Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04477/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-04477-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 

---

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

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

TIMOTHY HOWE, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

CASE NO. 16cv988-LAB (RBB)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO

STAY;

ORDER GRANTING MOTION FOR

LEAVE TO FILE REPLY; AND

ORDER DENYING WITHOUT

PREJUDICE MOTION FOR REMAND

vs.

MOSSY VOLKSWAGEN OF

ESCONDIDO., et al.

Defendants.

This action, which is one of many cases concerning the Volkswagen emissions

controversy, was removed from state court. Defendants identified a federal question as the

basis for this Court’s exercise of jurisdiction. This case is being considered for transfer to

the Northern District of California by the Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. 

1

Plaintiff Timothy Howe moved to remand this case to state court. Defendants then

moved to stay proceedings pending transfer by the MDL panel. After Plaintiffs filed their

opposition to the motion to stay, Defendants moved for leave to file a reply brief.

The remand motion cites a case from the Central District of California, Rambuski v.

Volkswagen Group of America, as giving rise to either collateral estoppel or res judicata. 

 The MDL docket shows the panel has scheduled a hearing on July 28 concerning 1

the transfer of this and other cases.

- 1 - 16cv988

Case 3:16-cv-04477-CRB Document 22 Filed 07/26/16 Page 1 of 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

Plaintiffs argue that the effect of this decision is to require remand. In that case, the court

determined that a substantial federal question was lacking, and issued an order of remand.

The Court has reviewed the docket in that case, however, and it appears a motion for

reconsideration of the remand order is pending. Because that decision is not yet final, there

is no collateral estoppel or res judicata. See Stein v. Braum Inv. & Development, Inc., 244

Fed. Appx. 816, 817 (9 Cir. 2007) (in the absence of a final judgment, there can be no th

collateral estoppel or res judicata).

Ordinarily, the Court would rule on a motion to remand as soon as feasible. Here,

however, the briefing shows Judge Breyer, the MDL transferee judge, has made

arrangements to consider and adjudicate a number of remand motions together. Even if the

Court were inclined to grant the motion, the interests of uniformity and judicial economy

weigh against the Court deciding the issue, unless transfer is denied. In view of this, the

motion for remand is DENIED WITHOUT PREJUDICE. This decision does not prevent

Plaintiffs from renewing their motion either after transfer or if transfer is denied.

Defendants have requested leave to file a brief in reply to Plaintiffs’ opposition to the

ex parte motion to stay. (Docket no. 17.) That request is GRANTED, and the reply brief

attached as an exhibit to the request is deemed filed. Defendants need not formally file it

in the docket.

It appears this case is likely to be transferred, and the Court notes that in related

cases a stay has been granted. The motion to stay pending MDL transfer is GRANTED. 

If transfer is denied, the stay will be lifted. Defendants need not reply to the complaint until

after the transfer takes place or the stay is lifted. All pending hearings in this case are

VACATED.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED: July 26, 2016

HONORABLE LARRY ALAN BURNS

United States District Judge

- 2 - 16cv988

Case 3:16-cv-04477-CRB Document 22 Filed 07/26/16 Page 2 of 2