Make sure the people you share your passes with follow the rules...

[Jedana]

http://www.msn.com/en-us/news/us/ma...hip-to-exclusive-club-33/ar-AAc4kXK?ocid=iehp


LOS ANGELES—One of the original members of the ultra-exclusive Club 33 at Disneyland has sued the theme park, claiming that his annual membership was unfairly terminated.

Joseph Cosgrove, 84, of Lake Forest, describes himself as one of the first 100 members of the private club that has operated in Disneyland's New Orleans Square since 1967. But he said in a lawsuit that Disneyland ended his membership after a friend auctioned charity passes that Cosgrove provided.

Club 33's rules forbid members from auctioning off membership passes to charities, according to the lawsuit. In the lawsuit, filed in Los Angeles Superior Court on Monday, Cosgrove said he didn't realize that his friend had auctioned off the passes but claims that Disneyland should have put his membership on temporary hold to give him time to appeal.

Suzi Brown, a spokeswoman for Disneyland, said the incident was not Cosgrove's first offense.

"Over the years, the Cosgroves repeatedly transferred and sold their membership privileges, which was a clear violation of membership rules," she said. "Unfortunately, we were left with no other choice in order to preserve the integrity of membership."

Club 33 was conceived by Walt Disney as a place to entertain dignitaries, investors and other VIPs at a cost to most members of $11,000 a year. Disney officials refuse to divulge how many members are allowed into the club but Disney experts say the waiting list is probably several years long.

The club includes two dining halls and several adjoining areas, featuring antique furniture and historic photos of Walt Disney on the wall.

A change in the club's rules recently drew the ire of platinum members, the highest level of noncorporate membership.

In the past, such members got three extra VIP cards that allowed friends of the members to access the park and the club. But Disneyland announced that starting in 2015, only the member and a spouse or domestic partner would have access to the club benefits. Also, the membership fee rose this year to $12,000.

Cosgrove, a retired public relations and marketing expert, said he is a lifetime fan of Walt Disney Co. and the author of "Walt Dreamers Me," a book about Walt Disney.

The lawsuit asks the court to force Disneyland to pay Cosgrove at least $100,000 for mental anguish, legal fees and punitive damages, among other considerations.

An attorney for Cosgrove, Mark Corrinet, said Disney has provided no evidence that Cosgrove has previously violated the club's rules. He said he doubts that the company would want to fight the lawsuit against an elderly, longtime Disney devotee.

"He really is a huge fan of Walt Disney and Walt Disney's dream," Corrinet said. "The focus of his retired life has been yanked from him."

 

[mcjaco]

This all anyone needs to know:

"Over the years, the Cosgroves repeatedly transferred and sold their membership privileges, which was a clear violation of membership rules," she said. "Unfortunately, we were left with no other choice in order to preserve the integrity of membership."

 

[LaidBackDad]

This all anyone needs to know:

"Over the years, the Cosgroves repeatedly transferred and sold their membership privileges, which was a clear violation of membership rules," she said. "Unfortunately, we were left with no other choice in order to preserve the integrity of membership."

I don't know. I feel bad for the guy. I'm not sure if the article isn't well written or if I'm just missing something. Is he in trouble for selling the guest passes which apparently don't exist now in 2015; or, is he letting friends somehow use his membership privileges? Either way, I find it hard to believe Disney didn't have other options. If he has violated so many rules for so long, it seems odd that Disney doesn't have any evidence to support that claim. Maybe the guy has been a royal pain for the last half century and this was the final straw. Just saying, I'm not sure such a hard line stance is justified against a long time fan given the information provided.

 

[mcjaco]

I don't know. I feel bad for the guy. I'm not sure if the article isn't well written or if I'm just missing something. Is he in trouble for selling the guest passes which apparently don't exist now in 2015; or, is he letting friends somehow use his membership privileges? Either way, I find it hard to believe Disney didn't have other options. If he has violated so many rules for so long, it seems odd that Disney doesn't have any evidence to support that claim. Maybe the guy has been a royal pain for the last half century and this was the final straw. Just saying, I'm not sure such a hard line stance is justified against a long time fan given the information provided.

"Over the years, the Cosgroves repeatedly transferred and sold their membership privileges, which was a clear violation of membership rules,"

 

[peg110]

"Over the years, the Cosgroves repeatedly transferred and sold their membership privileges, which was a clear violation of membership rules,"

And if this is the case, then they should be able to provide evidence of it. Just saying it happened is NOT good enough, particularly in today's litigious society. I would think Disney, of all corporations, should definitely know this.

Personally I am not taking one side or the other, because we have very few facts. Apparently the only undisputed fact of the article is that Cosgrove is suing Disneyland for terminating his membership to Club 33 and that Disney is saying they have reason to do it. The article (like many "News" articles today) leaves so much to the assumption of the readers.

 

[Castle2Castle]

While the gentleman is looking to take the issue to a court of law, the article itself seems to confuse the actual termination with that process. Unless the terms of membership lay it out, Cosgrove doesn't have any grounds for claiming his membership should have been put on a temporary hold so he had time to appeal. Likewise, Disney probably isn't obligated to maintain or provide evidence of past transgressions when terminating a membership.

To the extent that Cosgrove's lawyer might have asked for evidence, it's unclear if they've had time to provide it, or even if they feel it's worth their time to entertain it. From the limited information available, the termination followed a violation of the rules; discussion of past offenses is only details around the lack of leniency for this particular violation. It wouldn't surprise me for a court to look at the terms and conditions of membership and toss the case irrespective of any earlier violations.

My personal opinion is that as a "retired public relations and marketing expert", he's hoping the publicity of a $100k lawsuit and his age will persuade them to back down without ever taking it to a judge to toss.

 

[mcjaco]

And if this is the case, then they should be able to provide evidence of it. Just saying it happened is NOT good enough, particularly in today's litigious society. I would think Disney, of all corporations, should definitely know this.

Personally I am not taking one side or the other, because we have very few facts. Apparently the only undisputed fact of the article is that Cosgrove is suing Disneyland for terminating his membership to Club 33 and that Disney is saying they have reason to do it. The article (like many "News" articles today) leaves so much to the assumption of the readers.

No, they don't have to provide evidence to the public in case that is being litigated. The statement is the statement. They wouldn't say so, if they didn't have evidence.

My take is he's a member that's abused the privileges of membership on multiple occasions, and believes he's above them. Disney has had enough, and terminated his membership. It's pretty typical.

 

[peg110]

No, they don't have to provide evidence to the public in case that is being litigated. The statement is the statement. They wouldn't say so, if they didn't have evidence.

My take is he's a member that's abused the privileges of membership on multiple occasions, and believes he's above them. Disney has had enough, and terminated his membership. It's pretty typical.

I wasn't saying that they had to provide the evidence to the public or even that they needed to, but if their (Disney's) claim is that his actions over the years is the basis of the termination, then they will have to (assuming it goes to a judge) provide that evidence. The problem I see is that the article lacks so much information to form a reliable "informed" opinion one way or the other. This is not uncommon, but I believe that is the problem with news today. They jump out on the headlines that which gets "Readership" but when it's wrong or not as they may have suggested or eluded to, that the correction is a footnote somewhere else.

 

[mcjaco]

I wasn't saying that they had to provide the evidence to the public or even that they needed to, but if their (Disney's) claim is that his actions over the years is the basis of the termination, then they will have to (assuming it goes to a judge) provide that evidence. The problem I see is that the article lacks so much information to form a reliable "informed" opinion one way or the other. This is not uncommon, but I believe that is the problem with news today. They jump out on the headlines that which gets "Readership" but when it's wrong or not as they may have suggested or eluded to, that the correction is a footnote somewhere else.

You won't hear any arguments from me on that assessment!

 

[LaidBackDad]

No, they don't have to provide evidence to the public in case that is being litigated. The statement is the statement. They wouldn't say so, if they didn't have evidence.

My take is he's a member that's abused the privileges of membership on multiple occasions, and believes he's above them. Disney has had enough, and terminated his membership. It's pretty typical.

No, they don't have to provide info to the public; but, they do have to provide it to opposing counsel and the article says Disney has nothing to back up their claims. Don't get me wrong, when I said I feel sorry for the guy, that may not be the right choice of words. This whole thing reeks of entitlement. Should the old rich guy be punished if he broke the ruled? Yes. Is he looking for some sort of preferential treatment? Possibly. If he has been a problem for so long, why was the rule violation so bad this time? Why didn't they do anything about it any of the other alleged times? It could also be that Disney was tired of having the "old guy" hanging around and they were just looking for an excuse to boot him out. He has been a member for so long. He has "paid his dues". I'm sure there is a lot more to the story than is in the article.

 

[mcjaco]

My guess, and this is my past dealings with plaintiff attorneys, is that they terminated his membership, there was arguing and posturing from the member, they called his bluff, and he went and filed suit, plaintiff attorney has given them little time to provide evidence, thus his statement which makes it sound like they don't have any.

My guess is there's a file on his past transgressions, and it will be presented once Disney Legal has a chance to review the suit, and will provide documentation to the points brought against them.

 

[Castle2Castle]

...they do have to provide it to opposing counsel and the article says Disney has nothing to back up their claims.

Two things. First, the article does not say they have nothing to back up their claims; it says they have not provided them with evidence. Not providing something and not having it are not the same thing, and we have no information as to when or if they even requested any such evidence. Secondly, if violation of the rules even the one time is grounds for termination (as is implied) they wouldn't necessarily have to provide anything related to past transgressions. Those allegations are only offered by the PR staff as a public explanation for a lack of leniency.

If he has been a problem for so long, why was the rule violation so bad this time? Why didn't they do anything about it any of the other alleged times?

This violation doesn't have to have been "so bad" versus the other alleged times; it could simply be about no longer tolerating a repeat offender. Businesses and individuals alike may have the option of 'dropping the hammer' for certain offenses, but often try to avoid doing so. Some people learn from a slap on the wrist with the understanding they were spared the hammer, and others just keep pushing.

Most parents I know understand how that can be...

 

[peg110]

The reality of it is, is that we don't know enough to speak (with certainty) about it one way or the other. We would need to understand the violation better, we would need to know the terms/conditions (or contract). If it's happened in the past and they let it go, it could be grounds for a case unless they got the "Slap" each time and a potentially worse slap for each continual transgression.

I think like many other situations in society, somebody did something wrong and someone didn't look the other way and now (for whatever reason) both feel that they are right. I guess that's why we have our courts and the fact that no one (in almost every situation) wants to admit they are wrong is probably why our courts are so busy.

 

[LaidBackDad]

This violation doesn't have to have been "so bad" versus the other alleged times; it could simply be about no longer tolerating a repeat offender. Businesses and individuals alike may have the option of 'dropping the hammer' for certain offenses, but often try to avoid doing so. Some people learn from a slap on the wrist with the understanding they were spared the hammer, and others just keep pushing.

Most parents I know understand how that can be...

Actually... it does have to be that bad. No organization can selectively enforce rules without opening themselves up to losing lawsuits. If Disney let similar rule violations go in the past with a "slap on the wrist" it would have to show what made it worse this time than others. More troubling is the Disney spokesperson's statement about "maintaining the integrity of membership". Does that mean the membership hasn't had any integrity in the last 50 years since the member has been in the club? To me this just sounds more like over aggressive management trying to "clean the house" of undesirable members. I wouldn't be at all surprised if this had more to do with the policy change and increase in dues.

 

[Castle2Castle]

Actually... it does have to be that bad. No organization can selectively enforce rules without opening themselves up to losing lawsuits.

Sure they can. Legal fine print is often of the "Disney reserves the right to refuse the entry into, and/or revoke any registration... for any reason in its sole discretion" variety. Many rules are discretionary by nature, such as rules about "objectionable" or "inappropriate" attire and language.


ETA: Even were that not the case, the article mentions a change in rules for 2015, which may have included additional rules and/or harsher penalties for violation of rules.

 

[peg110]

The legal fine print may help them, but now you are getting into legal precedent. If they selectively choose which rules or policies they want to enforce (at their discretion or not) they better be able to show a valid reason why and not just because they want to get rid of someone. This is a basis of discrimination. Certainly we don't have to go into a discrimination discussion.

 

[mcjaco]

ETA: Even were that not the case, the article mentions a change in rules for 2015, which may have included additional rules and/or harsher penalties for violation of rules.

This gentleman, may be the exact reason additional rules and/or harsher penalties for those violations may have been put in recently. He may have been a continual abuser of the past loopholes.

 

[LaidBackDad]

Sure they can. Legal fine print is often of the "Disney reserves the right to refuse the entry into, and/or revoke any registration... for any reason in its sole discretion" variety. Many rules are discretionary by nature, such as rules about "objectionable" or "inappropriate" attire and language.

You know better than that. That little bit of legalese doesn't give a company carte blanche or a right to discriminate. It's going to be difficult for Disney to show why the member wasn't a problem for 50 years; but, now needs to be kicked out. Disney continued to collect his dues for 5 decades even while he was supposedly engaging in behavior that was "not maintaining the integrity of membership". To me, it sounds like he will be getting his membership back soon or Disney will be opening up its checkbook to him.

 

[Castle2Castle]

And his lawyer's statement sounds to me like he's only looking to try his case in the court of public opinion for lack of a good case in a court of law. We'll just agree to disagree.

Short of him getting a victory and $100k, I doubt the media will bother following along with how it develops from here.


ETA: Not necessarily related to the lawsuit itself, but other outlets have cited Disney disputing his claim of original membership as well.

 

[mort1331]

Has no one ever heard of this fellow. He also go by the name...Rodney Dangerfield..." I don't get no respect"...RIP