Hertz 2009 Annual Report Download - page 65

ITEM 3. LEGAL PROCEEDINGS (Continued)
that violate the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act and claim that the charges violate the Uniform
Commercial Code. The plaintiffs also seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages
with the return of all LDW and ERF charges paid, attorneys’ fees and costs as well as other
damages. The court has granted class certification, denied our motion for summary judgment
and the case is in the discovery stage.
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, or ‘‘Enterprise’’, was filed in the United States District Court for the District of Nevada.
The plaintiffs have agreed to not pursue claims against Enterprise for the time being and the
case has thus far only proceeded against Hertz. The Sobel case purports to be a nationwide
class action on behalf of all persons who rented cars from Hertz at airports in Nevada and were
separately charged airport concession recovery fees by Hertz as part of their rental charges.
The plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory damages, restitution of any
charges found to be improper and an injunction prohibiting Hertz from quoting or charging
those airport fees that are alleged not to be allowed by Nevada law. The complaint also seeks
attorneys’ fees and costs. Relevant documents were produced and depositions were taken.
The parties have each filed motions for summary judgment, and the motions are now before the
court awaiting a decision.
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. The case was subsequently transferred to the
District Court of Johnson County, Kansas. The Fun Services matter purports 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 plaintiffs seek an unspecified amount of compensatory
damages, attorney’s fees and costs. In August 2009, the court issued an order that stayed all
activity in this litigation pending a decision by the Kansas Supreme Court in Critchfield Physical
Therapy, Inc. v. Taranto Group, Inc., another Telephone Consumer Protection Act case. The
Kansas Supreme Court heard oral argument in the Critchfield case in January of 2010 and we
believe that the stay in the Fun Services litigation will remain in effect until approximately
mid-2010.
4. California Tourism Assessments
We are currently a defendant in a proceeding that purports to be a class action brought by
Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow against 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.
Originally filed in November of 2007, the action is pending in the United States District Court for
the Southern District of California, and plaintiffs claim to represent a class of individuals or
entities that purchased rental car services from a defendant at airports located in California after
January 1, 2007. The complaint alleges that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a
2.5% tourism assessment and not to compete with respect to this assessment, while
45