The marquee of Hamilton, An American Musical, which is playing at the Richard Rogers Theater. Photo: Joseph M. Arseneau/Shutterstock.comHouston Lawyer Who Bought 'Hamilton' Tickets for Wrong Date Sues Ticketmaster
Houston plaintiffs lawyer Joshua Davis accidentally bought "Hamilton" tickets for the wrong date, but Ticketmaster won't give him a refund or new tickets, so he sued for damages.
January 09, 2019 at 09:14 PM
2 minute read
The original version of this story was published on Texas Lawyer
A Houston personal injury lawyer is suing Ticketmaster over its failure to refund him for tickets he bought to the musical “Hamilton.”
Houston lawyer Joshua Davis bought three tickets for the popular musical Wednesday, but noticed immediately they were for the wrong day. Because Ticketmaster refused to refund his $2,325.20 or switch the tickets to the correct day, he sued the ticket broker.
“This isn't right and it's unfortunate they refused to treat it as a customer service issue,” Davis said less than an hour after he filed the suit in state district court in Houston.
“Thank goodness I have a law license,” said Davis, of Davis Law Group.
In Davis v. Ticketmaster, he alleged that he intended to buy three tickets for “Hamilton” in New York on March 14 or 15 for him, his wife and his oldest daughter. The tickets would have been a birthday gift for his daughter, who turns 12 on March 9.
When he clicked the “back” button on his browser, Davis alleged, his ticket purchase changed from a March date to Jan. 17. He thought he had stopped the purchase by leaving the web page, but his credit card was still charged $2,325.20 for the three Jan. 17 tickets.
Davis said he immediately called Ticketmaster to correct his purchase, but “after a prolonged hold, and then speaking to a 'resolution specialist,' Ticketmaster refused to make the change or refund the money.”
Davis brings fraudulent inducement and breach of contract causes of action against Ticketmaster, and claims it violated the Sherman Antitrust Act on the ground that its position in the marketplace constitutes a monopoly on the lawful sale of tickets.
Davis alleged in his petition that the only recourse Ticketmaster provides him to recover his damages is to resell the mistakenly purchased tickets through Ticketmaster's sale platform, but with a fee. The company will not allow him to sell the tickets for less money than what he paid, he alleged.
Ticketmaster did not respond to an emailed request for comment on the allegations.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View All
Helping Lawyers Move Away from ‘Grinding’ and Toward a ‘Flow’
Why Litigation Demand Might Break Firms’ Boom-and-Bust Cycle
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Michael G. Bongiorno, Andrew Scott Dulberg and Elizabeth E. Driscoll from Wilmer Cutler Pickering Hale and Dorr have stepped in to represent Symbotic Inc., an A.I.-enabled technology platform that focuses on increasing supply chain efficiency, and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The case, filed Oct. 2 in Massachusetts District Court by the Brown Law Firm on behalf of Stephen Austen, accuses certain officers and directors of misleading investors in regard to Symbotic's potential for margin growth by failing to disclose that the company was not equipped to timely deploy its systems or manage expenses through project delays. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Nathaniel M. Gorton, is 1:24-cv-12522, Austen v. Cohen et al.
Who Got The Work
Edmund Polubinski and Marie Killmond of Davis Polk & Wardwell have entered appearances for data platform software development company MongoDB and other defendants in a pending shareholder derivative lawsuit. The action, filed Oct. 7 in New York Southern District Court by the Brown Law Firm, accuses the company's directors and/or officers of falsely expressing confidence in the company’s restructuring of its sales incentive plan and downplaying the severity of decreases in its upfront commitments. The case is 1:24-cv-07594, Roy v. Ittycheria et al.
Who Got The Work
Amy O. Bruchs and Kurt F. Ellison of Michael Best & Friedrich have entered appearances for Epic Systems Corp. in a pending employment discrimination lawsuit. The suit was filed Sept. 7 in Wisconsin Western District Court by Levine Eisberner LLC and Siri & Glimstad on behalf of a project manager who claims that he was wrongfully terminated after applying for a religious exemption to the defendant's COVID-19 vaccine mandate. The case, assigned to U.S. Magistrate Judge Anita Marie Boor, is 3:24-cv-00630, Secker, Nathan v. Epic Systems Corporation.
Who Got The Work
David X. Sullivan, Thomas J. Finn and Gregory A. Hall from McCarter & English have entered appearances for Sunrun Installation Services in a pending civil rights lawsuit. The complaint was filed Sept. 4 in Connecticut District Court by attorney Robert M. Berke on behalf of former employee George Edward Steins, who was arrested and charged with employing an unregistered home improvement salesperson. The complaint alleges that had Sunrun informed the Connecticut Department of Consumer Protection that the plaintiff's employment had ended in 2017 and that he no longer held Sunrun's home improvement contractor license, he would not have been hit with charges, which were dismissed in May 2024. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Jeffrey A. Meyer, is 3:24-cv-01423, Steins v. Sunrun, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Greenberg Traurig shareholder Joshua L. Raskin has entered an appearance for boohoo.com UK Ltd. in a pending patent infringement lawsuit. The suit, filed Sept. 3 in Texas Eastern District Court by Rozier Hardt McDonough on behalf of Alto Dynamics, asserts five patents related to an online shopping platform. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Rodney Gilstrap, is 2:24-cv-00719, Alto Dynamics, LLC v. boohoo.com UK Limited.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250
