SeaWorld Denied Contract Docs in EZpay Renewal Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A Florida federal judge has denied SeaWorld’s motion to compel production of contractual documents it says are necessary to their defense in a consumer class action lawsuit over the theme park’s EZpay annual passes, calling it a “fishing expedition.”

SeaWorld argued for copies of contracts between plaintiffs and non-parties such as Dish Network, SiriusXM, and AT&T, claiming that they “share similarities with with the EZpay contract, such as recurring payments, automatic payments, or automatic renewals.”

The aquatic theme park asserted that the non-party contracts are relevant to their defense because “the meaning of SeaWorld’s EZpay contract” is the core issue of the case and because the EZpay contracts’ automatic renewal provision is ambiguous.

“Plaintiffs’ experience with similar agreements will inform their intent” in entering the EZpay contract, SeaWorld stated.

But U.S Magistrate Judge Julie S. Sneed disagreed and ruled that while the scope of discovery is broad, the discovery rules do not permit the parties to go on a “fishing expedition.”

“SeaWorld has not cited to decisions in which production of a contract between a party and nonparty that is not the subject of the litigation has been compelled,” Judge Sneed said. “Plaintiffs, on the other hand, have cited numerous decisions holding that such production should not be compelled because it is not relevant.”

Four named plaintiffs, Jason Herman, William Cohen, Joey Kratt, and Christina Lancaster brought forth the class action lawsuit against SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. in December 2014 on behalf of potential Class Members who are residents of Florida, Texas, Virginia, and California.

They allege that the purchased one-year passes through SeaWorld’s “EZpay” system, allowing them to pay for one years’ unlimited use of a SeaWorld park in twelve installments.

At issue in this case is the provision of the EZpay contract regarding automatic renewal, which provides as follows: “except for any passes paid in less than 12 months, this contract will renew automatically on a month-to-month basis following the payment period until I [the customer] terminate it.”

The plaintiffs allege that despite this language, SeaWorld routinely renews the EZpay contracts “for those consumers that make all payments in less than twelve months.”

For example, plaintiff Jason Herman says purchased his EZpay pass in March 2013, paid his first installment upon purchase, and completed his installment payments in February 2014. Although, Herman paid his pass in less than twelve months, SeaWorld allegedly renewed his pass automatically and continued to charge his credit card monthly after February 2014.

In response to SeaWorld’s motion to compel the non-party contracts, the plaintiffs argued they were irrevelant and not proportional to the needs of the case.  Specifically, that they have no bearing on the claims and defenses in this case because they will not aid in the interpretation of EZpay contracts’ ambiguous automatic renewal provision.

Judge Sneed states she was persuaded by the plaintiffs arguments and case authorities, stating that SeaWorld failed to show that the discovery of these non-party contracts would be unduly burdensome and would be irrevelant to the case.

“Despite SeaWorld’s contention that the parties’ interpretation of the automatic renewal provision of the EZpay contracts is the ‘core’ issue of the case, SeaWorld has not shown that plaintiffs’ understanding of contracts that have different language, terms and subject matter has any bearing or relevance on the issues in this case,” she said.

The plaintiffs are represented by Paul R. Fowkes and Ryan C. Hasanbasic of the Disparti Law Group PA.

The SeaWorld EZpay Auto-Renewal Class Action Lawsuit is Herman v. SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc., Case No. 8:14-cv-03028, in the U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Florida.

UPDATE: On Sept. 6, 2016, SeaWorld filed a motion for partial summary judgment asking a Florida federal judge to dismiss the breach of contract claim from a class action lawsuit that takes issue with its EZPay annual pass auto-renewal policies.

UPDATE 2: On March 10, 2017, a federal judge in Florida granted Class certification in a consumer lawsuit challenging SeaWorld’s EZ Pay automatic renewal terms.

UPDATE 3: On June 29, 2018, SeaWorld Parks & Entertainment Inc. has agreed t

o pay $11.5 million to settle a class action lawsuit over allegations it automatically renewed year-long passes without consumers’ consent.

UPDATE 4: March 2019, the SeaWorld EZ pay class action settlement is now open. Click here to file a claim. 

UPDATE 5: On Aug. 20, 2019, Top Class Actions viewers started getting checks from the SeaWorld EZ Pay class action settlement worth as much as $97.47. Congratulations to everyone who filed a claim and got PAID!