Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 34

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO Civil Action No. 12-cv--2432-WYD-KMT

DR. ALLEN FRIEDMAN and MICHAEL J. NELLIS, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., d/b/a DOLLAR RENT A CAR; DOLLAR RENT A CAR, INC.; and DTG OPERATIONS, INC. d/b/a/ DOLLAR RENT A CAR, Defendants. ______________________________________________________________________________ FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ______________________________________________________________________________ Plaintiffs Dr. Allen Friedman and Michael J. Nellis (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned counsel, file this First Amended Class Action Complaint for violation of the laws stated herein on behalf of themselves and all other consumers similarly situated, as defined below, against Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car, Dollar Rent A Car, Inc., and DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car (collectively referred to herein as “Dollar” or “Defendants”). Plaintiffs hereby allege, on information and belief, except for information identified as being based on personal knowledge, which allegations are likely to

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 2 of 34

have evidentiary support after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation and discovery, as follows: JURISDICTION AND VENUE 1. This Court has jurisdiction over all causes of action asserted herein pursuant to 28

U.S.C. §1332(d), because the aggregate claims of the proposed Class (defined below) exceed the sum or value of $5,000,000, and there is diversity of citizenship between proposed Class members and Defendants. 2. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§1391(a)(1) & (2).

Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged improper conduct occurred within this District. At least one of the Plaintiffs, as well as other Class members, were illegally charged by Defendants for services they did not approve within this District, and many of the acts and practices complained of herein were approved or took place in this District. THE PARTIES 3. On personal knowledge, Plaintiff Dr. Allen Friedman is an individual consumer

who, at all times material hereto, was a resident of Sarasota, Florida, and as detailed below was subject to the practices at issue. 4. On personal knowledge, Plaintiff Michael J. Nellis is an individual consumer

who, at all times material hereto, was a resident of Austin, Texas, and as detailed below was subject to the practices at issue. 5. Defendant Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. d/b/a/ Dollar Rent A Car

(“Dollar”) is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, with its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Dollar may

2

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 3 of 34

be considered a “citizen” of either Delaware or Oklahoma. At all times relevant hereto, Dollar was and is doing business within this District either directly or indirectly through the sale of its car rental services in this District. 6. Defendant Dollar Rent A Car, Inc., a wholly-owned subsidiary of Dollar Thrifty

Automotive Group, Inc., is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Dollar may be considered a “citizen” of Oklahoma. At all times relevant hereto, Dollar was and is doing business within this District either directly or indirectly through the sale of its car rental services in this District. 7. Defendant DTG Operations, Inc. d/b/a Dollar Rent A Car, a wholly-owned

subsidiary of Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc., is organized and existing under the laws of the State of Oklahoma, with its principal place of business located in Tulsa, Oklahoma. For purposes of diversity jurisdiction, Dollar may be considered a “citizen” of Oklahoma. At all times relevant hereto, Dollar was and is doing business within this District either directly or indirectly through the sale of its car rental services in this District. 8. At all times herein mentioned, the employees of Defendants, their subsidiaries,

affiliates and other related entities, were the agents, servants and employees of Defendants, and at all times herein mentioned, each was acting within the purpose and scope of said agency and employment, and pursuant to Defendants’ training and directives. Whenever reference in this Complaint is made to any act or transaction of Defendants, such allegations shall be deemed to mean that the principals, officers, directors, employees, agents, and/or representatives of

3

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 4 of 34

Defendants committed, knew of, performed, authorized, ratified and/or directed such act or transaction on behalf of Defendants while actively engaged in the scope of their duties. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 9. This is a case where Dollar has organized a scheme to defraud consumers to

increase revenues by having the company’s employees and agents trick consumers into buying insurance or other add-on products they did not want or did not actually or properly consent to being charged for. The scheme of billing unwanted add-on products occurs after consumers tell Dollar agents they do not want additional insurance or other products. This scheme allows Dollar to cheat consumers out of millions of dollars. Consumers now demand their money back. 10. Over at least the last four years Dollar has implemented a systematic program

nationwide through which its agents illegally charge clients for car insurance, collision damage waiver (“CDW”), roadside assistance and other added “services” that consumers have specifically declined. This is not an isolated incident with one consumer, but a pattern of conduct that has occurred at a number of Dollar locations located throughout the United States, including Colorado and Florida, and which complaints have generally been reported to the same department within Dollar’s corporate headquarters. This practice has allowed Dollar and its employees to pocket millions in fees at little to no cost to themselves, but at the direct expense of victimized consumers. The added revenues have made Dollar more attractive for a buyout by other companies, as is currently the situation with Hertz. 11. On personal knowledge, Plaintiff Dr. Allen Friedman visited the Dollar facility at

the Denver International Airport (“DIA”) to pick up a car on November 20, 2011. At the facility, the Dollar agent tried to up-sell Dr. Friedman a variety of insurance and CDW options and other

4

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 5 of 34

service options during the limited time of the transaction, with a number of consumers waiting to pick up their vehicles. Dr. Friedman declined all of these offers, telling the agent in simple straightforward terms he was covered by both his own existing insurance and by coverage provided by his credit card. Reasonably relying on the Dollar representative’s representations as to the appropriate boxes to check to decline all add-on options, Dr. Friedman then signed a form and initialed the areas the employee indicated were to be checked to decline the Dollar insurance and other options. 12. Dr. Friedman returned the car to Dollar on November 29, 2011, with the gas tank

full, was given a receipt, and proceeded to his flight. It was only after he got home that he looked at the receipt and saw that he was charged $215.91 for insurance that he had specifically declined, and $53.91 for roadside assistance which had not even been proposed or offered to him. See Ex. 1, which is incorporated herein by reference. He then realized he had been swindled. 13. Dr. Friedman called Dollar Customer Service on November 30, 2011 to have

these charges removed because, as he told Dollar, he was never asked about roadside assistance and had expressly declined the optional insurance. Dr. Friedman believed that the company would back him up and remove the charges that he had been billed given that he had told the agent he did not want any of the “extras.” Dr. Friedman was shocked when he was then told Dollar had an electronic signature accepting the added insurance and other products. When Dr. Friedman complained to a Dollar supervisor that he had declined the optional insurance and that he definitely had not signed any acceptance of additional insurance or roadside assistance,

5

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 6 of 34

he was told there was nothing they could do. The company essentially took the position that Dr. Friedman was not being truthful when he told them that he had in fact declined the insurance. 14. The next day, Dr. Friedman filed a dispute with his credit card company stating

that he had verbally turned down all of the insurance. The credit card company responded by saying that because Dollar alleged they had his signature accepting the additional service, they could not reverse such charges. 15. On January 6, 2012, Dr. Friedman requested a copy of his original contract and a

copy of any addendums Dollar claimed he signed. When he finally obtained the copies, he realized that his signature had been forged. Exs. 2 and 3, incorporated herein by reference, are true and correct copies of the purportedly signed “Optional Loss Damage Waiver” received from Dollar, as well as an exemplar of his actual signature from another document, showing the signatures are not even close to similar. 16. Dr. Friedman provided his credit card company exemplars of his signature and the

alleged signature provided by Dollar. Attached hereto as Ex. 3 and incorporated herein by reference is the letter sent by Dr. Friedman to Chase. His credit card company subsequently agreed that it was not his signature. Yet Dollar refuses to address this issue or reverse such charges. Despite the fact that Dr. Friedman uncovered illegal activity with the company, Dollar has taken no steps to apologize to Dr. Friedman, much less take action regarding the illegal forgery. Instead, Dollar sticks by those who forge documents to overcharge consumers. 17. A demand letter to resolve these issues on behalf of himself and all similarly

situated persons was sent via Certified Mail to Dollar by Dr. Friedman on or about March 20,

6

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 7 of 34

2012. See Ex. 4 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. However, in response, Dollar has failed and refused to address these issues on behalf of all affected persons. 18. On personal knowledge, Plaintiff Nellis is a retired insurance adjuster who used to

handle claims for Enterprise Rent-A-Car. Plaintiff Nellis made an on-line reservation to rent a vehicle with Dollar for his trip to Fort Myers, Florida, declining at that time the insurance and the pre-paid gas options. He was informed that the total charges would be $223.29. Plaintiff Nellis arrived at Dollar’s rental office at the Southwest Florida International Airport in Ft. Myers, Florida on July 29, 2012, at which time Plaintiff Nellis again verbally declined all insurance or other add-ons, on two separate times in response to the Dollar representative’s attempts to upsell him Dollar’s various add-on options. He was then asked to initial the charges, which were in small print (in a dark room). Reasonably relying on the representations of the Dollar representative to Plaintiff Nellis that he was being charged the correct amount and was being told the correct boxes to check to decline any insurance or other add-ons, he initialed the document. When Plaintiff Nellis dropped off the vehicle, he learned that he had been charged $482.51, with an additional $259.22 for those unwanted and unordered add-ons. He complained of the overcharge to Dollar’s representatives at the rental office, to no avail. 19. Plaintiff Nellis thereafter sent a written demand to Dollar demanding a return of

all monies unlawfully taken from him and other affected consumers. See Ex. 5 attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. Using a canned response, Dollar failed to provide any substantive relief in response to this demand, as appears to be its uniform practice in denying similar complaints by other affected consumers. A true and correct copy of Dollar’s rejection email is attached hereto as Ex. 6 and incorporated herein by reference.

7

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 8 of 34

20.

As shown by the case number on Dollar’s e-mail response to Plaintiff Nellis’

complaint, these are not isolated incidents. Dollar is aware these practices are on-going and prevalent both in Colorado, Florida and throughout the United States, as similar complaints are processed through Dollar’s corporate headquarters, and in many respects are handled by the same department or even the same individual, Josh Wells. consumers is similar to Ex. 6 and the following response: Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding regarding the purchase of the Loss Damage Waiver and Roadsafe on your rental. A review of our records indicates you viewed and accepted the optional coverage and the related charges using the electronic signature pad (touch screen) at the counter. I have copies the screens you viewed and accepted below. Based on the above information and the fact that you had the benefit of the protection for the rental period the local charges are correct. If you have any questions regarding your case please feel free to reply to this email. Again, I thank you for contacting Dollar. 21. This canned response from Dollar’s corporate headquarters indicates that Dollar Dollar’s standard response to

not only is aware that consumers from around the country are making the same complaints about these swindles and have a record of them by assigning individual case numbers, but also that Dollar stands behind the practice of their employees tricking consumers into signing up for insurance or other add-ons they told agents they did not want, or simply forging their signatures, thereby illegally obtaining any purported “consent” by forgery, trickery, deception or mistake. If Dollar were not in on the scheme, they would have initiated an immediate investigation into the

8

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 9 of 34

company-wide scam upon receiving the same complaints of the same practices from across Colorado, Florida and the United States. There would have been firings of those responsible, refunds and apologies sent out to consumers. Instead, Dollar stands solidly behind the scheme and consistently rejects similar claims, as doing so has likely netted them millions of dollars. 22. Even though Dollar has received multiple complaints raising these same issues, it

incentivizes its employees to make such sales, even if by illegal means. According to at least one Dollar employee, agents at the Dollar rental counters are paid a minimal wage but are offered to make up to 12% commission on the sales of such insurance, CDW and other add-on products. As a result, experienced representatives can take home up to $6,000 per month as a result of such practices. If employees fail to obtain an average level per day of upsales of additional options for three months they may be terminated and not eligible for unemployment. Employees are thus incentivized to take advantage of the customer’s irritation, long lines, and high pressure sales tactics by just telling them to tap certain lines to decline coverage, when it may have the opposite result according to Dollar, or simply to forge their signature. 23. Over the past several years, consumers have submitted numerous reports detailing

the same conduct occurring at Dollar rental offices around the country. As evidence this is a uniform, nation-wide scheme and that Dollar is using a uniform scheme to illegally obtain “consent” for such charges by using deception, trickery or mistake, similar reports have come from some of the busiest airports in the country in addition to DIA and Southwest Florida – Dulles, O’Hare, Philadelphia, Honolulu, Orlando, Tampa, Spokane and Los Angeles International. Such a consistent complaint, received from locations throughout the United States, being directed to the same persons or department within Dollar’s corporate headquarters, yet

9

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 10 of 34

going unremedied and subject to similar canned responses, provides significant evidence this is a uniform knowing and systematic yet unresolved problem within Dollar. How can Dollar

continue to blame consumers if consumers renting cars around the country are all saying they were tricked this same way? Either all these consumers are lying, or Dollar has sanctioned and approved this company-wide fraud. The fact that Dollar has not told a single consumer that has complained that in fact many other consumers have made the same complaint about the same practice is significant evidence that Dollar is actively engaged in a cover up. The following is a sampling of the complaints lodged against Dollar from across the United States evidencing the same practices and a uniform pattern of conduct, which is on-going: On November 9, 2011, I rented a car at Dollar Rent a Car at Dulles Airport in Virginia. The rental was paid for by a pre-paid voucher. At the rental counter, I declined additional insurance, as I was covered by my own insurance and credit card. At the counter I was asked to sign an electronic pad acknowledging the rental on a signature screen. I was told that by signing the screen I was declining insurance. The screen I signed made no mention of insurance. Through the credit card company, I was able to obtain the original contract and my alleged signature requesting insurance. A review of the contract revealed that my signature, which only appears on the signature pad, was then transposed to an electronic contract that requested insurance. Until I obtained the new contract from Dollar, I had never seen the “signed contract.” I also obtained the electronic pages from the screen of his transaction, none of which indicate any acceptance of insurance. ### I rented a car at Philadelphia Airport and declined any insurance fees. I was charged another $25 per day extra (Ripped off) the car only cost $19 per day. After my bank statement was received I was charged $100 more than I was supposed to be charged. I called Dollar twice and was actually sent documents with a signature (NOT MINE). They said there was nothing THEY could do for me…Something is wrong…fishy… ### After being HOUNDED to purchase extras like toll savers, multiple types of insurance for over fifteen minutes (and repeatedly saying NO to each and every

10

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 11 of 34

one) at a counter in Orlando Florida I finally said “I DO NOT WANT ANY EXTRAS, I JUST WANT MY CAR. How can I do that?” The SCAM ARTIST behind the counter said ‘Just sign and click accept, and it’s yours’. At the end of the week the bill was double what I agreed to. ### The Dollar car rental out of LAX airport in Los Angeles, CA has overcharged my credit card by $99.90. They are severely understaffed. As a result, they make you wait in unreasonably long lines and then they will ask you to sign your rental contract on a small screen which does not show you what they have forced upon you without your knowledge or asking, i.e. more insurance that you asked for. They have found a way to extract unauthorized money out of me. Then, they claim that since I signed their scrolled down little digital check out, I have given them permission to charge me whatever they want. ### I rented a van from LAX on December 19. The customer rep asked me if I wanted the additional insurance coverage. As an auto insurance broker, I know that my auto policy would cover the vehicle and I verbally declined the coverage three times. My husband also chimed in and declined the coverage. When the paperwork was completed the customer service rep put a big “D” beside the additional insurance coverage and I initialed it as I was declining the coverage. When I got the bill, they charged me anyway. I contacted customer service and they say that I didn’t initial beside the tiny little “decline” so they are saying the charges stand. I will not let this go away because there is absolutely no reason why I would need to have paid for the coverage. I am out over $300 and I will fight until I get it back. ### We were asked about insurance coverage which we explicitly declined. Upon returning the car on June 30, 2011, I requested that the charges be billed to my credit card. Much to my surprise, I was billed the estimated charge of $604.02 as opposed to the original quote of $361.98 on my email confirmation (R6385796). Apparently, although we declined the insurance coverage, the DollarNE sales agent (“DXE1”) inserted language on the car rental agreement (L1106627) indicating otherwise. ###

11

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 12 of 34

At Chicago OHare Airport I rented a car from Dollar Rental. At the rental terminal the agent asked me if I would like to include a loss damage waiver, and Supplemental Liability Insurance. I declined both. I signed a pin pad device authorizing the transaction. I did not sign the actual the contract. It turns out the agent included both options, and charged my card an extra $370. I appealed to Dollar Rental and my bank for falsely charging my card, both to no avail. By the looks of it, after reading the many other complaints against this company for the very same reason, this is a common practice. I’m very disgusted with this deceptive policy and the scruples of this company. I will never rent from them again, and implore everyone to do the same. ### The same thing just happened to me at Dollar Rent-A-Car at the Orlando International Airport. I specifically told the rental agent that I did not want any kind of insurance coverage and made the mistake of assuming that he would honor that directive. Instead, he rushed me through the initialing/signing process on the electronic screen and skipped right over the part about insurance being included. Then he prints off a copy of the rental agreement, folds it up, and puts in an envelope with a bunch of other paperwork. Every part of this process is a carefully planned and rehearsed piece of their scam puzzle. They know that most of their renters are already tired from traveling and tired of waiting in lines – including their own – so the chances are pretty good that they can sneak something past an unsuspecting customer. Don’t think for a second that these rental agents aren’t rewarded for “selling” the add-ons like unnecessary insurance. ### Dollar Rent a Car in Honolulu airport was told when I picked up my car that I had already purchased insurance on it because I wanted to be covered for everything. The girl at the counter (at 9:30 at night after 16 hours in the air) said uh huh, so you already have the insurance, I said yes…she wrote up the slip and I signed it without checking to see what she had done. She signed me up for EVERY POSSIBLE INSURANCE THEY PROVIDE and a 465.00 bill turned into a 798.00 payment. Their response? “Well, I don’t know what the conversation you had with our representative was but you signed it so there’s nothing we will do about it.” I asked for their legal department, she gave me a P.O. Box number. ### Same thing happened to me at Denver International Airport. I verbably declined additional insurance as I am already covered by my company and additionally covered by American Express Gold Card. Why would I want to pay for it a third time? By Dollar Rent a Car’s employee physically indicating to me where to

12

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 13 of 34

sign, he knowingly and wantonly intended to defraud me. A consumer has a reasonable expectation that when they enter a Dollar Rent a Car to do business, that Dollar Rent a Car will act in “Good Faith” and deal honestly with the customer. It is clear and evident that Dollar Rent a Car engages in deceptive business practices. ### Exact same thing happened to us at Tampa International Airport in March 2012. Rep did not review charges (like they say they do on their webpage) and we did not realize we were being charged for the insurance until the car was returned. If he would have done his job properly and reviewed all charges, etc at the end, then we would have advised him again that we did not want the insurance. We are irate and will continue to pursue this with Dollar. Never will use them again. ### We rented a car from Dollar on March 2, 2012 at the Tampa International Airport. On December 31, 2011, we reserved a rental for a total of $266.67 for Friday, March 2, 2012 through March 10, 2012. On March 1, 2012, Dollar Rent A Car sent a Reservation Reminder Email which also listed $266.67 as the total for the rental. We arrived at the Dollar Rent A Car counter at the Tampa International Airport on March 2, 2012. First thing, we presented the Confirmation #Q1630690 to the sales rep and inquired about a AARP Discount and he replied yes proceeding to inform us the total would be approximately $216 for the 9 days. At that time, we advised the sales rep that we DID NOT want/need the insurance from Dollar since our insurance extended to rental vehicles. When it came to signing, the rep stated to “hit agree” on the computer (not explaining what it was) and to sign where indicated. As stated in a email from Angela Jones, Customer Svc Rep from Dollar Rent a Car “it is their goal that every customer understands the terms, conditions and pricing of their rental”. The rep did not review pricing at any time and proceeded to place the receipt in the folder. If the rep had properly explained the coverages, we would have at that time declined the coverage again. He did not review the charges, provide a breakdown of the contract on point of sales screen, nor show us a breakdown of the rental cost. It was not until we returned the car on March 10th did we learn of what the charges were. [When] we inquired about the charges, the agent sent us to the airport car rental office who in turn said there was nothing she could do and we would need to contact corporate office on Monday. We feel that this practice is very unethical and a rip off to the consumer. We both have our insurance licenses and are very well educated on automobile policies. We have rented from Dollar in the past and have never had an issue.

13

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 14 of 34

We requested the insurance charges of $290.84 be removed that should have never been included originally. The sales rep did not abide by our request and therefore should be removed. ### I have rented a car from Dollar Rent A Car - Sky Harbor Car Rental - Phoenix Airport and told the customer service rep I do not want the “ROADSAFE @ $5.99 per day” (Insurance) and “Lbw1 @ $24.99 per day” (Loss Damage Waiver) because my card that I was using will cover me. The customer service rep acknowledged my needs and said: Rep – “Okay, I will not add them to the bill. Please tap I agree to the message on the screen, it talk about the ‘UNDER AGE 25’.” Me – “Okay, to confirm that it talks about the under 24 and that is it, correct?” Rep – “Correct. (next I Agree screen) ... This one is talking about agreeing to deny the road safe insurance.” Me – “So, by selecting I agree ... agrees to me denying the insurance” Rep – “Correct. (Next I Agree screen) ... This one is talking about agreeing to deny the loss damage waiver” Me – “Again, by selecting I agree...agrees me to denying the loss damage waiver” Rep - “Correct. Ok your total will be $241.30 for 4 days.” Me – “Wow...really? What did I pay for when I reserved this car?” Rep – “You pay just to reserve the car and the car, there is a fee because your are under 24” Me – “Jeez, ok really that much for just the under age?...” Rep – “yes” I pay for the car, and I rush out because I needed to check in to my hotel. After, arriving at my hotel I wanted to check the receipt (the rep folded the receipt up in the folder type pamphlet so I could see it clearly when I left) and what do I see.....yep charges for: Lbw1 4 dy@24.99 $99.96

14

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 15 of 34

ROADSAFE AGE24

4 dy@5.99 4 dy@15.00

$23.96 $60.00

After, my trip I called the Dollar Customer Assistance @ 1-800-800-5252 and filed for a dispute from the false information the customer server rep supplied me with they said I would get a call/e-mail in 72 hours. Finally, after waiting 8 business days I get an email (with attachment pictures of the I Agree screens with my signature at the bottom): Mr. ******, Thank you for contacting Dollar Rent a Car regarding your rental in Phoenix. Please accept my apologies for any misunderstanding regarding the purchase of the Loss Damage Waiver and Roadsafe on your rental. A review of our records indicates you viewed and accepted the optional coverage and the related charges using the electronic signature pad (touch screen) at the counter. I have copied the screens you viewed and accepted below. Based on the above information and the fact that you had the benefit of the protection for the rental period the local charges are correct. If you have any questions regarding your case please feel free to reply to this email. Again, I thank you for contacting Dollar. Regards, Josh Wells, Dollar Thrifty Automotive Group, Inc. ### This is exactly what happened to me in April, 2012, at the Tulsa airport. Word for word what happened! I had a lengthy, cheerful, conversation at the Dollar counter when I arrived. The car rental booths were empty. Everything was quiet. I was instructed to use a key pad. I was instructed to just keep pushing keys. I told the clerk I did no[t] want any insurance, that I had talked with my agent, etc. she smiled, she agreed, etc. Then she gave me this lengthy “grocery receipt” narrow, long piece of paper to sign. The print was tiny. I signed and she folded it up and tucked it into a folder. She directed me to where to pick up the car. I am 65, traveling alone. I still needed to find my way out of a strange town and drive about an hour to my destination. I tucked the folder into the glove compartment. Two weeks later I return the car and as I am unloading the car and getting checked back in, the young lady helping me mentions the price I would be charged for the rental and the insurance. I said, “No! No insurances!” and, the

15

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 16 of 34

losing battle began! She told me that she believed me and she even admitted that she had been hearing this story now for a few weeks. I was not the first. She offered to call the manager and told me flat out he was not going to refund my money. I asked for the manager and he never came. I continued to be vocally angry. Deep in my heart I knew I was being scammed! I was as angry at myself as I was at them! I have a history of being far too trusting! I finally just walked away! I had a plane to catch . . . As others have mentioned they get you at your most vulnerable moments! ### Last weekend [January 2011] I traveled to Connecticut from Dallas, Texas again. I flew to Bradley International Airport (Hartford) from Dallas. The cheapest car rental deal we found was with Dollar, which was not directly on the airport (unlike the other car rental agencies). Unlike the other car rental agencies at Bradley they did not check the gas meter before and after to determine if I had filled it up enough. Instead you had to fill the gas tank within a 10 miles radius of the rental car agency and keep the receipt as proof (no one mentioned this but I guess it was in the papers). I usually fill the gas tank at a place about 20-30 miles from Bradley International Airport but I top it off and end up with a gas tank that is as full (or more) when return the car as it was when I got the car. Therefore I have never had to pay for gas at any of the other car rental agencies. At Dollar I had to pay seven dollars because I was not within a seven miles radius. When I signed the documents they seemed to be in a hurry and wanted me to initialize here and sign there and be off. They removed the document before I could read it and no information was given. It made me a little suspicious but I was not asking any questions. I realize now that this was not clever of me. Typically car rental agencies tell you what you are signing and initializing and they ask you if you want things like insurance. They don’t tell you to sign something and then quickly remove the paper. When I returned the car I had to pay a little bit more then I planned. They had charged a so called LDW1 fee (Liability Damage Waiver fee) without mentioning anything about it, and it cost more per day than the entire car rental ($23.00 versus $19.00). Then LDW1 was also significantly more than the insurance at the other car rental places. My car insurance includes insurance for rental cars so I would have said no to additional insurance. This was completely unnecessary. The bill also had some other strange miscellaneous fees I did not understand but I

16

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 17 of 34

did not argue about. I ended up paying $118.00 instead of $38.00 as I thought I would. ### The salesman saw me coming. Rented a car online, showed up to pay at the counter. Told the salesman no insurance. Was tired and in a hurry and pressed agree and signed:. Salesman gave me a receipt that was folded over and stapled (hiding hidden charges )!. Upon returning the car and getting the receipt, realized he added $175:.00 worth of insurance.. Spoke to several managers that were completely rude and unwilling to give last names/. Shame on me because I signed . Dollar will not get a chance to do this to me again”. My company pays my expenses and I have no reason to post this, but to let people know. ### On October 13, we rented a car from Dollar. We waited in line for an hour. When we were being assisted by the agent, we told him upfront that we did not want any additional insurance because we already had one. He said, "So you're going with the minimum." We were very clear about not wanting any additional insurance. In fact, we have previously rented cars from Dollar and never had additional insurance. When my husband got the bill, it was twice our reservation amount because of the all the additional insurance added. He then said that we needed it, and that it was the minimum insurance. We were quite clear about our intent. He said we could change it, and motioned to the end of the line. We let it go rather than wait another hour. We felt that we were strong-armed and hustled when we were clear on what we wanted. I wish someone from Dollar would respond about this practice. ### Not only was I charged $26.97 for fuel because I didn't have the receipt (I did top off the tank), I was charged unknowingly(!) a loss damage waiver (whatever that is) for $49.98 two days, and charged twice for an additional driver because we paid in cash and it was not recorded on the receipt. So they charged my credit card again. Total overcharge was $131.41 and I only drove the car 64 miles round trip. I will never use Dollar ever again. ### We picked Dollar because when online it looked to be the cheapest. It turned out to be way more expensive and a huge headache for me. We landed at Midway in Chicago on June 11,2012 at 6:55 am. We had already made the reservation online and suddenly I was told that I needed to give my credit card because my

17

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 18 of 34

husband’s was maxed out. This surprised me because I thought our rental would only be 287 like it was online which was nowhere near our credit limit. I gave the lady my card and she told me to sign a tiny electronic screen. I asked the total and it was suddenly $600. I asked why so high and she said that included the deposit that I would get back after we returned the car. She asked for my husbands license and I told her I would be the sole driver and not to charge us anymore. I was adamant about it. I also told her we had plenty of car insurance and wanted no more. Alas we were charged a LDW outrageous amount. We were also charged for the extra driver. When I called to complain the lady said "Well you signed it" I asked to have a supervisor call me and 2 days later he did. He basically said the same thing. I told him I would be contacting the authorities and plan on speaking to the media about this ripoff. ### I rented a vehicle from the Dollar Rent-A-Car facility located at Cleveland Hopkins International Airport and had an experience that has convinced me that it would be better to pay a higher price to another vendor than to use any Dollar affiliate. As background I chose Dollar for the cheapest rate that was available at the time of the rental. At the time of vehicle pick-up, I specifically and clearly said that I do NOT want optional additional insurance coverage because my personal vehicle insurance provided adequate coverage. The agent confirmed that this would be done, but, understandably, took an imprint of my credit card for incidental expenses (and presumably in the event that I did not fill the gas tank completely). The same agent, who was a male in his upper 50s, informed me that he would process my request, and that I needed to hit several “agree” buttons on the computer. When I returned the vehicle, I noticed an additional $77 on my credit card. Upon my inquiry, the agent said that the charge was for optional insurance coverage. Despite my attempt to properly address his mistake, the rental agent was belligerent, rude, loud, inappropriate, and bordered on being a liability to the company. I understand that anybody can make a mistake, but the way mistakes are handled differentiates a professional from an incompetent. ### Being tired, traveling alone Im not sure but what I do know is the guy DEFINITELY told me to bring the car back empty and I had stipulated, which he repeated, that I had geico insurance and did not need insurance. Being 5ft I could barely reach the screen and stupidly I trusted the guy for what I was signing!

18

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 19 of 34

I had booked a car for four days for $90 dollars ended up paying $404!!!!! As soon as I discovered what had happened I called dollar who told me not to worry it could be sorted only at LAX when I returned the car! However the manager told me I had never called and that I signed so basically tough luck! On contacting customer service the aggressive nature of the person whom made me sign, the disrespective attitude of the manager and the complete lack of respect for the customer where all ignored. They are bloody good at what they do - conning people - and this should be stopped!!!!!! I rent cars all over America several times a year and I will never again go to Dollar. 24. This is not the first time Dollar has been accused of engaging in practices

involving the upsale of add-on products using deceptive sales practices. In People v. Dollar Rent A Car, 211 Cal.App.3d 119, 131 (1989), the California Court of Appeal upheld a judgment obtained by the California State Attorney General’s Office against Dollar Rent-A-Car Systems, Inc. for overcharging consumers and misrepresenting the scope and nature of CDW provisions as a result of improper training. The evidence showed employees were instructed by Dollar to sell such products aggressively in return for high commissions, using contracts in tiny print that could not be read by the reasonable consumer in the limited transaction window, such that, as the Court said, “this entire process makes confusion not only likely, but inevitable.” Now Dollar is at it again. Such evidence of prior and repeated uniform conduct shows these are not highly individualized issues, but rather can be shown are being implemented by Dollar as part of a common scheme it has previously been found to have engaged in. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 25. Pursuant to F.R.C.P. 23, Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and a

Class of persons defined as follows: All persons in the United States who, during the past four years, resided in or who while in Colorado and Florida, and such other states as the Court may

19

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 20 of 34

determine are appropriate based on the laws that can be applied to such claims, were charged and paid for insurance, collision damage waiver (“CDW”), roadside assistance and other add-on products offered by Dollar employees at the place of rental that they declined or did not authorize or for which their “consent” was illegally obtained (the “Class”). Dollar’s practices as detailed above were applied consistently to all members of the Class throughout the relevant time period as they were the subject of a uniform practice and policy implemented by Dollar, such that the questions of law and fact detailed herein, as well as the proof required to establish such practices, are common as to all members of the Class. All Class members were and are similarly affected by having paid for these unrequested or specifically declined add-on items, as set forth in detail above, and Dollar’s response in uniformly denying such complaints is substantially the same. 26. Based on the systematic practices and complaints set forth above and as

evidenced by the case number assigned to Plaintiff Nellis, the number of Class members would likely be in the many thousands, thereby making individual joinder impossible. The Class is therefore so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable. 27. Questions of law and fact common to the Class exist and predominate over

questions affecting only individual members, including, inter alia: (a) Whether Dollar’s acts and practices in connection with the sale of the

products and services detailed herein were deceptive trade practices within the meaning of the Colorado Consumer Protection Act, Col. Rev. Sta. § 6-1-101, et seq., the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat., § 501.201, et seq., the Oklahoma

20

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 21 of 34

Consumer Protection Act, Okla. Stat. 15 § 751, et seq., constitute a systematic breach of contract or are in violation of the other claims set forth herein; (b) Whether Dollar’s acts and practices in connection with the promotion and

sale of these products or services were part of a uniform scheme to unjustly enrich Dollar at the expense of, and to the detriment of, Plaintiffs and other Class members through a consistent pattern of deception, misrepresentation, omission or outright forgery; and (c) Whether Dollar’s conduct as set forth above injured consumers and, if so,

the extent of such injury. 28. The claims asserted by Plaintiffs in this action are typical of the claims of other

Class members as their claims arise from the same course of conduct by Dollar as detailed above, and the relief they seeks is common. 29. members. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in both consumer

protection and class action litigation. 30. (b)(3). Certification of this action is appropriate under F.R.C.P. 23(b)(1), (b)(2) and/or

The questions of law or fact common to the Class members as detailed above

predominate over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members as set forth in detail herein. This predominance makes class litigation superior to any other methods available for the fair and efficient group-wide adjudication of these claims. Absent a class action remedy, it would be highly unlikely that other Class members would be able to protect their own interests because the cost of litigation through individual lawsuits would likely exceed any expected recovery, which is at most in the hundreds of dollars per person. Certification is also appropriate

21

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 22 of 34

because Dollar has acted or refused to act, and continues to act, on grounds generally applicable to the Class as indicated by the systematic denial of such claims, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief with respect to the Class as a whole. 31. A class action is also the superior method to utilize for the group-wide

adjudication of this controversy in that it will permit a large number of similar claims to be resolved in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary hardship that would result from the prosecution of numerous individual actions and the duplication of discovery, effort, expense and burden on the courts that such individual actions would engender. The alternative envisioned by Dollar is that each individual Class member can only maintain a small claims action against Dollar – which in reality means Dollar illegally makes millions of dollars with impunity. The benefits of proceeding as a class action, including providing a method for obtaining redress for claims that would not be practical to pursue individually, outweigh any difficulties that might be claimed with regard to the management of this action. CAUSES OF ACTION I. Violation of Colorado Consumer Protection Act (“CCPA”), Col. Rev. Sta. § 6-1-101, et seq. (Asserted by Plaintiff Friedman) 32. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

This cause of action is asserted by Plaintiff Friedman. 33. Plaintiff Friedman brings this cause of action on behalf of himself and all other

members of the Class who reside in Colorado and purchased car rental services from Dollar or who rented vehicles and were improperly charged for the add-on products at issue while in Colorado (the “Colorado Subclass”).

22

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 23 of 34

34.

The CCPA considers conduct a “deceptive trade practice” when “in the course of

such person’s business, vocation, or occupation, such person,” inter alia: a. “Knowingly makes a false representation as to the characteristics,

ingredients, uses, benefits, alterations, or quantities of goods, food, services, or property or a false representation as to the sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection of a person therewith.” Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1)(e); b. “Fails to disclose material information concerning goods, services, or

property which information was known at the time of an advertisement or sale if such failure to disclose such information was intended to induce the consumer to enter into a transaction.” Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1)(u). 35. The CCPA defines a “person” as “an individual, corporation, business trust,

estate, trust, partnership, unincorporated association, or two or more thereof having a joint or common interest, or any other legal or commercial entity.” Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-102(6). Each Defendant is a corporation and, therefore, a “person” within the meaning of the CCPA. 36. As set forth in detail above, Defendants, through their employees, willfully and

wrongfully marketed, advertised, promoted and sold the add-on products at issue, in violation of Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1)(e). 37. Moreover, Dollar either misrepresented or willfully failed to disclose, with the

intention of inducing consumers to purchase the add-on products, material information including, but not limited to the fact that the add-on products detailed herein were not properly authorized to be billed to consumers’ accounts, in violation of Col. Rev. Stat. § 6-1-105(1)(u). Plaintiff

23

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 24 of 34

Friedman has made a demand for the return of such monies prior to the initiation of this action, which demand has been refused. 38. As a result of the deceptive trade practices described above, Plaintiff Friedman

and other members of the Colorado Subclass are entitled to damages in an amount to be determined at trial. II. Violations of Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat., § 501.201, et seq. 39. 40. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs bring this cause of action on behalf of themselves and all other members

of the Class who reside in Florida and purchased car rental services from Dollar or who rented vehicles and were improperly charged for the add-on products at issue while in Florida (the “Florida Subclass”). 41. Dollar violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act by engaging

in unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts and practices, and unfair and deceptive acts and practices in the conduct of its business. 42. The conduct, misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein constitute

deceptive and unfair trade practices, in that they were intended to and did deceive Plaintiffs and other members of the Florida Subclass. 43. Had Plaintiffs and other members of the Florida Subclass known the true nature

of Dollar’s practices as described above, they would not have paid such amounts. 44. Dollar’s conduct offends established public policy, and is immoral, unethical,

oppressive, unscrupulous and substantially injurious to consumers.

24

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 25 of 34

45.

As a result of Dollar’s deceptive and unfair acts, Plaintiffs and other members of

the Florida Subclass have been damaged and are entitled to actual damages in an amount to be proven at trial, but not less than the amount paid by Plaintiffs and other members of the Florida Subclass for the insurance, CDW, roadside assistance and other products and services described herein. III. Violation of Okla. Stat. 15 § 751, et seq. - Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act 46. 47. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein. Okla. Stat. 15 § 753 states:

A person engages in a practice which is declared to be unlawful under the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act when, in the course of the person’s business, the person: *** 11. Makes false or misleading statements of fact, knowingly or with reason to know, concerning the price of the subject of a consumer transaction or the reason for, existence of, or amounts of price reduction; *** 20. Commits an unfair or deceptive trade practice as defined in Section 752 of this title; 48. Okla. Stat 15 § 752(13) states:

“Deceptive trade practice” means a misrepresentation, omission or other practice that has deceived or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead a person

25

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 26 of 34

to the detriment of that person. Such a practice may occur before, during or after a consumer transaction is entered into and may be written or oral; . . . . 49. Dollar’s conduct, as described above, violates the Oklahoma Consumer Protection

Act as Dollar’s representatives knowingly made false and misleading statements and engaged in deceptive trade practices, concerning the price of the car rental as CDW, insurance or other addon options were added to the final cost of the car rental, claiming they were authorized to do so without having properly obtained consent of Plaintiffs and other members of the Class, thereby violating Okla. Stat. 15 § 753(11) and (20). Dollar is aware of such practices through its centralized operations and headquarters in Tulsa, Oklahoma, where it processes such complaints and was placed on notice of this company-wide scheme and apparently did nothing to stop it. 50. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have been injured in fact and lost money or

property as a result of Dollar’s business acts and practices by, inter alia, either paying or being told after the fact they will need to pay greater amounts than they had agreed to pay for optional items they did not order, or by obtaining any claimed “consent” by deception, trickery or mistake, as well as through the expenditure of time and resources in an effort to avoid or minimize the consequences from such conduct. These acts and practices resulted in Plaintiffs and/or members of the Class being charged for insurance, CDW or other products they would not have paid for absent Dollar’s conduct. 51. As a result of Dollar’s violations of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act,

Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to equitable relief in the form of full restitution of all monies paid for illegally imposed charges and disgorgement of the profits derived from Dollar’s unlawful business acts and practices.

26

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 27 of 34

52.

Plaintiffs also seeks an order enjoining Dollar from continuing its unlawful

practices and from engaging in the present, threatened or future conduct set forth herein. 53. THEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for relief as set forth below as applicable to this

cause of action and the members of the Class. IV. Breach of Contract 54. 55. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. Plaintiffs and Dollar entered into a written contract for rental car services, as

embodied in Dollar’s form Rental Agreement and related documentation. With minor variances not relevant to the claims at issue herein, Dollar uses the same form Rental Agreements throughout the United States. For example, an exemplar of the form Dollar Rental Agreement used in Florida is attached hereto as Ex. 7 and incorporated herein by reference. 56. Whether by common law or statute, all such contracts uniformly impose upon

each party a duty of good faith and fair dealing. Good faith and fair dealing, in connection with executing contracts and discharging performance and other duties according to their terms, means preserving the spirit—not merely the letter—of the bargain. Subterfuge and evasion violate the obligation of good faith in performance even when an actor believes its conduct to be justified. Bad faith may be overt or may consist of inaction, and fair dealing requires more than honesty. The parties to a contract are mutually obligated to comply with the substance of their contract in addition to its form and not engaging in any conduct in violation of law in doing so. Tricking consumers, misrepresenting the boxes for consumers to check to attempt to claim consumers ordered unwanted products and services, or inputting their signature without

27

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 28 of 34

authorization, are examples of evading the spirit of their advance bargain and constitute examples of bad faith in the performance of contracts, as well as evidence the lack of any proper consent from Class members. 57. Dollar has breached these contracts by, inter alia, making misrepresentations to

consumers as set forth above, misrepresenting the boxes for consumers to check to attempt to claim consumers had approved being charged for unwanted products and services when they did not, or inputting their signature without authorization. 58. Prior to the effective date of the Rental Agreements and thereafter, by virtue of

the acts and omissions set forth above, Dollar did not obtain free and proper affirmative consent from Class members prior to charging them for insurance, CDW, roadside assistance, or other add-on products, thus obtaining their “consent” by deception or mistake and by acts fitted to deceive, to the Class members’ prejudice. Since any purported “consent” to charge consumers was obtained by mistake, deception or trickery it is invalid, making any claimed contractual obligations that Dollar relies on to retain or not refund such monies void or voidable. 59. Dollar has also breached the covenants of good faith and fair dealing through its

system-wide implementation of the policies and practices set forth above and its failure to correct them despite being placed on notice at its corporate headquarters these practices are taking place nationwide. 60. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have performed all, or substantially all, of the

obligations imposed on them under the Rental Agreements, and through previous demands have demanded Dollar to rectify such breaches of the form Rental Agreements, which demands have been ignored or refused.

28

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 29 of 34

61.

Plaintiffs and members of the Class have sustained damages as a result of Dollar’s

uniform breach of contract and the covenant of good faith and fair dealing, entitling them to both actual, compensatory and exemplary damages, as appropriate, as well as appropriate declaratory relief declaring the rights and responsibilities of the parties. V. Unconscionability 62. 63. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. Dollar’s policies and practices as set forth above are or were substantively and

procedurally unconscionable in the following respects: (a) Dollar either misrepresented, did not disclose or did not reasonably

disclose to customers that they were being signed up for insurance, CDW, roadside assistance, or other add-on products; (b) Prior to the effective date of the Rental Agreements and thereafter, by

virtue of the acts and omissions set forth above, Dollar did not obtain free and proper affirmative consent from Class members prior to charging them for insurance, CDW, roadside assistance, or other add-on products, thus obtaining their “consent” by deception or mistake and by acts fitted to deceive, to the Class members’ prejudice; and/or (c) Dollar employees forged signatures allegedly authorizing the purchase of

insurance, CDW, roadside assistance, or other add-on products. 64. The Rental Agreements and related documentation are contracts of adhesion in

that they are standardized forms, imposed and drafted by Dollar, which is a party of vastly

29

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 30 of 34

superior bargaining strength, and only relegates to the customer the opportunity to adhere to them or reject the agreement in its entirety. 65. Considering the great business acumen and experience of Dollar in relation to

Plaintiffs and members of the Class, the great disparity in the parties’ relative bargaining power, the inconspicuousness and incomprehensibility of the contract language and signature pads at issue, the oppressiveness of the terms, the commercial unreasonableness of the terms, the purpose and effect of the terms, the allocation of the risks between the parties, Dollar being placed on notice of similar prior illegal practices, and other public policy concerns, attempting to enforce any purported claim of consent to such charges or refusing to refund all monies obtained by deception, trickery or mistake, is unconscionable and, therefore, unenforceable as a matter of law. 66. Plaintiffs and members of the Class have sustained damages as a result of Dollar’s

unconscionable policies and practices alleged herein. VI. Unjust Enrichment 67. 68. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. Dollar has benefited from the unlawful, unconscionable, and unjust acts detailed

above by receiving excessive revenue derived from the illegal sales of the add-on products at issue. Dollar appreciated and/or knew the benefit of the receipt of such excessive revenues and profits. This excessive revenue and profit has been received by Dollar at the expense of

Plaintiffs and other members of the Class, under circumstances in which it would be unjust for

30

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 31 of 34

Dollar to be permitted to retain the benefit based on the misleading and deceptive conduct detailed above. 69. Dollar benefited from the conduct detailed above by receiving revenues and

profits derived from the sale of the products at issue, which monies were had, received and retained by Dollar to the detriment of Plaintiffs and the Class. These excessive revenues and profits have been received by Dollar at its direction based on the illegal and unconscionable sale of such car rental products and services based on and resulting from monies mistakenly or illegally charged to, laid out and expended by Plaintiffs and other members of the Class. 70. been refused. 71. Plaintiffs and other members of the Class are entitled to a return of all monies by Plaintiffs have made a demand for the return of such monies, which demand has

which Dollar was unjustly enriched, as well as the establishment of a constructive trust consisting of the benefit conferred upon Dollar in the form of revenues derived from the illegal sale of the products and services at issue to members of the Class, as set forth above, from which Plaintiffs and other Class members may make claims for restitution. VII. Injunctive and Declaratory Relief 72. 73. Plaintiffs repeat and reallege all preceding paragraphs, as if fully set forth herein. As set forth above, through the improper practices described above, Defendants

have misrepresented or illegally induced the purchase of the add-on products at issue to and by Plaintiffs and other members of the Class.

31

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 32 of 34

74.

Defendants’ practices described herein are unlawful and against public policy for

the reasons stated above. Defendants’ practices are on-going. Such practices should be declared to be unlawful and Defendants be prohibited and enjoined from engaging in these practices in the future. 75. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are also entitled to declaratory relief declaring

the rights and responsibilities of the parties under these agreements and of the Class members’ right to the return of monies charged or paid where Class members’ signatures were obtained under false pretenses or by mistake. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment as follows against all Defendants: 1. Certification of the Class and Subclasses detailed herein, certifying Plaintiffs as

representatives of the Class and appropriate Subclasses detailed herein, and designating counsel for the Class and Subclasses detailed herein; 2. For a declaration that Dollar has committed the violations of law alleged herein

and that all Class members are entitled to full restitution of all monies illegally obtained from them; 3. alleged herein; 4. For damages based on the violations of laws alleged herein, the amount of which For an injunction prohibiting Defendants from engaging in the unlawful conduct

is to be determined at trial; 5. 6. For equitable monetary relief; For pre- and post-judgment interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sums; and

32

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 33 of 34

7.

For such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury on all claims so triable. DATED: November 30, 2012 WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC By: S/Alan M. Mansfield Alan M. Mansfield amansfield@whatleykallas.com (Admitted Dec. 15, 2000) 10200 Willow Creek Rd., Suite 160 San Diego, CA 92131 Tel: (619) 308-5034 Fax: (888) 341-5048 WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC JOE R. WHATLEY, JR. (Admitted March 7, 2002) jwhatley@whatleykallas.com Patrick J. Sheehan (Admitted Nov. 4, 2010) psheehan@whatleykallas.com 1228 Riverside Drive Aspen, CO 81611 Tel: (970) 925-7842 Fax: (800) 922-4851 380 Madison Avenue, 23rd Floor New York, NY 10017 Tel: (212) 447-7060 Fax: (800) 922-4851 John Mattes, Esq. (Admitted November 5, 2012) jcminvestigations@gmail.com 1666 Garnet Avenue, #815 San Diego, CA 92109 Tel: (858) 412-6081 Attorneys for Plaintiffs

33

Case 1:12-cv-02432-WYD-KMT Document 22 Filed 11/30/12 USDC Colorado Page 34 of 34

CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I hereby certify that on the 30th day of November, 2012, a true and correct copy of the foregoing FIRST AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL was electronically filed using the CM/ECF system, which will send notice of such filing to the following: SHEPPARD MULLIN RICHTER & HAMPTON, LLP Peter Scott Hecker phecker@sheppardmullin.com Anna S. McLean amclean@sheppardmullin.com David Edward Snyder dsnyder@sheppardmullin.com Four Embarcadero Center, 17th Fl. San Francisco, CA 94111 Tel: (415) 434-9100 Fax: (415) 434-3947 Attorneys for Defendants DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., DOLLAR RENT A CAR, and DTG OPERATIONS, INC. ROTHGERBER JOHNSON & LYONS, LLP Michael D. Plachy mplachy@rothgerber.com Jessica L. Fuller jfuller@rothgerber.com 1200 17th Street, Suite 3000 Denver, CO 80202 Tel: (303) 623-9000 Fax: (303) 623-9222 Attorneys for Defendants DOLLAR THRIFTY AUTOMOTIVE GROUP, INC., DOLLAR RENT A CAR, and DTG OPERATIONS, INC.

S/Alan M. Mansfield WHATLEY KALLAS, LLC

34

Sign up to vote on this title
UsefulNot useful

Master Your Semester with Scribd & The New York Times

Special offer: Get 4 months of Scribd and The New York Times for just $1.87 per week!

Master Your Semester with a Special Offer from Scribd & The New York Times