4 ms·
Disney Springs is a shopping mall though. You don't need a ticket to visit. It's also a stretch to claim one agreed to certain terms of service by merely visiti
by HeavenFox 2y ago
Disney Springs is a shopping mall though. You don't need a ticket to visit. It's also a stretch to claim one agreed to certain terms of service by merely visiting a website.
- fastball 2y agoIt's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants.
- bee_rider 2y agoYeah; wonder why their lawyers didn’t go with that angle. It seems much more intuitive.
- nraynaud 2y agoThey probably did, it’s just not newsworthy. They generally give as many arguments as they can in support of a motion they just need one to work, but the news is only interested in what’s surprising, not reporting on the trial.
- kayfox 2y agoLawyers are ethically obligated to put every argument that could work in their filings.
- thrill 2y agoBecause the purpose of a lawyer is to go with every viable angle.
- tpmoney 2y agoThey did. Their answer to the lawsuit advances that argument. This is a separate motion to stay the lawsuit proceedings and refer it to arbitration per the terms they claim were agreed to. Or put another way this motion isn’t claiming they aren’t liable because of the agreement to arbitration, they’re arguing that the venue is incorrect based on that agreement. The motion is for a stay of proceedings pending the arbitration. Edit: In fact the plaintiffs answer to this motion probably illustrates why this motion was filed in the first place. If you have and arbitration clause but you participate in a lawsuit voluntarily, the courts view this as waiving your right to arbitration. Presumably this is to protect against a case where a side engages in a lawsuit and seeing that it’s going badly for them, tries to have it switched to arbitration later. In order to have arbitration at all, they have to start by arguing for arbitration before committing too far into a court case
- nraynaud 2y agoThe restaurant is a separate entity? I just assumed it was owned by Disney from the mere existence of the lawsuit.
- fastball 2y agoIndeed. The restaurant is operated by Great Irish Pubs Florida Inc, as noted in the lawsuit filings (Disney and GIPF are listed as separate defendants). Here is the companies filing records. https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/corporationsearch/SearchResultDetail?inquirytype=EntityName&directionType=Initial&searchNameOrder=GREATIRISHPUBSFLORIDA%20P040001644710&aggregateId=domp-p04000164471-a7f48bf7-d357-47cc-bb8c-dd6a0d5523ca&searchTerm=GREAT%20INVESTMENTS%2C%20INC.&listNameOrder=GREATINVESTMENTS%205098020 https://search.sunbiz.org/Inquiry/corporationsearch/SearchRe...
- echoangle 2y agoIsn’t the restaurant operated by Disney?
- caddemon 2y agoNo, though maybe there is a reasonable assumption they enforce more oversight on tenants than a typical mall would. They do publish the restaurant menu on their website (including allergen info) and you can make reservations through their app. But the restaurant is ultimately a tenant operated by someone else in Disney's free to enter outdoor shopping mall. The original source of the incorrect info was definitely the restaurant, and the restaurant is also the one that doubled down on the incorrect info when the woman asked IRL. The main reason to sue Disney here is they're much richer than a Florida Irish pub chain.
- inetknght 2y ago> It's also a stretch to claim Disney is responsible for what their tenants serve in restaurants. Is it? Then why is Disney in the name of the location?
- fastball 2y agoDisney Springs is a mall.
- tsimionescu 2y agoYou're right, I didn't realize that from the court docs. The tickets are just as much unrelated as the video streaming, this is just as absurd as it appeared on its face...