You are on page 1of 46

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 1 of 38

JENNIFER L. JONAK (OSB #115802)


JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
85100 Cloverdale Road
Creswell, Oregon 97426
Telephone: (510) 501-6276
Facsimile: (510) 291-2910
Email: jenny@jonak.com
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
NANCY L. FINEMAN (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
JUSTIN T. BERGER (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 692-3606
Email: jberger@cpmlegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


FOR THE DISTRICT OF OREGON
EUGENE DIVISION

EMILY DOWNING-MOORE, an Oregon


resident; THADDEUS MOORE, an Oregon
resident; ZACHARY A. BLALACK, an
Oregon resident; and NATALIE B.
BLALACK, an Oregon resident, on behalf of
themselves and all others similarly situated,

Case No.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATION
COMPLAINT
Action for Consumer Fraud/Unfair
Trade Practices (28 U.S.C. 1332)

Plaintiffs,
v.
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.,
a New Jersey corporation; VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a German
corporation; and AUDI AG, a German corporation.
Defendants.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 1

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 2 of 38

Plaintiffs Emily Downing-Moore, Thaddeus Moore, Zachary A. Blalack, and Natalie B.


Blalack, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (the Class), allege the
following:
PARTIES
1.

Plaintiffs Emily Downing Moore and Thaddeus Moore are individuals residing in

Eugene, Oregon. In or about 2011, they purchased a 2011 TDI Jetta SportWagen from Sheppard
Volkswagen, an authorized Volkswagen dealer in Eugene, Oregon. Plaintiffs purchased the Jetta
specifically because it was advertised as being a clean, environmentally-friendly vehicle that
also provided excellent power, performance, and fuel mileage. Plaintiffs conducted extensive
research on the Jetta, and competing vehicles, before purchasing the vehicle. Plaintiffs would
not have purchased the vehicle but for VWs representations regarding the clean emissions
characteristics of the Jetta TDI. Unbeknownst to the Plaintiffs, at the time the vehicle was
purchased, it was equipped with an emissions control defeat device which caused the vehicle
to get an undue EPA certification and pass emissions tests, but during normal driving conditions,
emit up to 40 times the allowed level of pollutants, including NOx. The false advertising by
Volkwagen induced the Moore Plaintiffs to pay the purchase price for their Volkswagen vehicle,
and without such false advertising, they would not have purchased it since the environmental
attributes, including the belief that their vehicle emitted low emissions while offering good
performance and fuel economy, was properly EPA certified, and was environmentally friendly,
were a significant motivation in selecting this vehicle over others. The use of the defeat device
by Volkswagen has caused the Moore Plaintiffs out of pocket loss, future attempted repairs, the
purchase price of the vehicle, and the diminished value of their vehicle. Volkswagen knew about
and purposefully used the defeat device, but did not disclose the defeat device and its effects
to the Moore Plaintiffs, deceiving them into purchasing a polluting vehicle instead of the
environmentally friendly vehicle that was advertised.
2.

Plaintiffs Zachary A. Blalack and Natalie B. Blalack are individuals residing in

Eugene, Oregon. In 2013, they purchased a 2014 Volkswagen TDI Passat from Armstrong
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 2

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 3 of 38

Volkswagen, an authorized Volkswagen dealer in Gladstone, Oregon. Plaintiffs still own this
vehicle. Plaintiffs purchased the Passat specifically because it was advertised as being a clean,
environmentally-friendly vehicle that also provided excellent power, performance, and fuel
mileage. Plaintiffs conducted extensive research on the Passat, and competing vehicles, before
purchasing the vehicle. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the vehicle but for VWs
representations regarding the clean emissions characteristics of the Passat TDI. Unbeknownst
to the Plaintiffs, at the time the vehicle was purchased, it was equipped with an emissions control
defeat device which caused the vehicle to get an undue EPA certification and pass emissions
tests, but during normal driving conditions, emit up to 40 times the allowed level of pollutants,
including NOx. The false advertising by Volkwagen induced the Blalack Plaintiffs to pay the
purchase price for their Volkswagen vehicle, and without such false advertising, they would not
have purchased it since the environmental attributes, including the belief that their vehicle
emitted low emissions while offering good performance and fuel economy, was properly EPA
certified, and was environmentally friendly, were a significant motivation in selecting this
vehicle over others. The use of the defeat device by Volkswagen has caused the Blalack
Plaintiffs out of pocket loss, future attempted repairs, the purchase price of the vehicle, and the
diminished value of their vehicle. Volkswagen knew about and purposefully used the defeat
device, but did not disclose the defeat device and its effects to the Blalack Plaintiffs,
deceiving them into purchasing a polluting vehicle instead of the environmentally friendly
vehicle that was advertised.
3.

Defendant Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. is a domestic for-profit New

Jersey corporation, and is headquartered in Herndon, Virginia. Volkswagen is a wholly owned


subsidiary of Volkswagen AG, the worlds largest automobile manufacturer. Volkswagen
designs, manufactures, tests, markets, distributes and sells the Class Vehicles through the United
States, including within the State of Oregon.
4.

Established in 1937, Defendant Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft (hereinafter,

Volkswagen AG) is a German car corporation organized and existing under the laws of
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 3

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 4 of 38

Germany, with its principal place of business located in Wolfsburg, Germany. Volkswagen AG is
the parent company of Volkswagen Group of America, Inc., also named as a Defendant in this
Complaint. All three Defendants (Volkswagen AG, Audi, and Volkswagen Group of America,
Inc.) are collectively referred to in this complaint as Volkswagen.
5.

In 1964, Volkswagen AG acquired Auto Union, and in 1969, Volkswagen AG

acquired NSU Motorenwerke AG. Volkswagen AG merged Auto Union and NSU to create Audi
AG (hereinafter, Audi), which has since been developed into Volkswagens luxury vehicle
brand. Audi is a German automobile manufacturer that designs, engineers, produces, markets, and
distributes luxury automobiles, and is a majority owned (99.55%) subsidiary of Volkswagen
Group. Since 2007, Audi has used the slogan Truth in Engineering, and is among the best-selling
luxury automobiles in the world.

JURISDICTION
6.

This Court has jurisdiction pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, 28

U.S.C. 1332(d), because the proposed Class consist of 100 or more members; the amount in
controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of costs and interest; and because a member of the
Plaintiff Class is a citizen of a state different than Volkswagens home states. The Court also has
supplemental jurisdiction over the state law claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1367.

VENUE
7.

Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391 because a substantial part

of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs claims occurred in this District. Plaintiffs
reside in this District and purchased their Affected Vehicle in this District, a substantial part of
the property that is the subject of this action is situated in this District, and plaintiff Class
members residing in this district have been harmed as a result of Volkswagens acts or
omissions. Furthermore, Volkswagen has marketed, advertised, sold and leased Class Vehicles,
and regularly does business, within this District.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 4

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 5 of 38

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
8.

In 1970, Congress enacted the first major Clean Air Act, which act has been

amended. The Clean Air Act required a 90% reduction in emissions from new automobiles by
1975. In 1970, Congress also established the Environmental Protection Agency (EPA), which
has broad responsibility for regulating motor vehicle pollution.
9.

Congress purpose in creating the Clean Air Act, in part, was to protect and

enhance the quality of the Nations air resources so as to promote the public health and welfare
and the productive capacity of its population, and to initiate and accelerate a national research
and development program to achieve the prevention and control of air pollution. 42 U.S.C.
7401(b)(1)-(2).
10.

The Clean Air Act requires vehicle manufacturers to certify to EPA that their

products will meet applicable federal emission standards to control air pollution. The EPA
administers a certification program to ensure that every vehicle introduced into United States
commerce satisfies applicable emission standards. Under this standard, the EPA issues
certificates of conformity (hereinafter, COC) and approves the introduction of vehicles
satisfying the standards into United States commerce. Every vehicle sold in the United States
must be covered by an EPA-issued certificate of conformity. This includes light-duty motor
vehicles such as the Class Vehicles at issue in this Complaint; the Class Vehicles needed to
satisfy emission standards for certain air pollutants, including nitrogen oxide (hereinafter,
NOx). 40 C.F.R. 86.1811-04. Clean Air Act 101(b)(1) - (2), 42 U.S.C. 7401(b)(1)-(2).
11.

As used in this Complaint, Class Vehicles means the following vehicle models

equipped with 2.0 liter diesel engines: Volkswagen Jetta (model years 2009 2015),
Volkswagen Beetle (model years 2012 2015), Audi A3 (model years 2010 2015),
Volkswagen Golf (model years 2010 2015) and Volkswagen Passat (model years 2012
2015). Discovery may reveal that additional vehicle models and model years are properly
included as Class Vehicles.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 5

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

A.

12.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 6 of 38

Volkswagens Clean Diesel Campaign is a Hoax; the Class Vehicles


Were Manufactured with Unlawful Defeat Devices.

Advertising has been a key part of Volkswagens business plan. For the period

2011-2013, Volkswagen spend over $2.9 billion per year world-wide on advertising.1
13.

As explained by Volkswagens marketing chief, Tim Ellis in USA Today, even

though 2008 was a tough ad year for Volkswagen, its ad expenditures would be the same in
2009.2
14.

In 2009, Volkswagen introduced a campaign called Meet the Volkswagens.

Five ads running over eight weeks will promote fuel efficiency, green credentials, cost of
ownership and safety by highlighting VWs performance compared with rival brands.3 Part
of the big plan is for Volkswagen to grow the brand in the U.S., says Ellis. As part of that
strategy, we can no longer afford to be a small, quirky niche brand here.4 The marketing
included Volkswagen using Facebook with a link to a blog, tdi.vw.com/tdi to raise awareness of
VWs TDI clean diesel model.
15.

Part of its campaign was the slogan that Todays diesel-powered automobiles

arent your fathers diesel-powered automobiles. VW had a simple message in each instances:
its autos are fuel-efficient, green and safe vehicles that wont break the bank.5
16.

This aint your daddys diesel, boldly declared Volkswagen, an international

automotive conglomerate, in its sleek advertising campaign on their main webpage.6

http://www.statista.com/statistics/286537/volkswagen-advertising-spending-worldwide/
http://abcnews.go.com/Business/story?id=7493781
3
Id.
4
Id.
5
http://www.edmunds.com/autoobserver-archive/2009/05/volkswagen-playing-truth-or-dare-tomarket-its-diesel-vehicles.html
6
See https://web.archive.org/web/20150816221300/http://www.vw.com/features/clean-diesel/.
Last accessed September 22, 2015.
2

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 6

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

17.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 7 of 38

Another example of Volkswagens advertising touting its diesel cars:7

This advertisement has since been removed from Defendants webpage. Source:
https://web.archive.org/web/20150816221300/http://www.vw.com/features/clean-diesel/.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 7

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

18.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 8 of 38

The Class Vehicles, Volkswagens Mark Barnes once boasted, contained

fantastic power train[s] that give[] very good fuel economy. Yet [i]ts also good for the
environment because it puts out 25% less greenhouse gas emission than what a gasoline engine
would. And thanks to the uniqueness of the TDI motor, it cuts out the particulate emissions by
90% and the emissions of nitrous oxide are cut by 95%. So a very very clean running engine.
Clean enough to be certified in all 50 states.8
19.

From television to print advertisements to interviews to social media, Volkswagen

represented the environmental-friendliness, fuel efficiencies of the Class Vehicles to the public.
20.

The advertising and promotion paid off as auto critics starting praising

Volkswagens diesel cars and sales increased.


21.

In 2008, Jeep, Mercedes-Benz and Volkswagen were the only manufacturers

selling diesels in light-duty vehicles in the United States.9 Edmunds, a highly regarded vehicle
analyst, however, did not recommend any Volkswagen diesel cars as its top recommended.
Instead, it recommended: If you want more options, wed advise waiting until 2009 when the
ever popular Volkswagen Jetta TDI is slated to return to the U.S. as a 50-state vehicle.10
22.

Those recommendations began changing in 2009. In 2009, Edmunds made one

of its top recommended the 2009 Jetta, stating: Though the majority of diesel engines are sold
in heavy-duty vehicles, the most anticipated of the new clean diesels coming out this year are a
sedan (and a wagon): the 2009 Volkswagen Jetta TDI. If youre shopping for a compact sedan
or wagon, its the only diesel game in town. Starting at just a shade under $22,000 for the sedan
and $23,600 for the base Sportwagen, the new clean Jetta TDI brings with it the German
premium sedan feel without the premium sedan price. The Jetta TDI also qualifies for a $1,300

See Business Insiders Volkswagen: Our Diesel Cars Whup the Prius and Other Hybrids, by
Gayathri Vaidyanathan, October 9, 2009. http://www.businessinsider.com/volkswagen-prepsfor-a-diesel-revolution-2009-10.
9
http://www.edmunds.com/diesel/2008/buying-guide.html
10
Id.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 8

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 9 of 38

alternative motor vehicle federal tax credit, which can help offset the small premium you pay for
diesel efficiency.11
23.

In 2010, Edmunds recommended the Jetta as one of its top recommended diesels

and stated: The Volkswagen Jetta TDI, for example, enters its second year on the market as one
of the most sought-after Jetta models, accounting for more than a third of stateside Jetta sales.
Starting at about $23,000 for the sedan and $25,000 for the SportWagen, the Jetta TDI provides
sprightly performance and a premium feel, along with the kind of fuel economy that only
gasoline-electric hybrids can match. Its a bit pricey, but its unique collection of virtues makes it
an Edmunds staff favorite and an interesting alternative to green machines like the Ford
Escape Hybrid and Toyota Prius.12
24.

In 2011, Edmunds recommended the Golf as one of its top recommended diesels

and stated: Our favorite is the Volkswagen Golf TDI, which exploits the traditional fuelefficiency of its turbocharged four-cylinder diesel engine for truly frugal motoring when it comes
to fuel cost per mile.13
25.

In 2012 Edmunds included the Golf as one of its top recommended diesels and

stated: Our favorite is the Volkswagen Golf TDI, which we feel offers a well-rounded package.
It has the premium interior of a more upscale vehicle, is easy to load cargo in thanks to its
hatchback, has a sporty suspension and is still capable of up to 42 mpg on the highway. The
Volkswagen Jetta TDI offers the same engine/transmission combination, but the cars complete
redesign for 2011 left us wholly unimpressed. If you are looking for a larger sedan, consider the
more refined Volkswagen Passat TDI instead.14
26.

In 2013, Edmunds recommended both the Golf and the Passat as top

recommended diesels: While the Volkswagen Golf TDI is one of the best-selling cars in
Europe, it hasnt yet taken U.S. buyers by storm. Part of the reason is its price, since the TDI is

11

http://www.edmunds.com/diesel/2009/buying-guide.html
http://www.edmunds.com/diesel/2010/buying-guide.html
13
http://www.edmunds.com/diesel/2011/buying-guide.html
14
http://www.edmunds.com/diesel/2012/buying-guide.html
12

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 9

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 10 of 38

the top trim for the Golf. Still, we feel that the car is worth it because it offers a well-rounded
package that few cars in its class can match. The Golf has the premium interior of a more
upscale vehicle, is easy to load cargo in thanks to its hatchback, has a sporty suspension and is
still capable of up to 42 mpg on the highway. [] The Volkswagen Passat TDI offers the same
engine/transmission combination as the Golf TDI, but in a roomier midsize sedan body. The
Passat earned top honors in our last 40 MPG Challenge, when it surpassed its own EPA numbers
in real-world driving conditions. It is an excellent alternative to the Toyota Camry Hybrid or the
Ford Fusion Hybrid.15
27.

In the first half of 2015, Volkswagen passed Toyota as the worlds largest

automaker. Volkswagen AG sold 5.4 million vehicles, including 295,000 in the United States, to
Toyotas 5.02 million vehicles.

16

Volkswagens projection of being the largest automaker in

the world by 2018 appeared to be coming true and meeting the goal three years early.
28.

In fact, the Class Vehicles were not environmentally friendly with fuel efficiency

and power, but Volkswagen had knowingly and intentionally manipulated the Class Vehicles
emission system. The true facts were that the vehicles were actually emitting up to 40 times the
legal limit. Volkswagen had hidden its scheme for over six (6) years, but it was finally revealed
to the pubic in September of 2015.
29.

The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the EPA were first alerted to

emissions problems with the Class Vehicles in May 2014 when the West Virginia Universitys
(hereinafter, WVU) Center for Alternative Fuels, Engines & Emissions published results of a
study that found significantly higher in-use emissions from two of Volkswagens light-duty diesel
vehicles.
30.

Over the course of the year, Volkswagen continued to assert to both the CARB and

the EPA that the increased emission from these vehicles could be attributed to various technical
issues and unexpected in-use conditions. Volkswagen issued a voluntary recall in December 2014

15
16

http://www.edmunds.com/diesel/2013/buying-guide.html
http://www.latimes.com/business/la-fi-hy-vw-toyota-20150728-story.html
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 10

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 11 of 38

to address the issue. CARB, in coordination with the EPA, conducted follow up testing of these
vehicles both in the laboratory and during normal road operation to confirm the efficacy of the
recall. When the testing showed only a limited benefit to the recall, the CARB broadened the tested
vehicles to pinpoint the exact technical nature of the vehicles poor performance, and to investigate
why the vehicles onboard diagnostic system was not detecting the increased emissions.17
31.

None of the potential technical issues suggested by Volkswagen explained the

higher test results consistently confirmed during the CARBs testing and it became clear that the
CARB and the EPA would not approve certificates of conformity for Volkswagens 2016 model
year diesel vehicles until Volkswagen could adequately explain the anomalous emissions and
ensure that the 2016 model year vehicles would not have similar issues. Only then did
Volkswagen admit it had designed and installed a defeat device in these vehicles in the form of a
sophisticated software algorithm that detected when a vehicle was undergoing emission testing.18
B. Volkswagen Admitted the Class Vehicles Were Made With Defeat
Devices.
32.

On September 18, 2015, the EPA issued a notice of violation (hereinafter,

NOV) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7401 7671(q), and its implementing regulations to
Volkswagen. Exhibit 1. Amongst other allegations, the NOV alleges that four-cylinder
Volkswagen diesel cars from model years 2009-2015 contained software manufactured and
installed by Volkswagen to deliberately circumvent EPA emissions standards for certain air
pollutants. Therefore, VW violated section 203(a)(3)(B) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3)(B). CARB also issued its own letter regarding Volkswagens violations. Exhibit 2.
33.

Defeat devices bypass, defeat, or render inoperative elements of a vehicles

emission control system that exist to comply with Clean Air Act emission standards. Defeat

17

See United States Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Violation (Volkswagen):


http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm.
18
See United States Environmental Protection Agency Notice of Violation (Volkswagen):
http://www3.epa.gov/otaq/cert/violations.htm, attached as Exhibit 1 hereto.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 11

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 12 of 38

devices, such as those installed in Volkswagens Class Vehicles, sense whether the vehicle is
being tested for compliance with EPA emission standards based on various inputs including the
position of the steering wheel, vehicle speed, the duration of the engines operation, and
barometric pressure. These inputs precisely track the parameters of the federal test procedure
used for emission testing for EPA certification purposes.
34.

Due to the existence of the defeat systems in Volkswagens Class Vehicles, the

Class Vehicles do not conform in all material respects to the vehicle specifications described in
the applications for the COCs that purportedly cover them. Therefore, Volkswagen also violated
section 203(a)(1) of the Clean Air Act, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(1), by selling, offering for sale,
introducing into commerce, delivering for introduction into commerce, or importing these
vehicles, or for causing any of the foregoing acts.
35.

By making and selling vehicles with defeat devices that allowed for higher levels

of air emissions than they certified to EPA, Volkswagen violated the Clean Air Act. Using
[these] defeat devices in cars to evade clean air standards is illegal and a threat to public health,
said Cynthia Giles, Assistant Administrator for the Office of Enforcement and Compliance
Assurance.
36.

Indeed, Volkswagen AGs CEO Martin Winterkorn acknowledged as much and

admitted to Volkswagens illegal misconduct as news of the 7-year-long scandal broke:


Millions of people all over the world trust our brand, our cars, and our technology. I am deeply
sorry we have broken this trust. I would like to make a formal apology to our customers, to the
authorities, and to the general public for this misconduct. On September 23, 2015, Mr.
Winterkorn resigned as CEO of Volkswagen, stating that [a]bove all, I am stunned that
misconduct on such a scale was possible in the Volkswagen Group.
37.

Michael Horn, the head of Volkswagen in the United States, also admitted that

Volkswagen has totally screwed up. Lets be clear about this, our company was dishonest
with the [EPA] and the California air resources board [sic], and with all of you.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 12

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

38.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 13 of 38

As a result of Volkswagens admitted scandal, Volkswagens brand and

reputation have been irreparably damaged, as evidenced by Volkswagens ever-tanking stock


price in the hours and days following the EPAs NOV. The Administrations forced recall has
also damaged Volkswagens brand and reputation; re-sale values. Volkswagen recognizes the
damage to their brand and reputation, setting aside $7.2 billion to pay for their emissions
cheating scheme. The Volkswagen brand is at risk, Mike Jackson, CEO of Auto Nation, told
CNBC today [September 23, 2015].

TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS


Fraudulent Concealment
39.

Upon information and belief, Volkswagen has known of the defects described

above since at least 2009. Volkswagen knew of the defects well before Plaintiffs and Class
members purchased the Class Vehicles, and have concealed from or failed to notify Plaintiffs,
Class members, and the public of the full and complete nature of the defects.
40.

Volkswagen intentionally concealed the defect from the public, from the Plaintiffs

and from the Class until September 2015, and did not fully investigate or consciously failed to
investigate the seriousness of the issue.
41.

Any applicable statute of limitations has therefore been tolled by Volkswagens

knowledge and active concealment.


Estoppel
42.

Volkswagen was and is under a continuing duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and Class

members the true character, quality, and nature of the vehicles. They actively concealed the true
character, quality, and nature of the vehicles and knowingly made misrepresentations about the
quality, reliability, characteristics, and performance of the vehicles. Plaintiffs and Class members
reasonably relied upon Volkswagens knowing and affirmative misrepresentations and/or active

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 13

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 14 of 38

concealment of these facts. Based on the foregoing, Volkswagen is estopped from relying on any
statutes of limitation in defense of this action.
Discovery Rule
43.

The causes of action alleged herein did not accrue until Plaintiffs and Class

members discovered in September 2015 that their vehicles were defective.

CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS


44.

Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil

Procedure 23 on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek to
represent a Class (herein, the Class) initially defined as:
All current and former owners of Class Vehicles who reside in the State of Oregon and/or
who purchased or leased Class Vehicles in Oregon. Expressly excluded from the Class
are Defendants and their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, directors, and employees.
45.

Certification of the Class is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a),

23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), or 23(b)(3).


Numerosity and Ascertainability
46.

The proposed Class is composed of purchasers and lessees of many thousands of

Class Vehicles dispersed throughout Oregon and joinder is impracticable. The precise number
and identity of Class members are unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, but can be obtained from
Volkswagens internal records.
Common Issues of Law & Fact
47.

There are questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class, which

predominate over questions affecting only individual Class members, inter alia:

Whether the Volkswagen misrepresented the environmental friendliness,


emission standards compliance and credentials, fuel efficiency and/or
performance of the Class Vehicles;

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 14

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 15 of 38

Whether the Volkswagen misrepresented the emissions levels, fuel efficiency


and/or performance that the Class Vehicles could achieve under normal
driving conditions;

Whether Volkswagen publicized and advertised the environmental


friendliness, fuel emission compliance, fuel efficiency and/or performance of
the Class Vehicles;

Whether Volkswagens publicity and advertising regarding the environmental


friendliness, fuel emission compliance, fuel efficiency and/or performance of
the Class Vehicles was misleading;

Whether Volkswagen has engaged in unlawful, unfair or fraudulent business


practices;

Whether Volkswagens misrepresentations and omissions regarding the


compliance with emissions levels, environmental friendliness, fuel efficiency
and/or performance of the Class Vehicles has deceived or is likely to have
deceived Plaintiffs and the Class;

Whether Volkswagens conduct violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act;

Whether Volkswagen breach express and/or implied warranties;

Whether Volkswagens unlawful, unfair or deceptive practices have harmed


Plaintiffs and the class members;

Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the class are entitled to equitable or
injunctive relief and,

Whether Plaintiffs and the members of the Class are entitled to damages,
including punitive damages.
Typicality

48.

Plaintiffs are members of the Class and Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims

of the Class. Plaintiffs, like all Class members, have been damaged by Volkswagens
misconduct in that they have incurred losses arising from the purchase and/or lease of the Class
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 15

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 16 of 38

Vehicles as a result of Volkswagens misrepresentations and concealments. The factual bases of


Volkswagens misconduct are common to all Class members and represent a common thread of
misconduct resulting in injury to all Class members. The relief Plaintiffs seek is typical of the
relief sought for the absent Class members.
Adequacy of Representation
49.

Plaintiffs are willing and prepared to serve the Court and the proposed Class in a

representative capacity. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class and
have no interests adverse to or which conflict with the interests of the other members of the
Class.
50.

The self-interest of Plaintiffs are co-extensive with and not antagonistic to those

of absent Class members. Plaintiffs will undertake to represent and protect the interests of absent
Class members.
51.

Plaintiffs have engaged the services of counsel who are experienced in complex

class litigation, will adequately prosecute this action, and will assert and protect the rights of and
otherwise represent the Plaintiffs and absent Class members.
Superiority
52.

The prosecution of separate actions by individual members of the Class would

create a risk of inconsistency and varying adjudications, establishing incompatible standards of


conduct for Volkswagen.
53.

Volkswagen has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby

making relief with respect to the members of the Class as a whole appropriate.
54.

A class action is superior to other available means for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy. Prosecution of the complaint as a class action will provide
redress for individual claims too small to support the expense of complex litigation and reduce
the possibility of repetitious litigation.
55.

Plaintiffs anticipate no unusual management problems with the pursuit of this

Complaint as a class action.


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 16

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 17 of 38

CLAIMS FOR RELIEF


COUNT I
Violation of the Mangson-Moss Warranty Act 15 U.S.C. 2301 et seq.
56.

Plaintiffs bring this Claim for Relief individually and on behalf of all Class

members.
57.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-55 above as if fully set forth

herein, and further declare:


58.

This Court has jurisdiction to decide claims brought under 15 U.S.C. 2301 by

virtue of 28 U.S.C. 1332 (a)-(d).


59.

The Class Vehicles are consumer products within the meaning of the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(1).


60.

Plaintiffs and Class members are consumers within the meaning of the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(3). They are consumers because they are
persons entitled under applicable state law to enforce against the warrantor the obligations of its
express and implied warranties.
61.

Volkswagen is a supplier and warrantor within the meaning of the

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(4)-(5).


62.

The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1) provides a claim for

relief for any consumer who is damaged by the failure of a warrantor to comply with an
expressed or implied warranty.
63.

Volkswagen provided Plaintiffs and Class members with expressed and implied

warranties of merchantability in connection with the purchase or lease of their vehicles that are
warranties within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301(7).
Volkswagen warranted that the Class Vehicles were eco-friendly and fit for their ordinary
purpose as passenger motor vehicles, would pass without objection in the trade as designed,
manufactured, and marketed, and were adequately contained, packaged, and labeled.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 17

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

64.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 18 of 38

Volkswagen breached these warranties, as described in more detail above, and are

therefore liable to Plaintiffs and the Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). Without
limitation, the Class Vehicles share common defects in that they are equipped with defeat
devices. Volkswagen has admitted that the Class Vehicles are defective in issuing its recalls, but
the recalls are woefully insufficient to address each of the defects.
65.

In their capacity as warrantors, as Volkswagen had knowledge of the inherent

defects in the Class Vehicles, any efforts to limit the implied warranties in a manner that would
exclude coverage of the Class Vehicles is unconscionable, and any such effort to disclaim, or
otherwise limit, liability for the Class Vehicles is null and void.
66.

The limitations on the warranties are procedurally unconscionable. There was

unequal bargaining power between Volkswagen and Plaintiffs and the other Class members, as,
at the time of purchase or lease, Plaintiffs and the other Class members had no other options for
purchasing warranty coverage other than directly from Volkswagen.
67.

The limitations on the warranties are substantively unconscionable. Volkswagen

knew that the Class Vehicles were defective. Volkswagen failed to disclose these defects to
Plaintiffs and Class members. Thus, Volkswagens enforcement of the durational limitations on
those warranties is harsh and shocks the conscience.
68.

Plaintiffs and Class members have had sufficient direct dealings with Volkswagen

or their agents (dealerships) to establish privity of contract. Nonetheless, privity is not required
here because Plaintiffs and Class members are intended third-party beneficiaries of contracts
between Volkswagen and their dealers, and specifically, of the implied warranties. The dealers
were not intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Class Vehicles and have no rights under
the warranty agreements provided with the Class Vehicles; the warranty agreements were
designed for and intended to benefit consumers.
69.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(e), Plaintiffs are entitled to bring this class action

and are not required to give Volkswagen notice and an opportunity to cure until such time as the

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 18

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 19 of 38

Court determines the representative capacity of Plaintiffs pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal
Rules of Civil Procedure.
70.

Furthermore, affording Volkswagen an opportunity to cure its breach of written

warranties would be unnecessary and futile here. At the time of sale or lease of each Affected
Vehicle, Volkswagen knew, should have known, or were reckless in not knowing of their
misrepresentations concerning the Class Vehicles inability to perform as warranted, but
nonetheless failed to rectify the situation and/or disclose the defective design. Under the
circumstances, the remedies available under any informal settlement procedure would be
inadequate and any requirement that Plaintiffs resorts to an informal dispute resolution procedure
and/or afford Volkswagen a reasonable opportunity to cure their breach of warranties is excused
and thereby deemed satisfied.
71.

Plaintiff and Class members would suffer economic hardship if they returned their

Class Vehicles but did not receive the return of all payments made by them. Because
Volkswagen has no available cure, Plaintiffs and Class members have not re-accepted their Class
Vehicles by retaining them.
72.

Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(3), the amount in controversy of Plaintiffs and

each Class members individual claim exceeds the sum of $25. The total amount in controversy
in this Class action exceeds the sum of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, computed on the
basis of all claims to be determined in this lawsuit. The size of each plaintiff class far exceeds
100 members but the precise number of Class members is entirely within the defendants
knowledge and control. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, seek
all damages permitted by law, including diminution in value of their vehicles, in an amount to be
proven at trial. In addition, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(2), Plaintiffs and Class members are
entitled to recover a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses (including
attorneys fees based on actual time expended) determined by the Court to have reasonably been
incurred by Plaintiffs and Class members in connection with the commencement and prosecution
of this action.
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 19

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

73.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 20 of 38

Further, Plaintiffs and the Class are also entitled to equitable relief under 15

U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). Based on Volkswagens continuing failures to fix the known defects,
Plaintiffs seek a declaration that Volkswagen have not adequately implemented their recall
commitments and requirements and general commitments to fix its failed processes, and
injunctive relief in the form of judicial supervision over the recall process is warranted. Plaintiffs
also seek the establishment of a Volkswagen-funded program for Plaintiffs and Class members
to recover out-of-pocket costs incurred.
74.

Plaintiffs also request, as a form of equitable monetary relief, re-payment of the

out-of-pocket expenses and costs they have incurred in attempting to rectify the defects. Such
expenses and losses will continue as Plaintiffs and Class members must take time off from work,
pay for rental cars or other transportation arrangements and expenses involved in going through
the recall process.
75.

The right of Class members to recover these expenses as an equitable matter to

put them in the place they would have been but for Volkswagens conduct presents common
questions of law. Equity and fairness requires the establishment by Court decree and
administration under Court supervision of a program funded by Volkswagen, using transparent,
consistent, and reasonable protocols, under which such claims can be made and paid.

COUNT II
Fraud
76.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1-75 above as if fully set forth

herein, and further declare:


77.

Volkswagen has fraudulently and falsely represented that the Class Vehicles use

the clean diesel technology described above in a manner that complies with EPA emission
standards.
78.

Volkswagen knowingly made false representations or material omissions

regarding the nature of the Class Vehicles.


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 20

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

79.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 21 of 38

Further, as set forth above, Volkswagen concealed and suppressed material facts

concerning the nature of the Class Vehicles. Volkswagen knew that the Class Vehicles were
designed and manufactured with illegal defeat devices, but Volkswagen concealed those material
facts, knowing that they were material to consumers because Plaintiffs and Class members
highly valued the environmental attributes of the Class Vehicles and were induced to purchase
them, and paid higher premiums for such cars, based on the representations that they were
environmentally friendly. Volkswagen recklessly and intentionally manufactured and distributed
the Class Vehicles to consumers in the United States, even though Volkswagen knew, or should
have known, at the time of distribution, that the Class Vehicles contained such defects. Plaintiffs
and Class members had no knowledge of these defects at the time they purchased or leased the
Class Vehicles.
80.

Plaintiffs and Class members Class Vehicles were, in fact, defective at the time

of purchase or lease.
81.

Volkswagen had a duty to disclose these material defects to Plaintiffs, Class

members, the public and the EPA, but failed to do so.


82.

Volkswagen had a duty to disclose the true facts about the Class Vehicles because

Volkswagen had superior knowledge and access to those facts, and the facts were not known to
or reasonably discoverable by Plaintiffs and Class members. Volkswagen knew that Plaintiffs
and Class members had no knowledge of the illegal defeat devices in the Class Vehicles, and that
neither Plaintiffs nor the other Class members had an equal opportunity to discover the facts to
inform them of those defects. Indeed, Plaintiffs and Class members trusted Volkswagen not to
sell or lease vehicles to them that were defective or that violated the Clean Air Act. Volkswagen
also had a duty to disclose its emissions scheme because it made affirmative representations
about the qualities of the Class Vehicles and their emissions standards which were misleading,
deceptive and incomplete without the disclosure of additional facts set forth above regarding the
actual emissions and Volkswagens emissions scheme. Having volunteered to provide

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 21

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 22 of 38

information to Plaintiffs, Volkswagen had the duty to disclose not just the partial truth, but the
entire truth.
83.

Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on Volkswagens representations

that the vehicles they were purchasing, leasing, and/or retaining were free from defects and
complied with Volkswagens representations, advertising and warranties.
84.

The aforementioned concealment was material, because if the true facts had been

disclosed, Plaintiffs and Class members would not have bought, leased or retained their vehicles.
85.

The aforementioned representations were also material because they were facts

that would typically be relied on by a person purchasing, leasing or retaining a new or used
motor vehicle. Volkswagen each knew or recklessly disregarded that their representations and/or
statements regarding the Class Vehicles were false.
86.

As a direct and proximate result of Volkswagens knowingly false

representations, concealment and/or suppression of facts, Plaintiffs and Class members have
sustained and will continue to sustain damages consisting of the purchase price of the Class
Vehicles, since they would not have purchased the vehicles without the false representations and
advertising from Volkswagen; the difference between the actual value of that which Plaintiffs
and the Class paid and the actual value of that which they received; the higher fuel costs
resulting from any emissions repairs by Volkswagen; and other actual damages to be proven at
trial.
87.

Volkswagens acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, with intent

to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiffs and Class members rights and well-being to
enrich Defendants. Defendants conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an
amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future, which amount is to be determined
according to proof, and for Oregon state law claims for the Class Members, Plaintiffs will seek to
amend the Class Complaint to include a claim for punitive damages at the appropriate time.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 22

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 23 of 38

COUNT III
Unjust Enrichment
88.

Plaintiffs incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-83 above as if

fully set forth herein, and further declare:


89.

As a result of Volkswagens unlawful and deceptive actions described above,

Volkswagen was enriched at the expense of Plaintiffs and the Class.


90.

Under the circumstances, it would be against equity and good conscience to

permit Volkswagen to retain the ill-gotten benefits it received from Plaintiffs and Class
members. Thus, it would be unjust and inequitable for Volkswagen to retain the benefit without
restitution to Plaintiffs and the Class for the monies paid to Volkswagen for the Class Vehicles.

COUNT IV
Breach of Contract
91.

Plaintiffs incorporates by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-90 above as if

fully set forth herein, and further declare:


92.

Volkswagens misrepresentations and omissions alleged herein, including

Volkswagens failure to disclose the existence of the defeat devices and emissions scheme,
caused Plaintiffs and other Class members to purchase or lease their Class Vehicles. Absent
those misrepresentations and omissions, Plaintiffs and the Class members would not have
purchased or leased the Class Vehicles, and would not have purchased or leased the Class
Vehicles at the prices they paid. Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class members overpaid for
their Class Vehicles and did not receive the benefit of their bargain.
93.

Each and every sale or lease of an Affected Vehicle constitutes a contract between

Volkswagen and the purchaser or lessee. Volkswagen breached these contracts by selling or
leasing Plaintiffs and the other Class members defective Class Vehicles and by misrepresenting
or failing to disclose the existence of the defeat devices and its emissions scheme, information

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 23

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 24 of 38

known to Volkswagen, rendering each Affected Vehicle non-EPA complaint and diminishing
their value.
94.

As a direct and proximate result of Volkwagens breach of contract, Plaintiffs and

the Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, which shall include,
but is not limited to, all compensatory damages, incident and consequential damages, and other
damages allowed by law.

COUNT V
Violation of Oregons Unlawful Trade Practices Act Or. Rev. Stat. 646.605, et seq.
95.

Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations in paragraphs 1-94 above as if

fully set forth herein, and further declare:


96.

Volkswagen is a person within the meaning of Or. Rev. Stat. 646.605(4).

97.

The Class Vehicles at issue are goods obtained primarily for personal family or

household purposes within the meaning of Or. Rev. Stat. 646.605(6).


98.

The Oregon Unfair Trade Practices Act (UPTA) prohibits a person from, in the

course of the persons business, doing any of the following: (e) Represent[ing]
thatgoodshavecharacteristicsuses, benefits, or qualities that they do not have; g)
Represent[ing] thatgoodsare of a particular standard [or] qualityif they are of another; (i)
Advertis[ing]goods or services with intent not to provide them as advertised; and (u)
engag[ing] in any other unfair or deceptive conduct in trade or commerce. Or. Rev. Stat.
646.608(1).
99.

Volkswagen engaged in unlawful trade practices, including representing that

Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits and qualities that they do not have;
representing that Class Vehicles are of a particular standard and quality when they are not;
advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as advertised; and engaging in other
unfair or deceptive acts.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 24

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

100.

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 25 of 38

Volkswagen also engaged in unlawful trade practices by employing deception,

deceptive acts or practices, fraud, misrepresentations and/or concealment, suppression or


omission of material facts with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or
omission, in connection with the sale of Class Vehicles.
101.

Volkswagens actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or

commerce.
102.

By failing to disclose and actively concealing the defeat device and its

emissions scheme, instead marketing its vehicles as safe, environmentally friendly, and efficient,
with low emissions, Volkswagen engaged in deceptive business practices in violation of the
UTPA.
103.

Volkswagens unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact

deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffs and Class members, about the true
cleanliness, efficiency, performance, and emissions of the Class Vehicles, as well as their true
value.
104.

Volkswagen intentionally and knowingly misrepresented material facts regarding

the Class Vehicles with an intent to mislead Plaintiffs and Class members into purchasing the
Class Vehicles.
105.

Volkswagen knew or should have known that its conduct violated the UPTA.

106.

As a direct and proximate result of Volkwagens violations of the UPTA,

Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered actual damages, injury-in-fact and ascertainable
losses.
107.

Volkswagens violations present a continuing risk to Plaintiffs and the Class

members, as well as to the general public. Volkswagens unlawful acts and practices complained
of herein affect the public interest.
108.

Plaintiffs and the Class members are entitled to recover the greater of actual

damages or $200 pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. 646.638(1), attorneys fees and costs, as well as

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 25

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 26 of 38

punitive damages because Volkswagen engaged in conduct amounting to a particularly


aggravated, deliberate disregard of the rights of others.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF


Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, requests the Court to
enter judgment against Volkswagen, as follows:
A.

An order certifying the proposed Class designating Plaintiffs as the named


representative of the Class, and designating the undersigned as Class Counsel;

B.

A declaration that the Class Vehicles are defective;

C.

A declaration that the Volkswagen is financially responsible for notifying all


Class members about the defective nature of the Class Vehicles;

D.

An order enjoining Volkswagen to desist from further deceptive distribution,


sales, and lease practices with respect to the Class Vehicles, and directing
Volkswagen to permanently, expeditiously, and completely repair the Class
Vehicles to eliminate the illegal defeat devices;

E.

An award to Plaintiffs and Class members of compensatory, exemplary, and


statutory penalties, damages, including interest, in an amount to be proven at trial;

F.

An award to Plaintiffs and Class members for the return of the purchase prices of
the Class Vehicles, with interest from the time they was paid, for the
reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale, for damages
and for reasonable attorney fees;

G.

A declaration that the Volkswagen must disgorge, for the benefit of Plaintiff and
Class members, all or part of the ill-gotten profits it received from the sale or
lease of the Class Vehicles, or make full restitution to Plaintiffs and Class
members;

H.

An award of attorneys fees and costs, as allowed by law;

I.

An award of prejudgment and postjudgment interest, as provided by law;


CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
Page 26

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 27 of 38

J.

Leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence produced at trial; and

K.

Such other and further relief as the Court deems appropriate under the
circumstances.

JURY TRIAL DEMAND


Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all issues so triable.

Dated this 25th day of September, 2015.

Respectfully submitted,

By:
/s/ Jennifer L Jonak
JENNIFER L. JONAK (OSB #115802)
JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
85100 Cloverdale Road
Creswell, Oregon 97426
Telephone: (510) 501-6276
Facsimile: (510) 291-2910
Email: jenny@jonak.com

JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)


NANCY L. FINEMAN (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
JUSTIN T. BERGER (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000
Facsimile: (650) 692-3606
Email: jcotchett@cpmlegal.com
Email: nfineman@cpmlegal.com
Email: jberger@cpmlegal.com
Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT


Page 27

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

EXHIBIT 1

Page 28 of 38

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 29 of 38

UNITED STATES ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION AGENCY

WASHINGTON, D.C. 20460

SEP 1 8 2015

OFFICE OF
ENFORCEMENT AND
COMPLIANCE ASSURANCE

VIA CERTIFIED MAIL


RETURN RECEIPT REQUESTED

Volkswagen AG
Audi AG
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Thru :
David Geanacopoulos
Executive Vice President Public Affairs and General Counsel
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
Stuart Johnson
General Manager
Engineering and Environmental Office
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, MI 48326

Re:

Notice of Violation

Dear Mr. Geanacopoulos and Mr. Johnson:


The United States Environmental Protection Agency (EPA) has investigated and continues to
investigate Volkswagen AG, Audi AG, and Volkswagen Group of America (co ll ectively, VW)
for compliance with the C lean Air Act (CAA), 42 U.S.C. 740 1- 767 1q, and its implementing
regulations. As detailed in this Notice of Vio lation (NOV), the EPA has determined that VW
manufactured and installed defeat devices in certain model year 2009 through 20 15 diesel lightduty vehicl es equipped with 2.0 liter engines. These defeat devices bypass, defeat, or render
inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission contro l system that exist to comply w ith CAA
em ission standards. Therefore, VW violated section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(3)(B). Additionally, the EPA has determined that, due to the existence of the defeat

Internet Address (URL) httpJ/www.epa.gov


Recycled/Recyclable Printed with Vegetable Oil Based Inks on 100% Postconsumer, Process Chlorine Free Recycled Paper

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 30 of 38

devices in these vehicles, these vehicles do not conform in all materia l respects to the vehicle
specifications described in the applications for the certificates of confo rmity that purportedly
cover them . Therefo re, VW also violated secti on 203(a)(l ) of the CAA, 42 U .S .C. 7522(a)( l ),
by selling, offering for sale, introducing into commerce, deli vering for introducti on into
commerce, or importing these vehicles, or for causing any of the foregoing acts.
Law Governing Alleged V iolations
This NOV arises under Part A of Title II of the CAA, 42 U.S.C . 752 1-7554, and the
regulations promulgated thereunder. In creating the CAA, Congress fo und, in part, that "the
increasing use of motor vehicles . . . has resulted in mounting dangers to the public health and
welfare." CAA IOl (a)(2), 42 U.S.C. 740l (a)(2). Congress' purpose in creating the CAA, in
part, was "to protect and enhance the quality of the Nation ' s air resources so as to promote the
public health and welfare and the productive capacity of its popu lation," and "to initiate and
accelerate a national research and development program to achieve the preventi on and control of
air pollution." CAA lOl (b)(l)- (2), 42 U.S.C. 740l (b)(l )- (2). The CAA and the regulations
promulgated thereunder aim to protect human health and the environment by reducing emissions
of nitrogen oxides (NOx) and other pollutants from mobil e sources of air pollution. N itrogen
oxides are a famil y of highly reactive gases that play a major ro le in the atmospheric reactions
with volatile organic compounds (VOCs) that produce ozone (smog) on hot summer days.
Breathing ozone can tri gger a variety of health problems including chest pain, coughing, throat
in-itation, and congestion. Breathing ozone can also worsen bronchitis, emphysema, and asthma.
Children are at greatest risk of experiencing negative health impacts fro m exposure to ozone.
The EPA's allegati ons here concern light-duty motor vehicles fo r which 40 C .F.R. Part 86 sets
emi ssion standards and test procedures and section 203 of the CAA, 42 U .S.C. 7522, sets
compliance provisions. Light-duty vehicles must satisfy emission standards for certain air
pollutants, including NOx. 40 C.F.R. 86. 18 11 -04. T he EPA administers a certification program
to ensure that every vehicle introduced into United States commerce satisfi es applicable emission
standards. Under this program, the EPA issues certificates of conformity (COCs), and thereby
approves the introduction of vehicles into United States commerce.
To obtain a COC, a light-duty vehicle manufacturer must submit a COC application to the EPA
for each test group of vehicles that it intends to enter into United States commerce. 40 C.F.R.
86.1843-01 . T he COC application must include, am ong other things, a li st of a ll auxiliary
emission control devices (AEC Ds) installed on the vehicles. 40 C.F.R. 86. 1844-0l (d)(l l ). An
AECD is "any element of design which senses temperature, vehicle speed, engine RPM,
transmission gear, manifo ld vacuum, or any other parameter for the purpose of activating,
modulating, delaying, or deactivating the operation of any part of the emission control system ."
40 C. F.R. 86. 1803 -0 I. The COC application must also include "a justification fo r each AECD,
the parameters they sense and control, a detailed justification of each AECD that results in a
reduction in effectiveness of the emission control system, and [a] rati onale for why it is not a
defeat device." 40 C.F.R. 86. 1844-0 l (d)(l l ).
A defeat device is an AECD "that reduces the effectiveness of the emission control system under
conditions which may reasonably be expected to be encountered in normal vehicle operation and

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 31 of 38

use, unless: (1 ) Such conditions are substantially included in the Federal emissio n test procedure;
(2) The need for the AECD is justified in terms of protecting the vehicle against dam age o r
accident; (3) T he AECD does not go beyond the requirements of engine starting; or (4) The
AECD applies o nly for emergency vehicles .. . ." 40 C.F. R . 86. 1803 -01 .
Motor vehicles equipped with defeat devices, such as those at issue here, cannot be certified .
EPA, Advisory Circular Number 24: Proh;bUion on use of Emission Control Defeat Dev;ce
(Dec. 11 , 1972); see also 40 C.F. R. 86-1 809-0 1, 86-1 809-1 0, 86-1809-1 2. Electronic control
system s which may receive inputs from multiple sensors and control multiple actuators that
affect the emission control system ' s performance are AECDs. EPA, Advisory Circular Number
24-2: Prohibition of Emission Control Defeat Devices - Optional Objective Criteria (Dec. 6,
1978). "Such elements of design could be control system logic (i.e ., computer software), and/or
calibrations, and/or hardware items." Id.
" Vehicles are covered by a certificate of conformity onl y if they are in all material respects as
descri bed in the manufac turer' s application for certification . .. ." 40 C.F.R. 86. 1848-1 O(c)(6).
Similarly, a COC issued by EPA, including those issued to VW, state express ly, " [t]his
certificate covers only those new motor vehicles or vehicle engines w hich conform, in all
material respects, to the design specifications" described in the applicatio n fo r that C OC. See
also 40 C.F.R . 86. 1844-01 (listing required content for COC applications), 86.1 848-0 1(b)
(authorizing the EPA to issue COCs on any terms that are necessary o r appropriate to assure that
new moto r vehicles satisfy the requirements of the CAA and its regulatio ns).
The CAA makes it a violation "for any person to manufacture or sell , or offer to sell , or install,
any part or component intended for use with, or as part of, any motor vehicle o r motor vehicle
engine, w here a principal effect of the part or compo nent is to bypass, defeat, or render
inoperative any device or element of design installed on or in a m otor vehicle o r m otor vehicle
engine in compliance with regulati ons under this subchapter, and where the person knows o r
sho uld know that such part or component is being offered for sale o r installed for such use or put
to such use." CAA 203(a)(3)(B), 42 U.S .C. 7522(a)(3)(B); 40 C.F. R . 86. l 854-1 2(a)(3)(ii).
Additionally, manufacturers are prohibited from selling, offering fo r sale, introducing into
commerce, delivering for introduction into commerce, or importing, any new motor vehicle
unless that vehicle is covered by an EPA-issued COC. CAA 203(a)( l ), 42 U .S.C. 7522(a)(l ) ;
40 C.F. R . 86. 1854-1 2(a)( l ). It is also a violation to cause any of the foregoing acts. CAA
203(a), 42 U.S.C. 7522(a); 40 C.F. R. 86-1 854-1 2(a).
Alleged Violations
Each V W vehicle identified by the table below has AECDs that were not described in the
applicatio n fo r the COC that purportedly covers the vehic le. Specifically, VW manufactured and
installed software in the electronic control module (ECM) of these vehicles that sensed w hen the
vehicle was bei ng tested for compliance with E PA emission standards. For ease of reference, the
EPA is calling this the "switch. " The "switch" senses whether the vehicle is being tested or not
based on vario us inputs including the positi on of the steering wheel, vehicl e speed, the duration
of the engine' s operation, and barometric pressure. These inputs precisely track the parameters of
the federal test procedure used for emission testing for EPA certification purposes. During EPA

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 32 of 38

emission testing, the vehicles' ECM ran software which produced compliant emission results
under an ECM calibration that VW referred to as the "dyno calibration" (referring to the
equipment used in emissions testing, called a dynamometer). At all other times during normal
vehicle operation, the "switch" was activated and the vehicle ECM software ran a separate "road
calibration" which reduced the effectiveness of the emission control system (specificall y the
selective catalytic reduction or the lean NOx trap). As a result, emissions of NOx increased by a
factor of l Oto 40 times above the EPA compliant levels, depending on the type of drive cycle
(e.g., city, hi ghway).
The California Air Resources Board (CARB) and the EPA were alerted to emissions problems
with these vehicles in May 20 14 when the West Virginia University' s (WVU) Center for
Alternative Fuels, Engines & Emissions published results of a study commissioned by the
International Council on Clean Transportation that found significantly higher in-use emissions
from two light duty diese l vehicles (a 20 12 Jetta and a 2013 Passat). Over the course of the year
following the publication of the WVU study, VW continued to assert to CARB and the EPA that
the increased emissions from these vehicles could be attributed to various technical issues and
unexpected in-use conditions. VW issued a voluntary recall in December 20 I 4 to address the
issue. CARB, in coordination with the EPA, conducted follow up testing of these vehicles both
in the laboratory and during normal road operation to confirm the efficacy of the recall. When
the testing showed only a limited benefit to the recall, CARB broadened the testing to pinpoint
the exact technical nature of the vehicles' poor performance, and to investigate why the vehicles'
onboard diagnostic system was not detecting the increased emissions. None of the potential
technical issues suggested by VW explained the higher test results consistently confirmed during
CARB's testing. It became clear that CARB and the EPA would not approve certificates of
conformity for VW's 2016 model year diesel vehicles until VW could adequately explain the
anomalous emissions and ensure the agencies that the 201 6 model year vehicles would not have
similar issues. Only then did VW admit it had designed and installed a defeat device in these
vehicles in the form of a sophi sticated software algorithm that detected when a vehicle was
undergoing emissions testing.
VW knew or should have known that its "road calibration" and "swi tch" together bypass, defeat,
or render inoperative elements of the vehicle design related to compliance with the CAA
emission standards. This is apparent given the design of these defeat devices. As described
above, the software was designed to track the parameters of the federal test procedure and cause
emission control systems to underperform when the software determined that the vehicle was not
undergoing the federal test procedure.
VW' s " road calibration" and "switch" are AECDs 1 that were neither described nor justified in
the applicable COC applications, and are illegal defeat devices. Therefore each vehicle identified
by the table below does not conform in a material respect to the vehicle specifications described
in the COC application. As such, VW violated section 203(a)(l) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C.
7522(a)(l ), each time it sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, delivered for
introduction into commerce, or imported (or caused any of the foregoing with respect to) one of
the hundreds of thousands of new motor vehicles within these test groups. Additionally, VW
I

There may be numerous engine maps associated with VW 's " road calibration" that are AECDs, and that may a lso
be defeat devices. For ease of descripti on, the EPA is referring to these maps collective ly as the " road calibration."

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 33 of 38

violated section 203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S .C. 7522(a)(3)(B), each time it manufactured
and installed into these vehicles an ECM equipped with the "switch" and "road calibration."
The vehicles are identified by the table below. All vehicles are equipped with 2.0 liter diesel
engmes.

Model Year

EPA Test Group

Make and Model(s)

2009
2009
2010
20 1 l
20 12

9VWXV02.03 5N
9VWXV02.0U5N
A VWXV02.0U5N
BVWXV02.0U5N
CVWXV02.0U5N

2012
2013

CVWXV02.0U4S
DVWXV02.0U5N

VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen


VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen
VW Golf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
VW Go lf, VW Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW
Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3
VW Passat
VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW
Jetta, VW Jetta Sportwagen, Audi A3

20 13
20 14

DVWXV02.0U4S
EVWXV02.0U5N

2014
2015

EVWXV02.0U4S
FVGA V02.0V AL

VW Passat
VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW
Jetta, VW Jetta Spo11wagen, Audi A3
VW Passat
VW Beetle, VW Beetle Convertible, VW Golf, VW
Golf Soortwagen, VW Jetta, VW Passat, Audi A3

Enforcement
The EPA's investigation into thi s matter is continuing. The above table represents specific
violations that the EPA believes, at thi s point, are suffic iently supported by evidence to warrant
the allegations in this NOV. The EPA may find additional violations as the investigation
continues.
T he EPA is authorized to refer this matter to the United States Department of Justice for
initiation of appropriate enforcement action. Among other things, persons who violate section
203(a)(3)(B) of the CAA, 42 U.S.C. 7522(a)(3)(B), are subject to a civil penalty of up to
$3,750 for each violation that occurred on or after January 13, 2009) 11 CAA 205(a), 42 U.S.C.
7524(a); 40 C.F.R. 19.4. In addition, any manufacturer who, on or after January 13, 2009,
sold, offered for sale, introduced into commerce, delivered for introduction into commerce,
imported, or caused any of the foregoing acts with respect to any new motor vehicle that was not
covered by an EPA-issued COC is subj ect, among other things, to a civi l penalty of up to
$37,500 for each violationJ21 CAA 205(a), 42 U.S.C. 7524(a); 40 C.F.R. 19.4. The EPA
may seek, and district courts may order, equitable remedies to further address these alleged
violations. CAA 204(a), 42 U.S.C. 7523(a).
$2,750 for violations occurring prior to January 13, 2009.
l2 J $32,500 for violations occurring prior to January 13 , 2009.

Ill

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 34 of 38

The EPA is available to discuss this matter with you. Please contact Meetu Kaul , the EPA
attorney assigned to this matter, to discuss this NOV. Ms. Kaul can be reached as fo llows:

Meetu Kaul
U.S . EPA, Ai r Enforcement Division
1200 Pennsylvania Avenue, NW
William Jefferson Clinton Federal Building
Washington, DC 20460
(202) 564-5472
kaul.meetu@epa.gov

Director
Air Enforcement Division
Office of Civil Enforcement

Copy:
Todd Sax, California Air Resources Board
Walter Benjamin Fisherow, United States Department of Justice
Stuart Drake, Kirkland & Ellis LLP

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

EXHIBIT 2

Page 35 of 38

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

www.arb.ca.gc,vhMMsrel/in_use_coml,'lliall.l8J.aer.htm

Page 36 of 38

Air Resources Board


Mary D. Nichols, Chair
9480 Telstar Avenue, Suite 4
Matthew Rodriquez
Secretary for

El Monte, California 91 731 www.arb.ca.gov

Edmund G. Brown Jr.

Governor

Environmental Protection

Reference No. IUC-2015-007

September 18, 2015

Volkswagen AG
Audi AG
Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
Through:
David Geanacopoulos
Executive Vice President and General Counsel, Government Affairs
Volkswagen Group of America
2200 Ferdinand Porsche Drive
Herndon, VA 20171
Stuart Johnson
General Manager
Engineering and Environmental Office
Volkswagen Group of America
3800 Hamlin Road
Auburn Hills, Ml 48326
Re: Admission of Defeat Device and California Air Resources Board's Requests
Dear Mr. Geanacopoulos and Mr. Johnson:
In order to protect public health and the environment from harmful pollutants, the
California Air Resources Board (GARB) rigorously implements its vehicle regulations
through its certification , in use compliance, and enforcement programs. In addition to
the new vehicle certification process, GARB regularly tests automobiles to ensure their
emissions performance is as expected throughout their useful life, and performs
investigative testing if warranted. CARB was engaged in dialogue with our European
counterparts concerning high in use emissions from light duty diesels. CARB deployed
a number of efforts using portable measurement systems and other approaches to
increase our understanding for the California fleet. In 2014, the International Council for
Clean Transportation (ICCT) and West Virginia University (WVU) identified through their
test program, and brought to the CARB's and the United States Environmental
Protection Agency's (EPA) attention, concerns of elevated oxides of nitrogen (NOx)
emissions over real world driving. The ICCT actions were consistent and
The energy C/18/Ser,oe facing Gal1fomfa is real. Every CB/ifomlan needs to take imme<:liate action to f9duce energy consumption.
For a list oJ slmp/8 ways yoo can reduce demtJnr:J Md cul your e,,,,rgy oosts. see our website: http;/lwww arb ca goy.

California Environmental Protection Agency


Printed on Recycled P8f)fJ(

.,.J/www.atb.ca.gov/newsrell'in_use_compliancejellet.hlm

2/4

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

www.arb.ca.gc,vhMMsrel/in_use_coml,'lliall.l8J.aer.htm

Page 37 of 38

Mr. Geanacopoulos and Mr.Johnson:


September 18, 2015
Page 2

complementary to our activities. This prompted CARS to start an investigation and


discussions with the Volkswagen Group of America 0fW) on the reasons behind these
high NOx emissions observed on their 2.0 liter diesel vehicles over real world driving
conditions. As you know, these discussions over several months culminated in VW's
admission in early September 2015 that it has, since model year 2009, employed a
defeat device to circumvent GARB and the EPA emission test procedures.
VW initiated testing to replicate the ICCTIWVU testing and identify the technical reasons
for the high on-road emissions. WJ shared the results of this testing and a proposed
recalibration fix for the Gen1 (Lean NOx Trap technology) and Gen2 (Selective Catalytic
Reduction (SGR) technology) with CARB staff on December 2, 2014. Based on this
meeting, CARB and EPA at that time agreed that WI/ could implement the software
recall; however, CARB cautioned VW that if our confirmatory testing showed that the fix
did not address the on-road NOx issues, they would have to conduct another recall.
Based on this meeting, VW initiated a voluntary recall in December 2014 which,
according to VW, affected approximately 500,000 vehicles in the United States (-50,000
in California). The recall affected all 2009 to 2014 model-year diesel fueled vehicles
equipped with Gen1 and Gen2 technology. This recall was claimed to have fixed
among other things, the increased real world driving NOx issue.
CARB commenced confirmatory testing on May 6, 2015 to determine the efficacy of the
recall on both the Gen1 and Gen2 vehicles. CARB confirmatory testing was completed
on a 2012 model~year Gen2 WI/, test group CWJX02.0U4S, to be followed with Gen1
testing . GARB staff tested this vehicle on required certification cycles (FTP, US06 and
HWFET) and over-the-road using a Portable Emission Measurement Systems (PEMS).
On some certification cycles, the recall calibration resulted in the vehicle failing the NOx
standard. Over-the-road PEMS testing showed that the recall calibration did reduce the
emissions to some degree but NOx emissions were still significantly higher than
expected.
To have a more controlled evaluation of the high NOx observed over the road, CARB
developed a special dynamometer cycle which consisted of driving the Phase 2 portion
of the FTP repeatedly. This special cycte revealed that VW's recall calibration did
increase Diesel Exhaust Fluid (DEF) dosing upon initial startup; however, dosing was
not sufficient to keep NOx emission levels from rising throughout the cycle. This
resulted in uncontrolled NOx emissions despite the SGR reaching sufficient operating
temperatures.
CARB shared its test results with WI/ on July 8, 2015. GARB also shared its results
with the EPA Several technical meetings with VW followed where VW disclosed that
Gen1 , Gen2 and the 2015 model-year improved SCR vehicle (known as the Gen3) had
a second calibration intended to run only during certification testing. During a meeting
on September 3, 2015, WI/ admitted to CARB and EPA staff that these vehicles were
ThiJ eoorgy chaJJenge facing California is real. Every Califomlen noods to take immediate act.ion to reduce energy consumption.
For a /,st of simple ways you can reduce oomand and cvt your ooorgy oosls, see our we~e: http://www arb. ca.gov.

California Environmental Protection Agency


Pfint9CI on Rscyc/6d Paper

.,.J/www.atb.cagov/newsrell'in_use_compliancejellet.hlm

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1

Filed 09/25/15

www.arb.ca.gc,vhMMsrel/in_use_coml,'lliall.l8J.aer.htm

Page 38 of 38

Mr. Geanacopoulos and Mr.Johnson:


September 18, 2015
Page 3

designed and manufactured with a defeat device to bypass, defeat, or render


inoperative elements of the vehicles' emission control system. This defeat device was
neither described nor justified in the certification applications submitted to EPA and
CARB. Therefore, each vehicle so equipped would not be covered by a valid federal
Certificate of Conformity {COC) or CARB Executive Order {EO) and would be in
violation of federal and state law.
Based upon our testing and discussions with VW, CARB has determined that the
previous recall did not address the high on-road NOx emissions, and also resulted in
the vehicle failing certification standards. Therefore, the recall is deemed ineffective
and is deemed unapproved. VW must immediately initiate discussions witlh CARB to
detennine the appropriate corrective action to rectify the emission non-compliance and
return these vehicles to the claimed certified configuration. CARB program and
enforcement staff is prepared to work closely wi1h VW to find corrective actions to bring
these vehicles into compliance.
CARB has also initiated an enforcement investigation of VW regarding all model-year
2009 through 2015 light-duty diesel vehicles equipped with 2.0 liter engines. We expect
VW's full cooperation in this investigation so this issue can be addressed expeditiously
and appropriately.

Annette Hebert, Chief


Emissions Compliance, Automotive Regulations and Science Division

cc:

Mr. Byron Bunker, Director


Compliance Division
Office of Transportation and Air Quality
Office of Air and Radiation
U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
Mr. Linc Wehrly, Director
Environmental Protection Agency
Light-Duty Vehicle Center
2000 Traverwood Drive
Ann Arbor, Ml 48105
Dr. Todd P. Sax, Chief
Enforcement Division

California Air Resources Board


Tiie enerpy c/Jallenoe f8Cfng CBlifomla ls real. Every Cs/Jfomlan needs to tal<e immediate action to redlJOO energy oonsumption.
For o list of simple w11>-3 )'Oii can reduce demefld (Jfl(J cut your energy costs. sec our website !J.ttp/lwww arb.ca gov.

California Environmental Protection Agency


PMtea on Recycled Paper

.,.J/www.atb.ca.gov/newsrell'in_use_compliancejellet.hlm

4/4

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-1

Filed 09/25/15

Page 1 of 2

CIVIL COVER SHEET

-6 5HY

7KH-6FLYLOFRYHUVKHHWDQGWKHLQIRUPDWLRQFRQWDLQHGKHUHLQQHLWKHUUHSODFHQRUVXSSOHPHQWWKHILOLQJDQGVHUYLFHRISOHDGLQJVRURWKHUSDSHUVDVUHTXLUHGE\ODZH[FHSWDV
SURYLGHGE\ORFDOUXOHVRIFRXUW7KLVIRUPDSSURYHGE\WKH-XGLFLDO&RQIHUHQFHRIWKH8QLWHG6WDWHVLQ6HSWHPEHULVUHTXLUHGIRUWKHXVHRIWKH&OHUNRI&RXUWIRUWKH
SXUSRVHRILQLWLDWLQJWKHFLYLOGRFNHWVKHHW(SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.)

I. (a) PLAINTIFFS

DEFENDANTS

DOWNING-MOORE, EMILY; MOORE, THADDEUS; BLALACK,


ZACHARY A.; BLALACK, NATALIE B.,

VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA; VOLKSWAGEN


AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT; AUDI AG

Lane

(b)&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG3ODLQWLII

&RXQW\RI5HVLGHQFHRI)LUVW/LVWHG'HIHQGDQW

(EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES)

Fairfax, VA

(IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY)


127( ,1/$1'&21'(01$7,21&$6(686(7+(/2&$7,212)
7+(75$&72)/$1',192/9('

$WWRUQH\V(If Known)

(c)$WWRUQH\V(Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number)

See attachment

II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION(Place an X in One Box Only)


u  86*RYHUQPHQW
3ODLQWLII

u  )HGHUDO4XHVWLRQ
(U.S. Government Not a Party)

u  86*RYHUQPHQW
'HIHQGDQW

u  'LYHUVLW\
(Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III)

III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff


(For Diversity Cases Only)
PTF
&LWL]HQRI7KLV6WDWH
u 

DEF
u 

and One Box for Defendant)


PTF
DEF
,QFRUSRUDWHGor3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
u 
u 
RI%XVLQHVV,Q7KLV6WDWH

&LWL]HQRI$QRWKHU6WDWH

u 

u 

,QFRUSRUDWHGand3ULQFLSDO3ODFH
RI%XVLQHVV,Q$QRWKHU6WDWH

u 

u 

&LWL]HQRU6XEMHFWRID
)RUHLJQ&RXQWU\

u 

u 

)RUHLJQ1DWLRQ

u 

u 

IV. NATURE OF SUIT(Place an X in One Box Only)


CONTRACT

TORTS

u
u
u
u

,QVXUDQFH
0DULQH
0LOOHU$FW
1HJRWLDEOH,QVWUXPHQW
5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
 (QIRUFHPHQWRI-XGJPHQW
0HGLFDUH$FW
5HFRYHU\RI'HIDXOWHG
6WXGHQW/RDQV
 ([FOXGHV9HWHUDQV
5HFRYHU\RI2YHUSD\PHQW
RI9HWHUDQV%HQHILWV
6WRFNKROGHUV6XLWV
2WKHU&RQWUDFW
&RQWUDFW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
)UDQFKLVH

u
u
u
u
u
u

REAL PROPERTY
/DQG&RQGHPQDWLRQ
)RUHFORVXUH
5HQW/HDVH (MHFWPHQW
7RUWVWR/DQG
7RUW3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
$OO2WKHU5HDO3URSHUW\

u
u
u
u
u
u
u

 PERSONAL INJURY


u $LUSODQH
u $LUSODQH3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
u $VVDXOW/LEHO
6ODQGHU
u )HGHUDO(PSOR\HUV
/LDELOLW\
u 0DULQH
u 0DULQH3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
u 0RWRU9HKLFOH
u 0RWRU9HKLFOH
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO
,QMXU\
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
0HGLFDO0DOSUDFWLFH
CIVIL RIGHTS
u 2WKHU&LYLO5LJKWV
u 9RWLQJ
u (PSOR\PHQW
u +RXVLQJ
$FFRPPRGDWLRQV
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV
(PSOR\PHQW
u $PHUZ'LVDELOLWLHV
2WKHU
u (GXFDWLRQ

FORFEITURE/PENALTY

PERSONAL INJURY
u 3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u +HDOWK&DUH
3KDUPDFHXWLFDO
3HUVRQDO,QMXU\
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
u $VEHVWRV3HUVRQDO
,QMXU\3URGXFW
/LDELOLW\
 PERSONAL PROPERTY
u 2WKHU)UDXG
u 7UXWKLQ/HQGLQJ
u 2WKHU3HUVRQDO
3URSHUW\'DPDJH
u 3URSHUW\'DPDJH
3URGXFW/LDELOLW\
PRISONER PETITIONS
Habeas Corpus:
u $OLHQ'HWDLQHH
u 0RWLRQVWR9DFDWH
6HQWHQFH
u *HQHUDO
u 'HDWK3HQDOW\
Other:
u 0DQGDPXV 2WKHU
u &LYLO5LJKWV
u 3ULVRQ&RQGLWLRQ
u &LYLO'HWDLQHH
&RQGLWLRQVRI
&RQILQHPHQW

u 'UXJ5HODWHG6HL]XUH
RI3URSHUW\86&
u 2WKHU

BANKRUPTCY
u $SSHDO86&
u :LWKGUDZDO
86&
PROPERTY RIGHTS
u &RS\ULJKWV
u 3DWHQW
u 7UDGHPDUN

u
u
u
u
u
u

LABOR
)DLU/DERU6WDQGDUGV
$FW
/DERU0DQDJHPHQW
5HODWLRQV
5DLOZD\/DERU$FW
)DPLO\DQG0HGLFDO
/HDYH$FW
2WKHU/DERU/LWLJDWLRQ
(PSOR\HH5HWLUHPHQW
,QFRPH6HFXULW\$FW

u
u
u
u
u

SOCIAL SECURITY
+,$ II
%ODFN/XQJ 
',:&',::  J
66,'7LWOH;9,
56,  J

FEDERAL TAX SUITS


u 7D[HV 863ODLQWLII
RU'HIHQGDQW
u ,567KLUG3DUW\
86&

OTHER STATUTES
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u
u

)DOVH&ODLPV$FW
6WDWH5HDSSRUWLRQPHQW
$QWLWUXVW
%DQNVDQG%DQNLQJ
&RPPHUFH
'HSRUWDWLRQ
5DFNHWHHU,QIOXHQFHGDQG
&RUUXSW2UJDQL]DWLRQV
&RQVXPHU&UHGLW
&DEOH6DW79
6HFXULWLHV&RPPRGLWLHV
([FKDQJH
2WKHU6WDWXWRU\$FWLRQV
$JULFXOWXUDO$FWV
(QYLURQPHQWDO0DWWHUV
)UHHGRPRI,QIRUPDWLRQ
$FW
$UELWUDWLRQ
$GPLQLVWUDWLYH3URFHGXUH
$FW5HYLHZRU$SSHDORI
$JHQF\'HFLVLRQ
&RQVWLWXWLRQDOLW\RI
6WDWH6WDWXWHV

IMMIGRATION
u 1DWXUDOL]DWLRQ$SSOLFDWLRQ
u 2WKHU,PPLJUDWLRQ
$FWLRQV

V. ORIGIN(Place an X in One Box Only)


u  2ULJLQDO
3URFHHGLQJ

u  5HPRYHGIURP
6WDWH&RXUW

u 

5HPDQGHGIURP
$SSHOODWH&RXUW

u  5HLQVWDWHGRU
5HRSHQHG

u  7UDQVIHUUHGIURP
$QRWKHU'LVWULFW

u  0XOWLGLVWULFW
/LWLJDWLRQ

(specify)

VI. CAUSE OF ACTION

&LWHWKH86&LYLO6WDWXWHXQGHUZKLFK\RXDUHILOLQJ(Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity)


28 U.S.C. 1332
%ULHIGHVFULSWLRQRIFDXVH

Class Action for Consumer Fraud/Unfair Trade Practices

u &+(&.,)7+,6,6$CLASS ACTION
VII. REQUESTED IN
81'(558/()5&Y3
COMPLAINT:
VIII. RELATED CASE(S)
(See instructions):
IF ANY
-8'*(
'$7(

&+(&.<(6RQO\LIGHPDQGHGLQFRPSODLQW
u <HV
u 1R
JURY DEMAND:

DEMAND $

'2&.(7180%(5

6,*1$785(2)$77251(<2)5(&25'

/s/ Jennifer L. Jonak, OSB #115802

09/25/2015
FOR OFFICE USE ONLY
5(&(,37

$02817

$33/<,1*,)3

-8'*(

0$*-8'*(

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-1

Filed 09/25/15

Attachment to JS 44 Civil Cover Sheet

Counsel for Plaintiffs:


JENNIFER L. JONAK (OSB #115802)
JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
85100 Cloverdale Road
Creswell, Oregon 97426
Telephone: (510) 501-6276
JOSEPH W. COTCHETT (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
NANCY L. FINEMAN (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
JUSTIN T. BERGER (Pro Hac Vice to be filed)
COTCHETT, PITRE & McCARTHY, LLP
840 Malcolm Road, Suite 200
Burlingame, California 94010
Telephone: (650) 697-6000

Page 2 of 2

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-2

Filed 09/25/15

Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the

District
of Oregon
__________
District
of __________
EMILY DOWNING-MOORE,THADDEUS MOORE,
ZACHARY A. BLALACK, and NATALIE B.
BLALACK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s)

v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
a New Jersey corporation, VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a German corporation,
and AUDI AG, a German corporation.
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION


To: (Defendants name and address) VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
c/o CORPORATION SERVICE COMPANY
1127 BROADWAY STREET NE STE 310
SALEM, OR 97301

A lawsuit has been filed against you.


Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Jennifer L. Jonak
JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
85100 Cloverdale Road
Creswell, Oregon 97426

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-2

Filed 09/25/15

Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.


PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or


, who is

u I served the summons on (name of individual)


designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-3

Filed 09/25/15

Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the

District
of Oregon
__________
District
of __________
EMILY DOWNING-MOORE,THADDEUS MOORE,
ZACHARY A. BLALACK, and NATALIE B.
BLALACK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s)

v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
a New Jersey corporation, VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a German corporation,
and AUDI AG, a German corporation.
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION


To: (Defendants name and address) VOLKSWAGEN AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT
D-38436 WOLFSBURG
GERMANY

A lawsuit has been filed against you.


Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Jennifer L. Jonak
JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
85100 Cloverdale Road
Creswell, Oregon 97426

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-3

Filed 09/25/15

Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.


PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or


, who is

u I served the summons on (name of individual)


designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-4

Filed 09/25/15

Page 1 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT


for the

District
of Oregon
__________
District
of __________
EMILY DOWNING-MOORE,THADDEUS MOORE,
ZACHARY A. BLALACK, and NATALIE B.
BLALACK, on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,
Plaintiff(s)

v.
VOLKSWAGEN GROUP OF AMERICA, INC.
a New Jersey corporation, VOLKSWAGEN
AKTIENGESELLSCHAFT, a German corporation,
and AUDI AG, a German corporation.
Defendant(s)

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Civil Action No.

SUMMONS IN A CIVIL ACTION


To: (Defendants name and address) AUDI AG
85045 INGOLSTADT
GERMANY

A lawsuit has been filed against you.


Within 21 days after service of this summons on you (not counting the day you received it) or 60 days if you
are the United States or a United States agency, or an officer or employee of the United States described in Fed. R. Civ.
P. 12 (a)(2) or (3) you must serve on the plaintiff an answer to the attached complaint or a motion under Rule 12 of
the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The answer or motion must be served on the plaintiff or plaintiffs attorney,
whose name and address are: Jennifer L. Jonak
JONAK LAW GROUP, P.C.
85100 Cloverdale Road
Creswell, Oregon 97426

If you fail to respond, judgment by default will be entered against you for the relief demanded in the complaint.
You also must file your answer or motion with the court.

CLERK OF COURT
Date:
Signature of Clerk or Deputy Clerk

Case 6:15-cv-01825-AA

Document 1-4

Filed 09/25/15

Page 2 of 2

AO 440 (Rev. 06/12) Summons in a Civil Action (Page 2)

Civil Action No.


PROOF OF SERVICE
(This section should not be filed with the court unless required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 4 (l))
This summons for (name of individual and title, if any)
was received by me on (date)

u I personally served the summons on the individual at (place)


on (date)

; or

u I left the summons at the individuals residence or usual place of abode with (name)
, a person of suitable age and discretion who resides there,
on (date)

, and mailed a copy to the individuals last known address; or


, who is

u I served the summons on (name of individual)


designated by law to accept service of process on behalf of (name of organization)
on (date)

; or

u I returned the summons unexecuted because

; or

u Other (specify):
.
My fees are $

for travel and $

for services, for a total of $

I declare under penalty of perjury that this information is true.

Date:
Servers signature

Printed name and title

Servers address

Additional information regarding attempted service, etc:

0.00