Miller v. Volkswagen of America, Inc.
2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 130104
| N.D. Ohio | 2012Background
- Seven-year-long class action against Volkswagen of America, Inc. over 1999-2003 Jetta bumper defect.
- Plaintiffs amended the complaint to add 2003 Jetta claims and OCSPA and fraud-by-concealment counts, seeking to certify an Ohio class (Class 2) and a broader Ohio class (Class 1) for 1999-2003 Jettas.
- Defendant removed the case under CAFA, arguing the 2003 addition, new class claims, and a $5 million threshold satisfied CAFA removal.
- State court had certified an Ohio class for 1999-2002 Jettas; Oklahoma action had certified a nationwide class for 1999-2003 Jettas; settlements discussed but not filed in Oklahoma.
- Court held a record hearing on remand issues and ultimately granted remand, holding CAFA burden not met on the record evidence.
- Case involves consideration of whether amendments relate back to the original pleading and whether time-barred claims affect CAFA jurisdiction.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Does adding the 2003 model year create a new CAFA action? | Schorsch/relates back; amendment is a class-definition change. | Amendment to define a new, separate action. | Not a new CAFA action; amendment is a routine class-definition change. |
| Do the OCSPA and fraud-by-concealment claims relate back to the original filing? | Relate back under Ohio law; no new action. | Relate back issues uncertain; may create new claims. | Yes; claims relate back and do not create a new CAFA action. |
| Do time-barred Class 1 claims defeat CAFA removal? | Time-barred claims cannot support CAFA jurisdiction. | Jurisdiction determined at removal; time-barred claims may be ignored. | Court did not decide this issue; removal based on other grounds was not reached here. |
| Can post-removal stipulations reduce damages to defeat CAFA jurisdiction? | Clarification of damages may not defeat jurisdiction (Rogers applies). | Post-removal stipulations do not defeat CAFA jurisdiction. | Rogers remains; but here the amount-in-controversy was not shown to exceed CAFA. |
| Has Defendant shown CAFA amount-in-controversy by preponderance of the evidence? | Total potential damages too uncertain; limited to Class 2 plus 2003 claims. | Approximately 20,000 members; potential damages exceed $5 million. | No; amount-in-controversy not proven; remand granted. |
Key Cases Cited
- St. Paul Mercury Indem. Co. v. Red Cab Co., 303 U.S. 283 (U.S. 1938) (post-removal events do not oust jurisdiction; jurisdiction tested at time of removal)
- Exxon Mobil Corp. v. Allapattah Servs., Inc., 545 U.S. 546 (U.S. 2005) (CAFA applicability; nonretroactivity; new claims relate back under CAFA constraints)
- Rogers v. Wal‑Mart Stores, Inc., 230 F.3d 868 (6th Cir. 2000) (post-removal stipulations generally do not defeat CAFA jurisdiction)
- In re Safeco Ins. Co. of America, 585 F.3d 326 (7th Cir. 2009) (new claims must relate back to avoid creating a new CAFA action)
- St Paul Mercury; Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., Powerex Corp. v. Reliant Energy Servs., 551 U.S. 224 (U.S. 2007) (Powerex confirms limited reach on CAFA jurisdiction; posted-removal considerations remain available)