Daniel Chavez Moran Law Suit Dropped

psiadmin — Mon, 18 Apr 2011 23:02:07 +0000

No Fraud

MYTH

The plaintiffs argued that certain provisions of their purchase contracts were invalid because they were procured by fraud.

FACT

The court specifically ruled that the “plaintiffs present no evidence on this front whatsoever.”

In another part of its order, the court ruled: “Nor, as discussed below is there any evidence that the clause was obtained by fraud or overreaching.” While the plaintiffs alleged that they were taken advantage of by Mayan’s superior bargaining strength, the court suggested that in fact it is the buyers who are in a relatively strong bargaining position because, although Mayan must sell timeshares to stay in business, for the buyer the purchase is entirely discretionary.

U.S. Court Agrees with Desarollo Marina Vallarta S.A. de C.V., Daniel Chavez Moran, Grupo Mayan Palace, Daniel Omar Chavez, Scott R Erikson, Casey Jon Owens, Canamere Inc., Huffsmith-Kohrville Inc., Preferred Vacations Inc., Premium Travel Services Inc., Resort Solutions Inc., Seven Oceans US Inc., AZM Marketing LLC, Resort Quality Controls Inc., Resort Condominiums International LLC, and Resorts International Marketing Corp.

Daniel Chavez Moran’s Reputation Remains Unblemished

On Dec. 15, 2008, U.S. District Judge Gary Feess dismissed in its entirety a class action suit filed in California against Desarollo Marina Vallarta S.A. de C.V., Grupo Mayan Palace, Daniel Chavez Moran, Daniel Omar Chavez, Scott R Erikson, Casey Jon Owens, Canamere Inc., Huffsmith-Kohrville Inc., Preferred Vacations Inc., Premium Travel Services Inc., Resort Solutions Inc., Seven Oceans US Inc., AZM Marketing LLC, Resort Quality Controls Inc., Resort Condominiums International LLC, and Resorts International Marketing Corp.

In the only case of this nature ever filed against Daniel Chavez Moran and Grupo Mayan Palace (now Mayan Resorts), the plaintiffs were represented by a team of high profile litigation firms who attempted to portray their clients as helpless victims of fraud and coercion in a timeshare contract dispute.

All claims against Daniel Chavez Moran and Grupo Mayan Palace and all other defendants were dismissed.
The federal district court ruled that all assertions made by the plaintiffs were unsupported by the evidence.

Why was the case thrown out?

The court analyzed every interpretation, claim and argument made by plaintiffs. After examining the relevant provisions of the vacation ownership or timeshare contracts, the court dismissed the case in its entirety.

In an 18-page opinion, U.S. District Judge Feess ruled that the plaintiffs:

Had cited cases that were inapplicable
Had filed the suit in an improper forum
Had failed to properly serve defendants
And had made assertions that were unsupported by the evidence.

The court did not agree with a single one of the plaintiff’s arguments.

In the end, the decision of the U.S. federal court was accepted by the plaintiffs without appeal. No other such case has ever been filed against Daniel Chavez Moran or Grupo Mayan Palace.

Consumer rights are protected in Mexico

MYTH

The plaintiffs attempted to convince the judge that they were deprived of their rights.

FACT

Judge Feess ruled that “the court does not find this argument persuasive.”

The court specifically noted that even the plaintiff’s complaint concedes that “Mexican law provides for consumer protection,” refers to plaintiff’s “rights under Mexican law,” and notes that “nothing presented suggests a Mexican court would be unwilling to vindicate its own consumer protection laws.”

Plain language of purchase contract examined

MYTH

The plaintiffs asserted that the contract language was not clear.

FACT

The court held that the plain language in the provisions of the contract could not be disregarded.

The court noted, in effect, that to proceed with the tort claims in the case the court would have to disregard the specific contract provisions, initialed by the plaintiffs, confirming that plaintiffs “have not received or relied on any promise, offer or inducement of any kind, oral or written, not set forth in the agreement,” as well as other provisions that specifically state “the company makes no representations regarding the market for vacation ownership rentals and does not recommend purchasing vacation ownership solely for rental or investment purposes.”

No violation of public policy

MYTH

The plaintiff’s attempted to argue that the contract language in question violates public policy in the U.S.

FACT

The court found “no evidence that the [these provisions] contravene a strong public interest [of] California or federal public policy.”