Adam Schell v. Volkswagen Ag, 20-17480

Plaintiffs (Schell et al.) sued on behalf of a putative class of consumers who bought or leased Volkswagen "clean diesel" vehicles and disposed of them before Volkswagen’s emissions-fraud disclosure.
Plaintiffs’ asserted Article III injury: they paid a "clean diesel premium" (overpayment) induced by Volkswagen’s fraud.
After fact and expert discovery, Volkswagen mounted a factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge to standing, requiring plaintiffs to support jurisdictional facts with evidence.
Plaintiffs relied on expert Ted Stockton, who used post-disclosure "excess depreciation" of used Volkswagens as a proxy for the alleged initial overpayment; Stockton admitted he did not calculate a purchase-time premium.
The district court excluded Stockton’s opinion as irrelevant because it measured post-disclosure factors (reputation loss, regulatory fear, resale uncertainty) rather than overpayment at purchase, and dismissed for lack of Article III injury.
The Ninth Circuit reviewed standing de novo and exclusion of expert testimony for abuse of discretion, and affirmed dismissal.

Issue	Plaintiff's Argument	Defendant's Argument	Held
Whether plaintiffs proved Article III injury (overpayment) to survive VW's factual Rule 12(b)(1) challenge	Stockton's excess-depreciation model is a reasonable proxy for the clean-diesel premium paid at purchase	Stockton's model measures post-disclosure harms, not overpayment at time of purchase, so it is irrelevant to standing	Stockton's opinion was excluded as irrelevant; plaintiffs provided no other admissible proof of overpayment; dismissal affirmed
Whether the district court demanded certainty or improperly considered mitigation	District court required certainty/mitigation to prove standing	District court excluded Stockton for irrelevance, not imprecision, and declined mitigation analysis only because no proof of a premium was offered	Court did not err: exclusion was for irrelevance and Plaintiffs had no admissible evidence of the alleged injury

In re Volkswagen "Clean Diesel" Mktg. Sales Prac. & Prods. Liab. Litig., 895 F.3d 597 (9th Cir. 2018) (describing the Volkswagen emissions-fraud scheme)
Friends of the Earth v. Sanderson Farms, Inc., 992 F.3d 939 (9th Cir. 2021) (procedural law on factual challenges to standing under Rule 12(b)(1))
Gerlinger v. Amazon.com Inc., 526 F.3d 1253 (9th Cir. 2008) (party opposing factual attack must support jurisdictional allegations with competent proof)
Deschutes River All. v. Portland Gen. Elec. Co., 1 F.4th 1153 (9th Cir. 2021) (standard of review for Article III standing reviewed de novo)
United States v. Telles, 6 F.4th 1086 (9th Cir. 2021) (abuse-of-discretion review for evidentiary exclusions)
United States v. Hinkson, 585 F.3d 1247 (9th Cir. 2009) (no abuse of discretion if district court decision is logical and supported by record)
Comcast Corp. v. Behrend, 569 U.S. 27 (2013) (damage models must measure only damages attributable to the plaintiffs' theory)
Bricklayers & Trowel Trades Int’l Pension Fund v. Credit Suisse Sec. (USA) LLC, 752 F.3d 82 (1st Cir. 2014) (class damages models must align with liability theory)