DOCSLIB.ORG

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of MICHIGAN CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ANDREI FENNER and JOSHUA HERMAN, Indivi

Total Page：16

File Type：pdf, Size：1020Kb

Download full-text PDF Read full-text
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT for the EASTERN DISTRICT of MICHIGAN CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ANDREI FENNER and JOSHUA HERMAN, Indivi 2:17-cv-11661-GCS-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/25/17 Pg 1 of 191 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN ANDREI FENNER and JOSHUA No. HERMAN, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, JURY TRIAL DEMANDED Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company; ROBERT BOSCH GMBH, a corporation organized under the laws of Germany; and ROBERT BOSCH LLC, a Delaware Limited Liability Company, Defendants. CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 010611-12 959897 V1 2:17-cv-11661-GCS-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/25/17 Pg 2 of 191 Pg ID 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................... 1 II. JURISDICTION ............................................................................................ 10 III. VENUE .......................................................................................................... 11 IV. PARTIES ....................................................................................................... 12 A. Plaintiffs .............................................................................................. 12 1. Andrei Fenner ........................................................................... 12 2. Joshua Herman .......................................................................... 13 B. Defendants ........................................................................................... 15 1. General Motors ......................................................................... 15 2. The Bosch Defendants .............................................................. 16 V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ........................................................................ 19 A. The Environmental Challenges Posed by Diesel Engines and the U.S. Regulatory Response Thereto ............................................... 19 B. Both the Silverado and Sierra Share a Common Duramax Engine .................................................................................................. 22 1. HCI – Hydrocarbon Injector ..................................................... 22 2. DOC – Diesel Oxidation Catalyst ............................................. 22 3. Diesel Exhaust Fluid Injector .................................................... 23 4. SCR – Selective Catalytic Reduction ....................................... 23 5. DPF – Diesel Particulate Filter ................................................. 23 6. EGR – Exhaust Gas Recirculation ............................................ 25 C. Emission Test Cycles and Emission Standards ................................... 26 D. GM Profited from Using Multiple Defeat Devices in Its Duramax Diesel Powertrains ............................................................... 28 E. GM Promoted the Silverado and Sierra Duramax as Low Emission Vehicles Because It Knew the Environment Is Material to a Reasonable Consumer ................................................... 33 - i - 010611-12 959897 V1 2:17-cv-11661-GCS-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/25/17 Pg 3 of 191 Pg ID 3 F. The Deception ..................................................................................... 37 1. The 2013 Silverado 2500 diesel test setup. ............................... 37 2. Initial results indicate higher than expected emissions. ............ 39 3. Further testing demonstrates that GM—enabled by Bosch’s EDC-17—employs three defeat devices. .................... 44 a. Defeat Devices One and Two: the Temperature Defeat Devices ................................................................ 45 b. Defeat Device Three: the Steady Speed Time-Out Defeat .............................................................................. 45 4. The test vehicle is representative of all Sierra and Silverado vehicles. .................................................................... 51 G. This Is Not the Only GM Model to Employ This Deception ............. 52 H. The Bosch EDC-17 ............................................................................. 53 I. Bosch Played a Critical Role in the Defeat Device Scheme in Many Diesel Vehicles in the U.S. ....................................................... 58 1. Volkswagen and Bosch conspire to develop the illegal defeat device. ............................................................................ 59 2. Volkswagen and Bosch conspire to conceal the illegal “akustikfunktion.” ..................................................................... 63 3. Volkswagen and Bosch conspire in the U.S. and Germany to elude U.S. regulators who regulated not just Volkswagen diesels but all diesels. ........................................... 64 4. Bosch keeps Volkswagen’s secret safe and pushes “clean” diesel in the U.S. .......................................................... 65 5. Bosch also made the EDC-17 found in Fiat Chrysler vehicles that pollute excessively. .............................................. 68 6. Bosch also made the EDC-17 found in polluting Mercedes diesels. ...................................................................... 70 J. The Damage from Excessive NOx ...................................................... 70 K. The GM Scheme Is Just the Latest in a Worldwide Diesel Emissions Cheating Scandal That Adds Plausibility to the Allegations as Virtually All Diesel Manufacturers Are Falsely Advertising Their Vehicles ................................................................. 75 VI. TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ................................... 78 A. Discovery Rule Tolling ....................................................................... 78 - ii - 010611-12 959897 V1 2:17-cv-11661-GCS-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/25/17 Pg 4 of 191 Pg ID 4 B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolling ......................................................... 80 C. Estoppel ............................................................................................... 80 VII. CLASS ALLEGATIONS .............................................................................. 81 VIII. CLAIMS ........................................................................................................ 85 A. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide RICO Class ................ 85 COUNT 1 VIOLATIONS OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED AND CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (RICO) VIOLATION OF 18 U.S.C. § 1962(C), (D) .................................................................................... 85 1. The members of the Emissions Fraud Enterprise ..................... 86 2. The Predicate Acts .................................................................... 94 B. Claims Brought on Behalf of the California Class ........................... 101 COUNT 2 VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17200 ET SEQ.) ............................................................................................................ 101 COUNT 3 VIOLATIONS OF THE CALIFORNIA FALSE ADVERTISING LAW (CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE § 17500 ET SEQ.) ............................ 106 COUNT 4 BREACH OF CONTRACT (BASED ON CALIFORNIA LAW) ..... 109 COUNT 5 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON CALIFORNIA LAW) ........................................................................................................... 111 C. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Louisiana Class ............................ 118 COUNT 6 VIOLATION OF THE LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW (LA. REV. STAT. § 51:1401 ET SEQ.) ......................................................................... 118 COUNT 7 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT (BASED ON LOUISIANA LAW) ........................................................................................................... 120 D. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Other State Classes ...................... 121 COUNT 8 VIOLATION OF THE ALABAMA DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (ALA. CODE § 8-19-1 ET SEQ.) ................................ 121 COUNT 9 VIOLATION OF THE ALASKA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES AND CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (ALASKA STAT. ANN. § 45.50.471 ET SEQ.) ........................................................... 122 COUNT 10 VIOLATION OF THE ARIZONA CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (ARIZONA REV. STAT. § 44-1521 ET SEQ.) .......................................... 124 - iii - 010611-12 959897 V1 2:17-cv-11661-GCS-APP Doc # 1 Filed 05/25/17 Pg 5 of 191 Pg ID 5 COUNT 11 VIOLATION OF THE ARKANSAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (ARK. CODE ANN. § 4-88-101 ET SEQ.) ................. 125 COUNT 12 VIOLATION OF THE COLORADO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (COLO. REV. STAT. § 6-1-101 ET SEQ.) .............. 127 COUNT 13 VIOLATION OF THE CONNECTICUT UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT (CONN. GEN. STAT. § 42-110A ET SEQ.) ............... 128 COUNT 14 VIOLATION OF THE DELAWARE CONSUMER FRAUD ACT (DEL. CODE TIT. 6, § 2513 ET SEQ.).............................................. 129 COUNT 15 VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT (GA. CODE ANN. § 10-1-390 ET SEQ.) .................... 130 COUNT 16 VIOLATION OF THE GEORGIA UNIFORM DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (GA. CODE. ANN § 10-1-370 ET SEQ.) ..... 132 COUNT 17 VIOLATION OF THE HAWAII ACT § 480-2(A) (HAW. REV. STAT. § 480 ET SEQ.) ...................................................................... 133 COUNT 18 VIOLATION OF THE IDAHO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (IDAHO CODE ANN. § 48-601 ET SEQ.) ........................................ 134 COUNT 19 VIOLATION OF THE INDIANA DECEPTIVE CONSUMER SALES ACT (IND. CODE § 24-5-0.5-3) ................................................... 135 COUNT
Load more

Recommended publications
  • Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V., ) V.M
    VIRGINIA: IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE COUNTY OF HENRICO COMMONWEALTH OF VIRGINIA, EX REL. MARK R. HERRING, ) ATTORNEY GENERAL, ) ) Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) CIVIL ACTION NO. ) FCA US LLC, ) FIAT CHRYSLER AUTOMOBILES N.V., ) V.M. MOTORI S.P.A., ) AND V.M. NORTH AMERICA, INC., ) ) Defendants. ) COMPLAINT The Plaintiff, Commonwealth of Virginia, by and through its Attorney General, Mark R. Herring, brings this action complaining of FCA US LLC ("FCA") and Fiat Chrysler Automobiles N.V. ("Fiat N.V." and, together with FCA, the "Fiat Defendants" or simply "Fiat"); and VM Motori S.p.A. ("VM Italy") and VM North America, Inc. ("VM America" and, together with VM Italy, the "VM Defendants" or simply "VM"), and states as follows: I. INTRODUCTION The Commonwealth of Virginia seeks relief for the massive and deliberate deception of consumers and regulators perpetrated by the aforementioned Defendants (collectively "FCA") in relation to the certification, marketing, and sale to consumers of more than 100,000 model year ("MY") 2014-2016 "EcoDiesel" Ram 1500 pickup trucks and Jeep Grand Cherokee sport utility 1 vehicles (the "Diesel Vehicles" '), including more than 2,000 within the Commonwealth of Virginia (the "Virginia Diesel Vehicles"). 2. Defendants designed, deployed and then concealed from the public and regulators multiple auxiliary emission control devices ("AECDs") in the Diesel Vehicles' electronic control modules. Those AECDs, when used alone or in combination with another device, operated as illegal "defeat devices": software strategies that optimize emission controls during formal emissions test cycles so that emissions appear to be within legal limits while reducing emission controls outside of those test cycles ("off-cycle") in normal, real-world operations.
    [Show full text]
  • Volkswagen AG Annual Report 2009
    Driving ideas. !..5!,2%0/24 Key Figures MFCBJN8><E>IFLG )''0 )''/ Mfcld\;XkX( M\_`Zc\jXc\jle`kj -#*'0#.+* -#).(#.)+ "'%- Gif[lZk`fele`kj -#',+#/)0 -#*+-#,(, Æ+%- <dgcfp\\jXk;\Z%*( *-/#,'' *-0#0)/ Æ'%+ )''0 )''/ =`eXeZ`Xc;XkX@=IJj #d`cc`fe JXc\ji\m\el\ (',#(/. ((*#/'/ Æ.%- Fg\iXk`e^gif]`k (#/,, -#*** Æ.'%. Gif]`kY\]fi\kXo (#)-( -#-'/ Æ/'%0 Gif]`kX]k\ikXo 0(( +#-// Æ/'%- Gif]`kXkki`YlkXYc\kfj_Xi\_fc[\ijf]MfcbjnX^\e8> 0-' +#.,* Æ.0%/ :Xj_]cfnj]ifdfg\iXk`e^XZk`m`k`\j)()#.+( )#.') o :Xj_]cfnj]ifd`em\jk`e^XZk`m`k`\j)('#+)/ ((#-(* Æ('%) 8lkfdfk`m\;`m`j`fe* <9@K;8+ /#'', ()#('/ Æ**%0 :Xj_]cfnj]ifdfg\iXk`e^XZk`m`k`\j) ()#/(, /#/'' "+,%- :Xj_]cfnj]ifd`em\jk`e^XZk`m`k`\j)#,('#),) ((#+.0 Æ('%. f]n_`Z_1`em\jkd\ekj`egifg\ikp#gcXekXe[\hl`gd\ek),#./* -#..* Æ(+%- XjXg\iZ\ekX^\f]jXc\ji\m\el\ -%) -%- ZXg`kXc`q\[[\m\cfgd\ekZfjkj (#0+/ )#)(- Æ()%( XjXg\iZ\ekX^\f]jXc\ji\m\el\ )%( )%) E\kZXj_]cfn )#,-* Æ)#-.0 o E\kc`hl`[`kpXk;\Z%*( ('#-*- /#'*0 "*)%* )''0 )''/ I\klieiXk`fj`e I\kliefejXc\jY\]fi\kXo (%) ,%/ I\kliefe`em\jkd\ekX]k\ikXo8lkfdfk`m\;`m`j`fe *%/ ('%0 I\kliefe\hl`kpY\]fi\kXo=`eXeZ`XcJ\im`Z\j;`m`j`fe -.%0 ()%( ( @eZcl[`e^mfcld\[XkX]fik_\m\_`Zc\$gif[lZk`fe`em\jkd\ekjJ_Xe^_X`$MfcbjnX^\e8lkfdfk`m\:fdgXepCk[% Xe[=8N$MfcbjnX^\e8lkfdfk`m\:fdgXepCk[%#n_`Z_Xi\XZZflek\[]filj`e^k_\\hl`kpd\k_f[% ) )''/X[aljk\[% * @eZcl[`e^XccfZXk`fef]Zfejfc`[Xk`feX[aljkd\ekjY\kn\\ek_\8lkfdfk`m\Xe[=`eXeZ`XcJ\im`Z\j[`m`j`fej% + Fg\iXk`e^gif]`kgclje\k[\gi\Z`Xk`fe&Xdfik`qXk`feXe[`dgX`id\ekcfjj\j&i\m\ijXcjf]`dgX`id\ekcfjj\jfegifg\ikp#gcXekXe[\hl`gd\ek# ZXg`kXc`q\[[\m\cfgd\ekZfjkj#c\Xj`e^Xe[i\ekXcXjj\kj#^ff[n`ccXe[]`eXeZ`XcXjj\kjXji\gfik\[`ek_\ZXj_]cfnjkXk\d\ek% , <oZcl[`e^XZhl`j`k`feXe[[`jgfjXcf]\hl`kp`em\jkd\ekj1Ñ.#,/,d`cc`feÑ/#/.0d`cc`fe % - Gif]`kY\]fi\kXoXjXg\iZ\ekX^\f]Xm\iX^\\hl`kp% .
    [Show full text]
  • SEC Complaint
    Case 3:19-cv-01391 Document 1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 1 of 69 1 DANIEL J. HAYES (IL Bar No. 6243089) Email: [email protected] 2 MICHAEL D. FOSTER (IL Bar No. 6257063) 3 Email: [email protected] JAKE A. SCHMIDT (IL Bar No. 6270569) 4 Email: [email protected] KEVIN A. WISNIEWSKI (IL Bar No. 6294107) 5 Email: [email protected] 6 175 West Jackson Boulevard, Suite 1450 7 Chicago, Illinois 60604 Telephone: (312) 353-3368 8 Facsimile: (312) 353-7398 9 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 10 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 11 SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION 12 13 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND Case No. 14 EXCHANGE COMMISSION, COMPLAINT 15 Plaintiff, 16 vs. 17 Hon. VOLKSWAGEN 18 AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, MARTIN WINTERKORN, VOLKSWAGEN GROUP 19 OF AMERICA FINANCE, LLC, and VW JURY DEMANDED 20 CREDIT, INC., 21 Defendants. 22 23 COMPLAINT 24 Plaintiff United States Securities and Exchange Commission (“SEC”) brings this 25 action against defendants Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (“VWAG”), Martin Winterkorn 26 (“Winterkorn”), Volkswagen Group of America Finance, LLC (“VWGoAF”), and VW Credit, 27 Inc. (“VCI”), and alleges as follows: 28 COMPLAINT Case No. xxxx Case 3:19-cv-01391 Document 1 Filed 03/14/19 Page 2 of 69 1 I. 2 SUMMARY 3 1. From at least 2007 through September 2015, VW perpetrated a massive 4 fraud.1 VW, including its CEO Martin Winterkorn and numerous other senior officials, 5 repeatedly lied to and misled United States investors, consumers, and regulators as part 6 of an illegal scheme to sell its purportedly “clean diesel” cars and billions of dollars of 7 corporate bonds and other securities in the United States.
    [Show full text]
  • Hyperfuels Selected As the Official Fuel Provider For
    FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Media Contact Nicole Haagenson ! Sage PR 832.203.5327 [email protected] HYPERFUELS SELECTED AS THE OFFICIAL FUEL PROVIDER FOR THE 2009 VOLKSWAGEN JETTA TDI CUP SERIES B5 biodiesel to power the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Cup race cars (HOUSTON, TX) February 2, 2009- HYPERFUELS, a national supplier of high quality race fuels, biodiesel, additives, and lubricants, has been selected as the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Cup Series Official Fuel sponsor. The announcement was made as the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Cup Series begins its driver selection event February 1, 2009 in Sonoma, CA. The nine race series will finish on September 26, 2009 in Braselton, GA. Approximately 3,192 gallons of B5 diesel fuel will be used to fuel the diesel race cars as well as the transport trucks and generators throughout the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI Cup Series. “We are extremely pleased to have HYPERFUELS as a partner with the Volkswagen Jetta TDI Cup series in 2009. SynDiesel B5 diesel fuel is already fully approved to use in all Volkswagen TDI clean diesel powered vehicles available at local Volkswagen dealerships today," said Clark Campbell, Motorsport Manager of Volkswagen of America, Inc. "The addition of SynDiesel B5 diesel fuel in the Jetta TDI Cup race cars further demonstrates the feasibility of biodiesel as an alternative fuel source for American consumers, and supports the clean and green racing of the Jetta TDI Cup series,” added Campbell. Jess Hewitt, President, Gulf Hydrocarbon, the parent company of HYPERFUELS added, “HYPERFUELS supports the use of biodiesel as a clean diesel racing performance fuel.
    [Show full text]
  • January 12, 1999 Lois J. Schiffer Assistant Attorney General
    January 12, 1999 Lois J. Schiffer Assistant Attorney General Environment and Natural Resources Division U.S. Department of Justice Washington, DC 20530 Re: United States v. Caterpillar, Inc., Civil Action No. 98-2544 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2255 United States v. Cummins Engine Co., Civil Action No. 98-2546 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2136A United States v. Detroit Diesel Corporation, Civil Action No. 98-2548 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2253 United States v. Mack Trucks, Inc., Civil Action No. 98-1495 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90- 5-2-1-2251 and United States v. Renault Vehicules Industriels, Civil Action No. 98-2543 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2251/1 United States v. Navistar International Corp., Civil Action No. 98-2545 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2252 United States v. Volvo Truck Corp., Civil Action No. 98-2547 (HHK), D.J. Ref. 90-5-2-1-2256 Dear Assistant Attorney General Schiffer: The State and Territorial Air Pollution Program Administrators (STAPPA) and the Association of Local Air Pollution Control Officials (ALAPCO) – the two national associations representing the air pollution control agencies in the 55 states and territories and more than 165 major metropolitan areas across the country – are pleased to provide comments on the proposed Consent Decrees related to the above-referenced civil actions. These proposed Consent Decrees – announced in the Federal Register on November 3, 1998 (63 FR 59330-59334) – have been filed by the United States to settle civil complaints against seven manufacturers of motor vehicle diesel engines alleged to have sold, offered for sale or introduced or delivered into commerce, heavy-duty diesel engines equipped with "defeat devices" in the form of computer software that alters fuel injection timing when the engines are in use, thus adversely affecting the engines' emission control systems for oxides of nitrogen (NOx); such defeat devices are prohibited by the Clean Air Act.
    [Show full text]
  • A Historical Review of the U.S. Vehicle Emission Compliance Program and Emission Recall Cases
    WHITE PAPER APRIL 2017 A HISTORICAL REVIEW OF THE U.S. VEHICLE EMISSION COMPLIANCE PROGRAM AND EMISSION RECALL CASES Hui He, Lingzhi Jin www.theicct.org [email protected] BEIJING | BERLIN | BRUSSELS | SAN FRANCISCO | WASHINGTON ACKNOWLEDGMENTS The authors thank the internal and external reviewers of this paper for their guidance and constructive comments, with special thanks to Steve Albu, Charles Freed, Robert Maxwell, Margo Oge, Karl Simon, John Urkov, and Michael P. Walsh for the input they gave through interviews in the early stages of this paper. In addition, we also thank Tom Cackette, Robert Maxwell, Margo Oge, John Urkov, Michael P. Walsh, Yan Ding, Dagang Tang, John German, Fanta Kamakate, Rachel Muncrief, and Zifei Yang for their thoughtful reviews. Funding for this work was generously provided by the ClimateWorks Foundation, the Energy Foundation, and the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency. © 2017 International Council on Clean Transportation 1225 I Street NW, Suite 900, Washington DC 20005 [email protected] | www.theicct.org | @TheICCT TABLE OF CONTENTS Executive Summary .................................................................................................................. iv 1. Introduction ...........................................................................................................................1 2. Legal authority under the U.S. compliance program ......................................................4 3. Evolution of the U.S. compliance program .....................................................................6
    [Show full text]
  • From Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia Audi Type Private Company
    Audi From Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia Audi Private company Type (FWB Xetra: NSU) Industry Automotive industry Zwickau, Germany (16 July Founded 1909)[1] Founder(s) August Horch Headquarters Ingolstadt, Germany Production locations: Germany: Ingolstadt & Neckarsulm Number of Hungary: Győr locations Belgium: Brussels China: Changchun India: Aurangabad Brazil: Curitiba Area served Worldwide Rupert Stadler Key people Chairman of the Board of Management, Wolfgang Egger Head of Design Products Automobiles, Engines Production 1,143,902 units (2010) output (only Audi brand) €35.441 billion (2010) Revenue (US$52.57 billion USD) (including subsidiaries) €1.850 billion (2009) Profit (US$2.74 billion USD) €16.832 billion (2009) Total assets (US$25 billion USD) €3.451 billion (2009) Total equity (US$5.12 billion USD) Employees 46,372 (2009)[2] Parent Volkswagen Group Audi do Brasil e Cia (Curitiba, Brazil) Audi Hungaria Motor Kft. (Györ, Hungary) Audi Senna Ltda. (Brazil) Automobili Lamborghini Subsidiaries Holding S.p.A (Sant'Agata Bolognese, Italy) Autogerma S.p.A. (Verona, Italy) quattro GmbH (Neckarsulm, Germany) Website audi.com Audi AG (Xetra: NSU) is a German automobile manufacturer, from supermini to crossover SUVs in various body styles and price ranges that are marketed under the Audi brand (German pronunciation: [ˈaʊdi]), positioned as the premium brand within the Volkswagen Group.[3] The company is headquartered in Ingolstadt, Germany, and has been a wholly owned (99.55%)[4] subsidiary of Volkswagen AG since 1966, following a phased purchase of its predecessor, Auto Union, from its former owner, Daimler-Benz. Volkswagen relaunched the Audi brand with the 1965 introduction of the Audi F103 series.
    [Show full text]
  • Class-Action Lawsuit
    Case 2:18-cv-04363 Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 1 of 245 PageID: 1 James E. Cecchi Steve W. Berman CARELLA, BYRNE, CECCHI, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C. 1918 Eighth Avenue, Suite 3300 5 Becker Farm Road Seattle, WA 98101 Roseland, NJ 07068 Telephone: (206) 623-7292 Telephone: (973) 994-1700 Facsimile: (206) 623-0594 Facsimile: (973) 994-1744 [email protected] [email protected] Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY GARNER RICKMAN, ZIWEN LI, and GARY Civil Action No. REISING, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, a Delaware COMPLAINT and corporation; and BAYERISCHE MOTOREN DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL WERKE AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT (BMW AG), a corporation organized under the laws of Germany, Defendants. Case 2:18-cv-04363 Document 1 Filed 03/27/18 Page 2 of 245 PageID: 2 TABLE OF CONTENTS Page I. INTRODUCTION ...............................................................................................................1 II. JURISDICTION ..................................................................................................................8 III. VENUE ................................................................................................................................8 IV. PARTIES .............................................................................................................................9 A. Plaintiffs ...................................................................................................................9
    [Show full text]
  • United States District Court Eastern District of Michigan Southern Division
    Case 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/29/18 Page 1 of 31 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION JAMES BLEDSOE, et al., on be- half of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. Case No. 4:16-cv-14024 Hon. Terrence G. Berg FCA US LLC, a Delaware corpo- ration, and CUMMINS INC., an Indiana corporation, Defendants. OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANTS’ MOTIONS TO DISMISS WITHOUT PREJUDICE (Dkts. 26, 27) I. Introduction Plaintiffs in this proposed putative class action allege that Defend- ant FCA’s 2007-2012 Dodge Ram 2500 and 3500 diesel trucks (the “Trucks” or “Affected Vehicles”), equipped with 6.7-liter Turbo Diesel en- gines manufactured by Defendant Cummins Inc., emit nitrogen oxides (“NOx”) at levels in excess of federal and state emissions standards. The Complaint alleges violations of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Or- ganizations Act (“RICO Act”), the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), as well as claims asserted under the respective laws of 49 states and the District of Columbia. Plaintiffs allege that Defendants Case 4:16-cv-14024-TGB-RSW ECF No. 60, PageID.<pageID> Filed 03/29/18 Page 2 of 31 marketed the Trucks as containing “clean diesel engines,” while they dis- charged emissions at levels greater than what a reasonable customer would expect based on the alleged representations. Defendants have moved for dismissal of Plaintiffs’ Complaint, which Plaintiffs oppose. Plaintiffs seek to bring claims on behalf of themselves and a nation- wide class of all persons or entities in the United States who, as of No- vember 1, 2016, owned or leased the following Trucks: 1.
    [Show full text]
  • How They Did It: an Analysis of Emission Defeat Devices in Modern Automobiles
    How They Did It: An Analysis of Emission Defeat Devices in Modern Automobiles Moritz Contag∗, Guo Liy, Andre Pawlowski∗, Felix Domkez, Kirill Levchenkoy, Thorsten Holz∗, and Stefan Savagey ∗ Ruhr-Universitat¨ Bochum, Germany, fmoritz.contag, andre.pawlowski, [email protected] y University of California, San Diego, fgul027, klevchen, [email protected] z [email protected] Abstract—Modern vehicles are required to comply with a determined that the vehicle was not under test, it would disable range of environmental regulations limiting the level of emissions certain emission control measures, in some cases leading the for various greenhouse gases, toxins and particulate matter. To vehicle to emit up to 40 times the allowed nitrogen oxides [15]. ensure compliance, regulators test vehicles in controlled settings and empirically measure their emissions at the tailpipe. However, Defeat devices like Volkswagen’s are possible because of the black box nature of this testing and the standardization how regulatory agencies test vehicles for compliance before of its forms have created an opportunity for evasion. Using they can be offered for sale. In most jurisdictions, including modern electronic engine controllers, manufacturers can pro- the US and Europe, emissions tests are performed on a chassis grammatically infer when a car is undergoing an emission test dynamometer, a fixture that holds the vehicle in place while and alter the behavior of the vehicle to comply with emission standards, while exceeding them during normal driving in favor allowing its tires to rotate freely. During the test, a vehicle of improved performance. While the use of such a defeat device is made to follow a precisely defined speed profile (i.e., by Volkswagen has brought the issue of emissions cheating to the vehicle speed as a function of time) that attempts to imitate public’s attention, there have been few details about the precise real driving conditions.
    [Show full text]
  • Lawsuits Triggered by the Volkswagen Emissions Case
    Briefing May 2016 Lawsuits triggered by the Volkswagen emissions case SUMMARY In September 2015, the United States Environmental Protection Agency claimed that Volkswagen had installed illegal software on some of its diesel vehicles, to modify emissions of certain air pollutants. Subsequently, the company has been the subject of legal action brought by consumers, investors, non-governmental organisations and government agencies. In many cases, the plaintiffs have gathered their actions together into collective (or class action) complaints. In the United States, complaints have been filed by law firms, government departments and even individual states (including the US Justice Department and US Federal Trade Commission, as well as the states of Texas, New Mexico and New Jersey). This briefing provides a non-exhaustive overview of the range of lawsuits under way, many of them still in their initial stages. Several countries around the globe have opened more general investigations on whether car manufacturers respect vehicle emission limits on the road, as opposed to under test conditions. Some other carmakers are suspected also to have used software that manipulates emission levels, similar to that used by Volkswagen. In April 2016, Volkswagen agreed in principle with the US authorities and US class action plaintiffs to buy back, or modify or cancel the leases of affected vehicles. US consumers might also receive substantial compensation. Final details of the settlement are expected in June 2016. No similar agreement has been reached in
    [Show full text]
  • Why Vwâ•Žs Emissions Deception Is Illegal in Europe and How To
    Boston College International and Comparative Law Review Volume 40 | Issue 2 Article 6 5-24-2017 Won’t Get Fooled Again: Why VW’s Emissions Deception Is Illegal in Europe and How to Improve the EU’s Auto Regulatory System Kevin Tarsa Boston College Law School, [email protected] Follow this and additional works at: http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr Part of the Administrative Law Commons, Comparative and Foreign Law Commons, Consumer Protection Law Commons, Environmental Law Commons, Natural Resources Law Commons, Oil, Gas, and Mineral Law Commons, and the Transportation Law Commons Recommended Citation Kevin Tarsa, Won’t Get Fooled Again: Why VW’s Emissions Deception Is Illegal in Europe and How to Improve the EU’s Auto Regulatory System, 40 B.C. Int'l & Comp. L. Rev. 315 (2017), http://lawdigitalcommons.bc.edu/iclr/vol40/iss2/6 This Notes is brought to you for free and open access by the Law Journals at Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. It has been accepted for inclusion in Boston College International and Comparative Law Review by an authorized editor of Digital Commons @ Boston College Law School. For more information, please contact [email protected]. WON’T GET FOOLED AGAIN: WHY VW’S EMISSIONS DECEPTION IS ILLEGAL IN EUROPE AND HOW TO IMPROVE THE EU’S AUTO REGULATORY SYSTEM * KEVIN TARSA Abstract: Replete with greed, hubris, and deceit, the Volkswagen emissions scandal is not your typical case of corporate wrongdoing. With a price tag of $20 million in the United States, it is already one of the most expensive corporate scandals in history and has caused significant damage to the environment, public health, and the global economy.
    [Show full text]