What was the case number for the Kirit Bakshi v. ABCR Avis Budget Group lawsuit involving Budget?
Budget Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
sure document.
Budget Actions Concluded Within the Past 10 Years
The following concluded actions involved Budget, the Predecessor, or current affiliates of Budget that are offering franchises under the "Budget" trademark.
Kirit Bakshi v. ABCR Avis Budget Group, et als. – (United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, Case No. 2:20-cv-10419-DML-MJH) On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff filed a complaint alleging violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, California Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. Plaintiff alleges ABG/Costco fraudulently, uniformly, routinely and systematically imposed unauthorized and/or specifically declined charges on the credit and/or debit cards of their rental customers across the Country. The plaintiff's original complaint was dismissed for failure to plead an amount in controversy ($75k)
sufficient for federal court jurisdiction. Later, the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in a timely manner which could have led to a formal dismissal of the complaint by the court. On August 27, 2020, the pro se plaintiff filed an order to show cause ("OTSC") claiming he was not aware of the court's prior order dismissing his claim. The parties settled this case on De
Source: Item 3 — LITIGATION (FDD pages 12–16)
What This Means (2025 FDD)
According to Budget's 2025 Franchise Disclosure Document, the case number for the Kirit Bakshi v. ABCR Avis Budget Group lawsuit is 2:20-cv-10419-DML-MJH. The case was filed in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan.
The lawsuit, filed on February 18, 2020, alleged violations of the Michigan Consumer Protection Act, California Unfair Business Practices (Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200) and the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act. The plaintiff claimed that ABG/Costco fraudulently imposed unauthorized charges on customers' credit and debit cards.
The original complaint was initially dismissed because the plaintiff did not properly plead the amount in controversy ($75,000). However, the parties settled the case on December 2, 2022, for $20,000, and the case was closed on December 14, 2022.