Caption: Doller v. Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., et al.
Case No.: 2:24-cv-513-KCD-DNF
Jurisdiction: U.S. District Court, Middle District of Florida, Fort Myers Division
Judge: Hon. Kyle C. Dudek
Summary
On October 10, 2025, the Court granted in part and denied in part Defendants’ motion to dismiss. The Court dismissed most statements in the complaint but allowed claims based on two statements to proceed.
Allegations Against Hertz Global Holdings, Inc.
The complaint alleged that Defendants falsely told investors through the Class Period that EV rental demand is very strong and strong across all aspects of their business despite a lack of demand for EVs.
Defendants’ Motion to Dismiss
Defendants Hertz Global Holdings, Inc., Stephen M. Scherr, and Alexandra Brooks moved to dismiss the complaint for failure to state a claim. They argued that Doller did not explain how any underlying statements were false. They contended that even assuming falsity, the statements are immaterial or lack scienter.
Plaintiffs’ Opposition
Doller responded that the complaint sufficiently alleged falsity for certain statements based on confidential witness accounts and internal data. Doller argued that cautionary language for forward-looking statements was meaningless because the risk of low EV demand had already materialized.
Court’s Ruling
The Court dismissed all statements except those in paragraphs 98 and the latter portion of paragraph 110 of the complaint. The §§ 10(b) and 20(a) claims survive only with respect to those two statements.
Court’s Rationale
Falsity: The Court found that Doller did not adequately demonstrate how statements praising general vehicle demand, EV demand among corporate clients, or growth in the charging network were false. The Court held that evidence of weak overall EV demand or insufficient charging network did not sufficiently undermine the statements.
Materiality: The Court ruled that statements in paragraphs 100, 102, 114, 116, 119, and 123 qualified as corporate puffery. The Court stated that these contained generalized, vague, nonquantifiable statements of corporate optimism.
The Surviving Statements: For paragraph 98, the Court found that a confidential witness provided plausible evidence that EV utilization was 55% to 60% in most regions, making Scherr’s statement that EV rental demand is very strong actionable. The Court held that the statement was not puffery given Hertz’s prior announcements betting big on EVs. For the latter portion of paragraph 110, the Court dismissed the part about continued growth in demand for lack of falsity. The Court allowed the forecast of nearly 2 million EV rentals in 2023 to proceed because the risk of insufficient EV demand had already materialized, rendering cautionary language meaningless.
Scienter: The Court found that the complaint detailed Hertz’s internal systems that monitored rental fleet and utilization in real-time, with top executives having access. The Court held that EV utilization hovered around 55% to 60% for three-fourths of domestic markets, making the inference of scienter at least as compelling as any opposing inference. The Court stated that access to such information alone suffices.
Section 20(a): The Court noted that these pleading failures also prevent the derivative § 20(a) claim except as to the surviving statements.
Case Status
The case continues in part. The Clerk lifted the PSLRA stay. The parties must confer and submit a case management report by October 31, 2025.
