Plaintiffs' complaint clearly presents no federal question on its face, and defendants do not argue otherwise. Defendants do not cite to any express statement of legislative preemptive intent in this area. In support of their preemption argument they cite to legislative history of the MVSA that expresses an intent to place responsibility for regulating the automotive industry upon the federal government. See S.R. No. The preservation of common law liability furthers this objective.
Defendants also point to regulations concerning the conduct of recalls by manufacturers.
That relief in the civil action may, as defendant posits, encompass more tires or be more extensive than the current voluntary recall does not constitute a conflict. Consistent with the foregoing, the court concludes that there is no original subject matter or removal jurisdiction. Accordingly, plaintiffs' motion will be granted and this case will be remanded to the state court. An appropriate order will be entered. Such additional relief has been held to encompass reasonable attorney fees.