Hertz 2010 Annual Report Download - page 148

HERTZ GLOBAL HOLDINGS, INC. AND SUBSIDIARIES
NOTES TO CONSOLIDATED FINANCIAL STATEMENTS (Continued)
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, depositions were taken and pre-trial motions were
filed. After the court rendered a mixed ruling on the parties’ cross-motions for summary
judgment and after the Lydia Lee case was refiled against Enterprise, the parties engaged in
mediation which resulted in a proposed settlement wherein Hertz and Enterprise, without
admitting wrongdoing and in order to avoid further litigation, agreed to provide rental
certificates to proposed class members who register for same and to pay attorneys’ fees to the
plaintiffs’ attorneys. In November 2010, the court certified settlement classes for purposes of
implementing the proposed settlement and preliminarily approved the proposed settlement.
Notification of the proposed settlement was mailed or e-mailed in February of 2011 and a final
approval hearing on the settlement is scheduled for May of 2011.
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 has
not yet rendered a decision in that case.
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. Plaintiffs allege that the defendants agreed to charge consumers a 2.5%
tourism 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.’’ Plaintiffs also
allege 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 amended complaint seeks treble damages, disgorgement, injunctive relief,
interest, attorneys’ fees and costs. Plaintiffs dropped their claims against Caroline Beteta.
124