Diamond Resorts v Reed Hein & Associates

Case Number: 2:17-cv-03007

Last Updated: June 5, 2021

Status

Case is at issue and is in the discovery phase.

Location

USDC, District of Nevada (Las Vegas)

Presiding Judge

Judge Andrew P. Gordon

Date Filed

12/06/2017

Highlights

Case Posture

Claims:

In the Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”), Diamond alleged six causes of action for international interference with its existing timeshare contracts, false and misleading advertising in violation of the Lanham Act, contributory false advertising, violation of Nevada’s Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act, and conspiracy amongst the attorneys and TET to commit tortious breach of contract.

Posture:

The case is now at issue. All parties are in the discovery phase.

Summary:

Diamond alleged TET provides fraudulent and deceptive timeshare exit services to Diamond timeshare owners. Allegedly, TET falsely conveys to the public that it can get customers out of their timeshare, can force timeshare companies to take back timeshare interest, it can guarantee an exit among a myriad of other related alleged fraudulent conduct. TET publishes these advertisements through its marketing company Happy Hour. The attorneys are referred timeshare owners by TET. Diamond alleged that the timeshare owners never meet with the attorneys and that TET deliberately conceals the identity of the attorneys. The attorneys send demand letters to Diamond and Diamond never hears from the attorneys again. The attorneys then wait for Diamond to cancel the timeshare owners by default and then send the timeshare owners a letter congratulating them on a successful exit.

Diamond further alleged TET’s exit strategy is nothing more than an involuntary termination of the timeshare contract due to the timeshare owner’s non-payment of fees. TET charges the timeshare owners between $3,038 to $66,808 to do nothing more than direct timeshare owners to the developer’s own surrender program. TETs “exit strategies” involved referring attorneys timeshare owners seeking to exit their timeshares. Diamond alleged that the only work done by the attorneys was to send a demand letter to Diamond on behalf of the timeshare owner, without having ever met or conferred with the timeshare owners.

Another exit strategy alleged was to transfer paid-in-full-timeshare interests to third parties while the timeshare owners are still liable to Diamond on the timeshare contract. The last method utilized by TET was to “do nothing”. TET would advise timeshare owners to default on the payments to Diamond and wait for Diamond to terminate the timeshare interest due to non-payment. In addition to its attorneys’ fees and costs, punitive damages and an amount equal to the defaulted loan balances of timeshare owners, Diamond requested injunctive relief and a permanent injunction enjoining TET, the lawyers and the media company from falsely advertising, intentionally interfering with Diamond’s contracts, and engaging in deceptive or unfair trade practices.

SGB Anti-SLAPP

RHA Answer

Click on the PDF titles below to view.

Critical Briefs

Transcripts

Click on the PDF titles above to view.

Parties

Plaintiffs: Diamond Resorts U.S. Collection Development, LLC (Terminated: 02/26/2020: Diamond Resorts International, Inc.; Diamond Resorts Corporation, Diamond Resorts Management, Inc.)

Plaintiffs’ counsel: Michelle E Durieux, Phillip A. Silvestri, Richard Wayne Epstein, Jeffrey Aaron Backman of Greenspoon Marder LLP ; R. Scott Rasmussen, Murchison & Cumming; Alfred Joseph Bennington , Jr., Shutts & Bowen LLP; Daniel J. Barsky, Shutts & Bowen LLP; Glennys Ortega Rubin, Shutts & Bowen LLP; Gregory A Kraemer, Cooper Levenson, P.A.; Kimberly Maxson-Rushton, Cooper Levenson, PA; Michael Lee Gore, Michael James Quinn of SHUTTS & BOWEN LLP

Defendant: Reed Hein & Associates, LLC dba Timeshare Exit Team, Brandon Reed, Trevor Hein, Scott Loughram, Thomas Parenteau, Happy Hour Media Group, LLC

Defendant’s counsel: Bruce Alan Finck, Benton Orr Duval & Buckingham; David T. Gluth II, Robert S. Larsen, Dione C Wrenn of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani LLP; Panda Kroll, Law Offices of Panda Kroll; Kevin M. McCormick

Defendant: Mitchell Reed Sussman dba The Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman & Associates;

Defendant’s counsel: Leslie Benjamin, Law Offices of Mitchell Reed Sussman; Mitchell R Sussman; Joseph A. Liebman, Bailey Kennedy

Defendant: Schroeter, Goldmark & Bender, P.S.

Defendant’s counsel: Amanda Ebert, Lipson Neilson P.C.; J. William Ebert, Megan H Hummel of Lipson, Neilson, Cole, Seltzer & Garin, P.C.

Defendant: Ken B. Privett – Voluntarily Dismissed

Defendant’s counsel: LeAnn Sanders, Derek Linford of Alverson Taylor & Sanders