Goldstein v. Gen. Motors LLC

• Citation: 445 F.Supp.3d 1000
• Decision Date: 13 April 2020
• Docket Number: Case No.: 3:19-cv-01778-H-AHG
• Court: U.S. District Court — Southern District of California
• Parties: GOLDSTEIN et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.

445 F.Supp.3d 1000

GOLDSTEIN et al., Plaintiffs,

v.GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.

Case No.: 3:19-cv-01778-H-AHG

United States District Court, S.D. California.

Signed April 13, 2020

Amey J. Park, Pro Hac Vice, Russell D. Paul, Pro Hac Vice, Berger Montague PC, Philadelphia, PA, Christopher Decker Moon, Kevin O'Connor Moon, Moon Law APC, Gayle M. Blatt, Jeremy K. Robinson, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, Cody R. Padgett, Mark Alan Ozzello, Steven Richard Weinmann, Tarek H. Zohdy, Trisha K. Monesi, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA, Gary S. Graifman, Pro Hac Vice, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, NY, Melissa Emert, Pro Hac Vice, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York, NY, Patrice Lyn Bishop, Stull Stull and Brody, Beverly Hills, CA, Rosanne Mah, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rosemary M. Rivas, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiff Matt Goldstein.

Christopher Decker Moon, Kevin O'Connor Moon, Moon Law APC, Gayle M. Blatt, Jeremy K. Robinson, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, Cody R. Padgett, Mark Alan Ozzello, Steven Richard Weinmann, Tarek H. Zohdy, Trisha K. Monesi, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA, Gary S. Graifman, Pro Hac Vice, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, NY, Melissa Emert, Pro Hac Vice, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York, NY, Patrice Lyn Bishop, Stull Stull and Brody, Beverly Hills, CA, Rosanne Mah, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rosemary M. Rivas, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs Percy Sutton, Julian Wilder, Lana Savage, Gladys Tubbs, Kendra Piazza, Rafael Martinez.

Christopher Decker Moon, Kevin O'Connor Moon, Moon Law APC, Gayle M. Blatt, Jeremy K. Robinson, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, San Diego, CA, Gary S. Graifman, Pro Hac Vice, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, NY, Melissa Emert, Pro Hac Vice, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York, NY, Patrice Lyn Bishop, Stull Stull and Brody, Beverly Hills, CA, Rosanne Mah, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rosemary M. Rivas, San Francisco, CA, Cody R. Padgett, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiffs Tonya Gruchacz, Katrina Howard, Earl Kladke, William Braden, David Conroe, Gini Michelle Cox, Robert Tyson, Joseph Palopoli, Jr., Normand Gagnon, Richard Schellhammer, Crystal Robinson, Benito Guzman, April Bradley, Cindy Uyenoyama, Nicole Blanchard, Shon Reeves, Mariano Lorenzo Macaisa, Charles Knox, Vanessa Rodriguez, Maxine Glenn, John Toda.

Gary S. Graifman, Pro Hac Vice, Kantrowitz, Goldhamer & Graifman, P.C., Chestnut Ridge, NY, Gayle M. Blatt, Jeremy K. Robinson, Casey, Gerry, Schenk, Francavilla, Blatt & Penfield LLP, Kevin O'Connor Moon, Moon Law APC, San Diego, CA, Melissa Emert, Pro Hac Vice, Stull, Stull & Brody, New York, NY, Patrice Lyn Bishop, Stull Stull and Brody, Beverly Hills, CA, Rosanne Mah, Levi & Korsinsky, LLP, Rosemary M. Rivas, San Francisco, CA, Cody R. Padgett, Capstone Law APC, Los Angeles, CA, for Plaintiff Shelia Cauthen.

Allyson Marie McKinstry, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring, New York, NY, Andrew John William Holmer, Crowell & Moring, Los Angeles, CA, Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Pro Hac Vice, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, for Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS

MARILYN L. HUFF, District Judge

On September 16, 2019, Plaintiffs Matt Goldstein, Percy Sutton, Julian Wilder, Lana Savage, Gladys Tubbs, Kendra Piazza, and Rafael Martinez brought this putative class action against General Motors LLC ("GM") for, among other things, purported breaches of express and implied warranties, and violations of various consumer protections laws based on allegedly defective Cadillac User Experience ("CUE") navigation and radio touch screen displays in 2013-2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX and XTS vehicles and 2014-2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR, and Escalade vehicles (the "Class Vehicles"). (Doc. No. 1.) Plaintiffs seek to represent a nationwide class of "all persons and entities in the United States who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle." (Doc. No. 24 at 105.) Plaintiffs also intend to seek certification of various subclasses for purchasers in Alabama, California, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maine, Maryland, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia. (Id. )

On December 2, 2019, Plaintiffs filed the First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 24.) On January 24, 2020, Defendant filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint. (Doc. No. 31.) On February 28, 2020, Plaintiffs filed their Opposition. (Doc. No. 37.) On March 20, 2020, Defendant filed its Response. (Doc. No. 42.) On April 6, 2020, the Court held a hearing. Tarek H. Zohdy and Russell D. Paul appeared for the Plaintiffs and Andrew John William Holmer, Allyson Marie McKinstry, and Kathleen Taylor Sooy appeared for the Defendant. For the following reasons the Court grants in part and denies in part Defendant's motion to dismiss.

I. Background

In this putative class action, Plaintiffs are purchasers of new and used Cadillacs from fourteen different states. (Doc. No. 24 at ¶¶20-48.) Six plaintiffs are citizens of California (collectively, the "California Plaintiffs"), and the remaining twenty-three plaintiffs are residents in thirteen different states: Alabama, Florida, Indiana, Iowa, Kansas, Maryland, Maine, Michigan, New Jersey, New York, North Carolina, Texas, and West Virginia (the "Non-California Plaintiffs"). (Id. ¶¶26-48.) Plaintiffs allege that the in-vehicle infotainment device, also known as the CUE, used in the Class Vehicles is defective. (Id. at ¶79.) The infotainment device is comprised of a touch screen module that provides "entertainment and information delivery to drivers." (Id. ) The CUE controls the audio, phone, and climate inputs for the car and displays the rear-view camera when the vehicle is in reverse. (Id. ¶¶63-69.)

The Alleged Defect

The CUE is made of two major components: a projected capacitance touch screen and a plastic cover. (Id. at ¶¶74-77.) Plaintiffs allege that the CUE is defective. First, Plaintiffs allege that the "plastic cover is prone to delaminating or separating from the touch screen glass." (Id. at ¶79.) When the plastic cover separates, Plaintiffs allege, it causes a "spider-web-like pattern on the display" to form, which in turn prevents the CUE from recognizing any touch input from a user (the "Defect"). (Id. )

Plaintiffs allege that either mechanical or thermal stress can cause the plastic cover to separate from the touch screen. (Id. at ¶80.) Plaintiffs allege that the CUE is "defectively designed" because of the placement of the screws and rubberized gasket that hold the plastic cover to the frame of the CUE. (Id. ¶82.) The plastic cover is anchored to the touch screen by eight screws. (Id. ¶82.) Plaintiffs allege that only two screws are placed on "the bottom portion of the plastic cover, which causes it to flex and move when pressure is applied." (Id. ¶84.) This, according to Plaintiffs, makes the plastic cover prone to separating from the touch screen glass. (Id. ¶85.) Plaintiffs also allege that the rubber gasket is cut in a way that creates excessive space between the touch screen and the plastic cover which also "allows for more flexibility in the plastic cover, which leads to the spider-webbing defect." (Id. )

Plaintiffs further allege that the plastic cover delaminates as a result of temperature fluctuations. (Id. ¶86.) The touch screen assembly is "made up of materials with different thermal expansion coefficients." (Id. ¶87.) Plaintiffs allege that this difference in the thermal expansion coefficient between the separate materials can "cause delamination between the plastic cover and the touch screen glass." (Id. ) Plaintiffs maintain that the defect poses a safety risk and causes unsafe driving by distracting drivers and by not allowing them to make use of the backup camera when in reverse. (Id. ¶¶93-94.)

Defendant's Alleged Knowledge of the Defect

Plaintiffs allege that GM "knew, or should have known, about the Defect ...." (Id. ¶98.) In support of this allegation, Plaintiffs cite to four service bulletins and service bulletin updates ("Technical Service Bulletins" or "TSBs") that GM allegedly issued to its dealers in the United States between December 2014 to August 2017. (Id. ¶102.) Plaintiffs allege that these Technical Service Bulletins demonstrated that "GM was aware of the Defect and recognized it was covered under its Warranty...." (Id. ¶102.) These TSBs stated that "[s]ome customers may report that their radio screen appears bubbled, crack, or is delaminating" and directed dealers to "replace the ICS (Integrated Center Stack) by following the SI replacement procedure." (Id. ) Plaintiffs also point to various consumer complaints filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as evidence that GM was aware of the Defect. (Id. ¶¶111-112.) Similarly, Plaintiffs allege that GM was aware of the Defect because of complaints made "by consumers on internet forums" that GM allegedly monitored. (Id. ¶¶112-117.) Plaintiffs argue that GM was aware of these complaints because GM responded to them through online postings through its agents in the various internet forums. (Id. ) Lastly, Plaintiffs allege that GM was aware of the Defect "based on the large number of repairs performed to the CUE System's exhibiting delamination and spiderwebbing at its network of dealerships." (Id. ¶118.)

II. Legal Standards

Defendant moves to dismiss the claims of all Non-Californian Plaintiffs for lack of personal jurisdiction under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) and to dismiss the claims of certain Plaintiffs for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6).

Under Rule 12(b)(2), a plaintiff bears the burden of establishing personal jurisdiction. Schwarzenegger v. Fred Martin Motor Co., 374 F.3d 797, 800 (9th Cir. 2004). "The parties may submit, and the court may consider, declarations and other evidence...