McDonnell v. Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
MIDDLE DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
GERALD T. MCDONNELL,
Administrator of the ESTATE OF
SUSAN CAROL MCDONNELL,
deceased,
Plaintiff,
v.
AVIS BUDGET CAR RENTAL, LLC
t/d/b/a BUDGET CAR RENTAL,
Defendant.
CIVIL ACTION NO. 1:25-CV-00061
(SAPORITO, J.)
MEMORANDUM
This is a diversity 	action, 	brought 	by the 	plaintiff, 	Gerald T.
McDonnell, 	an 	individual 	Pennsylvania 	citizen, 	in 	his 	role 	as
Administrator 	of 	the 	Estate 	of 	Susan 	Carol 	McDonnell, 	deceased,1
against the defendant, Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC t/d/b/a Budget Car
Rental (“Avis Budget”), a Delaware limited liability company which
maintains its principal offices in New Jersey.2 Avis Budget is in the
1 Mr. McDonnell is the decedent’s widower as well.
2 Although the complaint and notice of removal do not clearly state
as much, we note that the defendant, Avis Budget Car Rental, LLC, is a
wholly owned subsidiary of Avis Budget Group, Inc., a publicly traded
Delaware corporation which maintains its principal place of business in
(continued on next page)
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 1 of 13

- 2 -
business of renting and leasing cars and trucks to individuals and
businesses.
On March 31, 2023, at about 10:30 a.m., the decedent was safely
and lawfully operating her personal motor vehicle, a Honda CRV, at the
intersection of Cumberland Drive and Carlisle Pike in Mechanicsburg,
Pennsylvania.
At the same time, nonparty Tony Holmes Jr. was operating a white
box truck, traveling southbound on Carlisle Pike. Holmes had rented the
box truck from an Avis Budget location in Naperville, Illinois, on March
15, 2023, for a one-day lease, with the truck scheduled for return 24 hours
later on March 16, 2023. But on the day of this incident, March 31, 2023,
Holmes had been in possession of the Avis Budget box truck for a period
New Jersey.
See Valli v. Avis Budget Group, Inc., 162 F.4th 396, 401 n.1
(3d Cir. 2025);
Humphreys v. Budget Rent a Car Sys. Inc., No. 10-cv-1302,
2014 WL 1608391, at *5 (E.D. Pa. Apr. 22, 2014). It is well established
that, although a corporation is a citizen of both its state of incorporation
and the state where it has its principal place of business, 28 U.S.C.
§ 1332(c)(1), the place where a limited liability company is formed or
where 	its principal place of business is located is irrelevant to 	its
citizenship for diversity purposes; rather, “the citizenship of a limited
liability 	company 	is 	determined 	by 	the 	citizenship 	of 	each 	of 	its
members.”
Johnson v. SmithKline Beecham Corp., 724 F.3d 337, 348 (3d
Cir. 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted). Thus, the defendant is a
citizen of Delaware and New Jersey, as derived from its sole corporate
member.
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 2 of 13

- 3 -
of fifteen days after his rental agreement had expired. Avis Budget had
taken no affirmative steps to locate or retrieve the box truck from
Holmes’s possession during that 15-day period.
As the decedent was lawfully operating her vehicle, making a left-
hand turn into the intersection from Cumberland Drive onto Carlisle
Pike northbound, suddenly and without warning, Holmes drove the box
truck southbound on Carlisle Pike and through a solid red light, colliding
with the driver’s side of the decedent’s vehicle in a violent accident. The
violent impact caused substantial damage to the decedent’s vehicle, and
she had to be extricated from the vehicle by first responders. As a result
of the collision, the decedent suffered severe injuries, and nine days later
she succumbed to those injuries and passed away.
The 	plaintiff 	filed 	a 	state-law 	complaint 	for 	damages 	in 	the
Cumberland County Court of Common Pleas on December 9, 2024,
asserting wrongful death and survival claims against Avis Budget, based
on the defendant’s alleged negligence. The complaint alleges that Avis
Budget was negligent in: (a) failing to ensure that the box truck was
returned pursuant to the rental agreement and not used beyond the
rental period without authorization; (b) failing to exercise reasonable
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 3 of 13

- 4 -
care to prevent misuse of the box truck by Holmes; (c) failing to attempt
to locate or recover the box truck when it was kept by Holmes for a
significant period of time—15 days—beyond the rental period; (d) failing
to take appropriate action to recover the box truck once Avis Budget knew
or should have known that Holmes would continue to possess it beyond
the rental period; (e) failing to have policies, procedures, or guidelines
regarding repossession efforts in the event a renter kept possession of a
vehicle beyond the rental period; (f) failing to train employees on policies,
procedures, or guidelines regarding the recovery of vehicles that a renter
had kept possession of beyond the rental period; (g) failing to install GPS
or other location tracking services in Avis Budget rental vehicles such
that Avis Budget could track the location of their vehicles when a renter
keeps possession of the vehicle beyond the rental period; (h) failing to
have policies, procedures, or guidelines to ensure that vehicles are not
rented to individuals with an extensive criminal background;3 (i) failing
to take appropriate action when Holmes violated the rental agreement
by keeping possession of the box truck beyond the rental period; and
3 We note that the complaint
does not allege that Holmes had an
extensive criminal background.
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 4 of 13

- 5 -
(j) allowing the box truck to remain in the possession of Holmes beyond
the rental period. The complaint further alleges that these allegedly
negligent acts or omissions by Avis Budget were the direct and proximate
cause of the decedent’s injury and death.
On January 10, 2025, Avis Budget removed the state-court action
to this federal district court on diversity grounds. On March 3, 2025, Avis
Budget filed a motion to dismiss this action for failure to state a claim
upon which relief can be granted. Doc. 3. That motion is fully briefed and
ripe for decision. Doc. 4; Doc. 8; Doc. 9.4
4 We note that both parties have appended documentary exhibits to
their briefs. The moving defendant has included: (1) a copy of the state-
court docket report for the criminal prosecution of Holmes, the nonparty
operator of the box truck; and (2) an
illegible copy of the rental agreement
between Holmes and Avis Budget. The nonmoving plaintiff has included
fragmentary copies of incident reports prepared by the police officers who
investigated the accident and arrested Holmes. In adjudicating this
motion, to the limited extent to which it is relevant, we have considered
the state court docket record—a district court may properly take judicial
notice of state and federal court records.
See Fed. R. Evid. 201;
Sands v.
McCormick, 502 F.3d 263, 268 (3d Cir. 2007);
Ernst v. Child & Youth
Servs. 	of 	Chester 	Cnty., 	108 	F.3d 	486, 	498–99 	(3d 	Cir. 	1997);
Pennsylvania v. Brown, 373 F.2d 771, 778 (3d Cir. 1967). We have
excluded from consideration both the illegible rental agreement proffered
by the moving defendant and the police reports proffered by the plaintiff
because we find it unnecessary to rely on such matters outside the
pleadings to resolve the motion before us.
See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(d).
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 5 of 13

- 6 -
I. 	LEGAL STANDARD
Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure authorizes a
defendant to move to dismiss for “failure to state a claim upon which
relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). “Under Rule 12(b)(6), a
motion to dismiss may be granted only if, accepting all well-pleaded
allegations in the complaint as true and viewing them in the light most
favorable to the plaintiff, a court finds the plaintiff ’s claims lack facial
plausibility.”
Warren Gen. Hosp. v. Amgen Inc., 643 F.3d 77, 84 (3d Cir.
2011) (citing
	Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555–56
(2007)). In deciding the motion, the Court may consider the facts alleged
on the face of the complaint, as well as “documents incorporated into the
complaint by reference, and matters of which a court may take judicial
notice.”
Tellabs, Inc. v. Makor Issues & Rights, Ltd., 551 U.S. 308, 322
(2007). Although the Court must accept the fact allegations in the
complaint as true, it is not compelled to accept “unsupported conclusions
and unwarranted inferences, or a legal conclusion couched as a factual
allegation.”
Morrow v. Balaski, 719 F.3d 160, 165 (3d Cir. 2013) (quoting
Baraka v. McGreevey, 481 F.3d 187, 195 (3d Cir. 2007)). Nor is it required
to 	credit 	factual 	allegations 	contradicted 	by 	indisputably 	authentic
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 6 of 13

- 7 -
documents on which the complaint relies or matters of public record of
which we may take judicial notice.
In re Washington Mut. Inc., 741 Fed.
App’x 88, 91 n.3 (3d Cir. 2018);
Sourovelis v. City of Phila., 246 F. Supp.
3d 1058, 1075 (E.D. Pa. 2017);
Banks v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 568 F. Supp.
2d 579, 588–89 (W.D. Pa. 2008).
II. 	DISCUSSION
Avis Budget has moved to dismiss the plaintiff ’s negligence claims
for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.
As a threshold matter, we consider whether the plaintiff ’s claims
are barred by the Graves Amendment, 49 U.S.C. § 30106, a federal law
that preempts a state-law vicarious liability claim against the owner of a
commercially leased vehicle. In relevant part, the statute provides:
An owner of a motor vehicle that rents or leases the
vehicle to a person (or an affiliate of the owner) shall
not be liable under the law of any State or political
subdivision thereof, by reason of being the owner of the
vehicle 	(or 	an 	affiliate 	of 	the 	owner), 	for 	harm 	to
persons or property that results or arises out of the use,
operation, or possession of the vehicle during the period
of the rental or lease, if—
(1) the owner (or an affiliate of the owner) is
engaged in the trade or business of renting or
leasing motor vehicles; and
(2) there is no negligence or criminal wrongdoing
on the part of the owner (or an affiliate of the
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 7 of 13

- 8 -
owner).
49 U.S.C. § 30106(a).
It is beyond dispute that Avis Budget, owner of the rental truck that
injured the decedent, is engaged in the trade or business of renting or
leasing motor vehicles. To the extent the plaintiff seeks to hold Avis
Budget vicariously liable for the conduct of Holmes during the rental
period, based solely on Avis Budget’s role as owner of the rental truck,
such claims are clearly preempted by the Graves Amendment.
But the plaintiff argues that his claims fall outside the scope of the
Graves Amendment because he alleges direct negligence by Avis Budget.
A 	claim 	for 	negligence 	under 	Pennsylvania 	law
contains 	four 	elements: 	(1) 	a 	duty 	or 	obligation
recognized by the law, requiring the actor to conform to
a certain standard of conduct for the protection of
others 	against 	unreasonable 	risks; 	(2) 	a 	failure 	to
conform 	to 	the 	standard 	required; 	(3) 	a 	causal
connection 	between 	the 	conduct 	and 	the 	resulting
injury; and (4) actual loss or damage resulting in harm
to the interests of another.
Nw. Mut. Life Ins. Co. v. Babayan, 430 F.3d 121, 139 (3d Cir. 2005);
see
also Yun v. Great Wolf Lodge of the Poconos, LLC, 182 F. Supp. 3d 182,
185 (M.D. Pa. 2016) (citing
R.W. v. Manzek, 888 A.2d 740, 746 (Pa. 2005));
Senese v. Peoples, 626 F. Supp. 465, 466 (M.D. Pa. 1985) (citing
Morena
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 8 of 13

- 9 -
v. S. Hills Health Sys., 462 A.2d 680, 684 n.5 (Pa. 1983)). “Whether a
defendant owes a duty to a plaintiff is a question of law.”
In re TMI, 67
F.3d 1103, 1117 (3d Cir. 1995);
see also Yun, 182 F. Supp. 3d at 185.
Pennsylvania has adopted Section 314 of the Restatement (Second)
of Torts, which states: “The fact that the actor realizes or should realize
that action on his part is necessary for another’s aid or protection does
not of itself impose upon him a duty to take such action.” Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 314 (A.L.I. 1965));
see also Senese, 626 F. Supp. at 466
(citing
Yania v. Bigan, 155 A.2d 343, 346 (Pa. 1959)). “[T]his general rule
applies ‘irrespective of the gravity of the danger to which the other is
subjected and the insignificance of the trouble, effort, or expense of giving
him aid or protection.’”
Senese, 626 F. Supp. at 466 (quoting Restatement
(Second) of Torts § 314 cmt. c).5
Notwithstanding the general rule set forth in Section 314 of the
5 We note that the rule stated in Section 314 “does not apply where
the peril in which the other is placed is due ‘to any active force which is
under the actor’s control,’” and the Restatement comments give an
example of a conductor on a slow moving train who could readily stop the
train before it struck a trespasser who had fallen in its path.
Senese, 626
F. Supp. at 466 (quoting Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314 cmt. d). The
complaint in this case, however, does not allege any facts to suggest that
Avis Budget was aware of the particular peril posed to the decedent, nor
that it was in a position to prevent the injury from occurring.
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 9 of 13

- 10 -
Restatement, the plaintiff advances several arguments that Avis Budget
was negligent.
First, the plaintiff argues that Avis Budget was negligent in failing
to take reasonable steps to retrieve the rental box truck after it was not
returned within the rental period. Holmes had rented the truck from Avis
Budget in Illinois for a period of one day, but he continued to retain
possession of the truck until the motor vehicle accident in which the
decedent was injured in Pennsylvania, fifteen days later. Avis Budget
allegedly took no affirmative steps to locate or retrieve the box truck from
Holmes’s possession during that 15-day period.6
6 Relying on a documentary exhibit—a police report attached to his
brief in opposition—the plaintiff ’s brief further notes that Avis Budget
had not yet reported to law enforcement that the vehicle had been stolen.
That exhibit has been excluded pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(d), and it is
well established that a complaint cannot be amended by a brief in
opposition to a motion to dismiss.
See Pennsylvania ex rel. Zimmerman
v. PepsiCo, Inc., 836 F.2d 173, 181 (3d Cir. 1988) (“It is axiomatic that the
complaint may not be amended by the briefs in opposition to a motion to
dismiss.”) 	(brackets 	omitted) 	(quoting 	another 	source). 	Moreover, 	a
property owner has no common-law duty to report stolen property to
police.
See, e.g.,
Mangeris v. Gordon, 580 P.2d 481, 483–84 (Nev. 1978)
(per 	curiam) 	(noting, 	in 	rejecting 	a 	common-law 	negligence 	claim
premised on the failure of private individuals and businesses to report a
dangerous person to law enforcement, that “the common law [does not]
require[] a citizen to report a crime; mere silence is insufficient to
establish liability.”).
See generally Restatement (Second) of Torts § 314,
discussed
supra.
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 10 of 13

- 11 -
The plaintiff points to a state statute, 73 P.S. § 2152, which imposes
on lessors of motor vehicles a duty to maintain insurance coverage on a
vehicle that is not returned during its contracted rental period until such
time as when the motor vehicle is reported to police as stolen. The
plaintiff argues that this statutory insurance requirement implies that
Avis Budget had a duty to contact police to report the vehicle stolen. But
the statute addresses a lessor’s duty to maintain insurance coverage only,
and there is no allegation in the complaint that Avis Budget failed to
maintain insurance coverage on the vehicle at any time. Moreover, by the
statute’s own terms, § 2152 is applicable only to vehicles rented or leased
from a location within Pennsylvania.
See 73 P.S. § 2151. The plaintiff has
failed to identify any similar law in effect in Illinois, where Holmes rented
the vehicle at issue in this case, or Oklahoma, where the vehicle was
apparently registered.7
Second, the plaintiff argues that Avis Budget was negligent in
failing to install a GPS tracking device on the rental box truck. But the
plaintiff cites no authority whatsoever for the proposition that Avis
Budget had a duty to install such a device on its rental vehicles, or any
7 The court has been unable to identify any such statute as well.
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 11 of 13

- 12 -
broader duty Avis Budget owed
to others to protect
its own property from
theft.
Third, the plaintiff argues that Avis Budget was negligent in failing
to perform a criminal background check on Holmes. But the plaintiff cites
no authority whatsoever for the proposition that Avis Budget had a duty
to conduct a criminal background check prior to renting a vehicle to a
licensed driver.8 Moreover, the complaint does not allege any facts to
suggest that Holmes had a criminal history that would have placed Avis
Budget on notice of any danger he might pose to other drivers in
operating the box truck he had rented. The complaint alleges only that
Avis Budget failed to adopt and implement policies or practices to prevent
renting 	its 	vehicles 	to 	individuals 	with 	an 	extensive 	criminal
background.9
8 There is nothing alleged the complaint to suggest that Holmes did
not possess and present a facially valid driver’s license upon renting the
truck.9 In his brief in opposition, the plaintiff vaguely alludes to a prior
felony criminal conviction. But it is well established that a complaint
cannot be amended by a brief in opposition to a motion to dismiss.
See
supra note 	6. Moreover, there is nothing to suggest that this prior
criminal history is relevant in any way to the circumstances of the
vehicular 	collision 	at 	issue. 	Moreover, 	as 	the 	parties 	have 	both
acknowledged in their briefs, the state court docket report for criminal
(continued on next page)
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 12 of 13

- 13 -
In the absence of any legally recognized duty owed by the defendant
to the decedent, the plaintiff ’s negligence claims against Avis Budget fail
as a matter of law.
III. 	CONCLUSION
For the foregoing reasons, the defendant’s motion to dismiss will be
granted.
An appropriate order follows.
Dated: March 13, 2026
	s/Joseph F. Saporito, Jr.
JOSEPH F. SAPORITO, JR.
United States District Judge
proceedings against Holmes arising from this same incident indicate that
he 	was 	charged 	and 	convicted 	for 	driving 	under 	the 	influence 	of
controlled 	substances,
	first 	offense, 	suggesting 	that 	a 	criminal
background check would have revealed nothing to suggest a propensity
to drive while under the influence of controlled substances.
Case 1:25-cv-00061-JFS Document 17 Filed 03/13/26 Page 13 of 13