Former Season Ticket Holding Couple Shoots Back Against Dismissive Devils
On Friday, October 2, 2015, a motion in opposition was filed against the New Jersey Devils and its attempt to dismiss pending litigation from earlier this year. The plaintiffs in the suit, married couple and hockey fans Rey and Alex Olsen, argue the claims made by the organization in favor of dismissal are without merit and against precedent. Utilizing a comprehensive and persuasive breach of contract argument, the couple insist that an implied promise existed between the Devils and the Olsens relating to annual renewal of their season tickets, which was breached by the hockey organization’s failure to renew their season tickets for the 2014-15 NHL campaign.
As touched on back in April, the Olsens brought suit against the New Jersey Devils when they were denied the opportunity to renew the season tickets they had previously owned since December 2012, just before the start of the lock-out shortened season. In its motion to dismiss, the defendant states that it denied the plaintiffs annual renewal rights because the couple had resold more than 50 percent of their tickets during the 2013-14 season when the renewal invoices were being sent to ticket holders. In response, the Olsens admit that while they had sold a number of their tickets throughout that season, nowhere had the Devils communicated to the plaintiffs that they were discouraged from reselling their tickets or that in doing so they could put themselves in a position effecting their annual renewal. In fact, the plaintiffs argue it was the organization’s policy to encourage resale by season ticket holders for those games to which they were unable to attend, and even support an “official” resale website, NHL Ticket Exchange.
The Olsens further argue in opposition by stating that defendant continually represented to them and others of the class that season ticket holders owned their individual seats, and that long-tenured ticket holders were presented with greater reward packages, making it more beneficial for annual renewal. Without any clear and distinct communications from the Devils’ organization regarding the ability to be denied automatic renewal of their season tickets, the Olsens are of firm belief that the defendant acted indignantly and without cause in failing to renew their tickets, thus asking the court to oppose the motion to dismiss until the merits of the case may be decided.