Hertz 2008 Annual Report Download - page 81

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (Continued)
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
anticompetitive and unfair and deceptive business practices by claiming to customers of Hertz that once
Enterprise obtains a patent that it has applied for relating to its insurance replacement reservation
system, Hertz will be prevented from using the co-plaintiff’s EDiCAR system, which Hertz currently uses
in its insurance replacement business. The complaint alleges, among other things, that Enterprise’s
threats are improper because the Enterprise patent, once issued, should be invalid and unenforceable.
In April 2007, Enterprise and Crawford filed a motion to dismiss and Hertz and TSD Rental LLC, or
‘‘TSD,’’ filed opposition papers in May 2007. After a hearing on Enterprise’s motion in September 2007,
Hertz and TSD filed an amended complaint in October 2007. In February 2008, Enterprise and Crawford
filed a motion to dismiss the amended complaint and Hertz and TSD filed opposition papers in March of
2008. In June 2008, the court denied the motion to dismiss that had been filed by Enterprise and
Crawford. Discovery will now commence.
On September 25, 2007, we filed a second lawsuit, also captioned The Hertz Corporation and TSD
Rental LLC v. Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company and The Crawford Group, Inc. in the United States District
Court for the District of Massachusetts. In this second lawsuit—the patent action—we seek a declaratory
judgment that a newly issued patent to Crawford is not infringed by Hertz and is invalid and
unenforceable. In October 2007, we filed a motion to consolidate the antitrust action and the patent
action and, in November 2007, the court granted our motion to consolidate the two actions. Enterprise
and Crawford filed a motion to dismiss the patent action in December 2007 and Hertz and TSD filed
opposition papers in January 2008. In June 2008, the court denied the motion to dismiss that had been
filed by Enterprise and Crawford. Discovery will now commence. See ‘‘Part I—Item 1A—Risk Factors—
Risks Related to Our Business—Claims that the software products and information technology systems
that we rely on are infringing on the intellectual property rights of others could increase our expenses or
inhibit us from offering certain services’’ included elsewhere in this Annual Report.
In addition to the foregoing, various legal actions, claims and governmental inquiries and proceedings
are pending or may be instituted or asserted in the future against us and our subsidiaries. Litigation is
subject to many uncertainties, and the outcome of the individual litigated matters is not predictable with
assurance. It is possible that certain of the actions, claims, inquiries or proceedings, including those
discussed above, could be decided unfavorably to us or any of our subsidiaries involved. Although the
amount of liability with respect to these matters cannot be ascertained, potential liability in excess of
61