Priceline 2011 Annual Report Download - page 97

96
Angeles Superior Court, filed June 25, 2010), the court granted the online travel companies' motion to dismiss all claims
without leave to amend; judgment was entered on July 26, 2011 in favor of the defendants. The case is currently on appeal. In
Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey v. priceline.com Inc., et al. (filed in the U.S. District Court for the District of New Jersey in
June 2008) (U.S. Court of Appeals for the Third Circuit, appeal filed April 2009), the Third Circuit affirmed the District Court's
dismissal of the case. On August 24, 2011, the Third Circuit also denied the Township's motion for rehearing. On January 28,
2012, in City of Branson, Missouri v. Hotels.com,LP., et al (Circuit Court of Greene County, Missoui, filed December 2006),
the Court granted defendants' motion to dismiss all causes of action. In City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v.
priceline.com Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court for the Middle District of Tennessee; filed June 2008), the court granted
the defendants' motion for summary judgment on February 21, 2012.
Rulings granting dispositive motions or granting relief sought by a plaintiff municipality (or state) also were issued.
For example, on August 3, 2011, in County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (Court of Common Pleas of
Lawrence County, Pennsylvania, filed November 2009) (Commonwealth Court of Pennsylvania, appeal filed in
November 2010), the Court for the Commonwealth of Pennsylvania reversed the dismissal by the Court of Common Pleas of
Lawrence of the County's declaratory relief claim, but affirmed the dismissal of the remaining counts. In The Village of
Rosemont, Illinois v. priceline.com, Inc., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois, filed in July 2009), on
October 14, 2011, the court granted plaintiff's motion for summary judgment. In City of Atlanta, Georgia v. Hotels.com L.P., et
al. (Superior Court of Fulton County, Georgia, filed March 2006), following the decision by the Georgia Supreme Court
affirming summary judgment in favor of defendants in May 2011, the Superior Court of Fulton County found that there are
unresolved claims in the case for conversion, punitive damages, and attorneys' fees. That decision is the subject of a motion for
reconsideration filed by defendants on December 29, 2011.
Lastly, in the year ended December 31, 2011 the Company reached agreements with the respective plaintiffs resolving
the claims for purported back taxes in the following cases: Brevard County, Florida v. Priceline.com Inc., et al. (U.S. District
Court for the Middle District of Florida, filed October 2009); County of Genesee, Michigan, et al. v. Hotels.com L.P., et al.
(Circuit Court for the County of Ingham, Michigan, filed in February 2009); City of Jacksonville v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al.,
2006-CA-005393 (Circuit Court for Duval County, filed August 4, 2006); Anne Gannon v. Hotels.com, L.P., 50 2009 CA
025919 (Circuit Court for Palm Beach County, filed July 30, 2009); City of Myrtle Beach, South Carolina v. Hotels.com, L.P.,
et al. (Court of Common Pleas for Horry County, South Carolina, filed in February 2007); Town of Hilton Head Island, South
Carolina v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (Court of Common Pleas for Beaufort County, South Carolina, filed in April 2010) and
Horry County, South Carolina, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et al. (Court of Common Pleas, Horry County, South Carolina; filed in
February 2007). These cases have been dismissed. In addition, County of Monroe, Florida v. Priceline.com, Inc. et al. (U.S.
District Court for the Southern District of Florida, filed January 2009)(agreement signed August 2010) and the Tourist
Development Tax claims asserted by the County in Priceline.com, Inc. v. Miami-Dade County, Florida, et al., were dismissed in
2011 pursuant to the August 2010 agreement reached in the County of Monroe case. As part of each of these agreements,
plaintiffs have agreed to not assert claims based on the ordinance at issue in the respective action for periods that range from
two to four years. The settlement amounts in these cases are not material to the Company's results of operations or cash flow
for the year ended December 31, 2011.
The currently pending occupancy tax matters are listed below. The Company intends to defend vigorously against the
claims in all of the proceedings described below.
Statewide Class Actions and Putative Class Actions
Such actions include:
• City of Los Angeles, California v. Hotels.com, Inc., et al. (California Superior Court, Los Angeles County;
filed December 2004)
• City of Rome, Georgia, et al. v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Northern District of
Georgia; filed November 2005)
• City of San Antonio, Texas v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S. District Court for the Western District of Texas;
filed May 2006)
• City of Gallup, New Mexico v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (U.S. District Court for the District of New Mexico;
filed July 2007)
• City of Goodlettsville, Tennessee, et al. v. priceline.com Incorporated, et al. (U.S. District Court for the
Middle District of Tennessee; filed June 2008)
• Pine Bluff Advertising and Promotion Commission, Jefferson County, Arkansas, et al. v. Hotels.com, LP, et
al. (Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Arkansas; filed September 2009)
• County of Lawrence, Pennsylvania v. Hotels.com, L.P., et al. (Court of Common Pleas of Lawrence County,