Citations
- 349 F. Supp. 3d 881
Full opinion text
CHARLES R. BREYER, United States District Judge
On September 18, 2015, the public learned that Volkswagen had been selling diesel cars in the United States since 2009 that were equipped with emission cheating software. Litigation ensued and VW quickly settled claims brought by consumers who owned or leased the cars as of September 18. This order addresses a lawsuit by a putative class of consumers with whom VW has not settled: consumers who had owned or leased an affected car but who resold the car or exited the lease before September 18. VW contends that these consumers were not injured by the fraud because they did not experience a drop in the resale value of the cars.
The former owners rely on a well-accepted theory of injury (overpayment) but with a novel twist. They acknowledge that the price of the cars was likely inflated not only when they purchased them, but also when they resold them. Yet they contend that they did not recover all of their overpayment through resale because a portion of the premium they paid for a low-emission vehicle depreciated. To be clear, the former owners do not assert that their injury is equal to the entire amount by which the cars depreciated, only that a portion of the low-emission premium depreciated and that, because the premium was for a feature the cars never had, this extra depreciation is a loss that is attributable to VW's deceit.
Based on these relatively unique allegations-where consumers each purchased a car, a well-known depreciating asset, where they each paid a premium for a feature they did not receive, and where they resold the cars before learning that the feature was missing-the Court concludes that Plaintiffs have alleged an injury that is sufficiently concrete to survive a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of Article III standing. Whether this depreciation-based injury can be accurately quantified and whether the former owners' losses are more than de minimis remains to be seen. But what matters at the pleading stage is that the fact of damage, rather than the amount of damage, is not speculative.
A variety of other issues are also addressed in this order, including whether other injury allegations are sufficiently concrete, whether Plaintiffs' RICO claims against Robert Bosch GmbH and Robert Bosch LLC are well pled, whether state law claims against VW are preempted or alternatively fail to satisfy Rules 8(a) and 9(b), and whether certain of the state law claims fail for miscellaneous reasons.
I. BACKGROUND
In 2009, VW began selling its VW and Audi branded TDI "clean diesel" vehicles, which it marketed as being low-emission, environmentally friendly, fuel efficient, and high performing. (Compl. ¶ 6.) Concealed was the fact that VW had installed software in these cars that caused their emission controls to perform one way during emissions testing, and another (less effective) way during normal driving conditions. (Id. ¶ 203.) During regular on-road use, the cars are alleged to have emitted nitrogen oxides (NOx) at levels that were sometimes 40 times higher than EPA's legal limit. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 203.)
On September 18, 2015, the public learned of the fraud when EPA issued a Notice of Violation to VW, alleging that the company's use of the defeat device violated the Clean Air Act. (Id. ¶ 344.) Consumers nationwide responded by filing hundreds of lawsuits. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred those cases here. The Court then appointed Lead Plaintiffs' Counsel and a Plaintiffs' Steering Committee (PSC), which filed a consolidated class action complaint against VW, related entities, and Bosch (who allegedly assisted in developing and implementing the defeat device). The consolidated complaint was on behalf of all persons and entities in the United States who purchased or leased an affected vehicle. (See Dkt. No. 1804 ¶ 424.)
Settlement talks began almost immediately, and VW and Bosch soon agreed to a series of settlements to compensate consumers who were registered owners or lessees of the cars as of September 18, 2015. (See Dkt. Nos. 2102, 3229, 3230.) Excluded from the settlement class definitions were Plaintiffs here: all persons and entities in the United States who "owned, leased, or otherwise acquired" an affected vehicle but who "no longer owned, held an active lease for, or otherwise had a legal interest in that Eligible Vehicle on or after September 18, 2015." (Compl. ¶ 401.)
Plaintiffs filed this lawsuit after the Court approved the PSC-led settlements. They contend that VW, VW related entities (such as Audi), Bosch, and certain individual defendants engaged in a racketeering enterprise in violation of RICO, and that VW also violated 21 states' consumer protection and false advertising laws by deceiving consumers about its vehicles. The complaint also includes a claim for violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, but Plaintiffs have agreed not to pursue that claim. (See Pls.' Opp'n, Dkt. No. 4713 at 11.)
VW and Bosch have filed motions to dismiss the complaint.
II. STANDING
To have standing to sue in federal court, Plaintiffs must establish (1) that they have suffered an injury in fact, (2) that their injury is fairly traceable to Defendants' conduct, and (3) that their injury will likely be redressed by a favorable decision. See Lujan v. Defenders of Wildlife , 504 U.S. 555, 560-61, 112 S.Ct. 2130, 119 L.Ed.2d 351 (1992). To establish the first of these elements, Plaintiffs must demonstrate that they "suffered 'an invasion of a legally protected interest' that is 'concrete and particularized' and 'actual or imminent, not conjectural or hypothetical.' " Spokeo, Inc. v. Robins , --- U.S. ----, 136 S.Ct. 1540, 1548, 194 L.Ed.2d 635 (2016) (quoting Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130 ). "At the pleading stage, general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct may suffice ...." Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130.
Plaintiffs allege that they were injured by VW's emissions fraud in three ways. First, they contend that they overpaid to purchase and lease the class vehicles-paying a "clean diesel" premium for cars that were supposed to, but did not, have low emissions. (See, e.g. , Compl. ¶¶ 13, 379-82.) Second, they contend that they paid financing and leasing fees for the class vehicles, which they would not have paid, or which would have been less, had they known about the cars' actual emission levels. (Id. ¶¶ 13-14, 383.) Third, they contend that even if they did not each pay a premium to buy or lease a class vehicle, they were still injured because they never would have bought or leased the cars in the first place if they had known about the fraud. (Id. ¶ 384.)
VW argues that the allegations are insufficient to support an injury in fact under any of these theories. In ruling on VW's challenge, which is a facial challenge to federal jurisdiction, the Court "must accept as true all material allegations of the complaint and must construe the complaint in favor of the complaining party." Warth v. Seldin , 422 U.S. 490, 501, 95 S.Ct. 2197, 45 L.Ed.2d 343 (1975).
A. Payment of a "Clean Diesel" Premium
In considering whether Plaintiffs were injured by paying a "clean diesel" premium, the Court discusses former owners and former lessees of the class vehicles separately.
1. Former Owners
Plaintiffs contend that they overpaid for the class vehicles because they paid a premium for a feature-low emissions-that they did not receive. When a consumer overpays for a product because of the seller's conduct, the overpayment is ordinarily "a quintessential injury-in-fact." Maya v. Centex Corp. , 658 F.3d 1060, 1069 (9th Cir. 2011). But the purchasing Plaintiffs here are in a unique situation, because they resold the class vehicles before VW's emissions fraud was public knowledge. So even though they purchased the cars at a price that did not take into account the fraud, they also sold them at a price that did not take into account the fraud. (See Compl. ¶ 4 (acknowledging that, because they sold the class vehicles before VW's fraud was known, Plaintiffs "might have escaped the ... injury of lost resale value").)
Plaintiffs respond by arguing that, although they sold the cars before they or the new purchasers knew about the emissions fraud, they were not able to recover the entire "clean diesel" premium through resale. The reason they were not able to do so, they argue, is because of depreciation.
Of course, vehicle depreciation is a fact of life: as vehicles age they decline in value, and this decline is not a loss that is treated as an injury by the law. But Plaintiffs do not argue that VW is somehow responsible for the natural depreciation of the class vehicles; what they argue is that they were not able to fully recover the premium VW charged for the cars because a portion of the premium effectively depreciated. And because the premium was for a feature they did not receive, Plaintiffs contend that they were injured by the amount of the premium that they were not able to recover through resale.
It is easiest to understand Plaintiffs' argument through examples. Assume that the purchase price of a new VW car without a "clean diesel" premium is $30,000. If the value of the car depreciates by 20% during the first year, its value will decline by $6,000, leaving a resale value of $24,000.
Scenario 1: No "Clean Diesel" Premium Purchase price $30,000 Depreciation rate 20% Value after 1 year $24,000 Decline in value from original purchase price $6,000
Now assume that the same car is sold with a "clean diesel" premium of $6,000. Using the same 20% depreciation rate, the car's value will now decline by $7,200 during the first year, leaving a resale value of $28,800.
Scenario 2: "Clean Diesel" Premium Purchase price ($6,000 premium) $36,000 Depreciation rate 20% Value after 1 year $28,800 Decline in value from original purchase price $7,200
The "clean diesel" premium increased depreciation. This is because of the relationship between vehicle purchase price and depreciation: assuming the depreciation rate is fixed, a higher purchase price will invariably lead to a higher depreciation amount. In Scenario 2, the "clean diesel" premium raises the vehicle purchase price from $30,000 to $36,000. Multiplying this $6,000 increase by a 20% depreciation rate, the premium also raises year one depreciation by $1,200. Or put differently, the premium itself depreciates by 20% after one year of use: a consumer pays $6,000 for "clean diesel" attributes and, if sold after one year, sells those attributes for $4,800.
In a market without fraud, the $1,200 difference in depreciation between a $30,000 car and a $36,000 car would simply reflect a cost of buying a more expensive depreciating asset. But if the increase in the purchase price is attributable to a premium charged by the seller for a certain feature, and the car does not have that feature, then the $1,200 increase plausibly represents a loss that is attributable to the seller's deceit.
Plaintiffs contend that this is what happened to them. They allege that they paid a premium for VW's vehicles, not knowing that the vehicles lacked a feature-low emissions-that supported the premium. And even though they sold these cars before the emissions fraud came to light, they were not able to recover the entire premium because, by increasing the cost of the cars, the premium also increased the amount by which the cars depreciated.
Neither Plaintiffs nor VW has cited to any decision in which a court has either accepted or rejected this depreciation-based theory of injury. The case that is most analogous, a case VW cites, is Licul v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. , No. 13-61686-CIV, 2013 WL 6328734 (S.D. Fla. Dec. 5, 2013), where the court held that the original purchaser of a latently defective vehicle did not suffer a loss when she resold the vehicle before the defect was discovered. See id. at *5 ("[Plaintiff] purchased the Jetta at a price that did not take account of the defect, and she sold the Jetta at a price that did not take account of the defect."). But the Licul court did not consider the effect of depreciation on the potential resale value of the vehicle there; nor did the plaintiff in Licul allege that she paid a specific premium for an attribute that she did not receive. Licul is therefore not particularly instructive.
VW also attempts to link this case with two other lines of cases, but neither line is implicated here. First, VW compares Plaintiffs to "in-and-out traders" who buy and sell stock before fraud by the issuer is revealed. Courts have held that traders like these are not injured by their stock purchase. See, e.g. , Dura Pharm., Inc. v. Broudo , 544 U.S. 336, 342, 125 S.Ct. 1627, 161 L.Ed.2d 577 (2005) (holding that stock purchasers do not suffer a loss the moment they purchase stock at an inflated price due to the issuer's fraud, but only when they sell the stock after "the truth makes its way into the marketplace"). The analogy with this case is inapt because, unlike vehicles, stock does not naturally depreciate. So even if a trader purchases stock for a premium on account of fraud, none of the premium will be lost if the trader sells the stock before the fraud is revealed.
Second, VW compares this case to those in which consumers have alleged that they overpaid for defective vehicles, even when the defect has not manifested and is unlikely to manifest in the future. Courts have dismissed cases based on claims like these for failure to establish an injury in fact. See, e.g. , Cahen v. Toyota Motor Corp. , 147 F.Supp.3d 955, 968 (N.D. Cal. 2015) (dismissing complaint when "plaintiffs [did] not allege that any consumer, outside the realm of controlled experiments, has ever been a victim of [the harm that might be caused by the alleged defect]"), aff'd , 717 F. App'x 720 (9th Cir. 2017) ; Tae Hee Lee v. Toyota Motor Sales, U.S.A., Inc. , 992 F.Supp.2d 962, 972 (C.D. Cal. 2014) (dismissing complaint when plaintiffs acknowledged that the vehicle systems they challenged "perform[ed] as described"). These cases do not shed light on Plaintiffs' depreciation-based theory of injury; they are also clearly distinguishable. Underlying these no-injury defect cases is a critical eye toward allegations of overpayment for vehicles that essentially work as advertised. That is not the case here. Plaintiffs allege that the class vehicles emitted NOx at levels up to 40 times the legal limit from the moment they were put in use. (See Compl. ¶¶ 10, 203.)
VW also cites to the declaration of Professor Robert H. Klonoff that the PSC submitted in support of the prior consumer settlements. Professor Klonoff, a law professor, stated there that "individuals who sold their vehicles prior to disclosure of the fraud ... suffered no economic harm, since they sold their vehicles before the announcement of the fraud and the resulting price drop of the vehicles." (Dkt. No. 1976-1 ¶ 79.) This evidence is not helpful to VW here for three reasons. First, it does not appear that Professor Klonoff considered the effects of depreciation in his analysis. Second, the declaration is outside the complaint and VW does not claim to be mounting a factual attack on standing such that the Court could rely on extrinsic evidence. See Safe Air for Everyone v. Meyer , 373 F.3d 1035, 1039 (9th Cir. 2004). And third, Professor Klonoff does not purport to be an expert on economics or vehicle depreciation, so he may not be sufficiently qualified to render an expert opinion on the depreciation question at issue.
Without any caselaw on point, the ultimate question is whether, when the allegations are taken as true, Plaintiffs have identified a "concrete and particularized" injury. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. There are two questions that must be answered to make this determination here. First, is the theory of injury plausible? Second, are the allegations sufficient to support that Plaintiffs did pay a premium for the class vehicles and that they did not get what they paid for?
The two scenarios laid out above answer the first question affirmatively. These scenarios illustrate that when a premium is charged for a depreciating asset, the premium will plausibly increase the total amount by which the asset depreciates. And if the premium is for a feature that the asset does not actually have, then the original purchaser cannot recover the full value of the premium through resale because of depreciation. The amount of the premium that is unrecoverable plausibly constitutes overpayment, which is "a quintessential injury-in-fact." Maya , 658 F.3d at 1069.
The second question (which has two subparts) requires an examination of the actual facts alleged rather than of hypotheticals. Subpart one: do the allegations support that Plaintiffs paid a premium for the class vehicles? They do. The class vehicles are VW's 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter TDI diesel engine vehicles, model years 2009 through 2016. (See Compl. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs allege that VW charged 7 to 27 percent more for the 2.0-liter TDIs over the non-diesel versions. (Compl. ¶ 379.) As an example, they highlight the 2015 Passat. The non-diesel version started at $21,340, while the diesel version started at $27,100, a price that was approximately 27 percent higher and $6,000 more than the non-diesel. (Id. ) Fewer specifics are offered for the 3.0-liter vehicles. But because the distinguishing characteristics of the cars, which are discussed more below, were allegedly the same for both the 2.0-liter and 3.0-liter versions, it is plausible that these cars also sold for a premium. (See, e.g. , Compl. ¶ 302 (alleging that in 2012 VW used the same "clean diesel" brochure for six models of TDIs then on the market, one of which was the Touareg, a 3.0-liter model).)
Subpart two: do the allegations support that Plaintiffs did not get what they paid for in return for the premium? They do. Plaintiffs allege that they paid a premium for "low-emission, environmentally friendly vehicles, with high fuel economy and exceptional performance." (Compl. ¶ 6.) They also allege that, in fact, the class vehicles emitted NOx, a toxic pollutant that produces smog and leads to environmental and health problems, at levels up to 40 times the legal limit. (Id. ¶¶ 10, 203.) Given the cars' NOx emissions, it would be reasonable for the trier of fact to conclude that the cars were not "low-emission" or "environmentally friendly" as advertised. It is therefore plausible that Plaintiffs paid a premium for something they did not receive. And given the workings of depreciation, it is also plausible that they did not recover the entire amount of this premium through resale.
VW responds by flagging what it argues are shortcomings with Plaintiffs' pleading of the "clean diesel" premium. The first of these, VW argues, is that the complaint "lacks any factual allegations showing that any portion of the difference-let alone the entire difference-in price between the TDI and gasoline vehicles stems specifically from lower NOx emissions , as opposed to other factors." (VW Mot., Dkt. No. 4534 at 37.) Because of this, VW contends that Plaintiffs have not sufficiently pled that they paid a premium for something that they did not receive-a vehicle with lower NOx emissions.
It is true that Plaintiffs have not pled that they paid a premium specifically for lower NOx emissions. Yet they do not need to. For if they each paid a premium for a low-emission vehicle, and they each received a vehicle that emitted unreasonably high amounts of NOx, it would be reasonable to conclude that they did not get what they paid for. This is because a premium for low emissions reasonably can be viewed as covering all vehicle emissions, including NOx.
As alleged, there is also no reason to doubt that Plaintiffs each paid a premium for a car with low emissions. The complaint includes detailed allegations about how low emissions were "the identifying characteristic" of the class vehicles and formed the basis for VW's marketing of them. (Id. ¶ 380.) Plaintiffs explain that diesel engine cars were known to have better fuel efficiency than gasoline engine cars, but that diesel's Achilles' heel was its emission of "thick, toxic smoke full of dangerous and destructive pollutants." (Compl. ¶ 181; see also id. ¶ 185.) Through "millions of dollars in research and development," VW claimed to have solved these "environmental problems." (Id. ¶ 179.) And VW's asserted breakthrough was a key point that it championed in advertising. (See, e.g. , Compl. ¶ 290 (advertising that the Jetta TDI had "Ultra low emissions"); ¶ 302 (advertising that "[t]hese are not the kind of diesel engines that you find spewing sooty exhaust like an old 18-wheeler").) Plaintiffs' assertion that they paid a premium for a low-emission vehicle is entirely plausible in light of these allegations.
VW next notes that the alleged premium was not just for a vehicle with low emissions, but also for a vehicle with "high fuel economy" and "exceptional performance." (Compl. ¶ 6.) As to these other features, VW contends that there are no well-pled allegations supporting that the class vehicles did not provide what was promised. So, VW asserts, the amount of money that Plaintiffs paid specifically for a low-emission vehicle is speculative, and the amount that was not recovered through depreciation is even more speculative, making Plaintiffs' injuries entirely " 'conjectural' or 'hypothetical' " rather than "actual or imminent" as required to satisfy Article III. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130.
If, as alleged, low emissions was one of several features in a "clean diesel" package for which Plaintiffs paid a premium, it indeed may be challenging for Plaintiffs to prove the amount that they paid specifically for low emissions. And it is doubtful that Plaintiffs' overpayment would have been equivalent to the entire cost of the package if the package also included features that Plaintiffs received. Each Plaintiff's overpayment, then, may have only represented a fraction of the $6,000 average premium paid for the "clean diesel" package. And their economic losses were likely even less because they probably recovered most of the premium through resale. Only the amount of the premium that depreciated and could not be recovered through resale would be a concrete injury.
At this stage in the proceedings, however, these concerns are premature. They highlight uncertainty about the "amount of damage;" yet only the "fact of damage" matters at the pleading stage. See Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co. , 301 F.3d 1163, 1171 (9th Cir. 2002). Mendoza makes this distinction clear. There, a group of agricultural workers brought a RICO claim against agricultural companies that allegedly hired undocumented immigrants. The agricultural workers argued that this practice depressed their wages. Id. at 1166. In dismissing the complaint, the district court had held that the workers' losses were speculative and not concrete because many intervening factors could have interfered with their wages. Id. at 1170-71 ; see also Mendoza v. Zirkle Fruit Co. , No. CS-00-3024-FVS, 2000 WL 33225470, at *9-10 (E.D. Wash. Sept. 27, 2000). The Ninth Circuit reversed, noting that
it is important to distinguish between uncertainty in the fact of damage and in the amount of damage. That wages would be lower if, as alleged, the growers relied on a workforce consisting largely of undocumented workers, is a claim at least plausible enough to survive a motion to dismiss, whatever difficulty might arise in establishing how much lower the wages would be.
Mendoza , 301 F.3d at 1171 (citation omitted). The Ninth Circuit also explained that complex questions about the amount of the plaintiffs' damages were best addressed after the pleading stage:
[T]he workers must be allowed to make their case through presentation of evidence, including experts who will testify about the labor market, the geographic market, and the effects of the illegal scheme. Questions regarding the relevant labor market and the growers' power within that market are exceedingly complex and best addressed by economic experts and other evidence at a later stage in the proceedings.
Id. As Mendoza shows, and as district courts in the circuit have also noted, "Plaintiffs are not required to quantify their damages ... in order to establish injury for Article III purposes," so long as "the fact of injury is not speculative." Los Gatos Mercantile, Inc. v. E.I. DuPont De Nemours & Co. , No. 13-cv-01180-BLF, 2015 WL 4755335, at *15 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 11, 2015).
The fact of damage is not speculative here. When the allegations are taken as true and construed in the light most favorable to Plaintiffs, it is plausible that some portion of the $6,000 average "clean diesel" premium was for a vehicle with low emissions, which is a feature that the class vehicles did not have. These allegations, combined with the plausible theory that a portion of the premium depreciated before Plaintiffs resold the cars, are sufficient at the pleading stage to support an injury in fact.
2. Former Lessees
The proposed class also includes persons who leased a VW TDI vehicle if their lease ended before September 18, 2015. Plaintiffs contend that these former lessees were also harmed by the emissions fraud because VW used its vehicles' initial purchase prices to set lease payments, and for the class vehicles the initial purchase prices were inflated by the "clean diesel" premium. Each lease payment, then, contained an amount that Plaintiffs contend was directly attributable to the inflated premium, and Plaintiffs assert that class members "were injured in that amount, which they paid for a feature they did not receive." (Compl. ¶ 14.)
The former lessees' premium-related injury theory is more straightforward than the former owners' theory. Unlike former owners, former lessees did not have the opportunity to resell the class vehicles because they did not own them. So even though their leases ended before VW's fraud was known, they were plausibly injured if, as alleged, their lease payments were artificially inflated by a premium for a low-emission vehicle.
VW nevertheless challenges the former lessees' theory, noting that the lease payments for each vehicle were allegedly based on the difference between the vehicle's initial purchase price and "residual value," with the residual value being the vehicle's estimated value at the end of the lease term. (See id. (acknowledging that lease rates were based in part on the vehicles' residual value).) Because of this, VW argues that even if the purchase price of the cars was inflated when Plaintiffs entered into their leases, so was the residual value, as both values would have taken into account the "clean diesel" premium.
VW is correct that, based on the lease formula that Plaintiffs identify, both the initial purchase price and the residual value of the class vehicles would have included an amount attributable to the "clean diesel" premium. But VW overlooks that the residual value also would have plausibly taken into account depreciation. Because of depreciation, the value of the premium would be expected to decline between the initial purchase price and the residual value, which would mean that lease payments would have been higher because of the premium.
Examples are again helpful. Assume a $30,000 purchase price for a new VW car without a "clean diesel" premium, a 20% depreciation rate, a one-year lease, and monthly lease payments. Using the formula that Plaintiffs allege VW used, the total lease amount will be equal to the difference between the initial purchase price ($30,000) and the residual value of the car after one year. In this example, the residual value will be $24,000, as the car will decline in value by 20% after one year due to depreciation. The difference between the initial purchase price and the residual value is $6,000. Dividing this amount by 12 leads to monthly lease payments of $500.
Lease Scenario 1: No "Clean Diesel" Premium/One-Year Lease Purchase price $30,000 Depreciation rate 20% Vehicle's residual value $24,000 Total cost of lease $6,000 Monthly payments $500
Now assume that a $6,000 "clean diesel" premium is added to the initial price for the same car, raising the purchase price to $36,000. The residual value at the end of the lease will now be $28,800, which represents a 20% decline in value due to depreciation. The difference between the initial purchase price and the residual value is now $7,200. And dividing this amount by 12 leads to monthly lease payments of $600.
Lease Scenario 2: "Clean Diesel" Premium/One-Year Lease Purchase price ($6,000 premium) $36,000 Depreciation rate 20% Vehicle's residual value $28,800 Total cost of lease $7,200 Monthly payments $600
These examples show, under the lease formula alleged, that when the initial purchase price of a VW vehicle increases, the lease payments will also increase-a result that is consistent with common knowledge. (It is not surprising that a $50,000 vehicle would cost more to lease than a $20,000 vehicle.) Applied here, this means that if the "clean diesel" premium increased the initial purchase price of the class vehicles, as Plaintiffs allege, then the amount of Plaintiffs' lease payments also would have risen. In arguing to the contrary-asserting that the lease payments would not have been affected by the premium because the premium would have been included in both the initial purchase price and the residual value-VW does not take into account depreciation.
If the amount of Plaintiffs' lease payments increased because of the "clean diesel" premium, then Plaintiffs were plausibly injured. This is because Plaintiffs allege that the premium was in part for the benefit of low emissions, which is a feature that VW did not provide. Similar to the former owners, the former lessees will eventually need to identify with more precision the amount of the premium that was specifically for low emissions. But at this stage, the fact of damage is concrete. See Mendoza , 301 F.3d at 1171 ; Los Gatos Mercantile , 2015 WL 4755335, at *15. The former lessees' injury allegations are therefore sufficient to support Article III standing.
* * *
Plaintiffs' first theory of injury-that they were injured when they paid a premium for something they did not receive-is well pled. The Court now moves on to address the other two alleged injuries: Plaintiffs' payment of financing charges and leasing fees and Plaintiffs' assertion that they were injured when they purchased and leased the class vehicles even if they did not pay a premium.
B. Financing Charges and Leasing Fees
Plaintiffs who purchased class vehicles assert that they were also injured when they paid inflated financing fees, and Plaintiffs who leased class vehicles assert that they were also injured when they paid lease acquisition and lease termination fees, which they contend they would not have paid if they had known about VW's emissions fraud. (Compl. ¶¶ 13-14.)
The complaint does not include much detail on these fees, but Plaintiffs indirectly allege that the financing fees, at least, increased in proportion to the price of the financed vehicles. (See Compl. ¶ 13 (alleging that if the "clean diesel" premium was 27% of the vehicle purchase price, then 27% of the financing charges would have been on account of the premium); see also Pls.' Opp'n, Dkt. No. 4713 at 33 (asserting that the financing fees were "inflated as a result of the clean-diesel premium they paid").) Taking these allegations as true, the increased financing fees are fairly traceable to VW's conduct. The "clean diesel" premium plausibly increased the price of the financed vehicles, which in turn would have led directly to higher financing fees.
In arguing that the financing fees are not traceable to it, VW contends that these fees are dependent on many factors, such as applicants' "personal finances, credit ratings, willingness to take loans, occupations, and the state of the auto financing market in general and in their own areas." (VW Mot. at 40.) This may be true, but even if these factors affected the amount of the financing fees, the "clean diesel" premium would have marginally increased those fees in an amount proportional to the price of the financed vehicles; and this marginal increase is fairly traceable to VW.
As an example of this marginal increase, assume that an individual with robust personal finances and a good credit rating (named Allison) is able to finance a new $30,000 VW vehicle at a low interest rate and with a 1% financing fee. The dollar amount of Allison's financing fee will be $300. If Allison instead purchases a $36,000 "clean diesel" vehicle, again with a 1% financing fee, then the dollar amount of the financing fee will rise to $360, a 20% increase.
Financing Scenario 1: Allison No "Clean Diesel" Premium "Clean Diesel" Premium Purchase Price $30,000 $36,000 Financing fee rate 1% 1% Financing fee amount $300 $360 % Increase 20%
Now take the same two scenarios, but replace Allison with an individual with shaky personal finances and a poor credit rating (named Matthew). Due to his finances, Matthew must pay a high interest rate and a 2% financing fee to finance his purchase of a VW vehicle. Yet although Matthew's financing fee is greater than Allison's, the dollar amount of Matthew's financing fee, like Allison's, will rise by 20% in the "clean diesel" scenario.
Financing Scenario 2: Matthew No "Clean Diesel" Premium "Clean Diesel" Premium Purchase Price $30,000 $36,000 Financing fee rate 2% 2% Financing fee amount $600 $720 % Increase 20%
Even though Allison and Matthew pay different financing fees due to their personal finances, both of them experience a 20% increase in their fee from buying a "clean diesel." Thus, regardless of the individual factors that are considered in setting the financing fee percentage (personal finances, credit ratings, etc.), a portion of the fee is directly attributable to VW's challenged conduct.
Because Plaintiffs allege that the amount of their financing fees increased in proportion to vehicle purchase price, their injury from increased fees is not "dependent upon many factors" in the same way that the alleged injury was in Kaing v. Pulte Homes, Inc. , No. 09-5057 SC, 2010 WL 625365 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 18, 2010), aff'd sub nom. Kaing v. Pultegroup, Inc. , 464 F. App'x 630 (9th Cir. 2011), a case on which VW relies. The court in Kaing held that a decline in the value of the plaintiff's home was not fairly traceable to the defendant developer's practice of selling other homes in the neighborhood to unqualified buyers because any loss was dependent upon many factors, including a general weakening economy and unemployment and health problems experienced by the other residents in the neighborhood. See id. at *6.
As noted above, here too there may have been many factors that affected the financing fees for the class vehicles; but as alleged, the amount of these fees that is tied to VW's emissions fraud is capable of being identified, as it is tied to the percent by which the vehicles' purchase price increased because of the "clean diesel" premium. Causation here, then, is much clearer than in Kaing where there was no identified way to tie the defendant developer's practices to a specific decline in the value of plaintiff's home.
Unlike the financing fees, Plaintiffs do not allege that the lease acquisition and lease termination fees increased in proportion to the cost of the lease. Instead, Plaintiffs allege that if they had been informed of VW's fraud before agreeing to lease the class vehicles, then they would not have agreed to the leases and so would not have paid these fees. (See, e.g. , Compl. ¶ 43 ("[T]he Lease committed [named plaintiff Tonya Dreher] to pay a $695 acquisition fee and a $350 turn-in/disposition fee at the expiration of the Lease-fees that Plaintiff would never have paid had Plaintiff been informed of the fraud either before or during the course of the Lease.").)
The causal connection between VW's emissions fraud and Plaintiffs' payments of these lease acquisition and termination fees is shaky, as Plaintiffs very well may have paid similar fees to lease other cars if they had known about the fraud. Plaintiffs do not allege that these leasing fees were unique to the class vehicles. And it is unlikely, or at best speculative, that those who leased class vehicles would have forgone leasing a car altogether if they had known of VW's fraud. Thus, because Plaintiffs plausibly would have paid similar lease acquisition and termination fees even if they had known of VW's fraud, Plaintiffs have not shown a "causal connection between [this] injury and the conduct complained of" as required for Article III standing. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 560, 112 S.Ct. 2130. But as discussed above, Plaintiffs have established this causal connection for the purchase financing fees.
C. Never Would Have Purchased or Leased Theory of Injury
Even if there was no "clean diesel" premium, Plaintiffs contend that they were harmed by VW because they never would have bought or leased the class vehicles in the first place if they had known about the emissions fraud. (See Pls.' Opp'n at 29 ("[E]ach Plaintiff alleges that he or she 'would not have purchased or leased their Vehicles had Defendants not concealed the illegal cheat device,' [citing paragraphs from the complaint], and/or that they 'would not have purchased' the Vehicles 'had [they] known the true emission levels and gas mileage,' [citing additional paragraphs]."); see also id. at 31 n. 35 (arguing that "Plaintiffs' standing does not even hinge on the existence of [a] premium" because they also allege that they "purchased or leased Vehicles that they would otherwise not have purchased").)
This alternative theory of injury may work for former lessees, but it does not work for former owners. The idea behind the theory is that Plaintiffs each spent money to buy or lease a car that they contend they would not have spent if they had known about the emissions fraud. But if the former owners did not pay a "clean diesel" premium (and the corresponding inflated financing fees), then they were not harmed by this expenditure. For if there was no premium, then former owners would have fully recovered the money they paid for the class vehicles (minus depreciation based on standard wear and tear) when they resold the vehicles before they or the public learned of the emissions fraud. Even if they parted with their money, they ultimately got it back. (See Compl. ¶ 4 (acknowledging that, because they sold their class vehicles before VW's fraud was known, Plaintiffs "might have escaped the additional injury of lost resale value").)
There was no comparable resale in any of the cases on which Plaintiffs rely in arguing that they were injured when they purchased the class vehicles. In Victor v. R.C. Bigelow, Inc. , No. 13-cv-2976-WHO, 2014 WL 1028881 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 14, 2014), for example, the plaintiffs purchased and consumed Bigelow's tea before they realized that Bigelow had misrepresented the tea's health benefits. Having consumed the tea, the plaintiffs had no chance to resell it and recover their loss, so the court held that the plaintiffs had plausibly been injured when they purchased it. See id. at *4. The same happened in Morgan v. Wallaby Yogurt Co., Inc. , No. 13-cv-0296-WHO, 2013 WL 5514563, at *3-4 (N.D. Cal. Oct. 4, 2013), except the plaintiffs there purchased and consumed mislabeled yogurt instead of tea.
Plaintiffs' opposition brief contains other analogous cases featuring mislabeled products. (See Pls.' Opp'n at 18-19.) And even if the products in these other cases were not consumed like the tea in Victor or the yogurt in Morgan , see, e.g. , In re Vizio, Inc., Consumer Privacy Litig. , 238 F.Supp.3d 1204, 1217 (C.D. Cal. 2017) (smart TVs with misrepresented features), there are no allegations of resale in any of these cases, let alone resale at prices that were not affected by the allegedly misleading labels. In short, then, the never-would-have-purchased theory of injury, to the extent it is separated from the "clean diesel" premium, does not work for Plaintiffs who formerly owned class vehicles.
The analysis of the never-would-have-purchased theory of injury is different for the former lessees. Because these Plaintiffs never owned the cars, they did not resell them. So they did not have the same opportunity as former owners to recoup their money. It is thus plausible that these Plaintiffs were injured when they paid money to lease vehicles that they otherwise would not have leased but for VW's emissions fraud. See Hinojos v. Kohl's Corp. , 718 F.3d 1098, 1104 n.3 (9th Cir. 2013) ("We have explained that when, as here, 'Plaintiffs contend that class members paid more for [a product] than they otherwise would have paid, or bought it when they otherwise would not have done so' they have suffered an Article III injury in fact." (emphasis added) (alteration in original) (quoting Mazza v. Am. Honda Motor Co. , 666 F.3d 581, 595 (9th Cir. 2012) ) ).
VW argues that to prevail on this theory the former lessees need to identify the specific advertisements on which they relied. Without allegations of actual reliance on specific advertisements about emissions, VW contends that Plaintiffs' assertion that they would not have leased the cars had they known about the emissions fraud is not credible. This particularity argument is better directed toward the merits of Plaintiffs' claims. For purposes of Article III standing, it is sufficient that the named plaintiffs have alleged in general terms that they relied on VW's advertising that the class vehicles were "environmentally friendly" and had low emissions. (E.g. , Compl. ¶ 20.) At the pleading stage, "general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct" are sufficient. Lujan , 504 U.S. at 561, 112 S.Ct. 2130.
To the extent that the court in In re Mercedes-Benz Emissions Litigation reached a different result, see No. 16-881 (JLL), 2016 WL 7106020, at *7-8 (D.N.J. Dec. 6, 2016) (concluding that consumers needed to at least identify the medium or category of advertising upon which they relied to satisfy Article III), the Court disagrees with that decision, as have other courts. See Counts v. General Motors, LLC , 237 F.Supp.3d 572, 586 (E.D. Mich. 2017) (reasoning that Mercedes "blur[red]" the lines between the standing and merits inquiries); In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. , 295 F.Supp.3d 927, 948 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (not citing to Mercedes but concluding that a particularity requirement of the type adopted there "is at odds with the principle that Article III requires only general factual allegations of injury resulting from the defendant's conduct at the pleading stage") (internal quotation marks omitted). Plaintiffs' general allegations of how they relied on VW's advertising about low emissions are sufficient to satisfy Article III.
Returning to the theory of injury, even if former lessees are not able to prove that VW charged a premium for the class vehicles, they may be able to prove that they never would have leased the vehicles in the first place but for VW's emissions fraud, and that they were injured when they parted with their money to do so. Practically, however, this theory may be difficult to prove on a classwide basis. For even though Plaintiffs claim that they would not have leased the cars if they had known about the fraud, they did lease them and almost certainly received value from doing so. It is therefore not plausible that they were injured by the entire amount they paid to lease the class vehicles. See Chrysler , 295 F.Supp.3d at 958 (rejecting consumers' theory that they were injured in the amount of "all the money" they spent to purchase vehicles that secretly had high emissions because "their use of the vehicles must be considered"). At this stage in the proceedings, however, the Court cannot reject this theory of injury given the Ninth Circuit's endorsement of it in Hinojos and Mazza .
* * *
To summarize the standing analysis:
• For all Plaintiffs, it is plausible that they overpaid for the class vehicles when they paid a premium for a low-emission vehicle and (in the case of former owners) only received a portion of that premium back through resale because of depreciation, or (in the case of former lessees) did not recover that premium.
• Former owners were also plausibly injured when they paid inflated financing fees for the class vehicles, but former lessees have not demonstrated that they were plausibly injured by paying lease acquisition and lease termination fees.
• If there was no "clean diesel" premium, former owners were not plausibly injured just by purchasing the class vehicles, but former lessees plausibly were-although the amount of their injury may be difficult to determine.
III. RICO CLAIMS
Plaintiffs allege that VW AG, Audi AG, Bosch GmbH, Bosch LLC, and certain individual defendants participated in racketeering activity that violated § 1962(c) and (d) of RICO. See 18 U.S.C. § 1962. VW AG and Audi AG have not yet been served, and the remaining VW defendants (Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. and Audi of America, LLC) have chosen not to address the RICO claims. (See VW Mot. at 14 n.2.) The individual defendants have not filed motions to dismiss and so they also have not addressed the RICO claims. Both Bosch entities, however, have been served and they have moved to dismiss the RICO claims against them on both statutory standing and merits grounds.
The Court previously considered and rejected Bosch's RICO merits arguments in Napleton , a putative class action by VW franchise dealers. See In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg., Sales Practices, & Prod. Liab. Litig. , No. MDL 2672 CRB, 2017 WL 4890594, at *17 N.D. Cal. Oct. 30, 2017 [hereinafter Napleton ] ("The Franchise Dealers' allegations are sufficient to satisfy the four elements of their § 1962(c) RICO claim. They have plausibly alleged that Bosch partnered with Volkswagen to implement the defeat device in the affected vehicles, and by doing so participated in the conduct of a years-long enterprise to defraud U.S. regulators and consumers."); id. at *17 (concluding that the Franchise Dealers' allegations also support a RICO conspiracy claim against Bosch under § 1962(d) ). The same analysis governs here because the allegations of Bosch's involvement in the emissions fraud are identical. Bosch disagrees with Napleton and explains why in its briefing in this case, but Bosch has not raised any arguments that warrant reconsideration of Napleton .
With the RICO merits arguments resolved by Napleton , that leaves RICO standing. To have standing, Plaintiffs must plausibly allege (1) an injury to "business or property" that (2) is "by reason of" Bosch's alleged RICO violations. Canyon Cty. v. Syngenta Seeds, Inc. , 519 F.3d 969, 972 (9th Cir. 2008) (quoting 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) ). The Court considers whether Plaintiffs have satisfied these requirements below.
A. Injury to "Business or Property"
RICO's injury requirement is narrower than Article III's, and yet the distinction is immaterial here. By requiring an injury to "business or property," RICO weeds out cases that are based on only intangible injuries like emotional distress. See Oscar v. Univ. Students Co-op. Ass'n , 965 F.2d 783, 787 (9th Cir. 1992) (holding that plaintiff could not recover for "personal discomfort and annoyance" under RICO). But Plaintiffs do not base their claims on intangible injuries; they base them on financial loss.
As the Supreme Court recognized in Reiter v. Sonotone Corp. in interpreting the Clayton Act's identical injury to "business or property" requirement, "[m]oney, of course, is a form of property," and so when "a consumer ... acquir[es] goods or services for personal use, [she] is injured in 'property' when the price of those goods or services is artificially inflated by reason of the anticompetitive conduct complained of." 442 U.S. 330, 338-39, 99 S.Ct. 2326, 60 L.Ed.2d 931 (1979).
The same result follows here: Plaintiffs allege that they each paid a premium for something that they did not receive-a vehicle with low emissions-and that they also paid inflated financing fees for the class vehicles. These premiums and overcharges plausibly constitute an injury to their "property." See also Canyon Cty. , 519 F.3d at 976 (relying on Reiter in considering a RICO claim and stating that "[i]n the ordinary context of a commercial transaction, a consumer who has been overcharged can claim an injury to her property, based on a wrongful deprivation of her money").
A RICO injury must also be "concrete" or "tangible." Canyon Cty. , 519 F.3d at 975 ; Diaz v. Gates , 420 F.3d 897, 900 (9th Cir. 2005) (en banc). In the Ninth Circuit, however, this requirement sets "a relatively low threshold." Chrysler , 295 F.Supp.3d at 962. As with Article III, Plaintiffs do not need to identify "the amount of damage" so long as "the fact of damage" is based on a plausible theory. Mendoza , 301 F.3d at 1171 (explaining that complex damages questions are best addressed "at a later stage in the proceedings"). Plaintiffs have identified plausible theories of damage here. See Part I, supra .
Bosch relies on certain out-of-circuit decisions in which courts have held that when consumers do not receive the benefit of their bargain the injury they suffer is one to their expectation interests, not to their "business or property" as RICO requires. See McLaughlin v. Am. Tobacco Co. , 522 F.3d 215, 228 (2d Cir. 2008) ; In re General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig. , No. 14-md-2543 JMF, 2016 WL 3920353, at *16 (S.D.N.Y. July 15, 2016). As the district court in Chrysler recently noted, the Supreme Court's decision in Reiter and the Ninth Circuit's decision in Canyon County support the opposite: that "when a plaintiff alleges that he or she overpaid for a good or service because of anticompetitive or deceptive conduct, ... such an injury is one to 'property,' not merely 'expectation interests.' " Chrysler , 295 F.Supp.3d at 960 ("[ Reiter and Canyon County ] bind this Court; McLaughlin and General Motors do not."). The Court therefore does not follow McLaughlin and General Motors here.
Bosch also relies on another decision in the General Motors litigation in which the court held that consumers who had sold, traded in, or returned their vehicles prior to GM's announcement of a recall could not pursue certain state law claims because "[i]n all likelihood, a plaintiff who resold her car before the recall suffered no economic loss damages, as the then-unknown defect could not have affected the resale price." In re Gen. Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litig. , 257 F.Supp.3d 372, 403 (S.D.N.Y. 2017). This analysis in General Motors mirrors the analysis in Licul , the case VW cites in the Article III standing section of its brief in support of the same point. As with Licul , General Motors did not consider the effect of depreciation on the potential resale value of the vehicles and so the decision is not instructive.
Finally with respect to former lessees, Bosch argues that their situation is parallel to that of the plaintiff in Oscar , who was an apartment renter that the Ninth Circuit held lacked a cognizable RICO injury. 965 F.2d at 786-87. Due to drug dealing by her neighbors, the renter in Oscar alleged a "decrease in the value of her property." Id. at 786. The Ninth Circuit held that this theory of injury was not actionable under RICO because the renter "does not own the property on which she lives," and therefore has lost nothing if the resale value of the property declines. Id. at 786-87. The situation here is different. Former lessees of the class vehicles do not base their RICO claims on a decline in value theory; they assert that they overpaid to lease the class vehicles because they paid a premium for something that they did not receive. Under Reiter and CanyonCounty , overpayment by a consumer is a cognizable RICO injury.
Plaintiffs have satisfied RICO's injury to "business or property" requirement.
B. RICO Proximate Cause
The civil RICO statute requires plaintiffs "to show that a RICO predicate offense not only was a 'but for' cause of [their] injury, but was the proximate cause as well." Hemi Grp., LLC v. City of N.Y. , 559 U.S. 1, 9, 130 S.Ct. 983, 175 L.Ed.2d 943 (2010) (citation omitted). The "central question" in the RICO proximate cause analysis is "whether the alleged violation led directly to the plaintiff's injuries."
Anza v. Ideal Steel Supply Corp. , 547 U.S. 451, 461, 126 S.Ct. 1991, 164 L.Ed.2d 720 (2006). Courts consider three nonexhaustive factors in making this assessment:
(1) whether there are more direct victims of the alleged wrongful conduct who can be counted on to vindicate the law as private attorneys general; (2) whether it will be difficult to ascertain the amount of the plaintiff's damages attributable to defendant's wrongful conduct; and (3) whether the courts will have to adopt complicated rules apportioning damages to obviate the risk of multiple recoveries.
Mendoza , 301 F.3d at 1169. Bosch's proximate cause arguments center on these factors and the Court considers them below.
1. More Direct Victims Factor
With respect to the first factor, Bosch argues that there are three more direct victims of the alleged RICO enterprise: (1) consumers who still owned or leased an affected vehicle when the emissions fraud was publicly disclosed, (2) the regulators (EPA and CARB), and (3) VW dealers.
Consumers in the first of these categories were not more direct victims of the alleged RICO enterprise. They may have been deceived at a different point in time and in different amounts, but all consumers who bought or leased the affected vehicles were plausibly deceived, even if they resold the vehicles or completed their leases prior to public disclosure of the emissions fraud. Neither set of consumers is further ahead in the causal chain than the other.
The second group, the regulators, were in front of Plaintiffs in the causal chain to some degree: before consumers were deceived into purchasing the class vehicles, the regulators were deceived into certifying them. But the regulators were more like gatekeepers than victims of the fraud: they did not lose money from the fraud like consumers did. Compare Bridge v. Phoenix Bond & Indemnity Co. , 553 U.S. 639, 653-58, 128 S.Ct. 2131, 170 L.Ed.2d 1012 (2008) (concluding that a county treasurer's office, although deceived by racketeering conduct, was not the direct victim as it did not lose any money from the fraud), with Anza , 547 U.S. at 460, 126 S.Ct. 1991 (concluding that a state taxing authority was a more direct victim of racketeering conduct when it was defrauded "out of a substantial amount of money"). Also, Plaintiffs base their RICO claims at least in part on allegations that VW (on behalf of the enterprise) directly deceived consumers into believing that the class vehicles were "clean" and "environmentally friendly," when they were not. (Compl. ¶ 418.) To prevail on this theory, Plaintiffs would not even need to prove that VW first defrauded EPA and CARB; they would only need to demonstrate that VW defrauded them about certain vehicle attributes. As to this specific deceit, Plaintiffs are clearly the direct victims.
The third group, VW dealers, were also in front of Plaintiffs in the causal chain because they sold the class vehicles to Plaintiffs. But if dealers sold the cars for a profit then they would not have been injured by the premium. (See Pls.' Opp'n at 24 ("Dealers, who by definition resold cars at a profit prior to the fraud's discovery, did not suffer this [overpayment] injury ....").) Complicating the issue, the VW dealers in Napleton do allege an overpayment RICO injury. If the basis for that alleged injury is that dealers did not automatically pass on the entire premium to consumers, then proximate cause could be lacking. Compare Pillsbury, Madison & Sutro v. Lerner , 31 F.3d 924, 930 (9th Cir. 1994) (affirming dismissal of subtenant's RICO claim against building owner on proximate cause grounds when there was "nothing 'automatic' " about the pass on of fraudulently raised rents from the master tenant, the directly injured victim, to the subtenant), with Lexmark Int'l, Inc. v. Static Control Components, Inc. , 572 U.S. 118, 139, 134 S.Ct. 1377, 188 L.Ed.2d 392 (2014) (concluding that proximate cause was well pled when there was "very close to a 1:1 relationship" between the direct victim's and the plaintiff's injuries).
Despite the allegations in Napleton which suggest that VW dealers may have been injured by overpaying for the TDI vehicles, it is appropriate at this stage to presume, as Plaintiffs assert, that dealers passed on the full premium to consumers. There are no allegations to the contrary in Plaintiffs' complaint. If it turns out otherwise during discovery, Bosch may renew its proximate cause challenge. See Newcal Indus., Inc. v. Ikon Office Solution , 513 F.3d 1038, 1055 (9th Cir. 2008) (concluding that under the circumstances of the RICO case before it the direct-victim and apportionment questions were "factual questions, which we cannot resolve on a Rule 12(b)(6) motion in this case").
Drawing all reasonable inferences in Plaintiffs' favor, Bosch has not identified a more direct victim of the emissions fraud than Plaintiffs. The first Mendoza factor therefore weighs in favor of proximate cause.
2. Ascertaining Damages Factor
The second proximate cause factor requires a non-speculative connection between the plaintiff's alleged injury and the alleged RICO violation. See Canyon Cty. , 519 F.3d at 982 & n.12. Bosch argues that this factor cuts against proximate cause for two reasons. First, Bosch asserts that Plaintiffs do not allege a direct injury "from the fallout of September 18, 2015." (Bosch Mot., Dkt. No. 4533 at 17.) This argument mistakes the fraud with the later disclosure of the fraud. It was the fraud itself that harmed Plaintiffs, and they have plausibly established a direct connection between their injuries and the fraud: VW deceived them into paying a premium for vehicles that were marketed as "clean" and "environmentally friendly," but that were not.
Second, Bosch argues that there is no meaningful way to connect Plaintiffs' alleged overpayment to any conduct by Bosch. Bosch notes, for example, that there are no allegations that it had any role in determining the prices Plaintiffs paid for their vehicles. Bosch also argues that the decision to charge a premium for the cars was "contrary to the Bosch Defendants' purported goal to sell more EDC17s, because raising prices typically reduces demand, which would result in fewer EDC17s being sold than if VW charged lower prices for the Affected Vehicles." (Bosch Mot. at 18 (citation omitted).)
Bosch made similar arguments in Chrysler and the court rejected them on grounds that are persuasive. "That the Bosch Defendants are not alleged to have played a role in setting the price for the Class Vehicles," the Chrysler court reasoned, "does not support" that the Bosch Defendants did not proximately cause the plaintiffs' injuries. For "[w]hatever price was set, that price was for a defect-free car. That is not what Plaintiffs allege they received. And because the Bosch Defendants directly contributed to the Class Vehicles' defects, they directly contributed to Plaintiffs' economic injury." Chrysler , 295 F.Supp.3d at 967 n.5.
The district court in In re Duramax Diesel Litigation , 298 F.Supp.3d 1037 (E.D. Mich. 2018), also rejected similar arguments by Bosch. The plaintiffs there alleged that they each paid a premium for diesel vehicles t