Wynne v. Audi of America

Background

Defendants Sanctus LLC doing business as Shift Digital, Audi of America, LLC, and Volkswagen Group of America, Inc. moved to dismiss Amy Wynne’s first amended complaint. They also jointly moved to stay discovery while the court considered those motions, arguing that the motions could dispose of the case and raised only legal issues.

In response, Wynne filed a second amended complaint. She dropped her claim under California’s Unfair Competition Law and amended her claim under the California Consumer Privacy Act in an effort to address deficiencies identified by the defendants.

Second Amended Complaint

The defendants moved to strike the second amended complaint because Wynne filed it without the defendants’ consent or the court’s permission. The court agreed that the filing was technically improper because Wynne had already used her one opportunity to amend as a matter of right before the case was removed to federal court.

The court nevertheless declined to strike the pleading. Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 15 generally allows amendment before trial when justice requires. The court found no apparent undue delay, bad faith, prejudice, futility, or repeated failure to correct deficiencies. It also noted that the defendants did not identify prejudice from treating the second amended complaint as the operative pleading.

Rulings on the Motions

The court deemed the second amended complaint the operative complaint. It denied the defendants’ motions to dismiss and motion to strike. It also denied the motions to stay discovery and to enlarge the time to respond to the second amended complaint. The defendants were ordered to file a responsive pleading within 14 days of the order.

The defendants separately moved to stay the entire action based on a settlement agreement involving a group of plaintiffs who had filed a related state-court action concerning the alleged data breach. The defendants asserted that the settlement covered the proposed class in Wynne’s case. The court found that the effect of the settlement remained speculative because the state-court matter had not yet been assigned a case number or given a case-management schedule, and the plaintiffs had not yet sought preliminary approval. The court denied that motion to stay.

The court also addressed a joint discovery letter concerning Wynne’s notice for a deposition of Shift under Rule 30(b)(6), which governs depositions of organizations through designated representatives. The court denied the discovery request without prejudice. It ordered the parties to immediately meet and confer about the deposition topics, corporate representatives, and scheduling. If disagreements remained, the parties were required to submit a joint letter by October 6, 2022.

Effect of the Order

This order addressed pleadings, scheduling, and discovery. It did not decide the merits of Wynne’s claims under the California Consumer Privacy Act or any other claim.