445 F.Supp.3d 1000
S.D. Cal.2020Background
- Plaintiffs (29 named individuals from 14 states) sued GM alleging a latent defect in the Cadillac User Experience (CUE) touch-screen: a plastic cover delaminates from the touch glass, producing a "spider‑web" pattern that renders the touch function unresponsive and impairs safety (e.g., backup camera).
- Plaintiffs cite dealer Technical Service Bulletins (TSBs), NHTSA complaints, internet posts, and repair volumes as evidence GM knew or should have known of the defect.
- Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint asserting nationwide class claims and state subclasses; GM moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction (for non‑California plaintiffs) and for failure to state claims under Rule 12(b)(6).
- The court held a hearing and issued an order granting in part and denying in part GM’s motion: it dismissed all Non‑California named plaintiffs for lack of specific personal jurisdiction and dismissed multiple causes of action as to the California plaintiffs, while allowing certain Song‑Beverly and unjust enrichment claims to proceed.
- Surviving claims (narrower): Benito Guzman’s Song‑Beverly implied warranty claim and California unjust enrichment claims (as alternative restitution theories). Dismissed with prejudice in many respects: Non‑California plaintiffs, MMWA claim, express warranty claims, some implied warranty claims, common‑law fraud, CLRA and UCL claims (subject to limited leave to amend where noted).
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Specific personal jurisdiction over Non‑California plaintiffs | Bristol‑Myers should not bar named plaintiffs in a nationwide class; GM has substantial California contacts | Out‑of‑state claims lack connection to California; Bristol‑Myers controls | Court applies Bristol‑Myers to named plaintiffs and dismisses Non‑California plaintiffs with prejudice |
| MMWA class‑action jurisdictional requirement (100 named plaintiffs) | CAFA permits federal jurisdiction despite <100 named plaintiffs | MMWA explicitly bars district‑court class claims with fewer than 100 named plaintiffs; CAFA does not override that statutory prerequisite | MMWA claim dismissed |
| Breach of express warranty (warranty period; unconscionability) | Defect existed within warranty or durational limits are unconscionable | Plaintiffs failed to request warranty repairs during covered period; warranty expired; design defects excluded; durational limits enforceable | Express warranty claims dismissed (plaintiffs failed to show compliance with warranty or unconscionability) |
| Implied warranty (Song‑Beverly & Cal. UCC §2314): merchantability, latent defect, timeliness, privity, used cars | Vehicles were unmerchantable; defect was latent (tolling); plaintiffs are intended beneficiaries so privity not required | Not unmerchantable; claims occurred outside warranty; some plaintiffs time‑barred; used‑car purchases and lack of privity bar claims | Court declines to dismiss general implied‑warranty pleading on merits (latent‑defect theory survives), but: (a) two plaintiffs’ Song‑Beverly claims dismissed as time‑barred (failed to plead fraudulent concealment with particularity); (b) used‑car purchasers’ Song‑Beverly claims dismissed; (c) claims under Cal. Com. Code §2314 dismissed for lack of privity |
| Common‑law fraud, CLRA, UCL (Rule 9(b) specificity; duty/knowledge) | GM omitted known defect; TSBs and complaints show GM’s knowledge and concealment | Pleadings lack who/what/when/where/how and individualized reliance required by Rule 9(b) | Fraud, CLRA, and UCL claims dismissed for failure to plead with particularity |
| Unjust enrichment (nationwide class; alternative remedy) | Plaintiffs may plead unjust enrichment nationwide or in the alternative to contract claims | Named California plaintiffs lack Article III standing to assert other states’ laws; express contract may preclude restitution | Nationwide unjust enrichment claims dismissed for lack of standing; California unjust enrichment claims may proceed as alternative relief |
Key Cases Cited
- Bristol‑Myers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California, 137 S. Ct. 1773 (2017) (specific‑jurisdiction requires affiliation between forum and underlying controversy)
- Walden v. Fiore, 571 U.S. 277 (2014) (jurisdictional contacts must be defendant's contacts with the forum)
- Daimler AG v. Bauman, 571 U.S. 117 (2014) (general jurisdiction limited to place of incorporation or principal place of business)
- International Shoe Co. v. Washington, 326 U.S. 310 (1945) (minimum contacts due process standard)
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544 (2007) (plausibility pleading standard)
- Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662 (2009) (apply Twombly plausibility to individual allegations)
- Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120 (9th Cir. 2009) (Rule 9(b) fraud‑pleading requirements and omissions)
- Clemens v. DaimlerChrysler Corp., 534 F.3d 1017 (9th Cir. 2008) (express warranty limits govern failures after warranty period)
- Daniel v. Ford Motor Co., 806 F.3d 1217 (9th Cir. 2015) (Song‑Beverly does not create a deadline for discovering latent defects)