If you sue Disney, don't wear a Mickey Mouse watch to your deposition

jcb

always emerging from hibernation
Joined
Apr 28, 2007
So, the DAS Access lawsuits continue along in California federal court. The history of the litigation is complex and I'm a little surprised some are still pending in California, so I'll refer you to past posts and articles (at the end of this post).

Two claims are set for trial later this year and Disney recently filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the claims before the trial.

The family suing in one case claims not only was the child emotionally harmed from being forced to us DAS but that the parents were as well. An astute Disney lawyer (probably an associate) noticed the watch the Father wore to his deposition, leading Disney to comment in it brief that:

Similarly, the evidence shows that B.P.E., P.F.E.’s father, has not suffered any emotional distress, let alone any severe emotional distress caused by Disney. B.P.E. has not received treatment for emotional distress since DAS began, he wore a Mickey Mouse watch to his deposition, and is planning a trip to Shanghai Disney by himself. Id. ¶ 19.
Lawsuits aren't typically won or lost on observations such as these but they are often helpful things to point out to the judge or jury as you never really know what might resonate with a decision maker.

http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/07/13/disney-responds-to-disability-access-service-lawsuit/
http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/09/16/disney-opposes-inflammatory-amended-complaint-in-das-lawsuit/
http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2015/11/02/disney-asks-court-to-dismiss-autismdas-lawsuit/
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news-stories/federal-court-rules-for-disney-in-lead-dasautism-lawsuit/
https://www.disboards.com/threads/t...ss-service-lawsuit-update-on-florida.3548111/
The later discussing why there are multi-jurisdictional lawsuits on the subject.
 
And then there is this footnote in the brief (describing abuses of the old system known as "GAC"): "This exaggeration or fabrication of need for GAC reached a point where a ride sometimes had more guests in the GAC line than in the standby line. Id. For example, at Disneyland, guests would ask for a GAC card to bypass the GAC line attraction because the GAC line was too long and at times it exceeded the regular wait for the attraction."
 




So, the DAS Access lawsuits continue along in California federal court. The history of the litigation is complex and I'm a little surprised some are still pending in California, so I'll refer you to past posts and articles (at the end of this post).

Two claims are set for trial later this year and Disney recently filed a motion for summary judgment asking the court to dismiss the claims before the trial.

The family suing in one case claims not only was the child emotionally harmed from being forced to us DAS but that the parents were as well. An astute Disney lawyer (probably an associate) noticed the watch the Father wore to his deposition, leading Disney to comment in it brief that:

Similarly, the evidence shows that B.P.E., P.F.E.’s father, has not suffered any emotional distress, let alone any severe emotional distress caused by Disney. B.P.E. has not received treatment for emotional distress since DAS began, he wore a Mickey Mouse watch to his deposition, and is planning a trip to Shanghai Disney by himself. Id. ¶ 19.
Lawsuits aren't typically won or lost on observations such as these but they are often helpful things to point out to the judge or jury as you never really know what might resonate with a decision maker.

http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/07/13/disney-responds-to-disability-access-service-lawsuit/
http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2014/09/16/disney-opposes-inflammatory-amended-complaint-in-das-lawsuit/
http://blog.wdwinfo.com/2015/11/02/disney-asks-court-to-dismiss-autismdas-lawsuit/
http://www.wdwinfo.com/news-stories/federal-court-rules-for-disney-in-lead-dasautism-lawsuit/
https://www.disboards.com/threads/t...ss-service-lawsuit-update-on-florida.3548111/
The later discussing why there are multi-jurisdictional lawsuits on the subject.
"If only you hadn't worn your Mickey Ears to court! We'd be millionaires..."
 
I disagree, you can still have emotional distress over something, but still love the other products from the same company. We haven't been back to Disney World since 2014. One of the biggest reasons is an issue I experienced with Memory Maker and how CM's dealt with the problem. Every time I think about that experience and how Disney handled it, I get upset about it and it does taint my memories of that trip and of Disney in general. Just thinking about it now as I am typing this is bringing back all of those feelings. Did I stop buying all Disney products? No, but I haven't bought as much of it. Does it mean I will never go back to Disney World? No, we are currently planning a trip now, which has brought me back to these boards after being mostly away for 3 years. Does it mean I won't purchase Memory Maker for my next trip? Possibly, I am still on the fence with that one because of the ride photos and magic shots.
 
I disagree, you can still have emotional distress over something, but still love the other products from the same company. We haven't been back to Disney World since 2014. One of the biggest reasons is an issue I experienced with Memory Maker and how CM's dealt with the problem. Every time I think about that experience and how Disney handled it, I get upset about it and it does taint my memories of that trip and of Disney in general. Just thinking about it now as I am typing this is bringing back all of those feelings. Did I stop buying all Disney products? No, but I haven't bought as much of it. Does it mean I will never go back to Disney World? No, we are currently planning a trip now, which has brought me back to these boards after being mostly away for 3 years. Does it mean I won't purchase Memory Maker for my next trip? Possibly, I am still on the fence with that one because of the ride photos and magic shots.
Perhaps, but if your distress is so much so that you need to sue a multi-billion dollar company over it, you best be sure that distress is so extreme that it causes you to rock in the corner at the sight of a mickey head...
 
Perhaps, but if your distress is so much so that you need to sue a multi-billion dollar company over it, you best be sure that distress is so extreme that it causes you to rock in the corner at the sight of a mickey head...

what does the size of the company being sued have to do with the legitimacy of the suit?
 
what does the size of the company being sued have to do with the legitimacy of the suit?
I have a feeling that Disney's lawyers are some of the best in the world, so if you're talking rubbish about how distressed their system has made you, you better believe they'll find out.
That's how.
 
oh, i see. you've jumped straight to the idea that their suit has no merit. it may or may not, i'm not familiar with the details. but you shouldn't be deterred from filing a lawsuit against a company strictly because of the size of the company.
 
oh, i see. you've jumped straight to the idea that their suit has no merit. it may or may not, i'm not familiar with the details. but you shouldn't be deterred from filing a lawsuit against a company strictly because of the size of the company.
I've no doubt their suit has no merit, however, I agree, you absolutely shouldn't be deterred... if your case is legit, which this one clearly isn't.

Please don't imply I'm just defending Disney for the sake of it, it's insulting.

Frivolous law suits are a waste of time and money, and unfortunately, what I do know of this case, it preposterous.
 
Just to address the merits of the underlying lawsuit, unless I have missed something, every court has, so far, concluded that the families' claims have no merit. That is legally different than frivolous, a question Disney has not asked the courts to resolve here.

Essentially, the lawsuits have argued that Disney had an obligation under the Americans with Disabilities Act (and certain state laws) to create an exception ("reasonable modification") to its Disability Access System for autistic children. DAS works a lot like FP+ (see links in OP). The parents say the modification they need is near immediate access to the attractions (at WDW and/or DL). Disney has persuaded federal trial judges in Florida and California that is not reasonable. The Florida decision is on appeal. I had thought the California cases had been resolved as well but there are apparently some stragglers (or something happened which I missed). The deposition I mentioned occurred in one of the many lawsuits, the last which remain to be resolved (so i believe) where the parents claimed they deserved emotional distress damages because Disney did not give their family (which includes an autistic child) near immediate access to the attractions. I personally thought the watch comment was a pretty astute observation.

To be clear, we all get upset at Disney at some point for some kind of issue. Disney bus transportation is my issue. There is a big difference in being upset with Disney and filing a lawsuit claiming Disney violated the law to the extent that Disney must pay you emotional distress damages.
 

GET A DISNEY VACATION QUOTE

Dreams Unlimited Travel is committed to providing you with the very best vacation planning experience possible. Our Vacation Planners are experts and will share their honest advice to help you have a magical vacation.

Let us help you with your next Disney Vacation!






Latest posts

Top