Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC
Decision Date | 07 February 2018 |
Docket Number | Case No. 16–cv–07244–EMC |
Citation | 287 F.Supp.3d 840 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of California |
Parties | Monteville SLOAN, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant. |
Lori Erin Andrus, Jennie Lee Anderson, Andrus Anderson LLP, San Francisco, CA, Adam J. Levitt, Amy E. Keller, Pro Hac Vice, Daniel Richard Ferri, John Ernst Tangren, DiCello Levitt & Casey LLC, Chicago, IL, H. Clay Barnett, III, Pro Hac Vice, Wilson Daniel Miles, III, Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C., Andrew England Brashier, Pro Hac Vice, Archibald Irwin Grubb, II, Pro Hac Vice, Montgomery, AL, Anthony J Garcia, AG Law, P.A., Tampa, FL, Timothy J. Becker, Pro Hac Vice, Johnson Becker, PLLC, Jennell Kristine Shannon, Pro Hac Vice, St. Paul, MN, Mark A DiCello, The DiCello Law Firm, Mentor, OH, for Plaintiffs.
Joseph John Ybarra, Huang Ybarra Gelberg & May LLP, Los Angeles, CA, Gregory Richard Oxford, Isaacs Clouse Crose & Oxford LLP, Torrance, CA, for Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT
Plaintiffs allege that Defendant General Motors (GM) manufactured and sold a car engine that, due to several internal defects, consumes excessive amounts of oil, resulting in engine damage that presents a safety risk of sudden shutdowns or engine fires. GM moves to dismiss on several grounds which can broadly be grouped under challenges to personal jurisdiction for the out-of-state plaintiffs; failure to plead an unreasonable safety hazard or pre-sale knowledge that gives rise to a duty to disclose in support of the consumer protection and fraud claims; failure to adequately plead reliance on the omission; failure to allege the defect manifested during the implied warranty period; and various statute of limitations or pre-suit notice issues.
As explained below, Defendant's motion is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART .
Plaintiffs allege that the Gen IV Vortec 5300 engine suffers from an "inherent" "Oil Consumption Defect." SAC ¶ 7. The engine was installed in each of the Class Vehicles: the 2010–2014 Chevrolet Avalanche; 2010–2012 Chevrolet Colorado; 2010–2013 Chevrolet Express; 2010–2013 Chevrolet Silverado; 2010–2014 Chevrolet Suburban; 2010–2014 Chevrolet Tahoe; 2010–2013 GMC Canyon; 2010–2013 GMC Savana; 2010–2013 GMC Sierra; 2010–2014 GMC Yukon; and the 2010–2014 GMC Yukon XL. Id. ¶ 2.
Plaintiffs identify five defects that "contribute" to the overall "Oil Consumption Defect." First, the "primary cause" are "piston rings ... [that] do not maintain sufficient tension to keep oil in the crankcase." SAC ¶ 8. Second, the Active Fuel Management (AFM) system "contributes" to the defect by "spraying oil directly at the piston skirts," which "overloads and fouls the defective piston rings, triggering oil migration past the rings." SAC ¶ 9. Third, the PCV system "vacuums oil from the valvetrain into the intake system, where it is ultimately burned in the combustion chambers" contributing to excessive oil combustion. SAC ¶ 10. Fourth, the defective "Oil Life Monitoring System" does not monitor oil level, but rather, engine conditions like revolutions and temperature to predict oil quality. SAC ¶ 11. Because it does not take oil level into account, the system "directs drivers to travel thousands of miles with inadequate engine lubricity levels, wearing out and damaging moving internal engine components." Id. Fifth, the oil pressure gauge "does not provide any indication as to when the oil pressure ... falls to levels low enough to damage internally lubricated parts or cause engine failure" and the oil canister symbol does not illuminate "until well past the time when the Class Vehicles are critically oil starved." SAC ¶ 13.
Plaintiffs also discuss the impact of the alleged defect on their own vehicles and on other consumers. The nature of these allegations is discussed in detail in the relevant sections below.
The chart below identifies each named plaintiff, the state of purchase, the date of purchase, and the vehicle purchased.
Name State of Car Date of Purchase Purchase Raul Siqueiros California 2011 Chevrolet Silverado N/A Joseph Brannan Alabama 2010 GMC Yukon 2011 Larry Goodwin Arkansas 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 2010 Marc Perkins Delaware 2011 Chevrolet Avalanche 2011 Donald Ludington Florida 2010 Chevrolet Tahoe 2012 Thomas Shorter Florida 2011 Chevrolet Silverado N/A Derick Bradford Georgia 2010 Chevrolet Silverado 2014 Gabriel Del Valle Idaho 2013 Chevrolet Avalanche 2/2016 Kevin Hanneken Illinois 2011 GMC Sierra 1500 2011 Dan Madson Kansas 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 12/2013 James Faulkner Kentucky 2011 GMC Sierra 2015 Joseph Olivier Louisiana 2013 GMC Sierra N/A Scott Smith Massachusetts 2011 GMC Yukon 2012 Ross Dahl Minnesota 2010 Chevrolet Silverado 2010 Drew Peterson Minnesota 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 12/2012 Michael Ware Mississippi 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2016 Steve Kitchen Missouri 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 07/2013 Barbara Molina New Mexico 2012 Chevrolet Avalanche N/A Steven Ehrke North Carolina 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 2/2016 Thomas Gulling Ohio 2013 Chevrolet Silverado N/A Ronald Jones Ohio 2013 Chevrolet Silverado N/A Mike Warpinski Oklahoma 2012 Chevrolet Express 2014 John Graziano Pennsylvania 2012 Chevrolet Silverado 12/2011 Monteville Sloan California 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 08/2014 Joshua Byrge Tennessee 2012 Chevrolet Silverado 2016 Rudy Sanchez Texas 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 07/2013 Christopher Thacker Virginia 2010 Chevrolet Silverado 06/2014 Randy Clausen Washington 2012 Chevrolet Suburban 2013 James Robertson West Virginia 2010 GMC Sierra 1500 2010 Jonas Bednarek Wisconsin 2010 Chevrolet Suburban 2010 Todd & Jill Cralley California 2010 Chevrolet Suburban N/A Edwin & Katelyn Doepel Illinois 2013 GMC Yukon N/A Dennis Vita New York 2013 GMC Sierra N/A William Martel Oregon 2011 Chevrolet Silverado 2011 Kelly Harris N/A (Received 2012 Chevrolet Silverado 2012 from employer)
In considering a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss, a court must take all allegations of fact as true and construe them in the light most favorable to the nonmoving party, although "conclusory allegations of law and unwarranted inferences are insufficient to avoid a Rule 12(b)(6) dismissal." Cousins v. Lockyer, 568 F.3d 1063, 1067 (9th Cir. 2009). While "a complaint need not contain detailed factual allegations ... it must plead 'enough facts to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.' " Id. "A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged." Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 129 S.Ct. 1937, 1949, 173 L.Ed.2d 868 (2009) ; see also Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556, 127 S.Ct. 1955, 167 L.Ed.2d 929 (2007). "The plausibility standard is not akin to a 'probability requirement,' but it asks for more than sheer possibility that a defendant acted unlawfully." Id.
Claims sounding in fraud or mistake are subject to the heightened pleading requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b), which requires that a plaintiff alleging fraud "state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud." Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b) ; see Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1124 (9th Cir. 2009) ( ). To satisfy the heightened standard under Rule 9(b), the allegations must be "specific enough to give defendants notice of the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong." Semegen v. Weidner, 780 F.2d 727, 731 (9th Cir. 1985). The plaintiff must set forth "what is false or misleading about a statement, and why it is false." In re Glenfed, Inc. Sec. Litig., 42 F.3d 1541, 1548 (9th Cir.1994) (en banc), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Ronconi v. Larkin, 253 F.3d 423, 429 n. 6 (9th Cir. 2001).
Defendant raises numerous challenges to Plaintiffs' Second Amended Complaint ("SAC"), including whether:
Each challenge is analyzed below.
Defendant argues that Bristol–Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal. , ––– U.S. ––––, 137 S.Ct. 1773, 198 L.Ed.2d 395 (2017), requires dismissal for lack of personal jurisdiction of all claims by non-California named plaintiffs who did not purchase their cars in California. Plainti...
To continue reading
Request your trial-
Powell v. Subaru of Am., Inc., 1:19-cv-19114
...v. General Motors LLC, CV 17-04323 TJH (SKx), 2018 WL 6039838, at *3 (C. D Cal. Aug. 8, 2018) (citing Sloan v. General Motors LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 875 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 7, 2018) ). In Steele, the court dismissed one plaintiff's claim because he had only pled "vague allegations that he re......
-
In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.
...from exercising pendent personal jurisdiction over claims advanced by nonresident plaintiffs. See, e.g. , Sloan v. General Motors LLC , 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 862 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (exercising pendent personal jurisdiction over claims advanced by nonresident plaintiffs in light of the "absence......
-
Butler Auto Recycling, Inc. v. Honda Motor Co. (In re Takata Airbag Prods. Liab. Litig.)
...from exercising pendent personal jurisdiction over claims advanced by nonresident plaintiffs. See, e.g. , Sloan v. General Motors LLC , 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 862 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (exercising pendent personal jurisdiction over claims advanced by nonresident plaintiffs in light of the "absence......
-
Wiggins v. Bank of Am.
...pendent jurisdiction over claims based on having personal jurisdiction over federal question claims. See Sloan v. GM, LLC , 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 859 n.2 (N.D. Cal. 2018) (exercising pendent jurisdiction when plaintiffs brought a claim under the Magnuson Moss Warranty Act and declining to ad......
-
Jurisdiction at Work: Specific Personal Jurisdiction in Flsa Collective Actions After Bristol-myers Squibb
...WL 5196780; Chavez v. Stellar Mgmt. Grp. VII, LLC, 19-cv-01353, 2020 WL 4505482 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2020); Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC, 287 F. Supp. 3d 840 (N.D. Cal. 2018); Seiffert v. Qwest Corp., No. CV-18-70-GF, 2018 WL 6590836 (D. Mont. Dec. 14, 2018); Thomas v. Kellogg Co., No. C13-5136, ......
-
FORD'S UNDERLYING CONTROVERSY.
...e.g., In re Packaged Seafood Prods. Antitrust Litig., 338 F. Supp. 3d 1118, 1172-73 (S.D. Cal. 2018); Sloan v. Gen. Motors L.L.C., 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 858-59 (N.D. Cal. 2018); Allen v. ConAgra Foods, Inc., No. 3:13-cv-01279-WHO, 2018 WL 6460451, at *7 (N.D. Cal. Dec. 10, 2018) (concluding ......
-
The Class Action Struggle: Should Bristol-myer's Limit on Personal Jurisdiction Apply to Class Actions?
...Action Embroidery, 368 F.3d at 1181.351. United Mine Workers of Am. v. Gibbs, 383 U.S. 715, 725 (1966).352. Id. at 726. 353. 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 861 (N.D. Cal. 2018).354. Id. at 862.355. Id.356. Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2)-(3).357. See Bristol-Myers Squibb Co. v. Sup. Ct. of Cal., 137 S. Ct. ......
-
Civil Procedure
...at p. 1779 (quoting Bristol-Myers (CA), supra, 1 Cal.5th 783, 804)).41. Id. at p. 1778.42. Sloan v. Gen. Motors LLC (N.D. Cal. 2018) 287 F. Supp. 3d 840 (hereafter Sloan).43. Id. at p. 850-851.44. Id. at p. 851, 864, 879.45. Sloan, supra, 287 F. Supp. 3d 840, 852, 856.46. Id. at p. 856, 857......