What was the initial reason for the dismissal of the Kirit Bakshi complaint against Budget?
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 initial dismissal of the Kirit Bakshi complaint was due to the plaintiff's failure to adequately plead the amount in controversy. Specifically, the complaint did not meet the $75,000 threshold required for federal court jurisdiction. This means that the court found the plaintiff's claim did not demonstrate a potential for damages exceeding this amount, which is a prerequisite for the court to hear the case.
However, the case was not fully dismissed at that point. The plaintiff was given an opportunity to amend the complaint to address this deficiency. The FDD states that the plaintiff failed to file an amended complaint in a timely manner, which could have led to a formal dismissal by the court.
Ultimately, the parties reached a settlement on December 2, 2022, for $20,000, and the case was closed on December 14, 2022. While the initial dismissal was related to the amount in controversy, the case was later settled, indicating that there was some merit to the plaintiff's claims, even though the final settlement amount was significantly less than the $75,000 initially required for federal jurisdiction.