MENDEZ v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., 2:11-cv-06537

Plaintiff Jose Mendez (NJ resident) sued Avis Budget Group and Avis Rent-A-Car System (the Avis Entities) and vendor Highway Toll Administration (HTA) alleging customers were not adequately informed that rental cars had pre-enrolled e-Toll devices and that use would trigger non-discounted toll charges plus convenience fees.
Mendez alleges driving through a Florida toll in Aug. 2011 triggered an e-Toll charge of $0.75 plus a $15 convenience fee billed to his card, despite being told at return no charges were incurred.
Plaintiff seeks class certification; parties submitted expert reports to be considered in connection with the forthcoming class-certification motion.
Disputed evidentiary issues: the admissibility of plaintiff’s marketing/consumer-behavior expert Vicki Morwitz, admissibility of defendants’ rebuttal expert Larry Chiagouris, and whether certain exhibits attached to the Muhs declaration should be struck.
Court considered admissibility under Rule 702/Daubert gatekeeping but treated many criticisms as challenges to weight, not admissibility, given the posture (class-certification briefing).

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Admissibility of plaintiff expert Morwitz	Morwitz shows disclosures were inadequate and optional nature of e-Toll not communicated	Morwitz cherry-picked samples, failed to address variations and other disclosures; unreliable for class-wide conclusions	Denied exclusion — Morwitz admissible; criticisms go to weight, not admissibility
Admissibility of defendant expert Chiagouris	Chiagouris lacks empirical support and fails to show what class members actually encountered	Chiagouris relies on marketing experience to show information was available; rebuts Morwitz	Denied exclusion — Chiagouris admissible; challenges go to weight
Motion to strike exhibits attached to Muhs declaration	Certain exhibits irrelevant, buried, or not produced in discovery and should be excluded	Exhibits were produced or submitted to counter plaintiff’s anticipated class arguments; any nonproduction is harmless	Denied motion to strike — Court will consider exhibits; any discovery lapses deemed harmless
Appropriate role of Daubert weighing at class-certification stage	Plaintiff: not required to prove adequacy now; expert admissibility suffices	Defendants: seek stricter gatekeeping on reliability and sampling	Court applied Rule 702 gatekeeping but allowed expert opinions for class-certification consideration; reliability challenges largely reserved for weight determination

Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., 509 U.S. 579 (1993) (trial court gatekeeper must assess relevance and reliability of expert testimony)
In re Paoli R.R. Yard PCB Litig., 35 F.3d 717 (3d Cir. 1994) (expert testimony must be based on reliable methods and have ‘good grounds’)
Calhoun v. Yamaha Motor Corp. U.S.A., 350 F.3d 316 (3d Cir. 2003) (experts must be qualified and testimony must assist the trier of fact)
Schneider ex rel. Estate of Schneider v. Fried, 320 F.3d 396 (3d Cir. 2003) (expert testimony must be relevant and helpful)
Oddi v. Ford Motor Co., 234 F.3d 136 (3d Cir. 2000) (district court may decline a Daubert hearing where record suffices)
United States v. Mitchell, 365 F.3d 215 (3d Cir. 2004) (reliability often goes to weight rather than admissibility)
Karlo v. Pittsburgh Glass Works, LLC, 849 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 2017) (challenges to methodology often bear on weight, not admissibility)