The lawsuit filed by Lugo and his family against Travel Resorts of America Inc. alleges a nationwide scheme of deception and fraud. The plaintiffs claim they were cheated out of tens of thousands of dollars and were not notified of their rights under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). A representative from Wyndham told the couple the benefits of owning a timeshare would outweigh any disadvantages they might have faced. They were told they would never pay for another vacation and would save tens of thousands of dollars. The sales representative allegedly convinced the couple that their vacations would last them a lifetime and they could even pass their timeshare onto their children.
To protect its reputation, Vail Resorts has been pursuing two similar class-action cases in California.
To avoid being named in the other cases, potential defendants must file a “notice of related cases” to inform the plaintiffs that they are already fighting other cases with similar claims. To file a notice of related cases, Vail Resorts has extended its settlement offer to the two California lawsuits. The company filed a motion to postpone the Colorado lawsuit while the California cases were settled. Nevertheless, if these settlements are successful, Vail could argue that they are not subject to a class-action case because the Colorado case would include the same claims.
Vail Resorts filed a class-action lawsuit in the Colorado district court in February. It is known as the Quintet al. case and contains more expansive claims. This would make it easier to reach a more meaningful settlement. Although the Colorado case has the same merits as the California cases, the company has filed 15 other actions in which the companies were found to be responsible for a timeshare owner’s cancellation.
Vail Resorts and its subsidiaries are suing over the alleged illegal practices of collecting unauthorized membership fees and using false data to make fraudulent claims.
The lawsuit also claims that the resorts have violated the EFTA by debiting canceled members’ bank accounts repeatedly and failed to provide written agreements to class members. The California cases are similar to the Colorado case, but the California case has more specific claims against the company.
The lawsuit claims that Travel Resorts violated the EFTA by making their membership cancellation policies illegitimate. The court found that the company had no right to cancel members who had already decided to sue. The Colorado case could result in a class-action settlement. But the California case may not be included in the class-action settlement. But it might lead to a settlement between the parties. The judge’s ruling could have a significant impact on the outcome of the California suits.
The Colorado court has granted the defendants’ motion to dismiss the two California cases and the Colorado case.
The two lawsuits were previously related to the same claim. The Arizona and Colorado cases were filed separately. However, the Arizona and California cases were settled. The Utah cases were resolved by the court. They filed a separate claim in the California case. Neither party defended the lawsuits. This is a win-win for the plaintiffs.
In the Colorado case, Travel Resorts of America has also filed two other class-action cases in the same court. In California, the group also claims that the defendant is guilty of multiple violations of EFTA. Those lawsuits were filed against the resorts in the state of Utah, which is why they are appealing the ruling. They have been sued by several consumers for their high-pressure sales tactics. They are not required to settle with the plaintiffs, but the settlement offers a more favorable outcome.
A settlement in the Arizona case will likely save the plaintiffs some money.
In the Colorado case, however, the company’s settlement offers have been withdrawn in favor of a class-action settlement. It is not clear whether the California cases will prevail. If the Colorado lawsuit is successful, the DuBoses’ claims would be included in the California cases. If the California case is successful, the company would have to settle the other two.