Turner-Gray v. Avis Budget Group Inc.

Background

Avia Turner-Gray filed a corrected second amended complaint against AMN Healthcare Inc. and other AMN defendants, as well as Avis Budget Group. She alleged that AMN hired her as an interim nurse, placed her with a hospital, and provided a rental vehicle as part of her compensation. According to the complaint, AMN arranged and paid for the rental vehicles, directed her to use Avis, and did not give her a bill.

Turner-Gray alleged that many of the Avis vehicles had service or warning lights activated. She said she reported her safety concerns to an AMN employee, who did not respond. She also alleged that Avis later reported one of the vehicles stolen even though, she said, it was not stolen.

The court had previously dismissed Turner-Gray’s claims against the AMN defendants because she had not alleged facts showing that AMN was responsible for Avis’s actions, that Avis was AMN’s agent, or that AMN was Turner-Gray’s agent and owed her a heightened duty. The court had allowed her to amend the complaint.

Claims and analysis

The first cause of action relied on California Labor Code sections 6400 through 6407 and California Code of Regulations, title 8, section 3328. The court explained that the Labor Code provisions establish general employer safety duties but do not create a private right of action under the authorities discussed in the opinion. A private right of action is the ability to enforce a legal requirement by bringing a lawsuit. The court also concluded that, even if section 3328 provided such a right, its language concerning the design, maintenance, and operation of machinery and equipment did not apply to the alleged rental-car facts.

The second through eighth causes of action relied on the theory that Avis was AMN’s ostensible agent. An ostensible agency exists when a principal causes a third person reasonably to believe that another person or company is its agent, even though that person or company is not actually employed by the principal. The court held that the allegations did not support a reasonable belief that AMN controlled Avis or its employees. AMN’s payment for the rental cars did not show control over Avis. The allegations that Turner-Gray was told to report rental-car problems to AMN were general, and the allegation that the AMN employee did nothing when she reported safety concerns undermined the claimed belief that AMN controlled Avis. The allegation that Avis directed vehicle exchanges instead supported the conclusion that Avis controlled how it rented cars to Turner-Gray.

The ninth cause of action alleged negligent hiring, retention, supervision, and training based on the theory that AMN acted as Turner-Gray’s ostensible or actual agent in securing her employment and owed her a heightened duty of care in arranging rental cars. The court concluded that these amended allegations were insufficient for the same reasons given in its earlier order.

Disposition

The court found that Turner-Gray had not identified additional facts she would allege or explained how she would further amend the complaint. Because she had already had several opportunities to amend, the court concluded that further amendment would be futile. The court therefore granted the AMN defendants’ motion to dismiss without leave to amend.

The court vacated the January 10, 2025 hearing because the matter could be resolved without oral argument. The case will proceed against Avis Budget Group. The court also stated that discovery was scheduled to close on May 23, 2025, and trial was scheduled for October 6, 2025.