State v. Volkswagen AG
Decision Date | 14 December 2018 |
Docket Number | 1170528 |
Citation | 279 So.3d 1109 |
Parties | STATE of Alabama v. VOLKSWAGEN AG |
Court | Alabama Supreme Court |
Steve Marshall, atty. gen., and Corey L. Maze, spec. deputy atty. gen., and Noel S. Barnes, Winfield J. Sinclair, and Robert D. Tambling, asst. attys. gen., for appellant.
Harlan I. Prater IV and Samuel H. Franklin of Lightfoot, Franklin & White, LLC, Birmingham; and Robert J. Giuffra, Jr., and David M.J. Rein of Sullivan & Cromwell LLP, New York, New York, for appellee.
The State of Alabama, the plaintiff below, appeals from the Jefferson Circuit Court's order that, among other things, dismissed its claims against Volkswagen AG ("VWAG").1 We affirm.
On September 15, 2016, the State filed a complaint in the Jefferson Circuit Court ("the trial court"), in which it asserted "tampering" claims and sought penalties against VWAG and other defendants pursuant to the Alabama Environmental Management Act ("the AEMA"), § 22-22A-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975, and the Alabama Air Pollution Control Act of 1971 ("the AAPCA"), § 22-28-1 et seq., Ala. Code 1975.
The trial court summarized the factual allegations from the State's complaint as follows:
The complaint alleged that the defendants had tampered with the emission-control systems or ordered third parties to tamper with the emission-control systems of vehicles that were licensed and registered in the State of Alabama. Specifically, the State alleged:
In its complaint, the State alleged that the AEMA vests the Alabama Department of Environmental Management ("ADEM") with the authority to administer and enforce the AAPCA and the authority to establish rules and regulations governing emission-control systems for vehicles; that ADEM has established rules and regulations governing such emission-control systems in Chapter 335-3-9 of the Alabama Administrative Code; and that the defendants had violated Regulation 335-3-9-.06 (ADEM), Ala. Admin. Code. Regulation 335-3-9-.06, provides, in pertinent part:
In its complaint, the State alleged:
"By installing the defeat device on a subject vehicle, Defendants and/or persons acting on behalf of Defendants caused or allowed the disconnection or disabling of the exhaust emission control system(s) on that subject vehicle each and every time the subject vehicle was operating outside of dyno testing conditions."
On October 14, 2016, the defendants removed this action to the United States District Court for the Northern District of Alabama. The action, among others, was ultimately assigned to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California ("the MDL court"), which was handling various actions that were part of multidistrict litigation arising from the defendants' actions with regard to the installation of the defeat-device software. On May 23, 2017, the MDL court entered an order granting the motions to remand filed by various states, including Alabama.
The United States Department of Justice, on behalf of the Environmental Protection Agency ("the EPA"), filed criminal and civil actions against VWAG to enforce the federal Clean Air Act ("the CAA"). On March 14, 2017, VWAG pleaded guilty to three criminal felony counts and settled the civil charges.
On August 31, 2017, the MDL court released its decision in In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Marketing, Sales Practices, and Products Liability Litigation, 264 F.Supp.3d 1040 (N.D. Cal. 2017). That case involved a complaint the State of Wyoming had filed against VWAG; Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.; Audi AG; Audi of America, LLC; and Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as "Volkswagen"), in the United States District Court for the District of Wyoming. That case was subsequently transferred to the MDL court. In its complaint, Wyoming asserted that every time one of the vehicles with defeat-device software was driven in that state, Volkswagen violated two provisions of Wyoming's Clean Air Act state-implementation plan. Volkswagen filed a motion to dismiss the claims against it on the ground that the claims were preempted by the CAA. The MDL court ultimately held that Wyoming's continuous-tampering claim was preempted by the CAA.2
On August 1, 2017, the State filed its first amended complaint. On September 18, 2017, the defendants filed a motion to dismiss the first amended complaint. In their motion to dismiss, the defendants argued that the State's claims were preempted by the CAA.
On October 12, 2017, the State filed its second amended complaint, seeking penalties under the AEMA and the AAPCA. The second amended complaint alleged, in part:
The complaint went on...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
State ex rel. Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
...Aktiengesellschaft , Tenn.App. No. M2018-00791-COA-R9-CV, 2019 WL 1220836, *13 (Mar. 13, 2019) ; Alabama v. Volkswagen AG , 279 So.3d 1109, 1128-1129 (Ala.2018) (" Alabama "); State by Swanson v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft , Minn.App. No. A18-0544, 2018 WL 6273103, *6-9 (Dec. 3, 2018). I......
-
State ex rel. Yost v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft
...Aktiengesellschaft , App. No. M2018-00791-COA-R9-CV, 2019 WL 1220836, 2019 Tenn. App. LEXIS 125 (Mar. 13, 2019) ; State v. Volkswagen AG , 279 So.3d 1109 (Ala. 2018) ; State v. Volkswagen Aktiengesellschaft , App. No. A18-0544, 2018 WL 6273103, 2018 Minn. App. Unpub. LEXIS 995 (Dec. 3, 2018......