Hertz 2008 Annual Report Download - page 79

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (Continued)
LDW charge that violated the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The complaint also asked 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. After extensive discovery, the plaintiffs filed a motion to
certify the class in May 2008. In June 2008, HERC filed its opposition to class certification, as
well as a motion for summary judgment. In December 2008, the court granted class certification
and we filed a petition for leave to appeal with the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit
requesting the court to exercise its discretion by reviewing the class certification order. In
January 2009, the trial court denied our motion for summary judgment.
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 purported 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 violated certain provisions of
Nevada law, including Nevada’s Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The plaintiffs sought 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 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.
59