Doherty v Hertz

Case # 10-cv-00359
Case Name Doherty v Hertz
Jurisdiction US District Court for NJ
Summary

Hertz rental cars offered a PlatePass system, administered by American Traffic Solutions, to allow renters to utilize electronic tolling lanes during their rental.

Plaintiffs allege that Hertz and its partner company, American Traffic Solutions, charged excessive and undisclosed administrative fees for the use of the PlatePass electronic toll transponder. The plaintiffs seek a reimbursement of these fees for class members, as well as a change in the language in the Hertz rental agreements.

Class members: People who rented a car from Hertz between July 1, 2006 and March 31, 2010, used a PlatePass toll transponder during that rental, and paid PlatePass-related charges.

Final Approval Date
Result
  1. Final Approval granted on 6/25/2014.
  2. The Court found this objection to be factually and legally insufficient because the objector filed a claim form that was issued to Michael Schulz, another client of Christopher A Bandas.
  3. Christopher A Bandas has assisted Michael Schulz in filing other objections in the past.
  4. When Clayton was questioned about this at deposition he said that he presumed Christopher A Bandas was responsible for the filing of the objection and for all paperwork supporting it. Clayton Dep. Tr. at 36.
  5. Christopher A Bandas did not sign the objection nor did he file an appearance in this matter.
Dismissal of Last Appeal
Attachments
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Judd Clayton Jr.

Objectors Judd Clayton Jr.
Signers Judd Clayton Jr.
Attorneys Christopher A. Bandas
Summary
  1. Proposed award of attorneys' fees are excessive,
  2. $5,000 incentive award for class representatives is excessive,
  3. Proponents of the settlement have not met their burden to show that the settlement is fair, reasonable, and adequate,
  4. Procedural requirements to object violate due process
Attachments
Added to Index
Last Updated

Objection of Kevin B. Love

Objectors Kevin B. Love
Signers Kevin B. Love
Attorneys
Summary
  1. Objection procedures are overly burdensome.
  2. Requirement to be available within seven days of objection for deposition
  3. Requirement to identify all objections in the last five years
  4. Requirement to object prior to the filing of Plaintiff's motion for Final Approval
  5. Claim form lists a deadline inconsistent with the deadline on the claim website and on the long-form notice. NOTE: Objections were withdrawn by the objector.
Attachments
Added to Index
Last Updated