On what date was the Kirit Bakshi case against Budget officially closed?
Budget Franchise · 2025 FDDAnswer from 2025 FDD Document
es 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 of Kirit Bakshi v. ABCR Avis Budget Group, et als. was closed on December 14, 2022. The lawsuit, filed on February 18, 2020, in the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan, 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 rental customers' credit and debit cards. The original complaint was dismissed due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead an amount in controversy ($75k) sufficient for federal court jurisdiction.
Subsequently, the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in a timely manner, potentially leading to a formal dismissal by the court. On August 27, 2020, the plaintiff filed an order to show cause, claiming unawareness of the court's prior order dismissing the claim. Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement on December 2, 2022, for $20,000, leading to the official closure of the case less than two weeks later.
For a prospective Budget franchisee, this information highlights the importance of understanding the types of legal claims that can be brought against the company and its affiliates. It also demonstrates the potential costs associated with litigation, even when a case is settled for a relatively small amount. While this specific case involved consumer protection laws, it underscores the need for franchisees to comply with all applicable laws and regulations to minimize the risk of similar lawsuits.