Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672/USCOURTS-cand-3_15-md-02672-73/pdf.json

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

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL

on

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” MARKETING, 

SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2672

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiffs in fourteen actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under *

Panel Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel’s order conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDLNo.

2672. Volkswagen defendants (collectively VW) oppose all motions. Certain financial institution 2

defendants responded in opposition to the motion to vacate the conditional transfer orderin the District 3

of Montana Gebauer action. Plaintiffs in two cases previously transferred to MDL No. 2672 (Beard and

Bond) oppose the motion to vacate the CTO in the District of Montana Ballew action.

After considering the argument of counsel, we find these actions involve common questions of

fact with the actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2672, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407

will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of the

litigation. Moreover, transfer is warranted for the reasons set out in our order directing centralization. 

In that order, we held that the Northern District of California was an appropriate Section 1407 forum

for actions sharing factual questions regarding the role of VW and related entities in equipping certain

2.0 and 3.0 liter diesel engines with software allegedly designed to engage emissions controls onlywhen

the vehicles undergo official testing, while at other times the engines emit nitrous oxide well in excess

of legal limits. See In re: Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products

Liability Litigation, ___ F. Supp. 3d ___, 2015 WL 8543102 (J.P.M.L., Dec. 8, 2015). These actions

involve allegations that plaintiffs purchased affected VW, Audi and/or Porsche vehicles and clearly fall

within the MDL’s ambit.

 Judge Charles R. Breyer did not participate in the decision of this matter. *

2 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA) and, with respect to D. Montana Ballew, VW

Credit, Inc. (VW Credit). Volkswagen AG (VW AG), headquartered in the Federal Republic of

Germany is named as a defendant in certain actions. Although not yet served as required pursuant

to the Convention On The Service Abroad of Judicial And Extrajudicial Documents In Civil Or

Commercial Matters, [1969] 20 U.S.T. 361, T.I.A.S. No. 5538 (the “Convention”), and without

waiver of their rights under the Convention, VW AG has reportedly authorized VWGoA to state that

they support VWGoA’s position on the motions to vacate the CTOs before the Panel.

 Bank of America, N.A.; JPMorgan Chase Bank, N.A.; and Wells Fargo Bank, N.A. 3

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1396 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 5 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1441 Filed 04/07/16 Page 1 of 5
-2-

Plaintiffs in eleven actions argue against transfer primarily based on the pendency of their

motions to remand their respective actions to state court. Plaintiffs can present their motions for remand

to the transferee judge. See, e.g., In re: Ivy, 901 F. 2d 7, 9 (2nd Cir. 1990); In re: Prudential Ins. Co. 4

of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). 

Plaintiff in the District of Colorado Armstrong action asserts that transfer will be inconvenient

for him and states that he does not wish to join any class action. Plaintiff may, of course, opt out of any

certified class at the appropriate time. But for now, as this controversy is at an early stage, we are of the

opinion that transfer of Armstrong is appropriate in light of the significant factual overlap of the action

with the over 650 cases now pending in MDL No. 2672. See In re: Watson Fentanyl Patch Prods. Liab.

Litig., 883 F. Supp. 2d 1350, 1351-52 (J.P.M.L. 2012) (“While we are aware that centralization may

pose some inconvenience to some parties, in deciding issues of transfer under Section 1407, we look

to the overall convenience of the parties and witnesses, not just those of a single plaintiff or defendant

in isolation.”).

Plaintiffs in two District of Montana actions argue against transfer on the grounds that they have

brought unique claims for relief pursuant to the Federal Trade Commission’s Holder Rule, 16 C.F.R.

§ 433.2. In their suits against VW Credit, Inc. (Ballew) and several large banks (Gebauer), plaintiffs,

on behalf of putative nationwide classes, seek recission of the retail installment contracts for the

purchase of affected clean diesel vehicles, as well as the interim relief of being allowed to stop payments

on their contracts. While this theory has not been advanced in many MDL actions, it appears that at

least two actions previously transferred to MDL No. 2672 have advanced similar theories. Plaintiffs’ 5

claims appear to turn on the Volkswagen entities’ conduct in using “defeat devices,” and plaintiffs

concede in their briefs that any application of the Holder Rule depends on a determination of

Volkswagen’s liability in manufacturing the cars at issue. Thus, the two District of Montana actions

contain factual questions common to MDL No. 2672 despite the relative novelty of the legal theory that

plaintiffs advance. See, e.g., In re: Blue Cross Blue Shield Antitrust Litig., 908 F. Supp. 2d 1373, 1376

(J.P.M.L. 2012) (“[T]he presence of . . . differing legal theories is not significant when the actions still

arise from a common factual core.”). The transferee judge, at his discretion, may deem it advisable to

place these actions in a separate discovery or motion practice track. 

Panel Rule 2.1(d) expressly provides that the pendency of a conditional transfer order does not 4

limit the pretrial jurisdiction of the court in which the subject action is pending. Between the date

a remand motion is filed and the date that transfer of the action to the MDL is finalized, a court

generally has adequate time to rule on a remand motion if it chooses to do so. In fact, the judges in

four actions – Eastern District of Pennsylvania Parks and Rhile, District of Vermont Israel and

Western District of Washington Burr – denied plaintiffs’ motions to remand during the pendency

of their motion to vacate the conditional transfer order.

See, e.g. Bond, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of America Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-13818 (E.D. 5

Mich.) and 15-cv-6238 (N.D. Cal.), Complaint at ¶ 95; Beard, et al. v. Volkswagen Group of

America Inc., et al., No. 15-cv-139988 (E.D. Mich.) and 15-cv-6241 (N.D. Cal.), Complaint at ¶ 109.

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1396 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 5 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1441 Filed 04/07/16 Page 2 of 5
-3-

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A are transferred to the

Northern District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable Charles

R. Breyer for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Sarah S. Vance

 Chair

Marjorie O. Rendell Lewis A. Kaplan

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1396 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 5 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1441 Filed 04/07/16 Page 3 of 5
IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” MARKETING, 

SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2672

SCHEDULE A 

District of Colorado

ARMSTRONG v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, C.A. No. 1:16-00071

Middle District of Florida

DETTLOFF v. LOKEY OLDSMOBILE, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 8:15!02885

Western District of Kentucky

BYNUM v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 3:15!00810

Southern District of Mississippi

F. GERALD MAPLES, P.A. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,

C.A. No. 3:16!00001

MARTIN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 3:16!00002

Eastern District of Missouri

BUNTIN, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., 

C.A. No. 4:15!01892

District of Montana

BALLEW v. VW CREDIT, C.A. No. 9:15!00133

GEBAUER, ET AL. v. JPMORGAN CHASE BANK, N.A., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 9:15!00152

District of New Mexico

LEVY v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 1:15!01179

Eastern District of Pennsylvania 

KOGAN v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:15-06681 

PARKS v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:16!00202

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1396 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 5 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1441 Filed 04/07/16 Page 4 of 5
 - A2 -

RHILE, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., 

C.A. No. 2:16!00203 

District of Vermont

ISRAEL, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN AG, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:16!00012

Western District of Washington 

BURR v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:16-00073 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1396 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 5 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1441 Filed 04/07/16 Page 5 of 5