United States District Court, N.D. California
IN RE VOLKSWAGEN “CLEAN DIESEL” MARKETING, SALES PRACTICES, AND PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION This Relates To Becker, No. 318-cv-07096-CRB, Dkt. No. 6
ORDER GRANTING PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO
REMAND
CHARLES R. BREYER UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE.
Soon
after he purchased a used 2013 Volkswagen Jetta from a
California-based Volkswagen dealership in 2018, Thomas Becker
began noticing several problems with the car. One was that
the car drifted to the right when he was driving. A mechanic
later determined that the drifting was due to structural
damage that must have resulted from a prior accident. No
history of accidents was mentioned when Becker bought the
car.
In
California state court, Becker filed a lawsuit against the
dealership and against Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
(“VWGoA”). He brought claims for fraud,
negligence, and for violation of California's consumer
protection and warranty laws. Each claim was based on
multiple theories. One was that defendants violated state law
by not disclosing that his car had been in an accident.
Another was that defendants violated state law by not
labeling his car as a “lemon.” (See
Becker, Dkt. No. 1-2, Compl. ¶¶ 44-45, 59-60,
84-87, 94.)
VWGoA
removed Becker's case to federal court, based on
federal-question jurisdiction. See 28 U.S.C. §
1331. In the notice of removal, the company added details
about Becker's car that he had not included in his
complaint. The company explained that the car was a 2.0-liter
TDI diesel, which was the type of car that was at the center
of the company's “clean diesel” scandal. The
company also explained that pursuant to a consent decree that
this Court approved in 2016, it had repurchased the car from
its original owner, modified the car's emissions systems,
and then made the car available for resale. According to
VWGoA, the “so-called ‘lemon law
buyback'” that Becker referred to in his complaint
was this repurchase and modification. (Becker, Dkt.
No. 1, Not. of Removal ¶ 6.)
Upon
its removal, Becker's case was added to the
above-captioned MDL, which involves “clean
diesel” related litigation. Becker responded by filing
a motion to remand his case to state court. In his motion, he
contends that remand is warranted because his claims arise
only under state law. In response, VWGoA asserts that
although Becker's claims are state law claims, they will
necessarily raise an issue of federal law, and thus give rise
to federal-question jurisdiction under § 1331. See
Grable & Sons Metal Prods., Inc. v. Darue Eng'g &
Mfg., 545 U.S. 308, 313- 14 (2005). More specifically,
VWGoA maintains that to determine whether Becker's car
should have been branded as a lemon, a court will need to
consider and interpret the 2016 federal consent decree. That
consent decree, VWGoA says, did not require the company to
brand the 2.0-liter TDIs that it repurchased as lemons and
state law to the contrary should not be enforced.
The
well-pleaded-complaint rule governs whether Becker's case
“arises under” federal law for purposes of §
1331. Under that rule, only his complaint may be considered
in determining whether his claims will necessarily raise a
federal issue. See Holmes Grp., Inc. v. Vornado Air
Circulation Sys., Inc., 535 U.S. 826, 830 (2002).
Becker's complaint makes no reference to the 2016 consent
decree or to his car being a 2.0-liter TDI. He instead
focuses on the car's accident history, the
dealership's used-car certification process, and on
whether his car should have been branded as a lemon under
state law. It is only in response to his complaint that VWGoA
invokes the consent decree as an affirmative defense. Part
and parcel of the well-pleaded-complaint rule is the rule
that “a case may not be removed to federal court on the
basis of a federal defense.” Retail Prop. Tr. v.
United Bhd. of Carpenters & Joiners of Am., 768 F.3d
938, 947 (9th Cir. 2014). As VWGoA invokes the consent decree
only in defense, the decree does not give rise to
jurisdiction under § 1331.
Jurisdiction
is lacking for an additional reason. As noted above,
Becker's claims are each based on multiple theories, only
one of which is that defendants erred by not labeling his car
as a lemon. VWGoA has not suggested that the other theories,
such as Becker's theory that the defendants should have
disclosed that his car had been in an accident, will require
consideration of the 2016 consent decree at all, not even as
an affirmative defense. When a claim is based on multiple
theories, and only one would raise a federal issue,
“arising under” jurisdiction under § 1331 is
not present. See Nevada v. Bank of America Corp.,
672 F.3d 661, 675 (9th Cir. 2012). For this reason too,
jurisdiction under § 1331 is lacking.
The
Court does not have federal-question jurisdiction over
Becker's action. His motion to remand his case ...