Hertz 2007 Annual Report Download - page 173

HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
Other Consumer or Supplier Class Actions
1. HERC LDW
On August 15, 2006, Davis Landscape, Ltd., individually and on behalf of all others similarly
situated, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation, was filed in the United States District Court for
the District of New Jersey. Davis Landscape, Ltd., purports to be a nationwide class action on
behalf of all persons and business entities who rented equipment from Hertz Equipment Rental
Corporation, or ‘‘HERC,’’ and who paid a Loss Damage Waiver, or ‘‘LDW,’’ charge. The
complaint alleges that the LDW is deceptive and unconscionable as a matter of law under
pertinent sections of New Jersey law, including the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and the
New Jersey Uniform Commercial Code. The plaintiff seeks an unspecified amount of statutory
damages under the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages with the return of all LDW charges paid, declaratory relief and an injunction
prohibiting HERC from engaging in acts with respect to the LDW charge that violate the New
Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint also asks for attorneys’ fees and costs. In October
2006, we filed an answer to the complaint. In November 2006, the plaintiff filed an amended
complaint adding an additional plaintiff, Miguel V. Pro, an individual residing in Texas, and new
claims relating to HERC’s charging of an ‘‘Environmental Recovery Fee.’’ Causes of action for
breach of contract and breach of implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing were also
added. In January 2007, we filed an answer to the amended complaint. Discovery has now
commenced.
2. Concession Fee Recoveries
On October 13, 2006, Janet Sobel, Daniel Dugan, PhD. and Lydia Lee, individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company was
filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada. Sobel purports to be a
nationwide class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz or Enterprise at
airports in Nevada and whom Hertz or Enterprise charged airport concession recovery fees.
The complaint alleged that the airport concession recovery fees violate certain provisions of
Nevada law, including Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs seek an
unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any charges found to be
improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz and Enterprise from quoting or charging any of the
fees prohibited by Nevada law. The complaint also asks for attorneys’ fees and costs. In
November 2006, the plaintiffs and Enterprise stipulated and agreed that claims against
Enterprise would be dismissed without prejudice. In January 2007, we filed a motion to dismiss.
In September 2007, the court denied our motion to dismiss. We thereafter filed a motion for
certification seeking to have the interpretation of Nevada Revised Statutes Section 482.31575
certified to the Nevada Supreme Court or, in the alternative, to the United States Court of
Appeals for the Ninth Circuit. In October 2007, we answered the complaint. In February 2008,
the United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit denied our motion for certification.
Discovery will commence in 2008.
3. Telephone Consumer Protection Act
On May 3, 2007, Fun Services of Kansas City, Inc., individually and as the representative of a
class of similarly-situated persons, v. Hertz Equipment Rental Corporation was commenced in
the District Court of Wyandotte County, Kansas. Fun Services purports to be a class action on
behalf of all persons in Kansas and throughout the United States who on or after four years prior
to the filing of the action were sent facsimile messages of advertising materials relating to the
153