Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

District Court, N.D. California·Decided October 8, 2025·No. 3:16-cv-07244·Unknown

Opinion

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GABRIEL DEL VALLE, et al., Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC (EMC)

8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING FINAL CLASS 9 v. SETTLEMENT APPROVAL AND ATTORNEYS FEES AND COSTS 10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 11 Defendant. Docket Nos. 726, 727

12 13 WHEREAS, the Court, having considered the Settlement Agreement filed April 17, 2025 14 (the “Settlement Agreement”) between and among Class Plaintiffs, through Class Counsel, and 15 Defendant General Motors LLC. (“GM”), the Court’s June 10, 2025 Order Granting Preliminary 16 Approval of the Class Settlement, Directing Notice to the Classes, and Scheduling Final Approval 17 Hearing (ECF No. 723) (the “Preliminary Approval Order”), the Motion for Final Approval of the 18 Class Settlement (ECF No. 726) (“Motion for Final Approval”), Class Counsel’s Application for Attorneys’ Fees, Reimbursement of Expenses, and Service Awards (ECF No. 727) (“Motion for 19 Attorneys’ Fees and Expenses”), having held a Final Approval Hearing on October 6, 2025, and 20 having considered all of the submissions and arguments with respect to the Settlement Agreement 21 and related documents and exhibits, and otherwise being fully informed, and good cause appearing 22 therefore; 23

24 IT IS HERBY ORDERED AS FOLLOWS: 25 1) This Final Order Approving Class Action Settlement (“Final Order”) incorporates 26 herein and makes a part hereof, the Settlement Agreement and its exhibits, and the Preliminary 27 Approval Order. Unless otherwise provided herein, the terms defined in the Settlement Agreement 1 and Preliminary Approval Order shall have the same meanings for purposes of this Final Order 2 and accompanying Judgment. 3 2) The Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter and the Parties to this proceeding 4 pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1331 and 1332. 3) Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) because a 5 substantial part of the events or omissions alleged by the Class Plaintiffs occurred in this District. 6 4) Based on the record before the Court, including all submissions in support of the 7 Settlement set forth in the Settlement Agreement, objections and responses thereto and all prior 8 proceedings in the Action, as well as the Settlement Agreement itself and its related documents 9 and exhibits, the Court hereby confirms the certification of the following Classes for settlement 10 purposes: 11

12 All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in new condition in the State of California as of May 23, 2022 (the “California Class”). 13 All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased from 14 a GM-authorized dealer in the State of Idaho as of May 23, 2022 (the “Idaho Class”). 15 All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that was purchased or leased in the 16 State of North Carolina as of May 23, 2022 (the “North Carolina Class”). Excluded from the Classes are: GM; any affiliate, parent, or subsidiary of GM; any 17 entity in which GM has a controlling interest; any officer, director, or employee of GM; any successor or assign of GM; and any judge to whom this Action is assigned, 18 and his or her spouse; individuals and/or entities who validly and timely opted-out of the previously certified classes following the Notice of Pendency of Class Action 19 issued in this litigation on or about May 23, 2022; and current or former owners of a Class Vehicle who previously released claims in an individual settlement with 20 GM that would otherwise be covered by the Release in this Action. 21 22 “Class Vehicles” means all 2011-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche, Silverado, Suburban, and 23 Tahoe, and 2011-2014 GMC Sierra, Yukon, and Yukon XL trucks and SUVs with Generation IV 24 Vortec 5300 LC9 engines manufactured on or after February 10, 2011 and purchased or leased in California, Idaho, or North Carolina. Any vehicle that has already received adequate piston 25 replacement (i.e., upgraded piston rings) under warranty and at no cost is excluded from the 26 definition of Class Vehicle. 27 1 Jr., and Garret Tarvin as Class Plaintiffs for the Classes. 2 6) The Court confirms the appointment of the following law firms as Class Counsel: 3 Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles, P.C. 4 218 Commerce Street Montgomery, Alabama 36104 5 Tel.: (800) 898-2034

6 DiCello Levitt LLP Ten North Dearborn Street, Sixth Floor 7 Chicago, IL 60602 Tel: (312) 214-7900 8

9 Notice to Class Members 10 7) The record shows and the Court finds that Class Notice has been given to the 11 Classes in the manner approved by the Court in its Preliminary Approval Order. 12 The Court finds that such Class Notice: (i) is reasonable and constitutes the best practicable notice 13 to Class Members under the circumstances; (ii) constitutes notice that was reasonably calculated, 14 under the circumstances, to apprise Class Members of the pendency of the Action and the terms of 15 the Settlement Agreement, their right to object to all or any part of the Settlement Agreement, their 16 right to appear at the Final Approval Hearing (either on their own or through counsel hired at their 17 own expense) and the binding effect of the orders and Final Order and Judgment in the Action, 18 whether favorable or unfavorable, on all Class Members; (iii) constitutes due, adequate, and 19 sufficient notice to all persons or entities entitled to receive notice; and (iv) fully satisfied the 20 requirements of the United States Constitution (including the Due Process Clause), Fed. R. Civ. P. 23 and any other applicable law as well as complying with the Federal Judicial Center’s 21 illustrative class action notices. 22 8) The Court further finds that GM, through the Settlement Administrator, provided notice 23 of the Settlement to the appropriate state and federal government officials pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 24 1715. Furthermore, the Court has given the appropriate state and federal government officials the 25 requisite ninety (90) day period to comment on or object to the Settlement Agreement before 26 entering its Final Order and Judgment. 27 1 2 Final Approval of the Settlement 3 9) The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement resulted from extensive arm’s 4 length, good faith negotiations between Class Counsel and GM, through experienced counsel, including an in-person, all-day mediation before Anthony Piazza of Mediated Negotiations, Inc. 5 10) Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(e), the Court hereby finally approves, in all respects, 6 the Settlement as set forth in the Settlement Agreement and finds that the Settlement Agreement, 7 and all other parts of the Settlement are, in all respects, fair, reasonable, and adequate, and in the 8 best interest of the Classes and are in full compliance with all applicable requirements of the 9 Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, the United States Constitution (including the Due Process 10 Clause), the Class Action Fairness Act, and any other applicable law. The Court hereby declares 11 that the Settlement Agreement is binding on all Class Members, and it is to be preclusive in the 12 Action.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC, (N.D. Cal. 2025).

Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC (Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Related

Staton v. Boeing Co.
327 F.3d 938 (Ninth Circuit, 2003)