Kirchner et al. v Wyndham

Case Number: Case No. 1:2020-cv-00436

Last Updated: May 29, 2023

Status

Pending

Location

US District Court, Delaware

Presiding Judge

Judge Andrews

Date Filed

03/07/2020

Highlights

January 14, 2022 Order [45] denying Wyndham Motion to Dismiss First Amended Complaint: Allegations state a claim for violation of the Tennessee Timeshare Act: misleading advertising under the statue does permit recovery for MATERIAL OMISSIONS.

Case Posture

Claims:

Pending: Motion for Class Cert by 10/2/23, Expert reports by 3/29/24, rebuttal by 5/3/24, MSJ and Daubert by 8/4/24, 5-day Jury Trial 1/6/25

Posture:

STATUS: TAC [83] at Issue – Answer [102]

Selected Events:

Jan 14, 2022 Order [45] denying M2D FAC – fraud pled with particularity, unambiguous language of contract DOES NOT contradict allegations that sales agents concealed material facts, e.g., maintenance fees will increase significantly; need to book up to thirteen months in advance; lack of unit availability because developer does not reserve enough rooms for use by Owners; inability to refinance at a lower interest rate.

Although Wyndham has no duty to disclose lower competitor pricing (e.g., Expedia), timeshare owners sufficiently allege “that Wyndham timeshares have no value and that non-owners have better access and pricing at Wyndham’s own resorts.” Allegations state a claim for violation of the Tennessee Timeshare Act: misleading advertising under the statue DOES permit recovery for MATERIAL OMISSIONS

Click on the PDF titles below to view.

Docket link

Operative Complaint

Critical Orders

Critical Briefs

Transcripts

Click on the PDF titles above to view.

Parties

Plaintiffs

Steven & Elizabeth Kirchner for themselves and on behalf of others similarly situated

Plaintiffs’ counsel

Howard Prossnitz
Herbert Mondros
Seth Rigrodsky
Gina Serra

Defendant

Wyndham

Defendant’s Counsel

DLA PIPER LLP