2016 Tex. LEXIS 50
Tex. J.P.M.L.2016Background
- EPA issued a Notice of Violation alleging Volkswagen installed "defeat devices" in certain 2009–2015 2.0L diesel vehicles (VW and Audi models), causing excess NOx emissions and leading to consumer and government suits in Texas.
- Over 60 Texas lawsuits (individual consumer suits, expedited discovery actions, county interventions, and two State actions) sought damages, injunctive relief, and civil penalties under consumer-protection laws and the Texas Clean Air Act (TCAA).
- Volkswagen moved under Texas Rule of Judicial Administration 13 to transfer related cases to a single MDL pretrial court; many private plaintiffs and two counties did not oppose, but expedited plaintiffs and El Paso County and the State opposed.
- A federal MDL had already been created in California for related federal cases; federal enforcement and potential criminal exposure to Volkswagen were pending.
- The MDL panel evaluated (1) whether the Texas suits are "related" (common factual questions) and (2) whether transfer would promote convenience and efficiency, including avoidance of duplicative discovery and inconsistent rulings.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Relatedness under Rule 13: do cases share common questions of fact? | Opposing private plaintiffs: liability facts are admitted/indisputable; common origin alone insufficient to make cases related. | Volkswagen: cases arise from the same alleged conduct, device, vehicles, and common factual issues about installation and purpose of software. | Cases are "related"—common factual questions exist across consumer, county, and State suits. |
| Inclusion of State CPD (DTPA) and TCAA Enforcement Cases in MDL | State: its enforcement actions have distinct purposes, standards, remedies; do not require proof of causation/reliance; consolidation would undermine legislative scheme and waste public funds. | Volkswagen: factual issues underlying State actions (e.g., knowledge, intent) overlap with private claims; relatedness focuses on factual overlap, not legal theories. | State actions are related and may be included; Rule 13 examines factual commonality, not legal theory differences. MDL created for enforcement cases, but a separate MDL group for TCAA cases will be formed (same pretrial judge may handle both). |
| Efficiency and convenience (duplicative discovery, witness burden) | Expedited plaintiffs: cases are simple, limited discovery, should avoid MDL overhead; State: consolidation would force expenditure on irrelevant discovery. | Volkswagen: discovery will be complex, international, overlapping; centralization reduces duplication, inconsistent orders, and travel/witness burdens. | Transfer promotes efficiency; pretrial court can manage case-specific issues and limit participation on non-common matters; expedited cases can be remanded if ready. |
| Risk of inconsistent treatment of government enforcement and local-government claims | Counties/State: potential conflicts re TCAA enforcement while State pursues parallel claims; unique local damages (El Paso) require separate handling. | Volkswagen: efficiencies still obtained; MDL judge can account for differing remedies and allow separate treatment where needed. | To address interlocutory appeal/stay risks and local/state differences, two MDLs will be created but assigned to the same pretrial judge who may consolidate or separately manage motions. |
Key Cases Cited
- In re Delta Lloyds Ins. Co. of Houston, 339 S.W.3d 384 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2008) (discusses limits of relatedness where a common origin alone may be insufficient)
- In re Deepwater Horizon Incident Litig., 387 S.W.3d 127 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2011) (explains relatedness analysis where different damages and events may defeat consolidation)
- In re State Farm Lloyds Hidalgo Cty. Hail Storm Litig., 434 S.W.3d 350 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2014) (describes Rule 13 relatedness and efficiency factors)
- In re Ford Motor Co. Speed Control Deactivation Switch Litig., 285 S.W.3d 185 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2008) (pretrial court must treat common issues uniformly while giving individual consideration to case-specific matters)
- In re Toyota Unintended Acceleration Litig., 398 S.W.3d 892 (Tex. M.D.L. Panel 2010) (pretrial court ordinarily remands cases that are ready for trial despite consolidation)