Hertz 2007 Annual Report Download - page 72

misrepresentation claim. In December 2006, we filed a motion to dismiss the amended
complaint and, in January 2007, the court dismissed the new fraud claim and reaffirmed the
dismissal of the substantive unconscionability claim. In February 2007, the plaintiff dismissed
the case with prejudice.
4. Nevada
On January 10, 2007, Marlena Guerra, individually and on behalf of all other similarly situated
persons v. The Hertz Corporation was filed in the United States District Court for the District of
Nevada. Guerra purported to be a class action on behalf of all individuals and business entities
who rented vehicle at Las Vegas McCarran International Airport and were charged a FSC. The
complaint alleged that those customers who paid the FSC were fraudulently charged a
surcharge required for fuel in violation of Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiff
also alleged the FSC violates the Nevada Uniform Commercial Code, or ‘‘UCC,’’ claiming it was
unconscionable and operated as an unlawful liquidated damages provision. Finally, the plaintiff
claimed that we breached our own rental agreement which the plaintiff claims to have been
modified so as not to violate Nevada law-by charging the FSC, since such charges violate the
UCC and/or the prohibition against fuel surcharges. The plaintiff sought compensatory
damages, including the return of all FSC paid or the difference between the FSC and our actual
costs, plus prejudgment interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. In March 2007, we filed a motion to
dismiss. In July 2007, the court granted our motion to dismiss and ordered the plaintiff’s
complaint dismissed with prejudice.
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
52