Weinberg v. Hertz Corp.

Frederic Weinberg (plaintiff) filed a putative class-action suit against Hertz Corporation (defendant), alleging that Hertz engaged in practices that were unfair, deceptive, and in breach of Hertz’s contracts with its customers. Weinberg sought to represent all customers who rented cars from Hertz in New York. The supreme court denied Weinberg’s motion for class certification, ruling that Weinberg failed to make the requisite showing under Civil Practice Law and Rules § 901(a)(5) that proceeding via a class action was superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy. Specifically, the supreme court credited Hertz’s contention that it would cost at least $30 million for Hertz to identify its rental agreements with a New York connection so that potential class members could receive the required notice of the litigation. Per the supreme court, it would be unduly burdensome for Hertz to spend so much to do so given that the average class claim would be for $31. Weinberg appealed, arguing that Hertz presented no evidence that it really would need to spend $30 million to identify potential class members. Weinberg also cited a recent decision involving similar Hertz business practices in which a California court rejected Hertz’s claim that the burdens of identifying potential class members outweighed the benefits of proceeding via a class action.