Biederman v. FCA US LLC

Background

The court addressed motions to transfer two related actions: Biederman v. FCA US LLC, No. 3:23-cv-06640-JSC, and Hocker v. FCA US LLC, No. 3:24-cv-00611-JSC. Seven California residents who purchased vehicles from authorized FCA dealerships in California brought federal claims under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act and several California-law claims on behalf of proposed nationwide and California classes.

The plaintiffs allege that FCA US LLC, described as a motor vehicle manufacturer sometimes referred to as Chrysler, and Cummins, the manufacturer of the diesel engines, designed, manufactured, and sold 2013–2023 Ram 2500 and 3500 diesel trucks with emissions-control devices that interfered with the trucks’ emissions systems. The plaintiffs allege that these devices allowed the trucks to evade California’s emissions standards.

Transfer standard

The defendants moved under 28 U.S.C. § 1404(a), which permits a federal district court to transfer a civil action for the convenience of the parties and witnesses and in the interest of justice. The moving defendants had to show both that the Eastern District of Michigan would have jurisdiction and proper venue and that the relevant factors favored transfer.

Jurisdiction and venue

The court held that the actions could have been brought in the Eastern District of Michigan. FCA US LLC is headquartered in Michigan and therefore subject to general personal jurisdiction there. Cummins conceded that it was subject to specific personal jurisdiction for claims arising from its relationship with FCA US LLC in Michigan. The court also found venue proper because the claims were based in part on emissions testing in Michigan and on alleged omissions from marketing and other representations that originated there.

Convenience and fairness factors

The court concluded that the plaintiffs’ choice of forum weighed against transfer. All named plaintiffs reside in California, most in the Northern District of California, and all purchased the vehicles in California. All but one of the plaintiffs’ claims arise under California law. The court found that California had meaningful connections to the claims and that the choice of forum was not merely accidental because the plaintiffs asserted California classes as well as a nationwide class.

The convenience-of-the-parties-and-witnesses factor also weighed against transfer. The defendants argued that Michigan would be more convenient because FCA US LLC is located there and is closer to Cummins, which the opinion says is headquartered in Columbus, Indiana. But the defendants did not identify any nonparty witnesses, state where they were located, or explain their expected testimony and relevance. The court found that omission insufficient to meet the defendants’ burden.

The court found that electronic records reduced the importance of access to evidence. It also noted the plaintiffs’ argument that inspections of the vehicles would occur more conveniently in California because the vehicles were located there, and that information from the California Air Resources Board would be more convenient to access in California than in Michigan. The opinion’s discussion of this factor did not expressly state a separate final weighting for it.

The familiarity-with-law factor was at most neutral. Aside from one federal RICO claim in each action, the remaining 16 combined claims arose under California law, making the Northern District of California more familiar with the governing state law. The court rejected the defendants’ argument that the Eastern District of Michigan would be more familiar with consumer-protection law involving vehicle emissions.

The local-interest factor was neutral because both California and Michigan had interests in the controversy. California had an interest in allegations involving its emissions standards and California purchasers, while Michigan had an interest because FCA US LLC is headquartered there and the alleged misrepresentations began there. Court congestion and time to trial did not support transfer because the reported average times to disposition and median times from filing to trial were similar in the two districts.

The court rejected the defendants’ argument that transfer was warranted to discourage forum shopping. The court distinguished earlier Michigan actions involving different plaintiffs and, for the most part, different vehicles and conduct. It also found the present cases unlike a case cited by the defendants in which a similar action had been voluntarily dismissed and later refiled in another district after an unfavorable ruling in a related case.

Disposition

Considering the factors as a whole, the court held that the defendants had not shown that convenience and the interests of justice favored transfer. Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley therefore denied the defendants’ motions to transfer the actions to the Eastern District of Michigan. The cases remain in the Northern District of California.