Court Opinion

ID: 9410547
Source: CourtListenerOpinion
Date Created: 2023-07-21 18:01:00.874122+00
Date Added: 2024-06-11T17:20:58.451757
License: Public Domain

USCA11 Case: 22-13321   Document: 36-1    Date Filed: 07/21/2023   Page: 1 of 12

                                                 [DO NOT PUBLISH]
                                 In the
                 United States Court of Appeals
                        For the Eleventh Circuit

                         ____________________

                               No. 22-13321
                         Non-Argument Calendar
                         ____________________

        ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION COMMISSION OF
        HILLSBOROUGH COUNTY, FLORIDA,
                                                    Plaintiﬀ-Appellant,
        versus
        MERCEDES BENZ USA, LLC,
        DAIMLER AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT,

                                                Defendants-Appellees,

        ROBERT BOSCH, LLC, et al.,
USCA11 Case: 22-13321     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023    Page: 2 of 12

        2                     Opinion of the Court                22-13321

                                                               Defendants.

                            ____________________

                  Appeal from the United States District Court
                       for the Middle District of Florida
                  D.C. Docket No. 8:20-cv-02238-VMC-MRM
                           ____________________

        Before WILSON, JORDAN, and BRANCH, Circuit Judges.
        PER CURIAM:
                This case centers around “defeat device” software that was
        installed in certain diesel Mercedes vehicles from 2007 to 2016, and
        the subsequent, post-sale updates that were made to the software.
        The defeat devices allowed the vehicles to bypass their emissions
        control systems and emit more pollutants when not in an emis-
        sions-testing environment. The Environmental Protection Com-
        mission of Hillsborough County, Florida (Hillsborough), a unit of
        local government, sued Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (Mercedes) and
        Daimler Aktiengesellschaft (Daimler) (collectively, Appellants) for
        violation of a local ordinance that prohibits tampering with emis-
        sions control systems.
             The district court dismissed Hillsborough’s fourth amended
        complaint with prejudice. After careful review, we AFFIRM.
USCA11 Case: 22-13321      Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 07/21/2023     Page: 3 of 12

        22-13321               Opinion of the Court                        3

                                         I.
                              A. Procedural History
               Hillsborough is a unit of government responsible for pro-
        tecting the local environment and natural resources. On Septem-
        ber 24, 2020, Hillsborough initiated this action in the United States
        District Court for the Middle District of Florida. 1 That same day,
        Hillsborough filed an amended complaint to correct an error in the
        signature block. The next day, Hillsborough filed a second
        amended complaint to add information regarding the citizenship
        of the defendants at the district court’s request.
                In February 2021, the district court stayed this case pending
        the Supreme Court’s decision on whether to grant certiorari in a
        related case. The Supreme Court denied certiorari, see Volkswagen
        Group of America, Inc. v. The Environmental Protection Commission of
        Hillsborough County, Florida, 142 S. Ct. 521 (2021) (Mem.), and the
        district court lifted the stay in November 2021.
                Hillsborough moved for leave to amend its complaint to
        clarify that—in line with the Ninth Circuit’s ruling in In re
        Volkswagen “Clean Diesel” Marketing, Sales Practices, & Products Lia-
        bility Litigation, 959 F.3d 1201 (9th Cir. 2020)—it was only alleging
        violations arising from post-sale conduct. The district court
        granted leave to amend, and Hillsborough filed its third amended
        complaint on December 16, 2021. Daimler and Mercedes moved

        1Hillsborough also named Robert Bosch, LLC and Robert Bosch GmbH as
        defendants but later voluntarily dismissed the claims against them.
USCA11 Case: 22-13321      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023     Page: 4 of 12

        4                      Opinion of the Court                 22-13321

        to dismiss. On April 18, 2022, the district court granted the motion
        to dismiss the third amended complaint. In its order, the court
        identified deficiencies in the tampering allegations but stated that
        Hillsborough might be able to cure them by “plead[ing] greater de-
        tail about the software updates, field fixes, and recalls on which its
        claims rely.” Thus, the district court stated that Hillsborough could
        amend its claims within fourteen days if it wished to do so.
              B. Motion for Extension of Time to Amend Claims
               On April 28, 2022, Hillsborough moved for a 90-day exten-
        sion of time to file its fourth amended complaint. Hillsborough
        requested the extension to allow time to supplement its allegations
        with information from outstanding records requests it had submit-
        ted in March 2022. Hillsborough submitted Freedom of Infor-
        mation Act (FOIA) and public records requests to the Environmen-
        tal Protection Agency (EPA) and the California Air Resources
        Board (CARB) seeking documents pertaining to “post-sale updates
        and modifications to the emission control system of the Affected
        Vehicles in this action, and their impact on emissions.”
              On May 11, 2022, the district court entered an endorsed or-
        der denying Hillsborough’s motion for extension of time to file a
        fourth amended complaint, finding that the filing of the fourth
        amended complaint before the court considered the motion for ex-
        tension of time rendered the motion for extension of time moot.
        The district court also found that the extension was due to be de-
        nied because Hillsborough failed to establish good cause to extend
        the amendment deadline by 90 days or more.
USCA11 Case: 22-13321     Document: 36-1     Date Filed: 07/21/2023    Page: 5 of 12

        22-13321              Opinion of the Court                       5

                        C. Fourth Amended Complaint
               On May 2, 2022, Hillsborough filed its fourth amended com-
        plaint alleging two claims—one for monetary penalties and one for
        injunctive relief—based on the alleged violation of Chapter 1-8,
        “Mobile Source,” of the Rules of the Environmental Protection
        Commission of Hillsborough County (EPC Rules). Chapter 1-8
        was promulgated to implement the Florida Legislature’s intent
              as declared in the Environmental Protection Act of
              Hillsborough County, to insure the atmospheric pu-
              rity and freedom of the air in Hillsborough County
              from contaminants or synergistic agents resulting
              from the improper use and combustion of fuels in
              motor vehicles, or any other air contaminants re-
              leased by the improper operation or servicing of mo-
              tor vehicles.

        EPC Rule 1-8.01. Hillsborough further alleged that Daimler and
        Mercedes violated EPC Rule 1-8.05, which provides: “No person
        shall tamper, cause, or allow the tampering of the emission control
        system of any motor vehicle.” EPC Rule 1-8.05(1).
               The fourth amended complaint alleged that Mercedes im-
        plemented post-sale software updates to the vehicles’ emissions
        control systems. These updates were made available to Mercedes
        dealerships via web-based computer programs. When a vehicle
        was brought into a dealership for service, the dealership would in-
        put the vehicle identification number, which would bring up a list
        of any available software updates. These updates were then in-
        stalled during the service appointment. Further, the fourth
USCA11 Case: 22-13321       Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023      Page: 6 of 12

        6                       Opinion of the Court                  22-13321

        amended complaint generally alleged that car manufacturers issue
        post-sale software updates pursuant to field fixes or recalls “via
        over-the-air updates, wherein vehicles receive software updates via
        satellite or Wi-Fi connections.”
                On May 16, 2022, Daimler and Mercedes moved to dismiss
        the fourth amended complaint. On September 20, 2022, the district
        court granted the motion to dismiss with prejudice, concluding
        that Hillsborough “has not stated plausible claims for violation of
        EPC Rule Chapter 1-8.” In its order, the district court noted the
        limited, new allegations that Hillsborough had added to the fourth
        amended complaint—specifically, Hillsborough added the phrase
        “through field fixes and recall campaigns” throughout and added
        allegations from two other lawsuits. But the district court found
        that Hillsborough still failed to allege “additional information re-
        garding the impact of the field fixes, recalls, or post-sale software
        updates on the vehicles’ emission control systems.” Thus, the dis-
        trict court held that Hillsborough failed to allege sufficient detail to
        plausibly state a claim for post-sale tampering and dismissed both
        claims with prejudice.
               Hillsborough timely appealed.
                                          II.
                We review de novo the district court’s dismissal of a com-
        plaint for failure to state a claim. Resnick v. AvMed, Inc., 693 F.3d
        1317, 1324 (11th Cir. 2012). “[A] pleading must contain a ‘short and
        plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to
        relief.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 677–78 (2009) (quoting Fed.
USCA11 Case: 22-13321       Document: 36-1       Date Filed: 07/21/2023     Page: 7 of 12

        22-13321                Opinion of the Court                           7

        R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint
        must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a
        claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Id. at 678 (quoting Bell
        Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). A complaint “does
        not need detailed factual allegations” to survive a Rule 12(b)(6) mo-
        tion to dismiss, but the plaintiff must allege the grounds of its enti-
        tlement to relief, which “requires more than labels and conclu-
        sions” or “a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of ac-
        tion.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.
                We review for abuse of discretion the district court’s denial
        of motions for amendment and for extension of time. See In re Engle
        Cases, 767 F.3d 1082, 1109 (11th Cir. 2014); Lizarazo v. Miami-Dade
        Corr. & Rehab. Dep’t, 878 F.3d 1008, 1010–11 (11th Cir. 2017). Fed-
        eral Rule of Civil Procedure 15 provides that courts “should freely
        give leave [to amend pleadings] when justice so requires.” Fed. R.
        Civ. P. 15(a)(2). “Rule 15(a)(2) ‘severely restricts’ a district court’s
        ability to dismiss with prejudice.” Garcia v. Chiquita Brands Int’l,
        Inc., 48 F.4th 1202, 1220 (11th Cir. 2022) (alteration adopted) (quot-
        ing Bryant v. Dupree, 252 F.3d 1161, 1163 (11th Cir. 2001)). A district
        court must permit a plaintiff at least one opportunity to amend be-
        fore dismissing with prejudice if a more carefully drafted complaint
        might state a claim. Id. However, a district court need not grant
        leave to amend where: (1) there is undue delay, bad faith, dilatory
        motive, or repeated failure to fix deficiencies; (2) permitting
        amendment would cause the opposing party undue prejudice; or
        (3) amendment would be futile. Id.
USCA11 Case: 22-13321      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023    Page: 8 of 12

        8                      Opinion of the Court                22-13321

                                        III.
               Hillsborough argues (1) that dismissal was improper be-
        cause the fourth amended complaint was sufficiently pleaded, and
        (2) that at a minimum the district court should have permitted an-
        other chance to amend prior to dismissal with prejudice. We ad-
        dress each argument in turn.
            A. Sufficiency of the Allegations in the Fourth Amended
                                     Complaint
               First, Hillsborough argues that dismissal was improper be-
        cause the fourth amended complaint was sufficiently pleaded un-
        der Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. We disagree. The allega-
        tions of the fourth amended complaint fall short of stating a plausi-
        ble claim for relief based on the violation of EPC Chapter 1-8.
                Hillsborough alleged that Appellants violated EPC Rule 1-
        8.05, which provides: “No person shall tamper, cause, or allow the
        tampering of the emission control system of any motor vehicle.”
        EPC Rule 1-8.05(1). Here, the EPC Rules’ definition of “tamper-
        ing” is important in our analysis of whether Hillsborough plausibly
        alleged that Appellants violated the ordinance.
               The EPC Rules define “tampering” as “the intentional inac-
        tivation, disconnection, removal or other modification of a compo-
        nent or components of the emission control system resulting in it
        being inoperable.” EPC Rule 1-8.03(2)(h). Further, the EPC Rules
        define “inoperable emission control system” as “any emission con-
        trol system or component thereof whose operation or efficiency
        has been circumvented, defeated, or deleteriously affected by
USCA11 Case: 22-13321      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023      Page: 9 of 12

        22-13321               Opinion of the Court                          9

        improper maintenance, improper up-keep, wear and tear, misfuel-
        ling, or tampering.” EPC Rule 1-8.03(2)(c).
                Thus, to allege a violation of the ordinance, Hillsborough
        needed to allege facts showing that Appellants intentionally modi-
        fied the vehicles’ emissions control systems in a way that rendered
        the systems inoperable or less efficient. Hillsborough’s allegations
        fall short because they do not state that the post-sale software up-
        dates made the emission control systems inoperable or less effi-
        cient. It is worth emphasizing that Hillsborough is only asserting
        claims relating to Appellants’ post-sale activities. This is why Hills-
        borough’s allegations fail. The fourth amended complaint does not
        allege how—through post-sale activities—Appellants modified the
        vehicles’ emissions control systems in such a way that rendered
        them inoperable or less efficient. The fourth amended complaint
        merely pays lip service to the post-sale software updates without
        alleging what effect, if any, the software updates even had on emis-
        sions.
               The closest Hillsborough gets is by alleging that “numerous
        post-sale software updates to the emission control systems . . . have
        been implemented and installed throughout the United States,
        Florida, and Hillsborough County through field fixes and/or recall
        campaigns” and that “every post-sale update that does not remove
        the [defeat device] workaround” is illegal. But these allegations
        miss the mark because, even taken as true, they do not show how
        the updates rendered the emissions control systems inoperable or
        less efficient. Thus, the fourth amended complaint does not
USCA11 Case: 22-13321      Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023     Page: 10 of 12

        10                     Opinion of the Court                  22-13321

        contain sufficient factual matter to allege a facially plausible viola-
        tion of EPC Rule 1-8.05. Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678.
              Hillsborough asserts that the allegations of the fourth
        amended complaint sufficiently put Appellants on fair notice of the
        claims against them. We disagree. Hillsborough’s allegations
        simply provide more detail about how the post-sale software up-
        dates occurred. The allegations do not show how Appellants,
        through these updates, tampered with the emissions control sys-
        tems in a way that violated EPC Rule 1-8.
                Hillsborough further argues that the fourth amended com-
        plaint’s reference to related litigation—specifically, a lawsuit
        against Mercedes brought by the EPA and CARB, and a lawsuit
        against Volkswagen involving similar defeat device software—sat-
        isfies Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8. This argument also fails.
        Hillsborough simply cannot fill gaps in its allegations via reference
        to facts or allegations in other lawsuits. The information about the
        other lawsuits does not show how Appellants violated the anti-
        tampering ordinance in Hillsborough County.
                Thus, dismissal of Hillsborough’s claims with prejudice was
        proper because the fourth amended complaint fails to “state a claim
        to relief that is plausible on its face.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570. We
        affirm the district court’s dismissal with prejudice.
                      B. Extension of Time to Amend Claims
              Second, Hillsborough argues the district court erred by not
        allowing another opportunity to amend, especially after Hills-
        borough demonstrated it could provide additional detail regarding
USCA11 Case: 22-13321     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023     Page: 11 of 12

        22-13321               Opinion of the Court                        11

        the impact of the post-sale updates. We disagree that another
        chance to amend was warranted under the circumstances.
                Here, even disregarding Hillsborough’s first two amend-
        ments (which made non-substantive changes), Hillsborough still
        had two opportunities (in its third and fourth amended complaints)
        over the span of roughly six months to substantively amend its
        claims after the stay was lifted in November 2021. In ruling on Ap-
        pellants’ motion to dismiss the third amended complaint, the dis-
        trict court found Hillsborough’s allegations to be deficient, specifi-
        cally identified the type of information needed to cure the deficien-
        cies, and gave Hillsborough a chance to amend within fourteen
        days. After finding the allegations in the fourth amended com-
        plaint were still deficient, the district court dismissed Hills-
        borough’s claims with prejudice. The district court acted within its
        discretion in dismissing with prejudice because it had already
        granted Hillsborough at least one chance to amend. Garcia, 48
        F.4th at 1220.
                Hillsborough also contends that an extension of time to file
        a fourth amended complaint—past the fourteen days that the dis-
        trict court ordered—was warranted to allow time for it to add in-
        formation from the FOIA and public records requests to EPA and
        CARB. We are unpersuaded. Hillsborough had roughly six
        months to seek and obtain discovery between the time the stay was
        lifted in November 2021 and the filing of its fourth amended com-
        plaint in May 2022. But Hillsborough did not submit its FOIA and
        public records requests until March 2022—four months after the
USCA11 Case: 22-13321     Document: 36-1      Date Filed: 07/21/2023     Page: 12 of 12

        12                     Opinion of the Court                 22-13321

        stay was lifted. We are disinclined to find that the district court
        abused its discretion in denying an extension of time to amend un-
        der these circumstances, and in all events, district courts have wide
        latitude in managing their dockets. Adinolfe v. United Techs. Corp.,
        768 F.3d 1161, 1167 (11th Cir. 2014) (“District courts have broad
        discretion in deciding how best to manage the cases before them.”
        (internal quotation marks omitted)).
               Thus, the district court acted within its discretion in denying
        Hillsborough an extension of time to amend its claims. Accord-
        ingly, we affirm.
               AFFIRMED.