Sobel et al v. Hertz Corporation

Filing 381

ORDERED that by 2/24/2014 the Parties shall execute publication of Final Notice to the class members, consistent with the Court's prior Orders on the subject. ( see pdf order for specifics ) Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 11/26/2013. (Copies have been distributed pursuant to the NEF - DRM)

1
2
3
4
5
6

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

7

DISTRICT OF NEVADA

8

***

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

JANET SOBEL and DANIEL DUGAN,
)
Ph.D., individually and on behalf of all others )
similarly situated,
)
)
Plaintiffs,
)
)
v.
)
)
THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware )
corporation,
)
)
Defendant.
)
)

3:06-CV-00545-LRH-RAM
ORDER

Before the Court is Defendant The Hertz Corporation (“Hertz”) and Plaintiffs Janet Sobel

17

and Daniel Dugan’s (“Plaintiffs”) (together “the Parties’”) Joint Submission of Proposed Final

18

Notice. Doc. #378.1

19

On October 28, 2013, the Court issued an Order concerning the content of the Proposed

20

Notice to be sent to class members and directed the Parties to jointly prepare a Proposed Final

21

Notice incorporating the Court’s rulings for final approval by the Court. Doc. #377. On November

22

13, 2013, in accordance with the Court’s Order, the Parties submitted a Proposed Final Notice that

23

faithfully incorporates the Court’s October 28, 2013 rulings. See Doc. #387, Ex. A. In addition,

24

the Parties proposed three (3) stylistic changes, to which the Court has no objection. See Doc.

25

#378, p. 2.

26
1

Refers to the Court’s docket number.

1

The Court notes, however, two inconsistencies between the Parties proposed stylistic

2

changes and the Proposed Final Notice, attached to the Parties’ submission as Exhibit A. First, the

3

Parties proposed a change to the text in the box on page 2 to state that class members who opt out

4

may “sue Hertz for separately charging” ACFRs. See id. While the Parties revised the text in the

5

“Do Nothing” portion of the box on page 2, they did not revise the identical phraseology in the

6

“Ask to be excluded” portion of the box on page 2. See Doc. #378, Ex. A, p. 2. Accordingly, the

7

Court directs the Parties to ensure that the aforementioned stylistic change is incorporated

8

consistently throughout the notice where applicable. Second, the Parties proposed a change to the

9

text in response to Question 5 of page 4 to reflect that the lawsuit relates to Hertz “separately

10

charging customers for airport concession recovery fees.” See Doc. #378, p. 2. However, the

11

language at issue in response to Question 5 of page 4 does not accurately reflect this proposed

12

change. See Doc. #378, Ex. A, p. 4 (stating “You will retain the right to sue Hertz on your own for

13

separately charging airport concession recovery fees at the Las Vegas and Reno airports”).

14

Accordingly, the Court directs the Parties to ensure that the aforementioned stylistic change is

15

accurately incorporated. In all other respects, the Court approves the Parties’ Proposed Final

16

Notice.

17
18

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that, within ninety (90) days of the entry of this Order, the

19

Parties shall execute publication of Final Notice to the class members, consistent with the Court’s

20

prior Orders on the subject.

21
22

IT IS SO ORDERED.

23

DATED this 26th day of November, 2013.
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

24
25
26
2