Apton v. Volkswagen Group of America, Inc.
233 F. Supp. 3d 4
| D.D.C. | 2017Background
- Plaintiff Adam M. Apton, a pro se attorney, leased a 2013 Volkswagen Passat and received an NHTSA-related safety recall for a defective airbag.
- Apton sued Volkswagen, VW Credit Leasing, and Lash Auto Group in D.C. Superior Court for breach of lease, breach of warranty, and violations of New York consumer/lease statutes, seeking voiding of the lease and unquantified damages, attorneys’ fees, and other relief.
- Defendants removed to federal court invoking diversity jurisdiction (citing a $100,000 amount in a civil cover sheet) and federal-question jurisdiction (pointing to the NHTSA recall/Motor Vehicle Safety Act background).
- Apton moved to remand, conceding diversity of citizenship but stating the $100,000 figure was an oversight and that his damages at removal totaled about $13,142; he also argued his complaint did not present a federal question.
- The court held evidentiary submission was required on the amount-in-controversy after Apton contested defendants’ assertions and remanded the case to Superior Court, but denied Apton’s request for fees and costs.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Amount in controversy for diversity jurisdiction | Apton: $100,000 on the civil cover sheet was an oversight; actual damages ~ $13,142 at removal | Defs: Civil cover sheet and complaint (compensatory, punitive, fees) make $100,000 plausible | Held: Defs failed to prove > $75,000 by preponderance; remand for lack of diversity jurisdiction |
| Availability of federal-question jurisdiction | Apton: Complaint pleads only state-law contract/warranty claims; does not invoke MVSA | Defs: Claims arise from NHTSA-mandated recall so a substantial federal issue is implicated | Held: No federal-question jurisdiction; state-law claims do not necessarily raise a substantial federal issue |
| Preemption / defense-based federal question | Apton: Not argued; claims based on lease and NY law | Defs: Suggest supervisory role of NHTSA could support federal-question or preemption | Held: Defs did not develop a complete preemption argument; defenses invoking federal law do not create jurisdiction |
| Award of costs and attorneys’ fees under 28 U.S.C. § 1447(c) | Apton: Defendants lacked legitimate basis to remove; seeks fees (he is pro se attorney) | Defs: Pro se litigant cannot recover attorney fees for work done for himself; removal was objectively reasonable given the cover sheet and federal recall context | Held: Fees denied — pro se attorney cannot recover fees for his own work and removal was objectively reasonable so fee award not warranted |
Key Cases Cited
- Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co. v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547 (2014) (rejection of strict pleading rule for removal amount; when contested, court considers proof by preponderance)
- Gunn v. Minton, 133 S. Ct. 1059 (2013) (four-part test for when a state-law claim arises under federal law)
- Mottley v. Louisville & Nashville R.R. Co., 211 U.S. 149 (1908) (well-pleaded complaint rule; federal issue must appear on face of plaintiff’s claim)
- Martin v. Franklin Capital Corp., 546 U.S. 132 (2005) (fee-shifting under §1447(c) depends on objective reasonableness of removal)
- Kay v. Ehrler, 499 U.S. 432 (1991) (pro se attorney litigant cannot recover attorney’s fees for work performed on his own behalf)
- Caterpillar Inc. v. Williams, 482 U.S. 386 (1987) (federal jurisdiction exists only when federal question is presented on the face of a plaintiff’s properly pleaded complaint)