Court Certifies Class of People to Whom Amusement Parks Denied Refunds in 2020
Plaintiffs bought season passes to one or more of eleven amusement parks operated by Cedar Fair, L.P. (Cedar Fair) in either late 2019 or early 2020. When the parks were forced to close due to the COVID pandemic, they informed the purchasers that they would not be receiving refunds. Rather, their passes would be extended through the 2021 season. Members of the purported class who availed themselves of that offer and used their 2020 passes in 2021 were excluded from the class. However, in September, in Walker v. Cedar Fair, L.P., a U.S. District Court in Ohio certified a class consisting of those who chose to reject that offer.
To be blunt: repeated efforts at bullyragging a judge once he or she makes a decision as to which he or she has considered and rejected is not appropriate. Indeed, it is never effective advocacy.
In making these remarks, I do not fault Defendants’ counsel, who have often appeared before me. Instead, to the extent renewal of arguments resulted from his clients’ demands I assume and I believe, rightly, that the client insisted that the lawyer keep picking at, as it were, the scab of an unsightly and unwelcome decision. Repetition tires the mind and makes the heart grow firmer.
Defendant argues that Ohio law does not permit certification of unjust enrichment claims. That’s odd and interesting, but the court reminds Defendant of how Erie works. Class certification is procedural and may proceed in federal court regardless of Ohio’s law. Moreover, the court adds, “So far as I can tell: if ever there were a case in which class certification of an unjust enrichment claim were appropriate, indeed necessary, this is the case.”