Rent-A-Wreck Trial

[One Skunk Todd]

I just finished up serving as a trial juror for a fairly long and involved civil trial. I'm starting this thread mostly because the whole experience was very stressful and unpleasant and it feels cathartic to get it out but I would also be happy to answer questions about the case itself or the experience of serving on a jury, if anybody is curious.

So what was it all about? Basically it was two old rich guys fighting over pots of money. We weren't told exactly how much, but one guy was fighting to save his business, which we figured was easily worth millions, and the other guy was asking $2.5 million in damages plus other restrictions. Each guy was suing the other guy and we had to decide both suits at once.

The first guy was a fellow named Dave Schwartz. If you have ever heard of a company called Rent-A-Wreck, Dave Schwartz invented it. I don't mean that he just came up with the name, he also came up with the idea of renting used cars as opposed to new or nearly new cars. He invented Rent-A-Wreck in 1973 and he ran it at his single shop in Los Angeles. He and a partner took it public in 1977 but he still ran his own little shop as a franchise of the public corporation.

Because he founded the company his LA franchise got some special deals with the main company. A regular franchise has to pay fees and royalties, indemnify the main company, and keep their fleet of rental cars up to certain standard set by the main company. Schwartz was saying he did not have to do any of these things but he still got all the benefits of a regular franchisee, national advertising, listing on the corporate website, use of the name, rental agreement forms, among others. Unfortunately most of these special deals were never written down. This didn't matter as long as Schwartz was head of the main company, part of the Board of Directors, or at least a major shareholder. At that point whatever he said was how things were done and nobody seemed to question it, or if they did, they weren't able to get things changed.

Eventually Schwartz lost control of the main company although he has always had his shop in LA. Even though he no longer controlled the company the various owners have always seemed happy to let him have his special deals or at least not object strongly enough to get things changed.

In 2006 Jack Fitzgerald of Fitzgerald Auto Group bought Rent-A-Wreck, the main company, for about $2.6 million. Fitzgerald is the other person involved here. Schwartz is suing Fitzgerald, and Fitzgerald is suing Schwartz.

For some reason that we never understood, when Fitzgerald bought Rent-A-Wreck, Schwartz sued to stop him from finishing the deal. It seems like Schwartz wanted to buy Rent-A-Wreck back for himself but he couldn't come up with the cash. We were never told for sure but it sounded to us like Schwartz lost his lawsuit to stop Fitzgerald from buying Rent-A-Wreck. In retaliation Fitzgerald basically said no more sweetheart deals for you, you need to pay fees, indemnify the company, get your cars up to snuff, stop using the name Rent-A-Wreck on your sign in LA if you don't agree to do those things, and a bunch of other things.

Once Fitzgerald tried to cut Schwartz out of the business, Schwartz sued again to keep all of his benefits, written and unwritten, and to keep using the name. This time Fitzgerald counter-sued claiming that none of Schwartz benefits actually exists and that the use of the name Rent-A-Wreck on his LA shop is infringement and that he (Fitzgerald) is entitled to damages because of it.

That was pretty much the heart of what we had to decide, does Schwartz have benefits and if so does he get to keep them, and if he doesn't have them how much does Fitzgerald get in damages?

We pretty much decided in favor of Schwartz. The verdict sheet was divided into two sections, benefits for Schwartz and damages for Fitzgerald. For every single item that Fitzgerald was asking all the jurors said no. For most of the items Schwartz wanted we said yes, however a few of the items we were split 7 to 1 against. That is, one juror felt very strongly that Schwartz had proven that he was entitled to everything he wanted, and seven jurors felt that he had proven most things, but some of the things he wanted, we felt were exceptional and therefore required exceptional proof. (This is where it would have helped if he had written things out, explicitly, back in 1977)

Unfortunately at the beginning we were instructed that the verdict had to be unanimous on all 15 questions so we were deadlocked for the better part of four days, and let me tell you, four days locked in a small windowless room with no option to leave is VERY unpleasant. When the judge finally sent in the note saying that a simple majority would suffice, the sense of relief was palpable and overwhelming. After he sent in the note we were all done with everything in about another hour.

For some reason that I don't understand the judge instructed us that we were NOT to talk to the attorneys about the case. As far I can tell we can talk to anybody else that we want, just not the lawyers.

Anyway, that's a summary of what happened although there was much, much more to it than that. Seven days of testimony, dozens of witnesses, hundreds if not thousands of documents and four days of deliberations. It was quite an experience and I look forward to putting out of my mind as soon as possible.



Edited to fix a few typos: added the word "we" to the 2nd to last paragraph and the word "there" to the last paragraph.

[BenBurch]

Sounds like you did your duty to see that justice was done. Good Job.

[One Skunk Todd]

Thanks, we certainly tried.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

For some reason that I don't understand the judge instructed us that were NOT to talk to the attorneys about the case. As far I can tell we can talk to anybody else that we want, just not the lawyers.

Interesting. I served on a criminal jury in St Louis about 20 years ago, and after the verdict (guilty), the prosecutor and the defense attorney stayed around (at the judge's invitation) and answered questions from the jury.

[Careyp74]

I agree with your verdict. The underlying principle is that Fitzgerald is suing the wrong people here. He owns the company now, but was sold a bad bill of goods because Schwartz has a history of performing a certain way with the company as a whole.

I don't know what leg Schwartz thought he could stand on suing to stop the sale of the company, but he obviously lost that fight. This newer one shouldn't have come about because of it. Perhaps Fitzgerald actually thought he was right in demanding those terms? I have a feeling that Fitzgerald knew about how Schwartz ran his franchise, and thought that he could do something about it after the sale.

One question that I have though; Is there any precedent of a franchise changing terms of how the business is run, and successfully getting the current franchisees to follow it?

[Careyp74]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Interesting. I served on a criminal jury in St Louis about 20 years ago, and after the verdict (guilty), the prosecutor and the defense attorney stayed around (at the judge's invitation) and answered questions from the jury.

There are states that require the jury to not talk to any party involved in the case for a period of 30 days after the trial. Perhaps it is because of possible appeals and such.

[Modified]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

I agree with your verdict. The underlying principle is that Fitzgerald is suing the wrong people here. He owns the company now, but was sold a bad bill of goods because Schwartz has a history of performing a certain way with the company as a whole.

True, if he was not made aware of the unwritten deal that Schwartz had. If he was made aware of it, then he has no case with anyone.

[One Skunk Todd]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

Interesting. I served on a criminal jury in St Louis about 20 years ago, and after the verdict (guilty), the prosecutor and the defense attorney stayed around (at the judge's invitation) and answered questions from the jury.

I have never served on a jury before so did not know what to expect. I got the impression the impression that the other jurors who had served before thought the restriction was a little odd. If I recall the judge's exact words were "do not discuss the case with the counsel". And he did say "you may freely discuss the case with anybody else."

[One Skunk Todd]

Originally Posted by Modified

True, if he was not made aware of the unwritten deal that Schwartz had. If he was made aware of it, then he has no case with anyone.

And in fact there was a letter from Mr. Fitzgerald's corporate counsel to Mr. Fitzgerald when they did due diligence before the purchase. The first paragraph indicated that they were aware of Mr. Schwartz and his operation, and that he operated under a different agreement from other franchisees.

[One Skunk Todd]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

I agree with your verdict. The underlying principle is that Fitzgerald is suing the wrong people here. He owns the company now, but was sold a bad bill of goods because Schwartz has a history of performing a certain way with the company as a whole.

This is essentially what we all agreed the evidence showed in regard to Mr. Fitzgerald's claims.

Originally Posted by Careyp74

I don't know what leg Schwartz thought he could stand on suing to stop the sale of the company, but he obviously lost that fight. This newer one shouldn't have come about because of it. Perhaps Fitzgerald actually thought he was right in demanding those terms? I have a feeling that Fitzgerald knew about how Schwartz ran his franchise, and thought that he could do something about it after the sale.

We were confused about these issues as well, but one thing we agreed was that Mr. Fitzgerald couldn't arbitrarily terminate or change the special arrangement.

Originally Posted by Careyp74

One question that I have though; Is there any precedent of a franchise changing terms of how the business is run, and successfully getting the current franchisees to follow it?

Not as far as I know.

[One Skunk Todd]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

There are states that require the jury to not talk to any party involved in the case for a period of 30 days after the trial. Perhaps it is because of possible appeals and such.

The only reason he gave for his order not to talk to counsel was that it was to protect the jurors from being badgered or harassed by lawyers who wanted to know what happened during deliberations. He then dismissed us and, possibly at my own peril, I interrupted him and asked if we could CHOOSE to talk to the lawyers if we wanted, and he said no.

I would love be able to get in touch with him and ask him to clarify the scope of this order. Is it limited to the courthouse and grounds? Is it forever? Does it include the plaintiff and defendant? If I thought "hey that lawyer for Schwartz did a great job, I'd like to use him for xyz" am I forbidden from speaking to him about anything?

[BenBurch]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

And in fact there was a letter from Mr. Fitzgerald's corporate counsel to Mr. Fitzgerald when they did due diligence before the purchase. The first paragraph indicated that they were aware of Mr. Schwartz and his operation, and that he operated under a different agreement from other franchisees.

That's all I'd need to hear.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

I would love be able to get in touch with him and ask him to clarify the scope of this order. Is it limited to the courthouse and grounds? Is it forever? Does it include the plaintiff and defendant? If I thought "hey that lawyer for Schwartz did a great job, I'd like to use him for xyz" am I forbidden from speaking to him about anything?

I'm guessing he would tell you to stop being an idiot and wasting his time.

In other words, use common sense.

[One Skunk Todd]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I'm guessing he would tell you to stop being an idiot and wasting his time.

I agree.

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

In other words, use common sense.

Given that I would like to talk about my experience I feel like they are fair questions but I definitely see the danger of getting dragged into the morass of what are likely to be future lawsuits. I certainly thought, and it was my sense that the other jurors also thought, that were likely to be more lawsuits in the future.

[One Skunk Todd]

Update: The judge's decision: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...79/150492/341/

If I read it right, he (the judge) is basically saying he agrees with our awards to Mr. Schwartz and where we didn't give him everything he wanted he's awarding him those items anyway. So if he gets to decide everything I'm wondering why the <insert a whole bunch of capitalized swear words and exclamation points here> I had to waste three weeks of my life on this nonsense.

[jasonpatterson]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

So if he gets to decide everything I'm wondering why the <insert a whole bunch of capitalized swear words and exclamation points here> I had to waste three weeks of my life on this nonsense.

This is the question that I would write to the judge in a letter. What's the point of interrupting the lives of 8 people for 3 weeks if their decision in this case is advisory only? The judge clearly decided that their advice was wrong based on evidence/precedent, why would that have not been good enough to start with? Basically, it seems that because one of the parties involved asked for a jury trial, there was a jury trial, but the opinion of the jury didn't matter in the end...

ETA: I'm entirely serious about this, I would LOVE to know the answer to this question if I were you...

[doobiedoright]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Update: The judge's decision: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...79/150492/341/

If I read it right, he (the judge) is basically saying he agrees with our awards to Mr. Schwartz and where we didn't give him everything he wanted he's awarding him those items anyway. So if he gets to decide everything I'm wondering why the <insert a whole bunch of capitalized swear words and exclamation points here> I had to waste three weeks of my life on this nonsense.

Try being disabled by a certain company's product and winning your suit only to have a judge who was a sleep most of the time say the jury was wrong and throw it out!

[shadron]

Originally Posted by Careyp74

One question that I have though; Is there any precedent of a franchise changing terms of how the business is run, and successfully getting the current franchisees to follow it?

When Kroc bought McDonalds Hamburgers from he McDonald brothers, he sued them to force them to discontinue using the name on their home restaurant in San Bernardino that they kept. Then he built a McDonalds right across the street from it and ran their store out of business.

A franchise is a contract, and the terms of the specific contract define what is possible and what is not. There is no specific "franchise" law; there is only contract law.

[Travis]

Schwartz sounds like a douche. You should have decided against him as a matter of principle.

[One Skunk Todd]

Actually both of them came across as pretty nice to me. Of course they're both used car salesmen in addition to their rental businesses so I reckon they've both spent their lives putting on friendly/kindly face for their suckers... I mean customers. That actually made it hard for me judge their sincerity.

I got the impression that they were both, not greedy exactly, but worked hard to make loads of money. It was hinted that Schwartz was lawsuit-happy but any questions or statements that veered in that direction got shut down pretty quick by his lawyer or the judge.

[One Skunk Todd]

Gah! Home from vacation and what's in my mail. A County Circuit Court Jury Summons. And my juror number is 2!

[Region Rat]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Gah! Home from vacation and what's in my mail. A County Circuit Court Jury Summons. And my juror number is 2!

Just remember this piece of advice:

If they weren't guilty, they wouldn't be here in the first place.









<Oh, come on, I was only kidding. Personal disclaimer: I've been called for jury duty 5 times and sat on quite a few trials. I think its interesting, but maybe some of the interest is due to the fact that I'm a salaried employee and get paid whether I'm at work or on a jury, and most times its a good break from work. I know that's not true of many others. >

[Matthew Best]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Gah! Home from vacation and what's in my mail. A County Circuit Court Jury Summons. And my juror number is 2!

Here in the UK once you've been called for jury service you can't be called again for another two years.

I just did jury service for two weeks last month, was looking forward to it somewhat and ended up never sitting on a single jury - so I kind of wish this restriction would go away!

[Vorticity]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Update: The judge's decision: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...79/150492/341/

If I read it right, he (the judge) is basically saying he agrees with our awards to Mr. Schwartz and where we didn't give him everything he wanted he's awarding him those items anyway. So if he gets to decide everything I'm wondering why the <insert a whole bunch of capitalized swear words and exclamation points here> I had to waste three weeks of my life on this nonsense.

Wha? A question for people who know about lawyer stuff:

How is this not a violation of Fitzgerald's right to due process? For these particular items, the judge has basically taken money from Fitzgerald and handed it to Schwartz without a finding to that effect from a Jury. Isn't that the very definition of a due process violation?

[Vorticity]

Oh, and regarding jury service:

Here's a funny thing I've discovered about jury duty where I live. My house is in a rural area, where the post offices are rather spread out. For this reason, my zip code corresponds to a post office that is actually in the next county over. Since the counties around here go by zip code to determine who to send jury summons* to, that means I get jury summons for courts in the next county over. But, since I don't actually live in that county, I'm not eligible to serve on those juries, and I can simply ignore the summons. This means that as long as I live here, I'll never have to sit on a jury.

As a courtroom buff who has never actually sat on a jury, this is slightly disappointing to me.


* Summonses? What's the plural there? ETA: Summonses. I looked it up

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Vorticity

* Summonses? What's the plural there? ETA: Summonses. I looked it up

Summonsesi

[One Skunk Todd]

Summonings! Bwaahahaha...!

[One Skunk Todd]

Gah! Reporting tomorrow at 8:30. Judging by the call-in range I'm not likely to simply be dismissed. Numbers 1 through 250 have to report.

[Kaylee]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Gah! Reporting tomorrow at 8:30. Judging by the call-in range I'm not likely to simply be dismissed. Numbers 1 through 250 have to report.

I would mention that you have already served on a jury earlier this year for 3 (?) weeks. Your being called again so soon could easily be due to a database error or computer programming glitch.

[Wowbagger]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Gah! Home from vacation and what's in my mail. A County Circuit Court Jury Summons. And my juror number is 2!

Don't you have some sort of rule where you don't have to serve on a jury for a few years, after you served on one? We have something like that in NY, anyway.

[One Skunk Todd]

In the first trial I was serving on the US District Court. This time around the summons was for my county circuit court. The two separate courts do not recognize service from each other as a qualifying reason to be excused. So the county court doesn't care that I served on the district court (The reverse is also true. Several of my fellow jurors had recently served on county court juries).

However, as it turns out, I'm FREE! I had to go sit voir dire (juror questioning) for two separate cases and I was excused from both.

The first was another whopper. A nine+ day long medical malpractice civil trial. The second was a criminal trial, attempted murder. The criminal case was only expected to last a day or two.

In both instances the second to last question asked of prospective jurors was "Have you ever served on a jury and would that service affect your ability to be fair and impartial now?" In my case the answer was a resounding yes and I think that's at least partially what got me off the hook.

In the malpractice case questioning, a place of business with the word "accupuncture" in the business name was mentioned. While I was talking to the judge about my prior jury duty I threw in that I thought accupuncture was quack medicine and that I would have a negative opinion of anybody who used or promoted it.

[Vorticity]

Actually, I asked the following earlier, and no one responded:

Originally Posted by Vorticity

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

Update: The judge's decision: http://docs.justia.com/cases/federal...79/150492/341/

If I read it right, he (the judge) is basically saying he agrees with our awards to Mr. Schwartz and where we didn't give him everything he wanted he's awarding him those items anyway.

Wha? A question for people who know about lawyer stuff:

How is this not a violation of Fitzgerald's right to due process? For these particular items, the judge has basically taken money from Fitzgerald and handed it to Schwartz without a finding to that effect from a Jury. Isn't that the very definition of a due process violation?

I'm really wondering about this...

[One Skunk Todd]

Another update, website for plaintiff's (Schwartz) attorney: http://www.gordonsimmons.com/news.htm

Starting with the heading "Los Angeles Rental Car Pioneer Scores Victory Against National "Rent A Wreck" Franchisors" a brief summary of the case. The third-to-last bullet point covers the trial where I served, and the last two bullet points describe "Surprise!" the inevitable appeal.

[eeyore1954]

I currently am renting a car from rent a wreck.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by One Skunk Todd

I just finished up serving as a trial juror for a fairly long and involved civil trial. I'm starting this thread mostly because the whole experience was very stressful and unpleasant and it feels cathartic to get it out but I would also be happy to answer questions about the case itself or the experience of serving on a jury, if anybody is curious.

Jury duty, while important, sucks! I can relate to your experience, especially the part about having unaswered questions and not being able to ask them. When I was on jury duty it seemed less about finding the truth and more of which side could do the better talk.

[catsmate1]

Originally Posted by Alt+F4

Jury duty, while important, sucks! I can relate to your experience, especially the part about having unaswered questions and not being able to ask them. When I was on jury duty it seemed less about finding the truth and more of which side could do the better talk.

In most common law jurisdictions jurors can ask questions, usually via the foreman. I did when I served.

[Alt+F4]

Originally Posted by catsmate1

In most common law jurisdictions jurors can ask questions, usually via the foreman. I did when I served.

I served in NYC, no questions, no notes.

[Brown]

You know, there's a reason they call it "jury duty" and not "jury PAR-TAY TIME!!" Being on a jury is tough work.

I've sat on one jury (even though I was working as a trial lawer at the time; no one was more surprised than me, not that I expected to be excused automatically or anything). By comparison, our case (a criminal case) was much easier than the Rent-A-Wreck case.

A VERY common complaint among jurors is that there are things that are never explained to them or there were matters about which they wanted to ask questions, but were not allowed to do so. Usually, but not always, these little mysteries have already been considered by the judge and the judge has ruled them out-of-bounds (often by ruling on a pre-trial motion called a motion in limine).

In a car crash case, for example, jurors may be wondering who had insurance and who didn't. But a judge may have already ruled that the presence or absence of insurance is irrelevant to the case. The jury also may wonder which driver (if any) got ticketed by the cops, and whether any driver had a history of traffic violations. In many jurisdictions, these sorts of inquiries may not be relevant, either, and the judge will rule them out-of-bounds.

[The Central Scrutinizer]

Originally Posted by Brown

A VERY common complaint among jurors is that there are things that are never explained to them or there were matters about which they wanted to ask questions, but were not allowed to do so. Usually, but not always, these little mysteries have already been considered by the judge and the judge has ruled them out-of-bounds (often by ruling on a pre-trial motion called a motion in limine).

I served on a criminal jury in St Louis County many years ago. After the case was over, we were allowed to ask the attorneys (and the judge? I don't recall) questions. As I recall, it was not so much about the evidence, but about the procedure - "Why did you object when the state called witness X"? That sort of thing.

[Brown]

Originally Posted by The Central Scrutinizer

I served on a criminal jury in St Louis County many years ago. After the case was over, we were allowed to ask the attorneys (and the judge? I don't recall) questions. As I recall, it was not so much about the evidence, but about the procedure - "Why did you object when the state called witness X"? That sort of thing.

Back in the mid-1970s, I got to observe a judge who treated jurors like they were the finest people on Earth. He made sure the jurors in his courtroom knew that HE respected them and that he was thankful for their service. One way he showed his gratitude was to hold "Ask the judge" sessions when the jurors had heard the last case of their term. Jurors could ask any questions they wanted, and usually the lawyers were allowed to answer questions, too. Jurors loved this!!

"How do you practice a closing argument?" one juror wanted to know. The judge said that when he was a budding lawyer (he actually started his career prosecuting Nazis for war crimes after WWII), he would go to a secluded part of a forest and talk to the trees. At one point, a couple of police officers questioned him after seeing him talking to the trees, and thought he might be deranged.