Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-256/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. 5273

Iconic Motors, No. 3:17-cv-3185-CRB

_____________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER DENYING BOSCH’S MOTION 

TO DISMISS

In Napleton I, the Court denied the Bosch defendants’ motion to dismiss an action against 

them by a proposed class of Volkswagen-branded dealerships. See In re Volkswagen “Clean 

Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. (Napleton I), No. MDL 2672 CRB (JSC), 

2017 WL 4890594 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017). For the reasons identified in Napleton I, the Court 

now also denies the Bosch defendants’ motion to dismiss Iconic Motors, a case against them by a 

Volkswagen-branded dealership that was not a party in Napleton. The differences that the Bosch 

defendants highlight between Napleton and Iconic Motors have not persuaded the Court that, 

unlike Napleton, Iconic Motors should be dismissed at the pleading stage. 

The principal difference between the two cases is that the dealership in Iconic Motors did 

not open for business until six weeks after the EPA first notified the public of its determination 

that Volkswagen had manufactured and installed defeat devices in its 2.0-liter TDI cars. (See 

MDL Dkt. No. 5117, Compl. ¶¶ 251, 259.) Because the Iconic Motors plaintiffs knew about the 

EPA’s notice, and still decided to open a Volkswagen dealership, the Bosch defendants argue that 

their losses were self-inflicted and were not caused by the defeat-device scheme. 

The Bosch defendants’ argument does not take into account that for two years prior to the 

EPA’s first notice of violation, the Iconic Motors plaintiffs spent millions of dollars to construct a 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7031 Filed 01/14/20 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

dealership that was customized to Volkswagen’s branding requirements. Plaintiffs made this 

investment without any knowledge of the defeat-device scheme, and they allege that they would 

not have made the investment had they known about the scheme. (See Compl. ¶¶ 232–49.) 

Taking these allegations as true, see In re Tracht Gut, LLC, 836 F.3d 1146, 1150 (9th Cir. 2016), 

they plausibly support an injury to “business or property” recoverable under RICO. 18 U.S.C. 

§ 1964(c). See Canyon Cty. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc., 519 F.3d 969, 976 (9th Cir. 2008) (explaining 

that overpayment due to fraud is an injury to “property” that is cognizable under RICO); 

Fleischhauer v. Feltner, 879 F.2d 1290, 1300 (6th Cir. 1989) (allowing plaintiffs to recover under 

RICO amounts invested in reliance on fraudulent conduct).1 

Plaintiffs also seek to maintain a civil conspiracy claim against the Bosch defendants, 

under Illinois law. (See Compl. ¶¶ 456–63.) For the reasons identified in Napleton I, plaintiffs’

allegations are sufficient to plausibly support that the Bosch defendants were involved in a civil 

conspiracy, i.e., in the defeat-device scheme. See Napleton I, 2017 WL 4890594, at *11–17. 

The Court denies the Bosch defendants’ motion to dismiss. As in Napleton, however, the 

Bosch defendants may take discovery and may move for summary judgment if discovery reveals 

that plaintiffs’ losses are insufficiently supported by fact or lack a causal nexus to the defeatdevice scheme. See In re Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig.

(Napleton II), No. 3:16-CV-02086-CRB, 2019 WL 6749534 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 6, 2019) (granting 

the Bosch defendants’ motion for summary judgment).2 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 14, 2020 ____________________________

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

 

1 Other categories of damages identified in the complaint may also be actionable, but the Court 

will not evaluate each category at the pleading stage.

2 For the reasons identified in Napleton I, the Court confirms that it has personal jurisdiction over 

Bosch GmbH for plaintiffs’ RICO claim. See Napleton I, 2017 WL 4890594, at *17–18. Under 

the doctrine of pendent personal jurisdiction, the Court also exercises personal jurisdiction over 

Bosch GmbH for plaintiffs’ state law civil conspiracy claim, which is based on the same operative 

facts as the RICO claim. See CollegeSource, Inc. v. AcademyOne, Inc., 653 F.3d 1066, 1076 (9th 

Cir. 2011). 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 7031 Filed 01/14/20 Page 2 of 2