Scott and Diana Anderson fought to regain membership in Disneyland's private Club 33 after Disney expelled them in 2017. In September 2024, an Orange County jury rejected their claim that the removal was improper, according to contemporary reporting by the Los Angeles Times.
The dispute concerned a particular membership and an incident the two sides described differently. It was not a finding that Club 33 was a cult, and the couple's enthusiasm for Disney did not by itself determine what the membership agreement allowed.
A disputed incident
Disney’s account was that Scott Anderson showed signs of intoxication at the park in 2017. The Andersons contested that account, saying a medical condition explained what staff had seen. That difference was central to their effort to challenge the removal.
A reader cannot settle the medical question from reports of speech or difficulty standing. Nor does a statement become a proven fact just because it appears among claims in a court case. Each side’s description needs its attribution.
The jury outcome reported in 2024 concerned this civil dispute over membership. It did not convict anyone of a crime. Any later appeal would need to be checked separately, rather than inferred from the earlier report.
The club behind the case
Disney's official history records Club 33 opening in New Orleans Square at Disneyland on June 15, 1967. It was designed as a private setting for guests, with a history linked to Walt Disney's plans for hospitality inside the park.
That is a more reliable description than a list of rumored celebrity members. A person's name appearing on an online list does not establish current membership, and not every Disney park should be assumed to have an identical arrangement.
The club's limited access helped make the couple's case interesting beyond the courtroom. The loss they were contesting was access to a particular private experience, rather than an ordinary park-ticket purchase.
What the case does not establish
Reported litigation costs and membership prices attracted attention in accounts of the dispute. Keep the dates and sources with any such figures. They do not give a person considering membership a current quote.
Separate stories about a celebrity being suspended from a park do not explain this expulsion. A private photography rule also should not become, in a retelling, a blanket criminal law for California.
The documented account is the Andersons’ challenge to removal, the competing descriptions of the incident and contemporary reporting of the 2024 civil verdict. Checking current terms or any subsequent court decision would require fresh information, rather than another conclusion drawn from the old case.
