Alaska Rent-A-Car, Inc. v. Avis Budget Group, Inc.
709 F.3d 872
9th Cir.2013Background
- Alaska Rent-A-Car, operating as an Avis licensee since 1956, had exclusive rights across Alaska and a right of first refusal in 1976 amendments.
- Avis acquired Budget Rent-A-Car in 2002 and reorganized operations, merging marketing and sales for Avis and Budget nationwide.
- Alaska Rent-A-Car sued Avis for breach of a 1995 settlement that restricted Avis from using its personnel to market or provide car rental services for any other Avis system company.
- District court granted partial summary judgment; jury awarded Alaska Rent-A-Car $16 million for damages after trial.
- Issues raised include whether Alaska Rent-A-Car was a party to the settlement, Batson challenges during jury selection, Daubert challenges to an expert, and damages/fees questions.
- Questions also involved whether Alaska law or New York law governs prejudgment interest and attorney’s fees in a diversity action.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Was Alaska Rent-A-Car a party to the settlement? | Alaska Rent-A-Car joined timely; the offer was open to joinder without a time limit. | Alaska Rent-A-Car was not properly embraced by the settlement; joinder timeliness uncertain. | Yes; Alaska Rent-A-Car was a party by timely joinder. |
| Batson challenge denial on juror Number 15 | Denial of peremptory strike of Native juror was improper Batson discrimination. | No purposeful racial discrimination; denial was reasonable under Batson. | No reversal; ruling within Batson framework, harmless given record and outcomes. |
| Daubert challenge to expert testimony on damages | Alaska Rent-A-Car's damages expert used valid methodology with reliable data. | Expert relied on questionable comparisons and extrapolations; reliability under Daubert should be scrutinized. | District court did not abuse discretion; testimony admitted and weight for the jury. |
| Certainty of damages under New York law | Damages supported by past profits and projected future losses with reasonable certainty. | Damages are speculative and not sufficiently certain. | Damages proven with reasonable certainty; jury verdict sustained. |
| Attorney’s fees and prejudgment interest | Choice of law for fees and prejudgment interest unsettled; New York or Alaska law could apply. | Forum choice dictates applying New York or Alaska law; Alaska Rule 82 governs fees in diversity. | Forum state law (Alaska) applies to attorney’s fees; prejudgment interest remanded to correct a minor error. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (Supreme Court) (gatekeeping standard for admissibility of expert testimony)
- Batson v. Kentucky, 476 U.S. 79 (Supreme Court) (prohibits racial discrimination in jury selection;)
- United States v. Collins, 551 F.3d 914 (9th Cir. 2009) (standard for reviewing Batson determinations on appeal)
- Miller-El v. Dretke, 545 U.S. 231 (Supreme Court) (further Batson framework and credibility considerations)
- Nunapitchuk, 156 P.3d 389 (Alaska 2007) (choice-of-law and procedural/substantive character of Rule 82)
- Alyeska Pipeline Service Co. v. Wilderness Society, 421 U.S. 240 (Supreme Court) (Erie governing choices for attorney’s fees in federal diversity actions)
- Klopfenstein v. Pargeter, 597 F.2d 150 (9th Cir. 1979) (state law governs attorneys’ fees in diversity actions)
- Ehredt v. DeHavilland Aircraft Co. of Canada, Ltd., 705 P.2d 446 (Alaska 1985) (Rule 82 control; procedural vs substantive analysis)