Bisaillon v. Vail Resorts, Inc.
1:25-cv-02056
D. Colo.Jul 2, 2025Background
- Plaintiff Christopher Bisaillon purchased an Epic Pass from Vail Resorts, Inc. (Vail) for the 2024/2025 ski season, planning a family trip to Park City Mountain Resort (PCMR) in Utah.
- A ski patrol union strike at PCMR began on December 27, 2024, significantly reducing mountain access and causing extensive lift lines.
- Vail did not proactively disclose the operational impact of the strike to customers prior to or during the early days of the trip, but instructed employees to downplay disruptions.
- Bisaillon and his family faced severe limitations on ski access despite paying full price, leading him to file a class action alleging deceptive practices, fraudulent concealment, and unjust enrichment.
- Vail moved to dismiss the suit or transfer venue, citing a forum selection clause in the Epic Pass terms mandating litigation in Colorado courts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Enforceability of forum selection clause | Clause shouldn't bind plaintiff; Utah law should apply and allow review for fraud in contract as a whole | Federal law applies; only fraud relating directly to clause matters; clause is clear, mandatory, and fair | Clause enforced; suit must be in Colorado |
| Applicability of forum selection clause to claims | Claims are outside clause's scope as they arise from fraud and consumer deception, not contract terms | Claims relate to pass terms and mountain access, therefore covered by the clause | Clause covers these claims |
| Whether transfer or dismissal is appropriate | Argues for Utah venue or dismissal without transfer; says public interest supports Utah | Cites Atlantic Marine for transfer to contracted venue unless exceptional circumstances | No exceptional public interest; venue transferred to Colorado |
| Sufficiency of the pleadings (Rule 12(b)(6)/9(b)) | Not directly decided; focus is on venue | Pleadings insufficiency also raised, but contingency on venue ruling | Court does not reach merits, bases decision on venue transfer |
Key Cases Cited
- Atlantic Marine Constr. Co. v. United States Dist. Court, 571 U.S. 49 (2013) (forum-selection clauses are generally enforced via §1404(a) transfers, overruling party convenience unless exceptional circumstances)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (pleading standard under Rule 12 requires well-pled plausible facts, not legal conclusions)
- Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal standard for legal sufficiency of claims)
- Excell, Inc. v. Sterling Boiler & Mech., Inc., 106 F.3d 318 (10th Cir. 1997) (discusses enforceability of forum selection clauses in the Tenth Circuit)