SAN DIEGO – The U.S. Court for the Southern District of California on April 13 dismissed claims by non-California residents and invited plaintiffs in a class action suit to amend their complaint in an action against GM accusing the car maker of defective auto components.
“The plaintiffs may file an amended complaint within 30 days of the date on which this order is electronically docketed,” District Judge Marylyn Huff ruled.
Filed in September of 2019, the suit alleges that General Motors (GM) the defendant knowingly concealed known defects from its customers who purchased or leased 2013 to 2017 Cadillac ATS, SRX and XTS vehicles, and from 2014 to 2017 Cadillac CTS, ELR and Escalade vehicles equipped with GM’s “Cadillac User Experience” navigation tool and radio touch screen display, known as the “CUE System.”
"The CUE Systems are defective, posing serious safety concerns,” the complaint read. “The CUE System possesses an innate and serious defect that causes it to spontaneously delaminate, bubble or crack in a ‘spider-web’ formation, rendering it useless. When this happens, the unit ceases to function properly.”
The CUE System handles climate, navigation, has a back-up camera and uses Bluetooth audio communications the brief explained.
“This defect, which manifests itself within the limited warranty period or shortly after the limited warranty period expires, poses a serious safety risk to drivers, who can become dangerously distracted,” the complaint alleged. “Although GM has known about the defect for years, instead of fixing it, GM continued to sell new Cadillac vehicles with the defect to customers without disclosing it and has forced its customers to spend at times $1,500 or more to replace the CUE once the defect fully manifests.”
The suit demanded that GM recall and repair the vehicles, award the plaintiff class compensation and award attorney fees and costs. A jury trial was demanded.
In December of 2019 the plaintiffs filed an amended complaint and the following month attorneys for GM filed a motion to dismiss the complaint.
GM has its headquarters in Detroit.
“That GM sold some class (action) vehicles in California does not create a sufficient relationship between GM and California such that GM should be subject to specific personal jurisdiction in California for the claims of named class representatives with no connection to California,” the court opinion read.
The U.S. District Court dropped non-California residents from the complaint. The U.S. Court also granted a motion from GM to dismiss plaintiff allegations of violations of the Magnusson-Moss Warranty Act. The Act requires 100 named plaintiffs and the case only had 29 including non-California plaintiffs, the court document said.
The Court also granted a motion by the defendants to dismiss breach of warranty claims. Of the California plaintiffs, only three alleged that they followed the terms of the warranty, the court noted.
The Court granted a motion by the defendants to dismiss common law fraud and state consumer protection claims.
“Allegations of fraud must set forth ‘the who, what, when, where, and how' of the misconduct charged,” the opinion said. “The Court has already determined that the plaintiffs have not met the heightened pleadings standards.”
However, the Court at this stage of the litigation declined to dismiss allegations of “unjust enrichment” made against GM based on California laws.
The U.S. District Court gave the plaintiffs a month to file an amended complaint.