Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06149/USCOURTS-cand-3_18-cv-06149-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1331 Fed. Question

---

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:

Castellucci, No. 3:18-cv-6149-CRB

_____________________________________/

MDL No. 2672 CRB (JSC)

ORDER GRANTING MOTION TO 

REMAND

Volkswagen Beetle driver Carlos Castellucci filed a “clean diesel” related action against 

Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. (“VWGoA”) in Virginia state court. VWGoA removed the

case to Virginia federal court based on federal-question jurisdiction, and the case was then 

transferred to this Court as part of the above-captioned MDL. In a pending motion, Mr. 

Castellucci argues that jurisdiction is lacking and that the Court should remand his case to Virginia 

state court. The Court agrees with Mr. Castellucci and GRANTS his motion.

1. The complaint includes six claims, all under state law. VWGoA argues that at least 

one of those claims, a Florida RICO claim, will necessarily raise a federal issue because the RICO 

predicate acts include federal wire fraud and conspiracy. (See Case No. 3:18-cv-6149, Dkt. No. 1-

1, Compl. ¶ 208 (citing 18 U.S.C. §§ 371, 1343).) If those were the only predicate acts, VWGoA 

could be correct. But the complaint also identifies alternative predicate acts, including violations 

of Florida’s false advertising and computer crime laws. (See id. (citing Fla. Stat. §§ 815.06, 

817.06).) “When a claim can be supported by alternative and independent theories—one of which 

is a state law theory and one of which is a federal law theory—federal question jurisdiction does 

not attach because federal law is not a necessary element of the claim.” Nevada v. Bank of Am.

Corp., 672 F.3d 661, 675 (9th Cir. 2012) (citation omitted). 

Case 3:18-cv-06149-CRB Document 17 Filed 07/01/19 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

The Court will not consider VWGoA’s argument that the RICO claim, when based on the 

state law predicates, is not well pled. (See VWGoA’s Opp’n, Dkt. No. 9 at 8-9 (arguing that the 

false advertising and computer crime predicates will fail because only VWGoA is alleged to have 

participated in those crimes and an entity cannot engage in a RICO enterprise with itself).) Unless 

a claim is frivolous, jurisdiction or its absence does not turn on “the possibility that the averments 

might fail to state a cause of action.” Bollard v. Cal. Province of the Soc’y of Jesus, 196 F.3d 940, 

951 (9th Cir. 1999) (quoting Bell v. Hood, 327 U.S. 678, 682 (1946)). VWGoA has not convinced 

the Court that the RICO claim, when based on the state law predicates, is frivolous. 

2. VWGoA argues that whether Mr. Castellucci’s car was “street legal” is a different 

federal issue that will arise. As previously noted in this MDL, the “street legal” issue will not 

necessarily need to be resolved. (See MDL Dkt. No. 5977 at 7 (“Assuming Plaintiffs prevail on 

the merits of their claims, the damages phase could proceed in a variety of ways. That one of 

those ways might raise [the ‘street legal’] federal issue is not good enough to support jurisdiction 

under § 1331.”), as amended by MDL Dkt. No. 5994.) The “street legal” issue does not give rise 

to federal-question jurisdiction. 

* * *

It is a “special and small category” of cases that only raise state-law claims but that support 

federal-question jurisdiction. Empire Healthchoice Assur., Inc. v. McVeigh, 547 U.S. 677, 699

(2006). Mr. Castellucci’s case does not come within that category. The Court therefore GRANTS 

his motion to remand.1 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: July 1, 2019

CHARLES R. BREYER

United States District Judge

 

1 Because remand for lack of subject-matter jurisdiction is appropriate, the Court will not address 

an alternative argument for remand: that VWGoA assertedly waived any right to removal that it 

had by extensively litigating this case in state court prior to removal. 

Case 3:18-cv-06149-CRB Document 17 Filed 07/01/19 Page 2 of 2