Groman v. General Motors LLC.
Plaintiff: Steven Groman
Defendant: General Motors LLC.
Case Number: 1:2014cv02458
Filed: April 8, 2014
Court: US District Court for the Southern District of New York
Office: Foley Square Office
County: New York
Presiding Judge: Jesse M. Furman
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 28 U.S.C. ยง 1331
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
RSS Follow case documents by RSS

Available Case Documents

The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:

Date Filed Document Text
February 17, 2022 Opinion or Order Filing 307 ORDER [Amending the Restrictions on Use of Confidential and Highly Confidential Information]. Defendants and Lead Counsel for plaintiffs having consented thereto, and for good cause shown, Order No. 10 Paragraph 7(a) (Docket No. 294), as amended by O rder No. 103 (Docket No.2901), is further amended to state as follows (changes in italics) and as further set forth in this Order. In addition, Order No. 10 Paragraph 8 (Docket No. 294), as amended by Order No. 103 (Docket No. 2901), is further amended to state as follows (changes in italic) and as further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/17/22) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (yv)
December 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 306 MEMO ENDORSED ORDER granting (8676 in 14md2543) Motion for Disbursement of Funds; granting (8677 in 14md2543) Motion for Disbursement of Funds. ENDORSEMENT: IT IS ORDERED that the $10,829,934.07 shall be disbursed from the Common Benefit Order Fund to Participating Counsel, as set forth in Exhibit A. The motion is granted as unopposed. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF Nos. 8676 and 8677. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/15/21) (yv)
October 15, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 305 ORDER NO. 178. When this MDL began, the Court entered Orders permitting parties to file related cases directly in this District, even if venue would otherwise be improper. See Order No. 1, Docket No. 19; Order No. 8, Docket No. 249. Now that the C ourt has suggested to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") that it cease transferring cases, see Order No. 177, Docket No. 8621, and the JPML has suspended notification of potential tag-along cases to this MDL, see MDL 2543 Docket No. 1361, the Court hereby RESCINDS permission to file any case directly in the Southern District of New York if venue is not otherwise proper in this District. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/15/21) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (yv)
October 6, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 304 ORDER NO. 177: SUGGESTION TO THE JUDICIAL PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION CONCERNING FUTURE TAG-ALONG CASES On July 12, 2021, after considering the proposals of New GM and Lead Counsel, the Court determined that it would in three months suggest that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation ("JPML") cease transferring cases to MDL 2543. (ECF No. 8563.) For substantially the reasons stated in Lead Counsel's proposal (ECF No. 8562) and for good cause shown, it is hereb y SUGGESTED that the JPML decline to transfer and consolidate tag-along cases to MDL 2543. The Clerk of Court is directed to send a copy of this Order to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation. SO SUGGESTED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 10/6/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ks) Transmission to Office of the Clerk of Court for processing.
May 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 301 ORDER NO. 176 re: (8349 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) Order. [Regarding Monthly Reporting on Active and Related Cases] Upon consideration of Lead Counsel and New GM's proposed order, and for good cause shown in light of the volume of Active personal injury and wrongful death cases remaining in the MDL, it is hereby ORDERED that: 1. The parties are relieved of their obligation to submit a Monthly Update pursuant to Order No. 175 (Docket No. 8349). 2. The parties shall update the Court if and when there are any material new developments. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/24/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (va)
January 19, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 299 ORDER NO 175: [Regarding Monthly Reporting on Active and Related Cases]: Upon consideration of Lead Counsel and New GM's proposed order, and for good cause shown, it is hereby ORDERED that: Each month, the parties shall submit a joint letter to the Court (the "Monthly Update") providing updates regarding: (1) Active personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs in MDL 2543; (2) the status of New GM's settlement efforts; and (3) matters of possible significance in cases relate d to MDL 2543 proceeding in other courts, including state courts. With respect to Active personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs in MDL 2543, the Monthly Update shall include: as set forth herein. With respect to New GM's settlement effort s, the Monthly Update shall include: as set forth herein. With respect to matters of possible significance in proceedings related to MDL 2543, the Monthly Update shall include: as set forth herein. Each month, New GM shall also submit to the Court vi a e-mail a spreadsheet of the remaining Active personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs, including any upcoming deadlines in each plaintiff's case and the order associated with the deadline. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/19/2021) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ama)
December 18, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 295 FINAL ORDER AND FINAL JUDGMENT GRANTING FINAL APPROVAL OF THE ECONOMIC LOSS CLASS ACTION SETTLEMENT, CONFIRMING CERTIFICATION OF THE ECONOMIC LOSS SETTLEMENT CLASS, AND DISMISSING ALL ACTIONS WITH PREJUDICE: IT IS HEREBY ORDERED, ADJUDGED, AND DECREE D: Jurisdiction. The Court has personal jurisdiction over all Plaintiffs, the Class and all Class Members, New GM, the GUC Trust, and AAT, as well as subject matter jurisdiction over the claims asserted in the Fifth Amended Consolidated Complaint fil ed in In re: General Motors LLC Ignition Switch Litigation, Case No. 14-MD-2543 (JMF) on September 8, 2017 ("5ACC") and the Actions. Venue in the Southern District of New York is proper. As further set forth in this Order. Final Approval of Class Settlement. In accordance with its Final Approval Order, the Court hereby grants final approval to the Settlement Agreement as fair, reasonable, and adequate pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(e). The Settlement Agreement provides ample benefits to the Class and avoids protracted litigation, among numerous other advantages. The Court finds that the Settlement Agreement, with respect to Class Members who are minors, lack capacity, or are incompetent, is fair, reasonable, and ad equate. The Court authorizes the Parties to implement the terms of the Settlement Agreement and enjoins the Parties from failing to implement the terms. Overruling of Objections. The Class Member objection filed by Mr. Richard H. Warren (ECF No. 8122 ) is overruled. The objection filed by Ms. Kisha M. Davis, as personal representative of the estate of her mother, Class Member Mary L. Davis (ECF No. 8216), is also overruled. Class Certification for Settlement Purposes Only. As further set forth in this Order. Common Fund. Pursuant to the Settlement Agreement, all Settlement Implementation Expenses shall be paid from the Common Fund, which was established as a Qualified Settlement Fund under § 468B(d)(2) of the Internal Revenue Code and T reasury Regulation § 1.468B-1 pursuant to this Court's Preliminary Approval Order, by the court-approved Qualified Settlement Fund Administrator and Trustee, Flora Bian of JND; however, all such Settlement Implementation Expenses shall be p aid from the Common Fund only upon either (i) written approval by Plaintiffs' Class Counsel, New GM, and the GUC Trust or (ii) leave of Court. The Court finds that, pursuant to Paragraph 88.a of the Settlement Agreement, following entry of the G UC Trust Approval Order, the Withdrawal Order, and the Preliminary Approval Order, New GM and the GUC Trust deposited, respectively, $8,800,000.00 and $2,000,000.00 into the Common Fund. As further set forth in this Order. Entry of Final Ju dgment. The Clerk of the Court is expressly directed to immediately enter this Final Order and Final Judgment in the Actions listed in Appendix C. The Clerk is further directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, ECF No. 8240 and 14-MC-2543, ECF No. 409 and t o close Elliott, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., No. 14-CV-8382; Bledsoe, et al. v. General Motors LLC, No. 14-CV-7631; and Sesay, et al. v. General Motors LLC, et al., No. 14-CV-6018. As further set forth in this Order. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/18/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ks)
August 10, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 293 ORDER NO. 173 [Regarding Motions to Dismiss for Failure to Comply with Discovery Obligations]. To avoid confusion, effective immediately, all timelines established for earlier Waves shall also apply to Wave Four and Wave Pool Plaintiffs, just as th ey applied to Plaintiffs in the prior Waves. In particular: New GM may not file a motion to dismiss for failure to comply with obligations under Order Nos. 25 and 108 unless and until the plaintiff fails to cure any defects within fourteen days o f the filing of a notice of overdue discovery. Any plaintiff subject to a motion to dismiss without prejudice for failure to comply with such discovery obligations shall have fourteen days to oppose the motion or certify compliance, and New GM sha ll have seven days to reply. Any plaintiff who is dismissed without prejudice for failure to comply with such discovery obligations shall have thirty days from the date of dismissal to move to vacate the dismissal, provided he or she submits all required documentation or otherwise contests the dismissal. New GM may not file a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to comply with such discovery obligations unless and until the plaintiff fails to move to vacate the dismissal within t hirty days. Any Plaintiff subject to a motion to dismiss with prejudice for failure to comply with such discovery obligations shall have fourteen days to oppose the motion or certify compliance, and New GM shall have seven days to reply. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/10/20) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (yv)
June 26, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 292 ORDER NO. 172: [Regarding Sealed and Redacted Filings]: The Court previously granted parties in this action permission to temporarily file documents under seal or in redacted form without first obtaining specific court approval and required that they contemporaneously file a notice that a document was filed under seal. ECF No. 4567 ("Order No. 133"). At the time that the Court issued Order No. 133, the Electronic Case Filing System in the Southern District of New York did not al low parties to restrict viewing access to a document filed on the docket, and it was therefore impossible for parties to file sealed or unredacted documents electronically. The Courts then-operative Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases t herefore required parties to email unsealed and unredacted (clean and highlighted) versions of their filings to the Court. The Districts Electronic Case Filing System was recently changed to allow parties to restrict viewing access to documents fi led on the docket, and the Court revised its Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases to reflect those changes. Going forward, parties should file any proposed sealed or redacted documents in accordance with Rules 7.C.ii-iv of the Court' ;s Individual Rules and Practices in Civil Cases, which are available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman. For the reasons stated in Order No. 133, however, the parties may temporarily file documents under seal or in redacted form, and they therefore do not need to file a letter-motion seeking the Court's specific permission. Parties should link all sealed filings to this Order or to Order No. 133, in accordance with Rule 6.12 of the Electronic Case Filing Rules & Instr uctions, available at https://nysd.uscourts.gov/rules/ecf-related-instructions. In light of the fact that a docket entry for any sealed or redacted filings will appear on the docket, the parties also need not file a notice that a document was filed under seal. Except to the extent modified here, Order No. 133 remains in effect. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/26/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (jca)
May 27, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 291 ORDER NO. 169: in case 1:14-cv-02458-JMF; terminating (7956) Motion for Discovery in case 1:14-md-02543-JMF. [Regarding Future Access to MDL Documents Production] For good cause shown, the Court adopts the following procedures for all remaini ng future personal injury/wrongful death ("PIWD") Plaintiffs to access MDL 2543 document productions, depositions and exhibits, and Common Benefit Work Product as further set forth herein. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 7956. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/26/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ks)
May 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 289 ORDER. In light of the advanced stage of the proceedings and the slim likelihood that further relevant cases will be filed, the Court is inclined to suggest to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that it decline to transfer and consolida te further tag-along cases effective June 1, 2020. No later than May 11, 2020, any party objecting to that proposal shall file a letter explaining the nature of the objection on ECF. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/4/20) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (yv)
April 22, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 286 ORDER: During the hearing scheduled for tomorrow, the Honorable Martin Glenn, United States Bankruptcy Judge for the Southern District of New York, will hear argument first concerning the GUC Trust's motion. The undersigned will then hear a rgument concerning (1) the motion to withdraw the reference and (2) the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement. In accordance with the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices in Light of COVID-19, available at https://www. nysd.uscourts.gov/hon-jesse-m-furman, counsel should adhere to the following rules and guidelines during the hearing.... With respect to the motion to withdraw the reference and the motion for preliminary approval of the settlement, counsel should be prepared to answer the following questions and/or address the following issues. To help ensure that the discussion proceeds smoothly, counsel should coordinate in advance to designate the presumptive speaker or speakers for each issue. (SEE ORDER.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/22/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ab)
April 20, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 285 ORDER. Per the Court's Emergency Individual Rules and Practices, the hearing scheduled in this case for April 23, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. will be conducted telephonically. The Court has arranged for the use of CourtCall, an independent conference call company, to enable the parties, counsel, and anyone interested (including members of the public and press) to attend remotely. Counsel for the parties must call CourtCall's reservation desk at (888) 882-6878, or make a reservation online at www.courtcall.com, no later than 4:00 p.m. Eastern Time on April 22, 2020. CourtCall will charge parties and counsel participating in the conference $35 for the first 45 minutes, and $7.50 for each 15-minute increment thereafter. The Court has received the parties' list of attorneys who will attend and speak at the conference. If there are any changes to these lists, the parties shall notify the Court no later than 1:00 p.m. on April 22, 2020. Any changes after that time may be made only with express leave of Court, which should be requested by email at Furman_NYSDChambers@nysd.uscourts.gov. To ensure public access to the conference, the Court has arranged for CourtCall to provide a toll-free number for member s of the public and press to listen to the conference. Members of the public and press should call (855) 855-8556, and enter access code 587-8792, followed by the pound (#) key. There will be no charge for using this line. Anyone using this line will be in "listen-only" mode and will not be able to speak during the proceedings. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/20/20) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (yv)
April 9, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 284 ORDER NO. 168 in case 1:14-cv-02458-JMF; terminating (7095) Motion for Summary Judgment; terminating (7100) Motion in Limine in case 1:14-md-02543-JMF. The undersigned and the Honorable Martin Glenn will hold a joint hearing on the above-refer enced motions on April 23, 2020 at 9:30 a.m. Unless the Courts order otherwise, the hearing will be held by telephone in light of the current public health situation. The Courts will issue orders in due course explaining how to participate in, or lis ten to, the telephone conference. Counsel shall promptly and prominently post this Order and call-in information on the MDL website (www.gmignitionmdl.com). No later than 1:00 p.m. on April 16, 2020, Lead Counsel, counsel for New GM, and counsel for the GUC Trust shall provide this Court with a list of any participants who should be granted speaking privileges for the conference. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown by letter motion in advance of the conference, all other parti cipants in the telephone conference will be in listen-only mode. In light of the foregoing, the Court concludes that other pending motions related to the Economic Loss Plaintiffs' claims can and should be terminated without prejudice to renewal in the event that the proposed settlement is not approved or otherwise consummated. The Clerk of Court is therefore directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, ECF Nos. 6065, 7095, and 7100. If counsel for any party believes that any other motion can and should be terminated, they shall so advise the Court. SO ORDERED.. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/6/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ks)
March 4, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 283 ORDER NO. 167: Regarding Procedures and Schedule for Wave Four Targeted Discovery and Motion Practice and Additional Wave Pools to Address Remaining Personal Injury Claims -- Given the remarkable success of the "wave" process in this mu ltidistrict litigation ("MDL") to date, the Court agrees with New GM that a Wave Four should be adopted to address the remaining personal injury and wrongful death claims (many of which were filed after the previous waves were adopted) a nd any new claims filed in the future. For good cause shown, the Court thus adopts the following schedule and procedures for Wave Four discovery of and motion practice regarding the remaining personal injury and wrongful death cases, as well any n ew claims that may be filed and consolidated going forward. That said, the Court is sympathetic to Lead Counsel's concerns regarding claims that have been pending in this MDL for a significant amount of time. See ECF No. 7783, at 3. To help e nsure that such claims are advanced more quickly, with an eye toward settlement or remand, the Court would be open to adopting more "aggressive" procedures claims that were initially filed before January 1, 2017 (i.e., the first seven cl aims listed in ECF No. 7783-2), including but not limited to perhaps allowing "bilateral fact and expert discovery" for such claims. Id. at 5. Lead Counsel and counsel for New GM shall meet and confer to discuss the issue and, no later than March 13, 2020, submit an agreed-upon proposed order with respect to these claims or competing orders and letter briefs. Unless and until the Court adopts additional or different procedures for such claims, they shall be subject to the schedule and procedures set forth herein. (SEE ORDER.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/4/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ab)
February 19, 2020 Opinion or Order Filing 282 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: The Court has considered L&E's remaining arguments and finds them to be without merit. Accordingly, L&E's motion is DENIED, without prejudice to renewal after resolution of the Pending Motion. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 2/19/2020) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (jca)
December 30, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 278 ORDER NO. 166: [Regarding the December 18, 2019 Status Conference] The Court, having held a status conference on December 18, 2019, and having given counsel an opportunity to be heard on the agenda items set forth in the parties' tentative a genda letter (ECF No. 7619), as well as the Court's December 16, 2019 Order (ECF No. 7626), issues this Order to memorialize the actions taken and rulings made at the status conference. A status conference will be held Friday, January 31, 2020, at 9:30 a.m. EST in Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall United States Courthouse, 40 Centre Street, New York, New York. Consistent with the Court's comments at the status conference, by Wednesday, January 8, 2020, New GM and co unsel for plaintiff Sunita Bhandari will submit a joint letter proposing next steps for Ms. Bhandari's claims. Consistent with the procedures set forth in Order No. 72 (ECF No. 1237), New GM shall file a consolidated response to the Conner Plaintiffs' motion to vacate (ECF No. 7628) and any other timely motion that may be filed relating to the Courts November 21, 2019 order (ECF No 7474) by Monday, January 6, 2020. Plaintiffs' reply, if any, shall be filed by Monday, Ja nuary 13, 2020. Consistent with the Court's comments at the status conference, by Wednesday, January 15, 2020, Lead Counsel and New GM shall submit a joint proposal or competing proposals regarding next steps for the economic loss plaintiff s. SO ORDERED. (Responses due by 1/6/2020, Replies due by 1/13/2020., Status Conference set for 1/31/2020 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/30/2019) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(jca)
December 12, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 276 OPINION AND ORDER re: (7055 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION for Reconsideration re; (7019) Memorandum & Opinion, Economic Loss Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration of the Court's August 6, 2019 Summary Judgment Opinion and Orde r or, in the Alternative, Motion for Cert filed by GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs fail to persuade the Court that it erred in its summary judgment ruling, and they certainly do not satisfy the strict standards that govern motions f or reconsideration. Nevertheless, although the question is a close one, the Court concludes that certification of an interlocutory appeal is appropriate. The Court does not make this decision lightly. An interlocutory appeal (if the Second Circuit accepts it) would result in potentially lengthy delay, and this litigation is already in its sixth year, with no end in sight absent a settlement. But the Court is not infallible. And, in the judicial system of this Nation, it is not intended to b e final. Cf. Brown v. Allen, 344 U.S. 443, 540 (1953) (Jackson, J., concurring) (observing that the Supreme Court is not final because [it is] infallible, but [is] infallible only because [it is] final). Yet, absent an interlocutory appeal, the Co urt might well have the only and thus final word on these important issues. Moreover, an interlocutory appeal would not necessarily mean a halt to the steady progress of this litigation. Even if the Second Circuit were to grant a petition for int erlocutory appeal, the Court may well be able to move forward on other fronts. There are, after all, other disputes pending, see, e.g., ECF Nos. 7095 (New GM's renewed motion for summary judgment against Plaintiffs), 7100 (New GM's motion to exclude the opinions of another of Plaintiffs' experts), and Plaintiffs bring claims under the laws of forty-seven other states and the District of Columbia. Additionally, further settlement negotiations can and should proceed in the shad ow of any interlocutory appeal. Indeed, in the Court's humble view, after five-plus years of litigation, hundreds of depositions, millions of documents exchanged in discovery, and untold trees felled and ink spilled by the parties and the Cour t, the parties should have enough data to agree on a settlement value for this litigation; the risks of delay and reversal are merely additional data to factor into the calculus. The parties should be prepared to address these issues - at least preliminarily - at the status conference on December 18, 2019. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate ECF No. 7055. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/12/19) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(yv)
December 10, 2019 Opinion or Order Filing 275 ORDER, The status conference scheduled for December 18, 2019 at 9:30 a.m. EST will take place in the Court's usual courtroom Courtroom 1105 of the Thurgood Marshall Courthouse, 40 Foley Square, New York, NY 10007. Counsel and others planning to attend the conference are cautioned, however, that significant elevator maintenance is underway in the courthouse. Thus, attendees should plan to arrive well in advance of the scheduled to ensure that they are in the Courtroom on time for the conf erence. Per its usual procedures, the Court will use CourtCall for the conference. Anyone wishing to use CourtCall to participate in, or listen to, the conference should follow the procedures set forth in Order No. 19 (ECF No. 350). No later than 1:0 0 p.m. on December 17, 2019, Lead Counsel and counsel for New GM shall provide Chambers with a list of any participants who should be granted speaking privileges for the conference. Unless the Court orders otherwise for good cause shown by letter mot ion in advance of the conference, all other CourtCall participants will be in listen-only mode. SO ORDERED. (Status Conference set for 12/18/2019 at 09:30 AM in Courtroom 1105, 40 Centre Street, New York, NY 10007 before Judge Jesse M. Furman.) (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/10/2019) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(kv)
September 12, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 261 OPINION AND ORDER [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)]: In short, for all jurisdictions in dispute, the Court finds that manifestation is not required to bring statutory consumer protection, common-law fraud, and implied warranty claims. Second, for all but six of the jurisdictions in dispute, the Court finds that Plaintiffs may recov er lost-time damages where "lost time" is understood as lost earnings or its equivalent, but not where "lost time" is understood as "lost personal time." In Colorado, New York, Ohio, Utah, Virginia, however, Plaintiffs m ay also recover lost personal time under the states' consumer protection statutes, and in Oklahoma, Plaintiffs may recover lost personal time for all claims. Finally, in every one of the ten still-disputed jurisdictions other than Connecticut, a plaintiff may plead unjust enrichment in the alternative only where the validity or enforceability of a contract is in question, and in seven out of the ten jurisdictions (all but Connecticut, New Hampshire, and Rhode Island), a plaintiff may not ma intain an unjust enrichment claim if he or she has an adequate remedy at law. Attached as Exhibit A is a chart summarizing the Court's conclusions of law for all jurisdictions. The parties are directed to meet and confer and, within thirty days of the date of this Opinion and Order, shall jointly submit a stipulation and proposed order applying the Court's conclusions to the Plaintiffs and claims in the 5ACC. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/12/2018) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(ne)
April 25, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 251 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding New GM's Motion for Partial Reconsideration of the Court's December 19, 2017 Order and Opinion on Successor Liability] re: (4936 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION for Reconsideration re; (4888) Mem orandum & Opinion filed by General Motors LLC. The Court concludes that Plaintiffs cannot demonstrate continuity of ownership within the meaning of New York law, and thus cannot advance successor liability claims in any state where New York law applies. It follows that New GM's motion for partial reconsideration must be and is GRANTED and that the successor liability claims of Plaintiffs from Texas and Virginia must be and are DISMISSED. See Dec. 19, 2017 Op., 2017 WL 65092 56, at *7 (holding that Texas and Virginia apply New York Law); Aug. 3, 2017 Op., 2017 WL 3382071, at *19 (same). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 4936. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/25/2018)**Pursuant to instructions from Chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(anc)
April 3, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 248 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: re: (4679 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION for Summary Judgment Against Plaintiffs' Claims for Benefit-of-the-Bargain Damages filed by General Motors LLC. Accordingly, New GM's motion for summary judgment as to Pl aintiffs' claims for benefit-of-the-bargain damages is DENIED without prejudice. Counsel should confer on whether and how the motion should be renewed and be prepared to address that question at a future status conference. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 4679. And as set forth herein. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 4/03/2018) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(ama) Modified on 4/3/2018 (ama).
January 29, 2018 Opinion or Order Filing 237 MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER re: (4875 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) LETTER MOTION to Compel Lead Counsel to produce the documents withheld in response to New GM's September 22, 2017 Requests for Production addressed to Judge Jesse M. Fur man from Andrew B. Bloomer, P.C. dated December 15, 2017, filed by General Motors LLC. Upon review of the parties' submissions (GM Ltr. Mot.; Pls.' Opp'n; Pls.' Supp. Ltr.; Docket No. 4966 ("GM Supp. Br.")), includin g an in camera review of the materials at issue, the Court grants New GM's motion with respect to the Questionnaires and denies its motion with respect to the E-mails. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 4875, and as further set forth herein, (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/29/2018) As Per Chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the New York Southern District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Groman v. General Motors LLC.
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Steven Groman
Represented By: Malcolm Todd Brown
Represented By: Jonathan Laurence Flaxer
Represented By: Alexander H. Schmidt
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: General Motors LLC.
Represented By: Lisa Verna Lecointe
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.

Why Is My Information Online?