Deluco v. General Motors L.L.C.
| Robin Deluco |
| General Motors L.L.C. and General Motors LLC |
| 1:2014cv02713 |
| April 16, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| Foley Square Office |
| XX Out of State |
| Jesse M. Furman |
| Other Statutory Actions |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1338 |
| Plaintiff |
Follow case documents by RSS
Available Case Documents
The following documents for this case are available for you to view or download:
| Document Text |
|---|
Filing
304
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)
|
|
Filing
231
OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding New GM's Motion for Partial Summary Judgment on Successor Liability] re: 3519 MOTION for Summary Judgment on Successor Liability. New GM's motion for summary judgment is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' ; successor liability claims under Maryland law, but DENIED with respect to Plaintiffs' claims under the other laws of the other eight jurisdictions still at issue. Per Docket No. 4831, the parties shall submit letters regarding the next s teps for personal injury cases in the MDL, addressing the implications of this Opinion and Order among other things, by the earlier of (1) one week after the Court's ruling on the pending motions in the Phase Two, Category B cases; or (2) January 3, 2018, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 12/19/2017) As Per Chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
|
|
Filing
226
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint and New GM's Partial Cross-Motion to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiffs' Proposed Fifth Amended Consolidated Complain t] re: (4522 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Amend/Correct (3356) Amended Complaint, Plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint, filed by GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs, (4704 in 1 :14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss and/or Strike Plaintiff's Proposed Fifth Amended Consolidated Complaint, filed by General Motors LLC. Upon review of the parties' submissions (Docket Nos. 4522, 4680, 4704, 4767, 4775), the C ourt grants Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend. The Court declines to consider the second argument because the Bankruptcy Court's ruling is the subject of pending appeals to this Court. There is little point in addressing the argum ent until the appeals are resolved. For the foregoing reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs' motion for leave to amend the FACC and DENIES New GM's motion to dismiss and/or strike, except to the extent that it concerns claims that the Court previously dismissed and claims on behalf of new Plaintiffs that the Court previously found unviable for similarly situated Plaintiffs. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 4522 and 4704, and as further set forth herein. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/15/2017) As Per Chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
|
|
Filing
225
OPINION AND ORDER: re: (42 in 1:17-cv-04150-JMF, 4425 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Remand to State Court, filed by Amber Synott. For the foregoing reasons, the Court concludes that this case must be remanded to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury, Connecticut. The Court recognizes that that conclusion comes at a cost. As this Court has observed, "[p]utting aside the natural temptation to find federal jurisdiction every time a [high] dollar case w ith national implications arrives at the doorstep of a federal court,... the federal courts undoubtedly have advantages over their state counterparts when it comes to managing a set of substantial cases filed in jurisdictions throughout the countr y." Standard & Poor's, 23 F. Supp. 3d. at 413 (internal quotation marks, citations, and brackets omitted). The present MDL illustrates many of those advantages, as the Court has largely been able to manage and oversee the claims of seve ral thousand plaintiffs in a manner that promotes efficiency and minimizes the risks of inconsistent rulings and unnecessary duplication of effort. Nevertheless, as the Court has made clear, it also has tools to promote coordination with related cases pending in state court through communication with the judges presiding over those cases. (See 14MD2543, Docket No. 315 (Order No. 15) (establishing procedures for coordinated discovery in this MDL and related state court proceedings)). " ;[I]n any event, as any student of the Constitution knows, efficiency is not the only interest served by this country's federalist system of state and federal courts." Standard & Poor's, 23 F. Supp. 3d at 413. The Clerk of Court is d irected to terminate 14-MD-2543 Docket No. 4425 and 17-CV-4150 Docket No. 42, to remand 17-CV-4150 back to the Superior Court for the Judicial District of Waterbury, Connecticut, and to then close 17-CV-4150, and as further set forth in this order. Motions terminated: (4425 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF, 42 in 1:17-cv-04150-JMF) MOTION to Remand to State Court, filed by Amber Synott. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/9/2017) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(ap)
|
|
Filing
212
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of the Court's Order Dismissing the Claims of "Pre-Recall Plaintiffs"]: re: (4256 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION for Reconsider ation re; (4175) Memorandum & Opinion, Plaintiffs' Motion for Reconsideration and/or Clarification of Court's Order Dismissing Certain Damages Claims of Plaintiffs Who Purchased After the Sale Order filed by GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs' motion for reconsideration is GRANTED, and the Court's prior Opinion and Order is modified as reflected here. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 4256, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/9/2017) ***As Per Chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
|
|
Filing
211
OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding New GM's Partial Motion for Summary Judgment on Plaintiffs' Successor Liability Claims in the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint]: re: (3519 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION for Summary Judgment on Succes sor Liability, filed by General Motors LLC. The Court grants New GM's motion for summary judgment with respect to Plaintiffs' successor liability claims in part and reserves judgment on the remainder of the motion. Specifically, the Court holds that: Plaintiffs' claims are not barred by the Second Circuit's decision in Tronox because, by virtue of the due process violation, Plaintiffs did not know about, and could not bring, the claims at the time of the bankruptcy; Each jurisdiction's choice-of-law rules must be applied to determine the substantive law that governs the merits of Plaintiffs' successor liability claims in that jurisdiction; Based on a jurisdiction-by-jurisdiction analysis, Delaware l aw applies to Plaintiffs' successor liability claims in seven jurisdictions considered here: California, the District of Columbia, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin. The applicable law to be applied in the other nine j urisdictions is as follows: (See document); Under Delaware law, Plaintiffs' successor liability claims fail as a matter of law, requiring dismissal of those claims in seven of the sixteen states; and Additional briefing is warranted on the me rits of Plaintiffs' claims in the other nine jurisdictions due to, among other things, the potential settlement between Plaintiffs and the GUC Trust. Accordingly, the successor liability claims of Plaintiffs from California, the District of Co lumbia, Florida, Louisiana, Massachusetts, New York, and Wisconsin are dismissed, and the Court reserves judgment on the successor liability claims of Plaintiffs from Alabama, Illinois, Maryland, Michigan, Missouri, Oklahoma, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Virginia. With respect to those nine jurisdictions, the parties shall, no later than August 24, 2017, file supplemental memoranda of law, not to exceed twenty-five pages in length, addressing the merits (including any effect of the settlement n egotiations or potential settlement between Plaintiffs and the GUC Trust, as to which the parties should submit supporting declarations as appropriate). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 3519, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 8/3/2017) ***As Per Chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
|
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 Party Aliases
- Associated Cases
- Attorneys
- Case File Location
- Case Summary
- Docket Report
- History/Documents
- Parties
- Related Transactions
- Check Status
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.
