Casey v. General Motors, LLC

• Court: District Court, S.D. California
• Decided: March 18, 2021
• Docket: 3:20-cv-00299
• Status: Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 8 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 9 10 REBECCA CASEY, individually, Case No.: 20-cv-299-WQH-MSB and on behalf of a class of 11 similarly situated individuals, ORDER 12 Plaintiff, 13 v. 14 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; and 15 DOES 1-10, inclusive, 16 Defendants. 17 HAYES, Judge: 18 The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended Class 19 Action Complaint filed by Defendant General Motors LLC. (ECF No. 16). 20 I. PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND 21 On February 18, 2020, Plaintiff Rebecca Casey filed a Class Action Complaint 22 against Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”). (ECF No. 1). On September 15, 2020, 23 Casey filed an Amended Class Action Complaint (“Amended Complaint”) against 24 Defendants GM and Does 1 through 10, alleging that Defendants concealed and failed to 25 disclose a design defect in the engine bay fuse block of vehicles manufactured by GM 26 between 2013 to 2017. (ECF No. 14). 27 On September 29, 2020, GM filed a Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint. 28 (ECF No. 16). GM moves to dismiss the Amended Complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) of the 1 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure for failure to state a claim upon which relief can be 2 granted. On October 30, 2020, Casey filed an Opposition to the Motion to Dismiss. (ECF 3 No. 19). On November 13, 2020, GM filed a Reply. (ECF No. 20). 4 II. ALLEGATIONS IN THE AMENDED COMPLAINT 5 On December 9, 2016, Casey purchased a used 2014 Buick Enclave (“Vehicle”) 6 from GM franchise dealership Hoehn Buick, GMC, Cadillac (“Hoehn”) in Carlsbad, 7 California. The Vehicle had been sold new on October 13, 2013. When Casey purchased 8 the Vehicle, it had been driven 70,657 miles. Before deciding to purchase the Vehicle, 9 “Casey reviewed the window sticker and relied on its advertisements, including details of 10 the existence and length” of the Vehicle’s factory warranty. (ECF No. 14 ¶ 3). 11 At the time the [ ] Vehicle was sold new, the [ ] Vehicle came with a 4-year 50,000-mile basic warranty, a 6-year 70,000-mile powertrain warranty, a 7- 12 year 70,000-mile California emissions warranty, an 8-year 80,000-mile 13 federal emissions warranty for certain emissions related components, and a 6- year unlimited mileage warranty for certain types of rust. Thus, at the time 14 that Casey purchased the [ ] Vehicle, the [ ] Vehicle was still covered by 15 portions of the original factory warranty.

16 (Id. ¶ 2). 17 On April 30, 2018, at 89,373 miles, Casey brought the Vehicle to Hoehn for repair. 18 On approximately five occasions, the Vehicle lost power while in motion, and the “stability 19 and traction warning illuminated,” requiring Casey to pull over and restart the Vehicle. (Id. 20 ¶ 52). Hoehn “identified Fault Code P1682, and found that the fuse block ignition bus, also 21 known as both Terminal 51 and the Engine Relay, was loose.” (Id. ¶ 54). Hoehn attempted 22 to fix the problem by reinstalling and resecuring the engine bay fuse block. “The repair did 23 not work, and the [ ] Vehicle was brought back by Casey on June 20, 2018 with the same 24 symptoms.” (Id.). Hoehn diagnosed the engine bay fuse block as “defective” and replaced 25 it. (Id. ¶ 55). Casey was required to pay for the repairs. 26 In certain GM vehicles, including Casey’s Vehicle, there is an engine bay fuse block 27 located on the passenger side under the hood. The function of a fuse block is to control and 28 1 distribute electrical energy from a vehicle’s battery or generator throughout the vehicle. 2 “The functionality of a fuse block is critical” to vehicle safety because the fuse block 3 distributes energy “to a variety of safety related components, such as air bags, different 4 engine components, the brakes, brake lights, headlights, etc.” (Id. ¶ 23). 5 The engine bay fuse block provides electrical energy to different engine components 6 using a relay. The relay plugs into the engine bay fuse block “like a power cord plugs into 7 a power outlet in the wall of a home.” (Id. ¶ 17). To function properly, there must be 8 adequate tension so that the relay’s metal prongs fit tightly into the engine bay fuse block. 9 If the relay is loose, the vehicle can fail to start or can stall, which can cause “the loss of 10 acceleration, the loss of power steering, the loss of power brakes, and several other very 11 unsafe conditions.” (Id. ¶ 21). “A properly designed and constructed fuse block should last 12 the life of a vehicle.” (Id. ¶ 15). 13 GM’s fuse blocks are “mass produced.” (Id. ¶ 22). The engine bay fuse blocks for 14 the following GM products have “virtually the identical layout and design:” 1) the 2007- 15 2010 Saturn Outlook; 2) the 2008-2017 Buick Enclave—including Casey’s Vehicle; 3) the 16 2009-2017 Chevrolet Traverse; 4) the 2007-2016 Chevrolet Acadia; and 5) the 2017 17 Chevrolet Acadia Limited. (Id. ¶ 27). There is a “Fuse Block Defect” in the design, 18 materials, and assembly of these engine bay fuse blocks “wherein the fuse block terminals 19 fail to maintain sufficient tension, resulting in relays which are mounted on fuse blocks 20 being loose.” (Id. ¶ 28). “The Fuse Block Defect is the fact that there is poor 21 connection/terminal retention.” (Id. ¶ 49). The Fuse Block Defect causes vehicles to stall, 22 lose acceleration, lose power steering, and/or lose power brakes. 23 GM has been aware of the Fuse Block Defect since 2010. “GM’s own documents 24 confirm that consumers have complained for years, predating the sale and lease of the 25 [vehicles with the Fuse Block Defect], that the [ ] [v]ehicles have experienced problems 26 which are and were symptomatic of the Fuse Block Defect.” (Id. ¶ 29). GM has published 27 several service bulletins describing the symptoms of the Fuse Block Defect in vehicles with 28 1 the common fuse block design, explaining how to diagnose the problem and “purport[ing] 2 to offer [ ] repair[s].” (Id.). 3 The December 8, 2010, service bulletin applies to “2011 and prior GM Passenger 4 Cars and Trucks.” (Id. ¶ 30). The bulletin reports customer complaints of “[a]n intermittent 5 no crank/no start, intermittent malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) illumination, intermittent 6 service lamp illumination, and intermittent service message(s) being displayed,” which can 7 be caused by various conditions including “poor connection/terminal retention.” (Id. ¶ 30). 8 The bulletin recommends resolving the conditions by “apply[ing] a dielectric lubricant, and 9 only replac[ing] parts if applying the dielectric lubricant does not resolve the problem.” 10 (Id. ¶ 31). 11 The February 2013 service bulletin applies to “2014 and prior GM cars and light 12 duty trucks.” (Id. ¶ 34). The bulletin identifies diagnostic Fault Codes P1682 and P0689, 13 which “relate to the ignition circuit and engine stalling” and can, “among other things, [ ] 14 indicate poor connection/terminal retention relating to the . . . Engine Relay, [ ] which is 15 located in the Engine Bay Fuse Block.” (Id. ¶ 35). The bulletin “advis[es] technicians that 16 if they identify certain fault codes, including P1682 and P0689, the technician should test 17 the terminal pin fit and tension” for problems. (Id.). 18 The February 12, 2014, service bulletin applies to the 2008-2014 Buick Enclave, 19 2009-2014 Chevrolet Traverse, the 2007-2014 GMC Acadia, and the 2010 Saturn Outlook, 20 all of which share the common fuse block design. The bulletin “purports to identify the 21 root cause of Fault Code P1682” as the use of improperly wired after-market equipment. 22 (Id. ¶ 38). 23 The November 16, 2018, service bulletin applies to the 2013-2014 Buick Enclave, 24 2013-2014 Chevrolet Traverse, and 2013-2014 GMC Acadia, which share the common 25 fuse block design. The bulletin “identifies an ongoing problem with poor 26 connection/terminal retention, causing terminal corrosion.” (Id. ¶ 40). The bulletin reports 27 customer complaints of an “intermittent Service Engine Soon light on with Reduced 28 Engine Power and/or engine stall with P0689 and/or P1682 stored in history.” (Id. ¶ 39). 1 The bulletin identifies the cause of this problem as “Terminal #51 at X3 Connector of 2 Under Hood Fuse Block loose terminal tension with arcing corrosion on terminal #51 of 3 the fuse block.” (Id.). “Terminal 51 is used as a receptacle on the fuse block for an Engine 4 Relay.” (Id. ¶ 44). 5 The November 5, 2019, “Preliminary Information” applies to all GM models 2005- 6 2020. (Id. ¶ 42). The Preliminary Information states that “terminal tension is one of the 7 main culprits” in diagnosing an “intermittent electrical concern.” (Id.). 8 The December 12, 2019, service bulletin applies to the 2013-2017 Buick Enclave, 9 2013-2017 Chevrolet Traverse, 2013-2016 Chevrolet Acadia, and 2017 Chevrolet Acadia 10 Limited, which share the common fuse block design. The bulletin describes an ongoing 11 problem with “engine stall[ing] and/or a reduced engine power message” with stored Fault 12 Codes P1682 or P0689. (Id. ¶ 43). The bulletin states that the cause of this condition “may 13 be poor terminal tension on terminal 51 in X50A fuse block Underhood X3” and directs 14 technicians to “inspect, and if repair is necessary, replace terminal 51 in X50A fuse block 15 – Underhood X3, with a new terminated lead.” (Id.). This condition “is the same condition 16 that resulted in the repair attempts to [ ] Casey[’s] Vehicle . . . .” (Id. ¶ 59). 17 These service bulletins dating back to 2010 “confirm customer complaints which 18 GM attributed to a lack of terminal tension.” (Id. ¶ 47). The service bulletins are 19 “interrelate[d]” because they 20 relate to a common defect which relates to all of the GM vehicles which share the Common Fuse Block Design. The common defect is the Fuse Block 21 Defect. The Fuse Block Defect is the fact that there is poor 22 connection/terminal retention. The poor connection/terminal retention causes the Engine Relay, which is mounted in terminal 51 to be loose, causing 23 intermittent lack of connectivity. 24 As a result, the [ ] Vehicles produce Fault Code P689 and Fault Code P1682. 25 Furthermore, the [ ] Vehicles experience engine stalling, as well intermittent 26 no crank/no start, intermittent malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) illumination, intermittent service lamp illumination, and intermittent service message(s) 27 being displayed, [as first identified in the 2010 service bulletin]. 28 1 (Id. ¶¶ 49-50). 2 Before 2019, GM offered “band-aid solutions” to the Fuse Block Defect, including 3 “to pack the area with dielectric lubricant, or blame the problem on after market equipment, 4 to attempt to remedy or at least explain away the poor terminal connection.” (Id. ¶ 31, 47). 5 If the vehicle is no longer under warranty, customers are required to pay for the repairs. 6 GM “failed to take any action to resolve the problem because, based upon a cost benefit 7 analysis, GM has not been financially motivated to resolve the problem.” (Id. ¶ 48). 8 GM has actively concealed the Fuse Block Defect since it became aware of the 9 defect. GM “widely advertises, publishes, publicizes, and disseminates to the public that 10 [its vehicles] are both safe and of good quality.” (Id. ¶ 60). However, the vehicles with the 11 Fuse Block Defect are “not fit for their intended purpose of providing consumers with safe 12 and reliable transportation.” (Id. ¶ 61). GM has failed to disclose the existence of the Fuse 13 Block Defect at the time of purchase or thereafter and has “instead made false statements 14 that [ ] there is no defect relating to” vehicles with the common fuse block design. (Id. ¶ 15 66). As a result, Casey and other consumers have expended money for repairs, have not 16 received the value for which they bargained when they purchased their vehicles, and have 17 experienced a diminished resale value of their vehicles. 18 Casey seeks to represent the following class: 19 All Persons in the State of California who purchased or leased model year 2013 through 2017 Buick Enclave, model year 2013 through 2017 Chevrolet 20 Traverse, model year 2013 through 2016 Chevrolet Acadia, and model year 21 2017 Chevrolet Acadia Limited vehicles (“Class Vehicles”).

22 (Id. ¶ 77). Casey further seeks to represent the following subclass: 23 All Class Members who are “consumers” within the meaning of California 24 Civil Code § 1761(d). Excluded from the Class and Sub-Classes are: (1) Defendants, any entity or division in which Defendants has a controlling 25 interest, and its legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and 26 successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge’s staff; and (3) persons who have suffered personal injuries as the result of the facts 27 alleged herein. 28 1 (Id.). 2 Casey and the class bring the following claims against Defendants: 1) fraud by 3 omission; and 2) violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code 4 §§ 1750, et seq. Casey and class seek injunctive relief, declaratory relief, damages, and 5 attorneys’ fees and costs. 6 III. LEGAL STANDARD 7 Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure permits dismissal for “failure 8 to state a claim upon which relief can be granted.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6). In order to state 9 a claim for relief, a pleading “must contain . . . a short and plain statement of the claim 10 showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2). Dismissal under Rule 11 12(b)(6) “is proper only where there is no cognizable legal theory or an absence of 12 sufficient facts alleged to support a cognizable legal theory.” Shroyer v. New Cingular 13 Wireless Servs., Inc., 622 F.3d 1035, 1041 (9th Cir. 2010) (citation omitted). 14 “To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, 15 accepted as true, to ‘state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.’” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 16 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 570 (2007)). 17 “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the 18 court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct 19 alleged.” Id. (citation omitted). However, “a plaintiff’s obligation to provide the ‘grounds’ 20 of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief’ requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic 21 recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555 22 (alteration in original) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)). A court is not “required to accept as 23 true allegations that are merely conclusory, unwarranted deductions of fact, or 24 unreasonable inferences.” Sprewell v. Golden State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 25 2001). “In sum, for a complaint to survive a motion to dismiss, the non-conclusory factual 26 content, and reasonable inferences from that content, must be plausibly suggestive of a 27 claim entitling the plaintiff to relief.” Moss v. U.S. Secret Serv., 572 F.3d 962, 969 (9th Cir. 28 2009) (citation omitted). 1 Claims sounding in fraud or mistake must additionally comply with the heightened 2 pleading requirements of Rule 9(b) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, which requires 3 that a complaint “must state with particularity the circumstances constituting fraud or 4 mistake.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 9(b). The pleader must “identify the who, what, when, where, 5 and how of the misconduct charged, as well as what is false misleading about the 6 purportedly fraudulent statement, and why it is false.” Davidson v. Kimberly-Clark Corp., 7 873 F.3d 1103, 1110 (9th Cir. 2017) (quoting Cafasso, U.S. ex rel. v. Gen. Dynamics C4 8 Sys., Inc., 637 F.3d 1047, 1055 (9th Cir. 2011)), as corrected (Mar. 12, 2018). “To comply 9 with Rule 9(b), allegations of fraud must be specific enough to give defendants notice of 10 the particular misconduct which is alleged to constitute the fraud charged so that they can 11 defend against the charge and not just deny that they have done anything wrong.” Bly- 12 Magee v. California, 236 F.3d 1014, 1019 (9th Cir. 2001) (citation omitted). 13 IV. DISCUSSION 14 GM contends that the Court should dismiss the Amended Complaint because Casey 15 fails to allege a causal connection between the issues her vehicle experienced and the 16 “specific alleged defect identified in the Amended Complaint” of “poor terminal tension 17 in terminal 51 as described in [the February 2019 service] bulletin.” (ECF No. 16-1 at 14- 18 15). GM contends that Casey alleges that the first repair to her Vehicle “involved 19 reconnecting the loose ‘ignition bus,’ not terminal 51,” and Casey “alleges no facts to show 20 that terminal 51 was the reason [the fuse block was replaced in the second repair], as 21 opposed to some other reason.” (Id. at 15-16). GM contends that Casey fails to plausibly 22 allege that GM had knowledge of the alleged defect in terminal 51 prior to the sale of the 23 Vehicle. GM contends that the only service bulletins identifying issues with terminal 51 24 were published in 2018 and 2019, years after Casey purchased the Vehicle and years after 25 the Vehicle was sold new. GM contends that the service bulletins published before the sale 26 of the Vehicle apply to vehicles including those that do not share the common fuse block 27 28 1 design and fail to demonstrate GM’s knowledge of any defect with terminal 51. GM 2 further contends that Casey fails to plead the essential elements of the claims with 3 particularity under Rule 9(b). GM contends that Casey fails to describe the content of any 4 alleged omission or where the information should have been disclosed. GM contends that 5 Casey fails to identify any advertisements or representations that she relied on prior to 6 purchasing the Vehicle that failed to contain any required information. 7 Casey contends that “GM has sought to redefine the alleged defect so that it focuses 8 specifically on ‘terminal 51’ in the Fuse Block;” however, “the alleged defect as defined 9 in the [Amended Complaint] . . . is the lack of sufficient tension at the engine fuse block 10 terminal.” (ECF No. 19 at 7). Casey contends that that the problems she experienced with 11 her Vehicle were manifested in Fault Codes P1682 and P0689, which were “identified by 12 GM as rooted specifically in terminal 51.” (Id.). Casey contends that she sufficiently 13 alleges that GM has known about the Fuse Block Defect since 2010, predating the sale of 14 any of the Class Vehicles. Casey contends that the service bulletins demonstrate that “GM 15 knew as early as 2010 that there was a terminal tension problem with all of the relays, 16 which includes terminal 51, and that a problem with terminal tension with terminal 51 17 would cause stalling and other safety hazards.” (Id. at 7-8). Casey contends that Rule 9(b)’s 18 heightened pleading standard does not apply because “fraud is not a required element of 19 Plaintiff’s claims.” (Id. at 17). Casey contends that even if Rule 9(b) applies, she “pleads 20 with particularity that, at the time of purchase, she reviewed the window sticker and relied 21 on its advertisements, including details of the existence and length of the express 22 warranties, when deciding whether to purchase or lease” the Vehicle. (Id. at 18). Casey 23 contends that GM “omitted the existence and nature of the defect from those sources at the 24 point of sale and thereafter.” (Id.). 25

26 1 GM requests that the Court take judicial notice of eight GM service bulletins. (ECF No. 16-2 at 2). 27 Judicial notice of the requested documents is unnecessary for this Order. The request for judicial notice is denied. See Asvesta v. Petroutsas, 580 F.3d 1000, 1010 n.12 (9th Cir. 2009) (denying request for judicial 28 1 Casey brings individual and class claims against Defendants for fraud by omission 2 and violation of the CLRA. “[N]ondisclosure is a claim for misrepresentation in a cause of 3 action for fraud, [and] it (as any other fraud claim) must be pleaded with particularity under 4 Rule 9(b).” Kearns v. Ford Motor Co., 567 F.3d 1120, 1127 (9th Cir. 2009). The plaintiff 5 must provide “an account of the time, place, and specific content of the false 6 representations as well as the identities of the parties to the misrepresentations.” Swartz v. 7 KPMG LLP, 476 F.3d 756, 764 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted). 8 The CLRA prohibits “unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or 9 practices undertaken by any person in a transaction intended to result or which results in 10 the sale . . . of goods or services to any consumer.” Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a). Conduct 11 prohibited by the CLRA includes “[r]epresenting that goods or services have . . . 12 characteristics . . . that they do not,” “[r]epresenting that goods or services are of a particular 13 standard, quality, or grade . . . if they are of another,” and “[a]dvertsing goods or services 14 with intent not to sell them as advertised.” Id. § 1770(a)(5), (7), (9). “[F]raud is not a 15 necessary element of a claim under the CLRA . . . .” Kearns, 567 F.3d at 1125 (citing Vess 16 v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103 (9th Cir. 2003)). Because “a defendant can 17 violate the . . . CLRA by acting with mere negligence,” Rule 9(b)’s heightened pleading 18 standard may not apply. Moore v. Mars Petcare U.S., Inc., 966 F.3d 1007, 1020 n.11 (9th 19 Cir. 2020). However, 20 [a] plaintiff may allege a unified course of fraudulent conduct and rely entirely on the course of conduct as the basis of [the CLRA] claim. In that event, the 21 claim is said to be “grounded in fraud” or to “sound in fraud,” and the pleading 22 . . . as a whole must satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 9(b).

23 Kearns, 567 F.3d at1125 (second and third alterations in original) (quoting Vess, 317 F.3d 24 at 1103-04). 25 In this case, Casey’s first claim for fraud by omission is a cause of action for fraud 26 and must be pleaded with particularity. See id. at 1127. The second claim for violation of 27 the CLRA is based on the same facts as the fraud claim. The second claims relies on the 28 1 alleged fraudulent course of conduct that GM intentionally concealed and failed to disclose 2 the Fuse Block Defect. Both of Casey’s claims are “‘grounded in fraud’ or [ ] ‘sound in 3 fraud,’ and the pleading . . . as a whole must satisfy the particularity requirement of Rule 4 9(b).”2 Id. at 1125 (second alteration in original) (quoting Vess, 317 F.3d at 1103-04). 5 Under California law, a fraud or CLRA claim may be based on an omission where 6 the “omission [is] contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant, or [is] an 7 omission of a fact the defendant was obliged to disclose.” Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor 8 Co., 144 Cal. App. 4th 824, 835 (2006), as modified (Oct. 31, 2006). A manufacturer’s 9 duty to disclose “is limited to its warranty obligations absent either an affirmative 10 misrepresentation or a safety issue” and requires that the defendant was aware of the defect 11 at the time of sale. Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136, 1141 (9th Cir. 2012) 12 (citations omitted)). “To state a [CLRA or fraud] claim for failing to disclose a defect, a 13 party must allege (1) the existence of a design defect; (2) the existence of an unreasonable 14 safety hazard; (3) a causal connection between the alleges defect and the alleged safety 15 hazard; and [(4)] that the manufacturer knew of the defect at the time the sale was made.” 16 Williams v. Yamaha Motor Co., 851 F.3d 1015, 1025 (9th Cir. 2017) (citation omitted). 17 “[T]o plead the circumstances of omission with specificity [under Rule 9(b)], plaintiff must 18 describe the content of the omission and where the omitted information should or could 19 have been revealed as well as . . . [the content of] advertisements, offers, or other 20 representations that plaintiff relied on to make her purchase and that failed to include the 21

22 2 Where a plaintiff alleges some fraudulent and some non-fraudulent conduct, “Rule 9(b)’s heightened 23 pleading requirements [apply] only to ‘averments’ of fraud supporting a claim rather than to the claim as a whole.” Vess, 317 F.3d at 1104. The court should disregard or strip from the complaint averments of 24 fraud that are insufficiently pled and then examine the allegations that remain to determine whether they 25 state a claim. See id. In this case, Casey incorporates by reference all of the fraud allegations into the CLRA claim and alleges a unified course of fraudulent conduct, requiring the pleading as a whole to 26 satisfy Rule 9(b). See ECF No. 14 ¶ 93; Vess, 317 F.3d at 1104 (citing Melder v. Morris, 27 F.3d 1097, 1100 n.6 (5th Cir. 1994) (“Appellants maintain that their 1933 Securities Act claims were inappropriately 27 subjected to the Rule 9(b) heightened pleading standard. This argument is untenable in light of the complaint’s wholesale adoption of the allegations under the securities fraud claims for purposes of the 28 1 allegedly omitted information.” Marolda v. Symantec Corp., 672 F. Supp. 2d 992, 1002 2 (N.D. Cal. 2009). 3 In addition, Article III standing requires that that the plaintiff suffered an injury that 4 is “fairly traceable to the challenged conduct.” Levine v. Vilsack, 587 F.3d 986, 991-92 (9th 5 Cir. 2009), as amended (Nov. 20, 2009). Casey must allege facts that support an inference 6 that her Vehicle experienced the Fuse Block Defect described in the Amended Complaint. 7 In the Amended Complaint, Casey alleges that the 2013-2017 Buick Enclave, 2013- 8 2017 Chevrolet Traverse, 2013-2016 Chevrolet Acadia, and 2017 Chevrolet Acadia 9 Limited share a common fuse block design and contain a “Fuse Block Defect” “wherein 10 the fuse block terminals fail to maintain sufficient tension, resulting in relays which are 11 mounted on fuse blocks being loose.” (ECF No. 14 ¶ 28). Casey alleges that “[t]he Fuse 12 Block Defect is the fact that there is poor connection/terminal retention.” (Id. ¶ 49). Casey 13 alleges that Fuse Block Defect affects the engine bay fuse block located on the passenger 14 side under the hood in Class Vehicles, causing safety issues including stalling, loss of 15 acceleration, loss of power steering, and/or loss of power breaking. 16 Casey alleges that GM has had knowledge of the Fuse Block Defect since 2010. 17 Casey alleges that the 2010 through 2019 service bulletins are “interrelat[ed]” and “point 18 back to the December 8, 2010 Service Bulletin,” in which GM first described the customer 19 complaints that are symptomatic of poor terminal tension. (Id. ¶ 47). Casey alleges that in 20 the service bulletins predating the sale of the Class Vehicles, GM “sought to attribute the 21 problem to various causes, such as after-market accessories[.]” (Id.). Casey alleges the 22 2019 service bulletin finally acknowledged the “underlying issue” of “poor terminal 23 tension in terminal 51 in X50A fuse block Underhood X3.” (Id. ¶¶ 43, 47). Casey alleges 24 that the fact that the 2019 service bulletin identifies the cause of symptoms dating back to 25 2010 as poor terminal tension in the engine bay fuse block demonstrates that “GM has 26 known about the Fuse [B]lock Defect for years, predating GM’s sale and distribution of 27 the Class Vehicles[.]” (Id. ¶ 48). 28 1 Casey alleges that on December 9, 2016, she purchased a used Class Vehicle—a 2 2014 Buick Enclave, which was sold new on October 13, 2013. Casey alleges that before 3 deciding to purchase the Vehicle, she “reviewed the window sticker and relied on its 4 advertisements, including details of the existence and length” of the vehicle’s factory 5 warranty. (Id. ¶ 3). Casey alleges that on approximately five occasions, the Vehicle lost 6 power while in motion, and the “stability and traction warning illuminated,” requiring 7 Casey to pull over and restart the Vehicle. (Id. ¶ 52). Casey alleges that she took the Vehicle 8 to Hoehn for repair twice, and Hoehn “identified Fault Code P1682, and found that the fuse 9 block ignition bus, also known as both Terminal 51 and the Engine Relay, was loose.” (Id. 10 ¶ 54). Casey alleges that Hoehn diagnosed the engine bay fuse block as “defective” and 11 replaced it. (Id. ¶ 55). 12 Casey alleges that GM has “failed to disclose at any time . . . that the Class vehicles 13 have the Fuse Block Defect,” has “failed to disclose at the time of purchase or lease that 14 the Class Vehicles were not in good working order, were defective, and were not safe,” 15 and has “made false statements that there is no defect relating to the Class Vehicles.” (Id. 16 ¶ 66). Casey alleges that as a result of “this misinformation,” Casey and the class members 17 have had to pay for repairs resulting from the Fuse Block Defect, have “not received the 18 value for which they bargained when they purchased or leased the Class Vehicles,” and 19 have experienced diminished value of the Class Vehicles. (Id. ¶ 68). 20 Casey’s allegations that Hoehn determined that her Vehicle’s loss of power while in 21 motion and illumination of the stability and traction warning light were caused by terminal 22 51 or the engine relay being loose are sufficient to support an inference that her Vehicle 23 experienced the Fuse Block Defect described in the Amended Complaint. The Court 24 concludes that facts as alleged by Casey support an inference that the alleged injury is 25 “fairly traceable to the challenged conduct” sufficient to confer Article III standing. Levine, 26 587 F.3d at 991-92. 27 Two of the GM service bulletins as alleged by Casey predate the original sale of the 28 Vehicle in 2013, and three of the service bulletins predate the sale of the Vehicle to Casey 1 in 2016. Casey alleges that the 2010 service bulletin applies to “2011 and prior GM 2 Passenger Cars and Trucks,” which includes vehicles that share the common fuse block 3 design and vehicles that do not. (ECF No. 14 ¶ 30). Casey alleges that the bulletin reports 4 customer complaints of symptoms that “may be caused” by various conditions including 5 “poor connection/terminal retention.” (Id. (emphasis added)). Casey alleges that the 6 February 2013 service bulletin applies to “2014 and prior GM cars and light duty trucks,” 7 which includes vehicles that share the common fuse block design and vehicles that do not. 8 (Id. ¶ 34). Casey alleges that the bulletin identifies diagnostic Fault Codes P1682 and 9 P0689, “which, among other things, can indicate poor connection/terminal retention 10 relating to the . . . Engine Relay, [ ] which is located in the Engine Bay Fuse Block.” (Id. ¶ 11 35 (emphasis added)). Casey alleges that the February 12, 2014, service bulletin applies 12 only to vehicles that share the common fuse block design, but “purports to identify the root 13 cause of Fault Code P1682” as the use of improperly wired after-market equipment, not 14 poor terminal tension. (Id. ¶ 38). 15 The contents of the service bulletins that predate the sale of Casey’s Vehicle show 16 that GM was aware that there were customer complaints of certain conditions in some GM 17 vehicles, of which one possible cause includes poor terminal tension. Casey alleges that 18 GM identified the “underlying issue” of “poor terminal tension in terminal 51 in X50A 19 fuse block Underhood X3” in the 2019 service bulletin, years after the sale of the Vehicle. 20 Id. ¶¶ 43, 47; see Tomek v. Apple Inc., 636 F. App’x 712, 713 (9th Cir. 2016) (“[T]he later 21 evidence tendered to show that Apple released a patch solving the issue does not show 22 knowledge of the defect at the time of sale.”). Casey fails to allege facts that support an 23 inference that GM was aware that there was a Fuse Block Defect affecting the Class 24 Vehicles predating the sale of the Class Vehicles. The Court concludes that Casey fails to 25 allege with particularity facts sufficient to infer that “the manufacturer knew of the defect 26 at the time the sale was made.” Williams, 851 F.3d at 1025 (citation omitted). 27 Further, the offer, representation, or advertisement that Casey alleges she relied upon 28 before deciding to purchase the Vehicle is the window sticker’s “advertisements, including 1 details of the existence and length” of the Vehicle’s factory warranty. (ECF No. 14 ¶ 3). 2 Casey fails to allege that the window sticker did not include any required disclosure. Casey 3 does not allege that she relied on any other advertisement, representation, or other offer 4 from GM that failed to include any required disclosure. Casey fails to “describe [with 5 specificity] the content of the omission and where the omitted information should or could 6 have been revealed as well as . . . [the content of] advertisements, offers, or other 7 representations that plaintiff relied on to make her purchase and that failed to include the 8 allegedly omitted information.” Marolda, 672 F. Supp. 2d at 1002. The Court concludes 9 that the Amended Complaint fails to meet the pleading requirements of Rule 9(b). GM’s 10 Motion to Dismiss is granted. 11 V. SUBJECT MATTER JURISDICTION 12 The Court is obligated to sua sponte inquire into its subject matter jurisdiction 13 whenever its jurisdiction is in doubt. See Mt. Healthy City Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Doyle, 14 429 U.S. 274, 278 (1977), superseded by statute on other grounds as stated in Rivera v. 15 United States, 924 F.2d 948, 954 n.7 (9th Cir. 1991). “[I]f the court determines at any time 16 that it lacks subject matter jurisdiction, the court must dismiss the action.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 17 12(h)(3). Federal courts have limited jurisdiction and “possess only that power authorized 18 by Constitution and statute, which is not to be expanded by judicial decree. It is to be 19 presumed that a cause lies outside this limited jurisdiction, and the burden of establishing 20 the contrary rests upon the party asserting jurisdiction.” Kokkonen v. Guardian Life Ins. 21 Co. of Am., 511 U.S. 375, 377 (1994) (citations omitted). Rule 8 of the Federal Rules of 22 Civil Procedure requires that a complaint contain “a short and plain statement of the 23 grounds for the court’s jurisdiction[.]” Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(1). 24 “[D]istrict courts [ ] have original jurisdiction of all civil actions arising under the 25 Constitution, laws, or treaties of the United States.” 28 U.S.C. § 1331. The Class Action 26 Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”) “gives federal courts jurisdiction over certain class actions, 27 defined in § 1332(d)(1), if the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally 28 diverse, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.” Dart Cherokee Basin 1 || Operating Co. v. Owens, 574 U.S. 81, 84-85 (2014) (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), 2 ||(5)(B)). For the purposes of determining diversity of citizenship, “an LLC is a citizen of 3 |}every state of which its owners/members are citizens.” Johnson v. Columbia Props. 4 || Anchorage, LP, 437 F.3d 894, 899 (9th Cir. 2006). 5 In this case, Casey alleges that the basis for the Court’s jurisdiction is diversity 6 || jurisdiction under CAFA. Casey alleges that GM “is a limited lability company.” (ECF 7 14 §] 4). Casey alleges that she “is a citizen of the State of California, and GM is 8 || incorporated in the State of Delaware, and the amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.” 9 || Ud. 4] 9). Casey alleges that “[a]lthough the exact number of Class Members is uncertain 10 || and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, the number is great enough that 11 |/joinder is impracticable.” Ud. § 78). Casey fails to allege facts sufficient to support an 12 inference that “the class has more than 100 members, the parties are minimally diverse, 13 the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.” Dart Cherokee, 574 U.S. at 84-85 14 || (quoting 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d)(2), 5(B)). The Court concludes that Casey has not met her 15 || burden to demonstrate that the Court has subject matter jurisdiction. 16 CONCLUSION 17 IT IS HEREBY ORDERED that the Motion to Dismiss Plaintiff’s First Amended 18 ||Class Action Complaint (ECF No. 16) is granted. The First Amended Class Action 19 ||Complaint is dismissed without prejudice. No later than thirty (30) days from the date of 20 || this Order, Plaintiff may file any motion for leave to amend pursuant to Civil Local Rules 21 and 15.1(c). Any proposed amended complaint shall include a statement of the grounds 22 || for the Court’s jurisdiction with facts sufficient to demonstrate that the Court has subject 23 || matter jurisdiction. 24 || Dated: March 18, 2021 itt Z. A a 25 Hon. William Q. Hayes %6 United States District Court 27 28