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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Jeffrey Lewis (SBN 66587)

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000

Oakland, CA 64612

(510) 463-3900, Fax (510) 463-3901

jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

Lynn Lincoln Sarko, pro hac vice forthcoming

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384

lsarko@kellerrohrback.com 

Lesley E. Weaver (SBN 191305)

BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670

Oakland, CA 94612

(415) 445-4003, Fax (415) 445-4020

lweaver@bfalaw.com

J. Gerard Stranch IV, pro hac vice 

BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC

223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200

Nashville, TN 37203

(615) 254-8801, Fax (615) 250-3937

gerards@bsjfirm.com

Benjamin L. Bailey, pro hac vice forthcoming

BAILEY GLASSER LLP

209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301

(304) 345-6555, Fax (304) 342-1110

bbailey@baileyglasser.com 

Joseph F. Rice, pro hac vice forthcoming

MOTLEY RICE, LLC

28 Bridgeside Blvd.

Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

(843) 216-9000, Fax (843) 216-9450

jrice@motleyrice.com

Elizabeth Cabraser (SBN 083151)

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, 

LLP

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

(415) 956-1000, Fax (415) 956-1008

ecabraser@lchb.com

David S. Stellings, pro hac vice forthcoming

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, 

LLP

250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 10013

(212) 355-9500, Fax (212) 355-9592

dstellings@lchb.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

*Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page

Paul J. Geller, pro hac vice forthcoming

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500

Boca Raton, FL 33432

(561) 750-3000; Fax (561) 750-3364

pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MATHUE FASCHING, THOMAS MCGANN, 

JR., JOSEPH NEUPERT, STEVEN ELOWITZ, 

JEFFREY WEAVER, JOSEPH L. WEBER, 

MICHAEL JOHNSON, JOSH CLAFLIN, KARL 

CALHOUN, BRYAN MUCKENFUSS, 

SATYANAM SINGH, JOHN RADZIEWICZ,

BINH QUOC TRAN, and JEFFREY W. GRIGGS,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FCA US LLC; FIAT CHRYSLER 

AUTOMOBILES N.V.; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH;

and ROBERT BOSCH LLC,

Defendants.

No. 3:17-cv-00231-EMC

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Judge:

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 1 of 204
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

30

31

32

33

No. 3:17-cv-00231 i AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

TABLE OF CONTENTS

I. INTRODUCTION ...........................................................................................................................1

II. NATURE OF THE ACTION ..........................................................................................................1

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT.................................................................................................6

IV. PARTIES .........................................................................................................................................7

A. Plaintiffs...............................................................................................................................7

B. Defendants ...........................................................................................................................8

V. PLAINTIFFS’ FACTS...................................................................................................................11

VI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE ....................................................................................................16

VII. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS........................................................................................19

A. The Defeat Device Scheme................................................................................................19

B. Applicable Emissions Standards & Testing.......................................................................29

C. Defendants Marketed the Class Vehicles as Environmentally Friendly, 

Emissions-Compliant, Fuel-Efficient, and Reliable ..........................................................31

VIII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS ..............................................................................................35

1. Numerosity: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1) .........................................37

2. Commonality and Predominance: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(a)(2) and 23(b)(3) .............................................................................................37

3. Typicality: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3)............................................38

4. Adequacy: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4)............................................38

5. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 

23(b)(2) ..................................................................................................................39

6. Superiority: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)..........................................39

IX. ANY APPLICABLE STATUES OF LIMITATION ARE TOLLED...........................................39

A. Tolling Due To Fraudulent Concealment ..........................................................................40

B. Estoppel..............................................................................................................................41

X. CAUSES OF ACTION..................................................................................................................41

A. Claims Asserted on Behalf of the Entire Class..................................................................41

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 2 of 204
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

30

31

32

33

No. 3:17-cv-00231 ii AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT I RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT 

ORGANIZATIONS ACT (“RICO”) Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 

1962(c)-(d).............................................................................................................41

a. Description of the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise...................................43

(i) The Fiat-Chrysler Entity Defendants.............................................45

(ii) VM Motori and General Motors....................................................45

(iii) The Bosch Defendants...................................................................47

b. The Defeat Device RICO Enterprise Sought to Increase 

Defendants’ Profits and Revenues.............................................................49

c. Mail and Wire Fraud..................................................................................52

COUNT II FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (Common Law) ...........................................59

COUNT III BREACH OF CONTRACT...........................................................................64

COUNT IV IMPLIED AND WRITTEN WARRANTY Magnuson - Moss 

Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.)............................................................65

COUNT V UNJUST ENRICHMENT...............................................................................67

COUNT VI VIOLATIONS OF THE DELAWARE CONSUMER 

FRAUD ACT (6 Del. Code § 2513, et seq.)..........................................................67

COUNT VII BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (6 Del. Code §§ 2-314 and 2A-212)...............................72

COUNT VIII BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (6 Del. Code §§ 2-

313 and 2A-210) ....................................................................................................73

B. State-Specific Claims.........................................................................................................76

COUNT IX VIOLATIONS OF THE IDAHO CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT (Idaho Code § 48-601, et seq.)............................................76

COUNT X BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Idaho Code §§ 28-2-

313 and 28-12-210)................................................................................................81

COUNT XI BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Idaho Code §§ 28-2-314 and 28-12-212)......................83

COUNT XII VIOLATIONS OF THE LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE 

PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (La. Rev. 

Stat. § 51:1401, et seq.)..........................................................................................84

COUNT XIII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY/ WARRANTY AGAINST 

REDHIBITORY DEFECTS (La. Civ. Code Art. 2520, 2524)..............................88

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 3 of 204
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

30

31

32

33

No. 3:17-cv-00231 iii AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XIV VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS 

LAW § 349 (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349)..............................................................89

COUNT XV VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS 

LAW § 350 (N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350)..............................................................92

COUNT XVI BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (N.Y. U.C.C. Law 

§§ 2-313 and 2A-210)............................................................................................94

COUNT XVII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-314 and 2A-212)......................96

COUNT XVIII FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON NEW 

YORK COMMON LAW) .....................................................................................97

COUNT XIX VIOLATIONS OF THE OREGON UNLAWFUL TRADE 

PRACTICES ACT (Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605, et seq.) ......................................102

COUNT XX BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Or. Rev. Stat. § 72.3140 and 72A.2120).....................106

COUNT XXI BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Or. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 72.3130 and 72A.2100)...................................................................................107

COUNT XXII VIOLATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA UNFAIR 

TRADE PRACTICES ACT (S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10, et seq.).......................109

COUNT XXIII VIOLATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA 

REGULATION OF MANUFACTURERS, DISTRIBUTORS, 

AND DEALERS ACT (S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10, et seq.).............................113

COUNT XXIV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (S.C. Code §§ 36-2-314 and 36-2A-212).....................114

COUNT XXV BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (S.C. Code §§ 36-

2-313 and 36-2A-210)..........................................................................................115

COUNT XXVI VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL 

REMEDIES ACT (Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.).............................................117

COUNT XXVII VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR 

COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.) .....................122

COUNT XXVIII VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA FALSE

ADVERTISING LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.) ...................123

COUNT XXIX BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Cal. Com. Code 

§§ 2313 and 10210) .............................................................................................126

COUNT XXX BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Cal. Com. Code §§ 2314 and 10212)..........................127

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 4 of 204
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

30

31

32

33

No. 3:17-cv-00231 iv AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XXXI VIOLATIONS OF SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER 

WARRANTY ACT FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS 

WARRANTIES (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.2 & 1793.2(d))..................................128

COUNT XXXII VIOLATIONS OF SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER 

WARRANTY ACT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY 

OF MERCHANTABILITY (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1 and 1792).....................131

COUNT XXXIII BREACH OF EXPRESS CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS 

WARRANTIES (Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2, et seq.)...........................................133

COUNT XXXIV FAILURE TO RECALL/RETROFIT UNDER 

CALIFORNIA LAW ...........................................................................................135

COUNT XXXV VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT AND 

PROTECTION ACT (W. Va. Code § 46A-1-101, et seq.) .................................136

COUNT XXXVI BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-314 and 46-2A212) ......................................................................................................................140

COUNT XXXVII BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (W. Va. Code 

§§ 46-2-313 and 46-2A-210) ...............................................................................141

COUNT XXXVIII BREACH OF NEW MOTOR VEHICLE 

WARRANTY (WEST VIRGINIA “LEMON LAW”) (W. Va. 

Code §§ 46A-6A-1, et seq.).................................................................................143

COUNT XXXIX VIOLATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON 

PROTECTION ACT (Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 19.86.010, et 

seq.)......................................................................................................................146

COUNT XL BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Wash. Rev. Code §§ 62A.2-314 and 

62A.2A-212)........................................................................................................150

COUNT XLI BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Wash. Rev. Code 

§§ 62A.2-313 and 62A.2A-210)..........................................................................151

COUNT XLII WASHINGTON “LEMON LAW” (Wash. Rev. Code § 

19.118.005, et seq.)..............................................................................................153

COUNT XLIII VIOLATIONS OF GEORGIA’S UNIFORM 

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-

370, et seq.)..........................................................................................................155

COUNT XLIV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Ga. Code. Ann. §§ 11-2-314 and 11-2A212) ......................................................................................................................159

COUNT XLV BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Ga. Code. Ann. 

§§ 11-2-313 and 11-2A-210) ...............................................................................160

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 5 of 204
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

30

31

32

33

No. 3:17-cv-00231 v AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XLVI VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT 

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521, et seq.).....................................................................162

COUNT XLVII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2314 and 47-

2A212) .................................................................................................................167

COUNT XLVIII BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Ariz. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 47-2313 and 47-2A210)..................................................................................168

COUNT XLIX VIOLATIONS OF THE WISCONSIN DECEPTIVE 

TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Wis. Stat. § 100.18) ..............................................169

COUNT L BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Wis. Stat. §§ 402.314 and 411.212)............................173

COUNT LI BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Wis. Stat. §§ 

402.313 and 411.210) ..........................................................................................174

COUNT LII VIOLATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA PREVENTION OF 

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (Minn. Stat. § 325f.68, et seq.)..............................176

COUNT LIII VIOLATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA UNIFORM 

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (Minn. Stat. § 325d.43-

48, et seq.)............................................................................................................181

COUNT LIV BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-314 and 336.2A212) ......................................................................................................................186

COUNT LV BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Minn. Stat. §§ 

336.2-313 and 336.2A-210).................................................................................187

COUNT LVI VIOLATIONS OF TENNESSEE CONSUMER 

PROTECTION ACT OF 1977 (Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101, et 

seq.)......................................................................................................................188

COUNT LVII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF 

MERCHANTABILITY (Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-314 and 47-2A-212)...................193

COUNT LVIII BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Tenn. Code 

§§ 47-2-313 and 47-2A-210) ...............................................................................194

XI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF ............................................................................................................195

XII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL ...................................................................................................196

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 6 of 204
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

30

31

No. 1 AMENDED CLASS ACTION 

COMPLAINT

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Mathue Fasching, Thomas McGann, Jr., Joseph Neupert, Steve Elowitz, Jeffrey 

Weaver, Joseph L. Weber, Michael Johnson, Josh Claflin, Karl Calhoun, Bryan Muckenfuss, 

Satyanam Singh, John Radziewicz, Binh Quoc Tran, and Jeffrey W. Griggs individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated (“the Class”), allege the following against auto 

manufacturer/distributor FCA US LLC and its corporate parent Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. 

(together, “Fiat Chrysler”), and supplier Robert Bosch Gmbh, and its subsidiary Robert Bosch 

LLC (together, “Bosch”) (collectively, “Defendants”); based where applicable on personal 

knowledge, information and belief, and the investigation of counsel. This Court has jurisdiction 

over this action pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d).

II. NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This action relates to Fiat Chrysler’s promotion and sale of EcoDiesel® branded 

diesel-powered light trucks and SUVs (“Class Vehicles”). These vehicles are and were 

advertised as offering efficient fuel economy; desirable performance; and clean, environmentally 

friendly emissions. In reality, these vehicles (like the well-known Volkswagen diesel vehicles) 

were equipped with a “defeat devices” designed to cheat federal and state emission testing for 

oxides of nitrogen (“NOx”), thereby deceiving the Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”), 

the California Air Resources Board (“CARB”), and other regulators into approving for sale more 

than 100,000 non-compliant Class Vehicles in order that consumers would be deceived into 

purchasing them.

2. The defeat devices at issue in this case consist of software algorithms installed on 

engine management systems that detect when the vehicle is undergoing emissions testing (versus 

driving on the road) and adjusts the functioning of the vehicles’ sophisticated emissions controls 

to ensure that they will pass emissions testing. At all other times except when undergoing 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 7 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 2 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

emissions testing, these vehicles emit vastly more harmful pollutants than federal and state law 

allow. As described below, the EPA has identified eight devices used to detect testing mode

which function as defeat devices.

3. Fiat Chrysler did not act alone in its deception of consumers, who were the targets 

of this fraud. Bosch, a long-time supplier of automotive technology to Fiat Chrysler, was 

involved in the creation of these defeat devices. Each EcoDiesel® vehicle is managed through a

Bosch control unit equipped with sophisticated software that detects when vehicles are in testing 

mode and controls their performance and emissions. Bosch retains control over the software

throughout the development process, and collaborated with Fiat Chrysler to develop and to 

implement the defeat devices in the Class Vehicles, which served no legitimate purpose and were 

not disclosed to U.S. regulators.

4. Before introducing the Class Vehicles into the U.S. stream of commerce (or 

causing the same), Fiat Chrysler was required to first apply for, and obtain, an EPA-administered 

Certificate of Conformity (“COC”), certifying that the vehicles comported with the emission 

standards for pollutants enumerated in 40 C.F.R. §§ 86.1811-04, 86.1811-09, and 86.1811-10.

5. The Clean Air Act (“CAA”) and its implementing regulations expressly prohibit 

automakers, like Fiat Chrysler, from introducing a new vehicle into the stream of commerce 

without a valid EPA COC. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1). Moreover, vehicles must be accurately 

described in the COC application “in all material respects” to be deemed covered by a valid 

COC. See 40 C.F.R. §§ 86.1848-10(c)(6). California’s emission standards were even more 

stringent than those of the EPA. California’s regulator, CARB, requires a similar application 

from automakers to obtain an EO, confirming compliance with California’s emission regulations, 

before allowing the vehicle onto California’s roads.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 8 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 3 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

6. The Class Vehicles differed in “material respects” from the specifications 

described in their COC applications, because they were equipped with undisclosed Auxiliary 

Emission Control Devices (“AECDs”); specifically, the software code described above, that 

functioned as an illegal “defeat device.” The CAA expressly prohibits “defeat devices,” defined 

as any auxiliary emission control device “that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control 

system under conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle 

operation and use.” 40 C.F.R. § 86.1803-01; see also id., § 86.1809-10. (“No new light-duty 

vehicle, light-duty truck, medium duty passenger vehicle, or complete heavy-duty vehicle shall 

be equipped with a defeat device.”). Moreover, the CAA prohibits the sale of components used 

as defect devices, “where the person knows or should know that such part or component is 

being offered for sale or installed for such use or put to such use.” 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)

(emphasis added). Finally, in order to obtain a COC, automakers must submit an application, 

which discloses all AECDs installed in the vehicle, a justification for each, and an explanation of 

why the control device is not a defeat device. Regulators may then determine if they will approve 

the AECDs or not.

7. On January 12, 2017, the EPA acknowledged Defendants’ deceit and issued a 

Notice of Violation (“NOV”) to Fiat Chrysler for violations of the Clean Air Act (“CAA”), 42 

U.S.C. §§ 7401-7671q, and its implementing regulations, noting eight undisclosed AECDs.

8. Also on January 12, 2017, CARB issued a Notice of Violation to Fiat Chrysler 

after detecting undisclosed “auxiliary emissions control devices” (“AECDs”) in EcoDiesel®

vehicles. The CARB announcement noted that Fiat Chrysler failed to disclose these devices, 

which “significantly increase” NOx emissions when activated.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 9 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 4 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

9. German and French regulators have also launched investigations into cheating 

allegations in Fiat Chrysler vehicles sold in the European Union.

1

10. Because the COCs for the Class Vehicles were fraudulently obtained, the Class 

Vehicles were never covered by valid COC and, thus, were never offered legally for sale. 

Defendants failed to disclose these facts from the EPA, CARB and other regulators and Fiat 

Chrysler continued to sell and lease the illegal Class Vehicles.

11. Due to the existence of the Defeat Devices, the vehicles sold to Plaintiffs and the 

Class are not what was promised. Consumers believed Fiat Chrysler’s promises that the 

EcoDiesel® vehicles are reliable, low-emission, environmentally friendly vehicles with efficient 

fuel economy and strong performance. Specifically, the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel was advertised as 

“a pickup that combines durability and reliability with exceptional capability.”2

12. All the while, these consumers have unwittingly been among the highest polluters 

on the road, despite having paid a premium for purportedly clean vehicles. The manufacturer’s 

warranties, advertising, and other statements about the vehicles’ legal compliance and 

environmental friendliness are patently false and misleading, and to the extent that the Class 

Vehicles need to be repaired or “fixed” to come into compliance, they are not reliable, as 

advertised.

 

1 Gilles Guillaume, Simon Carraud & Agnieszka Flak, Diesel cheating inquiries in Europe widen 

to Renault and Fiat, THE GLOBE AND MAIL (Jan. 13, 2015), 

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/report-on-business/international-business/europeanbusiness/paris-prosecutor-opens-probe-into-emissions-cheating-at-renaultsource/article33614291/ .

2

2017 Ram Trucks

RAM,https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/pdf/brochures/2017_Ram_Retail_Brand_Saver.pdf

(last visited Feb. 8, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 10 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 5 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

13. Plaintiffs and Class members are individuals and businesses who purchased or 

leased a Class Vehicle in the United States. The Class Vehicles include the 2014–2016 Ram 

1500 pickup truck and the 2014–2016 Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV, when equipped with Fiat 

Chrysler’s 3.0-liter EcoDiesel® engine.

14. Through their misrepresentations to regulators and to consumers, Defendants 

induced Plaintiffs and Class members to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles, which violate the 

CAA (among other laws) and do not perform as represented. Class members would not have 

purchased or leased the Class Vehicles had they known the truth of Defendants’ fraudulent 

scheme, in particular, that the Class Vehicles were equipped with undisclosed AECDs which 

functioned as an illegal defeat device. In fact, no consumer in the U.S. would or could have 

purchased any of the Class Vehicles if not for Defendants’ fraud, because the EPA COCs that 

rendered them legal to sell in the United States were obtained only by cheating. 

15. Plaintiffs suffered economic damages at the time they purchased their Class 

Vehicles, which were not legally sold to Plaintiffs and pollute the environment at levels far in 

excess of the legal limits.

16. To the extent the Class Vehicles can be repaired or retrofitted to pass federal and 

state emission requirements, they will nevertheless continue to depreciate in value and cause 

economic loss at a rate greater than regular depreciation because any repairs or retrofits may

reduce the Class Vehicles’ performance, torque, fuel efficiency, durability, or reliability—

thereby reducing market value and increasing the costs of ownership and operation.

17. Indeed, asset valuations of Fiat Chrysler have already reflected depreciation 

following the revelation of the notices of violation. As Moody Investor Services reported, “[i]n 

the case of Fiat Chrysler’s emissions violations, if the affected vehicles cannot be sold or must be 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 11 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 6 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

recalled and fixed, we would expect similar ABS performance effects as those of VW-sponsored 

ABS. Primarily, there could be a negative effect on the performance of auto lease ABS if delays 

in the availability of a fix, combined with lower consumer confidence and demand, increases loss 

severities upon vehicle repossession or after lease turn-in. In lease transactions, when the 

transaction servicers or sponsors are unable to re-sell the vehicle or must wait until fixes are 

made to remarket vehicles that have been repossessed or turned-in, the residual realizations used 

to pay the ABS noteholders are delayed or impaired.”3

18. On behalf of themselves, the Nationwide Class, and the State Classes, Plaintiffs 

hereby bring this action for violations of the federal Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt 

Organizations Act (18 U.S.C. § 1961 et seq. (“RICO”)); Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act 

(15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (“MMWA”)); consumer protection laws of the states and the District of 

Columbia; and for common law fraud, contract, warranty, and unjust enrichment claims.

19. Plaintiffs seek monetary damages, restitution, pollution mitigation, and injunctive 

and other equitable relief. In addition, Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to a significant 

award of punitive or exemplary damages because Defendants deliberately, and with malice, 

deceived Plaintiffs and Class members for a period of years.

III. INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

20. This action is properly assigned to the San Francisco Division of this District 

pursuant to N.D. Cal. L.R. 3-2, because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise 

to Plaintiffs’ claims arose in the counties served by the San Francisco Division. Several proposed 

Class members purchased and maintained their Class Vehicles in the counties served by this 

Division. Moreover, Defendants conduct substantial business in the counties served by this 

 

3 Fiat Chrysler’s Emissions Issues Are Credit Negative for Some US Auto ABS, MOODY’S 

INVESTOR SERVICE (Jan. 16, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 12 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 7 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Division in that Fiat Chrysler has marketed, advertised, and sold or leased the Class Vehicles in 

those counties, and has caused harm to Class members residing in those counties. Similarly, 

Defendant Bosch conducts substantial business in this District, and in California.

IV. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

21. Plaintiff Matthew Fasching is a citizen of Idaho residing in Lowman, Boise 

County.

22. Plaintiff Thomas McGann, Jr. is a citizen of New York residing in North 

Tonawanda, Niagara County.

23. Plaintiff Joseph P. Neupert is a citizen of West Virginia residing in Foster, Boone 

County.

24. Plaintiff Steven Elowitz is a citizen of Arizona residing in Mesa, Maricopa 

County.

25. Plaintiff Jeff Weaver is a citizen of California residing in Concord, Contra Costa 

County.

26. Plaintiff Joseph L. Weber is a citizen of California residing in Vallejo, Solano 

County.

27. Plaintiff Captain Michael Johnson is a citizen of Georgia residing in Mableton, 

Cobb County.

28. Plaintiff Josh Claflin is a citizen of Wisconsin residing in Ellsworth, Pierce 

County.

29. Plaintiff Karl Calhoun is a citizen of Washington residing in Moses Lake, Grant 

County.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 13 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 8 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

30. Plaintiff Bryan Muckenfuss is a citizen of South Carolina residing in Ravenel, 

Charleston County.

31. Plaintiff Satyanam Singh is a citizen of California residing in Sacramento, 

Sacramento County.

32. Plaintiff John Radziewicz is a citizen of Louisiana residing in New Orleans, 

Milan Parish.

33. Plaintiff Binh Quoc Tran is citizen of California residing in Visalia, Tulare 

County.

34. Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Griggs is a citizen of Tennessee residing in Georgetown, 

Bradley County.

B. Defendants

35. FCA US LLC (“FCA”) is a limited liability company organized and existing 

under the laws of the State of Delaware, and is owned by holding company Fiat Chrysler 

Automobiles N.V. (“Fiat”), a Dutch corporation headquartered in London, United Kingdom

(together, “Fiat Chrysler”). FCA was formed when Fiat acquired American automaker Chrysler.

FCA’s principal place of business and headquarters is at 1000 Chrysler Drive, Auburn Hills, 

Michigan 48326. 

36. FCA is a motor vehicle manufacturer and a licensed distributor of new, previously 

untitled motor vehicles. FCA and its predecessor, Chrysler, are and were known as one of the 

“Big Three” American automakers (with Ford and General Motors). FCA engages in commerce 

by distributing and selling new and unused passenger cars and motor vehicles under the

Chrysler, Dodge, Jeep, Ram, and Fiat brands. Other major divisions of FCA include Mopar, its 

automotive parts and accessories division, and SRT, its performance automobile division.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 14 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 9 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

37. Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., the corporate parent of FCA, owns numerous 

European automotive brands in addition to FCA’s American brands, including: Ferrari, Maserati, 

Alfa Romeo, Fiat Automobiles, Fiat Professional, Lancia, and Abarth. As of 2015, Fiat Chrysler 

is the seventh largest automaker in the world by unit production.

38. Fiat also owns several auto parts manufacturers, including diesel engine 

manufacturer VM Motori. The “EcoDiesel®” engine at issue in this suit was developed and 

manufactured for Fiat by VM Motori. Fiat partially acquired VM Motori in early 2011 by 

purchasing a 50% stake, and took full ownership by acquired the remaining 50% from General 

Motors in 2013. 

39. FCA markets, distributes, warrants, sells and leases automobiles through its 

network of independent, franchised motor vehicle dealers. The dealers act as FCA’s agents in 

selling automobiles under the Fiat Chrysler name and disseminating vehicle information 

provided by Fiat Chrysler to customers. Fiat Chrysler is engaged in interstate commerce in that it 

sells vehicles through this network in every state of the United States.

40. Fiat Chrysler and/or its agents designed, manufactured, and installed the 

EcoDiesel® engine system in the Class Vehicles. FCA designs, manufactures, markets, 

distributes, and sells two models of vehicle for which the EcoDiesel® option is available: the 

Ram 1500 and the Jeep Grand Cherokee. Fiat Chrysler developed and disseminated the owners’ 

manuals, warranty booklets, product brochures, advertisements, and other promotional materials 

relating to the Class Vehicles.

41. At all relevant times, FCA and its agents designed, manufactured, marketed, 

distributed, warranted, sold and leased the Class Vehicles in California and throughout the U.S.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 15 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 10 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

42. Robert Bosch GmbH (“Bosch GmbH”)—a German multinational engineering 

and electronics company headquartered in Gerlingen, Germany—is the parent company of 

Robert Bosch LLC (“Bosch LLC”)—a Delaware limited liability company with its principal 

place of business located at 38000 Hills Tech Drive, Farmington Hills, Michigan 48331(together, 

“Bosch”). At all material times, Bosch designed, manufactured, developed, tailored, reviewed, 

approved, and supplied elements of the device to FCA for use in the Class Vehicles.

43. Both Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC operate under the umbrella of the Bosch 

Group, which encompasses some 340 subsidiaries and companies. The Bosch Group is divided 

into four business sectors: Mobility Solutions (formerly Automotive Technology), Industrial 

Technology, Consumer Goods, and Energy and Building Technology. Bosch’s sectors and 

divisions are grouped not by location, but by subject matter. In other words, Mobility Solutions 

includes knowledgeable individuals at both Bosch GmbH and Bosch LLC. Regardless of 

whether an individual works for Bosch in Germany or the U.S., the employee holds him or 

herself out as working for Bosch. This collective identity is captured by Bosch’s mission 

statement: “We are Bosch,” a unifying principle that links each entity and person within the 

Bosch Group.

44. Mobility Solutions is the largest Bosch Group business sector. In 2014, its sales 

came to 33.3 billion euros, amounting to 68 percent of total group sales. The Bosch Group is one 

of the leading automotive suppliers globally. In North America alone, Mobility Solutions had 

2015 sales of $9.5 billion.

45. Bosch operates 70 locations in the United States, with over 31,000 employees. 

One of these locations is the Bosch LLC Research and Technology Center North America in 

Palo Alto, California. One of Bosch’s research focuses here is application-specific integrated 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 16 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 11 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

circuit (ASIC) design and MEMS (microelectromechanical-system) technology. These 

technologies are used in a variety of automotive applications. Bosch LLC also operates Research 

and Technology Centers in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, and Cambridge, Massachusetts.

46. Bosch developed, tested, and manufactured the Electronic Diesel Control 

(“EDC”) Unit 17, which is the EDC system used in the Class Vehicles. As set forth in detail 

herein, at all relevant times, Bosch and Fiat Chrysler worked collaboratively to program the EDC 

Unit 17 in the Class Vehicles.

V. PLAINTIFFS’ FACTS

47. Plaintiff Mathue Fasching, a resident of Lowman, Idaho, purchased a 2016 Ram 

1500 EcoDiesel® on or about July 10, 2016 at Lithia Chrysler Jeep Dodge in Grants Pass, 

Oregon.

48. Before buying the Ram 1500, he spent several months researching low emissions 

diesel trucks, but ultimately decided to buy the Ram over its competitors due to Defendants’

promises regarding advanced clean diesel technology and reduced emissions. He relied on 

statements from FCA advertisements, websites and dealer personnel, calling it “one of the 

cleanest and most economical diesels on the market” with “super low emissions [and] amazing 

fuel mileage.”

49. The fuel economy and low emissions of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons 

Mr. Fasching purchased the truck.

50. Plaintiff Thomas McGann, Jr., a resident of North Tonawanda, New York, 

bought a 2016 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® on or about September 24, 2016 at Lessord Dodge, an 

authorized FCA dealer in Sodus, New York.

51. Before buying the Ram 1500, Plaintiff McGann researched low emissions diesel 

trucks, but ultimately decided to buy the Ram because of FCA’s promises regarding advanced 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 17 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 12 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

clean diesel technology and reduced emissions. He relied on statements about those 

characteristics in FCA advertisements and websites. The fuel economy, reduced emissions, and 

towing power of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons Plaintiff McGann purchased the truck.

52. Plaintiff Joseph P. Neupert, a resident of Foster, West Virginia, bought a 2015 

Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® in September 2016 at C&O Motors in St. Albans, West Virginia.

53. While purchasing the Ram 1500, he relied upon Defendants’ promises of 

advanced clean diesel technology and reduced emissions. He believed, due to the name 

EcoDiesel®, that he was purchasing a vehicle good for the environment.

54. The fuel economy, reduced emissions, and towing power of the Ram 1500 were 

the primary reasons Mr. Neupert purchased the truck.

55. Plaintiff Steven Elowitz, a resident of Mesa, Arizona, bought a 2016 Ram 1500 

EcoDiesel® on or about December 24, 2015, at Earnhardt Dodge Ram in Gilbert, Arizona.

56. Before buying the Ram 1500, he spent several years interested in the truck based 

on mileage and performance specifications that were represented in television, internet, and 

magazine ads. Additionally, he read reviews in publications such as Car & Driver and Motor 

Trend relating to the performance of the Ram 1500 EcoDiesel®. 

57. The fuel economy and low emissions of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons 

Mr. Elowitz purchased the truck.

58. Plaintiff Jeff Weaver, a resident of Concord, California, bought a 2016 Ram 

1500 EcoDiesel® on or about March 2, 2016, at Thompson’s Dodge Chrysler in Placerville, 

California.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 18 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 13 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

59. Before buying the Ram 1500, he spent time researching low emissions diesel 

trucks, but ultimately decided to buy the Ram over its competitors due to assertions that it was 

the cleanest emission vehicle on the road and in the market at the time he purchased it.

60. The fuel economy and low emissions of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons 

Mr. Weaver purchased the truck.

61. Plaintiff Joseph L. Weber, a resident of Vallejo, California, bought a 2015 Ram 

1500 EcoDiesel® on or about May 2015 at Hoblit Chrysler Jeep Dodge, Inc. in Woodland, 

California. 

62. Before buying the Ram 1500, he researched low emissions diesel trucks, but 

ultimately decided to buy the Ram over its competitors because of claims regarding its fuel 

economy and low emissions.

63. Plaintiff Captain Michael Johnson, a resident of Mableton, Georgia, bought a 

2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® on or about August 2015 at BiG O Dodge in Greenville, South 

Carolina.

64. Before buying the Ram 1500, he spent several months researching trucks, but 

ultimately decided to buy the Ram over non-diesel options due to assertions from the sales staff 

at the dealership regarding exhaust levels. 

65. The fuel economy, coupled with the low emissions of the Ram, were the primary 

reasons Mr. Johnson purchased the truck.

66. Plaintiff Josh Claflin, a resident of Ellsworth, Wisconsin, leased a 2015 Ram 

1500 EcoDiesel® on or about April 15, 2015, at Fury Motors in St. Paul, Minnesota.

67. Before entering into a lease for the Ram 1500, he researched and ultimately 

decided to lease the truck due to the high fuel efficiency and clean emissions system. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 19 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 14 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

68. The fuel economy and low emissions of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons 

Mr. Claflin leased the truck.

69. Plaintiff Karl Calhoun, a resident of Moses Lake, Washington, bought a 2016 

Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® on or about January 16, 2016 at Dave Smith Motors in Kellogg, Idaho.

70. Before buying the Ram 1500, he researched fuel economy and emissions for 

trucks. He recalls the emphasis on anticipated mileage for the EcoDiesel engine, and that 

emissions were greatly reduced for this particular model.

71. The fuel economy and low emissions of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons 

Mr. Calhoun purchased the truck.

72. Plaintiff Bryan Muckenfuss, a resident of Ravenel, South Carolina bought a 

2015 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® on or about November 5, 2015 at Rick Hendrick Dodge, an 

authorized FCA dealer in Charleston, South Carolina.

73. Before buying the Ram 1500, he researched low emissions diesel trucks, but 

ultimately decided to buy the Ram because of Defendants’ promises regarding advanced clean 

diesel technology and reduced emissions. He relied on statements about those characteristics in 

Fiat Chrysler advertisements and websites. The fuel economy, reduced emissions, and towing 

power of the Ram 1500 were the primary reasons Mr. Muckenfuss purchased the truck.

74. Plaintiff Satyanam Singh, a resident of Sacramento, California, purchased a new 

2016 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® on or about April 1, 2016 at AutoNation Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram 

in Roseville, California.

75. Prior to purchasing the Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Singh reviewed television 

advertisements and websites regarding the Class Vehicle, and also researched other gasoline and 

diesel vehicles. Plaintiff Singh ultimately decided to purchase the Class Vehicle based on 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 20 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 15 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Defendants’ representations of its fuel economy, reduced emissions, and powerful torque and 

engine performance.

76. Plaintiff John Radziewicz, a resident of New Orleans, Louisiana, purchased a 

pre-owned 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel® from Banner Chevrolet in New Orleans, 

Louisiana.

77. Plaintiff Radziewicz purchased the diesel vehicle in large part for its great fuel 

efficiency and economy.

78. Plaintiff Binh Quoc Tran, a resident of Visalia, California, purchased a 2014 

Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel® in October 2014 from Tuttle-Click Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram 

Tuttle-Click Inc. in Irvine, California.

79. Plaintiff Jeffrey W. Griggs, a resident of Georgetown, Tennessee, purchased a 

2014 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® in October 2014 from Mountain View Chrysler Dodge Jeep Ram in 

Ringgold, Georgia.

80. Prior to purchasing the Class Vehicle, Plaintiff Griggs researched other gasoline 

and diesel vehicles, reviewed online articles regarding the Class Vehicle, and attended the 

Chicago Auto Show where he observed and read promotional materials about the Class Vehicle.

Plaintiff Griggs ultimately decided to purchase the Class Vehicle based on Defendants’ 

representations of its fuel economy, powerful torque, and reduced emissions.

81. At the time of their respective purchases/leases, Plaintiffs had no idea that their 

vehicles could only perform as advertised by emitting pollutants, such as NOx, at levels much 

higher than legally permitted. Nor were Plaintiffs aware that their vehicles had been outfitted 

with “defeat device” software, which constituted an undisclosed and unauthorized AECD that 

was designed to cheat emissions tests and deceive consumers and regulators as to the level of 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 21 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 16 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

pollutants emitted under normal driving conditions. Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and deceptive 

conduct in designing, manufacturing, marketing, selling, and leasing Class Vehicles without 

proper emission controls has caused Plaintiffs to suffer out-of-pocket loss, including but not 

limited to future attempted repairs, and increased depreciated value of the vehicles associated 

with the existence of the devices and any required repairs, including but not limited to potential 

reduced performance such as a reduction in calculated fuel economy, a decrease in peak 

horsepower; and/or a decrease in peak torque. Defendants knew about and willfully concealed 

the inadequate emission controls and defeat device software. Plaintiffs purchased the vehicles on 

the reasonable belief that their vehicles were environmentally responsible vehicles that complied 

with U.S. emissions standards, were properly EPA certified, and would retain the promised fuel 

economy and performance throughout the vehicles’ useful life.

82. Many Plaintiffs selected and ultimately purchased their vehicles primarily for the 

EcoDiesel® system, as represented through advertisements and representations made by Fiat 

Chrysler. Plaintiffs and each Class member have suffered an ascertainable loss as a result of 

Defendants’ omissions and/or misrepresentations associated with the EcoDiesel® engine system, 

including, but not limited to: the high premium paid for the EcoDiesel® engine option as 

compared to the gas-powered model of the vehicle; out-of-pocket losses; future attempted 

repairs; future additional fuel costs, decreased performance of the vehicles, and depreciated value 

of the vehicles associated with future repairs, including but not limited to potential reduced 

performance such as a reduction in calculated fuel economy, a decrease in peak horsepower;

and/or a decrease in peak torque.

VI. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

83. This Court has subject-matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to the Class 

Action Fairness Act (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d) because at least one Class member is of 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 22 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 17 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

diverse citizenship from one Defendant; there are more than 100 Class members; and, the 

aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. Subjectmatter jurisdiction also arises under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims asserted under 15 

U.S.C. § 2301, et seq. The Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 

§§ 1965(b) and (d), and Cal. Code Civ. P. § 410.10, and supplemental jurisdiction over the statelaw claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1367.

84. This Court has both specific and general personal jurisdiction over Defendants 

because they maintain minimum contacts with the United States, this judicial district, and this 

State. Defendants are subject to specific jurisdiction because they have purposely availed 

themselves of the California forum and California law. FCA and Fiat have sold thousands of 

Class Vehicles to California citizens, including four of the class representatives, and have thus 

injured thousands of California consumers through their deception. FCA and Fiat targeted 

California consumers with their deceptive marketing and deliberately caused the distribution of a 

defective and harmful product into the California market.

85. This deception would not have been possible without Bosch’s active participation 

and assistance. Bosch worked with FCA and Fiat to design the defeat device, and many of 

Bosch’s facilities operate and do business in California. In 1999, when Bosch established its 

North American Research operations, it chose to open its Research and Technology Center for 

North America in Palo Alto, CA, which, today, has expanded to Pittsburgh, PA, and Cambridge, 

MA.4 The Bosch Group has more than 70 primary locations in North America, employing

 

4 The Bosch Research and Technology Center North America, BOSCH, 

http://www.bosch.us/content/language1/html/rtc.htm (last visited, Feb. 7, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 23 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 18 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

31,000 associates, and three of Bosch’s locations—its Irvine, Ontario, and Palo Alto facilities—

are in California.5

86. In addition, Bosch’s promotion of diesel technology also specifically targeted 

California’s stringent emissions standards and the California market. Employees of both Bosch 

GmbH and Bosch LLC invited U.S. and California stakeholders in attend media events held in 

the U.S. In particular, in April 2009, Bosch organized and hosted a two-day “California Diesel 

Days” event in Sacramento, California. Bosch invited a roster of lawmakers, journalists, 

executives, regulators, and NGOs with the aim of changing perceptions of diesel from “dirty” to 

“clean.” The stated goals were to generate a positive perception of “clean diesel” technology in 

passenger vehicles, and to educate California stakeholders about the immediate benefits of 

“clean diesel” passenger vehicles in reducing emissions.

87. Defendants are also subject to general jurisdiction in that all of them are at home 

in this forum. FCA and Fiat conduct a substantial amount of business in this District and 

throughout the state, including the design, manufacture, distribution, testing, advertising, sale, 

lease, and/or warranty of Fiat Chrysler vehicles and their component parts. FCA and Fiat have 

purposefully availed themselves of this forum by directing their agents and distributors to

transact business in this District and throughout California on a massive scale. Moreover, 

pursuant to the RICO statute, 18 U.S.C. § 1965, personal jurisdiction over one conspirator is 

sufficient to provide personal jurisdiction over all co-conspirators. While Plaintiff contends that 

there are independent bases for personal jurisdiction in this forum over each Defendant, to the 

 

5 Bosch in the USA, ROBERT BOSCH LLC, http://www.bosch.us/en/us/our_company_1/ourcompany-lp.html (last visited, Feb. 7, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 24 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 19 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

degree that personal jurisdiction is only found over certain Defendants, their participation in a 

RICO conspiracy grants personal jurisdiction over the remaining Defendants as well.

88. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b) because a substantial

part of the events and/or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District. Fiat 

Chrysler has marketed, warranted, sold, and leased the Class Vehicles, and Defendants otherwise 

conducted extensive business within this District. Several named Plaintiffs and proposed Class 

representatives, as well as tens of thousands of Class members, purchased their Class Vehicles 

from among the multiple Fiat Chrysler dealers located in this District. The California Air 

Resources Board’s Notice of Violation states that there are about 14,000 Class Vehicles on the 

road in California, and relevant documents and witnesses may be found in the Northern District 

and throughout California,

VII. FACTS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

A. The Defeat Device Scheme

89. On January 12, 2017, the EPA and CARB announced to the world that Fiat 

Chrysler had violated the Clean Air Act in an attempt to reap profits at the expense of the air we 

breathe and the confidence of its own consumers.

90. The EPA’s Notice of Violation of the Clean Air Act alleges that FCA installed 

and failed to disclose engine management software in light-duty model year 2014, 2015 and 

2016 Jeep Grand Cherokees and Ram 1500 trucks with 3.0-liter diesel engines sold in the United 

States. The undisclosed software is designed to cloak the impermissibly high NOx emissions 

produced in normal driving conditions for the purpose of cheating emissions tests

91. In announcing the Notice of Violation, Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for 

EPA’s Office of Enforcement and Compliance Assurance, said: “Failing to disclose software that 

affects emissions in a vehicle’s engine is a serious violation of the law, which can result in 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 25 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 20 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

harmful pollution in the air we breathe.”6 She further noted that the EPA will “investigate the 

nature and impact of these devices. All automakers must play by the same rules, and we will 

continue to hold companies accountable that gain an unfair and illegal competitive advantage.”7

92. Through its own testing at the National Vehicle and Fuel Emissions Laboratory, 

the EPA discovered eight undisclosed AECDs. These devices were not disclosed to regulators in 

FCA’s applications for Certificates of Conformity (COCs), which designate approved vehicles 

for sale in the United States. Defendants knew disclosure was required under applicable 

regulations, yet failed to disclose the presence of these devices in the Class Vehicles.

93. The mere presence of undisclosed AECDs leaves Fiat Chrysler in violation of 

Section 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(1), with additional violations 

accruing each time an offending vehicle is sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, or 

delivered/imported for introduction into commerce.

94. Over 100,000 vehicles on the roads of the United States are affected by 

Defendants’ unlawful and deceitful conduct. 

95. EPA testing indicates that at least some of these devices “appear to cause the 

vehicle to perform differently when the vehicle is being tested for compliance with the EPA 

emissions standards,” as opposed to during “normal operation and use.”8 This is the purpose of a 

defeat device, which enables a vehicle to pass lab certification tests and conceal the actual 

emission levels emitted in actual driving conditions.

 

6 EPA Notifies Fiat Chrysler of Clean Air Act Violations, EPA (Jan. 12, 2017), 

https://www.epa.gov/newsreleases/epa-notifies-fiat-chrysler-clean-air-act-violations.

7

Id.

8 Keith Laing and Michael Waylan, EPA accuses Fiat Chrysler of emissions cheating, DETROIT 

NEWS (Jan. 12, 2017), 

http://www.detroitnews.com/story/business/autos/chrysler/2017/01/12/fiat-chrysler-dieselemissions/96485778/.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 26 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 21 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

96. In the aftermath of Volkswagen’s strikingly similar emissions scandal, the EPA 

announced on September 25, 2015 that it would conduct additional testing of vehicles on the 

market “using driving cycles and conditions that may reasonably be expected to be encountered 

in normal operation and use, for purposes of investigating a potential defeat device.”9 This 

testing led to the discovery of Defendants’ own nefarious conduct.

97. The EPA’s Notice of Violation notes that, despite having the opportunity to do so, 

Fiat Chrysler has failed to show that it did not know, or should not have known, that the 

“principal effect of one or more of these AECDs was to bypass, defeat, or render inoperative one 

or more elements of design installed to comply with emissions standards under the [Clean Air 

Act.]”10

98. The same day, CARB publicly announced that it, too, has issued a Notice of 

Violation to FCA after detecting the AECDs in Fiat Chrysler’s 2014, 2015, and 2016 Jeep Grand 

Cherokee and Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® vehicles. CARB also said the company failed to disclose 

the devices, which it said can significantly increase NOx emissions when activated.

99. Fiat also found itself in trouble with German regulators. In the wake of the 

Volkswagen scandal, Germany’s Federal Motor Transport Authority (the “KBA”) tested the 

emissions of numerous diesel vehicles, including Fiat’s. The probe suggested that the emissions 

controls in certain Fiat diesel models were disabled if the vehicle ran for longer than 22 minutes, 

causing the cars to emit unlawfully-high levels of exhaust. The finding showed that the vehicles 

 

9 Micheline Maynard, In VW’s Wake, the EPA Gets Tough with Carmakers, FORBES (Sep. 25, 

2015), http://www.forbes.com/sites/michelinemaynard/2015/09/25/in-vws-wake-the-epa-getstough-with-carmakers/#6d6217cb6a81.

10 Notice of Violation for Model Year 2014-2016 diesel light-duty vehicles (Dodge Ram and Jeep 

Grand Cherokee), EPA (Jan. 12, 2017), https://www.epa.gov/sites/production/files/2017-

01/documents/fca-caa-nov-2017-01-12.pdf.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 27 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 22 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

were designed to cheat on emissions tests, which normally run for about 20 minutes.11 As a 

result, the KBA’s transport minister announced, “We will need to carry out further tests on Fiat 

models.”12

100. After the announcement, reports circulated widely that Bosch had confirmed that 

certain Fiat vehicles were cheating emissions testing. According to a report in the German 

publication Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Bosch told authorities that its software was being used in the 

Fiat vehicles in order to illegally evade diesel emissions regulations.13 Reuters, citing the 

German publication Bild am Sonntag, reported that Bosch informed German investigators that 

Fiat diesel vehicles contain a device that virtually disables exhaust filters.14 According to the 

Reuters report, the software uses a timer to sense when the test cycle is over, at which point it 

disables emissions controls.15 Bosch confirmed that it has discussed the issue with the KBA and 

is currently cooperating with authorities.16

101. Fiat, however, was uncooperative, refusing to attend a subsequent meeting with 

the KBA. Fiat’s snub caused the KBA’s transport minister to charge: “This uncooperative 

 

11 Test of Fiat diesel model shows irregular emissions: Bild am Sonntag, REUTERS (Apr. 24, 

2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fiat-emissions-germany-idUSKCN0XL0MT.

12 David Tracy, Here’s How Fiat Might also be Cheating on Emissions Tests: Report, JALOPNIK

(Apr. 25, 2016), http://jalopnik.com/heres-how-fiat-might-also-be-cheating-on-emissions-test1772948181.

13 Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Apr. 22, 2016, “Fiat Is Next to be Accused.”

14 Test of Fiat diesel model shows irregular emissions: Bild am Sonntag, REUTERS (Apr. 24, 

2016), http://www.reuters.com/article/us-fiat-emissions-germany-idUSKCN0XL0MT.

15 David Tracy, Here’s How Fiat Might also be Cheating on Emissions Tests: Report, JALOPNIK

(Apr. 25, 2016), http://jalopnik.com/heres-how-fiat-might-also-be-cheating-on-emissions-test1772948181.

16 Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Apr. 22, 2016, “Fiat Is Next to be Accused.”

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 28 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 23 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

behavior of Fiat is completely incomprehensible.”17 He added that “there were concrete 

allegations about irregular emissions of Fiat cars.”

18

102. Defendants’ fraudulent scheme was motivated by the desire to expand market 

share in the United States by adding diesel engines to FCA’s light truck and SUV lineup. Dodge 

and Ram were already well known for their heavy-duty trucks equipped with large 8-cylinder 

engines supplied by Cummins.19 Unlike in Europe, where diesel engines in economy cars and 

small commercial vehicles have long been popular, diesel engines were stigmatized in the United 

States. Many consumers perceived diesel engines as emitting thick smoke and dangerous 

pollutants, based on earlier engines of the 1980s and early 1990s. Successful as they were, 

Dodge and Ram Cummins-equipped heavy-duty trucks contributed to this perception in a certain 

way: a community of enthusiasts has grown around “rolling coal”—that is, modifying the 

vehicles’ emissions systems to belch black clouds of smoke and particulates.

103. However, other manufacturers—most notably, Volkswagen—had begun selling 

smaller, more economical vehicles in the U.S. with diesel engines as environmentally friendly, 

fuel-efficient alternatives to hybrids and other economical vehicles. Like Volkswagen, Fiat had 

considerable expertise with diesel engines in Europe, primarily through its subsidiary VM 

Motori, a leading supplier of diesel engines. 

104. The engine at issue—now known as the “EcoDiesel®,” a 3.0-liter, six-cylinder 

turbodiesel—had been under development before Fiat acquired VM Motori. 20

 

17 Fiat backed by Italy in snub of Germany over emissions probe, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS (May 20, 

2016), http://www.autonews.com/article/20160520032214/COPY01/305209962

18 Id.

19 Ram Trucks became a separate brand from Dodge, rather than a Dodge model name, only after 

Fiat’s acquisition.

20 An Inside Look at the Ram 1500 3.0L EcoDiesel, ENGINE LABS (Jan. 11, 2015), 

http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/an-inside-look-at-the-ram-1500-3-0l-ecodiesel/.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 29 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 24 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

105. After acquiring a 50% stake in VM Motori, Defendants set about integrating a 

3.0-liter, six-cylinder V.M. Motori turbodiesel engine into FCA’s popular Ram 1500 pickup and 

the Jeep Grand Cherokee SUV, purportedly offering the benefits of diesel performance and fuel 

economy to a market quite distinct from those who bought heavy-duty, Cummins-equipped Ram 

2500 and 3500 trucks.

106. As Ram Trucks’ Chief Engineer said at the time, “We were fortunate at this point 

in time that our partners at Fiat owned half of VM Motori, who makes this diesel engine. ...We 

combined resources and developed them together.”21

107. On information and belief, because the engine had originally been developed for 

use in Europe, where standards for emission of oxides of nitrogen from diesel vehicles are less 

stringent, FCA found it necessary to utilize a defeat device in order to certify the engine to U.S. 

emissions standards.

108. The modern type of smaller, turbocharged, direct-injected diesel engines, like 

Volkswagen’s “Clean Diesel” TDI and Fiat Chrysler’s EcoDiesel® engines, offer several 

benefits that maximize the potential of diesel fuel. Turbochargers force air into the combustion 

chambers, creating higher compression, enhancing the efficiency with which power is extracted 

from the fuel. Direct fuel injection allows a sophisticated engine management computer to 

precisely manage the air-fuel mixture at all times to maximize power and efficiency.

109. The EcoDiesel® option, however, is not cheap for environmentally-conscious 

consumers. For example, the feature is only available on the three most expensive 2014 Grand 

 

21 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 30 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 25 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Cherokee models and adds $4,500 to those vehicles’ overall price.22 The EcoDiesel® option on 

the 2015 Ram 1500 adds between $3,120 and $4,960.23

110. In addition to the dollars-and-cents costs, diesel still comes with an environmental 

concession: high emissions of particulates and oxides of nitrogen. NOX is a hazardous pollutant 

that contributes to the formation of ground-level ozone, a greenhouse gas that can travel 

hundreds of miles from the source of emission. Ozone is a colorless and odorless gas that, even 

at low levels, can cause cardiovascular and respiratory health problems, including chest pain, 

coughing, throat irritation, and congestion. The human health concerns from over-exposure to 

NOX are well established, and include negative effects on the respiratory system, damage to lung 

tissue, and premature death. NOX can penetrate deeply into sensitive parts of the lungs, and is 

known to cause or worsen respiratory diseases like asthma, emphysema, and bronchitis, as well 

as to aggravate existing heart disease. Children, the elderly, people with lung diseases such as 

asthma, and people who work or exercise outside are particularly susceptible to such adverse 

health effects, though the impact of NOx is borne by all of society. 

111. Given the dangers of NOx, technology offers a solution. Modern turbodiesel 

engines use ceramic diesel filters to trap particulates before they are emitted. Many also use a 

technology called “selective catalytic reduction” (“SCR”) to reduce NOx emissions. SCR 

systems inject a measured amount of urea solution into the exhaust stream, which breaks oxides 

of nitrogen down into to less noxious substances before they are emitted. SCR-equipped vehicles 

 

22 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee EcoDiesel® V-6, CAR AND DRIVER (Feb. 2013), 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-ecodiesel-v-6-first-drivereview.

23 2015 Ram 1500 EcoDiesel® 4x4, CAR AND DRIVER (Aug. 2015) 

http://www.caranddriver.com/reviews/2015-ram-1500-4x4-ecodiesel-4x4-test-review (last 

visited Jan. 14, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 31 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 26 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

must carry an onboard tank of fluid for this purpose, and injection of the fluid is controlled by 

the same engine control module that manages the fuel-air mixture and other aspects of engine 

operation.

112. The Class Vehicles use engine management computers to monitor sensors 

throughout the vehicle and operate nearly all of the vehicle’s systems according to sophisticated 

programming that can sense and vary factors like steering, combustion, and emissions 

performance for different driving situations. The computer that manages these systems in the 

Class Vehicles is an “electronic diesel control” or “EDC.”

113. Bosch developed, tested, and manufactured the EDC system used in the Class 

Vehicles, which is formally referred to as the Electronic Diesel Control Unit 17 (also known as 

“EDC Unit 17,” “EDC 17,” and “EDC17”).

114. In a February 28, 2006, press release, Bosch introduced the “New Bosch EDC17 

engine management system” as the “brain of diesel injection” which “controls every parameter 

that is important for effective, low-emission combustion.” 24 Bosch made clear that the EDC17’s 

“[e]ffective control of combustion” was not one-size-fits-all; rather, it was a “[c]oncept tailored 

for all vehicle classes and markets.” 25 In the press release, Bosch touted the EDC17 as follows:

EDC17: Ready for future demands

Because the computing power and functional scope of the new 

EDC17 can be adapted to match particular requirements, it can be 

used very flexibly in any vehicle segment on all the world’s 

markets. In addition to controlling the precise timing and quantity 

of injection, exhaust gas recirculation, and manifold pressure 

regulation, it also offers a large number of options such as the 

control of particulate filters or systems for reducing nitrogen 

oxides. The Bosch EDC17 determines the injection parameters for 

each cylinder, making specific adaptations if necessary. This 

 

24 The brain of diesel injection: New Bosch EDC17 engine management system, BOSCH (Feb. 28, 

2016), http://www.bosch-presse.de/presseforum/details.htm?txtID=2603&locale=en.

25 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 32 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 27 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

improves the precision of the injection throughout the vehicle’s 

entire service life. The system therefore makes an important 

contribution to observing future exhaust gas emission limits.26

115. In January 2013, Bosch officially announced that its “clean diesel” technology, 

including the EDC Unit 17, would be featured in the new 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 3.0-Liter 

EcoDiesel.27 As part of that announcement, Bosch stated: “The 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee 

features a Bosch emission system compliant with the most stringent emission regulations in the 

world. From fuel tank to tailpipe, Bosch is pleased to equip this vehicle with top technologies to 

give consumers a great driving experience requiring fewer stops at the pump.”28 Bosch also 

announced that the clean diesel system for the Jeep Grand Cherokee would be assembled at 

Bosch’s facility in Kentwood, Michigan. 

116. According to a number of media reports and Bosch’s own public admissions,

Bosch’s EDC Unit 17 was widely used throughout the automotive industry, including, most 

notably, by Volkswagen.

29 Bosch and Volkswagen worked together to develop and implement a 

 

26 Id.

27 Bosch Announces Clean Diesel Technology On 2014 Jeep Grand Cherokee, PRNEWSWIRE

(Jan. 24, 2013), http://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/bosch-announces-clean-dieseltechnology-on-2014-jeep-grand-cherokee-188243051.html.

28 Id.

29 See, e.g., Reuters, Lawyers Say Bosch Worked ‘Hand-in-Glove’ with VW in Emissions, 

FORTUNE (Aug. 19, 2016), http://fortune.com/2016/08/19/bosch-vw-diesel-emissions-fraud/; 

Tom Schoenberg & Alan Katz, U.S. Is Investigating Bosch in Widening VW Diesel-Cheat 

Scandal, BLOOMBERG TECHNOLOGY (Sep. 16, 2016), 

https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2016-09-16/vw-diesel-cheat-probe-widens-as-u-ssaid-to-investigate-bosch; Patrick McGee, Bosch reaches $328m settlement in VW emissions 

scandal, FINANCIAL TIMES (Feb. 1, 2017); William Boston, Lawyers in Volkswagen Case Steer 

Toward Bosch, THE WALL STREET JOURNAL (Aug. 18, 2016), 

https://www.wsj.com/articles/lawyers-in-volkswagen-case-steer-toward-bosch-1471553504 ; 

Patrick McGee, Bosch products under scrutiny in VW emissions scandal, FINANCIAL TIMES

(Oct. 4, 2016); Reuters, VW and Bosch Agree to $1.6 Billion Settlements for Car Owners Over 

Diesel Scandal, FORTUNE (Feb. 1, 2017), http://fortune.com/2017/02/01/vw-robert-boschdiesel-settlement/.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 33 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 28 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

specific set of software algorithms which were incorporated into the EDC Unit 17 of numerous 

2.0-Liter and 3.0-Liter Volkswagen, Audi, and Porsche vehicles.30 In 2016 and 2017, 

Volkswagen and Bosch agreed to settle all claims regarding the impacted vehicles, which 

resulted in the largest auto-related class action settlement in U.S. history.31 Unfortunately, 

Bosch’s role in the emissions cheating scandal did not stop with Volkswagen vehicles.

117. Bosch’s EDC Unit 17 consists of software programming on the EDC Unit 17 

capable of detecting when the Class Vehicles are undergoing emissions testing through certain 

sensor inputs that monitor vehicle speed, engine operation, steering wheel positioning, and the 

like. This type of defeat device has been termed a “cycle detection defeat device” because it 

detects when a vehicle is being tested and then operates the engine and emissions controls in 

such a way that the vehicles pass emissions testing. Because the measures required to pass 

emissions testing resulted in some combination of traits that would be undesirable in normal 

operation—such as greater fuel consumption, lower performance, or unsustainable consumption 

of the urea solution used in SCR—the Defendants ensured that at all other times, the Class 

Vehicles operated in a manner that polluted many times more than the legal emissions limits.

118. Customizing a road-ready ECU is a time intensive endeavor which required 

Bosch and Fiat Chrysler to work hand-in-glove to modify the software, and to create 

specifications for each of the Class Vehicles.

119. All Bosch ECUs, including the EDC Unit 17, run on complex, highly proprietary 

engine management software over which Bosch exerts control. In fact, according to one car-

 

30 Id. 

31 Id. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 34 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 29 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

company engineer, the software is typically locked to prevent customers, like Fiat Chrysler, from 

making significant changes on their own.32

120. Specifically, the engineer explained, speaking to the media on the condition of 

anonymity:

I’ve had many arguments with Bosch, and they certainly own the dataset software 

and let their customers tune the curves. Before each dataset is released it goes 

back to Bosch for its own validation.

Bosch is involved in all the development we ever do. They insist on being present 

at all our physical tests and they log all their own data, so someone somewhere at 

Bosch will have known what was going on.

All the software routines have to go through the software verification of Bosch, 

and they have hundreds of milestones of verification, that’s the structure . . . .

The car company is never entitled by Bosch to do something on their own.33

121. Therefore, Bosch cannot show that the development of the “defeat device” in the 

Class Vehicles was solely the work of Fiat Chrysler.

B. Applicable Emissions Standards & Testing

122. When a manufacturer wishes to introduce a new car in the U.S. market, it must 

obtain a COC from the EPA, by showing that the vehicle comports with the requirements of the 

Clean Air Act, 42 USC § 7522 and 40 CFR 86.1843-01.

123. As part of that certification process, the manufacturer must disclose any AECDs 

that are included in the vehicle. AECDs are “any element of design which senses temperature, 

vehicle speed...or any other parameter for the purpose of activating, modulating, delaying, or 

deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system.” 40 CFR 86.1803-01. All 

 

32 Michael Taylor, EPA Investigating Bosch over VW Diesel Cheater Software, CAR AND DRIVER

(Nov. 23, 2015), http://blog.caranddriver.com/epa-investigating-bosch-over-vw-dieselcheatersoftware/.

33 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 35 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 30 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

vehicles have AECDs, and there is nothing per se illegal about modulating the operation of 

emissions control systems. However, in applying for a COC, the manufacturer must list all 

AECDs in the vehicles, and then justify why they are not defeat devices. 40 CFR 86.1844-

01(d)(11). Thus, Defendants’ willful omission violates the CAA.

124. 40 CFR 86.1803-01 provides that: “Defeat device means an auxiliary emission 

control device (AECD) that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under 

conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and 

use, unless:

(1) Such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emission test 

procedure;

(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle 

against damage or accident; or

(3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting.”34

125. Here, because the Class Vehicles are equipped with a Defeat Device and passed 

emissions testing only by cheating, they should never have received COCs that rendered them 

legal to sell in the U.S.

126. Plaintiffs’ counsel has retained experts to analyze and test the subject vehicles, 

and on-road tests of Class Vehicles showed that FCA EcoDiesel® produces NOx emissions well

above legal limits. 

127. A 2014 Ram 1500 equipped with a 3.0L EcoDiesel® engine and featuring 

selective catalytic reduction (SCR) NOx after-treatment technology was tested on a chassis 

dynamometer as well as on the road. In both scenarios, gaseous exhaust emissions, including 

 

34 40 CFR 86.1803-01 (emphasis added).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 36 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 31 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

oxides of nitrogen (NOx), nitrogen oxide (NO), carbon monoxide (CO), carbon dioxide (CO2), 

and total hydrocarbons (THC) were measured on a continuous basis using a portable emissions 

measurement system (PEMS) from Horiba®.

128. The tests showed significantly increased NOx emissions during on-road testing as 

opposed to testing on a chassis dynamometer (i.e., in the laboratory). On the road, over an 

urban/suburban route, the vehicle produced average NOx emissions that exceeded federal 

certification standards by approximately 15-19 times. When tested on a highway, the average 

NOx emissions measured 35 times the EPA Tier 2 Bin 5 standard.

C. Defendants Marketed the Class Vehicles as Environmentally Friendly, EmissionsCompliant, Fuel-Efficient, and Reliable

129. FCA’s EcoDiesel® vehicles are aggressively marketed as offering a combination 

of power, efficiency, and environmental cleanliness that competitors cannot match: the Class 

Vehicles’ “exhaust is ultra-clean” due to their “advanced emissions-control technology.”35

Specifically, the “emissions control system helps ensure that virtually no particulates and 

minimal [NOx] exit the tailpipe.”36

130. The Class Vehicles are also represented to be emission-compliant in all 50 states 

(see image below, featuring the slogan “love the planet along with great fuel economy?”).37 That 

claim is bolstered by the inclusion of an Emissions Warranty guaranteeing compliance with 

applicable emissions regulations, which Defendants placed in the owner’s manuals of Class 

Vehicles.

 

35 Chrysler Group LLC, Chrysler Group's 3.0-liter EcoDiesel V-6, 500e Battery-Electric Drive 

System Among Ward's 10 Best Engines for 2014, PRNEWSWIRE (Dec. 12, 2013).

36 Dale Jewett, EcoDiesel: An Essential Tool for Every Outdoorsman, FCA NORTH AMERICA

(May 22, 2015), https://blog.fcanorthamerica.com/2015/05/22/ecodiesel-an-essential-tool-forevery-outdoorsman/.

37 2015 Grand Cherokee Brochure, JEEP, http://www.slideshare.net/seaviewjeep1/2015-jeepgrand-cherokee-brochure (last visited Feb. 8, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 37 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 32 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

131. Fiat Chrysler represented Class Vehicles as offering excellent fuel economy: 

greater than a comparable gasoline engine and offering a range of 730 miles on a single tank of 

diesel fuel, and “the best fuel economy of any full-size pickup” (examples below). 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 38 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 33 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 39 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 34 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

132. FCA’s website even offers calculators purporting to show how much fuel, time 

and money consumers could save. For example:

133. But unbeknownst to those consumers—consumers who Fiat Chrysler identified as 

wanting an efficient, environmentally-friendly truck without sacrificing capability or 

performance—Defendants could only achieve those impressive results by cheating on emissions 

testing. Moreover, in normal driving, the vehicles polluted much more than advertised or 

permissible by applicable laws.

134. Finally, Defendants advertised the vehicles as “long-lasting” and “reliable” but to 

the extent that the vehicles need a “fix” or repair to comply with emissions laws these 

advertisements are false and misleading.38

 

38 2017 Ram Trucks, RAM

https://www.ramtrucks.com/assets/pdf/brochures/2017_Ram_Retail_Brand_Saver.pdf (last 

visited Feb. 8, 2017).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 40 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 35 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

VIII. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

135. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and as a class action, pursuant 

to the provisions of Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on 

behalf of the following Class:

Nationwide Class

All persons or entities in the United States who are current or former owners and/or 

lessees of a FCA “Class Vehicle.” Class Vehicles include, without limitation, all 

FCA EcoDiesel® vehicles equipped with selective catalytic reduction (“SCR”) to 

control NOx emissions, including but not limited to the Ram 1500 and the Jeep 

Grand Cherokee.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 41 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 36 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

136. In the alternative to the Nationwide Class, and pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure Rule 23(c)(5), Plaintiffs seek to represent the following National Subclasses 

(hereinafter “Subclasses”) as well as any subclasses or issue classes as Plaintiffs may propose 

and/or the Court may designate at the time of class certification:

Current Owners: 

All persons or entities that currently own and/or lease a Class Vehicle.

Former Owners and Lessees: 

All persons or entities that purchased and/or leased a Class Vehicle, but who no 

longer hold title to such a Vehicle.

137. Excluded from the Class are individuals who have personal injury claims 

resulting from the “defeat device.” Also excluded from the Class are Defendants and their 

subsidiaries and affiliates; all persons who make a timely election to be excluded from the Class; 

governmental entities; and the Judge to whom this case is assigned and his/her immediate family. 

Plaintiffs reserve the right to revise the Class definition based upon information learned through 

discovery.

138. Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for classwide treatment is appropriate because 

Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a classwide basis using the same evidence as 

would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claim.

139. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf of the 

Class proposed herein under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.

140. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify and/or add to the Nationwide and/or State 

Classes prior to class certification. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 42 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 37 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

1. Numerosity: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)

141. The members of the Class are so numerous and geographically dispersed that 

individual joinder of all Class members is impracticable. While Plaintiffs are informed and 

believe that there are not fewer than 100,000 members of the Class, the precise number of Class 

members is unknown to Plaintiffs, but it may be ascertained from Defendants’ records. Class 

members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice 

dissemination methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, Internet postings, and/or 

published notice.

2. Commonality and Predominance: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) 

and 23(b)(3)

142. This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over 

any questions affecting individual Class members, including, without limitation:

(a) Whether Defendants engaged in the conduct alleged herein;

(b) Whether Defendants designed, advertised, marketed, distributed, leased, sold, or 

otherwise placed Class Vehicles into the stream of commerce in the United States;

(c) Whether the emissions control system in the Class Vehicles contains a defect in 

that it does not comply with EPA requirements;

(d) Whether the emissions control systems in Class Vehicles can be made to comply 

with EPA standards without substantially degrading the performance of the Class 

Vehicles;

(e) Whether Defendants knew about the defeat device and, if so, how long 

Defendants have known;

(f) Whether Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, and distributed Class 

Vehicles with a “defeat device;”

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 43 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 38 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

(g) Whether Defendants’ conduct violates consumer protection statutes, warranty 

laws, and other laws as asserted herein;

(h) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members overpaid for their Class Vehicles;

(i) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to equitable relief, 

including, but not limited to, restitution or injunctive relief;

(j) Whether Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to damages and other 

monetary relief and, if so, in what amount; and

(k) Whether Defendants continue to unlawfully conceal and misrepresent whether 

additional vehicles, besides those reported in the press to date, are in fact Class Vehicles.

3. Typicality: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3)

143. Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of the claims of the Class members whom they seek 

to represent under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3), because Plaintiffs and each Class Member purchased 

an Affected Vehicle and were comparably injured through Defendants’ wrongful conduct as 

described above. Neither Plaintiffs nor the other Class members would have purchased the Class 

Vehicles had they known of the defects in the vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

suffered damages as a direct proximate result of the same wrongful practices by Defendants.

Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same practices and courses of conduct that give rise to the claims 

of the other Class members. Plaintiffs’ claims are based upon the same legal theories as the 

claims of the other Class members.

4. Adequacy: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4)

144. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class 

members as required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs’ interests do not conflict with the 

interests of the Class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in 

complex class action litigation, including vehicle defect litigation and other consumer protection 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 44 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 39 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

litigation. Plaintiffs intend to prosecute this action vigorously. Neither Plaintiffs nor their counsel 

have interests that conflict with the interests of the other Class members. Therefore, the interests 

of the Class members will be fairly and adequately protected.

5. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)

145. Defendants have acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief 

and declaratory relief, as described below, with respect to the Class as a whole.

6. Superiority: Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)

146. A class action is superior to any other available means for the fair and efficient 

adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual difficulties are likely to be encountered in the 

management of this class action. The damages or other financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs 

and the other Class members are relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would 

be required to individually litigate their claims against Defendants, so it would be impracticable 

for members of the Class to individually seek redress for Defendants’ wrongful conduct.

147. Even if Class members could afford individual litigation, the court system could 

not. Individualized litigation creates a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and 

increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system. By contrast, the class action 

device presents far fewer management difficulties and provides the benefits of single 

adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

IX. ANY APPLICABLE STATUES OF LIMITATION ARE TOLLED

148. The tolling doctrine was made for cases of concealment like this one. For the 

following reasons, any otherwise-applicable statutes of limitation have been tolled by the 

discovery rule with respect to all claims.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 45 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 40 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

149. Through the exercise of reasonable diligence, and within any applicable statutes 

of limitation, Plaintiffs and members of the proposed Class could not have discovered that 

Defendants were concealing and misrepresenting the true emissions levels of their vehicles, 

including but not limited to their use of defeat devices.

150. Plaintiffs and the other Class members could not have reasonably discovered, and 

did not know of facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect, or that Defendants

had intentionally failed to report information within their knowledge to federal and state 

authorities, dealerships, or consumers, until shortly before this action was filed.

151. Likewise, a reasonable and diligent investigation could not have disclosed that 

Defendants had information in their possession about the existence of its sophisticated emissions 

deception and that they concealed that information, which was only discovered by Plaintiffs 

shortly before this action was filed. 

A. Tolling Due To Fraudulent Concealment

152. Throughout the relevant time period, all applicable statutes of limitation have 

been tolled by Defendants’ knowing and active fraudulent concealment and denial of the facts 

alleged in this Complaint.

153. Upon information and belief, prior to the date of this Complaint, if not earlier,

Defendants knew of the defeat device in the Class Vehicles, but continued to distribute, sell, 

and/or lease the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the class members. In doing so, Defendants 

concealed and expressly denied the existence of problem with NOx emissions, and/or failed to 

notify Plaintiffs and the Class members about the true nature of the Class Vehicles.

154. Instead of disclosing their deception, or that the emissions from the Class 

Vehicles were far worse than represented, Defendants falsely represented that its vehicles 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 46 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 41 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

complied with federal and state emissions standards, and that they were reputable manufacturers 

whose representations could be trusted.

B. Estoppel

155. Defendants have a continuous and on-going duty to tell the truth about their 

products and to disclose to Plaintiffs and the other Class members the facts that they knew about 

the emissions from Class Vehicles, and of those vehicles’ failure to comply with federal and state 

laws.

156. Although they had the duty throughout the relevant period to disclose to Plaintiffs

and Class members that they had engaged in the deception described in this Complaint, 

Defendants chose to evade federal and state emissions and clean air standards with respect to the 

Class Vehicles, and intentionally misrepresented their blatant and deceptive lack of compliance 

with federal and state law regulating vehicle emissions and clean air.

157. Defendants actively concealed the true character, quality, performance, and nature 

of the defeat device in the Class Vehicles, and Plaintiffs and the class members reasonably relied 

upon Defendants’ knowing and active concealment of these facts.

158. Thus, Defendants are estopped from relying on any statutes of limitations in 

defense of this action.

X. CAUSES OF ACTION

A. Claims Asserted on Behalf of the Entire Class 

COUNT I

RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (“RICO”)

Violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c)-(d)

159. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

160. Plaintiffs bring this Count on behalf of the Nationwide Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 47 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 42 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

161. At all relevant times, Defendants have been “persons” under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(3) 

because they are capable of holding, and do hold, “a legal or beneficial interest in property.” 

162. Section 1962(c) makes it “unlawful for any person employed by or associated 

with any enterprise engaged in, or the activities of which affect, interstate or foreign commerce, 

to conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of such enterprise’s affairs through 

a pattern of racketeering activity.” 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c).

163. Section 1962(d) makes it unlawful for “any person to conspire to violate” Section 

1962(c), among other provisions. See 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d).

164. In order to compete with vehicle manufacturers like Volkswagen (which 

introduced a line of “environmentally friendly” diesel engine vehicles in the United States) and 

increase their market share, Fiat Chrysler, in conjunction with Bosch, sought to add diesel 

engines to FCA’s light truck and SUV lineup. But, due to the strict emissions control 

requirements imposed by U.S. law and the standards of U.S. consumers, Fiat Chrysler found it 

impossible to achieve its goals lawfully, and instead resorted to cheating through a fraudulent 

scheme and conspiracy. The illegal scheme was hatched and developed by Fiat and Bosch 

GmbH, furthered through correspondence between Defendants in Germany and the U.S., and 

executed in the U.S. through the vehicles of FCA, in conjunction with General Motors and Fiat’s 

subsidiary companies overseas, including VM Motori. 

165. Specifically, Defendants, along with other entities and individuals, were 

employed by or associated with, and conducted or participated in the affairs of a RICO enterprise 

(defined below and referred to collectively as the “Defeat Device RICO Enterprise”), whose 

purpose was to deceive regulators and the driving public into believing that the Class Vehicles 

were compliant with emission standards, clean, fuel efficient and environmentally friendly so as 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 48 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 43 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

to increase revenues and minimize losses from the design, manufacture, distribution and sale of 

the Class Vehicles and the defeat devices installed therein. As a direct and proximate result of 

their fraudulent scheme and common course of conduct, Defendants were able to extract billions 

of dollars from sales made to Plaintiffs and the Class. As explained in detail below, Defendants’ 

years-long misconduct violated Sections 1962(c) and (d).

a. Description of the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise

166. In an effort to expand its global reach, market share, and sales in the U.S., Italian 

automaker Fiat (then controlled by an Italian holding company) acquired American automaker 

Chrysler. Previously, Chrysler was owned by Germany’s Daimler-Benz AG, which sold Chrysler 

in 2007 and fully divested in 2009. Fiat’s acquisition of Chrysler occurred gradually over a 

period of years, between 2009 and 2014, and resulted in the creation of FCA US LLC. All Fiat 

assets, including both FCA US and FCA Italy and their respective subsidiaries, were merged in 

2014 into Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., a new Dutch holding company. 

167. At all relevant times, Fiat Chrysler maintained tight control over the design, 

manufacture, and testing of the Class Vehicles. Fiat Chrysler’s business operations in the United 

States include, for example, the manufacture, distribution, and sale of motor vehicles and parts 

through their network of independent, franchised motor vehicle dealers. Bosch similarly exerts 

control over access to the proprietary engine control software it supplied to Fiat Chrysler. At all 

relevant times, Defendants, along with other individuals and entities, including unknown or 

additional third parties involved in the design, manufacture, testing, and sale of the Class 

Vehicles, operated an association-in-fact enterprise, which was formed for the purpose of 

fraudulently obtaining COCs from the Environmental Protection Agency (and executive orders

from CARB) in order to sell Class Vehicles containing defeat device(s) throughout the U.S., and 

through which they conducted a pattern of racketeering activity under 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 49 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 44 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

168. Specifically, Fiat and/or FCA are the entities that applied for, and obtained, the 

EPA COC for the Fiat-Chrysler branded Class Vehicles with material misrepresentations and 

omissions about their specifications in order to introduce them into the U.S. stream of commerce. 

169. Fiat Chrysler used its network of independent, franchised motor vehicle dealers to 

distribute and sell the illegal Class Vehicles throughout the U.S.

170. General Motors and VM Motori participated, either directly or indirectly, in the 

conduct of the enterprise’s affairs by developing, testing, and/or supplying V6 diesel engines 

which contained and concealed unlawful defeat device(s) to Defendants.

171. General Motors and VM Motori began development of this engine before its 

acquisition by Fiat.39 Fiat acquired half of VM Motori in 2011, and completed its acquisition 

only in late 2013, after the engine and the Class Vehicles had been developed, certified by the 

EPA, and put on sale in the United States.40

172. The separate legal statuses of Defendants, General Motors, and VM Motori 

facilitated the fraudulent scheme and attempted to provide a shield from liability for Defendants

and their co-conspirators.

173. Alternatively, Defendants, their subsidiaries, and their directors, officers, and 

engineers constitute a single “enterprise” within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), through 

which Defendants conducted their pattern of racketeering activity in the U.S. The enterprises, 

alleged in this and the previous paragraphs, are referred to collectively as the “Defeat Device 

RICO Enterprise.”

 

39 Fiat-Chrysler 3.0L Diesel V6 Was Originally a GM Engine, GM AUTHORITY (July 16, 2013), 

http://gmauthority.com/blog/2013/07/fiat-chrysler-3-0l-diesel-v6-is-actually-a-gm-engine/.

40 Fiat Buys Remainder of Diesel Manufacturer VM Motori From GM, AUTOMOTIVE NEWS (Oct. 

28, 2103), www.autonews.com/article/20131028/OEM10/131029887/fiat-buys-remainder-ofdiesel-maker-vm-motori-from-gm.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 50 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 45 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

174. At all relevant times, the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise constituted a single 

“enterprise” or multiple enterprises within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. § 1961(4), as legal entities, 

as well as individuals and legal entities associated-in-fact for the common purpose of engaging in 

Defendants’ profit-making scheme.

175. Finally, Bosch participated, either directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the 

enterprise’s affairs by developing, supply, and concealing the defeat devices. Bosch’s 

participation was a necessary part of the enterprise.

176. The association-in-fact Defeat Device RICO Enterprise consisted of the following 

entities and individuals:

(i) The Fiat-Chrysler Entity Defendants

177. Fiat and its American subsidiary, FCA, working with the other below-described 

members of the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise, devised a scheme to illegally circumvent the 

U.S.’s stringent emissions standards by incorporating a “defeat device” into the Class Vehicles’ 

engine management computers.

178. Employing this technology, Fiat Chrysler fraudulently obtained EPA COC (and 

CARB executive orders) for the Class Vehicles, even though they emit unlawful levels of toxic 

pollutants into the atmosphere during normal operating conditions

179. Moreover, to profit from the scheme and increase their sales, Fiat Chrysler falsely 

marketed the Class Vehicles as not only compliant but clean, fuel-efficient and environmentallyfriendly vehicles. 

(ii) VM Motori and General Motors 

180. VM Motori S.p.A. (“VM Motori”) is a diesel engine manufacturer based in Cento, 

Italy. In 2011, Fiat purchased a 50% share of the company from Penske Corporation. General 

Motors controlled the other 50%. Fiat bought the remaining 50% from General Motors in late 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 51 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 46 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

2013, after the Class Vehicles and engines had already been developed, certified by the EPA, and 

offered for sale in the United States.

181. In 2010 or 2011, VM Motori announced a new product line of a V6, 3.0-liter

displacement engines for inclusion in SUVs, trucks, and large sedans. These engines had been 

under development for use in a General Motors automobile for the European market. 41

182. However, further development for use in FCA vehicles took place following 

Fiat’s acquisition of 50% of VM Motori in 2011. As Ram Trucks’ Chief Engineer said at the 

time, “We were fortunate at this point in time that our partners at Fiat owned half of VM Motori, 

who makes this diesel engine. ...We combined resources and developed them together.”42

183. According to its website, VM Motori is deeply involved in the development and 

testing of all aspects of the engine: “We take care of the engines and their applications, working 

together with the Customers to the least detail to ensure a perfect matching between the engine 

and the machine, supporting our partners from A to Z, from engine- to-machine coupling up to 

the production.”43

184. In fact, VM Motori makes specific mention of its involvement in: “Calibration 

development to meet specific vehicle/end user requirements, Exhaust after-treatment system 

development, [and] Environmental trips (hot/cold climate, high altitude, etc.),”44 VM Motori also 

notes that its facilities include: “Rolling dyno for vehicle emission measurement [and] 17 engine 

test benches for emission/performance development.”45

 

41 An Inside Look at the Ram 1500 3.0L EcoDiesel, ENGINE LABS (Jan. 11, 2015), 

http://www.enginelabs.com/engine-tech/an-inside-look-at-the-ram-1500-3-0l-ecodiesel/

42 Id.

43 Research and Development, VM MOTORI, http://www.vmmotori.com/r-s/vm-motori/r-s-2.html

(last accessed Jan. 13, 2017).

44 Id.

45 Id.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 52 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 47 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

185. During all relevant periods, VM Motori developed and supplied engines for the 

Class Vehicles that contained, were calibrated to, and/or suppressed the existence of a defeat 

device, in furtherance of the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise.

(iii) The Bosch Defendants

186. Bosch exerted control over the development of the EDC 17 for use in the Class 

Vehicles, and actively participated in its development.

187. Defendant Bosch GmbH is a multinational engineering and electronics company 

headquartered in Gerlingen, Germany, which has hundreds of subsidiaries and companies.

188. Bosch GmbH wholly owns Defendant Bosch LLC, a Delaware limited liability 

company headquartered in Farmington Hills, Michigan.

189. As previously explained, Bosch’s sectors and divisions are grouped by subject 

matter, not location. The Mobility Solutions (formerly Automotive Technology) is the Bosch 

sector at issue, particularly its Diesel Services division, and it encompasses employees of Bosch 

GmbH and Bosch LLC. Bosch is responsible for the design, manufacture, development, 

customization, and supply of the defeat device to Fiat Chrysler for use in the Class Vehicles.

190. Bosch worked with Fiat Chrysler to develop and implement a specific and unique 

set of software algorithms. Bosch customized its EDC 17 for installation in the Class Vehicles 

with unique software code to detect when it was undergoing emissions testing, a time intensive 

endeavor which required Bosch and Fiat Chrysler to work hand-in-glove to modify the software.

191. Bosch exerted control over its proprietary software. According to one car 

company engineer, typically, Bosch would insist that, by contract, it would have guaranteed 

ownership over the software’s object code, carry out any modifications to its software, and if an 

automaker customer made any material changes, any such changes would be observed, tested, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 53 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 48 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

and subject to the approval of Bosch. 46 As such, Bosch would have been a necessary participant 

in manipulating the EDC 17.

47

192. As previously detailed, Bosch even told German regulators that Fiat Chrysler’s 

diesel vehicles contained defeat devices.48

193. Bosch even went further to host press and media events to promote FCA’s diesel 

vehicles to lawmakers and the public.

49 For example, in April 2009, Bosch organized and hosted 

a two-day “California Diesel Days” event in Sacramento, California. Bosch invited a roster of 

lawmakers, journalists, executives, regulators, and NGOs with the aim of changing perceptions 

of diesel from “dirty” to “clean.” The participants in the event included: Audi of America, BMW 

North America, the California Air Resources Board, the California Energy Commission, the 

Center for Energy Efficiency and Renewable Technologies, Daimler AG, the International 

Council on Clean Transportation, the Natural Resources Defense Council, Robert Bosch LLC, 

Volkswagen of America, and Gale Banks Engineering.50 As part of ‘Diesel Days,’ Bosch hosted 

a “Clean Diesel Automaker Roundtable.” The roundtable discussion format was “designed to 

engage California legislators, regulators and other attendees in the discussion about immediate 

 

46 Michael Taylor, EPA Investigating Bosch over VW Diesel Cheater Software, CAR AND DRIVER

(Nov. 23, 2015), http://blog.caranddriver.com/epa-investigating-bosch-over-vw-dieselcheatersoftware/.

47 Id.

48 Sueddeutsche Zeitung, Apr. 22, 2016, “Fiat Is Next to be Accused.”

49 See, e.g., Gale Banks to Moderate Clean Diesel Automaker Roundtable, BANKSPOWER (Mar. 

30, 2009), http://bankspower.com/news/show/36-Gale-Banks-To-Moderate-Clean-DieselAutomaker-Roundtable; Dale Jewett, EcoDiesel: An Essential Tool for Every Outdoorsman, 

FCA NORTH AMERICA (May 22, 2015), 

https://blog.fcanorthamerica.com/2015/05/22/ecodiesel-an-essential-tool-for-everyoutdoorsman/.

50 Gale Banks to Moderate Clean Diesel Automaker Roundtable, BanksPower (Mar. 30, 2009), 

http://bankspower.com/news/show/36-Gale-Banks-To-Moderate-Clean-Diesel-AutomakerRoundtable

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 54 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 49 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

benefits Clean Diesel passenger vehicles offer for reducing vehicle petroleum consumption and 

CO2 emissions” and “promote science- and fact-based dialogue on a level regulatory playing 

field for near-term technologies reducing CO2 emissions and increasing fuel economy.”

194. According to media reports, at a similar event hosted by Ram, Jeep and Bosch in 

Traverse City, Michigan, Bosch made a number of specific misrepresentations regarding the 3.0-

liter EcoDiesel V-6’s performance. Specifically, Bosch represented that “Bosch emissions 

control system helps ensure that virtually no particulates and minimal oxides of nitrogen (NOx) 

exit the tailpipe” and that a Jeep Grand Cherokee or Ram 1500 diesel’s engine provides a fuel 

economy that is “30% better than a comparable gasoline engine.”51

b. The Defeat Device RICO Enterprise Sought to Increase Defendants’ 

Profits and Revenues

195. Because the engine had originally been developed for use in Europe, where 

standards for emission of oxides of nitrogen from diesel vehicles are less stringent, inclusion of a 

defeat device was necessary to certify the engine to U.S. emissions standards and include it in 

FCA vehicles.

196. At all relevant times, the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise: (a) had an existence 

separate and distinct from each RICO Defendant; (b) was separate and distinct from the pattern 

of racketeering in which Defendants engaged; and (c) was an ongoing and continuing 

organization consisting of legal entities, including Defendants, their subsidiaries, officers, 

executives, and engineers, VM Motori, and other entities and individuals associated for the 

common purpose of designing, manufacturing, distributing, testing, and selling the Class 

 

51 Dale Jewett, EcoDiesel: An Essential Tool for Every Outdoorsman, FCA North America (May 

22, 2015), https://blog.fcanorthamerica.com/2015/05/22/ecodiesel-an-essential-tool-for-everyoutdoorsman/.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 55 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 50 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class through fraudulent COC and executive orders, 

false emissions tests, deceptive and misleading sales tactics and materials, and deriving profits 

and revenues from those activities. Each member of the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise shared 

in the bounty generated by the enterprise, i.e., by sharing the benefit derived from increased sales 

revenue generated by the scheme to defraud Class members nationwide. 

197. The Defeat Device RICO Enterprise functioned by selling vehicles and 

component parts to the consuming public. Many of these products are legitimate, including 

vehicles that do not contain defeat devices. However, Defendants and their co-conspirators, 

through their illegal Enterprise, engaged in a pattern of racketeering activity. The pattern 

involves a fraudulent scheme to increase revenue for Defendants and the other entities and 

individuals associated-in-fact with the Enterprise’s activities through the illegal scheme to sell 

the Class Vehicles. In particular, Bosch benefitted from increased sales of Class Vehicles as well 

as increased sales of its EDC 17, software, and other technology to Fiat Chrysler.

198. The Defeat Device RICO Enterprise engaged in, and its activities affected 

interstate and foreign commerce, because it involved commercial activities across state 

boundaries, such as the marketing, promotion, advertisement and sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles throughout the country and the receipt of monies from the sale of the same.

199. Within the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise, there was a common communication 

network by which co-conspirators shared information on a regular basis. The Defeat Device 

RICO Enterprise used this common communication network for the purpose of manufacturing, 

marketing, testing, and selling the Class Vehicles to the general public nationwide.

200. Each participant in the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise had a systematic linkage 

to each other through corporate ties, contractual relationships, financial ties, and continuing 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 56 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 51 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

coordination of activities. Through the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise, Defendants functioned 

as a unit with the purpose of furthering the illegal scheme and their common purposes of 

increasing their revenues and market share, and minimizing losses.

201. Defendants participated in the operation and management of the Defeat Device 

RICO Enterprise by directing its affairs, as described herein. While Defendants participated in, 

and are members of, the enterprise, they had and have a separate existence from the enterprise, 

including distinct legal statuses, different offices and roles, bank accounts, officers, directors, 

employees, individual personhood, reporting requirements, and financial statements.

202. Defendants exerted substantial control over the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise, 

and participated in the affairs of the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise by: 

A. designing the Class Vehicles with defeat devices;

B. failing to correct or disable the defeat devices;

C. manufacturing, distributing, and selling the Class Vehicles that emitted greater 

pollution than allowable under the applicable regulations;

D. misrepresenting and omitting (or causing such misrepresentations and omissions to 

be made) vehicle specifications on COC and executive order applications;

E. introducing the Class Vehicles into the stream of U.S. commerce without a valid 

EPA COC and/or CARB executive order;

F. concealing the existence of the defeat devices and the unlawfully high emissions 

from regulators and the public, notwithstanding Defendants’ duty to be truthful;

G. misleading the driving public as to the nature of the defeat devices and the defects 

in the Class Vehicles;

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 57 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 52 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

H. designing and distributing marketing materials that misrepresented and concealed 

the defect in the vehicles;

I. otherwise misrepresenting or concealing the defective nature of the Class Vehicles 

from the public and regulators; 

J. lobbying U.S. regulators, and other key stakeholders, to enhance the reputations 

and sales of diesel vehicles;

K. illegally selling and/or distributing the Class Vehicles; 

L. collecting revenues and profits from the sale of such products; and

M. ensuring that other Defendants and unnamed co-conspirators complied with the 

fraudulent scheme.

203. Defendants directed and controlled the ongoing organization necessary to 

implement the scheme at meetings and through communications of which Plaintiffs cannot fully 

know at present, because such information lies in the Defendants’ and others’ hands.

c. Mail and Wire Fraud

204. To carry out, or attempt to carry out the scheme to defraud, Defendants, each of 

whom is a person associated-in-fact with the Defeat Device RICO Enterprise, did knowingly 

conduct or participate, directly or indirectly, in the conduct of the affairs of the Defeat Device 

RICO Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. §§ 

1961(1), 1961(5) and 1962(c), and which employed the use of the mail and wire facilities, in 

violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1341 (mail fraud) and § 1343 (wire fraud). 

205. Specifically, Defendants have committed, conspired to commit, and/or aided and 

abetted in the commission of, at least two predicate acts of racketeering activity (i.e., violations 

of 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343), within the past ten years. The multiple acts of racketeering 

activity which Defendants committed, or aided or abetted in the commission of, were related to 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 58 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 53 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

each other, posed a threat of continued racketeering activity, and therefore constitute a “pattern 

of racketeering activity.” The racketeering activity was made possible by Defendants’ regular 

use of the facilities, services, distribution channels, and employees of the Defeat Device RICO 

Enterprise. Defendants participated in the scheme to defraud by using mail, telephone and the 

Internet to transmit mailings and wires in interstate or foreign commerce. 

206. Defendants used, directed the use of, and/or caused to be used, thousands of 

interstate mail and wire communications in service of their scheme through virtually uniform 

misrepresentations, concealments and material omissions.

207. In devising and executing the illegal scheme, Defendants devised and knowingly 

carried out a material scheme and/or artifice to defraud Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class or to 

obtain money from Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class by means of materially false or 

fraudulent pretenses, representations, promises, or omissions of material facts. For the purpose of 

executing the illegal scheme, Defendants committed these racketeering acts, which number in the 

thousands, intentionally and knowingly with the specific intent to advance the illegal scheme.

208. Defendants’ predicate acts of racketeering (18 U.S.C. § 1961(1)) include, but are 

not limited to:

Mail Fraud: Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1341 by sending or receiving, or by causing 

to be sent and/or received, materials via U.S. mail or commercial interstate carriers for 

the purpose of executing the unlawful scheme to design, manufacture, market, and sell 

the Class Vehicles by means of false pretenses, misrepresentations, promises, and 

omissions.

Wire Fraud: Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. § 1343 by transmitting and/or receiving, or 

by causing to be transmitted and/or received, materials by wire for the purpose of 

executing the unlawful scheme to defraud and obtain money on false pretenses, 

misrepresentations, promises, and omissions.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 59 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 54 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

209. Defendants’ use of the mails and wires include, but are not limited to, the 

transmission, delivery, or shipment of the following by Defendants or third parties that were 

foreseeably caused to be sent as a result of Defendants’ illegal scheme:

A. the Class Vehicles themselves;

B. component parts for the defeat devices;

C. essential hardware for the Class Vehicles;

D. falsified emission tests;

E. fraudulent applications for EPA COCs and CARB executive orders;

F. fraudulently-obtained EPA COC and CARB executive orders;

G. vehicle registrations and plates as a result of the fraudulently-obtained EPA COC 

and CARB executive orders;

H. documents and communications that facilitated the falsified emission tests;

I. false or misleading communications intended to lull the public and regulators from 

discovering the defeat devices and/or other auxiliary devices;

J. sales and marketing materials, including advertising, websites, product packaging, 

brochures, and labeling, which misrepresented and concealed the true nature of the 

Class Vehicles; 

K. lobbying materials designed to enhance the status of diesel vehicles, including the 

Class Vehicles, and also to increase sales of such vehicles;

L. documents intended to facilitate the manufacture and sale of the Class Vehicles, 

including bills of lading, invoices, shipping records, reports and correspondence;

M. documents to process and receive payment for the Class Vehicles by unsuspecting 

Class members, including invoices and receipts;

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 60 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 55 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

N. payments to VM Motori;

O. millions of dollars in compensation to Fiat and FCA executives;

P. deposits of proceeds; and

Q. other documents and things, including electronic communications.

210. Defendants used the mail (including email) and/or wire to communicate regarding 

changes to the EDC Unit 17 in the Class Vehicles intended to improve the overall functionality 

of the “defeat device.”

211. Defendants also used the internet and other electronic facilities to carry out the 

scheme and conceal the ongoing fraudulent activities. Specifically, Defendants, made 

misrepresentations about the Class Vehicles on their websites, YouTube52, and through 

advertisements online, all of which were intended to mislead regulators and the public about the 

fuel efficiency, emissions standards, and other performance metrics.

212. For example, as pictured below and in numerous examples above, Defendants 

announced that the EcoDiesel® engine, installed in the Jeep Grand Cherokee is “efficient” and 

environmentally friendly: “leaving little trace of being there.”

 

52 See, e.g., Jeep, 2014 Grand Cherokee – 3.0L EcoDiesel® Engine (Last Accessed 1/13/17), 

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=TMJYIyiBkZk

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 61 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 56 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

213. Moreover, on information and belief, Defendants used the internet, mails and/or 

wires to submit documents and messages in support of fraudulent applications for EPA COC and 

CARB executive orders, in which Defendants “attested to compliance with” California and 

federal “emissions standards.”53

214. Defendants also communicated by U.S. mail, by interstate facsimile, and by 

interstate electronic mail with various other affiliates, regional offices, divisions, dealerships and 

other third-party entities in furtherance of the scheme.

215. The mail and wire transmissions described herein were made in furtherance of 

Defendants’ scheme and common course of conduct to deceive regulators and consumers and to 

lure consumers into purchasing the Class Vehicles, which Defendants knew or recklessly 

disregarded as emitting illegal amounts of pollution, despite their advertising campaign.

 

53 See, e.g., California Environmental Protection Agency Air Resources Board, Executive Order 

A-009-1264, 

https://www.arb.ca.gov/msprog/onroad/cert/pcldtmdv/2014/chrysler_mdv_a0091264_3d0_u2_

diesel.pdf. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 62 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 57 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

216. Many of the precise dates of the fraudulent uses of the U.S. mail and interstate 

wire facilities have been deliberately hidden, and cannot be alleged without access to 

Defendants’ books and records. However, Plaintiffs have described the types of, and in some 

instances, occasions on which the predicate acts of mail and/or wire fraud occurred. They include 

thousands of communications to perpetuate and maintain the scheme, including the things and 

documents described in the preceding paragraphs.

217. Defendants have not undertaken the practices described herein in isolation, but as 

part of a common scheme and conspiracy. In violation of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), Defendants

conspired to violate 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), as described herein. Various other persons, firms and 

corporations, including third-party entities and individuals not named as defendants in this 

Complaint, have participated as co-conspirators with Defendants in these offenses and have 

performed acts in furtherance of the conspiracy to increase or maintain revenues, increase market 

share, and/or minimize losses for the Defendants and their unnamed co-conspirators throughout 

the illegal scheme and common course of conduct.

218. Defendants aided and abetted others in the violations of the above laws, thereby 

rendering them indictable as principals in the 18 U.S.C. §§ 1341 and 1343 offenses.

219. To achieve their common goals, Defendants hid from the general public the 

unlawfulness and emission dangers of the Class Vehicles and obfuscated the true nature of the 

defect

220. Defendants and each member of the conspiracy, with knowledge and intent, have 

agreed to the overall objectives of the conspiracy and participated in the common course of 

conduct to commit acts of fraud and indecency in designing, manufacturing, distributing, 

marketing, testing, and/or selling the Class Vehicles (and the defeat devices contained therein).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 63 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 58 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

221. Indeed, for the conspiracy to succeed each of Defendants and their coconspirators had to agree to implement and use the similar devices and fraudulent tactics—

specifically complete secrecy about the defeat devices in the Class Vehicles.

222. Defendants knew and intended that government regulators, as well as Plaintiffs 

and Class members, would rely on the material misrepresentations and omissions made by them 

about the Class Vehicles. Defendants knew and intended that consumers would incur costs as a 

result. As fully alleged herein, Plaintiffs, along with hundreds of thousands of other consumers, 

relied upon Defendants’ representations and omissions that were made or caused by them.

Plaintiffs’ reliance is made obvious by the fact that they purchased illegal vehicles that never 

should have been introduced into the U.S. stream of commerce. In addition, the EPA, CARB, 

and other regulators relied on the misrepresentations and material omissions made or caused to 

be made by Defendants.

223. As described herein, Defendants engaged in a pattern of related and continuous 

predicate acts for years. The predicate acts constituted a variety of unlawful activities, each 

conducted with the common purpose of obtaining significant monies and revenues from 

Plaintiffs and Class members based on their misrepresentations and omissions, while providing 

Class Vehicles that were worth significantly less than the purchase price paid. The predicate acts 

also had the same or similar results, participants, victims, and methods of commission. The 

predicate acts were related and not isolated events.

224. The predicate acts all had the purpose of generating significant revenue and 

profits for Defendants at the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members. The predicate acts were 

committed or caused to be committed by Defendants through their participation in the Defeat 

Device RICO Enterprise and in furtherance of its fraudulent scheme, and were interrelated in that 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 64 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 59 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

they involved obtaining Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ funds and avoiding the expenses 

associated with remediating the Class Vehicles.

225. During the design, manufacture, testing, marketing and sale of the Class Vehicles, 

Defendants used the mail and/or wire to share technical, marketing, and financial information 

that revealed the existence of the defeat devices contained therein. Nevertheless, Defendants

shared and disseminated information that deliberately misrepresented the Class Vehicles as legal, 

clean, environmentally friendly, and fuel efficient.

226. By reason of, and as a result of the conduct of Defendants, and in particular, their 

pattern of racketeering activity, Plaintiffs and Class members have been injured in their business 

and/or property in multiple ways, including but not limited to:

A. Purchase or lease of an illegal, defective Class Vehicle;

B. Overpayment for a Class Vehicle; 

C. Other out-of-pocket and loss-of-use expenses;

D. Payment for alternative transportation; and

E. Loss of employment due to lack of transportation.

227. Defendants’ violations of 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c) and (d) have directly and 

proximately caused injuries and damages to Plaintiffs and Class members, and Plaintiffs and 

Class members are entitled to bring this action for three times their actual damages, as well as 

injunctive/equitable relief, costs, and reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c).

COUNT II

FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT

(Common Law)

228. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

229. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 65 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 60 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

230. Defendants designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, and/or leased Class Vehicles

to Plaintiff and the California Class members. Defendants represented to Plaintiff and the Class 

members in advertising and other forms of communication, including standard and uniform 

material provided with each car, that the Class Vehicles had no significant defects, complied 

with EPA and state emissions regulations, and would perform and operate properly when driven 

in normal usage.

231. Defendants intentionally concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the 

illegality and quality of the Class Vehicles in order to defraud and mislead both regulators and 

the Class about the true nature of the Class Vehicles. Defendants accomplished their scheme 

(and the concealment thereof) by installing, aiding in the installation of, and/or failing to disclose 

the defeat devices in the Class Vehicles that caused the vehicles to operate in a low-emission test 

mode only during testing.

232. The Defendants installed software in their vehicles that enabled emissions 

controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to health problems and global 

warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time disabling the same controls 

during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to cheat emission testing by 

showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then actually existed when the 

vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled Defendants’ vehicles to pass 

emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-than-real-world emissions 

readings. Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied upon Defendants’ false representations. 

They had no way of knowing that Defendants’ representations were false and gravely 

misleading. As alleged herein, Defendants employed sophisticated methods of deception. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 66 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 61 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs and Class members did not, and could not, unravel Defendants’ deception on their 

own.

233. Defendants concealed and suppressed material facts concerning their true 

corporate cultures—cultures characterized by an emphasis on profits and sales above compliance 

with federal and state clean air law and emissions regulations that are meant to protect the public 

and consumers. They also emphasized profits and sales above the trust that Plaintiffs and Class 

members placed in their representations. Consumers buy diesel cars from FCA because they feel 

they are clean diesel cars. They do not want to be spewing noxious gases into the environment. 

And yet, that is precisely what the Class Vehicles are doing during real-world driving conditions.

234. Necessarily, Defendants also took steps to ensure that its employees did not reveal 

the details of their deception to regulators or consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class members.

Defendants did so in order to boost the reputations of their vehicles and to falsely assure 

purchasers and lessors of their vehicles, including certified previously owned vehicles, that they 

are reputable manufacturers that comply with applicable law, including federal and state clean air 

and emissions regulations, and that their vehicles likewise comply with applicable laws and 

regulations

235. Defendants’ false representations were material to consumers, both because they 

concerned the quality of the Class Vehicles, including their compliance with applicable federal 

and state laws and regulations regarding clean air and emissions, and also because the 

representations played a significant role in the value of the vehicles. As Defendants well knew, 

their customers, including Plaintiffs and Class members, highly valued that the vehicles they 

were purchasing or leasing were so-called EcoDiesel® vehicles with reduced emissions—a label

only made possible by concealing the vehicles’ true emissions levels from regulators.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 67 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 62 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

236. Defendants had a duty to disclose the emissions deception they engaged in with 

respect to the vehicles at issue because knowledge of the deception and its details were known 

and/or accessible only to Defendants, Defendants had exclusive knowledge as to implementation 

and maintenance of their deception, and Defendants knew the facts were unknown to or not 

reasonably discoverable by Plaintiffs or Class members.

237. Defendants also had a duty to disclose because they made general affirmative 

representations about the qualities of their vehicles with respect to emissions standards which 

were misleading, deceptive, and incomplete without the disclosure of the additional facts set 

forth above regarding their emissions deception, the actual emissions of their vehicles, their 

actual philosophy with respect to compliance with federal and state clean air law and emissions 

regulations, and their actual practices with respect to the vehicles at issue.

238. Having volunteered to provide information to Plaintiffs and the Class, Defendants 

had the duty to disclose the entire truth. These omitted and concealed facts were material because 

they directly affect the value of the Class Vehicles purchased or leased by Plaintiffs and Class 

members. Whether a manufacturer’s products comply with federal and state clean air law and 

emissions regulations, and whether that manufacturer tells the truth with respect to such 

compliance or non-compliance, are material concerns to a consumer, including with respect to 

the emissions certifications testing their vehicles must pass. Defendants represented to Plaintiffs 

and Class members that they were purchasing or leasing reduced emission vehicles, and 

certification testing appeared to confirm this—except that, secretly, Defendants had thoroughly 

subverted the testing process.

239. Defendants actively concealed and/or suppressed these material facts, in whole or 

in part, to pad and protect its profits and to avoid the perception that their vehicles did not or 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 68 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 63 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

could not comply with federal and state laws governing clean air and emissions, which 

perception would hurt the brand’s image and cost Defendants money, and Defendants did so at 

the expense of Plaintiffs and Class members.

240. On information and belief, Defendants have still not made full and adequate 

disclosures and continue to defraud Plaintiffs and Class members by concealing material 

information regarding both the emissions qualities of their vehicles and their emissions 

deception.

241. Plaintiffs and Class members were unaware of the omitted material facts 

referenced herein, and they would not have acted as they did if they had known of the concealed 

and/or suppressed facts, in that they would not have purchased purportedly compliant cars 

manufactured by Defendants, and/or would not have continued to drive their heavily polluting 

vehicles, or would have taken other affirmative steps in light of the information concealed from 

them. Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ actions were justified. Defendants were in exclusive 

control of the material facts, and such facts were not known to the public, Plaintiffs, or Class 

members.

242. Because of the concealment and/or suppression of the facts, Plaintiffs and Class 

members have sustained damages because they purchased vehicles that were equipped with 

undisclosed AECDs that functioned as a “defeat device” and were not legally sold (due to the 

fact that Fiat Chrysler never obtained valid COC for the Class Vehicles), own vehicles that they 

overpaid for as a result of Defendants’ concealment of the true quality and quantity of those 

vehicles’ emissions and Defendants’ failure to timely disclose the defect or defective design of 

the EcoDiesel® engine system, the actual emissions qualities and quantities of hundreds of 

thousands of Ram- and Jeep-branded vehicles, and the serious issues engendered by Defendants’ 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 69 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 64 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

corporate policies, which may require time-consuming, expensive repairs. Had Plaintiffs and 

Class members been aware of Defendants’ emissions deceptions with regard to the vehicles at 

issue, and their callous disregard for compliance with applicable federal and state law and 

regulations, Plaintiffs and Class members who purchased or leased new or previously owned 

vehicles would have paid less for their vehicles or would not have purchased or leased them at 

all.

243. Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs and Class members for damages 

in an amount to be proven at trial.

244. Defendants’ acts were done wantonly, maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, 

with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs’ and Class members’ rights and the 

representations that Defendants made to them, in order to enrich Defendants. Defendants’ 

conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such 

conduct in the future, which amount is to be determined according to proof.

245. Plaintiffs plead this count pursuant to the laws of California, where Defendants 

have significant operations, on behalf of all members of the Class. As necessary, and in the 

alternative, Plaintiffs do and may allege further sub-classes, based on the residences at pertinent 

times of members of the Class, to allege fraudulent concealment under the laws of states other 

than California.

COUNT III

BREACH OF CONTRACT

246. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

247. Plaintiffs bring this Count on behalf of themselves and the Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 70 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 65 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

248. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein, including 

Defendants’ failure to disclose the existence of the “defeat device” and/or defective design as 

alleged herein, caused Plaintiffs and the other Class members to make their purchases or leases 

of their Class Vehicles. Absent those misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members would not have purchased or leased these Class Vehicles, would not have 

purchased or leased these Class Vehicles at the prices they paid, and/or would have purchased or 

leased less expensive alternative vehicles that did not contain the “defeat device.” Accordingly, 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members overpaid for their Class Vehicles and did not receive the 

benefits of their bargains.

249. Each and every sale or lease of a Defective Vehicle constitutes a contract between 

Defendants and the purchaser or lessee. Defendants breached these contracts by selling or leasing 

Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ Class Vehicles and by misrepresenting or failing to 

disclose the existence of the defeat device and/or defective design, including information known 

to Defendants rendering each Defeat Device Vehicle non-compliant with applicable emissions 

standards, and thus less valuable, than vehicles not equipped with defeat devices.

250. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiffs and 

the Class have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, which shall include, but is not 

limited to, all compensatory damages, incidental and consequential damages, and other damages 

allowed by law.

COUNT IV

IMPLIED AND WRITTEN WARRANTY

Magnuson - Moss Warranty Act (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.)

251. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every prior and subsequent allegation 

of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 71 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 66 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

252. Plaintiffs assert this cause of action on behalf of themselves and the other 

members of the Class.

253. This Court has jurisdiction to decide claims brought under 15 U.S.C. § 2301 by 

virtue of 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d).

254. Defendants’ Class Vehicles are a “consumer product,” as that term is defined in 

15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).

255. Plaintiffs and Class members are “consumers,” as that term is defined in 15 

U.S.C. § 2301(3).

256. Each Defendant is a “warrantor” and “supplier” as those terms are defined in 15 

U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).

257. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) provides a cause of action for any consumer who is 

damaged by the failure of a warrantor to comply with an implied or written warranty.

258. As described herein, Defendants provided Plaintiffs and Class members with 

“implied warranties” and “written warranties” as those terms are defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301.

259. Defendants have breached these warranties as described in more detail above. 

Without limitation, Defendants’ Class Vehicles are defective, as described above, which resulted 

in the problems and failures also described above.

260. By Defendants’ conduct as described herein, including knowledge of the defects 

inherent in the vehicles and Defendants’ action, and inaction, in the face of the knowledge, 

Defendants have failed to comply with their obligations under their written and implied 

promises, warranties, and representations.

261. In their capacity as warrantors, and by the conduct described herein, any attempts 

by Defendants to limit the implied warranties in a manner that would exclude coverage of the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 72 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 67 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

defective software and systems is unconscionable and any such effort to disclaim, or otherwise 

limit, liability for the defective the software and supporting systems is null and void.

262. All jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied.

263. Plaintiffs and members of the Class are in privity with Defendants in that they 

purchased the software from Defendants or their agents.

264. As a result of Defendants’ breach of warranties, Plaintiffs and Class members are 

entitled to revoke their acceptance of the vehicles, obtain damages and equitable relief, and 

obtain costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2310.

COUNT V

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

265. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each and every prior and subsequent allegation 

of this Complaint as if fully restated here.

266. Plaintiffs bring this count on behalf of themselves and, where applicable, the 

Class.

267. Plaintiffs and members of the Class conferred a benefit on Defendants by, inter 

alia, using (and paying a premium for) its vehicles. 

268. Defendants have retained this benefit, and know of and appreciate this benefit. 

269. Defendants were and continue to be unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs

and Class members. 

270. Defendants should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment.

COUNT VI

VIOLATIONS OF THE DELAWARE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

(6 Del. Code § 2513, et seq.)

271. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

272. Plaintiffs bring this action on behalf of themselves and the National Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 73 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 68 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

273. Defendants are “person[s]” within the meaning of 6 Del. Code § 2511(7).

274. The Delaware Consumer Fraud Act (“Delaware CFA”) prohibits the “act, use or 

employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, 

misrepresentation, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent 

that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale, 

lease or advertisement of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, 

deceived or damaged thereby.” 6 Del. Code § 2513(a).

275. In the course of their business, Defendants concealed and suppressed material 

facts concerning the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in their vehicles that 

enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to health problems 

and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time disabling the same 

controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to cheat emission 

testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then actually existed 

when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled Defendants’ vehicles to 

pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-than-real-world emissions 

readings.

276. Plaintiffs and Class members had no way of discerning that Defendants’ 

representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device software was 

extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiffs and National Class members did not and could not 

unravel Defendants’ deception on their own. 

277. Defendants thus violated the Act by, at minimum: by employing deception, 

deceptive acts or practices, fraud, misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 74 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 69 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, 

in connection with the sale of Class Vehicles.

278. Defendants engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices that 

violated the Delaware CFA by installing, failing to disclose and actively concealing the illegal 

defeat device and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold. 

279. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, Defendants violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Delaware CFA.

280. Defendants knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but 

concealed all of that information until recently. Defendants were also aware that it valued profits 

over environmental cleanliness, efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was 

manufacturing, selling, and distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not 

comply with EPA regulations. Defendants concealed this information as well.

281. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiffs and the National Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 75 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 70 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

282. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Delaware 

CFA.

283. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose the illegality and public health and 

safety risks of the Class Vehicles because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiffs, Class 

members; and/or

C. made incomplete representations about the environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat device in particular, 

while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that contradicted these 

representations.

284. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency, 

and performance of the “clean” diesel system, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once the 

defects finally began to be disclosed. Associated stigma may also accelerate depreciation.

285. Defendants’ fraudulent use of the “defeat device” and its concealment of the true 

characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system, including the undisclosed AECDs, were 

material to Plaintiffs and the National Class.

286. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, about the true environmental 

cleanliness, reliability and efficiency of the Class Vehicles, including their quality of the Jeep 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 76 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 71 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at Fiat Chrysler, and 

the true value of the Class Vehicles.

287. Plaintiffs and the National Class suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages as 

a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its concealment of and 

failure to disclose material information. Plaintiffs and the National Class members who 

purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all and/or—if 

the Class Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal 

to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. 

288. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all their customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Delaware CFA. All owners of Class Vehicles suffered 

ascertainable loss in that they did not receive the benefit of their bargain as a result of 

Defendants’ deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the course of Defendants’ business.

289. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiffs as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

290. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Delaware CFA, 

Plaintiffs and the National Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

291. Plaintiffs seek damages under the Delaware CFA for injury resulting from the 

direct and natural consequences of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. See, e.g., Stephenson v. 

Capano Dev., Inc., 462 A.2d 1069, 1077 (Del. 1983). Plaintiffs also seek an order enjoining 

Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices, declaratory relief, attorneys’ fees, and 

any other just and proper relief available under the Delaware CFA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 77 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 72 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

292. Defendants engaged in gross, oppressive or aggravated conduct justifying the 

imposition of punitive damages.

COUNT VII

BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(6 Del. Code §§ 2-314 and 2A-212)

293. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

294. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under 6 Del. C. §§ 2-104(1) and 2A-103(3), and “sellers” of motor vehicles under § 2-

103(1)(d).

295. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under 6 Del. C. § 2A-103(1)(p).

296. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of 6 Del. C. §§ 2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h).

297. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to 6 Del. C. §§ 2-314 

and 2A-212) 

298. These Class Vehicles, when sold or leased and at all times thereafter, were not in 

merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used. 

Specifically, the Class Vehicles are inherently defective in that they do not comply with federal 

and state emissions standards, rendering certain emissions functions inoperative; and the “clean” 

diesel engine system was not adequately designed, manufactured, and tested.

299. Defendants were provided notice of these issues by the investigations of the EPA 

and individual state regulators, numerous complaints filed against it including the instant 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 78 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 73 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Complaint, and by numerous individual letters and communications sent by Plaintiffs and others 

within a reasonable amount of time after the allegations of Class Vehicle defects became public.

300. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of 

merchantability, Plaintiffs and the other National Class members have been damaged in an 

amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT VIII

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(6 Del. Code §§ 2-313 and 2A-210)

301. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

302. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under 6 Del. C. §§ 2-104(1) and 2A-103(3), and “sellers” of motor vehicles under § 2-

103(1)(d).

303. With respect to leases Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under 6 Del. C. § 2A-103(1)(p).

304. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of 6 Del. C. §§ 2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h).

305. In connection with the purchase or lease of each one of its new vehicles, 

Defendants provide an express New Vehicle Limited Warranty (“NVLW”). This NVLW exists 

to cover “any repair to correct a manufacturers defect in materials or workmanship.”

306. The Clean Air Act requires manufacturers of light-duty vehicles to provide two 

federal emission control warranties: a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect 

Warranty.”

307. The EPA requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a Performance Warranty with 

respect to the vehicles’ emission systems. Thus, FCA also provides an express warranty for its 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 79 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 74 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

vehicles through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty. The Performance Warranty

required by the EPA applies to repairs that are required during the first two years or 24,000 

miles, whichever occurs first, when a vehicle fails an emissions test. Under this warranty, certain 

major emission control components are covered for the first eight years or 80,000 miles, 

whichever comes first. These major emission control components subject to the longer warranty 

include the catalytic converters, the electronic emission control unit, and the onboard emission 

diagnostic device or computer.

308. The EPA requires vehicle manufacturers to issue Design and Defect Warranties 

with respect to their vehicles’ emission systems. Thus, Defendants also provide an express 

warranty for their vehicles through a Federal Emission Control System Defect Warranty. The 

Design and Defect Warranty required by the EPA covers repair of emission control or emission 

related parts which fail to function or function improperly because of a defect in materials or 

workmanship. This warranty provides protection for two years or 24,000 miles, whichever 

comes first, or, for the major emission control components, for eight years or 80,000 miles, 

whichever comes first.

309. As manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, Defendants were required to provide 

these warranties to purchasers or lessees of their “clean” diesel vehicles.

310. Defendants’ warranties formed a basis of the bargain that was reached when 

Plaintiffs and other National Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped 

with the non-compliant “clean” diesel engine and emission systems.

311. Plaintiffs and the National Class members experienced defects within the 

warranty period. Despite the existence of warranties, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiffs and 

National Class members that the Class Vehicles were intentionally designed and manufactured to 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 80 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 75 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

be out of compliance with applicable state and federal emissions laws, and failed to fix the 

defective emission components free of charge.

312. Defendants breached the express warranty promising to repair and correct a 

manufacturing defect or materials or workmanship of any parts they supplied. Defendants have 

not repaired or adjusted, and have been unable to repair or adjust, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects. 

313. Furthermore, the limited warranty promising to repair and/or correct a 

manufacturing defect fails in its essential purpose because the contractual remedy is insufficient 

to make Plaintiffs and the other National Class members whole and because Defendants have 

failed and/or have refused to adequately provide the promised remedies within a reasonable time. 

314. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiffs and the other National Class members is not 

restricted to the limited warranty promising to repair and/or correct a manufacturing defect, and 

Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other National Class members, seek all remedies as 

allowed by law. 

315. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time Defendants warranted and sold 

or leased the Class Vehicles, they knew that the Class Vehicles were inherently defective and did

not conform to their warranties; further, Defendants had wrongfully and fraudulently concealed 

material facts regarding the Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other National Class members were 

therefore induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false and/or fraudulent pretenses.

316. Moreover, many of the injuries flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be 

resolved through the limited remedy of “replacements or adjustments,” as many incidental and 

consequential damages have already been suffered because of Defendants’ fraudulent conduct as 

alleged herein, and because of their failure and/or continued failure to provide such limited 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 81 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 76 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiffs’ and the other National Class 

members’ remedies would be insufficient to make Plaintiffs and the other National Class 

members whole.

317. Finally, because of Defendants’ breach of warranty as set forth herein, Plaintiffs 

and the other National Class members assert, as additional and/or alternative remedies, the 

revocation of acceptance of the goods and the return to Plaintiffs and the other National Class 

members of the purchase or lease price of all Class Vehicles currently owned or leased, and for 

such other incidental and consequential damages as allowed.

318. Defendants were provided notice of these issues by numerous complaints filed 

against them, including the instant Complaint, within a reasonable amount of time after Fiat 

Chrysler was accused by the EPA and CARB of using a defeat device in the Class Vehicles to 

evade clean air standards.

319. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and the other National Class members have been damaged in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

B. State-Specific Claims

COUNT IX

VIOLATIONS OF THE IDAHO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

(Idaho Code § 48-601, et seq.)

320. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

321. Plaintiffs Fasching and Calhoun bring this action on behalf of themselves and the 

Idaho Class.

322. Defendants are “person[s]” under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (“Idaho 

CPA”), Idaho Code § 48-602(1).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 82 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 77 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

323. Defendants’ acts or practices as set forth above occurred in the conduct of “trade” 

or “commerce” under Idaho Code § 48-602(2).

324. Defendants participated in misleading, false, or deceptive acts that violated the 

Idaho CPA.

325. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

326. Plaintiffs and Idaho Class members had no way of discerning that Defendants’ 

representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device software was 

extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiffs Fasching and Calhoun and Idaho Class members 

did not and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

327. Defendants thus violated the Act by, at minimum: (1) representing that the Class 

Vehicles have characteristics, uses, and benefits which they do not have; (2) representing that the 

Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, and grade when they are not; (3) advertising 

the Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as advertised; (4) engaging in acts or practices 

which are otherwise misleading, false, or deceptive to the consumer; and (5) engaging in any 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 83 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 78 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

unconscionable method, act or practice in the conduct of trade or commerce. See Idaho Code 

§ 48-603.

328. In the course of its business, FCA willfully failed to disclose and actively 

concealed the illegal defeat device and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel 

engine system discussed herein and otherwise engaged in activities with a tendency or capacity 

to deceive. FCA also engaged in unlawful trade practices by employing deception, deceptive acts 

or practices, fraud, misrepresentations, or concealment, suppression or omission of any material 

fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection 

with the sale of Class Vehicles.

329. Defendants engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices that 

violated the Idaho CPA by installing, failing to disclose and actively concealing the illegal defeat 

device and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

330. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the Idaho 

CPA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 84 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 79 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

331. Defendants knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but 

concealed all of that information until recently. FCA was also aware that it valued profits over 

environmental cleanliness, efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was 

manufacturing, selling, and distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not 

comply with EPA regulations. FCA concealed this information as well. 

332. FCA intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding the 

Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiffs Fasching and Calhoun and the Idaho Class.

333. FCA knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Idaho CPA.

334. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose the illegality and public health and 

safety risks of the Class Vehicles because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class members; 

and/or

C. made incomplete representations about the environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat device in 

particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

335. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency, 

and performance of the “clean” diesel system, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once the 

defects finally began to be disclosed. Associated stigma may also accelerate depreciation.

336. FCA’s fraudulent use of the “defeat device” and its concealment of the true 

characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiffs Fasching and 

Calhoun and the Idaho Class.

337. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, about the true environmental 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 85 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 80 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

cleanliness and efficiency of FCA-branded vehicles, the quality of the FCA brand, the devaluing 

of environmental cleanliness and integrity at FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

338. Plaintiffs Fasching and Calhoun and the Idaho Class suffered ascertainable loss 

and actual damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiffs and the Idaho Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them.

339. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Idaho CPA. All owners of Class Vehicles suffered ascertainable 

loss as a result of FCA’s deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the course of FCA’s 

business.

340. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiffs as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

341. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Idaho CPA, 

Plaintiffs and the Idaho Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

342. Pursuant to Idaho Code § 48-608, Plaintiffs and the Idaho Class seek monetary 

relief against Defendants measured as the greater of (a) actual damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial and (b) statutory damages in the amount of $1,000 for each Plaintiff and each 

Idaho Class member.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 86 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 81 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

343. Plaintiffs also seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and/or 

deceptive practices, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief available under the Idaho 

CPA.

344. Plaintiffs and Idaho Class members also seek punitive damages against 

Defendants because Defendants’ conduct evidences an extreme deviation from reasonable 

standards. FCA flagrantly, maliciously, and fraudulently misrepresented the safety and reliability 

of the Class Vehicles, deceived Class members on life-or-death matters, concealed material facts 

that only they knew, and repeatedly promised Class members all vehicles were safe—all to avoid 

the expense and public relations nightmare of correcting a noxious flaw in the Class Vehicles.

FCA’s unlawful conduct constitutes malice, oppression, and fraud warranting punitive damages.

COUNT X

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Idaho Code §§ 28-2-313 and 28-12-210)

345. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

346. Plaintiffs Fasching and Calhoun bring this Count on behalf themselves and the 

Idaho Class.

347. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Idaho Code §§ 28-2-104(1) and 28-12-103(3), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 28-2-103(1)(d).

348. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Idaho Code § 28-12-103(1)(p).

349. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Idaho Code §§ 28-2-105(1) and 28-12-103(1)(h).

350. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 87 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 82 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

351. Plaintiffs and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of 

their vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for 

light-duty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” 

Defendants provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two 

years or 24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered 

for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA 

covers repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain 

major components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

352. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

353. Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations 

and express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiffs and Class members.

354. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

355. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiffs and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 88 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 83 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XI

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Idaho Code §§ 28-2-314 and 28-12-212)

356. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

357. Plaintiffs Fasching and Calhoun bring this Count on behalf of themselves and the 

Idaho Class. 

358. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Idaho Code §§ 28-2-104(1) and 28-12-103(3), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 28-2-103(1)(d).

359. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Idaho Code § 28-12-103(1)(p).

360. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Idaho Code §§ 28-2-105(1) and 28-12-103(1)(h).

361. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 28-2-

314 and 28-12-212.

362. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

363. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiffs and Idaho Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 89 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 84 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XII

VIOLATIONS OF THE LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES

AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW

(La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1401, et seq.)

364. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

365. Plaintiff Radziewicz (for the purpose of this section, “Plaintiff”) brings this action 

on behalf of himself and the Louisiana Class.

366. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the Louisiana Class are “persons” within the meaning 

of the La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1402(8).

367. Plaintiff and the Louisiana Class are “consumers” within the meaning of La. Rev. 

Stat. § 51:1402(1).

368. Defendants engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of La. Rev. 

Stat. § 51:1402(10).

369. The Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law (“Louisiana 

CPL”) makes unlawful “deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.”

La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1405(A). Defendants participated in misleading, false, or deceptive acts that 

violated the Louisiana CPL.

370. In the course of their business, Defendants concealed and suppressed material 

facts concerning the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in their vehicles that 

enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to health problems 

and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time disabling the same 

controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to cheat emission 

testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then actually existed 

when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled Defendants’ vehicles to 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 90 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 85 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-than-real-world emissions 

readings.

371. Plaintiff and Louisiana Class members had no way of discerning that Defendants’

representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device software was 

extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Louisiana Class members did not and could not 

unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

372. Defendants thus violated the Act by, at minimum marketing its vehicles as safe, 

reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and by presenting itself as a 

reputable manufacturer that valued safety, environmental cleanliness, and efficiency, and stood 

behind its vehicles after they were sold, Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices 

prohibited by the Louisiana CPL.

373. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the Louisiana CPL by installing, failing to disclose and actively concealing the 

illegal defeat device and the true cleanliness and performance of the EcoDiesel® diesel engine 

system, by marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high 

quality, and by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

374. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 91 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 86 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Louisiana CPL.

375. Fiat Chrysler knew the true nature of its EcoDiesel® engine system, but 

concealed all of that information until recently. Fiat Chrysler was also aware that it valued profits 

over environmental cleanliness, efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was 

manufacturing, selling, and distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not 

comply with EPA regulations. Defendants concealed this information as well. 

376. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Louisiana Class.

377. Defendants knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Louisiana 

CPL.

378. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to disclose the illegality and public health and 

safety risks of the Class Vehicles because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. made incomplete representations about the environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat device in particular, 

while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that contradicted these 

representations.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 92 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 87 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

379. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency, 

and performance of the “clean” diesel system, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once the 

defects finally began to be disclosed. Associated stigma may also accelerate depreciation.

380. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiff and the 

Louisiana Class.

381. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff, about the true environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the quality of the Jeep and Ram

brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at Fiat Chrysler, and the true 

value of the Class Vehicles.

382. Plaintiff and the Louisiana Class suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages 

as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its concealment of and 

failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Louisiana Class members who 

purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all and/or—if 

the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal to 

sell—would have paid significantly less for them. 

383. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Louisiana CPL. All owners of Class Vehicles suffered 

ascertainable loss as a result of Defendants’ deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the 

course of Defendants’ business.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 93 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 88 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

384. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

385. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Louisiana CPL, 

Plaintiff and the Louisiana Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

386. Pursuant to La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1409, Plaintiff and the Louisiana Class seek to 

recover actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial; treble damages for Defendants’

knowing violations of the Louisiana CPL; an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, 

and/or deceptive practices; declaratory relief; attorneys’ fees; and any other just and proper relief 

available under La. Rev. Stat. § 51:1409.

COUNT XIII

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY/

WARRANTY AGAINST REDHIBITORY DEFECTS

(La. Civ. Code Art. 2520, 2524)

387. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as 

though fully set forth herein. 

388. Plaintiff Radziewicz brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Louisiana 

Class.

389. FCA is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles.

390. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition is implied by 

law in the instant transactions. These Class Vehicles, when sold and at all times thereafter, were 

not in merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which cars are used.

Specifically, the Class Vehicles are inherently defective in that they do not comply with federal 

and state emissions standards, rendering certain safety and emissions functions inoperative; and 

the “clean” diesel engine system was not adequately designed, manufactured, and tested.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 94 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 89 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

391. FCA was provided notice of these issues by the investigations of the EPA and 

individual state regulators, numerous complaints filed against it including the instant complaint, 

and by numerous individual letters and communications sent by Plaintiff and other Class 

members before or within a reasonable amount of time after the allegations of Class Vehicle

defects became public.

392. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the warranties of 

merchantability, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be 

proven at trial.

COUNT XIV

VIOLATION OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 349

(N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349)

393. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the 

preceding paragraphs of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein.

394. Plaintiff McGann brings this Count on behalf of himself and the New York Class.

395. Plaintiff, the Class, and the Defendants are “persons” under N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law. 

§ 349(h).

396. Plaintiff intends to assert a claim under the N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 (“Section 

349”), which makes unlawful “[d]eceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade 

or commerce.”

397. Defendants engaged in unlawful deceptive acts or practices. In their business 

dealings, Defendants intentionally concealed and suppressed material facts about the quality of 

the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in their vehicles that enabled emissions 

controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to health problems and global 

warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time disabling the same controls 

during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to cheat emission testing by 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 95 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 90 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then actually existed when the 

vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled Defendants’ vehicles to pass 

emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-than-real-world emissions 

readings.

398. Plaintiff and the New York Class members reasonably relied on the Defendants 

deceptive practices. Plaintiff and the Class members cannot and could not unravel this deceptive 

scheme on their own because the technology used in making the software is extremely 

sophisticated. 

399. Defendants violated Section 349 by misrepresenting the characteristics and 

quality of its vehicles to induce customers to unknowingly purchase or lease vehicles with 

emission evading features. The Defendants engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts 

by installing the defeat device, concealing its existence, and then marketing the vehicles as 

legally compliant.

400. The EPA regulations and the Clean Air Act set the standards for emission 

compliance. The Defendants’ software designed to evade these standards is a violation of federal 

law. This conduct, which is meant to skirt federal law, constitutes a deceptive practice under 

Section 349.

401. Defendants had a duty to disclose the emissions deception they engaged in with 

respect to the vehicles at issue because knowledge of the deception and its details were known 

and/or accessible only to Defendants, because Defendants had exclusive knowledge as to 

implementation and maintenance of their deception, and because Defendants knew the facts were 

unknown to or not reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff or Class members.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 96 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 91 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

402. Defendants also had a duty to disclose because they made general affirmative 

representations about the qualities of their vehicles with respect to emissions standards which 

were misleading, deceptive, and incomplete without the disclosure of the additional facts set 

forth above regarding their emissions deception, the actual emissions of their vehicles, their 

actual philosophy with respect to compliance with federal and state clean air law and emissions 

regulations, and their actual practices with respect to the vehicles at issue.

403. Having volunteered to provide information to Plaintiffs and the Class, Defendants 

had the duty to disclose the entire truth. These omitted and concealed facts were material because 

they directly affect the value of the Class Vehicles purchased or leased by Plaintiffs and Class 

members. Whether a manufacturer’s products comply with federal and state clean air law and 

emissions regulations, and whether that manufacturer tells the truth with respect to such 

compliance or non-compliance, are material concerns to a consumer, including with respect to 

the emissions certifications testing their vehicles must pass. Defendants represented to Plaintiff 

and Class members that they were purchasing compliant, high-performing vehicles, and 

certification testing appeared to confirm this—except that, secretly, Defendants had thoroughly 

subverted the testing process.

404. Defendants actively concealed and/or suppressed these material facts, in whole or 

in part, to pad and protect its profits and to avoid the perception that their vehicles did not or 

could not comply with federal and state laws governing clean air and emissions, which 

perception would hurt the brand’s image and cost Defendants money, and Defendants did so at 

the expense of Plaintiff and Class members.

405. On information and belief, Defendants have still not made full and adequate 

disclosures, particularly as to past conduct, and continue to defraud Plaintiff and Class members 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 97 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 92 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

by concealing material information regarding both the emissions qualities of their vehicles and 

their emissions deception.

406. Defendants’ illegal use of the defeat device to evade emission standards was 

material to the Plaintiff and the New York Class. Plaintiff and Class members were unaware of 

the omitted material facts referenced herein, and they would not have acted as they did if they 

had known of the concealed and/or suppressed facts, in that they would not have purchased 

purportedly compliant cars manufactured by Defendants, and/or would not have continued to 

drive their heavily polluting vehicles, or would have taken other affirmative steps in light of the 

information concealed from them. 

407. Plaintiff and the New York Class suffered actual damages as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ deceptive conduct. Plaintiff and New York Class members would not have 

purchased the cars and/or would not have paid full value had the Defendants’ deceptive practice 

been known. 

408. Plaintiff and the New York Class seek all just and proper remedies under the law 

including, but not limited to, actual damages or $50 dollars, whichever is greater, up to $1,000 in 

treble damages, and punitive damages to the extent they are applicable. Section 349 allows for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as well as equitable injunctive relief where appropriate. 

COUNT XV

VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK GENERAL BUSINESS LAW § 350

(N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350)

409. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

410. Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of himself and the New York Class.

411. Defendants engaged in “conduct of business, trade or commerce,” as defined in 

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350 (“Section 350”). 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 98 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 93 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

412. Under Section 350 it is unlawful to falsely advertise “in the conduct of any 

business, trade or commerce.” N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350. False advertising is defined under 

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 350-a (1) in the following way: 

The term “false advertising” means advertising, including labeling, of a 

commodity, or of the kind, character, terms or conditions of any employment 

opportunity if such advertising is misleading in a material respect. In 

determining whether any advertising is misleading, there shall be taken into 

account (among other things) not only representations made by statement, word, 

design, device, sound or any combination thereof, but also the extent to which the 

advertising fails to reveal facts material in the light of such representations with 

respect to the commodity or employment to which the advertising relates under 

the conditions prescribed in said advertisement, or under such conditions as are 

customary or usual. 

413. Defendants caused to be made or disseminated throughout New York and the 

United States, through advertising, marketing and other publications, statements that were untrue 

or misleading, and which were known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should have 

been known to Defendants, to be untrue and misleading to consumers, including Plaintiffs and 

the other Class members

414. Defendants disseminating advertisements that failed to reveal material facts about 

the efficiency, safety, reliability, and functionality of the Class Vehicles especially in the light of 

the affirmative representations made about such vehicles.

415. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented the Class Vehicles to the 

Plaintiff the New York class. The misrepresentations and omissions were likely to deceive a 

reasonable consumer and did deceive Plaintiff and the New York Class. 

416. The Class Vehicles do not operate as advertised because of the defeat device. As a 

result, the Class Vehicles are also less valuable than advertised by the Defendants. 

417. All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred, and continues to occur, in 

the Defendants’ business. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is part of a pattern or generalized 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 99 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 94 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

course of conduct that is still perpetuated and repeated, both in the State of New York and 

nationwide. 

418. Plaintiff and the New York Class suffered actual damages as a proximate result of 

Defendants’ deceptive conduct. Plaintiff and New York Class members would not have 

purchased the cars and/or would not have paid full value had the Defendants’ deceptive practice 

been known. 

419. Plaintiff and the New York Class seek all just and proper remedies under the law 

including, but not limited to, actual damages or $50 dollars, whichever is greater, up to $1,000 in 

treble damages, and punitive damages to the extent they are applicable. Section 349 allows for 

reasonable attorney’s fees and costs as well as equitable injunctive relief where appropriate. 

420. Plaintiff and the New York Class seek actual damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial and statutory damages of $500 for each for New York class members. 

Defendants’ conduct was willful entitling the class members to three times actual damages or up 

to $10,000. 

COUNT XVI

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-313 and 2A-210)

421. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

422. Plaintiff McGann brings this Count on behalf of himself and the New York Class 

members. 

423. Defendants are all, with respect to motor vehicles, “merchants,” “sellers,” and/or 

“lessors,” within the meaning of N.Y. UCC Law § 2-104(1), § 2-103(1)(d), and § 2A-103(1)(p), 

respectively. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 100 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 95 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

424. The vehicles as issue were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning of 

N.Y. UCC Law § § 2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h). 

425. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their vehicles.

426. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for 

light-duty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” 

Defendants provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two 

years or 24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered 

for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA 

covers repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain 

major components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

427. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles

they sold to Plaintiff and Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

428. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to the Plaintiff and Class members.

429. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 101 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 96 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

430. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT XVII

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-314 and 2A-212)

431. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

432. Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of himself and the New York Class members. 

433. Defendants are all, with respect to motor vehicles, “merchants,” “sellers,” and/or 

“lessors,” within the meaning of N.Y. UCC Law § 2-104(1), § 2-103(1)(d), and § 2A-103(1)(p), 

respectively. 

434. The vehicles as issue were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning of 

N.Y. UCC Law § § 2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h). 

435. An implied warranty of fitness means that the vehicles were both in merchantable 

condition and fit for their ordinary purpose existed at all relevant times under N.Y. UCC Law 

N.Y. UCC §§ 2-314 and 2A-212. 

436. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards.

437. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and New York Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 102 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 97 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XVIII

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

(BASED ON NEW YORK COMMON LAW)

438. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

439. Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of himself and the New York Class members.

440. Defendants intentionally concealed that the NOx reduction system in the Class 

Vehicles turns off or is limited during normal driving conditions, that the Class Vehicles had 

defective emissions controls, emitted pollutants at a higher level than gasoline-powered vehicles, 

emitted pollutants higher than a reasonable consumer would expect in light of Defendants’ 

advertising campaign, emitted unlawfully high levels of pollutants such as NOx, and were 

noncompliant with EPA emission requirements, or Defendant acted with reckless disregard for 

the truth and denied Plaintiff and the other Class members information that is highly relevant to 

their purchasing decision.

441. Defendants further affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiff and Class members in 

advertising and other forms of communication, including standard and uniform material provided 

with each vehicle, that the Class Vehicles being sold had no significant defects, were Earthfriendly and low-emission vehicles, complied with EPA regulations, and would perform and 

operate properly when driven in normal usage.

442. Defendants knew these representations were false when made.

443. The Class Vehicles purchased or leased by Plaintiff and the other Class members 

were, in fact, defective, emitting pollutants at a much higher rate than gasoline-powered vehicles 

and at a much higher rate than a reasonable consumer would expect in light of Defendants’ 

advertising campaign, non-EPA-compliant, and unreliable because the NOx reduction system in 

the Class Vehicles turns off or is limited during normal driving conditions. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 103 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 98 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

444. Defendants had a duty to disclose that the NOx reduction system in the Class 

Vehicles turns off or is limited during normal driving conditions and that the Class Vehicles 

were defective, employed a “defeat device,” emitted pollutants at a much higher rate than 

gasoline-powered vehicles, had emissions that far exceeded those expected by a reasonable 

consumer, and were non-EPA-compliant and unreliable, because Plaintiff and the other Class 

members relied on Defendants’ material representations that the Class Vehicles they were 

purchasing were reduced-emission vehicles, efficient, and free from defects.

445. As alleged in this Complaint, at all relevant times, Defendants held out the Class 

Vehicles to be reduced-emissions, EPA-compliant vehicles. Defendant disclosed certain details 

about the diesel engine, but nonetheless, Defendant intentionally failed to disclose the important 

facts that the NOx reduction system in the Class Vehicles turns off or is limited during normal 

driving conditions, and that the Class Vehicles had defective emissions controls, deploy a “defeat 

device,” emitted higher levels of pollutants than expected by a reasonable consumer, emitted 

unlawfully high levels of pollutants, and were non-compliant with EPA emissions requirements, 

making other disclosures about the emission system deceptive.

446. The truth about the defective emissions controls and Defendants’ manipulations 

of those controls, unlawfully high emissions, the “defeat device,” and non-compliance with EPA 

emissions requirements was known only to Defendants; Plaintiff and the Class members did not 

know of these facts, and Defendants actively concealed these facts from Plaintiff and Class 

members.

447. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied upon Defendants’ deception. They 

had no way of knowing that Defendants’ representations were false and/or misleading. As 

consumers, Plaintiff and Class members did not, and could not, unravel Defendants’ deception 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 104 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 99 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

on their own. Rather, Defendants intended to deceive Plaintiff and Class members by concealing 

the true facts about the Class Vehicles’ emissions.

448. Defendants also concealed and suppressed material facts concerning what is 

evidently the true culture of Defendants’ businesses—a culture characterized by an emphasis on 

profits and sales above compliance with federal and state clean air laws and emissions 

regulations that are meant to protect the public and consumers. Defendants also emphasized 

profits and sales above the trust that Plaintiff and Class members placed in its representations. 

Consumers buy diesel cars and their component parts from Defendants because they feel they are 

“clean” diesel cars; they do not want to be spewing noxious gases into the environment. And yet, 

that is precisely what the Class Vehicles are doing.

449. Defendants’ false representations were material to consumers because they 

concerned the quality of the Class Vehicles, because they concerned compliance with applicable 

federal and state laws and regulations regarding clean air and emissions, and also because the 

representations played a significant role in the value of the vehicles. As Defendants well knew, 

their customers, including Plaintiff and Class members, highly valued that the vehicles they were 

purchasing or leasing were fuel efficient, “ultra-clean” diesel cars with reduced emissions, and 

they paid accordingly. 

450. Defendants had a duty to disclose the emissions defect, defective design of 

emissions controls, and violations with respect to the Class Vehicles because details of the true 

facts were known and/or accessible only to Defendants, because Defendants had exclusive 

knowledge as to such facts, and because Defendants knew these facts were not known to or 

reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff or Class members. Defendants also had a duty to disclose 

because it made general affirmative representations about the qualities of the vehicles with 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 105 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 100 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

respect to emissions, starting with references to them as reduced-emissions diesel cars and as 

compliant with all laws in each state, which were misleading, deceptive, and incomplete without 

the disclosure of the additional facts set forth above regarding the actual emissions of the 

vehicles, Defendants’ actual philosophy with respect to compliance with federal and state clean 

air laws and emissions regulations, and Defendants’ actual practices with respect to the vehicles 

at issue. Having volunteered to provide information to Plaintiff and Class members, Defendants 

had the duty to disclose not just the partial truth, but the entire truth. These omitted and 

concealed facts were material because they directly impact the value of the Class Vehicles 

purchased or leased by Plaintiff and Class members. Whether a manufacturer’s products pollute, 

comply with federal and state clean air laws and emissions regulations, and whether that 

manufacturer tells the truth with respect to such compliance or non-compliance, are material 

concerns to a consumer, including with respect to the emissions certifications testing their 

vehicles must pass. Defendant represented to Plaintiff and Class members that they were 

purchasing or leasing reduced-emission diesel vehicles when, in fact, they were purchasing or 

leasing defective, high-emission vehicles with unlawfully high emissions.

451. Defendants actively concealed and/or suppressed these material facts, in whole or 

in part, to pad and protect its profits and to avoid the perception that its vehicles were not in fact 

“ultra-clean” diesel vehicles and did not or could not comply with federal and state laws 

governing clean air and emissions, which perception would hurt the brand’s image and cost 

Defendants money, and it did so at the expense of Plaintiff and Class members.

452. Defendants still have not made full and adequate disclosures, and continue to 

defraud Plaintiff and Class members by concealing material information regarding the emissions 

qualities of the Class Vehicles.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 106 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 101 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

453. Plaintiff and Class members were unaware of the omitted material facts 

referenced herein, and they would not have acted as they did if they had known of the concealed 

and/or suppressed facts, in that they would not have purchased purportedly reduced-emissions 

diesel cars manufactured by Defendants, and/or would not have continued to drive their heavily 

polluting vehicles, or would have taken other affirmative steps in light of the information 

concealed from them. Plaintiff’s and Class members’ actions were justified. Defendants were in 

exclusive control of the material facts, and such facts were not generally known to the public, 

Plaintiff, or Class members.

454. Because of the concealment and/or suppression of the facts, Plaintiff and Class 

members have sustained damage because they overpaid for vehicles as a result of Defendants’ 

concealment of the true quality and quantity of those vehicles’ emissions and Defendants’ failure 

to timely disclose the defect or defective design of the diesel engine system, the actual emissions 

qualities and quantities of Defendants’ vehicles, and the serious issues engendered by 

Defendants’ corporate policies. Had Plaintiff and Class members been aware of the true

emissions facts with regard to the Class Vehicles, and Defendants’ disregard for the truth and 

compliance with applicable federal and state laws and regulations, Plaintiff and Class members 

who purchased or leased new or certified pre-owned vehicles would have paid less for their 

vehicles or would not have purchased or leased them at all.As a result of Defendants’ fraudulent 

concealment of the defective emissions controls of the Class Vehicles, the unlawfully high 

emissions of the Class Vehicles, and the non-compliance with EPA emissions requirements, all 

of which has greatly tarnished Defendants’ brand name, which is attached to Plaintiff’s and Class 

members’ vehicles, any reasonable consumer would be reluctant to purchase any of the Class 

Vehicles, let alone pay what otherwise would have been fair market value for the vehicles. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 107 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 102 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Accordingly, Defendants are liable to Plaintiff and Class members for damages in an amount to 

be proven at trial.

455. Defendants’ acts were done wantonly, maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, 

with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff’s and Class members’ rights and the 

representations that Defendants made to them, in order to enrich Defendants. Defendants’ 

conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such 

conduct in the future, which amount is to be determined according to proof. 

COUNT XIX

VIOLATIONS OF THE OREGON UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605, et seq.)

456. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

457. Plaintiff Fasching brings this action on behalf of himself and the Oregon Class 

against all Defendants.

458. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the Oregon Class are “persons” within the meaning of 

Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605(4).

459. Defendants are engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of Or. Rev. 

Stat. § 646.605(8).

460. The Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act (“Oregon UTPA”) prohibits “unfair or 

deceptive acts conduct in trade or commerce ....” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(1).

461. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 108 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 103 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

462. Plaintiff and Oregon Class members had no way of discerning that Defendants’ 

representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device software was 

extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Oregon Class members did not and could not 

unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

463. Defendants thus violated the provisions of the Oregon UTPA, at a minimum by:

(1) representing that the Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which 

they do not have; (2) representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, 

and grade when they are not; (3) advertising the Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as 

advertised; (4) failing to disclose information concerning the Class Vehicles with the intent to 

induce consumers to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles.

464. Defendants engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices that 

violated the Oregon UTPA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing the 

“defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

465. Defendants compounded the deception by repeatedly asserting that the Class 

Vehicles were safe, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and by 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 109 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 104 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

claiming to be a reputable manufacturer that valued safety, environmental cleanliness, and 

efficiency, and stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

466. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the

Oregon UTPA.

467. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

468. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Oregon Class.

469. Defendants knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Oregon 

UTPA.

470. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Oregon Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 110 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 105 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiffs, Class members; 

and/or

C. made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental cleanliness 

and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat device in 

particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

471. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

472. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiff and the Oregon 

Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly vehicles is worth 

more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable manufacturer of 

environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than promptly 

remedying them.

473. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Oregon Class members, 

about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 111 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 106 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at 

FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

474. Plaintiff and Oregon Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its concealment 

of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiffs and the Oregon Class members who 

purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all and/or—if 

the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal to 

sell—would have paid significantly less for them. 

475. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Oregon UTPA in the course of its business.

476. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

477. Pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.638, Plaintiff and the Oregon Class seek an order 

enjoining Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, damages, punitive damages, and 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available under the Oregon UTPA.

COUNT XX

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Or. Rev. Stat. § 72.3140 and 72A.2120)

478. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

479. Plaintiff Fasching brings this Count on behalf himself and the Oregon Class

against Defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 112 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 107 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

480. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1040(1) and 72A.1030(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 72.1030(1)(d).

481. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Or. Rev. Stat. § 72A.1030(1)(p).

482. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1050(1) and 72A.1030(1)(h).

483. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. 

§§ 72.3140 and 72A-2120.

484. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

485. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Oregon Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial. 

COUNT XXI

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.3130 and 72A.2100)

486. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

487. Plaintiff Fasching brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Oregon Class

against Defendants.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 113 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 108 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

488. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1040(1) and 72A.1030(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 72.1030(1)(d).

489. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Or. Rev. Stat. § 72A.1030(1)(p).

490. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1050(1) and 72A.1030(1)(h).

491. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their vehicles.

The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for light-duty 

vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” Defendants provided 

an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty required by the EPA. 

The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two years or 24,000 miles 

if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered for up to eight years or 

80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA covers repairs to the 

emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain major components 

being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

492. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

493. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 114 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 109 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

494. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

495. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff Fasching and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT XXII

VIOLATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(S.C. Code Ann. § 39-5-10, et seq.)

496. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

497. Plaintiff Muckenfuss brings this action on behalf of himself and the South 

Carolina Class against all Defendants.

498. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the members of the South Carolina Class are “persons” 

within the meaning of S.C. Code § 39-5-10(a).

499. Defendants are engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of S.C. 

Code § 39-5-10(b).

500. The South Carolina Unfair Trade Practices Act (“South Carolina UTPA”) 

prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” S.C. 

Code § 39-5-20(a).

501. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 115 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 110 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

502. Plaintiff and South Carolina Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and South Carolina Class members 

did not and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

503. Defendants thus violated the provisions of the South Carolina UTPA, at a 

minimum by: (1) representing that the Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits, and 

qualities which they do not have; (2) representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular 

standard, quality, and grade when they are not; (3) advertising the Class Vehicles with the intent 

not to sell them as advertised; (4) failing to disclose information concerning the Class Vehicles 

with the intent to induce consumers to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles.

504. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the South Carolina UTPA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively 

concealing the “defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel 

engine system, by marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and 

of high quality, and by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 116 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 111 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

505. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the South 

Carolina UTPA.

506. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

507. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the South Carolina Class.

508. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the South 

Carolina UTPA

509. Defendants owed Plaintiff and South Carolina Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiffs, Class members; 

and/or

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 117 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 112 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the 

defeat device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from 

Plaintiffs that contradicted these representations.

510. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

511. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiffs and the South 

Carolina Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly vehicles 

is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable manufacturer of 

environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than promptly 

remedying them.

512. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs and South Carolina Class 

members, about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded 

vehicles, the quality of the FCA brand, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity 

at FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

513. Plaintiff and South Carolina Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its concealment 

of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the South Carolina Class members 

who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 118 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 113 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered 

legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. 

514. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the South Carolina UTPA in the course of its business.

515. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

516. Pursuant to S.C. Code § 39-5-140(a), Plaintiff and the South Carolina Class seek 

an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, damages, treble 

damages for willful and knowing violations, punitive damages, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and 

any other just and proper relief available under the South Carolina UTPA.

COUNT XXIII

VIOLATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA REGULATION OF MANUFACTURERS, 

DISTRIBUTORS, AND DEALERS ACT

(S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10, et seq.)

517. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

518. Plaintiff Muckenfuss brings this claim on behalf of himself and the South 

Carolina Class.

519. Defendants were “manufacturer[s]” as set forth in S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10, as 

it was engaged in the business of manufacturing or assembling new and unused motor vehicles.

520. Defendants committed unfair or deceptive acts or practices that violated the South 

Carolina Regulation of Manufacturers, Distributors, and Dealers Act (“Dealers Act”), S.C. Code 

Ann. § 56-15-30.

521. Defendants engaged in actions which were arbitrary, in bad faith, unconscionable, 

and which caused damage to Plaintiff, the South Carolina Class, and to the public.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 119 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 114 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

522. Defendants’ bad faith and unconscionable actions include, but are not limited to:

(1) representing that Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which they 

do not have, (2) representing that Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, and grade 

when they are not, (3) advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as advertised, 

(4) representing that a transaction involving Class Vehicles confers or involves rights, remedies, 

and obligations which it does not, and (5) representing that the subject of a transaction involving 

Class Vehicles has been supplied in accordance with a previous representation when it has not.

523. Defendants resorted to and used false and misleading advertisements in 

connection with its business. As alleged above, Defendants made numerous material statements 

about the safety, cleanliness, efficiency, and reliability of the Class Vehicles that were either 

false or misleading. Each of these statements contributed to the deceptive context of Defendants’ 

unlawful advertising and representations as a whole.

524. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110(2), Plaintiff brings this action on behalf

of himself and the South Carolina Class, as the action is one of common or general interest to 

many persons and the parties are too numerous to bring them all before the court. 

525. Plaintiff and the South Carolina Class are entitled to double their actual damages, 

the cost of the suit, attorney’s fees pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110. Plaintiff also seeks 

injunctive relief under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110. Plaintiff also seeks treble damages because 

Defendants acted maliciously.

COUNT XXIV

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(S.C. Code §§ 36-2-314 and 36-2A-212)

526. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 120 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 115 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

527. Plaintiff Muckenfuss brings this Count on behalf of himself and the South 

Carolina Class against Defendants.

528. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under S.C. Code §§ 36-2-104(1) and 36-2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 36-2-103(1)(d).

529. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under S.C. Code § 36-2A-103(1)(p).

530. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of S.C. Code §§ 36-2-105(1) and 36-2A-103(1)(h).

531. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to S.C. Code §§ 36-2-

314 and 36-2A-212.

532. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

533. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and South Carolina Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. 

The amount of damages due will be proven at trial. 

COUNT XXV

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(S.C. Code §§ 36-2-313 and 36-2A-210)

534. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 121 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 116 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

535. Plaintiff Muckenfuss brings this action on behalf of himself and the South 

Carolina Class against all Defendants.

536. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under S.C. Code §§ 36-2-104(1) and 36-2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 36-2-103(1)(d).

537. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under S.C. Code § 36-2A-103(1)(p).

538. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of S.C. Code §§ 36-2-105(1) and 36-2A-103(1)(h).

539. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their vehicles.

The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for light-duty 

vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” Defendants provided 

an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty required by the EPA. 

The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two years or 24,000 miles 

if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered for up to eight years or 

80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA covers repairs to the 

emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain major components 

being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

540. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 122 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 117 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

541. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

542. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

543. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT XXVI

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT

(Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.)

544. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

545. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this action on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class against all Defendants.

546. Defendants are “person[s]” under Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(c). 

547. Plaintiffs and the California Class are “consumers,” as defined by Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1761(d), who purchased or leased one or more Class Vehicles. 

548. The California Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in the 

sale or lease of goods or services to any consumer[.]” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a). Defendants have 

engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices that violated Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., as 

described above and below by, at a minimum, representing that Class Vehicles have 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 123 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 118 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which they do not have; representing that Class 

Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, and grade when they are not; advertising Class 

Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and representing that the subject 

of a transaction involving Class Vehicles has been supplied in accordance with a previous 

representation when it has not.

549. In the course of their business, Defendants intentionally or negligently concealed 

and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the misnamed 

“EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in their vehicles 

that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to health 

problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time disabling 

the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to cheat 

emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then actually 

existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled Defendants’ 

vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-than-real-world 

emissions readings.

550. Plaintiffs and California Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiffs and California Class members did 

not and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

551. Defendants engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices that 

violated the CLRA by installing, failing to disclose and actively concealing the illegal defeat 

device and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 124 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 119 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

552. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, Defendants violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

CLRA.

553. Defendants knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but 

concealed all of that information until recently. Defendants were also aware that it valued profits 

over environmental cleanliness, efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was 

manufacturing, selling, and distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not 

comply with EPA regulations. Defendants concealed this information as well. 

554. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiffs and the California Class.

555. Defendants knew or should have known that its conduct violated the CLRA.

556. Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose the illegality and public health and 

safety risks of the Class Vehicles because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiffs, Class members; 

and/or

C. made incomplete representations about the environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat device in 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 125 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 120 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

557. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency, 

and performance of the “clean” diesel system, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once the 

defects finally began to be disclosed. Associated stigma may also accelerate depreciation.

558. Defendants’ fraudulent use of the “defeat device” and its concealment of the true 

characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system was material to Plaintiffs and the California 

Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of safe vehicles is safer and worth more than 

an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable manufacturer of unsafe vehicles that 

conceals defects rather than promptly remedying them.

559. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, about the true environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the quality of the Jeep and Ram 

brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at FCA, and the true value of 

the Class Vehicles

560. Plaintiffs and the California Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its concealment 

of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiffs and the California Class members who 

purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all and/or—if 

the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal to 

sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs and the California 

561. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all of their customers to refrain from unfair 

and deceptive practices under the CLRA. All owners of Class Vehicles suffered ascertainable 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 126 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 121 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

loss as a result of Defendants’ deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the course of 

Defendants’ business.

562. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiffs as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

563. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the CLRA, Plaintiffs 

and the California Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

564. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(a), Plaintiffs and the California Class seek monetary 

relief against Defendants measured as the overpayent for their vehicles caused by Defendants’ 

violations of the CLRA as alleged herein.

565. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(b), Plaintiffs seek an additional award against 

Defendants of up to $5,000 for each California Class member who qualifies as a “senior citizen” 

or “disabled person” under the CLRA. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct 

was directed to one or more California Class members who are senior citizens or disabled 

persons. Defendants’ conduct caused one or more of these senior citizens or disabled persons to 

suffer a substantial loss of property set aside for retirement or for personal or family care and 

maintenance, or assets essential to the health or welfare of the senior citizen or disabled person.

One or more California Class members who are senior citizens or disabled persons are 

substantially more vulnerable to Defendants’ conduct because of age, poor health or infirmity, 

impaired understanding, restricted mobility, or disability, and each of them suffered substantial 

physical, emotional, or economic damage resulting from Defendants’ conduct.

566. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages against Defendants because they carried out 

reprehensible conduct with willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 127 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 122 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

subjecting Plaintiffs and the California Class to potential cruel and unjust hardship as a result.

Defendants intentionally and willfully deceived Plaintiffs on life-or-death matters, and concealed 

material facts that only Defendants knew. Defendants’ unlawful conduct constitutes malice, 

oppression, and fraud warranting punitive damages under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294.

567. Plaintiffs further seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices, restitution, punitive damages, costs of court, attorneys’ fees under Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1780(e), and any other just and proper relief available under the CLRA.

568. Certain Plaintiffs have sent a letter complying with Cal. Civ. Code § 1780(b).

COUNT XXVII

VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)

569. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

570. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this claim on behalf of themselves 

and the California Class.

571. California Business and Professions Code § 17200 prohibits any “unlawful, 

unfair, or fraudulent business act or practices.” Defendants have engaged in unlawful, fraudulent, 

and unfair business acts and practices in violation of the UCL.

572. Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, was and is in violation of the UCL.

Defendants’ conduct violates the UCL in at least the following ways:

A. by knowingly and intentionally concealing from Plaintiffs and the other California 

Class members that the Class Vehicles suffer from a design defect while obtaining 

money from Plaintiffs and Class members;

B. by marketing Class Vehicles as possessing functional and defect-free, EPAcompliant “clean” diesel engine systems; 

C. by purposefully installing an illegal “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles to 

fraudulently obtain EPA certification and cause Class Vehicles to pass emissions 

tests when in truth and fact they did not pass such tests;

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 128 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 123 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

D. by violating federal laws, including the Clean Air Act; and

E. by violating other California laws, including California laws governing vehicle 

emissions and emission testing requirements.

573. Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein caused Plaintiffs 

and the other California Class members to make their purchases or leases of their Class Vehicles.

Absent those misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and the other California Class 

members would not have purchased or leased these vehicles, would not have purchased or leased 

these Class Vehicles at the prices they paid, and/or would have purchased or leased less 

expensive alternative vehicles that did not contain “ultra-clean” EcoDiesel® diesel engine 

systems that failed to comply with EPA and California emissions standards. 

574. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the other California Class members have suffered 

injury in fact including lost money or property as a result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and 

omissions.

575. Plaintiffs seek to enjoin further unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent acts or 

practices by Defendants under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

576. Plaintiffs request that this Court enter such orders or judgments as may be 

necessary to enjoin Defendants from continuing their unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices 

and to restore to Plaintiffs and members of the Class any money it acquired by unfair 

competition, including restitution and/or restitutionary disgorgement, as provided in Cal. Bus. & 

Prof. Code § 17203 and Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 3345; and for such other relief set forth below.

COUNT XXVIII

VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW

(Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §§ 17500, et seq.)

577. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 129 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 124 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

578. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

579. California Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500 states: “It is unlawful for any ... 

corporation ... with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or personal property ... to 

induce the public to enter into any obligation relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to 

be made or disseminated ... from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or 

other publication, or any advertising device, ... or in any other manner or means whatever, 

including over the Internet, any statement ... which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, 

or which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or misleading.”

580. Defendants caused to be made or disseminated through California and the United 

States, through advertising, marketing and other publications, statements that were untrue or 

misleading, and which were known, or which by the exercise of reasonable care should have 

been known to Defendants, to be untrue and misleading to consumers, including Plaintiff and the 

other Class members.

581. Defendants have violated § 17500 because the misrepresentations and omissions 

regarding the safety, reliability, and functionality of Class Vehicles as set forth in this Complaint 

were material and likely to deceive a reasonable consumer.

582. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered an injury in fact, including 

the loss of money or property, as a result of Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive 

practices. In purchasing or leasing their Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

relied on the misrepresentations and/or omissions of Defendants with respect to the safety, 

performance, and reliability of the Class Vehicles. However, Defendants intentionally or 

negligently concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 130 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 125 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

the misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

583. Had Plaintiffs and the other Class members known this, they would not have 

purchased or leased their Class Vehicles and/or paid as much for them. Accordingly, Plaintiffs 

and the other Class members overpaid for their Class Vehicles and did not receive the benefit of 

their bargain.

584. All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred, and continues to occur, in 

the conduct of Defendants’ business. Defendants’ wrongful conduct is part of a pattern or 

generalized course of conduct that is still perpetuated and repeated, both in the State of 

California and nationwide.

585. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, request that this 

Court enter such orders or judgments as may be necessary to enjoin Defendants from continuing 

their unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive practices and to restore to Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members any money Defendants acquired by unfair competition, including restitution and/or 

restitutionary disgorgement, and for such other relief set forth below.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 131 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 126 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XXIX

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Cal. Com. Code §§ 2313 and 10210)

586. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

587. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

588. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Cal. Com. Code §§ 2104(1) and 10103(c), and “sellers” of motor vehicles under 

§ 2103(1)(d).

589. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Cal. Com. Code § 10103(a)(16).

590. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Cal. Com. Code §§ 2105(1) and 10103(a)(8).

591. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiffs and California Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their 

vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for lightduty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” Defendants 

provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty required by 

the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two years or 

24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered for up to 

eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA covers 

repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain major 

components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 132 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 127 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

592. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiffs and Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

593. Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations 

and express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiffs and Class members.

594. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

595. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran, and Class members, suffered significant damages and 

seek damages in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT XXX

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Cal. Com. Code §§ 2314 and 10212)

596. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

597. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

598. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Cal. Com. Code §§ 2104(1) and 10103(c), and “sellers” of motor vehicles under 

§ 2103(1)(d).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 133 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 128 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

599. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Cal. Com. Code § 10103(a)(16).

600. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Cal. Com. Code §§ 2105(1) and 10103(a)(8).

601. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Cal. Com. Code 

§§ 2314 and 10212.

602. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

603. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiffs and California Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial. 

COUNT XXXI

VIOLATIONS OF SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT FOR

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTIES

(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.2 & 1793.2(d))

604. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

605. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

606. Plaintiffs and the other Class members who purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles in California are “buyers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(b).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 134 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 129 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

607. The Class Vehicles are “consumer goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1791(a).

608. Defendants are “manufacturer[s]” of the Class Vehicles within the meaning of 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(j).

609. Plaintiffs and the other Class members bought/leased new motor vehicles 

manufactured by Defendants.

610. Defendants made express warranties to Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.2 and 1793.2, as described above.

611. In connection with the purchase or lease of each one of its new vehicles, 

Defendants provide an express New Vehicle Limited Warranty (“NVLW”) for a period of three 

years or 36,000 miles, whichever occurs first. This NVLW exists to cover “any repair to correct 

a manufacturers defect in materials or workmanship.”

612. The Clean Air Act requires manufacturers of light-duty vehicles to provide two 

federal emission control warranties: a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect 

Warranty.”

613. The EPA requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a Performance Warranty with 

respect to the vehicles’ emission systems. Thus, Defendants also provide an express warranty for 

its vehicles through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty. The Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA applies to repairs that are required during the first two years or 24,000 

miles, whichever occurs first, when a vehicle fails an emissions test. Under this warranty, certain 

major emission control components are covered for the first eight years or 80,000 miles, 

whichever comes first. These major emission control components subject to the longer warranty 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 135 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 130 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

include the catalytic converters, the electronic emission control unit, and the onboard emission

diagnostic device or computer.

614. The EPA requires vehicle manufacturers to issue Defect Warranties with respect 

to their vehicles’ emission systems. Thus, Defendants also provide an express warranty for their 

vehicles through a Federal Emission Control System Defect Warranty. The Design and Defect 

Warranty required by the EPA covers repair of emission control or emission related parts which 

fail to function or function improperly because of a defect in materials or workmanship. This 

warranty provides protection for two years or 24,000 miles, whichever comes first, or, for the 

major emission control components, for eight years or 80,000 miles, whichever comes first.

615. As manufacturers of light-duty vehicles, Defendants were required to provide 

these warranties to purchasers of their “clean” diesel vehicles.

616. Defendants’ warranties formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when 

Plaintiffs and Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the nonEPA complaint “clean” diesel engine system from FCA.

617. Plaintiffs and Class members experienced defects within the warranty period.

Despite the existence of warranties, Defendants failed to inform Plaintiff and Class members that 

the Class Vehicles were intentionally designed and manufactured to be out of compliance with 

applicable state and federal emissions laws, and failed to fix the defective emission components 

free of charge.

618. Plaintiffs and Class members gave Defendants or their authorized repair facilities 

opportunities to fix the defects unless only one repair attempt was possible because the vehicle 

was later destroyed or because Defendants or their authorized repair facility refused to attempt 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 136 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 131 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

the repair. The Defendants did not promptly replace or buy back the Class Vehicles of Plaintiff 

and the other Class members.

619. As a result of Defendants’ breach of its express warranties, Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members received goods whose dangerous condition substantially impairs their value to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been 

damaged as a result of the products’ malfunctioning and the nonuse of their Class Vehicles.

620. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2 & 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief including, at their election, 

the purchase price of their Class Vehicles, or the overpayment for their Class Vehicles.

621. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class members are 

entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT XXXII

VIOLATIONS OF SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT FOR

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1 and 1792)

622. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

623. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

624. Plaintiffs and the other Class members who purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles in California are “buyers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(b).

625. The Class Vehicles are “consumer goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1791(a).

626. Defendants are “manufacturer[s]” of the Class Vehicles within the meaning of 

Cal. Civ. Code § 1791(j).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 137 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 132 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

627. Defendants impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs and the other Class members that its 

Class Vehicles were “merchantable” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(a) & 1792, 

however, the Class Vehicles do not have the quality that a buyer would reasonably expect.

628. Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(a) states:

“Implied warranty of merchantability” or “implied warranty that goods are 

merchantable” means that the consumer goods meet each of the following:

(1) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description.

(2) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used.

(3) Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled.

(4) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the 

container or label.

629. The Class Vehicles would not pass without objection in the automotive trade 

because of the defects in the Class Vehicles’ “clean” diesel engine system. Specifically, the Class 

Vehicles do not comply with federal and state emissions standards, as software on these vehicles 

was designed to cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during testing conditions 

then actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. In addition, the “clean” diesel 

engine system was not adequately designed, manufactures, and tested.

630. Because of the defects in the Class Vehicles’ EcoDiesel® engine systems, they 

are not in merchantable condition and thus not fit for ordinary purposes.

631. The Class Vehicles are not adequately labeled because the labeling fails to 

disclose the defects in the Class Vehicles’ diesel engine system.

632. Defendants breached the implied warranty of merchantability by manufacturing

and selling Class Vehicles containing defects associated with the diesel engine system.

Furthermore, these defects have caused Plaintiffs and the other Class members to not receive the 

benefit of their bargain and have caused Class Vehicles to depreciate in value.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 138 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 133 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

633. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of 

merchantability, Plaintiffs and the other Class members received goods whose defective 

condition substantially impairs their value to Plaintiffs and the other Class members. Plaintiffs

and the other Class members have been damaged as a result of the products’ malfunctioning and 

the nonuse of their Class Vehicles.

634. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(d) & 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members are entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief including, at their election, 

the purchase price of their Class Vehicles, or the overpayment for their Class Vehicles.

635. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class members are 

entitled to costs and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT XXXIII

BREACH OF EXPRESS CALIFORNIA EMISSIONS WARRANTIES

(Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2, et seq.)

636. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though fully set 

forth herein.

637. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

638. Each class vehicle is covered by express California Emissions Warranties as a 

matter of law. See Cal. Health & Safety Code § 43205; Cal. Code Regs. tit. 13, § 2037.

639. The express California Emissions Warranties generally provide “that the vehicle 

or engine is...[d]esigned, built, and equipped so as to conform with all applicable regulations 

adopted by the Air Resources Board.” Id. This provision applies without any time or mileage 

limitation. See id.

640. The California Emissions Warranties also specifically warrant Class members 

against any performance failure of the emissions control system for three years or 50,000 miles, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 139 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 134 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

whichever occurs first, and against any defect in any emission-related part for seven years or 

70,000 miles, whichever occurs first. See id.

641. California law imposes express duties “on the manufacturer of consumer goods 

sold in this state and for which the manufacturer has made an express warranty.” Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1793.2.

642. Among those duties, “[i]f the manufacturer or its representative in this state is 

unable to service or repair a new motor vehicle...to conform to the applicable express warranties 

after a reasonable number of attempts, the manufacturer shall either promptly replace the new 

motor vehicle or promptly make restitution to the buyer” at the vehicle owner’s option. See Cal. 

Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2).

643. Class members are excused from the requirement to “deliver nonconforming 

goods to the manufacturer’s service and repair facility within this state” because Defendants are

refusing to accept them and delivery of the California Vehicles “cannot reasonably be 

accomplished.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(c). 

644. This complaint is written notice of nonconformity to Defendants and “shall 

constitute return of the goods.” Id.

645. In addition to all other damages and remedies, Class members are entitled to 

“recover a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of damages” for the aforementioned 

violation. See Cal. Civ. Code § 1794(e)(1). Any “third-party dispute resolution process” offered 

by Defendants does not relieve Defendants from the civil penalty imposed because Defendants 

are not offering the process to Class members for resolution of these California Emissions 

Warranties issues and the process is not “substantially” compliant. See Cal. Civ. Code 

§ 1794(e)(2); Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.22(d); 16 C.F.R. § 703.2.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 140 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 135 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XXXIV

FAILURE TO RECALL/RETROFIT UNDER CALIFORNIA LAW

646. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

647. Plaintiffs Weaver, Weber, Sing, and Tran bring this Count on behalf of 

themselves and the California Class.

648. Defendants manufactured, marketed, distributed, sold, or otherwise placed into 

the stream of U.S. commerce the Class Vehicles, as set forth above.

649. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that the Class Vehicles were 

dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, and posed an unreasonable. 

650. Defendants became aware that the Class Vehicles were dangerous when used in a 

reasonably foreseeable manner, and posed an unreasonable after the Vehicles were sold. 

651. Defendants failed to recall the Class Vehicles in a timely manner or warn of the 

dangers posed by Class Vehicles.

652. A reasonable manufacturer in same or similar circumstances would have timely 

and properly recalled the Class Vehicles.

653. Plaintiffs and Class members were harmed by Defendants’ failure to recall the 

Class Vehicles properly and in a timely manner and, as a result, have suffered damages, 

including their out-of-pocket costs, losses, and inconvenience expended in complying with the 

false recall, and caused by Defendants’ ongoing failure to properly recall, retrofit, and fully 

repair the Class Vehicles. 

654. Even in the event of a recall, Plaintiffs and Class members have suffered and 

continue to damages for each day that the recall was delayed. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 141 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 136 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

655. Defendants’ failure to timely recall the Class Vehicles was a substantial factor in 

causing the harm to Plaintiff and Class members as alleged herein. 

COUNT XXXV

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER CREDIT AND PROTECTION ACT

(W. Va. Code § 46A-1-101, et seq.)

656. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

657. Plaintiff Neupert brings this action on behalf of himself and the West Virginia 

Class.

658. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the West Virginia Class are “persons” within the 

meaning of W. Va. Code § 46A-1-102(31). Plaintiff and the West Virginia Class members are 

“consumers” within the meaning of W. Va. Code §§ 46A-1-102(2) and 46A-1-102(12). 

659. Defendants are engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of W. Va. 

Code § 46A-6-102(6).

660. The West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protection Act (“West Virginia CCPA”) 

makes unlawful “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the 

conduct of any trade or commerce.” W. Va. Code § 46A-6-104.

661. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 142 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 137 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

662. Plaintiff and West Virginia Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and West Virginia Class members did 

not and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

663. Defendants thus violated the West Virginia CCPA, at a minimum by: representing 

that the Class Vehicles had characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities which they do not have; 

representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality and grade when they are 

not; advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and 

engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. See W.Va. 

Code § 46A-6-102(7)(E), (G), (I) and (L).

664. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the West Virginia CCPA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing 

the “defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, 

by marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, 

and by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

665. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 143 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 138 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the West 

Virginia CCPA.

666. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

667. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the West Virginia Class.

668. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the West 

Virginia CCPA.

669. Defendants owed Plaintiff and West Virginia Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with 

EPA regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the 

defeat device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from 

Plaintiffs that contradicted these representations.

670. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 144 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 139 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

671. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiff and the West 

Virginia Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly vehicles 

is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable manufacturer of 

environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than promptly 

remedying them.

672. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and West Virginia Class 

members, about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded 

vehicles, the quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and 

integrity at FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

673. Plaintiff and West Virginia Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the West Virginia Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiff and the West 

Virginia Class also suffered lost or diminished use. 

674. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the West Virginia CCPA in the course of its business.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 145 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 140 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

675. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

676. Pursuant to W. Va. Code § 46A-6-106(a), Plaintiff and the West Virginia Class 

seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, damages, punitive 

damages, and any other just and proper relief available under the West Virginia CCPA.

677. On January 17, 2017, at least one Plaintiff sent a letter complying with W. Va. 

Code § 46A-6-106(c). Because Defendants failed to remedy its unlawful conduct within the 

requisite time period, Plaintiffs seek all damages and relief to which Plaintiff and the West 

Virginia Class are entitled.

COUNT XXXVI

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-314 and 46-2A-212)

678. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

679. Plaintiff Neupert brings this Count on behalf of himself and the West Virginia 

Class.

680. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under W. Va. Code § 46-2-104(1) and 46-2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 46-2-103(1)(d).

681. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under W. Va. Code § 46-2A-103(1)(p).

682. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-105(1) and 46-2A-103(1)(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 146 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 141 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

683. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to W. Va. Code §§ 46-

2-314 and 46-2A-212.

684. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

685. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and West Virginia Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. 

The amount of damages due will be proven at trial. 

COUNT XXXVII

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-313 and 46-2A-210)

686. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

687. Plaintiff Neupert brings this Count on behalf of himself and the West Virginia 

Class.

688. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-104(1) and 46-2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 46-2-103(1)(d).

689. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under W. Va. Code § 46-2A-103(1)(p).

690. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-105(1) and 46-2A-103(1)(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 147 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 142 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

691. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to

692. Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of 

their vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for 

light-duty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” 

Defendants provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two 

years or 24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered 

for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA 

covers repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain 

major components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

693. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and West Virginia Class members and therefore, knew that the emission 

systems contained defects.

694. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

695. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 148 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 143 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

696. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT XXXVIII

BREACH OF NEW MOTOR VEHICLE WARRANTY

(WEST VIRGINIA “LEMON LAW”)

(W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6A-1, et seq.)

697. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

698. Plaintiff Neupert brings this Count on behalf of himself and the West Virginia 

Class against Defendants.

699. The West Virginia Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles in 

West Virginia are “consumers” within the meaning of W. Va. Code § 46A-6A-2(1). 

700. Defendants are “manufacturer[s]” of the Class Vehicles within the meaning of W. 

Va. Code § 46A-6A-2(2). 

701. The Class Vehicles are “motor vehicles” as defined by W. Va. Code § 46A-6A2(4).

702. In connection with the purchase or lease of each one of its new vehicles, FCA 

provides an express New Vehicle Limited Warranty (NVLW) for a period of three years or 

36,000 miles, whichever occurs first. This NVLW exists to cover “any repair to correct a 

manufacturers defect in materials or workmanship.”

703. The Clean Air Act requires manufacturers of light-duty vehicles to provide two 

federal emission control warranties: a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect 

Warranty.”

704. The EPA requires vehicle manufacturers to provide a Performance Warranty with 

respect to the vehicles’ emissions systems. Thus, FCA also provides an express warranty for its 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 149 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 144 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

vehicles through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty. The Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA applies to repairs that are required during the first two years or 24,000 

miles, whichever occurs first, when a vehicle fails an emissions test. Under this warranty, certain 

major emission control components are covered for the first eight years or 80,000 miles, 

whichever comes first. These major emission control components subject to the longer warranty 

include the catalytic converters, the electronic emissions control unit (ECU), and the onboard 

emissions diagnostic device or computer.

705. The EPA requires vehicle manufacturers to issue Defect Warranties with respect 

to their vehicles’ emissions systems. Thus, FCA also provides an express warranty to its vehicles 

through a Federal Emissions Control System Defect Warranty. The Design and Defect Warranty 

required by the EPA covers repair of emission control or emission related parts which fail to 

function or function improperly due to a defect in materials or workmanship. This warranty 

provides protection for two years or 24,000 miles, whichever comes first, or, for the major 

emissions control components, for eight years or 80,000 miles, whichever comes first.

706. As a manufacturer of light-duty vehicles, FCA was required to provide these 

warranties to Plaintiffs and the West Virginia Class members. Defendants’ warranties formed the 

basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff and other Class members purchased or 

leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the non-compliant EcoDiesel® engine system.

707. The emissions defect in the Class Vehicles existed from the date of the original 

sale of the new vehicle to the consumer but could not be detected by a reasonable consumer 

exercising reasonable care and diligence. Therefore, applicable express warranties for the Class 

Vehicles containing the defeat device software would be extended.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 150 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 145 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

708. On January 17, 2017, at least one West Virginia Plaintiff sent a letter to FCA to 

provide opportunity to cure pursuant to W.Va. Code §§ 46A-6A-3(a) and 5(c). FCA failed to 

offer to cure within the requisite statutory time period. Plaintiff and West Virginia Class 

members therefore seek all damages and relief available against Defendants under the West 

Virginia Lemon Law.

709. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breaches of their duties under 

West Virginia’s Lemon Law, the West Virginia Class members received goods whose defect 

substantially impairs their value. The West Virginia Class has been damaged by the 

compromised functioning and/or non-use of their Class Vehicles. 

710. Defendants have a duty under § 46A-6A-3 to make all repairs necessary to correct 

the defect herein described to bring the Class Vehicles into conformity with all written 

warranties. In the event that Defendants cannot affect such repairs, they have a duty to replace 

each Class Vehicle with a comparable new motor vehicle that conforms to the warranty.

711. As a result of Defendants’ breaches, the Plaintiff and the West Virginia Class are 

entitled to the following:

A. Revocation of acceptance and refund of the purchase price, including, but not 

limited to, sales tax, license and registration fees, and other reasonable expenses 

incurred for the purchase of the new motor vehicle, or if there be no such 

revocation of acceptance, damages for depreciated value of the motor vehicle

associated with any future repairs required, including but not limited to potential 

reduced performance such as a reduction in calculated fuel economy, a decrease 

in peak horsepower; and/or a decrease in peak torque;

B. Damages for the cost of repairs reasonably required to conform the motor vehicle 

to the express warranty;

C. Damages for the loss of use, annoyance or inconvenience resulting from the 

nonconformity, including, but not limited to, reasonable expenses incurred for 

replacement transportation during any period when the vehicle is out of service by 

reason of the nonconformity or by reason of repair; and

D. Reasonable attorney fees.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 151 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 146 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

W. Va. Code § 46A-6A-4(b)(1)-(4).

COUNT XXXIX

VIOLATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON PROTECTION ACT

(Wash. Rev. Code Ann. §§ 19.86.010, et seq.)

712. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

713. Plaintiff Calhoun brings this action on behalf of himself and the Washington 

Class.

714. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the Washington Class are “persons” within the meaning 

of Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(2).

715. Defendants are engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of Wash. 

Rev. Code § 19.86.010(2).

716. The Washington Consumer Protection Act (“Washington CPA”) makes unlawful 

“[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any 

trade or commerce.” Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.020.

717. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 152 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 147 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

718. Plaintiff and Washington Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Washington Class members did 

not and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

719. Defendants thus violated the Washington CPA, at a minimum by: representing 

that the Class Vehicles had characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities which they do not have; 

representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality and grade when they are 

not; advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and 

engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.

720. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the Washington CPA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing the 

“defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

721. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Washington CPA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 153 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 148 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

722. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

723. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Washington Class.

724. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the 

Washington CPA.

725. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Washington Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat 

device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 154 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 149 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

726. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

727. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiffs and the 

Washington Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly 

vehicles is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable 

manufacturer of environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than 

promptly remedying them.

728. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Washington Class 

members, about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded 

vehicles, the quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and 

integrity at FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

729. Plaintiff and Washington Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Washington Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered lost or 

diminished use. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 155 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 150 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

730. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Washington CPA in the course of its business.

731. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

732. Pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.090, Plaintiff and the Washington Class 

seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, damages, punitive 

damages, and attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available under the 

Washington CPA. Because Defendants’ actions were willful and knowing, Plaintiff’s damages 

should be trebled. Id.

COUNT XL

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Wash. Rev. Code §§ 62A.2-314 and 62A.2A-212)

733. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

734. Plaintiff Calhoun brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Washington 

Class.

735. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-104(1) and 62A.2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor 

vehicles under § 2.103(a)(4).

736. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2A-103(1)(p).

737. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Wash. Rev. Code §§ 62A.2-105(1) and 62A.2A-103(1)(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 156 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 151 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

738. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Wash. Rev. Code §§ 

62A.2-314 and 62A.2A-212.

739. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

740. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Washington Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial.

COUNT XLI

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Wash. Rev. Code §§ 62A.2-313 and 62A.2A-210)

741. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

742. Plaintiff Calhoun brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Washington 

Class.

743. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-104(1) and 62A.2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor 

vehicles under § 2.103(a)(4).

744. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2A-103(1)(p).

745. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Wash. Rev. Code §§ 62A.2-105(1) and 62A.2A-103(1)(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 157 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 152 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

746. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to

747. Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of 

their vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for 

light-duty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” 

Defendants provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two 

years or 24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered 

for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA 

covers repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain 

major components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

748. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Washington Class members and therefore, knew that the emission 

systems contained defects.

749. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

750. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 158 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 153 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

751. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT XLII

WASHINGTON “LEMON LAW”

(Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.005, et seq.)

752. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all paragraphs as though fully set 

forth herein.

753. Plaintiff Calhoun brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Washington 

Class against Defendants.

754. Plaintiff and the Washington Class own or lease “new motor vehicles” within the 

meaning of Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.021(12), because these vehicles are self-propelled 

primarily designed for the transportation of persons or property over the public highways and 

were originally purchased or leased at retail from a new motor vehicle dealer or leasing company 

in Washington. These vehicles do not include vehicles purchased or leased by a business as part 

of a fleet of ten or more vehicles at one time or under a single purchase or lease agreement or 

those portions of a motor home designated, used, or maintained primarily as a mobile dwelling, 

office, or commercial space.

755. Defendants are “manufacturer[s]” of the Class Vehicles within the meaning of 

Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.021(8) because they are in the business of constructing or assembling 

new motor vehicles or are engaged in the business of importing new motor vehicles into the 

United States for the purpose of selling or distributing new motor vehicles to new motor vehicle 

dealers. 

756. Plaintiff and the Washington Class are “consumers” within the meaning of Wash. 

Rev. Code § 19.118.021(4) because they entered into an agreement or contract for the transfer, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 159 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 154 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

lease, or purchase of a new motor vehicle, other than for purposes of resale or sublease, during 

the eligibility period as defined by Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.021(6).

757. The Class Vehicles did not conform to their warranties as defined by Wash. Rev. 

Code § 19.118.021(22), during the “eligibility period,” defined by Wash. Rev. Code § 

19.118.021(6), or the coverage period under the applicable written warranty because they were 

not cleaner vehicles and contained a “defeat device” designed to circumvent state and federal 

emissions standards. Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.031. These devices did in fact circumvent 

emissions standards and substantially impaired the use, market value, and safety of their motor 

vehicles.

758. Defendants had actual knowledge of the conformities during warranty periods. 

But the nonconformities continued to exist throughout this term, as they have not been fixed. 

Plaintiff and class members are excused from notifying Defendants of the nonconformities 

because they were already fully aware of the problem—as they intentionally created it—and any 

repair attempt is futile.

759. Defendants have had a reasonable opportunity to cure the nonconformities 

because of its actual knowledge of, creation of, and attempt to conceal the nonconformities, but 

has not done so as required under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.118.031.

760. For vehicles purchased, Plaintiff and the Washington Class demand a full refund 

of the contract price, all collateral charges, and incidental costs. Wash. Rev. Code § 

19.118.041(1)(b). For vehicles leased, Plaintiff and the Washington Class demand all payments 

made under the lease including but not limited to all lease payments, trade-in value or inception 

payment, security deposit, and all collateral charges and incidental costs. The consumer is also 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 160 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 155 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

relieved of any future obligation to the lessor or lienholder. Id. Plaintiff and the Washington 

Class reject an offer of replacement and will retain their vehicles until payment is tendered.

COUNT XLIII

VIOLATIONS OF GEORGIA’S UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(Ga. Code Ann. § 10-1-370, et seq.)

761. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

762. This claim is brought only on behalf of Plaintiff Johnson and the Georgia Class 

against Defendants.

763. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the Georgia Class are “persons’ within the meaning of 

Georgia Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“Georgia UDTPA”), Ga. Code. Ann. § 10-1-

371(5).

764. The Georgia UDTPA prohibits “deceptive trade practices,” which include the 

“misrepresentation of standard or quality of goods or services,” and “engaging in any other 

conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.” Ga. Code. 

Ann. § 10-1-372(a).

765. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 161 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 156 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

766. Plaintiff and Georgia Class members had no way of discerning that Defendants’ 

representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device software was 

extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Georgia Class members did not and could not 

unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

767. Defendants thus violated the Georgia UDTPA, at a minimum by: representing that 

the Class Vehicles had characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities which they do not have; 

representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality and grade when they are 

not; advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and 

engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.

768. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the Georgia FBPA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing the 

“defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

769. Bosch played a critical role in facilitating, and itself contributed to, Defendants’ 

unfair and deceptive conduct, as alleged herein. Bosch knew or should have known that 

Defendants would use and had used the Bosch technology as an emission defeat device, and in 

fact helped it do so. Without Bosch’s complicity and silence, Defendants could not have 

perpetrated the fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair practices alleged herein, and Bosch’s actions 

themselves constitute fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair practices.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 162 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 157 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

770. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, Defendants violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Georgia UDTPA.

771. Defendants knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system but concealed 

all of that information until recently. Defendants also knew that they valued profits over 

environmental cleanliness, efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that they were 

manufacturing, selling, and distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not 

comply with EPA regulations. Defendants concealed this information as well. 

772. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Georgia Class.

773. Defendants knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Georgia 

UDTPA.

774. Defendants owed Plaintiff a duty to disclose the illegality and public health and 

safety risks of the Class Vehicles because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulation;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 163 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 158 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

C. made incomplete representations about the environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat device in particular, 

while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that contradicted these 

representations.

775. Because Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, 

efficiency, and performance of the “clean” diesel system, resulting in a raft of negative publicity 

once the defects finally began to be disclosed, associated stigma may also accelerate 

depreciation.

776. Defendants’ fraudulent use of the “defeat device” and its concealment of the true 

characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system was material to Plaintiff and the Georgia 

Class.

777. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs, about the true environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep and Ram-branded vehicles, the quality of the Jeep and Ram 

brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at FCA, and the true value of 

the Class Vehicles.

778. Plaintiff and the Georgia Class suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages as a 

direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and its concealment of and failure 

to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Georgia Class members who purchased or 

leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all and/or—if the 

Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal to sell—

would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered lost or diminished use.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 164 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 159 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

779. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Georgia UDTPA. All owners of Class Vehicles suffered 

ascertainable loss as a result of Defendants’ deceptive and unfair acts and practices made in the 

course of Defendants’ business.

780. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

781. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Georgia 

UDTPA, Plaintiff and the Georgia Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

782. Plaintiff seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair, unlawful, and/or deceptive 

practices, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief available under the Georgia 

UDTPA per Ga. Code. Ann § 10-1-373.

COUNT XLIV

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Ga. Code. Ann. §§ 11-2-314 and 11-2A-212)

783. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

784. Plaintiff Johnson brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Georgia Class.

785. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Ga. Code Ann. §§ 11-2-104(1) and 11-2A-103(3), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 11-2-103(1)(d).

786. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Ga. Code Ann. § 11-2A-103(1)(p).

787. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 11-2-105(1) and 11-2A-103(1)(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 165 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 160 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

788. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Ga. Code Ann. §§ 11-

2-314 and 11-2A-212.

789. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

790. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Georgia Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial.

COUNT XLV

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Ga. Code. Ann. §§ 11-2-313 and 11-2A-210)

791. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

792. Plaintiff Johnson brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Georgia Class.

793. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Ga. Code Ann. §§ 11-2-104(1) and 11-2A-103(3), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 11-2-103(1)(d).

794. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Ga. Code Ann. § 11-2A-103(1)(p).

795. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Ga. Code Ann. §§ 11-2-105(1) and 11-2A-103(1)(h).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 166 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 161 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

796. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their vehicles. 

The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for light-duty 

vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” Defendants provided 

an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty required by the EPA. 

The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two years or 24,000 miles 

if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered for up to eight years or 

80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA covers repairs to the 

emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain major components 

being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

797. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Georgia Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

798. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

799. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 167 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 162 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

800. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT XLVI

VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521, et seq.)

801. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

802. Plaintiff Elowitz brings this action on behalf of himself and the Arizona Class.

803. Defendants, Plaintiff, and the Arizona Class are “persons” within the meaning of 

Arizona Consumer Fraud Act (“Arizona CFA”), Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1521(6). 

804. The Class Vehicles are “merchandise” within the meaning of Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 

44-1521(5).

805. The Arizona CFA provides that “[t]he act, use or employment by any person of 

any deception, deceptive act or practice, fraud, ... misrepresentation, or concealment, 

suppression or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, 

suppression or omission, in connection with the sale ... of any merchandise whether or not any 

person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is declared to be an unlawful 

practice.” Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 44-1522(A).

806. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 168 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 163 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

807. Plaintiff and Arizona Class members had no way of discerning that Defendants’ 

representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device software was 

extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Arizona Class members did not and could not 

unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

808. Defendants thus violated the Arizona CFA, at a minimum by: representing that 

the Class Vehicles had characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities which they do not have; 

representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality and grade when they are 

not; advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and 

engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding. See W.Va. 

Code § 46A-6-102(7)(E), (G), (I) and (L).

809. Bosch played a critical role in facilitating, and itself contributed to, Defendants’ 

unfair and deceptive conduct, as alleged herein. Bosch knew or should have known that FCA 

would use and had used the Bosch technology as an emission defeat device, and in fact helped it 

do so. Without Bosch’s complicity and silence, FCA could not have perpetrated the fraudulent, 

deceptive, and unfair practices alleged herein, and Bosch’s actions themselves constitute 

fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair practices.

810. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the Arizona CFA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing the 

“defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 169 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 164 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

811. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Arizona CFA.

812. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

813. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Arizona Class.

814. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Arizona 

CFA.

815. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Arizona Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 170 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 165 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat 

device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

816. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

817. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiff and the Arizona 

Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly vehicles is worth 

more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable manufacturer of 

environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than promptly 

remedying them.

818. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Arizona Class members, 

about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 171 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 166 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at 

FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

819. Plaintiff and Arizona Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Arizona Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered lost or 

diminished use of their vehicles. 

820. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Arizona CFA in the course of its business.

821. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

822. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Arizona CFA, 

Plaintiff and the Arizona Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

823. Plaintiff and the Arizona Class seek monetary relief against Defendants in an 

amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff and the Arizona Class also seek punitive damages 

because Defendants engaged in aggravated and outrageous conduct with an evil mind.

824. Plaintiff and the Arizona Class also seek an order enjoining Defendants’ unfair, 

unlawful, and/or deceptive practices, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief 

available under the Arizona CFA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 172 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 167 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XLVII

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2314 and 47-2A212)

825. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

826. Plaintiff Elowitz brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Arizona Class.

827. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2104(A) and 47-2a103(c); and is a “seller” of motor 

vehicles under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2103(A)(4).

828. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2a103(A)(16).

829. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2105(A) and 47-2a103(A)(8).

830. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 

47-2314 and 47-2a212.

831. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

832. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Arizona Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 173 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 168 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

COUNT XLVIII

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2313 and 47-2A210)

833. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

834. Plaintiff Elowitz brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Arizona Class.

835. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2104(A) and 47-2a103(c); and is a “seller” of motor 

vehicles under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2103(A)(4).

836. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Ariz. Rev. Stat. § 47-2a103(A)(16).

837. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Ariz. Rev. Stat. §§ 47-2105(A) and 47-2a103(A)(8).

838. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to

839. Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of 

their vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for 

light-duty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” 

Defendants provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two 

years or 24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered 

for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA 

covers repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain 

major components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

840. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 174 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 169 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

they sold to Plaintiff and Arizona Class members and therefore, knew that the emission systems 

contained defects.

841. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

842. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

843. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT XLIX

VIOLATIONS OF THE WISCONSIN DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

(Wis. Stat. § 100.18)

844. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

845. Plaintiff Claflin brings this action on behalf of himself and the Wisconsin Class.

846. Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class members are members of “the public” within 

the meaning of Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1). Plaintiffs and Wisconsin Class members purchased or 

leased one or more Class Vehicles.

847. Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class members are “persons” under the Wisconsin 

Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“Wisconsin DTPA”), Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1). 

848. Defendants are each a “person, firm, corporation or association” within the 

meaning of Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 175 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 170 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

849. The Wisconsin DTPA makes unlawful any “representation or statement of fact 

which is untrue, deceptive or misleading.” Wis. Stat. § 100.18(1).

850. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

851. Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members did not 

and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

852. Defendants thus violated the Wisconsin DTPA, at a minimum by: representing 

that the Class Vehicles had characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities which they do not have; 

representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality and grade when they are 

not; advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and 

engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.

853. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the Wisconsin DTPA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 176 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 171 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

“defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

854. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Wisconsin DTPA.

855. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

856. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class.

857. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Wisconsin 

DTPA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 177 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 172 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

858. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat 

device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

859. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

860. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiffs and the 

Wisconsin Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly 

vehicles is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable 

manufacturer of environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than 

promptly remedying them.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 178 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 173 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

861. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members, 

about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the 

quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at 

FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

862. Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Wisconsin Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered lost or 

diminished use of their vehicles. 

863. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Wisconsin DTPA in the course of its business.

864. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

865. Plaintiffs and the Wisconsin Class seek damages, court costs and attorneys’ fees 

under Wis. Stat. § 100.18(11)(b)(2), and any other just and proper relief available under the 

Wisconsin DTPA.

COUNT L

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Wis. Stat. §§ 402.314 and 411.212)

866. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 179 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 174 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

867. Plaintiff Claflin brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Wisconsin Class.

868. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Wis. Stat. § 402.104(3) and 411.103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles under § 

402.103(1)(d).

869. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Wis. Stat. § 411.103(1)(p).

870. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Wis. Stat. §§ 402.105(1)(c) and 411.103(1)(h).

871. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Wis. Stat. §§ 402.314 

and 411.212.

872. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

873. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial.

COUNT LI

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Wis. Stat. §§ 402.313 and 411.210)

874. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

875. Plaintiff Claflin brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Wisconsin Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 180 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 175 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

876. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Wis. Stat. § 402.104(3) and 411.103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles under § 

402.103(1)(d).

877. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Wis. Stat. § 411.103(1)(p).

878. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Wis. Stat. §§ 402.105(1)(c) and 411.103(1)(h).

879. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to

880. Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of 

their vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for 

light-duty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” 

Defendants provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty 

required by the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two 

years or 24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered 

for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA 

covers repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain 

major components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles. 

881. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Wisconsin Class members and therefore, knew that the emission 

systems contained defects.

882. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 181 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 176 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

883. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

884. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT LII

VIOLATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA PREVENTION OF CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

(Minn. Stat. § 325f.68, et seq.)

885. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

886. Plaintiff Claflin brings this action on behalf of himself and the Minnesota Class.

887. The Class Vehicles constitute “merchandise” within the meaning of Minn. Stat. § 

325F.68(2).

888. The Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (“Minnesota CFA”) prohibits 

“[t]he act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud, false pretense, false promise, 

misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely 

thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact 

been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby ....” Minn. Stat. § 325F.69(1). Volkswagen 

participated in misleading, false, or deceptive acts that violated the Minnesota CFA.

889. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 182 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 177 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

890. Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members did not 

and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

891. Defendants thus violated the Minnesota CFA, at a minimum by: representing that 

the Class Vehicles had characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities which they do not have; 

representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality and grade when they are 

not; advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell or lease them as advertised; and 

engaging in other conduct creating a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding.

892. Defendants’ actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or 

commerce.

893. Bosch played a critical role in facilitating, and itself contributed to, FCA’s unfair 

and deceptive conduct, as alleged herein. Bosch knew or should have known that Fiat Chrysler 

would use and had used the Bosch technology as an emission defeat device, and in fact helped it 

do so. Without Bosch’s complicity and silence, FCA could not have perpetrated the fraudulent, 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 183 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 178 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

deceptive, and unfair practices alleged herein, and Bosch’s actions themselves constitute 

fraudulent, deceptive, and unfair practices.

894. Fiat Chrysler engaged in misleading, false, unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

that violated the Minnesota CFA by installing, failing to disclose and/or actively concealing the 

“defeat device” and the true cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by 

marketing its vehicles as legal, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and 

by presenting itself as a reputable manufacturer that valued environmental cleanliness and 

efficiency, and that stood behind its vehicles after they were sold.

895. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Minnesota CFA.

896. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

897. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 184 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 179 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

898. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Minnesota 

CFA.

899. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat 

device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

900. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

901. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiffs and the 

Minnesota Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly 

vehicles is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 185 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 180 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

manufacturer of environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than 

promptly remedying them.

902. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members, 

about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the 

quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at 

FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

903. Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered as lost 

or diminished use of their vehicles. 

904. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and

deceptive practices under the Minnesota CFA in the course of its business.

905. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

906. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Minnesota CFA, 

Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 186 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 181 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

907. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.31(3a), Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class seek actual 

damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief available under the Minnesota 

CFA.

908. Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class also seek punitive damages under Minn. Stat. § 

549.20(1)(a) given the clear and convincing evidence that Defendants’ acts show deliberate 

disregard for the rights or safety of others.

COUNT LIII

VIOLATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES 

ACT

(Minn. Stat. § 325d.43-48, et seq.)

909. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set 

forth herein.

910. Plaintiff Claflin brings this action on behalf of himself and the Minnesota Class.

911. The Minnesota Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“Minnesota DTPA”) prohibits 

deceptive trade practices, which occur when a person “(5) represents that goods or services have 

sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not 

have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection that the person 

does not have;” “(7) represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or 

grade, or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another;” and “(9) advertises 

goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised.” Minn. Stat. § 325D.44. In the course 

of the Defendants’ business, they engaged in deceptive practices by representing that Class 

Vehicles have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or qualities that 

they do not have; representing that Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, 

or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; and advertising Class 

Vehicles with intent not to sell them as advertised. Defendants participated in misleading, false, 

or deceptive acts that violated the Minnesota DTPA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 187 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 182 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

912. By failing to disclose and by actively concealing the “defeat device” and the true 

cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by marketing its vehicles as 

safe, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and by presenting itself as a 

reputable manufacturer that valued safety, environmental cleanliness, and efficiency, and stood 

behind its vehicles after they were sold, FCA engaged in deceptive business practices prohibited 

by the Minnesota DTPA.

913. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

914. Defendants’ actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or 

commerce.

915. Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members had no way of discerning that 

Defendants’ representations were false and misleading because Defendants’ defeat device 

software was extremely sophisticated technology. Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members did not 

and could not unravel Defendants’ deception on their own.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 188 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 183 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

916. Defendants’ actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or 

commerce.

917. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health 

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the 

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By 

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Minnesota DTPA.

918. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

919. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class.

920. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Minnesota 

DTPA.

921. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 189 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 184 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. Made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat 

device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

922. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

923. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiffs and the 

Minnesota Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly 

vehicles is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable

manufacturer of environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than 

promptly remedying them.

924. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members, 

about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 190 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 185 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at 

FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

925. Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered lost or 

diminished use of their vehicles. 

926. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Minnesota DTPA in the course of its business.

927. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

928. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Minnesota 

DTPA, Plaintiffs and the Minnesota Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

929. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 8.31(3a) and 325D.45, Plaintiffs and the Minnesota 

Class seek actual damages, attorneys’ fees, and any other just and proper relief available under 

the Minnesota DTPA.

930. Plaintiffs also seek punitive damages under Minn. Stat. § 549.20(1)(a) give the 

clear and convincing evidence that Volkswagen’s acts show deliberate disregard for the rights or 

safety of others.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 191 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 186 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

931. Plaintiff and the Minnesota Class also seek punitive damages under Minn. Stat. § 

549.20(1)(a) given the clear and convincing evidence that Defendants’ acts show deliberate 

disregard for the rights or safety of others.

COUNT LIV

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-314 and 336.2A-212)

932. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all allegations of the preceding 

paragraphs as though fully set forth herein. 

933. Plaintiff Claflin brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Minnesota Class.

934. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Minn. Stat. § 336.2-104(1) and “sellers” of motor vehicles under § 336.2-

103(1)(d).

935. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Minn. Stat. § 336.2A-103(1)(p).

936. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Minn. Stat. § 336.2-105(1) and 336.2A-103(1)(h).

937. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-

314 and 336.2A-212.

938. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 192 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 187 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

939. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial.

COUNT LV

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-313 and 336.2A-210)

940. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

941. Plaintiff Claflin brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Minnesota Class.

942. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Minn. Stat. § 336.2-104(1) and “sellers” of motor vehicles under § 336.2-

103(1)(d).

943. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Minn. Stat. § 336.2A-103(1)(p).

944. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Minn. Stat. §§ 336.2-105(1) and 336.2A-103(1)(h).

945. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiff and Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their vehicles. 

The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for light-duty 

vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” Defendants provided 

an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty required by the EPA. 

The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two years or 24,000 miles 

if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered for up to eight years or 

80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA covers repairs to the 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 193 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 188 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain major components 

being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles.

946. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Minnesota Class members and therefore, knew that the emission 

systems contained defects.

947. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ representations and 

express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing vehicles. The vehicles, 

however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and Class members, those 

vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at higher than allowable levels. Those 

devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their express warranty by providing a 

product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff and Class members.

948. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

949. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

COUNT LVI

VIOLATIONS OF TENNESSEE CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT OF 1977

(Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101, et seq.)

950. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

951. Plaintiff Griggs brings this action on behalf of himself and the Tennessee Class.

952. Plaintiff and the Tennessee Class are “natural persons” and “consumers” within 

the meaning of Tenn. Code § 47-18-103(2). Defendants are “person[s]” within the meaning of 

Tenn. Code § 47-18-103(9).

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 194 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 189 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

953. Defendants are engaged in “trade” or “commerce” or “consumer transactions”

within the meaning Tenn. Code § 47-18-103(9).

954. The Tennessee Consumer Protection Act (“Tennessee CPA”) prohibits “unfair or

deceptive acts or practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Tenn. Code § 47-

18-104.

955. In the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants intentionally or negligently 

concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the true emissions produced by the 

misnamed “EcoDiesel®” engines in the Class Vehicles. The Defendants installed software in 

their vehicles that enabled emissions controls for nitrogen oxide—a pollutant that contributes to 

health problems and global warming—to pass EPA emissions testing while at the same time 

disabling the same controls during real-world driving. Specifically, the software was designed to 

cheat emission testing by showing lower emissions during laboratory testing conditions then 

actually existed when the vehicle operated on the road. This deceptive practice enabled 

Defendants’ vehicles to pass emission certification tests through deliberately induced lower-thanreal-world emissions readings.

956. By failing to disclose and by actively concealing the “defeat device” and the true 

cleanliness and performance of the “clean” diesel engine system, by marketing its vehicles as 

safe, reliable, environmentally clean, efficient, and of high quality, and by presenting itself as a 

reputable manufacturer that valued safety, environmental cleanliness, and efficiency, and stood 

behind its vehicles after they were sold, FCA engaged in deceptive business practices prohibited 

by the Tennessee CPA.

957. More specifically, FCA violated the provisions of the Tennessee CPA by: (1) 

representing that the Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which they 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 195 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 190 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

do not have; (2) representing that the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, and 

grade when they are not; (3) advertising the Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as 

advertised; (4) failing to disclose information concerning the Class Vehicles with the intent to 

induce consumers to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles.

958. The Clean Air Act and EPA regulations require that automobiles limit their 

emissions output to specified levels. These laws are intended for the protection of public health

and welfare. “Defeat devices” like those in the Class Vehicles are defined and prohibited by the

Clean Air Act and its regulations. See 42 U.S.C. § 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR § 86.1809. By

installing illegal “defeat devices” in the Class Vehicles and by making those vehicles available 

for purchase, FCA violated federal law and therefore engaged in conduct that violates the 

Tennessee CPA.

959. Fiat Chrysler knew it had installed the “defeat device” in the Class Vehicles, and 

knew the true nature of its “clean” diesel engine system, but concealed all of that information 

until recently. Fiat Chrysler also knew that it valued profits over environmental cleanliness, 

efficiency, and compliance with the law, and that it was manufacturing, selling, and distributing 

vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA regulations, but it concealed 

this information as well.

960. Defendants intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding 

the Class Vehicles with intent to mislead Plaintiff and the Tennessee Class.

961. Defendants knew or should have known that their conduct violated the Tennessee 

CPA.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 196 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 191 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

962. Defendants owed Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members a duty to disclose, 

truthfully, all the facts concerning the cleanliness, efficiency and reliability of the Class Vehicles 

because they:

A. possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing, selling, and 

distributing vehicles throughout the United States that did not comply with EPA 

regulations;

B. intentionally concealed the foregoing from regulators, Plaintiff, Class 

members; and/or

C. made incomplete or negligent representations about the environmental 

cleanliness and efficiency of the Class Vehicles generally, and the use of the defeat 

device in particular, while purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiffs that 

contradicted these representations.

963. Defendants concealed the illegal defeat device and the true emissions, efficiency 

and performance of the Class Vehicles, resulting in a raft of negative publicity once Defendants’ 

fraud was exposed. The value of the Class Vehicles has therefore plummeted. In light of the 

stigma Defendants’ misconduct attached to the Class Vehicles, the Class Vehicles are now worth 

less than they otherwise would be worth.

964. Defendants’ supply and use of the illegal defeat device and concealment of the 

true characteristics of the “clean” diesel engine system were material to Plaintiff and the 

Tennessee Class. A vehicle made by a reputable manufacturer of environmentally friendly 

vehicles is worth more than an otherwise comparable vehicle made by a disreputable 

manufacturer of environmentally dirty vehicles that conceals its polluting engines rather than 

promptly remedying them.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 197 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 192 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

965. Defendants’ unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact 

deceive regulators and reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members, 

about the true environmental cleanliness and efficiency of Jeep- and Ram-branded vehicles, the 

quality of the Jeep and Ram brands, the devaluing of environmental cleanliness and integrity at 

FCA, and the true value of the Class Vehicles.

966. Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual 

damages as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misrepresentations and their 

concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the Tennessee Class 

members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them 

at all and/or—if the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles 

rendered legal to sell—would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiffs also suffered lost or 

diminished use of their vehicles. 

967. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FCA customers to refrain from unfair and 

deceptive practices under the Tennessee CPA in the course of its business.

968. Defendants’ violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiff as well as to the 

general public. Defendants’ unlawful acts and practices complained of herein affect the public 

interest.

969. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ violations of the Tennessee CPA, 

Plaintiff and the Tennessee Class have suffered injury-in-fact and/or actual damage.

970. Pursuant to Tenn. Code § 47-18-109, Plaintiff and the Tennessee Class seek an 

order enjoining Volkswagen’s unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, damages, treble damages 

for willful and knowing violations, pursuant to § 47-18-109(a)(3), punitive damages, and 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 198 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 193 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief to the extent available under the 

Tennessee CPA.

COUNT LVII

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-314 and 47-2A-212)

971. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

972. Plaintiff Griggs brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Tennessee Class.

973. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-104(1) and 47-2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 47-2-103(1)(d).

974. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Tenn. Code § 47-2A-103(1)(p).

975. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-105(1) and 47-2A-103(1)(h).

976. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the 

ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used is implied by law pursuant to Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-

314 and 47-2A-212.

977. Defendants sold and/or leased Class Vehicles that were not in merchantable 

condition and/or fit for their ordinary purpose in violation of the implied warranty. The vehicles 

were not in merchantable condition because their defective design violated state and federal 

laws. The vehicles were not fit for their ordinary purpose as they were built to evade state and 

federal emission standards. 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 199 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 194 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

978. Defendants’ breach of the implied warranty of merchantability caused damage to 

the Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members who purchased or leased the defective vehicles. The 

amount of damages due will be proven at trial.

COUNT LVIII

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-313 and 47-2A-210)

979. Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference all preceding allegations as though 

fully set forth herein.

980. Plaintiff Griggs brings this Count on behalf of himself and the Tennessee Class.

981. Defendants are and were at all relevant times “merchants” with respect to motor 

vehicles under Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-104(1) and 47-2A-103(1)(t), and “sellers” of motor vehicles 

under § 47-2-103(1)(d).

982. With respect to leases, Defendants are and were at all relevant times “lessors” of 

motor vehicles under Tenn. Code § 47-2A-103(1)(p).

983. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning 

of Tenn. Code §§ 47-2-105(1) and 47-2A-103(1)(h).

984. Defendants made numerous representations, descriptions, and promises to 

Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members regarding the performance and emission controls of their 

vehicles. The Clean Air Act requires Defendants to provide two types of warranties for lightduty vehicles—a “Performance Warranty” and a “Design and Defect Warranty.” Defendants 

provided an express warranty through a Federal Emissions Performance Warranty required by 

the EPA. The Performance Warranty applies to required repairs during the first two years or 

24,000 miles if a vehicle fails an emissions test with certain components being covered for up to 

eight years or 80,000 miles. The Design and Defect Warranties required by the EPA covers 

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 200 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 195 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

repairs to the emission system and related parts for two years or 24,000 miles with certain major 

components being covered for up to eight years or 80,000 miles.

985. Defendants, however, knew or should have known that their warranties were false 

and/or misleading. Defendants were aware that they had installed defeat devices in the vehicles 

they sold to Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members and therefore, knew that the emission 

systems contained defects.

986. Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members reasonably relied on Defendants’ 

representations and express warranties concerning emissions when purchasing or leasing 

vehicles. The vehicles, however, did not perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiff 

and Tennessee Class members, those vehicles included devices that caused them to pollute at 

higher than allowable levels. Those devices are defects. Accordingly, Defendants breached their 

express warranty by providing a product containing defects that were never disclosed to Plaintiff 

and Tennessee Class members.

987. Any opportunity to cure the express breach is unnecessary and futile. 

988. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ breach of express warranties, 

Plaintiff and Tennessee Class members suffered significant damages and seek damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

XI. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of members of the Nationwide 

Class and all Classes, respectfully request that the Court enter judgment in their favor and against 

Defendants, as follows:

A. Certification of the proposed Nationwide Class and/or Subclasses under Federal 

Rule of Civil Procedure 23, including appointment of Plaintiffs’ counsel as Class Counsel;

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 201 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 196 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

B. An order temporarily and permanently enjoining Defendants from continuing the 

unlawful, deceptive, fraudulent, and unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint;

C. Injunctive relief in the form of a recall or free replacement;

D. A declaration that the defeat device software in the Class Vehicles is illegal and 

that the Class Vehicles are defective;

E. Public injunctive relief necessary to protect public health and welfare, and to 

remediate the environmental harm caused by the Class Vehicles’ unlawful emissions;

F. Costs, restitution, damages, and disgorgement in an amount to be determined at 

trial;

G. Rescission of all Class Vehicle purchases or leases, including reimbursement 

and/or compensation of the full purchase price of all Class Vehicles, including taxes, licenses, 

and other fees;

H. Damages under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;

I. For treble and/or punitive damages as permitted by applicable laws;

J. An order requiring Defendants to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any 

amounts awarded;

K. An award of costs and attorneys’ fees; and

L. Such other or further relief as the Court may deem appropriate, just, and 

equitable.

XII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of any

and all issues in this action so triable of right.

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 202 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 197 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

DATED this 8th day of February, 2017.

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

By /s/ Jeffrey Lewis

Jeffrey Lewis (SBN 66587) 

Lisa Faye Petak (SBN 300914)

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

300 Lakeside Drive, Suite 1000

Oakland, CA 94612

(510) 463-3900, Fax (510) 463-3901

jlewis@kellerrohrback.com

lpetak@kellerrohrback.com

Lynn Lincoln Sarko, pro hac vice forthcoming

Derek W. Loeser, pro hac vice forthcoming

Gretchen Freeman Cappio, pro hac vice forthcoming

Dean Kawamoto (SBN 232032)

Ryan McDevitt, pro hac vice forthcoming

KELLER ROHRBACK L.L.P.

1201 Third Avenue, Suite 3200

Seattle, WA 98101

(206) 623-1900, Fax (206) 623-3384

lsarko@kellerrohrback.com

dloeser@kellerrohrback.com

gcappio@kellerrohrback.com

dkawamoto@kellerrohrback.com

rmcdevitt@kellerrohrback.com

Lesley E. Weaver (SBN 191305)

Robyn R. English, pro hac vice forthcoming

BLEICHMAR FONTI & AULD, LLP

1999 Harrison Street, Suite 670

Oakland, CA 94612

(415) 445-4003, Fax: (415) 445-4020

lweaver@bfalaw.com

renglish@bfalaw.com

Benjamin L. Bailey, pro hac vice forthcoming

BAILEY GLASSER LLP

209 Capitol Street

Charleston, WV 25301

(304) 345-6555, Fax (304) 342-1110

Bbailey@baileyglasser.com

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 203 of 204
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

30

31

No. 3:17-cv-00231 198 AMENDED CLASS ACTION

COMPLAINT

J. Gerard Stranch IV, pro hac vice 

Joe P. Leniski, Jr., pro hac vice 

BRANSTETTER, STRANCH & JENNINGS, PLLC

223 Rosa L. Parks Avenue, Suite 200

Nashville, TN 37203

(615) 254-8801, Fax (615) 250-3937

gerards@bsjfirm.com

joeyl@bsjfirm.com

Joseph F. Rice, pro hac vice forthcoming

Ann Ritter, pro hac vice forthcoming

MOTLEY RICE, LLC

28 Bridgeside Blvd.

Mount Pleasant, SC 29464

(843) 216-9000, Fax (843) 216-9450

jrice@motleyrice.com

aritter@motleyrice.com

Elizabeth Cabraser (SBN 083151)

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, 

LLP

275 Battery Street, 29th Floor

San Francisco, CA 94111-3339

(415) 956-1000, Fax (415) 956-1008

ecabraser@lchb.com

David S. Stellings, pro hac vice forthcoming

LIEFF CABRASER HEIMANN & BERNSTEIN, 

LLP

250 Hudson Street, 8th Floor

New York, NY 10013

(212) 355-9500, Fax (212) 355-9592

dstellings@lchb.com

Paul J. Geller, pro hac vice forthcoming

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN & DOWD LLP

120 East Palmetto Park Rd., Suite 500

Boca Raton, FL 33432

(561) 750-3000; Fax (561) 750-3364

pgeller@rgrdlaw.com

Case 3:17-cv-00231-EMC Document 15 Filed 02/08/17 Page 204 of 204