The recent unsettling of a class action lawsuit in an unlawful Nevada car rental fees lawsuit centers on the issue of restitution as a remedy. In this article, we discuss the plaintiffs’ arguments and the interpretation of the maximum-price statute. We also examine Fox Rent A Car’s illegally imposed surcharges. Finally, we examine the court’s response to Hertz’s arguments.
Hertz’s interpretation of the maximum-price statute
To limit the damage that the maximum-price statute can cause, Hertz is challenging the validity of its interpretation of the law. This interpretation is based on the premise that the company is the manufacturer of the goods and, therefore, acquires ownership of the product through further processing. This argument is flawed, as it fails to distinguish between “manufacturing” and “processing.”
While there are several important considerations in Hertz’s case, the most notable is the question of whether Hertz has any value at all. While conventional wisdom suggests that the Hertz common stock is worthless, the company was able to withstand significant market demand for its shares, which may not be sufficient to prevent bankruptcy. Moreover, bankruptcy law may need to address the concerns about public equity offerings.
Restitution as a remedy in unlawful Nevada car rental fees lawsuit
A restitution action is less likely to succeed in a lawsuit than compensatory damages, and this distinction is particularly clear in cases involving car rental fees. As Saul Levmore explains in 71 Va. L. Rev. 65 (1985), courts should avoid these difficult valuation problems when deciding restitution claims. Moreover, courts should consider the individual circumstances of the plaintiffs when assessing the merits of restitution.
Hertz’s response to plaintiffs’ arguments
In its bankruptcy court filing, Hertz has asked for injunctive relief to stop false theft claims, saying that they will distract its leadership and drain its resources. Plaintiffs allege that Hertz has a pattern of reporting stolen cars, failing to alert law enforcement, and ignoring problems for years. The company denies the accusations. Read the full response to the plaintiffs’ arguments here:
The defendants contend that they are not violating the law when they refuse to increase the number of fees they charge. The plaintiffs’ arguments, however, are based on the voluntary payment doctrine. However, this doctrine is unenforceable in Nevada. Hertz does not believe that it is obligated to reduce its charges. Plaintiffs must prove that they can prove that the charges are reasonable and that the plaintiffs are entitled to restitution.
Restitution as a remedy
A class action lawsuit may be appropriate for restitution as a remedy in an unlawful Nevada car rental fees lawsuit. This lawsuit was filed against Budget Group, Avis, and National in Nevada, where these companies charged unlawful fees to customers. The unlawful fees were levied between June 3, 2007, and Sept. 30, 2009, at various Nevada airports. This case could prove to be a valuable resource to customers of these companies who were charged excessive and unfair car rental fees.
Although the legislature explicitly omitted the term “actual damages” from the remedial statute, Hertz applied that concept to a class action lawsuit. In other words, Hertz’s argument essentially converted restitution actions into compensatory damages. Thus, restitution awards are more likely to succeed when consumers can demonstrate that the rental agency charged them more than the statutory price.