Hertz 2008 Annual Report Download - page 192

HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
of The California Bagley-Keene Open Meeting Act. In January 2008, we filed a motion to
dismiss. In April 2008, the court granted—with leave to amend—the separate motions to
dismiss of the rental car defendants, the CTTC and Caroline Beteta. In May 2008, the plaintiffs
filed an amended complaint which added a claim for alleged violations of the California
Consumers Legal Remedies Act. The rental car defendants and the CTTC subsequently filed
separate motions to dismiss the amended complaint and, in July 2008, the court dismissed all
claims related to the CTTC. Also in July 2008, the court dismissed all claims, except for the
federal antitrust claim, related to the rental car defendants.
On December 13, 2007, Thomas J. Comiskey, on behalf of himself and all others similarly
situated v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., Vanguard Car Rental USA, Inc., Dollar Thrifty Automotive
Group, Inc., Advantage Rent-A-Car, Inc., Avalon Global Group, The Hertz Corporation,
Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent A Car, Inc., Beverly Hills Rent-A-Car, Inc.,
Rent4Less, Inc., Autorent Car Rental, Inc., Pacific Rent-A-Car, Inc., ABC Rent-A-Car, Inc., The
California Travel and Tourism Commission, and Dale E. Bonner was commenced in the United
States District Court for the Central District of California. Comiskey purported to be a class
action brought on behalf of all persons and entities that have paid an assessment since the
inception of the Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism Assessment Program in California on
January 1, 2007. The complaint alleged that California’s Passenger Car Rental Industry Tourism
Assessment Program, as included in the California Tourism Marketing Act, violated the United
States Constitution’s Commerce Clause and First Amendment, both directly and was in
violation of 42 U.S.C. § 1983, Article I, §§ 2 and 3 of the California Constitution, and Article XIX,
§ 2 of the California Constitution. The complaint sought injunctive and declaratory relief, that all
unspent assessments collected and to be collected be held in trust, damages, interest,
attorneys’ fees, and costs. On December 14, 2007, Isabel S. Cohen filed in the United States
District Court for the Central District of California a complaint virtually identical to that filed in
Comiskey. In February 2008, the court consolidated Comiskey and Cohen, captioned the
consolidated action ‘‘In re Tourism Assessment Fee Litigation,’’ and ordered the plaintiffs to
serve a single consolidated class action complaint. In April 2008, we filed a motion to dismiss
the consolidated complaint and we also filed a motion to transfer the case to the United States
District Court for the Southern District of California for potential consolidation with the Shames
case. In September 2008, the United States District Court for the Central District of California
granted the rental car defendants’ motion to transfer the In re Tourism Assessment Fee
Litigation to the United States District Court for the Southern District of California. In February
2009, the court granted the separate motions to dismiss that had been filed by each of the
defendants and dismissed the consolidated class action complaint with prejudice.
We believe that we have meritorious defenses in the foregoing matters and will defend ourselves
vigorously.
In addition, we are currently a defendant in numerous actions and have received numerous claims on
which actions have not yet been commenced for public liability and property damage arising from the
operation of motor vehicles and equipment rented from us and our licensees. In the aggregate, we can
be expected to expend material sums to defend and settle public liability and property damage actions
and claims or to pay judgments resulting from them.
On February 19, 2007, The Hertz Corporation and TSD Rental LLC v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company and
The Crawford Group, Inc. was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Massachusetts. In
this action, we and our co-plaintiff seek damages and injunctive relief based upon allegations that
Enterprise and its corporate parent, The Crawford Group, Inc., or ‘‘Crawford,’’ unlawfully engaged in
172