Cases

ORDER HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 27). I. Introduction This case was initiated on October 19, 2015 when Plaintiffs Armando J. Becerra and Guillermo Ruelas, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1)

CHIN, Circuit Judge: On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), the nation’s largest manufacturer of automobiles and the creator of such iconic American brands as Chevrolet and Cadillac, filed for bankruptcy. During the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, as access to credit tightened and consumer spending diminished, Old GM posted net losses of $70 billion over the course of a year and a half. The U.S. Department

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILLS, District Judge. This cause comes before the court on plaintiffs’ motion [73-1] to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Leflore County. Defendants have responded in opposition to the motion, and the court, having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, concludes that the motion is well taken and should be granted. On Novemb

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER GREGG COSTA, Circuit Judge.* A fire occurred in the garage of Matthew Storm’s home. The cause is believed to have been a malfunctioning component of his Chevrolet pickup truck. Plaintiff Nationwide Property & Casualty Company paid Storm’s losses, and then filed this subrogation action seeking to recover those amounts from Defendants

EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge 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 plaint

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 165 [EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 166 Chief Justice Kilbride and Justices Freeman, Thomas, Garman, Karmeier, and Burke concurred in the judgment and opinion.</

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0170p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DENNIS SPEERLY; JOSEPH SIERCHIO; DARRIN │ DEGRAND; DANIEL DRAIN; WAVERS SMITH; RICHARD

RULING ON DEFENDANTS’ MOTION TO DISMISS JAMES J. BRADY, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on a Motion to Dismiss (Doc. 22) pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), filed by Defendants General Motors LLC1 (“GM”), All Star Advertising Agency, Inc., All Star Chevrolet North, L.L.C., and All Star Chevrolet, Inc. (the All Star Defendants are re

21-2640-cv Billie R. Banks v. General Motors, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2022 (Argued: December 6, 2022 Decided: September 7, 2023) Docket No. 21-2640 BILLIE R. BANKS, Plai

678 F.Supp.2d 141 (2009) GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION & Adam Opel GmbH, Plaintiffs, v. FIAT S.p.A, Fiat Auto Holding B.V., and Fiat Auto S.p.A., Defendants. No. 08 Civ. 4999 (DAB). United States District Court, S.D. New York. July 22, 2009. *142 Roger B. Mead, Folger Levin & Kahn LLC, San Francisco, CA, for Plaintiffs.

MEMORANDUM AND ORDER VanBEBBER, Senior District Judge. Plaintiffs bring this case seeking relief for property and vehicle damage allegedly caused by discharge of sulphuric acid from a manufacturing plant, the Delphi plant, located near their property. Plaintiffs allege that the market value of their real property has fallen and that the exterior finishes of their vehicles have been damaged because of the

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United. States District Judge On June 7, 2016, nine plaintiffs filed a 442-page, complaint alleging deceptive advertising, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment claims under the. laws of thirty states against Defendant General Motors (“GM”). ECF No. 1. Fundamentally, Plaintiffs allege that GM installed a “defeat

127 F.Supp.2d 1330 (2001) Douglas Norman RUDD, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, Defendant. No. CIV. A. 00-T-105-E. United States District Court, M.D. Alabama, Eastern Division. January 19, 2001. *1331 *1332 Hoyt W. Hill, Walker, Hill, Adams, Umbach, Meadows & Walton, Opelika, AL,

DECISION AND ORDER ON MOTION TO DISMISS ROBERT E. GERBER, Bankruptcy Judge. In the chapter 11 case of reorganized Debtor Motors Liquidation Company, (formerly known as General Motors Corp.) (“Old GM”) and its affiliates (collectively, the “Debtors”), John Morgenstein, Michael Jacob and Alante Carpenter (the “Morgenstein Plaintiffs”), on their own behalf and on behalf of a class they would like to represen

[EDITORS' NOTE: THIS PAGE CONTAINS HEADNOTES. HEADNOTES ARE NOT AN OFFICIAL PRODUCT OF THE COURT, THEREFORE THEY ARE NOT DISPLAYED.] *Page 1043 OPINION After a bench trial, the court awarded plaintiff Paul Lukather damages, a civil penalty, prejudgment interest, and attorney fees and costs against defendant General Motors, LLC (GM), 1 under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (A

RILEY, Chief Judge. These appeals are driven, in large part, by the standards of review. About five years ago Michael Bavlsik was- driving his 2003 GMC Savana van when he collided with a boat being towed by another vehicle. Bavlsik was wearing his seatbelt, but that did not prevent him from hitting his head on the roof when the van rolled over. As. a res

307 F.Supp.2d 812 (2004) Jessie ADAMS, Jr., et al. Plaintiffs v. GENERAL MOTORS ACCEPTANCE CORPORATION, et al Defendants No. CIV.A. 4:03CV127-M-A. United States District Court, N.D. Mississippi, Greenville Division. February 13, 2004. *813 Edward Blackmon, Jr, Blackmon & Blackmon, Canton, Julian Dewayne Thomas, Julian Dewayne

[Regarding Application of the Court's Prior Rulings on Manifestation, Incidental Damages (Lost Time), and Unjust Enrichment to All Remaining Jurisdictions in Dispute (MDL Order No. 131 Issues) ] JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge INTRODUCTION... 274 LEGAL STANDARDS... 275 DISCUSSION... 275 A. Manifestation... 276

770 F.Supp.2d 570 (2011) In re JACKSON, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al., Defendants. Nos. 08 Civ. 10879(PAC), 09 Civ. 9119(PAC), 09 Civ. 9120(PAC), 10 Civ. 6189(PAC). United States District Court, S.D. New York. February 16, 2011. *571 John E. Durst, Jr., The Durst Law Firm, New York, NY, John Dearie, La

Opinion filed August 31, 2022 In The Eleventh Court of Appeals __________ No. 11-20-00208-CV __________ SAMUEL ADAMS FLORES, Appellant V. OIL-TECH CONSTRUCTION, LLC, Appellee On Appeal from the 161st District Court Ect