Hurry v. Gen. Motors LLC

• Docket Number: CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:21-cv-673-ECM
• Decision Date: 22 August 2022
• Parties: Dominguez HURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.
• Court: U.S. District Court — Middle District of Alabama

622 F.Supp.3d 1132

Dominguez HURRY, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.

CIVIL ACT. NO. 3:21-cv-673-ECM

United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division

Signed August 22, 2022

Adam J. Levitt, Daniel R. Ferri, John E. Tangren, DiCello Levitt Gutzler LLC, Chicago, IL, Henry Clay Barnett, III, James Mitchell Williams, Tyner David Helms, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley Allen Crown Methvin Portis & Miles PC, Montgomery, AL, for Plaintiffs.

April N. Ross, Kathleen Taylor Sooy, Rachel P. Raphael, Crowell & Moring LLP, Washington, DC, Brian Patrick Kappel, Lightfoot Franklin & White, LLC, Birmingham, AL, for Defendant.

MEMORANDUM OPINION and ORDER

EMILY C. MARKS, CHIEF UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

I. INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs Dominguez Hurry, Scott Goodwin, and Terry Wasdin (collectively, "Plaintiffs"), individually and behalf of all others similarly situated, bring this putative class action against Defendant General Motors LLC ("GM"), asserting claims arising out of problems the Plaintiffs experienced with the engines in their GM-manufactured vehicles. The Plaintiffs assert five claims under Alabama state law: violations of the Alabama Deceptive Trade Practices Act, ALA. CODE § 8-19-1 et seq. ("ADTPA") (Count 1); breach of express warranty pursuant to ALA. CODE §§ 7-2-313 and 7-2A-210 (Count 2); breach of the implied warranty of merchantability pursuant to ALA. CODE §§ 7-2-314 and 7-2A-212 (Count 3); fraudulent omission (Count 4); and unjust enrichment (Count 5). The Plaintiffs seek actual, statutory, and punitive damages; interest; attorney's fees; and costs. Additionally, the Plaintiffs seek injunctive relief on their ADTPA claims.

Now pending before the Court is GM's motion to dismiss the class action complaint. (Doc. 27). The motion is fully briefed and ripe for review. After careful consideration, the Court finds that GM's motion is due to be granted in part and denied in part.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

The Court has original subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332.¹ Personal jurisdiction and venue are uncontested, and the Court concludes that venue properly lies in the Middle District of Alabama. See 28 U.S.C. § 1391.

III. LEGAL STANDARD

A Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss tests the sufficiency of the complaint against the legal standard set forth in Rule 8: "a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief." FED. R. CIV. P. 8(a)(2). "To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007)). "On a motion to dismiss, the court must accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all reasonable inferences in the plaintiff's favor." Bailey v. Wheeler, 843 F.3d 473, 478 n.3 (11th Cir. 2016).

"Determining whether a complaint states a plausible claim for relief [is] . . . a context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial experience and common sense." Id. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted). The plausibility standard requires "more than a sheer possibility that a defendant has acted unlawfully." Id. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937. Conclusory allegations that are merely "conceivable" and fail to rise "above the speculative level" are insufficient to meet the plausibility standard. Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555-56, 127 S.Ct. 1955. This pleading standard "does not require 'detailed factual allegations,' but it demands more than an unadorned, the-defendant-unlawfully-harmed-me accusation." Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (citation omitted). Indeed, "[a] pleading that offers 'labels and conclusions' or 'a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.' " Id. (citation omitted).

IV. FACTS²

A. Background Concerning the Alleged Defect and Prior Litigation

This putative class action arises out of an alleged engine defect present in certain vehicles sold by GM in Alabama and nationwide (the "Class Vehicles"). The Complaint defines "Class Vehicle" to include the following model year 2011-2014 vehicles: Chevrolet Avalanche; Chevrolet Silverado; Chevrolet Suburban; Chevrolet Tahoe; GMC Sierra; GMC Yukon; and GMC Yukon XL. (Doc. 1 at 1-2, paras. 1-2). Class Vehicles are equipped with GM's Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 LC9 Engines ("Generation IV Engines"). Generation IV Engines allegedly consume an abnormally high quantity of oil which "far exceeds industry standards for reasonable oil consumption." (Id. at 2, para. 5). The Complaint refers to this alleged defect as the "Oil Consumption Defect."³ The excessive oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, oil fouling, and internal engine damage. According to the Complaint, the primary cause of the Oil Consumption Defect is that the piston rings GM installed in the Generation IV Engines fail to keep oil in the crankcase. The piston rings in the Class Vehicles are supposed to withstand over 100,000 miles of driving. Nonetheless, for many drivers the piston rings deteriorate much sooner, requiring drivers to replenish their oil supply frequently. Additionally, the Complaint alleges that the deterioration of the piston rings leads to engine damage, stalling, and power loss. Other problems with the vehicles' Active Fuel Management system, the Oil Life Monitoring System, and the oil pressure gauge on the dashboard allegedly contribute to and exacerbate the Oil Consumption Defect. The defect can cause drivability problems, including lack of power and engine seizure, which place the Plaintiffs and other class members at an increased risk of injury and death.

The Complaint alleges that GM knew about the Oil Consumption Defect as early as 2008. By 2008, GM consumers had filed numerous complaints regarding excessive oil consumption in earlier model-year vehicles equipped with Generation IV Engines. According to the Complaint, the consumer complaints "were so numerous that GM engineers started investigating the Oil Consumption Defect in at least 2008, and concluded the piston rings were prematurely failing and causing excessive oil consumption and internal engine wear." (Doc. 1 at 6, para. 19). The Complaint further alleges that in May 2009, GM engineer Alan Miller "recognized that excessive oil consumption likely following from a defect in the piston rings." (Id. at 25, para. 114). On June 8, 2009, before it sold the first Generation IV Engine powered Class Vehicle, GM "launched a 'Red X' investigation to determine the root cause of the oil consumption defect." (Id., para. 115). On January 8, 2010, the "Red X" team produced an Executive Report regarding Generation IV Engine excessive oil consumption, in which GM states: "Oil consumption clearly follows the piston/ring assembly." (Id., para. 116). The Complaint also alleges that GM issued several Technical Service Bulletins ("TSBs") to its dealers addressing excessive oil consumption and its causes in vehicles with Generation IV Engines, further demonstrating GM's knowledge. However, the TSBs also allegedly instructed dealers to make cheap "band-aid" or "stop-gap" repairs which did not actually cure the Oil Consumption Defect. Piston assembly replacement, a (more) effective remedy for the alleged defect, is more costly than the cheaper repairs GM allegedly pushed dealers to perform. Additionally, GM eventually abandoned the Generation IV Engine for a redesigned Generation V 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec LC9 engine ("Generation V Engine"). Despite this knowledge, GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect and continued to sell Class Vehicles with Generation IV Engines to consumers.

The Class Vehicles are covered by GM's New Vehicle Limited Powertrain Warranty ("Warranty").⁴ The Warranty provides coverage "for the first 5 years or 100,000 miles, whichever comes first." (Doc. 28-1 at 7). This Warranty is "provided to the original and any subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period," and the warranty period "begins on the date the vehicle is first delivered or put in use and ends at the expiration of the coverage period." (Id. at 9). The Warranty "covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect, not slight noise, vibrations, or other normal characteristics of the vehicle related to materials or workmanship occurring during the warranty period." (Id.). To obtain Warranty repairs, consumers are to "take the vehicle to a Chevrolet dealer facility within the warranty period and request the needed repairs. Reasonable time must be allowed for the dealer to perform necessary repairs." (Id.).

On December 19, 2016, a putative nationwide class action was filed against GM in the United States District Court for the Northern District of California asserting claims arising out of the Oil Consumption Defect. See Siqueiros et al. v. General Motors LLC, 3:16-cv-7244-EMC (N.D. Cal.) ("Siqueiros").⁵ The named Alabama plaintiff asserted a breached of implied warranty claim under Alabama law on behalf of the Alabama Class, which the complaint defined as "[a]ll current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that was purchased or leased in the State of Alabama." (Doc. 2 at 25 in Siqueiros et al. v. General Motors LLC, 3:16-cv-7244-EMC (N.D. Cal.)). "Class Vehicles" included the following vehicles: 2010-2013 Chevrolet Avalanche; 2010-2012 Chevrolet Colorado; 2010-2013 Chevrolet Express 1500; 2010-2013 Chevrolet Silverado 1500; 2010-2013 Chevrolet Suburban; 2010-2013 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2010-2013 GMC Canyon; 2010-2013 GMC Savana 1500; 2010-2013 GMC Sierra 1500; 2010-2013 GMC Yukon; and 2010-2013 GMC Yukon XL. (Doc. 2 at 2 in Siqueiros et al. v. General Motors LLC, 3:16-cv-7244-EMC (N.D. Cal.)). On August 26, 2020, the named Alabama plaintiff's claims were voluntarily dismissed...