Opinion
23-cv-06702-VC 24-cv-00137-VC 24- cv-00229-VC
02-26-2024
YOGENDRA SINGH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. JANNA LYNN NIEUWBOER, Plaintiff, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant. GILBERT JOSEPH JACKSON, Plaintiffs, v. GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Defendant.
ORDER GRANTING MOTIONS TO DISMISS
RE: DKT. NOS. 10, 10, 12
VINCE CHHABRIA, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE
The defendant's motions to dismiss the plaintiff's fraud and UCL claims in these three cases is granted. This order assumes the reader's familiarity with the facts of the cases, the relevant law, and the parties' arguments.
The plaintiffs have failed to plead their fraud claims, including their claims under the fraudulent prong of the UCL, with particularity as required under Rule 9(b). See Vess v. Ciba-Geigy Corp. USA, 317 F.3d 1097, 1103-04 (9th Cir. 2003). The complaints do not say specifically what misleading advertisements or statements the plaintiffs saw or relied upon.
Instead, the complaints contain only general allegations that GM marketed the Bolt as a long range, safe, and affordable vehicle. The complaints also do not offer more than general allegations that GM knew of any defects with the Bolt's battery.
The plaintiffs' also fail to plausibly plead UCL claims under the unlawful and unfair prongs. The complaints make conclusory allegations that the injuries outweigh any benefits provided to consumers and that GM's use of allegedly defective batteries is unlawful. Perhaps that's true, but the complaint contains no specific facts to support these allegations.
At the hearing, counsel for the plaintiffs stated that he did not have any additional facts to bolster the fraud and UCL claims. As a result, the defendant's motions to dismiss are granted without leave to amend. The defendant shall file an Answer to the remaining claims in each case within 14 days.
IT IS SO ORDERED.