RICO Claims Go Forward in Eco-Diesel Case Against Chrysler
Plaintiffs suing Chrysler over its “clean diesel” engines may pursue racketeering claims, according to a federal judge's ruling.
March 19, 2018 at 05:19 PM
5 minute read
Plaintiffs suing Chrysler over its “clean diesel” engines may pursue racketeering claims, according to a federal judge's ruling.
In a decision on Thursday, U.S. District Judge Edward Chen refused to dismiss the multidistrict litigation in the Northern District of California, concluding that plaintiffs who had purchased Chrysler's Jeep Grand Cherokee SUVs and Dodge Ram 1500 pickups with “EcoDiesel” engines could pursue claims under the U.S. Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act. In particular, he found that plaintiffs had alleged sufficient facts that Fiat Chrysler AV and parts supplier Robert Bosch GmbH had conspired to fraud regulators about their “clean diesel” vehicles, for which consumers then overpaid.
“By deceiving regulators, Defendants were able to sell Class Vehicles that emitted NOx at levels up to 20 times [the] legal limits and that contained one or more defeat devices,” Chen wrote. “This deceit plausibly caused Plaintiffs to overpay for the defective Class Vehicles by an amount directly attributable to the alleged wrongful conduct of the Defendants.”
Elizabeth Cabraser, lead counsel in the Chrysler MDL, said the ruling would give “a green light to our claims.”
“We will continue to hold Fiat and Bosch accountable for the economic and environmental harm they caused,” wrote Cabraser, of San Francisco's Lieff, Cabraser, Heimann & Bernstein. “Fiat Chrysler cheated U.S. emissions tests and emitted harmful pollutants at illegally high levels far in excess of what would be considered environmentally-friendly. Struggling to compete in the U.S. 'clean' diesel market, Fiat like Volkswagen fought dirty and concealed their illegal emissions software from regulators and consumers alike. In fact, Plaintiffs' on road testing revealed that the Class vehicles produced NOX over 20 times the legal limits. Defendants' cheating didn't stop with the regulators; evasion of emissions standards was simply the gateway to cheating consumers, who paid many thousands of dollars for 'eco' vehicles that were anything but. When Defendants cheated, consumers paid the price.”
Robert Giuffra, a partner at New York's Sullivan & Cromwell, represented Chrysler, CEO Sergio Marchionne and a unit that manufactured the engines. He declined to comment. (He also represented Volkswagen in its emissions case.)
Bosch attorney Matthew Slater of Cleary Gottlieb Steen & Hamilton in Washington, D.C., did not respond to a request for comment.
Chen's ruling comes a month after U.S. District Judge Thomas Ludington of the Eastern District of Michigan refused to dismiss a similar case against General Motors and Bosch over diesel trucks. Both decisions come in cases filed in the wake of a $14.7 billion settlement in 2016 with Volkswagen.
Unlike Volkswagen, other automakers haven't admitted that they installed emissions-cheating devices in their vehicles. They have brought motions to dismiss based largely on standing and federal pre-emption grounds. In the Chrysler case, Chen appointed Kenneth Feinberg as settlement master to resolve the litigation. One of the lawsuits also is a case the U.S. Department of Justice brought against Chrysler, though it was not affected by last week's ruling.
Chen cited the GM decision several times in his ruling. In the GM case, Ludington had acknowledged that other courts had found future damages or profits too speculative to uphold RICO claims but noted that plaintiffs in his case had alleged financial injuries that occurred at the time consumers bought the cars—about $9,000 over what they would have paid for a comparable gas car.
Chen, in the Chrysler case, came to a similar conclusion. Plaintiffs in the Chrysler case had alleged they paid between $3,120 and $5,000 more for the “EcoDiesel” vehicles. “Plaintiffs also allege that they did not receive cars that actually performed as EcoDiesels, which, when considered along with the alleged premium, plausibly supports that they paid more than fair market value for the Class Vehicles,” he wrote.
He also denied Bosch's motion to dismiss on similar grounds of standing.
“The Bosch Defendants played a role in designing the accused device that caused vehicles to perform in a way that deceived consumers and regulators, and allegedly did so knowingly and purposefully as part of a conspiracy with the other Defendants,” Chen wrote. “The injuries suffered by Plaintiffs are sufficiently traceable to the Bosch Defendants.”
Chen also largely upheld consumer fraud claims and warranty-based claims. But he questioned what advertising or other statements consumers relied on, apart from an “EcoDiesel” logo with a leaf and green coloring.
“This is unsurprising,” Giuffra wrote in Chrysler's motion to dismiss, “given that the marketing materials Plaintiffs reference in the Complaint—unlike the advertisements in the Volkswagen Complaint—do not depict a nationwide, consumer-focused ad campaign whose primary focus was emissions.”
Plaintiffs are due to file their motion for class certification on April 16.
This content has been archived. It is available through our partners, LexisNexis® and Bloomberg Law.
To view this content, please continue to their sites.
Not a Lexis Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
Not a Bloomberg Law Subscriber?
Subscribe Now
NOT FOR REPRINT
© 2024 ALM Global, LLC, All Rights Reserved. Request academic re-use from www.copyright.com. All other uses, submit a request to [email protected]. For more information visit Asset & Logo Licensing.
You Might Like
View AllUS Fifth Circuit Departs From Sister Courts on Copyright Infringement Damages
4 minute readEx-Girardi Keese CFO Christopher Kamon, Shackled and Sniffing, Pleads Guilty
3 minute readSanta Rosa Firm Secures $46M Verdict for Plaintiff in Sonoma County Child Sexual Abuse Case
Trending Stories
Who Got The Work
Dechert partners Andrew J. Levander, Angela M. Liu and Neil A. Steiner have stepped in to defend Arbor Realty Trust and certain executives in a pending securities class action. The complaint, filed July 31 in New York Eastern District Court by Levi & Korsinsky, contends that the defendants concealed a 'toxic' mobile home portfolio, vastly overstated collateral in regards to the company's loans and failed to disclose an investigation of the company by the FBI. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Pamela K. Chen, is 1:24-cv-05347, Martin v. Arbor Realty Trust, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Arthur G. Jakoby, Ryan Feeney and Maxim M.L. Nowak from Herrick Feinstein have stepped in to defend Charles Dilluvio and Seacor Capital in a pending securities lawsuit. The complaint, filed Sept. 30 in New York Southern District Court by the Securities and Exchange Commission, accuses the defendants of using consulting agreements, attorney opinion letters and other mechanisms to skirt regulations limiting stock sales by affiliate companies and allowing the defendants to unlawfully profit from sales of Enzolytics stock. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Andrew L. Carter Jr., is 1:24-cv-07362, Securities and Exchange Commission v. Zhabilov et al.
Who Got The Work
Clark Hill members Vincent Roskovensky and Kevin B. Watson have entered appearances for Architectural Steel and Associated Products in a pending environmental lawsuit. The complaint, filed Aug. 27 in Pennsylvania Eastern District Court by Brodsky & Smith on behalf of Hung Trinh, accuses the defendant of discharging polluted stormwater from its steel facility without a permit in violation of the Clean Water Act. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Gerald J. Pappert, is 2:24-cv-04490, Trinh v. Architectural Steel And Associated Products, Inc.
Who Got The Work
Michael R. Yellin of Cole Schotz has entered an appearance for S2 d/b/a the Shoe Surgeon, Dominic Chambrone a/k/a Dominic Ciambrone and other defendants in a pending trademark infringement lawsuit. The case, filed July 15 in New York Southern District Court by DLA Piper on behalf of Nike, seeks to enjoin Ciambrone and the other defendants in their attempts to build an 'entire multifaceted' retail empire through their unauthorized use of Nike’s trademark rights. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Naomi Reice Buchwald, is 1:24-cv-05307, Nike Inc. v. S2, Inc. et al.
Who Got The Work
Sullivan & Cromwell partner Adam S. Paris has entered an appearance for Orthofix Medical in a pending securities class action arising from a proposed acquisition of SeaSpine by Orthofix. The suit, filed Sept. 6 in California Southern District Court, by Girard Sharp and the Hall Firm, contends that the offering materials and related oral communications contained untrue statements of material fact. According to the complaint, the defendants made a series of misrepresentations about Orthofix’s disclosure controls and internal controls over financial reporting and ethical compliance. The case, assigned to U.S. District Judge Linda Lopez, is 3:24-cv-01593, O'Hara v. Orthofix Medical Inc. et al.
Featured Firms
Law Offices of Gary Martin Hays & Associates, P.C.
(470) 294-1674
Law Offices of Mark E. Salomone
(857) 444-6468
Smith & Hassler
(713) 739-1250