Hernandez v. Avis Budget Grp., Inc.
| Decision Date | 14 December 2017 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 1:17-cv-00211-DAD-EPG |
| Parties | EDWARD HERNANDEZ, Plaintiff, v. AVIS BUDGET GROUP, INC., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Eastern District of California |
(3) NOTIFY THE COURT THAT HE WISHES TO STAND ON HIS COMPLAINT, SUBJECT TO FINDINGS AND RECOMMENDATIONS TO THE DISTRICT JUDGE CONSISTENT WITH THIS ORDER
Plaintiff Edward Hernandez, proceeding pro se and in forma pauperis, filed a Complaint on February 14, 2017. (ECF No. 1.) The Complaint alleges a variety of state law claims against Defendants Avis Budget Group, Inc. ("Avis"); Daphne Davis, an employee of Avis; Ford Motor Company, Inc. ("Ford"); Capital One Financial Corporation ("Capital One"); and Asset Retrieval and Investigations, Inc. ("ARI"). Plaintiff's claims arise out of the rental of a 2016 Ford Explorer from Avis. The Court has screened the Complaint. The Court finds that Plaintiff states a breach of contract claim against Avis and Capital One; a defamation claim against ARI; and a claim for intentional infliction of emotional distress against Avis, Davis, and ARI. Plaintiff fails to state a claim for other relief, and against the remaining defendants.
Plaintiff must respond to the Court within thirty days and has three options. He can notify the Court that he agrees to proceed only on the claims found cognizable in this order, in which case the Court will authorize service of the complaint to proceed only regarding the claims upheld in this order. Plaintiff may also file an amended complaint within thirty days if he believes that additional facts will establish any additional claims under the applicable legal standards. Finally, Plaintiff can state that he stands on this complaint, in which case this Court will issue findings and recommendations to the District Judge, recommending that certain claims and defendants be dismissed consistent with this order.
Under 28 U.S.C. § 1915(e)(2), the Court must conduct a review of a pro se complaint to determine whether it "state[s] a claim on which relief may be granted," is "frivolous or malicious," or "seek[s] monetary relief against a defendant who is immune from such relief." If the Court determines that the complaint fails to state a claim, it must be dismissed. Id. Leave to amend may be granted to the extent that the deficiencies of the complaint can be cured by amendment. Cato v. United States, 70 F.3d 1103, 1106 (9th Cir. 1995).
A complaint must contain "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief . . . ." Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Detailed factual allegations are not required, but "[t]hreadbare recitals of the elements of a cause of action, supported by mere conclusory statements, do not suffice." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (citing Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007)). Plaintiff must set forth "sufficient factualmatter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim that is plausible on its face.'" Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 663 (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555). While factual allegations are accepted as true, legal conclusions are not. Id. at 678.
In determining whether a complaint states an actionable claim, the Court must accept the allegations in the complaint as true, Hosp. Bldg. Co. v. Trs. of Rex Hospital, 425 U.S. 738, 740 (1976), construe pro se pleadings liberally in the light most favorable to the Plaintiff, Resnick v. Hayes, 213 F.3d 443, 447 (9th Cir. 2000), and resolve all doubts in the Plaintiff's favor. Jenkins v. McKeithen, 395 U.S. 411, 421 (1969). Pleadings of pro se plaintiffs "must be held to less stringent standards than formal pleadings drafted by lawyers." Hebbe v. Pliler, 627 F.3d 338, 342 (9th Cir. 2010) ().
The Complaint alleges that on October 21, 2016, Plaintiff entered into a written agreement with Avis to rent a seven passenger vehicle with the largest cargo space available, a 2016 Ford Explorer. Plaintiff rented the Explorer from the Avis rental outlet at Roberts Field in Redmond, Oregon. On October 22, 2016 at approximately 4:00 p.m., while Plaintiff and his family were traveling at 72 miles per hour in the center lane of a freeway near Modesto, California, the Explorer lost all acceleration without warning. Plaintiff maneuvered the vehicle over to the side of the freeway through heavy traffic and called Avis to request a substitute vehicle. Avis told Plaintiff that a substitute vehicle would be sent from its Modesto location, 10 miles away from Plaintiff's location.
At about 5:30 p.m., Plaintiff called Avis and was informed that the substitute vehicle should be arriving shortly. At approximately 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff called Avis and was informed that the substitute vehicle had actually been sent from Avis's San Jose location, 100 miles away from Plaintiff's location.
At approximately 9:30 p.m., a tow truck driver called Plaintiff and stated that he was fifteen minutes away. The tow truck driver also stated that he had been dispatched to pick-up the Explorer, but had no information on any substitute vehicle. The tow truck driver further statedthat he would need to return to San Jose to retrieve a substitute vehicle and would return around 12:00 a.m. Plaintiff again called Avis, which advised Plaintiff to seek nearby accommodations.
On October 23, 2016 at approximately 3:00 p.m., Avis provided Plaintiff with a Kia Sorrento as a substitute vehicle. On October 24, 2016, Plaintiff informed Avis that the Sorrento lacked the storage capacity of an Explorer. Avis told Plaintiff that he could obtain a van at its Burbank location. Plaintiff traveled to Burbank, but no van was available. On October 27, 2016, Plaintiff was able to exchange the Sorrento for a Nissan Pathfinder at Avis's Fresno location.
On October 28, 2016, Plaintiff contacted Avis's Redmond office and informed them that he would need an extension to the term of his rental agreement. Avis informed Plaintiff that it would not extend the contract and that the vehicle must be returned immediately. On November 4, 2016 at approximately 7:30 p.m., Plaintiff left the Pathfinder at Avis's office in Redmond after hours, which he is authorized to do as a Budget FastBreak member, and informed Avis that he had returned the vehicle. Plaintiff followed up with a phone call to an Avis representative, Mr. Peterson, on November 7, 2016, to inform Avis that the vehicle had been returned.
On November 11, 2016, Avis sent Plaintiff a letter demanding the return of the Pathfinder and informing him that it would file a police report and seek a warrant for his arrest if the vehicle was not returned. On November 14, 2016, Defendant Daphne Davis called Plaintiff and informed him that the vehicle had not been located, and that it would begin "recovery proceedings" if the vehicle was not returned immediately. On November 29, 2016, Davis again notified Plaintiff that the vehicle had not been located, and that Avis would need to commence vehicle recovery options.
On November 30, 2016, Defendant ARI contacted Plaintiff and informed him that it had been retained to recover the vehicle. ARI also communicated with Plaintiff's "family, company employees, and known business associates" that Plaintiff had "embezzled vehicle and criminal charges would be filed against Plaintiff, if vehicle is not returned immediately." The next day, Plaintiff called ARI and was informed that Defendant Davis was "responsible for the aggressive recovery action."
On December 1, 2016, Avis charged Plaintiff's credit card without authorization in anamount exceeding $3,300 for the rental of the vehicle from October 21, 2016 through December 1, 2016. Avis also placed Plaintiff on their "Do No Rent To List." Plaintiff disputed the $3,300 charge with Capital One, who promptly removed the charge.
On December 23, 2016, Avis informed Plaintiff that the vehicle had been returned, but was damaged. On January 5, 2017, Avis charged Plaintiff's credit card without authorization for $3,367.92. On the same day, Plaintiff was denied a charge of approximately $35.00. Plaintiff disputed the charge with Capital One, and Capital One removed the charge.
On January 10, 2017, Capital One authorized a fraudulent charge generated by Avis. On the same day, Plaintiff was denied a charge of approximately $8.00. Plaintiff again challenged the charge. Capital One stated that a secure link would be provided to allow Plaintiff to submit documentation to refute the disputed charge. But, rather than removing the charge, Capital One debited a second charge of $3,367.92 on Plaintiff's credit card, bringing Plaintiff's balance to $6,735.84. Plaintiff again disputed the charge.
On January 13, 2017, Plaintiff communicated with Capital One and requested the secure link. Capital One stated that the secure link would be provided, but Capital One did not provide the link.
Plaintiff alleges seven separate state law claims against various combinations of Defendants: (1) Breach of Contract (against Avis and Capital One); (2) Strict Product Liability (against Ford and Avis); (3) Negligence (against Ford and Avis); (4) Defamation (against Avis, Davis, and ARI); (5) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Avis, Davis, ARI, and Capital One); (6) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress (against Avis, Davis, ARI, and Capital One); and (7) Negligent Interference with Prospective Economic Relations (against Avis and Capital One).
Plaintiff asks for compensatory and punitive damages against all Defendants, as well as...
To continue reading
Request your trial