Hertz 2008 Annual Report Download - page 191

HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
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 asked 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 commenced in Spring 2008. In January 2009, we filed a motion for summary
judgment and the plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment and for entry of a final
injunction.
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 purported 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
availability of property, goods or services by HERC and who did not provide express
permission for sending such faxes. The plaintiff asserted violations of the Telephone Consumer
Protection Act, 47 U.S.C. Section 227, and common law conversion and the plaintiff sought
damages and costs of suit. In June 2007, we removed this action to the United States District
Court for the District of Kansas. In February 2008, the case was remanded to the District Court
of Wyandotte County, Kansas. In April 2008, the court granted our motion to transfer venue and
the case was subsequently transferred to the District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. In
October 2008, the plaintiff voluntarily dismissed its conversion claim, without prejudice.
4. California Tourism Assessments
On November 14, 2007, Michael Shames, Gary Gramkow, on behalf of themselves and on
behalf of all persons similarly situated v. The Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car
Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Coast Leasing Corp., The California Travel and Tourism
Commission, and Caroline Beteta was commenced in the United States District Court for the
Southern District of California. Shames purported to be a class action brought on behalf of all
individuals or entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at a California situs
airport after January 1, 2007. The complaint alleged that the defendants agreed to charge
consumers a 2.5% assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while
misrepresenting that this assessment is owed by consumers, rather than the rental car
defendants, to the California Travel and Tourism Commission, or the ‘‘CTTC.’’ The complaint
also alleges that defendants agreed to pass through to consumers a fee known as the Airport
Concession Fee, which fee had previously been required to be included in the rental car
defendants’ individual base rates, without reducing their base rates. Based on these
allegations, the complaint asserted violations of 15 U.S.C. § 1, California’s Unfair Competition
Law and California’s False Advertising Law, and sought treble damages, disgorgement,
injunctive relief, interest, attorneys’ fees, and costs. The complaint also asserted separately
against the CTTC and Caroline Beteta, the Commission’s Executive Director, alleged violations
171