Demmerle v. Legoland New York, LLC

Background

Christopher Demmerle, Ronniery De La Cruz, and Peng Li brought this class action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Legoland New York, LLC and Legoland Discovery Centers US LLC. The opinion describes the claims as concerning the alleged collection and retention of fees connected with electronic ticket sales from the defendants’ websites. The relevant sales periods were August 29, 2022 through January 30, 2024, for LEGOLAND New York, and August 29, 2022 through January 2, 2024, for LEGOLAND Discovery Center US LLC.

The parties entered into a Class Action Settlement Agreement. On January 24, 2025, the court preliminarily approved the settlement and conditionally certified a settlement class consisting of people in the United States who purchased qualifying electronic tickets from the defendants’ websites during the specified periods. The court later held a final approval hearing on May 29, 2025.

Settlement Approval

The court found that notice to the settlement class complied with Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and due process. The notice included direct email notice based on a class list supplied by a defendant and a settlement website. The court also found that the defendants properly notified the appropriate government officials under the Class Action Fairness Act and that more than 90 days had elapsed between that notice and the final approval hearing.

One individual submitted a timely and valid request for exclusion and was excluded from the settlement class. The court found that the class representatives and class counsel adequately represented the settlement class.

The court finally approved the settlement in all respects. It found the settlement fair, reasonable, adequate, and in the best interests of the settlement class. In reaching that conclusion, the court considered the complexity, expense, and likely duration of the litigation; the class’s reaction; the stage of the case and discovery; the risks of proving liability and damages; the risks of maintaining the class through trial; the defendants’ ability to withstand a larger judgment; and the reasonableness of the settlement compared with the possible recovery and litigation risks. The court also found that the settlement resulted from arms-length negotiations and that there was no collusion.

Release and Dismissal

The parties were directed to carry out the settlement agreement, which the court incorporated into the final judgment. When the judgment became effective, the plaintiffs and all settlement class members who did not opt out—including those who did not submit claims—were deemed to release the defendants and other defined released parties from claims based on or related to the alleged fees and the covered electronic ticket sales. The judgment gave that release binding and claim-preclusive effect and permanently barred non-excluded settlement class members from pursuing lawsuits based on the released claims.

The court expressly dismissed the action on the merits and with prejudice. The judgment stated that the settlement and dismissal were not admissions of fault, liability, or wrongdoing by the defendants or released parties, which denied those matters.

Fees, Awards, and Administration

The court approved payment of $116,666.67 for attorneys’ fees, costs, and expenses under the settlement agreement. It also approved incentive awards of $1,500 each for Christopher Demmerle, Ronniery De La Cruz, and Peng Li for their efforts and commitment on behalf of the settlement class.

Settlement payments not negotiated within 180 days of issuance were to be redistributed proportionally among settlement class members who claimed payments. If a second distribution would be infeasible, unclaimed funds were to revert to the Legal Aid Society as an approved cy pres recipient. Except as otherwise provided in the order or settlement agreement, the parties were to bear their own costs and attorneys’ fees.

The court retained jurisdiction until the settlement’s effective date over matters concerning administration, completion, enforcement, and interpretation of the settlement agreement. It directed entry of final judgment under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 58 and stated that each party would bear its own costs except as provided in the order or settlement agreement.