NCL sued over restaurants' booking non-avaiability

[can'twaittogoagain]

I am no cheerleader, and am not defending the cruise line. I am just making fun of a person who thinks NCL had a duty to inform her that the restaurants may be hard to get a reservation for.

 

I wonder where, in the cruise contract, the cruise line agreed to guarantee every passenger who wants it a spot at their restaurant of choice?

 

Let's face it... this person and her lawyer could not care less that they did not get a reservation. They are opportunists who see a chance to make some money. Plain and simple, just like business person swooping down on a new opportunity - the goal is to make money, not to right a wrong.

 

I hope that person makes no money at this.

 

Point well taken. I shouldn't have said "we" and I got carried away. I am, at times, a cheerleader. We really like NCL. I was on the Pearl last October...if my memory serves me right, you were on the same cruise. Anyway, 7 cruises with NCL....not PERFECT, whatever that means, but we had great vacations. I certainly hope this person makes no money. Optimally, it will cost her money. :) Except I don't think it works that way in a class action suit.

[Got2Cruise]

Okay, I am not an attorney. But I watch Law and Order and Judge Judy:D

What evidence is the Plaintiff going to produce to prove that she couldn't get any reservations?

 

p.s. I think the person responding to the article and mentioning CC is most likely a NCL hater who found the link to the article here. :rolleyes: I have been reading quite a few posts insulting the character and class of NCL passengers. Evidently, we are not "classy" enough for some people.

[suzyed]

I agree that this isn't necessarily the best use of resources (this kind of lawsuit). But to play devil's advocate (since everyone else has the exact same opinion), it seems like everyone is saying "as long as you are flexible, you can get reservations- it might not be the time or place that you want, but you can get some reservations." Now, anyone think that is exactly what NCL promises in it's ads? I just watched one that said: "eat where you want, when you want, with whom you want." Now being an avid reader of these boards, I know what that means, that reservations and flexibility are required etc etc etc. But it seems that everyone here also agrees that NCL is promising a little more in its ads that in can deliver- no one seems to think it is reasonable to expect to eat "where you want, when you want," at least when it comes to the specialty rest's. I'm sure I'll get flamed for this, but I think part of this has to do with NCL overreaching with its marketing, just a tiny bit, without making sure it has capacity for everyone to take advantage of what it is selling.... Not sure it merits a class action lawsuit, but I do see why some people who are new to NCL get frustrated that they aren't getting what they thought they were...

 

[dons flame-resistant apparel]

You better STOP DROP andROLL!!!:rolleyes:

[salty dingo]

The "gentleman" with the $54,000,000 pants went after the implied promise in the advertising, not after some express promise in a written claim check.

 

In case anyone is wondering how that "gentleman" fared with the lawsuit for the $54,000,000 pants, you can find out here.

[Carnac767]

Pathetic.

 

Don't mean to hijack the thread' date=' but: After I linked up to the Herald's column from the OP's original post, I decided to read some of the responses....

 

Look at this response to the Herald's column about the lawsuit I copied/pasted in:

 

"I must say, I found this link over on Cruise Critic and as usual the cheerleaders over there are out in numbers defending Norwegian. This cruise line has now dropped below Carnival as the bottom feeder of cruise lines. Now matter how hard they try, they still can't get it right."

 

Dropped below Carnival? BOTTOM FEEDER? I wish people could just say, "Tried it...wasn't my cup of tea (and no, I'm not from England, I'm from Indiana) but to each his own. Vicious, they are.

 

Of course we're defending NCL... for the most part we aren't trolls. We like it or we wouldn't be hanging out on the NCL forum.[/quote']

Interesting that the people who converse on this site are viewed as cheerleaders for NCL--by the person quoted at the Herald's web site. I'm just wondering why this person was hanging out on this web site. I wonder if I should start lurking on other cruise line sites and criticize the posters there, even if I've never cruised on that line. Might as well.

 

Back to the OP, it rained during the morning while we were in Roatan. I'm trying to get a class action law suit to sue somebody for the precip. The ship clearly advertised itself as the SUN.

[suzyed]

I understand the devil's advocate position, but I reject it. After all, ALL marketing and advertising tend to exaggerate and mislead, but anyone who's not naive learns that lesson early in life and figures out that one needs to approach marketing promises with a lot of common sense.

 

Maybe we should all put together a class action suit and sue every politician who has broken his campaign promises?

Just because most advertizining is exaggerated or outright lies doesnt mean we have to accept it and buy the product anyway. Yeah they are lying..oh well, they all lie. That's not ok. JMHO

 

BTW, I don't know what we would do without a site like CC. If I only went by the ads for the various cruiselines, and NCL most recently...I probably wouldn't even know that have so many specialty dining venues..let alone that some have a surcharge and some don't....they don't even allude to that on the TV ads and you really have to hunt to find it on the website! :rolleyes:

 

So, thanks all, for all the info that we share here...even when it sometimes digresses into "tit for tata'....it is still great that we have a place like CC to turn to. ;)

[markf]

i agree the suit is a little outlandish--but i also think these cruises all try to sell a dream vacation which they cant deliver--so it is frustrating--I think NCL in particular is struggling in this area by nickel and diming their customers--more pay for restaurants--even removal of trays in the buffet sends a message--i rather see them charge 10-20 dollars a person per day more and deliver the product--of course we do have choices in cruise lines--so do what you have to do--

[suzyed]

Here's a link to the lawyer's website. He makes his living out of suing cruise lines.

 

http://paulhoffmanlaw.com/index.html

 

Happy Cruising

Well cruising is big business....many lawyers work in a certain field...I guess this is his choice of the type of lawyering he likes to do...I am sure he has plenty of work. He represents passengers, as well as crew members. Must be a need for this type of attorney.

[Cuizer2]

In case anyone is wondering how that "gentleman" fared with the lawsuit for the $54,000,000 pants, you can find out here.

 

The article you linked to is dated June 26, 2007. There have been other developments since then ...

 

Post-trial motions and appeal

 

On July 11, 2007, Pearson made a motion to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error" and had failed to address his legal claims. Pearson stated that he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of 'satisfaction guaranteed' rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion.

The Chungs' moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising; the Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating. But on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.

On August 2, 2007 it was revealed that a panel recommended not to give Pearson a ten year term as an Administrative Law Judge, after his initial two year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament." Pearson was appointed in 2005 and will lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upholds that decision.

On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing Pearson, a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law, to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings. On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

[catlady461]

I can't see this lawsuit going very far; actually I see it being thrown out. We are taking a cruise on the Norwegian Dawn 5/11 and already know that you need reservations for the specialty restauarants(we did the Pride of Aloha in Sept.2007 and had no problem getting reservations almost everything night) but if reservations are not available we will find other choices for dinner.

There is no way you could go hungry on a cruise. There is always room service as a last resort.

The problem nowadays is that everyone has to file a lawsuit to make them happy. Sorry state for the way the US people have become.

Just my opinion.

[chrisbd1]

Since it's not impossible to get reservations if you're not in a top suite, the suit has no merit.

 

I will reiterate my point.

 

They are looking for a class action suit. If enough people can "prove" it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a reservation unless they were in a suite or above. Then I suppose it can go forward as a class action. How does one prove a negative?

[isles1]

I will reiterate my point.

 

They are looking for a class action suit. If enough people can "prove" it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a reservation unless they were in a suite or above. Then I suppose it can go forward as a class action. How does one prove a negative?

I agree this is probably frivolous, but no one knows the legal basis for this suit (at least the article in the OP does not say what it is). False advertising, breach of contract, etc. The article is so short, I cannot imagine it embraces the entirety of the suit. If it does, well, that is disappointing on many levels. I cannot see an attorney risking Rule 11 sanctions in Federal Court if there was not some potentially legitimate claim.

 

Someone mentioned lack of damages above. I am sure there are some type of statutory damages that the proposed class is after. Since there are no details about the heart of the claim, I have no idea what they might be. Does Maritime Law apply here? Is there a Federal Statute that is alleged to have been violated? Otherwise there would simply not be enough money at issue to make it worth anyone's time to take this on.

[VoyageVirgin]

 

Back to the OP, it rained during the morning while we were in Roatan. I'm trying to get a class action law suit to sue somebody for the precip. The ship clearly advertised itself as the SUN.

 

Ah but I bet the captain came on the intercom and said 'Today we are having liquid sunshine. Have to give him A for effort. :D

[VoyageVirgin]

The article you linked to is dated June 26, 2007. There have been other developments since then ...

 

Post-trial motions and appeal

 

On July 11, 2007, Pearson made a motion to reconsider in the trial court, stating that he felt the judge had "committed a fundamental legal error" and had failed to address his legal claims. Pearson stated that he believed the court had imposed its own conditional interpretation of 'satisfaction guaranteed' rather than what Pearson believes is an offer of unconditional and unambiguous satisfaction. The court denied the motion.

 

The Chungs' moved to recover $83,000 in attorneys' fees and impose sanctions, but withdrew the motion after recovering their costs through fund-raising; the Chungs stated that they did so in the hopes of persuading Pearson to stop litigating. But on August 14, 2007, Pearson filed a notice of appeal.

On August 2, 2007 it was revealed that a panel recommended not to give Pearson a ten year term as an Administrative Law Judge, after his initial two year term expired mid-2007, in part because his suit against Mr Chung demonstrated a lack of "judicial temperament." Pearson was appointed in 2005 and will lose his $100,512 salary if a hearing upholds that decision.

On October 22, a D.C. commission voted against reappointing Pearson, a graduate of the Northwestern University School of Law, to the bench of the Office of Administrative Hearings. On November 14, it was confirmed that Pearson had lost his job by not being affirmed for an extension.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pearson_v._Chung

 

Have you ever heard the term 'What goes around, comes around"

[DAGVBSB]

And people wonder what is happening to our country? I bet if she had to pay all the fees if she looses this would not be happening. I don't know who is the worse (I think it is worse, not worst) the poor lady who didn't get what she thouugt she shoud or the starving lawyer, who needs money so badly he will anything.

 

Nita

 

Nita: Check out the website: http://www.dumblawsuits.com

 

You will find a ton of lawsuits just as stupid as this one.

 

I rank this one up there with these:

1.) The lady who sued the furniture store because she tripped over a child running loose, unsupervised through the store. She lost her case because the child was her own....

 

2.) The lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled coffee on her lap and McDonald's failed to warn her it was hot.

 

3.) Another lady who sued a sit down restaurant because she slipped and fell on some coke that was on the floor. Of course, she had just thrown the glass of coke at her boyfriend in the restaurant....

 

and my personal favorite:

4.) A guy sued (and won) a lawsuit against Winnabego. He bought a new Winnabego and was driving it down the freeway on his first trip. He set the cruise control and got out of the drivers seat to go back and make a cup of coffee. Of course the Winnabego swerved off the road and crashed. He sued Winnabego because no where in their manuals did it say that he could not leave the drivers seat.

[DAGVBSB]

I will reiterate my point.

 

They are looking for a class action suit. If enough people can "prove" it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a reservation unless they were in a suite or above. Then I suppose it can go forward as a class action. How does one prove a negative?

 

My guess is that she wanted reservations for 6:30 - 7:30 every night and couldn't get them.

 

I have never had a problem getting a reservation in a specialty restaurant and I have never been in an upper level suite. Of course, I prefer to eat early.....

[newmexicoNita]

Isles and Markf, neither of you can really mean what you have said. I have stated people who do believe everything they see or hear when paying attention to advertising may be a little frustrated, but not in a 1000,000 years can anyone really think NCL or any other line is guilty of false adverstising here. To say, it was impossible to get reservations in itself is a stretch. We do not book suites, heck we rarely have balcony cabins and only twice have we had trouble with reservations. Once we did have to ask the conciergne (spelling) to help so we could eat at Tapenyakis (again spelling) and on the Star when we tried the last night to get reservation in the Italian restaurant. How can anyone say she encountered any damages of any kind. We could all think of times where we didn't get our way.

 

Markf: you haven't cruised much in the past year I guess or you would realize NCL isn't the only line to remove trays. It is done for health purposes.

It has nothing to do with nickel and diming us. Many of us would rather not be charged $20 per day extra, amounting to $120 per 7 day cruise just to eat where we want. Leave this choice to us. I may be willing to spend the extra money, someone else may prefer to spend that money of their bar bill, the spa or shore excursions.

 

Nita

[Cuizer2]

I will reiterate my point.

 

They are looking for a class action suit. If enough people can "prove" it was IMPOSSIBLE to get a reservation unless they were in a suite or above. Then I suppose it can go forward as a class action. How does one prove a negative?

 

Proving a negative can be done. I have seen it done many times. One such example is trying to cover all squares of a checker board with 31 dominoes (each domino covering one white and one black square) so that the only two squares not covered are two diagonally opposite corner squares. No dominoes can be placed diagonally on the checker board. There is a simply method of proving that this cannot be done, thus proving a negative.

 

In this case proving the negative is made easier because of the limited scope of the world in which the action took place (namely the ship). The plaintiffs could after all interview all 2000 passengers. If every single one said no, (which of course is impossible, since the only way no one could get reservations would be if several someones actually did), then the negative would be proven.

 

On the other hand, I just proved a negative in the above example. Because the only way no one could get a reservation is if several someones had reservations, it would be impossible for everyone to honestly claim they could not get a reservation. Proving something is mutually exclusive is a method of proving a negative (which is how the proof for the checker board problem works).

 

This also works against class action status. Here is the definition of a class action from an online dictionary ...

 

a legal action undertaken by one or more plaintiffs on behalf of themselves and all other persons having an identical interest in the alleged wrong

 

http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/class%20action

 

This ship would consist of several groups:

 

1) Those who could not get reservations (the plaintiffs in this case).

2) Those who could get reservations.

3) Those who could get reservations, but not at their first choice of time or day.

4) Those who never tried to get reservations.

5) Those who could not get reservations, ended up at their second choice and liked it so much that they went back for every dinner since.

6) Those who could not get reservations and don't care that they could not get reservations.

7) Those who were happy that their group leader (most likely this would be the parents of minor children) could not get reservations (because they didn't like that particular restaurant).

 

The damages for each of the above groups is different (in some cases the damages are zero) and thus it is not likely that a class could get certified because each group of people does not have an identical interest in the alleged wrong.

[newmexicoNita]

Nita: Check out the website: http://www.dumblawsuits.com

 

You will find a ton of lawsuits just as stupid as this one.

 

I rank this one up there with these:

1.) The lady who sued the furniture store because she tripped over a child running loose, unsupervised through the store. She lost her case because the child was her own....

 

2.) The lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled coffee on her lap and McDonald's failed to warn her it was hot.

 

3.) Another lady who sued a sit down restaurant because she slipped and fell on some coke that was on the floor. Of course, she had just thrown the glass of coke at her boyfriend in the restaurant....

 

and my personal favorite:

4.) A guy sued (and won) a lawsuit against Winnabego. He bought a new Winnabego and was driving it down the freeway on his first trip. He set the cruise control and got out of the drivers seat to go back and make a cup of coffee. Of course the Winnabego swerved off the road and crashed. He sued Winnabego because no where in their manuals did it say that he could not leave the drivers seat.

I think I have seen most of these; the one that always sticks in my mind: the guy who sued the store (i don't remember what business it was) because he was trying to break in when he got stuck in the Air conditioning ducts; he actually won as well if I remember right; this was about 10 years ago. I know we could go on and on. I still say "tort reform" will help these suites from occurring quite so often.

[niborHS]

Nita, and those who questioned my response to her, it is just that I read these boards whenever I am planning to cruise, and Nita and I seem to prefer the same lines. This in not the first time that I have seen reference in a negative way to lawyers. Always phrased in such a way that it makes it appear that all lawyers are sleezy and will take whatever they can get. My point is that it is not necessary to bring that up every time someone mentions lawsuit. The issue with the table is that when we were told where to sit, we asked if we could have the other table. We were told it was reserved for someone else, and that someone else never showed up. Most of the time, if there are 2 reservations for tables of 6, the one that shows up first will have their choice of table. Since NCL started free-style, it has not been our preferred line, but seeing as we are going to be in Hawaii, where their cruise is the one that works the best, or at least it did until they cancelled the Pride of Aloha, messing up our plans, that is where we will be, with 25 cabins of other elderlaw attorneys, so you can all have a good chuckle over that. Personally, I think it really isn't necessary for people to find rediculous things to sue over, but that doesn't mean that I would make generalizations about lawyers taking these cases. Maybe it's a relative?

[NCL_Cruiser]

"eat where you want, when you want, with whom you want."

 

[dons flame-resistant apparel]

 

 

But it doesn't say "and" between all of those clauses. She could eat where she wants, she can eat when she wants, or she can eat with whom she wants. It doesn't promise she can have all three at the same time...:D

[NCL_Cruiser]

And that is exactly why this lawsuit has a chance of going forward- and the reason why this lawsuit that seems stupid to you and me actually is a bigger deal for NCL- the more grey areas in the law, the more likely NCL will have to settle. if the plaintiff can show that the average consumer would have the same expectations she had based on what NCL said, and that that expectation wasn't met, then she could win...

 

(oh, and no one can definitively point to where the line is, but a very many companies take great pains to stay on the right side of that line-- believe me, my clients spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year on this very issue, to make sure their advertising does not meet the legal definition of misleading or false).

 

If NCL didn't settle after the Rogue Wave class action lawsuit, I certainly don't think they'll settle on this one.

[Cuizer2]

Nita: Check out the website: www.dumblawsuits.com

 

You will find a ton of lawsuits just as stupid as this one.

 

I rank this one up there with these:

1.) The lady who sued the furniture store because she tripped over a child running loose, unsupervised through the store. She lost her case because the child was her own....

 

2.) The lady who sued McDonald's because she spilled coffee on her lap and McDonald's failed to warn her it was hot.

 

3.) Another lady who sued a sit down restaurant because she slipped and fell on some coke that was on the floor. Of course, she had just thrown the glass of coke at her boyfriend in the restaurant....

 

and my personal favorite:

4.) A guy sued (and won) a lawsuit against Winnabego. He bought a new Winnabego and was driving it down the freeway on his first trip. He set the cruise control and got out of the drivers seat to go back and make a cup of coffee. Of course the Winnabego swerved off the road and crashed. He sued Winnabego because no where in their manuals did it say that he could not leave the drivers seat.

 

You might want to run some of these through Snopes ...

 

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

[DAGVBSB]

You might want to run some of these through Snopes ...

 

http://www.snopes.com/legal/lawsuits.asp

 

Interesting link. It calls into question several of the cases, all of which were found on the dumblawsuits website. We have used that website for several years to show how far civil law can go.

 

Now, I do know for a fact that the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit was for real, it is probably the most famous of all fivilous lawsuits.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Now I wonder how accurate the http://www.dumblaws.com website is also.....

[Cuizer2]

Interesting link. It calls into question several of the cases, all of which were found on the dumblawsuits website. We have used that website for several years to show how far civil law can go.

 

Now, I do know for a fact that the McDonald's Coffee lawsuit was for real, it is probably the most famous of all fivilous lawsuits.

 

Thanks for the link.

 

Now I wonder how accurate the www.dumblaws.com website is also.....

 

Yes, the McDonald's coffee lawsuit is real. However, many people do not know the actual facts behind the lawsuit. It is not as frivolous as most people think ...

 

http://lawandhelp.com/q298-2.htm

 

http://www.lectlaw.com/files/cur78.htm

 

http://www.vanosteen.com/mcdonalds-coffee-lawsuit.htm

 

http://www.commondreams.org/views05/0122-11.htm

 

http://www.osmond-riba.org/lis/essay_mcdonalds.htm

 

http://library.findlaw.com/1999/Nov/1/129862.html

 

http://everything2.com/index.pl?node_id=1107089