Free Notice (Other) - District Court of California - California

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 1 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

Michael L. Weiner (Pro hac vice) SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP Four Times Square New York, New York 10036-6522 Telephone: (212) 735-7000 Douglas B. Adler (Cal. Bar No. 130749) SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 300 South Grand Avenue, Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90071-3144 Telephone: (213) 687-5000 Sara L. Bensley (Pro hac vice) SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM LLP 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-2111 Telephone: (202) 371-7000 Attorneys for Defendant AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC. [Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page] UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MICHAEL SHAMES; GARY GRAMKOW, on behalf of themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. THE HERTZ CORPORATION, a Delaware corporation; DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., a Delaware corporation; VANGUARD CAR RENTAL USA, INC., an Oklahoma corporation; ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY, a Missouri corporation; FOX RENT A CAR, INC., a California corporation; COAST LEASING CORP., a Texas corporation; THE CALIFORNIA TRAVEL AND TOURISM COMMISSION and CAROLINE BETETA Defendants. REQUEST FOR JUDICIAL NOTICE IN SUPPORT OF RENTAL CAR D FN A T' E E D N S MOTION TO DISMISS Date: March 17, 2008 Time: 10:30 a.m. Place: Courtroom 13 Honorable Marilyn L. Huff Case No. 07 CV 2174 H BLM [Class Action]

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 2 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 § 1936.01 (Exhibits A, B and C); (2) California Senate Bill 1057 (2007-08 Sess.) (Exhibit D); and 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Crest Group, Inc., 499 F.3d 1048, 1052 (9th Cir. 2007). Facts are not subject to reasonable dispute when they are " generally known" the community or " in capable of accurate and ready -207cv2174

Pursuant to Rule 201 of the Federal Rules of Evidence ( u 21)Defendants The " l 0" R e , Hertz Corporation, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group Inc., Avis Budget Group Incorporated, Vanguard Car Rental USA Inc., Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company, Fox Rent-A-Car Incorporated, and Coast Leasing Corp. (collectively, the " Rental Car Defendants" hereby respectfully request ) that this Court take judicial notice of the existence and content of the documents attached hereto as Exhibits A through F, which are: (1) aspects of the legislative history of California Civil Code

() ln f 'ot c wt Aa o Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of San Francisco 3 P i iscn at i l and a tf r s h m (Exhibits E and F). I. This Court Should Take Judicial Notice of the Legislative History of California Civil Code § 1936.01. Exhibits A through C are part of the legislative history of California Civil Code § 1936.01, as added by Statutes of 2006, Chapter 790, § 1, Assembly Bill 2592 (A 29" Exhibit A is " B 52) . an Assembly Floor Analysis of AB 2592 ( e A sm lF o A a s " including a statement t " s b l r nl i ) h e y o ys, from the bill'sponsor, Assemblyman Mark Leno, on the l iao'proe Exhibit B is a s e s t ns ups. g li lt ,otnd i it A sm lC m ie P ly i,rmPa tf cusl oe C e e cn i wt n h s b o mt e o c fef tr ae h e e y t i l o lnis one R br . i f' , t Fellmeth, Esq. to The Honorable Mark Leno, dated A gs2,06 t "em t L t r . uut 320 ( e Fl e e e ) h l h t" Exhibit C is the Senate Floor Analysis of AB 2592 on the Third Reading of the bill in the Senate ( e SntF o A a s " which quotes the Fellmeth Letter. Thus, the documents attached as t "ea l r nl i ) h e o ys, Exhibits A through C are part of the legislative history of California Civil Code § 1936.01. Pursuant to Rule 201, the Court may take judicial notice of a public record whose existence and content are " subject to reasonable dispute. See, e.g., Intri-Plex Tech., Inc. v. not "

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 3 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25

determination by reference to sources whose accuracy cannot be reasonably questioned."Stiefel v. Bechtel Corp., 497 F. Supp. 2d 1138, 1144 (S.D. Cal. 2007) (citing Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)). Pursuant to Rule 201(d), cutsa"aeuianotice o sc f tw e " qet b a a or"hl t j c l l k di fuh a s hr r us d y c e e e party," n t cut "upi wt t ncs r i om t n ad h ori spld i h ees yn r ao. e s e h e a f i "Fed. R. Evid. 201(d).1 The existence and content of the legislative history of statutes are not subject to reasonable dispute, and courts in the Ninth Circuit have consistently taken judicial notice of the legislative history of California statutes. See, e.g., Chaker v. Crogan, 428 F.3d 1215, 1223 n.8 (9th Cir. 2005) (granting a federal habeas corpus petitioner'request for judicial notice of the s legislative history of a California Penal Code provision); Louie v. McCormick & Schmick Rest. Corp., 460 F. Supp. 2d 1153, 1156 n.4 (C.D. Cal. 2006) (granting a plaintiff'request for judicial s notice of portions of the legislative history of a California statute and stating that, under Rule 201, a federal court " take judicial notice of the records of state courts, the legislative history of may state statutes, and the records of state administrative agencies" (citations omitted). As in Chaker ) and Louie, this Court may take judicial notice under Rule 201 of the legislative history of California Civil Code § 1936.01. Since the Rental Car Defendants have requested judicial notice and supplied this Court with the Assembly Floor Analysis, the Fellmeth Letter, and the Senate Fo r nl i t s or"hl t eui notice of these documents pursuant to Rule 201(d). l A a s ,h C utsa"a j c o ys i l k d ial II. This Court Should Take Judicial Notice of California State Senate Bill 1057 (2007-08 Session). Exhibit D is the text of a pending California bill, S. 1057, 2007-2008 Sess. (Cal. 2008) ( B15" available at http://www.leginfo.ca.gov/pub/07-08/bill/sen/sb_1051-1100/sb_1057_ " 07) S ,
1

26 27 28

Moreover, a court may consider those properly-noticed facts in ruling on a motion to dismiss without converting the motion into one for summary judgment. See, e.g., Intri-Plex Tech., 499 F.3d at 1052; see also Stiefel, 497 F. Supp. 2d a14 (an t t " a that is t 14 s tg h a m tter ti a properly the subject of judicial notice may be considered along with the complaint when deciding a o o t d ms fraueo te c i " (in MGIC Indem. Corp. v. Weisman, 803 F.2d m t n o i i o f l t s ta lm )ci i s s ir a a tg 500, 504 (9th Cir. 1986)). -307cv2174

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 4 of 11

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28

bill_20080107_introduced.html, introduced by Senator Carole Migden on January 8, 2007, which would amend the California Tourism Marketing Act to require that all rental charges (excluding taxes) be bundled into a single base rate and to prohibit charging a renter a travel commission assessment. Proposed legislation is a " public record" whose existence and content is indisputable under Rule 201. See, e.g., Catholic League for Religious and Civil Rights v. City and County of S.F., 464 F. Supp. 2d 938, 941 (N.D. Cal. 2006). Therefore, the Court may properly take judicial notice of SB 1057. Since the Rental Car Defendants have requested judicial notice of SB 1057 and supplied this orwt a oy fh b l h C utsa"aeuiant of it pursuant C ut i cp o t i ti or"hl t j c loi h e l s , l k di ce to Rule 201(d). III. This Court Should Take Judicial Notice of Plaintiffs' Rental Agreements with Alamo and Enterprise Rent-A-Car Company of San Francisco. Exhibits E and F are true and correct redacted copies of the rental agreements between Plaintiff Michael Shames and Alamo and between Plaintiff Gary Gramkow and Enterprise RentA-Car C m ay f a Fac c ( R C F)respectively. 2 See Declaration of Gregory D. o pn o Sn r i o " A -S " ns E , Call iS pot f et C r e nat Moi t Ds i . n upro R n l a D f dn ' t no i s a e s o m s This Court may consider rental agreements that are purportedly at issue in ruling on the R n l a D f dn ' et C r e nat Motion to Dismiss. In Swartz v. KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756 (9th Cir. a e s 2007), the Ninth Circuit reiterated its rule that in deciding a motion to dismiss, " court may a consider a writing referenced in a complaint but not explicitly incorporated therein if the complaint relies on the document and its authenticity is unquestioned."Id. at 763 (citing Parrino v. FHP, Inc., 146 F.3d 699, 706 (9th Cir. 1998), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Abrego Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676 (9th Cir.2006)). The reason for this rule is to

Mes . hm sad rm o 'adess n c d cr i om t n ae en s sS a e'n G a kw s dr e ad r i a n r ao hv be r s et d f i redacted from their rental agreements with Alamo and ERAC-SF. -407cv2174

2

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 5 of 11

1 2 3 4

" [p]revent plaintiffs from surviving a Rule 12(b)(6) motion by deliberately omitting . . . documents upon which their claims are based."Parrino, 146 F.3d at 706. H r P i isprot claims are premised on allegedly having rented cars from the e , ln f ' upr d e a tf e Rental Car Defendants and being charged amounts that were allegedly the subject of an

5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -507cv2174

agreement in restraint of trade. See Complaint ¶ 9 (" After January 1, 2007, [Plaintiff Michael Shames] rented a vehicle from one of the Rental Car Defendants who is a part of the instant combination and was billed for and paid both the CTTC surcharge and the Airport Concession Fee add-on." id. ¶ 10 (alleging same for Plaintiff Gary Gramkow). Pa tf post-January 1, ); ln f ' i is 2007 rental agreements are the very documents upon which Plaintiffsprot claims are ' upr d e based. Further, the authenticity of these rental agreements is unquestionable, because they were created in the regular course of Aa os n E A -S 'business and they bear Plaintiffs' l 'ad R C Fs m own signatures. Because Plaintiffs rely on their own rental agreements in the Complaint, and because the agreements attached as Exhibits E and F are unquestionably authentic, this Court may consider them in deciding the Motion to Dismiss. Since the Rental Car Defendants have requested judicial notice of these documents and supplied them to this Court, this Court "hl sa" l take judicial notice of them pursuant to Rule 201(d). IV. Conclusion For the foregoing reasons, the Court should take judicial notice of the Exhibits attached hereto as Exhibits A through F, and may properly consider the existence and content of these documents in ruling on th R n l a D f dn ' e et C r e nat Motion to Dismiss. a e s

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 6 of 11

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 7 of 11

1 Dated: January 25, 2008 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -607cv2174

Respectfully submitted, SKADDEN ARPS SLATE MEAGHER & FLOM, LLP By: /s/ Michael L. Weiner Michael L. Weiner (Pro hac vice) Four Times Square New York, New York 10036 Tel.: (212) 735-2632 Douglas B. Adler (Cal. Bar No. 130749)

FOLGER LEVIN & KAHN LLP

By: Gregory D. Call (Cal. Bar No. 120484) (Cal. Bar No. 172961) Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, 23rd Floor San Francisco, California 94111 Tel.: (415) 986-2800 Jennifer S. Romano (Cal. Bar No. 195953) 1900 Avenue of the Stars 28th Floor Los Angeles, California 90067 Tel.: (310) 556-3700 Counsel for Defendants ENTERPRISE RENT-A-CAR COMPANY and VANGUARD CAR RENTAL USA, INC.

300 South Grand Avenue Suite 3400 Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel.: (213) 687-5120 Sara L. Bensley (Pro hac vice) 1440 New York Avenue, N.W. Washington, D.C. 20005-2111 Tel.: (202) 371-7000 Counsel for Defendant AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC.

JONES DAY

LONG, WILLIAMSON AND DELIS

By: Jeffrey A. LeVee (Cal. Bar No. 125863) 555 South Flower Street Fiftieth Floor Los Angeles, California 90071 Tel.: (213) 489-3939 Counsel for Defendant DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC.

By: T. Patrick Long (Cal. Bar No. 182394) 400 N. Tustin Ave. Suite 370 Santa Ana, California 92705 Tel: (714) 668-1400 Counsel for Defendant COAST LEASING CORP. dba ADVANTAGE RENT A CAR, erroneously sued and served herein as Coast Leasing Corp., a Texas corporation

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 8 of 11

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 9 of 11

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 10 of 11

Case 3:07-cv-02174-H-BLM

Document 36

Filed 01/25/2008

Page 11 of 11