Expedia 2009 Annual Report Download - page 38

of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The complaint seeks damages in
an unspecified amount. On June 25, 2008, the plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal. On June 26, 2008,
the court entered an order dismissing the lawsuit. On January 12, 2009, the county of Monroe refiled its lawsuit.
The court then dismissed the complaint for failure to file a joint scheduling report. Plaintiff refiled its complaint
on April 15, 2009. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on April 23, 2009. The court dismissed the April 15,
2009 complaint and ordered the parties to file a joint scheduling report and move to reopen the case based on the
January 12, 2009 complaint. On May 27, 2009, the court reopened the case. Plaintiff filed its first amended
complaint on May 28, 2009. Defendants’ motion to dismiss the first amended complaint was denied and granted
in part by the court. Plaintiff’s motion for class certification is pending. Trial is scheduled for July 19, 2010.
Township of Lyndhurst, New Jersey Litigation. On June 18, 2008, the township of Lyndhurst filed a
putative class action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia,
hotels.com, and Hotwire. Township of Lyndhurst v. Priceline.com, Inc., et al., 2:08-CV-03033-JLL-CCC (United
States District Court for District of New Jersey). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to
the township hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert
claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for unjust enrichment and conversion. The
complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a motion to dismiss on August 19, 2008.
On March 18, 2009, the court granted defendants’ motion to dismiss for lack of standing. Plaintiff’s appeal is
pending.
City of Baltimore Litigation. On December 10, 2008, the city of Baltimore filed an individual action in
federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire. Mayor
and City Council of Baltimore v. Pricline.com, Inc. et al., MJG-07-2807 (United States District Court for the
District of Maryland). The complaint alleges that the defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel
accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The complaint purports to assert claims for violation
of the local ordinance, as well as claims for conversion, unjust enrichment, assumpsit, declaratory judgment,
imposition of a constructive trust, and injunctive relief. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount.
The case is coordinated with the Worcester County litigation.
Worcester County, Maryland Litigation. On January 6, 2009, the county of Worcester, Maryland filed an
individual action in federal court against a number of internet travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com,
and Hotwire. County Commissioners of Worcester County, Maryland v. Pricline.com, Inc. et al.,
09-CV-00013-JFM (United States District Court for the District of Maryland). The complaint alleges that the
defendants have failed to pay to the city hotel accommodations taxes as required by municipal ordinance. The
complaint purports to assert claims for violation of the local ordinance, as well as claims for conversion, unjust
enrichment, and assumpsit. The complaint seeks damages in an unspecified amount. Defendants filed a motion to
dismiss on March 16, 2009. On June 2, 2009, the court denied defendants’ motion to dismiss. The court denied
defendants’ motion for reconsideration of the motion to dismiss on July 21, 2009. This case is coordinated with
the Baltimore litigation. Defendants’ answer was filed on August 4, 2009.
City of Anaheim, California Litigation. On October 10, 2007, the city of Anaheim instituted an audit of a
number of internet travel companies, including Expedia, hotels.com, and Hotwire, for hotel occupancy taxes. On
or before May 23, 2008, the city completed its audit and issued assessments against each of those online travel
companies. The online travel companies challenged those assessments through an administrative appeals process.
On January 28, 2009, the hearing examiner issued his decision, rejecting the online travel companies’ challenges
to those assessments. On February 6, 2009, the hearing examiner issued a decision setting forth the assessed
amounts due by each online travel company (Expedia $9,884,872, hotels.com $7,452,772, and Hotwire
$404,555). On February 11, 2009, the online travel companies filed a petition for writ of mandate in the
California superior court seeking to vacate the decision of the hearing examiner and asking for a declaratory
judgment that the online travel companies are not subject to Anaheim’s hotel occupancy tax. Expedia, Inc. v. City
of Anaheim, et. al., Hotels.com L.P. v. City of Anaheim, et. al.; Hotwire, Inc. v. City of Anaheim et. al., Superior
Court of the State of California, County of Orange). On February 17, 2009, the online travel companies filed a
motion asking the court to rule that the city is not entitled to require the companies to pay the tax assessment
prior to commencing litigation to challenge the applicability of the ordinance. On March 30, 2009, the court
32