Sobel v. Hertz Corp.
2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 40471
D. Nev.2013Background
- Putative class action on behalf of Hertz renters at Reno and Las Vegas airports accusing unbundled concession recovery fees of violating Nevada law and NDTPA, plus unjust enrichment.
- Court previously held rate statute ambiguous and remedial statute silent on reliance; denied some summary judgment and bifurcated liability/damages.
- Plaintiffs defined class: all Nevada airport renters charged base rate plus concession recovery fee (October 13, 2003–September 30, 2009) with certain exclusions.
- Dispute centered on interpretation of NRS 482.31575 (rate) and NRS 482.31585 (remedial), and whether restitution is proper without proving reliance.
- Court held Plaintiffs proved liability for rate violation and restitution; granted class certification under Rule 23(b)(3) and awarded prejudgment interest.
- Damages sought exceed $42 million; procedural posture involved motions for class certification and summary judgment on damages
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Whether the rate/remedial statutes require reliance. | Sobel: no reliance required under rate/remedial statutes. | Hertz: reliance/reliance-type element required. | Reliance not required; restitution allowed through rate/remedial statutes. |
| Whether restitution is available without injury proof. | Plaintiffs seek restitution for unlawful unbundling of ACRF. | Restitution limited by injury/actual damages. | Restitution available; not limited to actual injury. |
| Whether unjust enrichment supports damages given restitution is available. | Unjust enrichment liability established. | Restitution already available; avoid duplicative recovery. | Liability for unjust enrichment but not monetary recovery due to statutory restitution. |
| Whether class certification is appropriate under Rule 23(a)/(b). | Common questions predominate; 1.2 million potential class members. | Individualized issues (reliance/causation) defeat predominance. | Rule 23(b)(3) certification granted; predominance and superiority satisfied. |
| Whether prejudgment interest is appropriate. | Statutory interest accrues from filing; restitutionary remedy allows interest. | Interest inappropriate for restitution. | Prejudgment interest awarded at statutory rate from service of First Amended Complaint. |
Key Cases Cited
- Amchem Prods., Inc. v. Windsor, 521 U.S. 591 (Supreme Court 1997) (class-action prerequisites must be carefully considered to ensure fairness)
- Hanlon v. Chrysler Corp., 150 F.3d 1011 (9th Cir. 1998) (commonality and typicality relaxed standard; shared core issues suffice)
- Wal-Mart Stores, Inc. v. Dukes, 131 S. Ct. 2541 (S. Ct. 2011) (commonality and predominance in class actions require common questions of law/facts)
- Sobel v. Hertz Corp., 698 F. Supp. 2d 1218 (D. Nev. 2010) ( Nevada rate/remedial statutes interpretation; restitution considerations)