Hertz Robocall Class Action Lawsuit Shouldn’t be Stopped, Says Plaintiff

A rental car customer overcame an effort to dismiss his Hertz robocall class action lawsuit alleging the company batters consumers with telemarketing calls.

Lead plaintiff Rico Tillman alleged in the Hertz robocall class action lawsuit lodged in 2016 that he was peppered with calls from the rental car company that featured pre-recorded messages.

The calls, that occurred over eight days, were regarding an automobile rented by his mother, alleged the plaintiff.

Though Tillman asked for the calls to stop, they allegedly continued. Both the calls and the failure of Hertz to stop calling when asked constituted violations of the Telephone Consumer Privacy Act, according to the Hertz class action lawsuit.

The TCPA prohibits telemarketers from contacting consumers without permission. The law also restricts the use of pre-recorded messaging, or robocalls, as well as the use of automated dialing systems. Further, companies are compelled to stop calling consumers if asked.

Violations of the TCPA can carry steep fines of up to $1,500 per call made in violation of the law.

The rental car company attempted to dodge the Hertz robocall class action lawsuit by arguing the Class proposed by the plaintiff was too broad.

In response, the plaintiff contends that his revised proposed Class, limited to non-Hertz customers who were still contacted despite telling the car rental company to stop, remedies Hertz’s reasoning for dismissal.

“Pre-certification class discovery is a normal and important prerequisite to a well-reasoned, factually-supported class certification determination,” contends the plaintiff.

Tillman argues that “Pre-discovery class certification motions like Hertz’s are also premature because they deprive plaintiffs, like Tillman here, of the opportunity to contour their proposed class to information that might otherwise be obtained through the discovery process.”

The plaintiff also points out in his motion to save the Hertz robocall class action lawsuit that the car maker has not even allowed discovery to begin in the litigation process.

“The irony isn’t lost on plaintiff that Hertz spends the majority of its brief trying to get his class allegations stricken before class discovery, but then argues that his class claims should be denied for failure to plead specific facts that can only be gained through class discovery,” noted the plaintiff in his motion.

According to Tillman, the Hertz class action lawsuit should not be dismissed at this point because he and his attorneys have not had time to conduct class discovery.

“Here, Defendant has failed to meet its burden of demonstrating why the drastic remedy of striking Plaintiff’s class allegations before class discovery or substantive class certification briefing should be granted,” states the plaintiff’s motion.

Tillman and proposed Class Members are represented by Alexander H. Burke and Daniel J. Marovitch of Burke Law Offices LLC, and Larry P. Smith and David M. Marco of SmithMarco PC.

The Hertz Robocall Class Action Lawsuit is Tillman v. The Hertz Corporation d/b/a Hertz Rent­-A­-Car, Case No. 1:16­-cv­-04242, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois.

Join a Free TCPA Class Action Lawsuit Investigation

If you were contacted on your cell phone by a company via an unsolicited text message (text spam) or prerecorded voice message (robocall), you may be eligible for compensation under the Telephone Consumer Protection Act.

GET A FREE CASE EVALUATION NOW