv (Mar 16, 2006)

*Guys you miss the  point!!*

Guys I am hopeful that as a result of this lawsuit that we will all be big winners!  No, I don't expect to get rich.  The attorneys and primary litigant might, but not the rest of us.  I think we might just end up winners if the law suit causes more resorts to dual affiliate, more owners to use the independents and all exchange companies reevaluate their rental programs!  This last point is the most important. RCI was the first, but, if they succeed in their rental model it was not going to be the only exchange company to loot members exchange weeks for rentals.   If publicised and successful this lawsuit will bring this practise to an end.  This will be a major victory.   Ben


----------

