Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-266/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION

_____________________________________/

This Order Relates To:

MDL Dkt. No. 6949

_____________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER DENYING SANCTIONS

Dawn Laderoute has moved for sanctions against “Defendants, Dealerships, the Claims 

Review Committee (CRC), the EPA/CARB, and Class Counsel.” See generally Mot. (dkt. 7363). 

A district court has discretion to impose sanctions for “bad faith or willful disobedience of a 

court’s order.” Fink v. Gomez, 239 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2001) (internal quotation marks and 

citations omitted). “Sanctions are available for” “conduct tantamount to bad faith,” such as 

“recklessness . . . combined with an additional factor such as frivolousness, harassment, or an 

improper purpose.” Id. at 994.

The Court declines to exercise its discretion to impose sanctions because Laderoute’s 

allegations of misconduct are not supported by the record. Indeed, some of her accusations are 

directly contradicted by the evidence. For example, Laderoute represents that “the EPA did 

nothing to test the recalled vehicles for pollution compliance.” Mot. at 9. On the contrary, the 

EPA has required and reviewed extensive testing of Volkswagen’s modified 3.0-liter TDI vehicles 

to ensure compliance with applicable emissions standards. See Engle Decl. (dkt. 7514-6) ¶ 10. 

Similarly, Laderoute is incorrect that class members were never informed that they would have to 

release certain claims to participate in the Class Settlement. See Long Form Notice (dkt. 3037-1) 

at 41. And these examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

Other accusations are wholly unsupported by the record or Laderoute’s attached exhibits. 

For example, the Court can locate no evidence that the Claims Review Committee’s appeals 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7521 Filed 06/17/20 Page 1 of 2
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

process was “corrupt[ ],” Mot. at 14, that Class Counsel “has done nothing [since 2018] to protect 

the Class,” Mot. at 15, or that class members have been rendered particularly vulnerable to 

COVID-19, Mot. at 16. Again, these examples are illustrative, not exhaustive.

Finally, much of Laderoute’s motion for sanctions is based on her concern that she will not 

receive redress for personal injuries she believes are attributable to the defendants’ conduct. See 

generally Mot. The Court notes, however, that the Class Settlement did not release personal injury 

claims. See Long Form Notice at 40 (“The Class Action Settlement does not affect or release any 

personal injury or wrongful death claims you may have.”). Laderoute’s participation in the Class 

Settlement is not a bar to her bringing personal injury claims in a separate action.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that sanctions are not appropriate in this 

case.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: June 17, 2020 __________________________

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7521 Filed 06/17/20 Page 2 of 2