Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03007/USCOURTS-cand-3_16-cv-03007-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28:1446 Petition for Removal

---

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 41 actions listed on the attached Schedule A move under Panel *

Rule 7.1 to vacate the Panel’s orders conditionally transferring their respective actions to MDL No.

2672. Volkswagen defendants (collectively VW) oppose all motions. 1

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 only when

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

 Certain Panel members have interests that normally would disqualify them under 28 U.S.C. § *

455 from participating in the decision of this matter. Accordingly, the Panel invoked the Rule of

Necessity, and four Panel members participated in the decision of this matter in order to provide the

forum created by the governing statute, 28 U.S.C. § 1407. See In re Adelphia Commc’ns Corp. Sec.

& Derivative Litig. (No. II), 273 F. Supp. 2d 1353 (J.P.M.L. 2003); In re Wireless Tel. Radio

Frequency Emissions Prods. Liab. Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1356, 1357-58 (J.P.M.L. 2001). Judges

Charles R. Breyer, Lewis A. Kaplan, and Catherine D. Perry took no part in the decision of this

matter.

 Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (VWGoA). Volkswagen AG (VW AG) and Dr. Ing. h.c. 1

F. Porsche AG are headquartered in the Federal Republic of Germany and 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 and Porsche AG have reportedly authorized VWGoA to state that they support VWGoA’s

position on the motions to vacate the CTOs before the Panel. 

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1559 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 6 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1716 Filed 06/02/16 Page 1 of 6

I hereby certify that the annexed 

instrument is a true and correct copy 

of the original on file in my office.

 ATTEST:

 SUSAN Y. SOONG

 Clerk, U.S. District Court

 Northern District of California

 

 by: 

 Deputy Clerk

 Date: 

 

 

03 June 2016

Case 3:16-cv-03007-CRB Document 32 Filed 06/03/16 Page 1 of 6
-2-

involve allegations related to affected VW, Audi and/or Porsche vehicles and clearly fall within the

MDL’s ambit.

Plaintiffs in 40 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. of Am. 2

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

The State plaintiff in the State of New Mexico action asserts that federal jurisdiction is lacking

over this enforcement action, while also stressing the unique nature of the action and the local impact

of the cars’ pollution. The transferee judge can decide plaintiff’s motion to remand, as in other cases. 

Plaintiff’s argument that the action is distinct and contains unique claims is not persuasive. State of New

Mexico is based upon the core factual questions of MDL No. 2672 – VW’s conduct in installing defeat

devices in over 500,000 of its diesel vehicles. Allowing this case to proceed separately would require

a duplicative, and potentially inconsistent, decision on the core issue of VW’s liability. We have

transferred claims brought by a State so long as the action involves facts common to the MDL

proceeding. Given the overlapping factual issues and the potential for inconsistent or duplicative 3

rulings on common issues, transfer is appropriate. The transferee judge, at his discretion, may deem it

advisable to place State of New Mexico 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 2

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. 

 See, e.g., In re: Fresenius Granuflo/Naturalyte Dialysate Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 2428, 3

ECF No. 993 (J.P.M.L., Dec. 11, 2014) (rejecting Louisiana Attorney General’s argument that its

action should not be transferred to MDL because of “unique” factual and legal issues, noting that

“while plaintiff in State of Louisiana may seek different relief, its claims are based on the same

underlying facts as the actions already in MDL No. 2428. . . As we have repeatedly observed, the

existence of unique claims is not a bar to transfer where common factual issues exist.”); In re:

Zyprexa Prods. Liab. Litig., MDL No. 1596, ECF No. 497 (J.P.M.L. 2004) (transferring action

brought by West Virginia Attorney General despite distinct legal theories alleged because the action

contained facts common to the MDL).

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1559 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 6 Case 3:16-cv-03007-CRB Document 32 Filed 06/03/16 Page 2 of 6 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1716 Filed 06/02/16 Page 2 of 6
-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 R. David Proctor

Ellen Segal Huvelle

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1559 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 6 Case 3:16-cv-03007-CRB Document 32 Filed 06/03/16 Page 3 of 6 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1716 Filed 06/02/16 Page 3 of 6
IN RE: VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” 

MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND 

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2672

SCHEDULE A 

Northern District of Alabama

MARINO v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:1600280

BENSON v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 5:1600169

SUMMERS v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 7:1600168

Southern District of Alabama

CHADWICK v. VOLKSWAGON GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 1:1600042

WAGNER v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 1:1600069

SCHARWATH v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., 

C.A. No. 1:1600073

Central District of California

MAHAN, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., ET AL., C.A. No.

2:1601970

Eastern District of Louisiana

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

C.A. No. 2:1602377

District of Minnesota

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

C.A. No. 0:1600211

GUNDERSON v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., 

C.A. No. 0:1600213

WERNER, ET AL. v. EICH MOTOR COMPANY, INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 0:1600396

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

C.A. No. 0:1600666

WILLETT v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 0:1600727

STICHA v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 0:1600738

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1559 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 6 Case 3:16-cv-03007-CRB Document 32 Filed 06/03/16 Page 4 of 6 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1716 Filed 06/02/16 Page 4 of 6
 - A2 -

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

C.A. No. 0:1600748

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

C.A. No. 0:1600749

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

C.A. No. 0:1600750

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

C.A. No. 0:1600751

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

C.A. No. 0:1600752

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

C.A. No. 0:1600753

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

C.A. No. 0:1600754

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

C.A. No. 0:1600755

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

C.A. No. 0:1600756

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

C.A. No. 0:1600757

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

C.A. No. 0:1600758

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

C.A. No. 0:1600759

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

C.A. No. 0:1600760

Eastern District of Missouri

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

C.A. No. 4:1600106

District of New Mexico

STATE OF NEW MEXICO, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA,

INC., ET AL., C.A. No. 1:1600147

Middle District of North Carolina

HIGGINS v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 1:1600078

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1559 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 6 Case 3:16-cv-03007-CRB Document 32 Filed 06/03/16 Page 5 of 6 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1716 Filed 06/02/16 Page 5 of 6
 - A3 -

District of Oregon

FREEMAN, ET AL. v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, 

C.A. No. 1:1600363

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

C.A. No. 2:1600365

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

C.A. No. 3:1600366

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

C.A. No. 6:1600360

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

C.A. No. 6:1600361

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

C.A. No. 6:1600367

Eastern District of Pennsylvania

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

C.A. No. 5:1600694

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

C.A. No. 5:1600727

Western District of Texas

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

C.A. No. 1:1600255

Western District of Washington

POPE v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:1600146

CALL v. VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC., C.A. No. 2:1600158

Case 3:15-md-02672-CRB Document 1559 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 6 Case 3:16-cv-03007-CRB Document 32 Filed 06/03/16 Page 6 of 6 Case MDL No. 2672 Document 1716 Filed 06/02/16 Page 6 of 6