Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02174/USCOURTS-casd-3_07-cv-02174-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 410
Nature of Suit: Antitrust
Cause of Action: 15:1 Antitrust Litigation

---

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

- 1 - 07cv2174

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

MICHAEL SHAMES, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 07 CV 2174 MMA (WMc)

ORDER DENYING PLAINTIFFS’

MOTION FOR SUMMARY

JUDGMENT WITHOUT

PREJUDICE TO RE-FILE

[Doc. No. 191]

vs.

THE HERTZ CORPORATION, at al.,

Defendants.

On November 14, 2007, Plaintiffs Michael Shames and Gary Gramkow, on behalf of

themselves and on behalf of all persons similarly situated, filed this purported class action against

numerous defendants alleging that, several rental car companies (“Rental Car Defendants” or

“RCD”) conspired with the California Travel and Tourism Commission (“CTTC”) to avoid

competition and fix prices for cars rented to consumers in California. On July 24, 2008, the Court

dismissed all claims against the CTTC, finding, inter alia, that the CTTC was immune from any

federal antitrust liability. [Doc. No. 107.] On September 24, 2008, the Court granted the CTTC’s

motion to enter final judgment in its favor. [Doc. No. 128.] Plaintiffs appealed the Court’s entry

of judgment to the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals. [Doc. No. 137.] 

On June 8, 2010, the Ninth Circuit affirmed this Court’s entry of judgment in favor of the

CTTC on the ground that it was entitled to state action immunity for the acts alleged in Plaintiffs’

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 248 Filed 02/23/11 Page 1 of 3
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

1

 On August 17, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a motion for partial summary judgment as to the RCD’s

affirmative defense of state action immunity. [Doc. No. 191.] The same day, the RCD filed a motion

for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that they are entitled to the state action immunity

afforded the CTTC. [Doc. No. 192.] 

- 2 - 07cv2174

complaint. On June 29, 2010, Plaintiffs filed a petition for rehearing en banc. While Plaintiffs’

petition was pending, Plaintiffs and the Rental Car Defendants filed dispositive motions regarding

whether the RCD are entitled to immunity under the state immunity doctrine.1

 On October 8, 2010

the Court held a telephonic status conference with the parties, after which it ordered that resolution

of the parties’ dispositive motions would be stayed pending the outcome of Plaintiffs’ petition for

rehearing. [Doc. No. 227.]

On November 24, 2010, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals granted Plaintiffs’ petition for

rehearing en banc for the purpose of withdrawing its opinion issued on June 8, 2010, and

substituting a superseding opinion that held the CTTC was not shielded from antitrust liability

under the state action immunity doctrine. Magistrate Judge William McCurine, Jr. held a case

management conference with the parties on February 9, 2011, after which Judge McCurine

ordered the parties to submit a new discovery plan, and to contact the undersigned’s chambers by

February 22 regarding the effect of the Ninth Circuit’s November 24, 2010 opinion on their

respective pending motions. [Doc. No. 241.]

On February 22, 2011, the RCD voluntarily withdrew their motion for judgment on the

pleadings. [Doc. No. 245.] On February 23, Plaintiffs indicated their preference that the Court

decide Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment, as the state action immunity defense remains a

part of this case. The Court has considered the parties’ submissions, and based on the current

procedural posture of the case, declines to address the merits of Plaintiffs’ summary judgment

motion at this time. The Ninth Circuit’s November 24, 2010 order bears directly on the issues

raised in Plaintiffs’ summary judgment motion filed in August 2010, and the parties recently

submitted a new discovery plan that permits discovery to continue for approximately another year. 

Furthermore, the parties have agreed to participate in private mediation on or before April 13,

2011. Accordingly, the Court finds good cause to DENY Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary

judgment without prejudice to refiling the motion at a later date. 

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 248 Filed 02/23/11 Page 2 of 3
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

- 3 - 07cv2174

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion for partial summary

judgment [Doc. No. 191] without prejudice. In addition, the Court ORDERS that the stay

imposed in this action [Doc. No. 188] is hereby lifted.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: February 23, 2011

Hon. Michael M. Anello

United States District Judge

Case 3:07-cv-02174-MMA-WMC Document 248 Filed 02/23/11 Page 3 of 3