Mahala Ault v. Walt Disney World Co.

405 F. App'x 401
Court of Appeals for the Eleventh Circuit·Decided December 14, 2010·No. 09-15668·Unpublished·Cited by 3 cases

Opinion

PER CURIAM:

After oral argument and careful consideration, we conclude for the reasons fully discussed at oral argument that the district court erred in concluding that the named plaintiffs lacked prudential standing. The interests sought to be protected by the named plaintiffs are arguably within the zone of interest protected by 42 U.S.C. § 12182.

Accordingly, we vacate the judgment of the district court and remand for further proceedings, including inter alia a determination as to whether the claims of the named plaintiffs are typical of the claims of the class and whether they are adequate representatives of the class.

VACATED and REMANDED.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Mahala Ault v. Walt Disney World Co., 405 F. App'x 401 (11th Cir. 2010).

405 F. App'x 401 (Mahala Ault v. Walt Disney World Co.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

C.J.J. v. Walt Disney Parks & Resorts U.S., Inc.
283 F. Supp. 3d 1263 (M.D. Florida, 2016)
Jerry Miller v. Walt Disney World Co.
692 F.3d 1212 (Eleventh Circuit, 2012)