complaint - AboutLawsuits.com

Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
1 of 37
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR
THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
ED HENDRICKS AND JODY
Behalf of Themselves
HENDRICKS,
on
and All Others
Similarly Situated,
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
V.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF
AMERICA, INC.
Defendant.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs, Ed Hendricks and Jody Hendricks, individually and on behalf of all similarly
situated persons,
by and through the undersigned attorneys, allege the following upon
information and belief, except for those
personal knowledge,
after due
allegations pertaining to Plaintiffs, which are based upon
investigation by the undersigned counsel.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
This is
Group
a
of America, Inc.
U.S. law.
civil action
seeking monetary damages
("Volkswagen") arising
Volkswagen duped consumers
2.
Volkswagen
deceptive scheme to violate
regulators into believing that certain
emissions rules and regulations
United States Environmental Protection Agency
sophisticated
out of Volkswagen's
and federal
Volkswagen vehicles complied with federal
and other relief from
("EPA") when,
in
promulgated by the
reality, Volkswagen utilized
software to mask the vehicles' true emissions.
From at least 2009
through the present, Volkswagen has marketed certain diesel
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
vehicles
as
environmentally-friendly
Document 1
"CleanDiesels"
vehicles
Volkswagen has touted its "CleanDiesel"
emissions standards under the Clean Air Act
as
Filed 12/01/15
(collectively
not
Page
"Class
2 of 37
Vehicles").
only compliant with mandatory federal
("CAA"), 42
7401-7671q, but as
U.S.C.
possessing a superior combination of low-environmental impact and performance, which
Volkswagen used to justify a premium price.
3.
minimum
4.
of low-environmental
Volkswagen's claims
impact and performance, or
even
compliance with federal emissions standards, were false.
On
September 18, 2015, the EPA issued a Notice
of Violation
("NOV") to
Volkswagen declaring that Volkswagen "manufactured and installed defeat devices in certain
model year 2009
through 2015 diesel lightweight duty vehicles[.]"
Notice of Violation, attached
as
Exhibit A. "These defeat devices
inoperative elements of the vehicles'
Air Act
("CAA"),
violated section
5.
42 U.S.C.
203(a)(3)(B)
On November
See
September 8, 2015
bypass, defeat,
emission control system that exist to
7401-7671q]
emission standards.
of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
render
comply with [Clean
Therefore, [Volkswagen]
7522(a)(3)(B)." Id.
2, 2015, the EPA issued a second NOV directed to Volkswagen
and also to Porsche AG and Porsche Cars North America. This second notice
result of the EPA's
or
ongoing investigation,
in which it conducted additional
was
issued
as a
testing specifically
designed to detect potential defeat devices. Through this testing, the EPA identified additional
diesel vehicles found to contain the
September notice.
6.
See November
In other
same
emissions
cheating device that was the subject of the
2, 2015 Notice of Violation, attached as Exhibit B.
words, Volkswagen installed software "that sense when the vehicle was
being tested for compliance with EPA emissions standards"
2
and caused
a
fraudulent, compliant
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
result to be
registered.
See Ex.
compliant with EPA emissions
nitrogen oxides ("NoX")
As
7.
a
misrepresentations
leased—at
a
actually up to
omissions, hundreds
Plaintiffs
are
such
they purchased or leased a
vehicles,
or
would have
Class Vehicles
sums on
a
or
not
Class
consumers
purchased or
emissions
Had Plaintiffs and other Class members known
Vehicle, they would not have purchased
paid substantially less for the
leased vehicles. Not
Id.
"defeat device" to fake EPA emissions test results at
fuel and will not obtain the
of their purchased
were
deceptive, and/or fraudulent
of thousands of unsuspecting
Volkswagen initiates a recall, Plaintiffs and other
greater
3 of 37
higher than EPA-compliant levels.
40 times
consumers.
Volkswagen fraudulently employed
the time
reality, the
Page
standards at all. For instance, Class Vehicles' emissions of
result of Volkswagen's unfair,
or
In
A, September NOV.
premium—a Class Vehicle that did not comply with federal
requirements.
that
are
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
vehicles than
they did.
Class members will be
or
leased those
Even if
required to spend
represented efficiency or performance characteristics
only that, but the
worth less in the aftermarket due to the decrease in
Class Vehicles will
certainly be
efficiency and performance as well as
the
stigma now surrounding these vehicles.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
This Court has
8.
original jurisdiction of this
Act of 2005. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
1332(d), this
action under the Class Action Fairness
Court has
original jurisdiction because the
aggregate claims of the putative Class exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs, and
least
one
of the members of the
Volkswagen.
proposed classes
is
a
citizen of a different state than
at
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Page
4 of 37
1391 because
Venue is proper in this district pursuant to 28 U.S.C.
9.
is
Filed 12/01/15
Volkswagen
subject to personal jurisdiction here and regularly conducts business in this district,
because
on
information and belief a substantial part of the events
or
omissions
and
giving rise to the
claims asserted herein occurred in this district.
THE PARTIES
Plaintiffs, Ed Hendricks and Jody Hendricks, husband and wife,
10.
citizens of Chester County,
maintains its
principal place of business
Inc. is
a
at 2200 Ferdinand Porsche
New
general and systematic,
It has
specific, as well
Pennsylvania.
Volkswagen manufactures, distributes, sells,
12.
Vehicles
contacts in
Jersey Corporation and
Dr., Herndon, Virginia.
Volkswagen regularly conducts business in Pennsylvania and elsewhere..
as
residents and
Pennsylvania.
Defendant, Volkswagen Group of America,
11.
are
leases and warrants the Class
(among others) under the Volkswagen, Audi and Porsche brand names throughout the
United States.
COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
Overview of Federal Emissions Requirements
A.
13.
Among the emissions subjected to
vehicle's emission of nitrogen oxides
the environment by
requirements
under the CAA
(NOx) during normal operation.
human health and have been linked with
effects. The CAA and the
EPA
ozone
NOx
can
be
are a
dangerous to
depletion and other deleterious environmental
regulations promulgated thereunder aim to protect human health and
reducing emissions
of NOx and other pollutants from motor vehicles.
4
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
To enforce the
14.
CAA, the EPA administers
every vehicle sold in the United States to receive
the vehicle's emissions meet federal emissions
Part of the
15.
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
a
a
Page
certification program that requires
certificate of conformity, which attests that
requirements.
application process to
attain
a
certificate of conformity requires
applicant to identify and explain any system or device that may reduce the
vehicle's emission control system. 40 C.F.R.
A "defeat device"
16.
5 of 37
an
effectiveness of a
86.1844-01(d)(11).
(as used herein,
a
"device" includes
a
"system")
is
an
auxiliary
emission control device "that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under
conditions which may
use[d"
40 C.F.R.
reasonably be expected to be
encountered in normal vehicle
operation and
86.1803-01.
Because defeat devices circumvent the very purpose of the CAA and
17.
regulations
promulgated thereunder, it is a violation of federal law to manufacture, sell, or install them in
vehicles. See 42 U.S.C.
vehicles
7522(a)(3)(B);
equipped with such devices
40 C.F.R.
86.1854-12(a)(3)(ii). Consequently,
cannot be certified under the EPA's
be sold in the United States. See 42 U.S.C.
7522(a);
40 C.F.R.
regulations,
and cannot
86-1854-12(a).
Volkswagen Deceptive Scheme to Flout Federal Emissions Requirements
B.
18.
Beginning at least as early as 2009, Volkswagen marketed a number
of four-
cylinder vehicles equipped with diesel engines as "eco-friendly and fuel-efficient vehicles"
(collectively,
according to
19.
"Class
Vehicles"). Volkswagen asserted that these
vehicles
were
highly rated
strict EPA emissions standards.
Because these
"green"
Class Vehicles featured
supposedly unique or superior
efficiency and performance characteristics, Volkswagen charged a premium for these vehicles
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
over
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
6 of 37
comparable models that did not share these purported characteristics. And,
Volkswagen represented that all
Class Vehicles
were
of course,
certified in accordance with EPA emissions
standards.
Volkswagen's representations were false. Contrary to its
20.
representations, the
characteristics.
Class Vehicles did not possess
clear and express
superior eco-friendly or related performance
Volkswagen omitted the material fact that it developed and secretly installed
software that masked the Class Vehicles' true emissions in normal
the software constituted
a
operating conditions. Thus,
defeat device under the CAA. In essence,
Volkswagen faked the
Vehicles' emissions results to obtain certificates of conformity and the
right to
the United States, and then went ahead and touted those fake emissions results
to
Class
sell vehicles in
as a
justification
charge a premium in the marketplace.
Plaintiffs Fall Victim to Volkswagen's Scheme
C.
21.
with
a
Plaintiffs, Ed and Jody Hendricks, purchased a new 2011 Volkswagen Jetta TDI
2.0 Liter Turbo Diesel
vehicle identification number
22.
Plaintiffs
were
23.
vehicle
At
engine in August 2011.
("VIN"):
The Hendricks' Jetta bears the
3VWLL7AJGBM119690.
the time of purchase, Volkswagen knew or had reason to know that the vehicle
buying was equipped with a defeat device, but did not disclose this to Plaintiffs.
Plaintiffs
purchased the vehicle
on
the reasonable yet mistaken belief that the
complied with federal emissions requirements, was properly EPA certified,
retain all of its
24.
following
and would
represented operating characteristics, including efficiency and performance.
Plaintiffs
purchased the vehicle, in part, because
of the "CleanDiesel" system
represented by Volkswagen. Shortly before their purchases, Plaintiffs had reviewed television
6
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
and/or Internet advertisements
caused to be
or
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
related materials, which
Page
7 of 37
information and belief Volkswagen
on
made, that underscored the cleanliness, eco-friendliness, efficiency, and
performance of the engine system in the vehicle that was ultimately purchased. Nothing
available to Plaintiffs
suggested that Volkswagen had surreptitiously installed a defeat device to
circumvent federal emissions
40 times the
vehicle,
or
permitted levels
would have
requirements,
of certain
or
disclosed that the vehicles
pollutants.
Plaintiffs would not have
paid less for it, had they known these facts.
deceptive misrepresentations
or
actually emitted up to
omissions, Plaintiffs have suffered
As
an
a
purchased the
result of Volkswagen's
ascertainable loss.
FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT AND TOLLING
Upon information and belief, Volkswagen has affirmatively concealed from
25.
Plaintiffs and other Class members its unlawful conduct.
its unlawful scheme in private, and
Volkswagen planned and implemented
affirmatively strove to avoid discussing or disclosing same,
and took other actions to hide and conceal the unlawful conduct.
26.
For
instance, Volkswagen was under a duty imposed by federal law to disclose
Plaintiffs and other Class members the true nature, character, and
Class Vehicles, and
compliance
status with federal emissions
not disclose these true facts to Plaintiffs and other Class
and other members of the Class did not know,
reasonable
diligence,
disclosed its
about
nor
quality of emissions from the
requirements. Volkswagen did
members,
or
the EPA.
Indeed, Plaintiffs
had any way to know through the exercise of
Volkswagen's wrongful
conduct
as
alleged herein until the EPA
investigation on or about September 18, 2015, which up until that point had been
non-public.
7
to
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Because of the
27.
could
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
8 of 37
above, Plaintiffs and other Class members did not discover,
they discover through reasonable diligence, Volkswagen's deceptive, fraudulent,
unlawful conduct
alleged herein. Volkswagen's false and misleading explanations,
nor
and
or
obfuscations, lulled Plaintiffs and Class members into believing that the prices paid for
purchased or leased Class Vehicles were consistent with Volkswagen's fraudulent
misrepresentations
As
28.
applicable
and omissions.
a
result of Volkswagen's affnmative and other acts of concealment, any
statute of limitations
affecting the rights
of Plaintiffs and other Class members has
been tolled. Plaintiffs and other Class members exercised reasonable
diligence by among other
things promptly investigating the allegations contained herein after sufficient information was
discoverable.
Despite other efforts, Plaintiffs were unable to discover,
and could not have
discovered, the unlawful conduct alleged herein at the time it occurred or at
to enable this
29.
an
earlier time
so as
complaint to be filed sooner.
Because
Volkswagen was under an obligation to comply with federal emissions
requirements, it is estopped from being able to
assert any statute of limitations defense in this
action.
30.
Volkswagen's unlawful conduct alleged herein and the
continuing and,
as a
direct and
to suffer ascertainable losses.
proximate result, Plaintiffs and
effects thereof are
Class members have and continue
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Page
9 of 37
others
similarly
CLASS ALLEGATIONS
31.
Plaintiffs
bring this action on behalf of themselves and all
situated
pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3). This action satisfies the numerosity,
commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance,
32.
The
and
superiority requirements
of Rule 23.
proposed classes are defined as:
Nationwide Class: All persons in the United States who, from at
least 2009 through the present, purchased or leased an Class
Vehicle (as defined below).
Pennsylvania State Subclass: All persons in the Commonwealth
of Pennsylvania who, from at least 2009 through the present,
purchased or leased an Class Vehicle (as defined below).
The "Class Vehicles" include:
Model
Make and
Year(s)
VW Jetta TDI
2009-2015
VW Jetta
2009-2014
2010-2015
VW Golf Sportswagen TDI
VW Beetle TDI & Beetle Convertible TDI
VW Passat TDI
2015
2012-2015
2014
VW
Touareg TDI
Audi A3 TDI
Audi A6 Quattro
Audi A7 Quattro
Audi A8
Audi A8L
Audi Q5
Porsche Cayenne
2010-2015
2016
2016
2016
2016
2016
2015
Plaintiffs
Sportswagen TDI
VW Golf TDI
2012-2015
33.
Model(s)
reserve
the
right to modify or amend the
Classes before the Court determines whether certification is
9
definition of the
appropriate.
proposed
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Excluded from the Classes
34.
are
Filed 12/01/15
Volkswagen,
entity in which Volkswagen has a controlling interest,
directors,
who make
timely election to be excluded, governmental entities, and
a
hear any aspect of this
litigation,
as
well
as
The members of the Classes
35.
their immediate
can
be ascertained
in that the
are so numerous
that joinder is
assigned to
are
impractical.
within the
representative Plaintiffs are typical
The
knowledge
of the claims of the Classes
representative Plaintiffs, like all Class members, purchased (or leased)
Vehicle. The
all customers
by resort to Volkswagen's records.
The claims of the
36.
all judges
affiliates,
family members.
Classes consist of many thousands of members, the identities of whom
of and
10 of 37
its parents, subsidiaries,
officers and
any
Page
representative Plaintiffs,
like all Class
a
Class
members, have been damaged by
Volkswagen's misconduct in that they have been harmed by the
same
deceptive, misleading,
and/or fraudulent pretenses and practices. Furthermore, the factual basis of Volkswagen's
misconduct is
common
to all Class
unconscionable conduct
There
37.
common
members, and represents
resulting in injury to
are numerous
questions predominate
questions
over
Among the questions
38.
any
a common
thread of unfair and
all members of the Classes.
of law and fact
common
to the Classes and those
affecting only individual Class Members.
of law and fact
common
to the Classes
are
whether:
a) Volkswagen unlawfully, falsely, deceptively, or misleadingly represented
that the Class Vehicles complied with CAA and EPA emissions
requirements;
b) Volkswagen installed defeat devices in the
of federal law;
c)
Class Vehicles in violation
The Class Vehicles did not meet CAA and EPA emissions
requirements;
10
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Page
11 of 37
d) Volkswagen unlawfully, falsely, deceptively, or misleadingly induced
Class members into purchasing or leasing a Class Vehicle based on
misrepresentations and false promises;
e) Volkswagen wrongfully omitted its installation or use
mask the Class Vehicles' emissions;
of a defeat device to
To the extent applicable, whether and how long Volkswagen fraudulently
concealed its past and ongoing wrongful conduct from Plaintiffs and other
members of the Classes;
f)
g) Volkswagen was unjustly enriched through the company's actions;
h) Volkswagen violated
Other
39.
questions
of law and fact
a)
The proper method
b)
The
arise out of the
same or
suffered the harm
or
methods
protection and other state
common
are
laws.
to the Classes include:
by which to measure damages;
declaratory and injunctive relief to which the
Plaintiffs' claims
40.
consumer
and
typical of the claims
Classes
of other Class
are
and
entitled.
members, in that they
substantially similar wrongful conduct by Volkswagen.
alleged and have no interests antagonistic to the interests
Plaintiffs have
of any other Class
member.
41.
Plaintiffs
are
retained competent counsel
class actions
will
an
committed to the
experienced in the prosecution of class
behalf of consumers.
A class action is
superior to
adjudication of this controversy.
small relative to the
actions
and, in particular,
Accordingly, Plaintiffs are adequate representatives
fairly and adequately protect the interests
42.
vigorous prosecution of this action and have
and
of the Classes.
other available methods for the fair and efficient
Since the amount of each individual Class member's claim is
complexity of the litigation, and due to the financial resources
of
Volkswageh, no Class member could afford to seek legal redress individually for the claims
11
alleged herein. Therefore, absent a class action,
and Volkswagen's misconduct will
12 of 37
Page
the Class members will continue to suffer losses
proceed without remedy.
litigation, the
Even if Class members themselves could afford such individual
43.
court
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
system could not. Individualized litigation would significantly increase the delay and
expense to all
parties
for inconsistent
or
and to the Court. Individualized
contradictory rulings. By contrast,
management difficulties, allows claims
a
create the
potential
class action presents far fewer
to be heard which
the relative expense of bringing individual
economies of scale and
litigation would also
might
otherwise go unheard because of
lawsuits, and provides the benefits of adjudication,
comprehensive supervision by a single court.
COUNT I
Fraud and Fraudulent Inducement
Nationwide Class
if set forth
fully herein.
44.
Plaintiffs repeat the
45.
Volkswagen affirmatively misrepresented and/or did not disclose sufficient facts
non-misleading its
to render
performance
preceding paragraphs as
statements about the emissions
characteristics of the Class Vehicles. These
certification, efficiency, and
misrepresentations
or
omissions
include, inter alia, whether the Class Vehicles truly passed federal emissions requirements (they
did
not),
or
46.
possessed the efficiency and performance
Volkswagen knew,
or
alleged herein were materially false
such
characteristics advertised
reasonably should have known, that its representations
or
misleading,
or
that omission of material facts rendered
representations false or misleading. Volkswagen also knew,
misrepresentations
(they did not).
or
had
reason
and omissions would induce Class members to purchase
Vehicles.
12
or
to
know, that its
lease Class
47.
Volkswagen's misrepresentations
factor in Plaintiffs' and Class members'
omissions
or
purchasing
or
leasing
Volkswagen intended its misrepresentations
48.
Class members to
purchase
But for these
49.
would not have
at lower
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
or
lease Class
Vehicles,
or
or
were
Page
material and
a
substantial
Class Vehicles.
omissions to induce Plaintiffs and
had reckless
disregard for same.
misrepresentations (or omissions), Plaintiffs
purchased or leased Class Vehicles,
13 of 37
and/or would have
and Class members
purchased or leased them
prices.
Plaintiffs and Class members
50.
misrepresentations.
and/or the
same or
The
same or
were
justified in relying
on
Volkswagen's
substantively identical misrepresentations were communicated,
substantively identical omissions were not communicated,
to each Class
member, including through promotional materials prepared and disseminated by Volkswagen.
To the extent
51.
applicable, reliance can be presumed under these circumstances.
Plaintiffs and Class members
misrepresentations
or
omissions
were
damaged by reason of Volkswagen's
alleged herein.
COUNT II
Negligent Misrepresentation and Omission
Nationwide Class
if set forth
fully herein.
52.
Plaintiff repeats the
53.
Volkswagen had or undertook a duty to accurately and truthfully represent to
consumers
the truth regarding
preceding paragraphs as
statements about the Class Vehicles' emissions
Volkswagen's
certifications, efficiency, and performance characteristics.
54.
Volkswagen failed to
the Class Vehicles'
exercise
certifiability, efficiency,
ordinary care in making representations concerning
and
performance characteristics.
13
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Volkswagen negligently misrepresented or omitted the
55.
certifiability, efficiency,
56.
Page
14 of 37
Class Vehicle's true
performance characteristics.
and
Volkswagen's
statements
were
false at the time the
misrepresentations
were
made
(or the omissions were not made).
Volkswagen knew,
57.
or
reasonably should have known, that its representations
alleged herein were materially false or misleading,
such
or
that omission of material facts rendered
representations false or misleading. Volkswagen also knew, or had reason to know, that its
misrepresentations
and omissions would induce Class members to
purchase or lease
Class
Vehicles
As
58.
a
direct and
proximate result of Volkswagen's
acts and omissions described
herein, Plaintiffs and other Class members have suffered harm, and will continue to do
Volkswagen's misrepresentations or omissions were material
59.
factor in Plaintiffs' and Class members'
But for these
60.
would not have
them at lower
purchased or leased
a
substantial
Class Vehicles.
misrepresentations (or omissions), Plaintiffs
Class Vehicles, and/or would have
and Class members
purchased or leased
prices.
Plaintiffs and Class members
61.
misrepresentations.
and/or the
purchasing or leasing
and
so.
same or
The
same or
were
justified in relying on Volkswagen's
substantively identical misrepresentations were communicated,
substantively identical
omissions
were
not
communicated,
to each Class
member, including through promotional materials prepared and disseminated by Volkswagen.
To the extent
62.
applicable,
reliance
can
be
presumed in these circumstances.
Plaintiffs and Class members
were
14
damaged by reason of Volkswagen's
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Page
15 of 37
misrepresentations or omissions alleged herein.
COUNT III
Breach of Contract
Nationwide Class
63.
Plaintiffs repeat the
64.
Each and every sale
preceding paragraphs as
or
and
are
do not vary
fully herein.
lease of a Class Vehicle constitutes
These sale
Volkswagen and the purchaser or lessee.
prepared by Volkswagen,
if set forth
or
do not
thrust upon the Nationwide Class
or
lease agreements
a
contract between
are
standardized forms
substantially vary in pertinent materials respects,
by Volkswagen and thus
constitute contracts of
adhesion.
65.
Upon information and belief, Volkswagen's sales and lease agreements provide
that the Class Vehicles
being sold or leased comply with related warranties, including those
concerning CAA and EPA regulatory compliance.
66.
Volkswagen materially breached these
contracts
by,
Plaintiffs and the other members of the Nationwide Class defective
Vehicles and by
defective
misrepresenting or failing to
inter
or
alia, selling or leasing
non-conforming Class
disclose the existence of the "defeat device" and/or
design, including information known to Volkswagen rendering each Class Vehicle less
safe and emissions
CleanDiesel
67.
compliant, and thus less valuable, than vehicles not equipped with
engine systems
and "defeat devices."
Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class
are
entitled to
recover
all
damages
proximatelycaused by Volkswagen's breach, including compensatory, incidental, and
consequential damages,
classwide basis. Also,
and pre- and post judgment interest.
or
in the
Damages may be quantified
alternative, Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class
15
are
on a
entitled to
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Page
16 of 37
restitution, disgorgement, rescission, and similar equitable relief. Any provisions in the sales and
lease agreements to the contrary
Further, by
68.
each party
a
to
law
or
its form.
and
are
an
of the
letter
mutually obligated to comply with the
Evading the spirit
69.
Good faith and fair
dealing,
impose upon
in connection with
discharging performance and other duties according to their terms,
of the
Subterfuge
bargain.
Put
differently, the parties
substance of their contract in addition to
bargain and abusing the power to specify terms constitute
examples of bad faith in the performance
when
statute, the sales and lease agreements
preserving the spirit —not merely the
contract
a
common
unconscionable, severable, voidable, and/or void.
duty of good faith and fair dealing.
executing contracts
means
are
of contracts.
and evasion violate the
obligation of good faith in performance even
actor believes their conduct to be justified. Bad faith may be overt
or
may consist of
inaction, and fair dealing may require more than honesty. Examples of bad faith are evasion of
the
spirit of the bargain, willful rendering of imperfect performance, abuse
terms, and interference with
70.
or
failure to cooperate in the other party's
of a power to
specify
performance.
Volkswagen has breached not only the sales and lease agreements but the
covenant of good faith and fair
dealing in those agreements through its wrongful actions alleged
herein.
71.
Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class have sustained
damages
as a
result of Volkswagen's breach of the sales and lease agreements and the covenant of good faith
and fair
dealing under each sales and lease agreement.
72.
any
Volkswagen's fraud as alleged herein amounts to
an
illusory promise rendering
agreement unenforceable, unconscionable, void, and/or voidable.
16
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Page
17 of 37
COUNT IV
Breach of Express Warranty
Nationwide Class
if set forth
fully herein.
73.
Plaintiffs repeat the
74.
Volkswagen made numerous representations, descriptions,
Plaintiffs and Class members
preceding paragraphs as
and promises to
regarding the performance and emission controls
of the Class
Vehicles.
75.
Volkswagen, however,
knew
or
should have known that its
descriptions, and promises were false. Volkswagen was
in the vehicles it sold
76.
or
that it had installed defeat devices
leased to Plaintiffs and other Class members.
Plaintiffs and other Class members
representations in purchasing or leasing
not
aware
reasonably relied on Volkswagen's
"clean" diesel vehicles. Those
perform as was warranted. Unbeknownst to Plaintiffs and other
vehicles, however, did
Class members, those
vehicles included devices that caused their emission reduction systems to
than advertised. Those devices
warranty by providing
Class members;
as
a
well
representations,
are
defects.
perform at levels worse
Accordingly, Volkswagen breached its express
product containing defects that were never disclosed to the Plaintiffs
as
warranting the certifiability of the
and
Class Vehicles under CAA and
EPA emissions standards.
77.
As
representations
a
direct and proximate result of Volkswagen's false and misleading
and warranties, Plaintiffs and other Class members suffered
significant damages.
COUNT V
Breach of Implied Warranty
Nationwide Class
78.
Plaintiffs repeat the preceding
paragraphs as
17
if set forth
fully herein.
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Volkswagen impliedly warranted that the
79.
quality, fit for their intended or ordinary purpose,
and/or
Page
Class Vehicles
were
were
18 of 37
of merchantable
compliant with CAA and EPA
emissions standards.
The Class Vehicles failed to conform to
80.
Volkswagen's implied warranty
regarding their functionality as alleged herein, including but not limited to the vehicles'
certifiability, efficiency,
As
81.
a
and
performance.
direct and proximate result of Volkswagen's false and misleading
and warranties, Plaintiffs and other Class members suffered
representations
when Volkswagen sold them vehicles that, it is
Plaintiffs and other Class members
now
clear,
are
significant injury
worth far less than the
price
paid for them.
COUNT VI
Unjust Enrichment
Nationwide Class
if set forth
fully herein.
82.
Plaintiffs repeat the
83.
By means of Volkswagen's wrongful conduct alleged herein, Volkswagen
knowingly induced Plaintiffs
preceding paragraphs as
and members of the National Class to
purchase
or
lease Class
Vehicles.
84.
Volkswagen knowingly received and retained wrongful
and members of the National Class. In
conscious
85.
so
doing, Volkswagen acted intentionally or with
disregard for the rights of Plaintiffs
As
a
benefits from Plaintiffs
result of Volkswagen's
and members of the National Class.
wrongful conduct as alleged herein, Volkswagen has
been unjustly enriched at the expense, and to the
detriment, of Plaintiffs and members
National Class.
18
of the
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
86.
Page
19 of 37
Volkswagen's unjust enrichment is traceable to, and resulted directly and
proximately from, the wrongful
87.
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
It is unfair and
conduct
alleged herein.
inequitable for Volkswagen to
be
pemfitted to retain the benefits it
received, and is still receiving, without justification, from the wrongful conduct alleged herein.
Volkswagen's retention of such benefits under the circumstances is inequitable.
88.
The financial benefits derived
members of the Nationwide Class, in whole
account for and
or
in part.
and members of the
wrongful or inequitable proceeds received from them.
imposed upon all wrongful or inequitable
and
Volkswagen should be compelled to
disgorge in a common fund for the benefit of Plaintiffs
National Class all
should be
by Volkswagen rightfully belong to Plaintiffs
sums
received
A constructive trust
by Volkswagen traceable to
Plaintiffs and the members of the National Class.
any
89.
Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class have
90.
Volkswagen's fraud as alleged herein amounts to
an
no
adequate remedy
at law.
illusory promise rendering
agreement unenforceable, unconscionable, void or voidable.
COUNT VII
Negligence Per Se
Nationwide Class
if set forth
fully herein.
91.
Plaintiffs repeat the
92.
Volkswagen owed a duty to Plaintiffs and the Nationwide Class'to obtain proper
preceding paragraphs as
emissions certifications under the CAA and EPA regulations
93.
Volkswagen breached that duty by failing to
certifications under the CAA and EPA
selling the
promulgated thereunder.
obtain the proper emissions
regulations promulgated thereunder as a prerequisite to
Class Vehicles in the United States.
19
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
As
94.
a
direct and
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
20 of 37
proximate result of Volkswagen's conduct as alleged herein,
Plaintiffs and other members of the Nationwide Class have sustained
damages.
COUNT VIII
Violation of Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection Law
Pennsylvania Class
95.
Plaintiffs repeat the
96.
This claim is asserted
Subclass under
("UTPCPL"),
or
201-1,
acts
or
deceptive acts
or
practices
Pennsylvania State
and Consumer Protection Law
practices
201-3
prohibits "[u]nfair methods
in the conduct of any trade
Volkswagen has engaged in unfair methods
98.
fully herein.
et seq.
The UTPCFL, 73 P.S.
deceptive
if set forth
behalf of the members of the
on
Pennsylvania's Unfair Trade Practices
73 P.S.
97.
unfair
preceding paragraphs as
in the conduct of any trade
or
of competition and
commerce."
of competition and unfair
or commerce
or
by, inter alia:
a) "Using deceptive representations in connection with goods
services, See 73 P.S. 201-2(4)(iv);
b) "Failing to comply with the terms of any written guarantee
P.S. 201-2(4)(xiv); and
or
See 73
c) "Engaging in any other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which creates a
likelihood or confusion or of misunderstanding, See 73 P.S. 201-2(4)(xxi).
99.
Volkswagen violated the
100.
Pursuant to 73 P.S.
above sections
by engaging in the
conduct
alleged
herein.
State Subclass
201-9.2,
et seq., Plaintiffs and members of the
Pennsylvania
purchased or leased Class Vehicles primarily for personal, family or household
20
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
purposes that did not
advertised
comply with federal emissions requirements,
or
Page
21 of 37
did not possess the
efficiency and performance characteristics.
101.
or
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
omissions,
Volkswagen engaged in unlawful conduct, made
otherwise violated the UTPCPL
or
recklessly misleading Plaintiffs and members
certifiability, efficiency,
102.
and
To the extent
Further,
of the
inter
misrepresentations
alia, knowingly, intentionally, and
Pennsylvania State Subclass about the
performance characteristics
of the Class Vehicles.
applicable, Volkswagen intended that Plaintiffs and Pennsylvania
State Subclass members would
and omissions.
by,
affnmative
rely on the company's misrepresentations;
to the extent
applicable, reliance
can
be
or
acts of concealment
presumed under the
circumstances.
103.
Volkswagen's conduct caused Plaintiffs
and members of the
Subclass to suffer ascertainable losses in the form of sums
paid for the purchase or lease
Vehicles that would not otherwise have been incurred in whole
104.
A causal
As redress for
Plaintiffs and the
or
of Class
in part.
relationship exists between Volkswagen's unlawful conduct and the
ascertainable losses suffered
105.
Pennsylvania State
by Plaintiffs
and the
Pennsylvania
State Subclass.
Volkswagen's repeated and ongoing violations
Pennsylvania State
Subclass
are
entitled to, inter alia,
of the UTPCPL,
damages
and
declaratory
relief.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs and the Classes demand a jury trial
and judgment
as
follows:
21
on
all claims
so
triable
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
A declaration that
Document 1
Volkswagen's
Filed 12/01/15
conduct
Page
22 of 37
alleged herein is fraudulent, deceptive,
wrongful, unfair, inequitable, and unconscionable;
Restitution
2.
herein in
an
owing to Plaintiffs and the
amount to be determined at
An
3.
Classes
as a
reSult of the wrongs
alleged
trial;
accounting and disgorgement of the ill-gotten gains derived by Volkswagen's
misconduct;
Actual
4.
damages in an amount according to proof (doubled or trebled as permitted
by law);
5..
the
same
A temporary and
permanent injunction enjoining Volkswagen from engaging in
wrongful conduct going forward including requiring Volkswagen to adequately
disclose facts to render truthful its
6.
Punitive and
7.
Pre judgment and
representations;
exemplary damages;
post judgment interest
at the maximum rate
permitted by
applicable law;
8.
Costs and disbursements assessed
including reasonable attorneys' fees;
9.
by Plaintiffs in connection with this action,
and
Such other relief as this Court deems just and proper.
Respectfully submitted,
/7--ANAP
L
WEISS
7,
i
t
Sol H. Weiss, Esquire
David S. Senoff, Esquire
Paola Pearson, Esquire
One
Logan Square
18t1 Street, Suite 1600
Philadelphia, PA 19103.
(215) 735-1130
130 N.
22
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
[email protected]
dsenoffanapolweiss.com
[email protected]
23
23 of 37
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Exhibit "A"
Page
24 of 37
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
25 of 37
cseo
.7,
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
96
01.
WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460
(.1§)
'44 pR66--
SEP 18 2015
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
VIA CERTIFIED MAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Volkswagen AG
Audi AG
Volkswagen Group
of America, Inc.
Thru:
David Geanacopoulos
Executive Vice President Public Affairs and General Counsel
Volkswagen Group of America. Inc.
2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
Stuart Johnson
General
Manager
Engineering and Environmental Office
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Re:
Dear Mr.
Notice of Violation
Geanacopoulos
and Mr. Johnson:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has investigated and continues to
investigate Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of America (collectively, VW)
for compliance with the Clean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C.
7401-7671q, and its implementing
As
in
Notice
detailed
this
of
Violation
EPA has determined that VW
the
regulations.
(NOV),
manufactured and installed defeat devices in certain model year 2009 through 2015 diesel lightduty vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter engines. These defeat devices bypass, defeat, or render
inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission control system that exist to comply with CAA
emission standards. Therefore, VW violated section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3)(B). Additionally, the EPA has determined that, due to the existence of the defeat
Internet Address
Recycled/Recyclable
0
Printed with
(URL)
Vegetable Oil Based Inks on
http://vAvw, epa.gov
1C0%
Postconstrmer, Process Chlodne Free Recycled Paper
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
26 of 37
devices in these vehicles, these vehicles do not conform in all material respects to the vehicle
specifications described in the applications for the certificates of conformity that purportedly
cover them. Therefore, VW also violated section 203(a)(1) of the CAA, 42
U.S.C. 7522(0(1),
by selling, offering for sale, introducing into commerce, delivering for introduction into
commerce, or itnporting these vehicles, or for causing any of the foregoing acts.
Law Governing Alleged Violations
This NOV arises under Part A of Title II of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7521-7554, and the
In
regulations promulgated thereunder. creating the CAA, Congress found, in part, that "the
increasing use of motor vehicles. has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and
welfare." CAA 101(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(2). Congresspurpose in creating the CAA, in
part, was "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its population, and "to initiate and
accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of
air pollution." CAA 101(b)(1)—(2), 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)—(2). The CAA and the regulations
promulgated thereunder aim to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions
of nitrogen oxides (N0x) and other pollutants from mobile sources of air pollution. Nitrogen
oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that play a major role in the atmospheric reactions
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that produce ozone (smog) on hot summer days.
Breathing ozone can trigger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat
irritation, and congestion. Breathing ozone can also worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.
Children are at greatest risk of experiencing negative health impacts from exposure to ozone.
The EPA's allegations here
emission standards and test
light-duty motor vehicles for which 40 C.F.R. Part 86 sets
procedures and section 203 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522, sets
compliance provisions. Light-duty vehicles must satisfy emission standards for certain air
pollutants, including NOx. 40 C.F.R. 86.1811-04. The EPA administers a certification program
to ensure that every vehicle introduced into United States commerce satisfies applicable emission
standards. Under this program, the EPA issues certificates of conformity (COCs), and thereby
concern
approves the introduction of vehicles into United States
commerce.
To obtain a COC, a light-duty vehicle manufacturer must submit a COC application to the EPA
for each test group of vehicles that it intends to enter into United States commerce. 40 C.F.R.
86.1843-01. The COC application must include, among other things, a list of all auxiliary
emission control devices (AECDs) installed on the vehicles. 40 C.F.R. 86.1844-01(d)(11). An
AECD is "any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, manifold vacuum, or any other parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system."
40 C.F.R. 86.1803-01. The COC application must also include "a justification for each AECD,
the parameters they sense and control, a detailed justification of each AECD that results in a
reduction in effectiveness of the emission control system, and [a] rationale for why it is not a
defeat device." 40 C.F.R. 86.1844-01(d)(11).
A defeat device is
an
AECD "that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under
reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and
conditions which may
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
27 of 37
(1) Such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emission test procedure;
The
need
for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle against damage or
(2)
accident: (3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or (4) The
AECD applies only for emergency vehicles...
40 C.F.R. 86.1803-01.
use, unless;
Motor vehicles
equipped with defeat devices, such as those at issue here, cannot be certified,
EPA, Advisory Circular Number 24: Prohibition on use ofEmission Control Defeat Device
86-1809-01, 86-1809-10, 86-1809-12. Electronic control
(Dec. 11, 1972); see also 40 C.F.R.
which
receive
may
inputs from multiple sensors and control multiple actuators that
systems
affect the emission control system's performance are AECDs. EPA, Advisory Circular Number
24-2.. Prohibition of Emission Control Defeat Devices Optional Objective Criteria (Dec. 6,
1978). "Such elements of design could be control system logic (i.e., computer software), and/or
calibrations, and/or hardware
items." Id.
"Vehicles are covered by a certificate of conformity only if they are in all material respects as
described in the manufacturer's application for eertification...
40 C.F.R.
86.1848-10(c)(6).
a
COC
those
issued
issued
to
state
Similarly,
by EPA, including
VW,
expressly, It]his
certificate covers only those new motor vehicles or vehicle engines which conform, in all
material respects, to the design specifications" described in the application for that COC. See
also 40 C.F.R.
86.1844-01 (listing required content tbr COC applications), 86.1848-01(b)
EPA
to issue COCs on any terms that are necessary or appropriate to assure that
(authorizing the
new motor vehicles satisfy the requirements of the CAA and its regulations).
The CAA makes it
a violation "for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install,
component intended tbr use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine, where a principal effect of the part or component is to bypass, defeat, or render
inoperative any deviee or element of design installed on or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter, and 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." CAA
203(a)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 C.F.R. 86.1854-12(a)(3)(ii).
Additionally, manufacturers are prohibited from selling, offering for sale, introducing into
commerce, delivering for introduction into commerce, or importing, any new motor vehicle
unless that vehicle is covered by an EPA-issued COC. CAA 203(a)(1), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(I);
40 C.F.R. 86.1854-12(a)(1). It is also a violation to cause any of the foregoing acts. CAA
203(a), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a); 40 C.F.R. 86-1854-12(a).
any part
or
Alleged Violations
Each VW vehicle identified by the table below has AECDs that were not described in the
application for the COG that purportedly covers the vehicle. Specifically, VW manufactured and
installed software in the electronic control Module (ECM) of these vehicles that sensed when the
vehicle was being tested for compliance with EPA emission standards. For ease of reference, the
EPA is calling this the "switch." The "switch" senses whether the vehicle is being tested or not
based on various inputs including the position of the steering wheel, vehicle speed, the duration
of the engine's operation, and barometric pressure. These inputs precisely track the parameters of
the federal test procedure used for emission testing for EPA certification purposes. During EPA
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
28 of 37
emission
testing, the vehicles' ECM ran software which produced compliant emission results
ECM calibration that VW referred to as the "dyno calibration" (referring to the
equipment used in emissions testing, called a dynamometer). At all other times during normal
vehicle operation, the "switch" was activated and the vehicle ECM software ran a separate "road
calibration" which reduced the effectiveness of the emission control system (specifically the
selective catalytic reduction or the lean NOx trap). As a result, emissions olN0x increased by a
factor of 10 to 40 times above the EPA compliant levels, depending on the type of drive cycle
under
an
(e.g.. city, highway).
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the EPA were alerted to emissions problems
with these vehicles in May 2014 when the West Virginia University's (WVU) Center for
Alternative ['gels, Engines & Emissions published results of a study commissioned by the
International Council on Clean Transportation that found significantly higher in-use emissions
from two light duty diesel vehicles (a 2012 Jetta and a 2013 Passat). Over the course of the year
following the publication of the WVU study, VW continued to assert to CARB and the EPA that
the increased emissions from these vehicles could be attributed to various technical issues and
unexpected in-use conditions. VW issued a voluntary recall in December 2014 to address the
issue. GARB, in coordination with the EPA, conducted follow up testing of these vehicles both
in the laboratory and during normal road operation to confirm the efficacy of the recall. When
the testing showed only a limited benefit to the recall. CARB broadened the testing to pinpoint
the exact technical nature of the vehicles' poor performance, and to investigate why the vehicles'
onboard diagnostic system was not detecting the increased emissions. None of the potential
technical issues suggested by VW explained the higher test results consistently confirmed during
CARB's testing, It became clear that CARB and the EPA would not approve certificates of.
conformity for VW's 2016 model year diesel vehicles until VW could adequately explain the
anomalous emissions and ensure the agencies that the 2016 model year vehicles would not have
similar issues. Only then did VW admit it had designed and installed a defeat device in these
vehicles in the form of a sophisticated software algorithm that detected when a vehicle was
undergoing emissions testing.
VW knew
should have known that its "road calibration" and "switch" together bypass, defeat,
or render inoperative elements of the vehicle design related to compliance with the CAA
emission standards. This is apparent given the design of these defeat devices. As described
above, the software was designed to track the parameters of the federal test procedure and cause
emission control systems to underperform when the software determined that the vehicle was not
undergoing the federal test procedure.
or
VWs "road calibration" and "switch" are AECDsl that were neither described norjustified in
the applicable COC applications, and are illegal defeat devices. Therefore each vehicle identified
by the table below does not conform in a material respect to the vehicle specifications described
in the COG application. As such, VW violated section 203(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(1), each time it sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, delivered for
introduction into commerce, or imported (or caused any of the foregoing with respect to) one of
the hundreds of thousands of new motor vehicles within these test groups, Additionally, VW
There may be numerous engine maps associated with VW's "road calibration" that are AEClls, and that may also
be defeat devices. For ease of description, the EPA is retelling to these maps collectively as the "road calibration."
4
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
Page
29 of 37
violated section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B), each time it manufactured
and installed into these vehicles an ECM equipped with the "switch" and "road calibration."
The vehicles
are
identified
by the
table below. All vehicles
are
equipped with 2.0
liter diesel
engines.
Model Year
EPA Test
2009
9VWXV02.035N
VW
2009
9VWXV02.0U5N
2010
2011
AVWXV02.0115N
BVWXV02.0U5N
VW Jetta, VW jetta Sportwagen
VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
2012
CVWXV02.0U5N
Group
Make and
Model(s)
Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen
Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf,
Jetta, VW jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
VW
2012
CVWXV02.0U4S
VW Passat
2013
DVWXV02.0U5N
VW
2013
DVWXV02.0U4S
2014
EVWXV02.0U5N
VW Passat
VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW
Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
2014
EVWXV02.0154S
VW Passat
2015
EVGAV02.0VAL
VW
Beetle,
VW Beetle Convertible, VW
Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
VW
Golf, VW
Golf, VW
Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW
Golf Sportwagen, VW Jetta, VW Passat, Audi A3
Enforcement
The EPA's investigation into this matter is continuing. The above table represents specific
violations that the EPA believes, at this point, are sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant
the alleu.tions in this NOV. The EPA may find additional violations as the investigation
continues.
The EPA is authorized to refer this matter to the United States Department of Justice for
initiation of appropriate enforcement action. Among other things, persons who violate section
203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B), are subject to a civil penalty of up to
$3, 750 for each violation that occurred on or after January 13, 2009;111 CAA 205(a), 42 U.S.C.
7524(a); 40 C.F.R. 19.4. In addition, any manufacturer who, on or after January 13, 2009,
sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, delivered for introduction into commerce,
imported, or caused any of the foregoing acts with respect to any new motor vehicle that was not
covered by an EPA-issued COC is subject, among other things, to a civil penalty of up to
$37, 500 for each violation.121CAA 205(a), 42 U.S.C. 7524(a); 40 C.F.R. 19.4. The EPA
may seek, and district courts may order, equitable remedies to further address these alleged
violations. CAA 204(a), 42 U.S.C. 7523(a).
[1]
[21
$2, 750 for violations occurring prior to January 13. 2009.
$32, 500 for violations occurrin prior to January 13, 2009,
5
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
30 of 37
The EPA is available to discuss this matter with you. Please contact Meetu Kaul, the EPA
attorney assigned to this matter, to discuss this NOV. Ms. Kaul can be reached as follows:
Meetu Kaul
U.S. EPA, Air Enforcement Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5472
[email protected]
Sincerely,
Phillip
A. Bi oaks
Director
Air Enforcement Division
Office of Civi 1 Enforcement
Copy:
Todd Sax, California Air Resources Board
Walter Benjamin Fisherow, United States Department ofJustice
Stuart Drake, Kirkland & Ellis TIP
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Exhibit "B"
Page
31 of 37
Document 1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
49114
Filed 12/01/15
Page
32 of 37
UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY
WASHINGTON, D, C, 20460
NOV
2 2015
OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE
VIA CERMED AIAIL
RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED
Volkswagen
AG
Audi AG
Porsche AG
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc,
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
Thru:
David Geanacopoulos
Executive Vice President Public Affairs and
General Counsel
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
Stuart Johnson
General Manager
Engineering and Environmental Office
Volkswagen Group of America. Inc,
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326
Re:
Dear Mr,
Joseph Folz
Vice President, General Counsel and
Secretary
Porsche Cars North
One Porsche Drive
Atlanta, GA 30354
America, Inc.
Walter J. Lewis
Manager, Regulatory Affairs
Porsche Cars North America, Inc.
980 Hammond Drive, Suite 1000
Atlanta, GA 30328
Notice of Violation
Geanacopoulos,
Mr,
Johnson, Mr. Folz, and Mr. Lewis:
The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has investigated and continues to
investigate Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, Porsche AG, Volkswagen Group Of America, Inc,, and
Porsche Cars North America, Inc., (collectively, VW) for compliance with the Clean Air Act
7401-7671q, and itS implementing regulations. As detailed in this Notice
(CAA), 42 U.S.C.
of Violation (NOV), the EPA has determined that VW manufactured and installed defeat devices
Recycled/Recyclable
o
Interne! Addross (URL) e MtplArem.epa.gov
Pdnted yath Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsurner, Process Chlorine Fren
Reaysted Paper
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
33 of 37
in certain model year 2014 2016 diesel light-duty vehicles equipped with 3.0 liter engines.
These defeat devices bypass, defeat, or render inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission
control system that exist to comply with CAA emission standards, Therefore, VW violated
section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B). Additionally, the EPA has
determined that, due to the existence of the defeat devices in these vehicles, these vehicles do not
conform in all material respects to the vehicle specifications described in the applications for the
certificates or conformity that purportedly cover them. Therefore, VW also violated section
203(a)(1) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1), by selling, offering for sale, introducing into
or for causing
commerce, delivering for introduction into commerce, or importing these vehicles,
any or the
foregoing acts.
Law Governing Alleged Violations
7521-7554, and the
This NOV arises under Part A of Title II of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
the
In
CAA, Congress found, in part, that "the
regulations promulgated thereunder. creating
increasing use of motor vehicles.. has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and
welfare." CAA 101(a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 7401(a)(2). Congress' purpose in creating the CAA, in
the
part, was "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation's air resources so as to promote
and
initiate
"to
.public health and Welfare and the productive capacity of its population, and
accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the prevention and control of
CAA 101(b)(1)—(2), 42 U.S.C. 740I(b)(1)—(2). The CAA and the regulations
air
pollution."
promulgated thereunder aim to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions
of nitrogen oxides (N0x) and other pollutants from mobile sources of air pollution. Nitrogen
oxides are a family of highly reactive gases that play a major role in the atmospheric reactions
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that produce ozone (smog) on hot summer days.
Breathing ozone can trigger a varietY of health problems including chest pain, eoughing, throat
irritation, and congestion. Breathing ozone can also worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.
Children are at greatest risk of experiencing negatiVe health impacts from exposure to ozone,
light-duty motor vehicles for which 40 C.F.R. Part 86 sets
procedures and section 203 of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522, sets
compliance provisions. Light-duty vehicles must satisfy emission standards for certain air
pollutants, including NOx. 40 C.F.R. 86.1811-04. The EPA administers a certification program
The EPA's allegations here
emission standards and test
concern
that every vehicle introduced into United States commerce satisfies applicable emission
standards. Under this program, the EPA issues certificates of conformity (COCs), and thereby
approves the introduction of vehicles' into United States commerce.
to ensure
manufacturer must submit a COC application to the EPA
for each test group of vehicles that it intends to enter into United States commerce. 40 C.F.R.
86.1843-01. The COC application must include, among other things, a list of all auxiliary
emission control devites (AECDs) installed on the vehicles. 40 C.F.R. 86.1844-01(d)(11). An
AECD is "any element or design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, manifold vacuuth, or any other paraMeter for the purpose or aCtivating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system."
40 C.F.R. 86, 1803-01. The COC application must also include "a justification rot each AECD,
To obtain
a
COC,
a
light-duty vehicle
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
34 of 37
the parameters they sense and control, a detailed justification of each AECD that results in a
reduction in effectiveness of the emission control system, and [a] rationale for why it is not a
defeat device." 40 C.F.R. 86.1844-01(d)(11).
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;
A defeat deviee is
an
(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle against damage or
accident; (3) The AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or (4) The
AECD
applies only
for emergency vehicles.,
40 C.F.R.
86.1803-01.
equipped with defeat devices, such aS those at issue here, cannot be certified.
Number 24: Prohibition on use ofEmission Control Defeat Device
Circular
EPA, Advisory
86-1809-01, 86-1809-10, 86-1809-12, Electronic control
(Dec. 11, 1972); see also 40 C.F.R.
Motor vehicles
inputs from multiple sensors and control multiple actuators that
control
the
emission
affect
system's performance are AECDs. EPA, Advisoo, Circular Nwnber
24-2: Prohibition of Emission Control Defeat Devices Optional Objective Criteria (Dee. 6,
1978). "Such elements of design could be control system logic (i.e., computer software), and/or
calibrations, and/or hardware items." Id.
systems which may receive
covered by a certificate of conformity only if they are in all material respects as
described in the manufacturer's application for certification,.. 40 C.F.R. 86, 1848-10(c)(6),
Similarly, COCs issued by EPA, including those issued to VW, state expressly; Itihis certificate
covers only those new motor vehicles or vehicle engines which conform, in all material respects,
to the design specifications" described in the application for that COC. See also 40 C.F, R.
86.1844-01 (listing required content for COC applications), 86.1848-01(b) (authorizing the
EPA to issue COCs on any terms that are necessary or appropriate to assure that new motor
vehicles satisfy the requirements of the CAA and its regulations).
"Vehicles
are
violation "for any person to manufacture or sell, or offer to sell, or install,
motor vehicle or motor vehicle
any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any
to
is
or
of
the
effect
bypass, defeat, or render
part component
engine, where a principal
on
inoperative any device or element of design installed or in a motor vehicle or motor vehicle
engine in compliance with regulations under this subchapter, and where the person knows or
should know that such part or component is being offered for sale or installed thr such use or put
to such use." CAA
203(a)(3)(B), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 CFR. 86.1854-12(a)(3)(ii),
Additionally, manufacturers are prohibited from selling, offering for sale, introducing into
motor vehicle
commerce, delivering fOr introduction into commerce, or importing, any new
42
U.S.C.
CAA
COC.
7522(a)(1);
203(a)(1),
unless that vehicle is covered by an EPA-issued
40 C.F.R. 86.1854-12(a)(1). It is also a violation to cause any of the foregoing acts. CAA
203(a), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a); 40 C.F, R. 86-1854-12(a).
The CAA makes it
a
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
35 of 37
Alleged Violations
Each VW vehicle identified by the table below has AECDs that were not described in the
application for the COC that.purpottedly covers the vehicle. Specifically, VW manufactured and
installed software in the electronic control module (ECM) of each vehicle that causes the vehicle
to perform differently when the vehiele is being tested for compliance with EPA emission
standards than in normal operation and use.
When this software determines the vehicle has began the FTP 75 Federal emission test
procedUre, it directs the vehicle to employ a low NOx temperature conditioning mode. A status
bit in the software indicates that a "temperature conditioning" mode is active, In this low NOx
temperature conditioning mode, the vehicle operates under a number of emission control
parameters, including injection timing, exhaust gas recirculation rate, and common rail fuel
and high exhaust
pressure in such a way that the parameters yield low engine-out NOx emissions
temperatures, The high exhaust temperatures heat the selective catalytic reduction system
("catalyst") and improve the catalyst's ability to reduce tailpipe NOx emisSions. In this low NOx
temperature conditioning mode, the combination of low engine-out NOx and improved catalyst
performance results in tailpipe NOx emissions that are below the applicable emissions standard.
However, the software employs a "timer" that coincides with the low NOx temperature
conditioning mode. At exactly one second after the completion of the initial phases of the FTP
75 Federal emissions test procedure (1, 370 seconds, which is when the vehicle would normally
be turned oft), this software directs the vehicle to cease low NOx temperature conditioning
mode. The "temperature conditioning" status bit switches to zero, and a second status bit
indicates the activation of "transition to normal mode." In this "normal mode, the emission
control system is immediately less effective. Compared to the low NOx temperature conditioning
mode, the vehicle employs a different injection timing, exhaust gas recirculation rate, and
common rail fuel pressure. This yields higher levels of NOx from the engine and reduced
exhaust temperatures.
conditions that the software determines are not the
beginning of the FTP 75 Federal emission test procedure, the vehicle does not use the low NOx
temperature conditioning mode at all. Instead, the emission control parameters are set consistent
with the "normal mode."
In
addition, when the vehicle
starts under
the vehicle senses that it is not being tested, it uses "normal mode." In
"normal mode, tailpipe emissions of NOx are up to 9 times the applicable NOx standard levels,
depending on model type and type of drive cycle (e.g., city, highway).
In sum,
as soon as
This NOV is based on vehicle emission testing performed by the EPA's National Vehicle and
Fuel Emissions Laboratory, California Air Resources Board's Hagen-Smit Laboratory, and
Environment Canada's River Road Laboratory. This testing Was performed since EPA's
announcement on September 25, 2015, that it would perform additional testing "using driving
cycles and conditions that may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal operation
4
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1
and use, for the purposes of investigating
a
potential
Page
36 of 37
defeat device' EPA, EPA Conducted
Confirmatou Testing (Sept. 25, 2015).
should have known that the software described above bypasses, defeats, or renders
inoperative elements of the vehicle design related to compliance with the CAA emission
standards. This is apparent given the design of these defeat devices. As described above, the
software was designed to track federal test procedures and cause emission control systems to
underperform when the softWare determined that the vehicle was not being tested.
VW knew
or
VW's software described above includes One or more AECDs that were neither described nor
justified in the applicable COC applications,, and are illegal defeat devices. Therefore each
vehicle identified by the table below does not conform in a material respect to the vehicle
specifications described in.the COC application. As such, VW violated section 203(a)(1) of the
CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1), each time it sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce,
delivered for introduction into commerce, or imported (or caused any of the foregoing with
respect to) one of the new motor vehicles within these test groups, Additionally, VW violated
section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B), each time it manufactured and
installed into these vehicles an ECM equipped with the software described above.
The vehicles
arc
identified
by the table
below. All vehicles
are
equipped
with 3, 0 liter diesel
engines,
Model Year
EPA Test
2014
2015
EADXT03.02UG
FPRXT03.0CDD
2016
GVGAJOIONU4
Group
Make and
Model(s)
VW
Touareg
Cayeime
Audi A6 Quattro,
Porsche
A7
Quauro, A8, A8L„ and Q5
Enforcement
The EPA's
into this matter is continuing. The above table represents specific
violations that the EPA believes, at this point, are sufficiently supported by evidence to warrant
the allegations in this NOV. The.EPA may find additional violations as the investigation
continues,
investigation
The EPA is authorized to refer this matter to the United States Department of Justice for
initiation of appropriate enforcement action. Among other things, persons who violate section
203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B), are subject to a civil penalty of up to
$3, 750 for each violation that occurred on or after January 13, 2009; CAA 205(a), 42 U.S.C.
7524(a); 40 C.F.R. 19.4. In addition, any manufacturer who, on or after January 13, 2009,
sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, delivered for introduction into commerce,
imported, or caused any of the foregoing acts with respect to any new motor vehicle that was not
covered by an EPA-issued COC is subject, among other things, to a civil penalty of up to
$37, 500 for each violation. CAA 205(a), 42 U.S.C. 7524(a); 40 C, F, R. 19.4. The EPA may
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1
seek, and district courts may order, equitable remedies
CAA 204(a), 42 U.S.C. 7523(a).
Filed 12/01/15
to
Page
further address theSe
37 of 37
alleged
violations.
The EPA is available to discuss this matter with you. Please contact Meetu Kaul, the EPA
attorney assigned to this matter, to discuss this NOV. Ms. Kaul can be reached as follows:
Meetu Kaul
U.S. EPA, Air Enforcement Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5472
kaul.Mectuaepa.gov
Sincerely,
Susan Shinkman
Director
Office of Civil Enforcement
Copy:
Todd Sax, California Air Resources Board
Walter Benjamin Fisherow, United States Department of Justice
Stuart Drake, Kirkland & Ellis LLP
6
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1-1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
JS 44
Page
CIVIL COVER SHEET
(Rev. 12/12)
1 of 3
The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as
provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the
purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEAT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)
I.
(a)
DEFENDANTS
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
PLAINTIFFS
Ed Hendricks and
similarly situated
Jody Hendricks
on
Behalf of Themselves and all others
(b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff
(EXCEPT IN US.
County of Residence of First Listed Defendant
Chester
(IN US. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)
PLAINTIFF CASES)
IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF
THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED.
NOTE:
(c) Attomeys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)
Paola
S.
Sol H. Weiss, Esquire, David
Anapol Weiss
130 N. 18th Street, Suite 1600,
(215) 735-1130
Senoff, Esquire,
Philadelphia,
EL BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an
0
1
PA 19103
"X" in One Box
III CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an "X" in One Box for
and One Box for Defendant)
Diversity Cases Only)
Plaint((For
On)y)
03 Federal Question
(U.S. Government Not a Party)
U.S. Government
Plaintiff
04 Diversity
(Indicate Citizenship ofParties
U.S. Government
Defendant
02
Attorneys (IfKnown)
Pearson, Esquire
PTE
01
Citizen of This State
0
Citizen of Another State
in Item
NA TIM F, OF SITIT
1:
0
& Enforcement of Judgment
151 Medicare Act
152 Recovery of Defaulted
Student Loans
110 Insurance
150
Recovery of Overpayment
(Excludes Veterans)
0
153 Recovery of Overpayment
of Veteran's Benefits
0
0
0
0
160 Stockholders' Suits
190 Other Contract
195 Contract Product Liability
0
0
0
315
Airplane
Airplane Product
Liability
0
320
Assault, Libel &
0
Slander
330 Federal Employers'
310
0
0
Liability
340 Marine
0
0
345 Marine Product
350 Motor Vehicle
355 Motor Vehicle
Product Liability
360 Other Personal
0
0
0
196 Franchise
Injury
362 Personal Injury
Medical Malpractice
CIVIL RIGHTS
440 Other Civil Rights
441 Voting
442 Employment
REAL PROPERTY
0
0
0
0
0210 Land Condemnation
0 220 Foreclosure
0 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment
0 240 Torts to Land
0 245 Tort Product Liability
0 290 All Other Real Property
443
03
0 625 Drug Related Seizure
0
0
4
1: 4
Incorporated and Principal Place
0
5
05
Foreign Nation
0
6
06
of Business In This State
3
of Property 21 USC 881
PROPERTY RIGHTS
0 820 Copyrights
0 830 Patent
0 840 Trademark
Property Damage
0 385 Property Damage
Product Liability
0 740 Railway Labor Act
0751 Family and Medical
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas
0
0
0
0
Corpus:
0
Other
448 Education
0
0
0
0
Act
Relations
Leave Act
0 790 Other Labor
Litigation
0 791 Employee Retirement
Income Security Act
FEDERAL TAX SUITS
0 870
463 Alien Detainee
0 871
510 Motions to Vacate
Sentence
0
0
0
480 Consumer Credit
0
0
0
0
890 Other Statutory Actions
891 Agricultural Acts
893 Environmental Matters
0
0
896 Arbitration
400 State Reapportionment
410 Antitrust
430 Banks and Banking
450 Commerce
460
Deportation
470 Racketeer Influenced and
(U.S. Plaintiff
or Defendant)
IRS—Third Party
490 Cable/Sat TV
850 Securities/Commodities/
Exchange
895 Freedom of Information
Act
Taxes
0
899 Administrative Procedure
Act/Review or Appeal of
Agency Decision
950 Constitutionality of
State Statutes
IMMIGRATION
0462 Naturalization Application.
540 Mandamus & Other
550 Civil
375 False Claims Act
26 USC 7609
530 General
535 Death Penalty
Other:
446 Amer. w/Disabilities
0 861 HIA (1395ff)
0 862 Black Lung (923)
0 863 DD,WC/DIWW (405(g))
0 864 SSID Title XVI
0 865 RSI (405(g))
0 720 Labor/Management
0
0
0
0
0
0
0
Corrupt Organizations
SOCIAL SECURITY
LABOR
Standards
0710 Fair Labor
Employment
0
28 USC 157
Pharmaceutical
Personal Injury
Product Liability
368 Asbestos Personal
Injury Product
OTHER STATUTES
BANKRUPTCY
0 422 Appeal 28 USC 158
0 423 Withdrawal.
0 690 Other
PERSONAL PROPERTY
13:1 370 Other Fraud
0 371 Truth in Lending
0 380 Other Personal
Housing/
Accommodations
445 Amer. w/Disabilities
0
PERSONAL INJURY
365 Personal Injury
Product Liability
367 Health Care/
Liability
Liability
El
I
2
FORFEITURE/PENALTY
TORTS
PERSONAL INJURY
120 Marine
130 Miller Act
140 Negotiable Instrument
El
Incorporated or Principal Place
"Y" i, Ow Roy Only)
CONTRACT
0
0
0
0
0
I
of Business In Another State
or Subject of a
Foreign Counts},
INL
0
III)
Citizen
I
2
DEF
PTF
DEF
Rights
0 465
Other Immigration
Actions
555 Prison Condition
560 Civil Detainee
Conditions of
Confinement
V. ORIGEN (Place an
[Z]
1
Original
Proceeding
0
"X" in One Box
VI. CAUSE OF
ACTION
VII.
REQUESTED IN
0 3
04
Remanded from
Appellate Court
Reinstated
or
Reopened
0 5
Transferred from 0 6
Another District
Multidistrict
Litigation
(specify)
Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are tiling (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity):
28 U.S.C.
1332(d)
Brief description of cause:
Volkswagen deceived consumers and federal regulators into believing that certain vehicles complied with federal emissions rules.
CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint:
DEMAND
El CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION
JURY DEMAND:
UNDER RULE 23, F.R.Cv.P.
COWLAINT:
VIII. RELATED
IF ANY
On(y)
2 Removed from
State Court
CASE(S)
(See instructions):
JIMIG-EM
DOCKET NUMBER
7
SIGNATURE
DATE
OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD
\'`".i
12/01/2015
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
RECEIPT
AMOUNT
Am:Y-1W TFP
JUDGE
MAG. JUDGE
0 Yes
0
No
I
Filed 12/01/15
Document 1-1
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
2 of 3
Page
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
assignment to appropriate
Address of Plaintiff: Chester
Place of Accident, Incident
by counsel
to indicate the
category
of the
case
for the purpose of
Pennsylvania
County,
Ferdinand Porsche Drive,
2200
Address of Defendant:
DESIGNATION FORM to be used
calendar.
or
Herndon,
VA
Transaction:
(Use Reverse Side For Additional Space)
Does this civil action involve
(Attach
Does this
two
case
copies
a
nongovemmental corporate party with any parent corporation and any publicly held corporation owning 10% or more
Yes!: Non(
7.1(a))
involve multidistrict
Judge
1. Is this
case
Smith
Edward G.
M.
Berle
2:15-CV-U6O9U
cases are
YesaC
litigation possibilities?
RELATED CASE, IF ANY:
5•15-cv-06045
Case Number:
Civil
No0
Date Terminated:
Schiller
R. Barclay Surrick
2:15-cv-05364
deemed related when yes is answered to any of the following questions:
related to property included in
2. Does this case involve the
action in this court?
same
earlier numbered suit pending
an
issue of fact
or
grow out of the
same
within
previously terminated action in this court?
NoE--]
Yesl
transaction as a prior suit pending or within one year previously terminated
or
one
year
Yes ff
3. Does this
case
involve the
validity
or
infringement
of a patent
already in suit
or
any earlier numbered case
pending
or
within
case a
second
or
one
No [--1
year previously
No n(
Yes El
terminated action in this court?
4. Is this
successive habeas corpus, social
security appeal, or pro
se
civil rights
case
filed
by the same
individual?
No a
YesE1
CIVIL:
(Place
Federal
A.
of its stock?
of the Disclosure Statement Form in accordance with Fed.R.Civ.P.
V in
Question
ONE CATEGORY
ONLY)
Cases:
Diversity Jurisdiction
B.
1.
El
Indemnity
2.
0
FELA
3.
0
Jones Act-Personal
4.
0
5.
0
Patent
6.
El
7.
8.
Contract, Marine Contract, and All Other Contracts
Cases:
1.
El
Insurance Contract and Other Contracts
2.
El
Airplane
3.
0
Assault, Defamation
4.
El
Marine Personal
5.
0
Motor Vehicle Personal
Labor-Management Relations
6.
0
Other Personal
El
Civil
7.
0
Products
Liability
0
Habeas
8.
ID
Products
Liability
9.
0
Securities
10.
0
Social
11.
0
All other Federal
Injury
Antitrust
Rights
Corpus
9. r=tc All other
Cases
Act(s)
Security Review
Cases
Question
Personal
Injury
Injury
Injury
Injury (Please specify)
Asbestos
Diversity Cases
(Please specify)
Other Fraud
Cases
(Please specify)
ARBITRATION CERTIFICATION
Weiss
Sol H.
DX Pursuant to Local
$150, 000.00
Civil Rule 53.2, Section
3(c)(2), t
to
December 1,
damages
2015
f
('''''''k,
i
f
certify that,
DATE:
as
to my
knowledge, the within
A trial de
case
is
2015
novo
will be
a
ny-reletted to any
noted above..
December 1,
trial
(5/2012)
byjury only if there has
case now
pending
or
been
within
one
Attorney I.D.#
compliance with F.R.C.P. 38.
year
previously
terminated action in this court
1
N'''<'i-L;(-, iL15925
Attorney-at-Law
CIV. 609
exceed the sum of
15925
Attorney-at-Law
except
case
souiht.
is
NOTH:
I
recoverable in this civil action
exclusive of interest and costs;
Relief other than monetary
DATE:
(Check Appropriate Categoty)
hereby certify:
the best of my knowledge and belief, the damages
counsel of record do
Attorney I.D.#
Case 2:15-cv-06384-SD
Document 1-1
Filed 12/01/15
Page
3 of 3
IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA
CASE MANAGEMENT TRACK DESIGNATION FORM
and
Ed Hendricks
on
Jody Hendricks
CIVIL ACTION
themselves and all others
behalf of
similarly situated
V.
Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.
NO.
In accordance with the Civil Justice Expense and Delay Reduction Plan of this court, counsel for
plaintiff shall complete a Case Management Track Designation Form in all civil cases at the time of
filing the complaint and serve a copy on all defendants. (See 1:03 of the plan set forth on the reverse
side of this form.) In the event that a defendant does not agree with the plaintiff regarding said
designation, that defendant shall, with its first appearance, submit to the clerk of court and serve on
the plaintiff and all other parties, a Case Management Track Designation Form specifying the track
to which that defendant believes the case should be assigned.
SELECT ONE OF THE
(a)
Habeas
Corpus
FOLLOWING CASE MANAGEMENT TRACKS:
Cases
brought under 28 U.S.C.
2241
through
2255.
Cases requesting review of a decision of the Secretary of Health
and Human Services denying plaintiff Social Security Benefits.
(b) Social Security
Cases
required to be designated for arbitration under Local Civil Rule
(c)
Arbitration
(d)
Asbestos Cases involving claims for personal
exposure to asbestos.
injury or property damage
from
(e) Special Management Cases that do not fall into tracks (a) through (d) that are
commonly referred to as complex and that need special or intense management by
the court. (See reverse side of this form for a detailed explanation of special
management cases.)
(f) Standard Management
ase
—79,
t do not fall into any
one
of the other tracks.
7
December 1,
2015
Plaintiffs
A-Thin .y-.
Date
(215)
735-1130
Telephone
(Ch% 660)
11102
i
al*
(215)875-7701
FAX Number
53.2.
Attorn4 for
[email protected]
E-Mail Address
(X)