Leonard v. Gen. Motors L.L.C.
| Decision Date | 30 November 2020 |
| Docket Number | No. 3:19-cv-1682 (SRU),3:19-cv-1682 (SRU) |
| Citation | 504 F.Supp.3d 73 |
| Parties | Michael A. LEONARD, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS L.L.C., et al., Defendants. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Connecticut |
Michael A. Leonard, Brooklyn, CT, pro se.
Brian L. Wolensky, Ricci Tyrrell Johnson & Grey, Philadelphia, PA, Timothy Duggan, Duggan & Gianacoplos, LLC, Norwood, MA, for Defendants.
RULING ON MOTION TO DISMISS
Michael A. Leonard, proceeding pro se , has brought the instant action against General Motors L.L.C., General Motors Company, General Motors Holdings L.L.C., GM L.L.C./General Motors LLC (hereinafter, "GM LLC"), General Motors Corporation (now ‘Motors Liquidation Company’), Motors Liquidation Company (formerly ‘General Motors Corporation’), and NGMCO Inc. (collectively, "Defendants"). As set forth in his amended complaint, Leonard asserts a number of state and federal claims arising out of a car accident that occurred on January 5, 2017.
General Motors Company has moved to dismiss all counts of Leonard's complaint on Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) grounds, arguing that: (1) the court lacks personal jurisdiction over General Motors Company; (2) the statute of limitation against the other defendants has expired; and (3) Leonard has failed to state a cause of action upon which relief can be granted. See generally Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. No. 36-1.
For the reasons that follow, the motion to dismiss is granted in part and denied in part.
A plaintiff bears the burden of showing that the court has personal jurisdiction over each defendant. Metro. Life Ins. Co. v. Robertson-Ceco Corp. , 84 F.3d 560, 566 (2d Cir. 1996). Where, as here, there has been no discovery on jurisdictional issues and the court is relying solely on the parties’ pleadings and affidavits, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing that the court possesses personal jurisdiction over the defendant. Bank Brussels Lambert v. Fiddler Gonzalez & Rodriguez , 171 F.3d 779, 784 (2d Cir. 1999).
In diversity cases, courts apply the forum state's law to determine whether the court has personal jurisdiction over a defendant. Arrowsmith v. United Press International , 320 F.2d 219, 223 (2d Cir. 1963). In federal question cases, when the defendant resides outside the forum state, federal courts apply the forum state's personal jurisdiction rules unless the applicable federal statute provides for nationwide service of process.1 See PDK Labs v. Friedlander , 103 F.3d 1105, 1108 (2d Cir. 1997).
Bensmiller v. E.I. Dupont de Nemours & Co. , 47 F.3d 79, 81 (2d Cir. 1995) (citing Greene v. Sha-Na-Na , 637 F. Supp. 591, 595 (D. Conn. 1986) ).
A motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6) is designed "merely to assess the legal feasibility of a complaint, not to assay the weight of evidence which might be offered in support thereof." Ryder Energy Distribution Corp. v. Merrill Lynch Commodities, Inc. , 748 F.2d 774, 779 (2d Cir. 1984) (quoting Geisler v. Petrocelli , 616 F.2d 636, 639 (2d Cir. 1980) ).
When deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6), the court must accept the material facts alleged in the complaint as true, draw all reasonable inferences in favor of the plaintiffs, and decide whether it is plausible that plaintiffs have a valid claim for relief. Ashcroft v. Iqbal , 556 U.S. 662, 678–79, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly , 550 U.S. 544, 555–56, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007) ; Leeds v. Meltz , 85 F.3d 51, 53 (2d Cir. 1996).
Under Twombly , "[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level," and assert a cause of action with enough heft to show entitlement to relief and "enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face." 550 U.S. at 555, 570, 127 S.Ct. 1955 ; see also Iqbal , 556 U.S. at 679, 129 S.Ct. 1937 (). The plausibility standard set forth in Twombly and Iqbal obligates the plaintiff to "provide the grounds of his entitlement to relief" through more than "labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action." Twombly , 550 U.S. at 555, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quotation marks omitted). Plausibility at the pleading stage is nonetheless distinct from probability, and "a well-pleaded complaint may proceed even if it strikes a savvy judge that actual proof of [the claims] is improbable, and ... recovery is very remote and unlikely." Id. at 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955 (quotation marks omitted).
On the morning of January 5, 2017, Leonard was driving a 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt southbound on I-95 through Branford, Connecticut and collided with a Jersey Barrier. See Compl., Doc. No. 34, at ¶¶ 2–4. The airbags in the 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt never deployed and the seat belts "failed to prevent [Leonard] from impacting the steering wheel." Id. at ¶ 5. As a result, Leonard flung forward and hit his face. See id. at 10. Leonard sustained several injuries from the accident, including migraines, a "permanent painful bite and discomforting sensitivity to cold and heat," emotional distress, and loss of wages. Id. at ¶ 7. The driver's side of the car was substantially damaged. Id. at ¶ 4.
The 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt was assembled around December 22, 2006 at General Motors Corporation's assembly plant in Lordstown, Ohio; the seat belt and the front airbag systems were supplied by Takata and installed by Defendants. Id. at 8. Takata informed Defendants of issues with its airbags as early as 2006, and in 2008, Takata airbags were linked to 23 deaths and over 200 injuries across the country. Id. Nonetheless, Defendants failed to warn Leonard of the hazards associated with the product and continued to manufacture the 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt with Takata seat belts and airbags until 2010. Id. at 8–9.
In May 2014, General Motors issued a recall of the 2012 Chevrolet Cruze Sedan due to an electrical problem with Takata's airbags, and in June 2014, General Motors stopped selling the 2013–2014 Model Chevy Cruze Cedars because of Takata's "suspect" airbags. See id. at 9. Over 19 million vehicles with Takata airbags were ultimately recalled by automakers. Id. at 8.
On August 21, 2019, Leonard filed a complaint against General Motors Company in Connecticut Superior Court. See Compl., Doc. No. 1-1. Thereafter, on October 25, 2019, General Motors Company removed the case to this court and simultaneously filed a motion to dismiss the case on Rule 12(b)(2) and 12(b)(6) grounds, asserting that General Motors Company is a holding company with no ties to Connecticut and that the complaint failed to state a cognizable claim. See Doc. Nos. 1, 5-1.
On February 3, 2020, Leonard filed a motion seeking leave to amend his complaint to add the "correct entities liable in this action," which I granted. See Doc. Nos. 29, 33. Nine days later, on February 12, 2020, Leonard filed an amended complaint, adding as defendants General Motors L.L.C., General Motors Holdings L.L.C., GM LLC, General Motors Corporation, Motors Liquidation Company, and NGMCO Inc. See generally Am. Compl., Doc. No. 34.
As set forth in his complaint, Leonard asserts claims for (a) negligence; (b) strict liability in tort; (c) breach of warranty, express or implied; (d) failure to provide adequate warnings or instructions; and (e) fraudulent misrepresentation or omission. See id. He also alleges that Defendants violated the Fourteenth Amendment as well as 49 C.F.R. §§ 571.208 and 571.209, which are regulations promulgated pursuant to the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act of 1966, 49 U.S.C. § 30101, et seq. ("the Safety Act"). See id. Leonard seeks monetary damages and two replacement vehicles of his choice. Id. at 14.
On February 26, 2020, General Motors Company filed a motion to dismiss Leonard's amended complaint, contending that (1) this court lacks personal jurisdiction over the company; (2) the claims against the newly-added defendants are time-barred; and (3) the complaint fails to state a colorable claim. See Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. No. 36. Leonard opposed the motion on March 9, 2020, and General Motors replied on March 24, 2020. See Doc. Nos. 37, 40. Discovery has been stayed pending a decision on the motion. See Doc. No. 39.
General Motors Company first argues that the claims against it should be dismissed under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(2) because Leonard has failed to adequately demonstrate that General Motors Company is subject to this court's jurisdiction. See Mot. to Dismiss, Doc. No. 36-1, at 3. That argument has merit.
Connecticut's long-arm statute pertaining to foreign corporations is found in Conn. Gen. Stat. § 33-929 and states, in relevant part:
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Hunte v. Abbott Labs., Inc.
...CPLA, a plaintiff must establish: ‘(1) duty; (2) breach of that duty; (3) causation; and (4) actual injury.’ " Leonard v. Gen. Motors LLC , 504 F. Supp. 3d 73, 93 (D. Conn. 2020) (quoting Walters v. Howmedica Osteonics Corp. , 676 F. Supp. 2d 44, 51 (D. Conn. 2009) ). "Under Connecticut law......
-
Green v. XPO Last Mile, Inc.
... ... Gen. Stat. 31-71e. 5 Count Two alleges a common law claim for unjust ... The first is between XPO and an entity named "Lg Family Llc," and this agreement is signed by a representative of XPO and by Green as ... ...
-
Tibes v. Hanseatic Moving Servs.
... ... HANSEATIC MOVING SERVICES, LLC, Defendant. HANSEATIC MOVING SERVICES, LLC, Third-Party Plaintiff, v ... WL 2575340 (E.D.N.Y. July 3, 2012); see also Leonard v ... Gen. Motors L.L.C., 504 F.Supp.3d 73, 88-92 (D. Conn ... ...
-
Moke Am. LLC v. Am. Custom Golf Cars, Inc.
... ... belief or speculation.” Oglesby v ... Gen. Motors Corp., 190 F.3d 244, 250 (4th Cir ... 1999). Courts look to several factors as ... create a private right of action. Leonard ... v. Gen. Motors L.L.C., 504 F.Supp.3d 73, ... 100 (D. Conn. 2020). Indeed, ... ...