Sobel et al v. Hertz Corporation
Filing
459
FINAL JUDGMENT 1. On Count One of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds for Plaintiffs on their claim that Hertz violated NRS § 482.31575.2. On Count Two of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds for Defendants, noting t hat the Court previously dismissed this cause of action. See Doc. # 111 at 7-8. 3. On Count Three of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds for Plaintiffs but declines to award additional damages on this cause of action. 4. The Cou rt awards restitution in the amount of $42,321,890 to the class, and $11,115,583 in prejudgment interest.5. The Court awards attorney fees in accordance with the Court's Order regarding attorney fees entered on October 9, 2014. Doc. # 454 .6. The Court will consider motions from the parties regarding any cy pres distributions once the extent of unclaimed awards becomes more definite.7. The Court DENIES Hertz's Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supple mental Authority (Doc. # 453 ) as moot in light of the Court's Order regarding attorney fees (Doc. # 454 ).8. This is a final, appealable judgment disposing of all issues presently before the Court on this matter. Signed by Judge Larry R. Hicks on 10/30/2014. (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
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.
)
)
16
3:06-CV-00545-LRH-RAM
FINAL JUDGMENT
This is a class action filed on behalf of persons who rented cars from Hertz at the Reno and
17
Las Vegas, Nevada airports. In return for the right to operate on-site at the Reno and Las Vegas
18
airports, rental car companies like Hertz are required to pay a percentage of their gross revenues to
19
the airports as “concession fees.” These companies, including Hertz, pass along the fees to their
20
customers as surcharges labeled “airport concession recovery fees.” At all relevant times, Hertz
21
“unbundled” the surcharges from the base rental rate, such that the rental rate quoted to customers
22
did not include the additional “airport concession recovery fee,” which was itemized separately in
23
the rental agreement. Plaintiffs alleged that this practice violated Nevada Revised Statute (“NRS”)
24
482.31575. Doc. #108.1
25
///
26
1
Refers to the Court’s docket number.
1
The Class is defined as:
2
all persons who rented a car at a Nevada airport from the Defendant company and
were charged a base car rental rate as well as a separate concession recovery fee or
comparable fee during the period from October 13, 2003 through September 30, 2009.
Excluded from the class are Defendant Hertz, any person, firm, trust, corporation,
officer, director, or other individual or entity in which the Defendant has a controlling
interest, or which is related to or affiliated with Defendant, and the legal
representatives, heirs, successors-in-interest or assigns of any such excluded party.
Also excluded from the class are Plaintiffs’ counsel, all judicial officers responsible
for any Decisions in this matter, and all government entities.
3
4
5
6
7
Doc. #255 at 1. The Court finds that all Class members have been informed about the Class and
8
have had the opportunity to opt out. See Doc. #439-1 (listing the parties that have opted out of the
9
Class).
10
On March 21, 2013, this Court granted in part and denied in part Plaintiffs’ Motion for
11
Partial Summary Judgment. See Doc. #332. In that Order, the Court found that Hertz’s policies
12
violated NRS § 482.31585 and that restitution remedies were “the best way to effectuate the
13
statutory purpose behind the rate and remedial statutes.” Id. at 20. The Court also ruled in favor of
14
Plaintiffs on liability for unjust enrichment, but determined that a monetary remedy would be
15
inappropriate for that cause of action in light of the remedy for Hertz’s violation of the rate statute.
16
Id. (citing Elyousef v. O’Reilly & Ferrario, LLC, 245 P.3d 547, 549 (Nev. 2010) (“[A] plaintiff
17
may not recover [] twice for the same injury simply because he or she has two legal theories.”)).
18
On September 10, 2014, Hertz submitted a Proposed Form of Judgment requesting that
19
judgment be entered for Hertz and that Plaintiffs recover nothing. Doc. #440. That same day,
20
Plaintiffs submitted their Proposed Final Judgment, requesting that the Court find in Plaintiffs’
21
favor, award $42,321,890 in compensatory damages to the Class, and $11,115,583 in prejudgment
22
interest. Doc. #443.2 The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ requested damages are accurate and have
23
been appropriately reduced based on the 416 class members who have opted out. See Doc. #332 at
24
3, 17; Doc. #442 at 2. The Court has also previously found that an award of prejudgment interest
25
26
2
Plaintiffs submitted a Revised Proposed Order on October 16, 2014, that included the same
substantive terms. Doc. #456.
2
1
is appropriate in this case. Doc. #332 at 27-28. Hertz again objects to the award of prejudgment
2
interest, but acknowledges that the Court has previously declined to adopt its arguments regarding
3
prejudgment interest. Doc. #451 at 3. The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ calculation of prejudgment
4
interest comports with this Court’s prior order. Doc. #332 at 27-28; see In re Exxon Valdez, 484
5
F.3d 1098, 1101 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that “the judgment draws interest from the time of service
6
of the summons and complaint until satisfied”); NRS § 17.130(2) (same).
Plaintiffs suggest that any unclaimed awards under the Class be assigned to a cy pres fund.
7
8
Doc. #442 at 4. Hertz argues that a cy pres fund would be inappropriate here, and that any
9
unclaimed funds should be returned to Hertz. Doc. #451 at 4. Cy pres is not appropriate if the
10
Court can adequately allocate the damages to members of the class. Six (6) Mexican Workers v.
11
Ariz. Citrus Growers, 904 F.2d 1301, 1307 (9th Cir. 1990). Unclaimed funds revert to the
12
defendant if “the defendant had followed the letter of the law and could not have anticipated its
13
liability.” Id. at 1308. The Court finds that cy pres may be appropriate in this case, and grants
14
leave to the parties to move the Court to establish a cy pres fund once the amount of unclaimed
15
awards becomes more definite.
16
17
Accordingly, good cause appearing therefor, the Court hereby ORDERS, ADJUDGES,
AND DECREES that:
18
19
1. On Count One of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds for Plaintiffs on their
claim that Hertz violated NRS § 482.31575.
20
21
2. On Count Two of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds for Defendants, noting
that the Court previously dismissed this cause of action. See Doc. #111 at 7-8.
22
23
3. On Count Three of the First Amended Complaint, the Court finds for Plaintiffs but
declines to award additional damages on this cause of action.
24
4. The Court awards restitution in the amount of $42,321,890 to the class, and $11,115,583
25
in prejudgment interest.
26
///
3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
5. The Court awards attorney fees in accordance with the Court’s Order regarding attorney
fees entered on October 9, 2014. Doc. #454.
6. The Court will consider motions from the parties regarding any cy pres distributions
once the extent of unclaimed awards becomes more definite.
7. The Court DENIES Hertz’s Motion for Leave to File Notice of Supplemental Authority
(Doc. #453) as moot in light of the Court’s Order regarding attorney fees (Doc. #454).
8. This is a final, appealable judgment disposing of all issues presently before the Court on
this matter.
9
10
IT IS SO ORDERED.
11
DATED this 30th day of October, 2014.
12
__________________________________
LARRY R. HICKS
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
4
Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.
Why Is My Information Online?