The Hyatt Regency Jersey City's Interesting Lawsuit Against Hyatt

Lucky, just to be clear they are not claiming that the opening of the Hyatt House cost them $1.3 million in lost revenue, they are claiming that the Hyatt House is causing the Regency to be operatiing at a loss, which was $1.3 million last year according to this lawsuit.

In other word’s they are claiming the whole reason the Regency is losing money is because of the Hyatt House opening next door so this would be a much larger overall loss in revenue than $1.3 million, that is just the amount of money they were in the red last year - an operating loss.

I have stayed at Hyatt Place more than Hyatt House, but I really like them and they are a good substitute for Hyatts. All of them even have small bars and the ability to get food relatively late.

Hyatt House will likely cause a net operating loss of $1.3 million for the Hyatt Regency, the lawsuit alleges.

If he’s loosing $1.3 million in this economy he has bigger problems than the Hyatt House.

Having stayed at Hyatt Regency JC and the newest Hyatt House JC, I can difinitively say that the Hyatt House is much nicer overall.

The JC Hyatt House has nicer rooms, fresher overall feel throughout and a nice bar overlooking the Hudson with views of Manhattan. Yes- the regency does have some full service elements that are nice such as room service and an expanded restaurant menu- but I do understand there gripe here.

From a guest perspective, it’s much easier to choose this Hyatt House given an equal location and superior physical property- and typically lower rates.

"the ability to get food relatively late." too lazy to walk to the taco bell?

You can "walk to Taco Bell", but you'll be running to the bathroom soon after

I never understood why everyone makes Taco Bell bathroom jokes, do people really have such a sensitive stomach? I don't think I've ever gotten an upset stomach from Taco Bell or any Mexican restaurant, and I pretty much use a whole sauce packet every bite. Some people can't handle barely spicy foods I guess?

I have no opinion on the legal issues, but I gotta say that the Hyatt House in Jersey City looks like a particularly nice property for a limited service hotel. It's in a heritage building, has that destination rooftop bar/restaurant/lounge and is brand new. I would argue that it's leapfrogged to be the nicest hotel in JC, beating out the Westin and Hyatt Regency.

Taco Bell certainly has its place.

"destination rooftop bar/restaurant/lounge"

Putting the word "destination" in front of a joint to make it sound better is right up there with putting the word "designer" in front of a clothing item.

Every location is a destination and every item of clothing was designed by someone 🙂

But selling $20 cocktails and $100 sweaters is a hard sell.

@Tom: I take your point. I too get bothered by words like "artisanal", "bespoke", "curated" and "home-made" which are over-used in marketing. But seriously, this is a really impressive space, especially considering what is usually on offer by limited service hotels. It's in a very pretty building with some seriously excellent views of downtown Manhattan. I'm not a hyatt booster and I wouldn't have used the term without thought. I live in the neighbourhood and I wouldn't set foot in the restaurants on offer in the local Doubletree, Westin, Hyatt Regency or Courtyard by Marriott. I have however, gone out of my way to go to the Hyatt House's rooftop.

If I were the hotel owner, I would be absolutely livid about having the Hyatt House next door. OTOH, legally I don't think there is a case. In the law there is a rule that you can only sue about something afterwards that you complained about before: If the HR agreed to the HH, w/o objecting to the size, food, bar etc. then those are not going to be acceptable legal grounds in court.

The union issue is an interesting one. As you note, if the hotel owners had been properly notified, would it have made a difference? That may not matter. If Hyatt was contractually required to inform the owners ahead of time and did not, the owners have a heckuva lawsuit. Especially since Hyatt gets its management fee anyway, so Hyatt knew it could bring in the union to the detriment of the owner's bottom line, not Hyatt's bottom line.

IMHO, this makes Hyatt look like an untrustworthy partner.

Oh, and to settle the debate, Taco Bell sucks.

Consumers don't see that much distinction between the lower-end full service brands like Hyatt Regency, Sheraton and the upper-end limited service brands. Often the limited service properties are newer, nicer at a much better price point.

The hotel industry has cannibalized itself with false segmentation that doesn't hold in the real world.

I'll admit, my first thought was that the owners of the Hyatt Regency should be embarrassed about the state of their hotel if a limited service Hyatt House was cutting into their business, but after seeing the pictures of the Hyatt House I am a little more sympathetic. I have seen a couple budget hotels like Hilton Doubletrees and Hyatt Places where they look like luxury properties and have wondered how they make that work...

This particular Hyatt House has some beautiful public areas. It seems more like a Hyatt Regency in it's status (especially that lobby! It looks like a 1920's art deco bank). The proper Hyatt Regency would be hard pressed to compete against that without having to go to Grand/Park Hyatt levels of decor. The Hyatt Regency is currently fresh enough for a standard Hyatt Regency and looks nice, but not in comparison to the genre-bending Hyatt House. This seems like a bizarre subversion by Hyatt.

That being said, I'm not sure how the Hyatt Regency can win against Hyatt unless they have proof that Hyatt told them there would not be any competition or any pressure on their profits from the Hyatt House (and I doubt anyone from Hyatt was foolish enough to give that assurance in the first place). Like Ben said, it seems like naïveté from the owners.

@JL100 thank you for contributing absolutely nothing relevant to this topic...

@Alex do you have proof for what you just said? That sounds like BS to me.

Pure anecdote, but working with a large amount of consultants has given me the impression that they all get excited when they get to book a full-service hotel Marriott or Sheraton over a Courtyard/etc.

I've always considered Hyatt House as long-term apartments, but the newer Hyatt House properties are more like an upscale Hyatt Place -- both Jersey City and the DC Wharf. They are both better than most domestic Regencies, which is great, but somewhat confusing from a brand perspective.

I have spent the majority of my hundreds of nights at "extended stay" brands Hyatt House, Residence Inn, and Homewood Suites and I know for a fact that the vast majority of guests are there on short-term stays. How did Hyatt Regency agree to (buying into) any impression that Hyatt House would be almost exclusively extended stay guests and not take away business from the beginning?

Destination is an expression often used in (retail) marketing. People go there not just bc of a basic need (get food as a hotel guest) but rather they want to check the place out based on their wish to experience sth special to adress more hedonistic “needs” and therfore give you extra value (nice view, feeling special)