Mazzocchi v. General Motors LLC et al
| Marie Mazzocchi |
| General Motors LLC, General Motors Holding, LLC, Delphi Automotive PLC and DPH-DAS LLC |
| 7:2014cv02714 |
| April 16, 2014 |
| US District Court for the Southern District of New York |
| White Plains Office |
| Dutchess |
| Nelson Stephen Roman |
| Other Fraud |
| 28 U.S.C. ยง 1391 |
| 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
291
ORDER NO. 171 [Regarding the Administrative Closure of Certain MDL 2543 Member Cases]... The Court is inclined to and does administratively close the cases listed in Exhibits A and B. Any party who believes that a case has been erroneously closed by this Order shall, no later than June 18, 2020, file a letter motion to re-open the case and explain why the case should remain open. In addition, as to the cases listed on Exhibit A, a party may file a letter motion seeking to reopen a case within 2 1 days of a material change in settlement status (such as, for example, the termination of the settlement). As to the cases listed on Exhibit B, a plaintiff who elects to opt out of the settlement may file a letter motion to reopen their case within 28 days of the date that the plaintiff opts out of the Class Settlement. And, if the settlement is not given final approval, or if final approval is granted but overturned on appeal, any plaintiff may have 28 days from either event to file a letter m otion to reopen their case. Any party opposing a motion to re-open one of the cases closed pursuant to this Order shall file a response brief within 10 days after the motion to re-open is filed. Nothing in this Order shall be construed as a judgment under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 54 or 58, nor shall this Order be construed as re-opening the time for seeking post-judgment relief or filing an appeal. The Clerk of Court is directed to administratively close the cases listed in Exhibits A and B. SO ORDERED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/1/20) (yv)
|
|
Filing
208
OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding New GM's Partial Motion To Dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint] re: (3577 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Certain Plaintiffs in the Fourth Amended Consolidated Complaint, filed by General Motors LLC. For the reasons stated below, New GM's motion to dismiss is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part. More specifically, it is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs' repleaded "brand devaluation" claims, but DENIED with respect to Plaintiff's lost-time-to repair claims. Additionally, it is GRANTED with respect to Plaintiffs who purchased their vehicles prior to New GM's inception or disposed of their vehicles prior to the reca ll announcement. And finally, New GM's motion to dismiss Plaintiffs' claims in Alabama, Illinois, Massachusetts, Michigan, New York, Pennsylvania, Texas, and Wisconsin is GRANTED in part and DENIED in part, depending on, among other things, whether each state's law allows claims in the absence of a manifested defect, requires a special trust relationship between the parties for a duty to disclose to arise, and permits plaintiffs to plead both contract claims and unjust enrichment claims. Ultimately, for the reasons that follow, most of Plaintiffs' consumer fraud, fraudulent concealment, and breach of implied warranty claims survive, while the bulk of Plaintiffs' unjust enrichment claims must be and are dismissed. A s the Court indicated in the last round of motion practice, although this ruling addresses only some of the claims in the operative complaint, it should inform the parties with respect to the viability of other claims and, more generally, bear upon t he further progress of the MDL. Pursuant to Order No. 114 (Docket No. 3431), no later than three weeks from the date of this Opinion and Order, the parties shall meet and confer and advise the Court of their views with respect to whether and how the Court's rulings apply to the thirty-five jurisdictions that have not been the subject of full briefing (the Court's sincere hope being that it will not have to repeat this exercise with respect to each and every one of the remaining jurisdi ctions). Any submissions should address a briefing schedule and process if either side believes that briefing or motion practice is appropriate. Further, to the extent the parties find it helpful, they should confer and submit a chart (or proposed o rder) summarizing the rulings in this Opinion and Order with respect to the named Plaintiffs' claims, to be so ordered by the Court. In those submissions, Plaintiffs should also indicate to the Court whether they intend to amend the FACC (as to any of the claims that were dismissed with leave to amend) and, if so, provide an outline of the proposed amendments and a proposed schedule. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 3577, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/30/2017) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
|
|
Filing
203
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: New GM's Motion in Limine 32, which seeks an across-the-board ruling categorically excluding certain evidence relating to Cobalt Vehicles, is DENIED. That denial, however, is without prejudice to renewal by New GM when the record is fully developed and without prejudice to New GM's objection, pursuant to the MDL's standard procedures, to specific evidence that a plaintiff seeks to offer from the evidence at issue here. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 14-MD-2543, Docket No. 3738, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 5/4/2017) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (ras)
|
|
Filing
187
OPINION AND ORDER [Regarding New GM's Partial Motion To Dismiss the Third Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint] re: (2356 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Claims of Certain Plaintiffs in the Third Amended Consolidated Comp laint filed by General Motors LLC: In short, many of the claims of the named Plaintiffs in this motion survive, but a large swath of the claims in the TACC - those brought under RICO, those brought on behalf of Plaintiffs whose cars we re not allegedly defective when sold, and those brought on behalf of Plaintiffs whose cars are too dissimilar from the named Plaintiffs' cars - are foreclosed. (For convenience, a chart indicating whether New GM's motion is granted or de nied with respect to each state law claim is attached as Exhibit A.) Additionally, the Court rejects Plaintiffs' broadest theory of damages - the brand devaluation theory as unprecedented and unsound. Thus, to the extent that Plaintiffs a re entitled to relief at all, they are entitled - at most - to benefit-of-the-bargain defect damages, out-of-pocket damages, and the like. Although this ruling addresses only some of the claims in the TACC, it will undoubtedly inform the parties wi th respect to the viability of other claims and, more generally, bear upon the further progress of the MDL. The July 13, 2016 ruling from the Second Circuit, which held that purchasers of Old GM cars with ignition switch defects can bring claims f or Old GM's wrongdoing against New GM has, in all likelihood, also substantially redefined the scope of the claims that may proceed. The parties should be prepared to discuss the implications of this Court's ruling and the Second Circuit 's ruling at the July 28, 2016 status conference - including but not limited to implications for the next phase of discovery. (See Docket Nos. 1569, 2156). Additionally, within thirty days from the date of this Opinion and Order, Plaintiffs s hall submit their proposed amendments to the TACC. (See Docket No. 2323). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket No. 2356. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/15/2016) ***As per chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(tn)
|
|
Filing
172
MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER: On February 8, 2016, New GM filed a brief requesting that three documents relating to its settlement with certain MDL Plaintiffs remain under seal: the Confidential Memorandum of Understanding ("MOU"), the Joint Retention Agreement for Special Masters Daniel Balhoff and John Perry, and the Joint Retention Agreement for the Qualified Settlement Fund ("QSF") Trustee. (See Docket No. 2252). The Court directed anyone opposing the permanent sea ling of these documents to respond no later than February 19, 2016. (See Docket No. 2255). No one filed any opposition. In light of the fact that the request is unopposed, and because the Court finds that the sealing of the three documents is consistent with the presumption of access to judicial documents, New GM's application is GRANTED. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 3/1/2016) ***As per chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(tn)
|
|
Filing
150
OPINION AND ORDER re: (1135 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Compel General Motors, LLC to Produce Documents From New GM and King & Spalding, LLC Based on the Crime Fraud Exception UNREDACTED filed by GM Ignition Switch MDL Plainti ffs, (1031 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Compel General Motors, LLC to Compel General Motors to PRODUCE DOCUMENTS FROM NEW GM AND KING & SPALDING LLC BASED ON THE CRIME-FRAUD EXCEPTION filed by GM Ignition Switch MDL Plaintiffs: The issue presented by this motion is not whether there is probable cause to believe that New GM committed a crime or fraud by concealing the ignition switch defect from its regulators and the general public. The recent criminal charges filed against New GM indicate there is probable cause to so believe, and Plaintiffs in this MDL may ultimately be able to prove that New GM committed egregious acts for which it should be held to account (and that settling the Chansuthus, Sullivan, and Melton mat ters facilitated them). Instead, the issue presented by this motion is whether, under the well-established principles that govern application of the crime-fraud exception to the attorney-client privilege and attorney work product doctrine, Plaintiffs have shown that the communications and materials they seek were made with the intent to further a crime or fraud, thereby warranting their disclosure. For the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that, however troubling some of New GM's co nduct may have been, Plaintiffs have failed to make that showing. Further, mindful of the fact that Plaintiffs were already provided access to a substantial cache of documents that would otherwise have been subject to the attorney-client privilege, t he Court concludes that there is no basis even to review the materials at issue (or a subset of those materials) in camera. Put simply, if there were "a factual basis" to conclude that New GM and K&S were communicating or working in further ance of a crime or fraud, one would expect to see some evidence in those communications - which K&S and New GM had no reason to believe would see the light of day when they were made - that they were made with such an intent. Zolin, 491 U.S. at 572. Because Plaintiffs point to no such evidence, the Court concludes that Plaintiffs' motion to compel must be DENIED. The parties submitted portions of their briefs in redacted form (some of which has since been unredacted) and certain exhibits un der seal because New GM had designated the information as "highly confidential." (See, e.g., Docket Nos. 1156, 1255; see also Docket Nos. 1101, 1116). In this Opinion and Order, the Court has quoted from those materials; out of an abundance of caution, the Court has redacted those portions from the version filed publicly. As the Court has repeatedly noted, however, the mere fact that information is subject to a confidentiality agreement between litigants is not a valid basis to overcom e the presumption in favor of public access to judicial documents. See, e.g., Dandong v. Pinnacle Performance Ltd., No. 10-CV-8086 (JMF), 2012 WL 6217646, at *2 (S.D.N.Y. Dec. 3, 2012) ("The consent of the parties is not a valid basis to justify sealing, as the rights involved are the rights of the public." (internal quotation marks omitted)); Vasquez v. City of N. Y., No. 10-CV-6277 (LBS), 2012 WL 4377774, at *3 (S.D.N.Y. Sept. 24, 2012) (similar). Accordingly, and in accordance with the procedures set out in Section X of MDL Order No. 77 (Docket No. 1349), any party who believes the materials should remain under seal or in redacted form (including, but not limited to, the portions of this Opinion and Order than have been redacte d) shall file a letter brief within seven days regarding the propriety of doing so. See, e.g., Lugosch v. Pyramid Co. of Onondaga, 435 F.3d 110, 119-20 (2d Cir. 2006) (discussing the presumption in favor of public access). The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate Docket Nos. 1031 and 1135. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 11/25/2015) ***As per chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(tn)
|
|
Filing
132
OPINION & ORDER re: (1058 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION for Protective Order Regarding Pretrial Discovery Materials filed by General Motors LLC: The Second Circuit has cautioned that Rule 26 is "not a blanket authorizat ion for the court to prohibit disclosure of information whenever it deems it advisable to do so, but is rather a grant of power to impose conditions on discovery in order to prevent injury, harassment, or abuse of the court's processes." Bridge C.A.T. Scan Assocs. v. Technicare Corp., 710 F.2d 940, 944-45 (2d Cir. 1983) (emphasis omitted). Here, for the reasons stated above, the Court concludes that the order proposed by New GM would go well beyond protecting those inter ests and that more narrowly tailored orders - limited to protecting the interests of third parties and adopting Rule 3.6 of the New York State Rules of Professional Conduct - would more appropriately balance the interests at stake, including th e interests of third parties in avoiding injury, harassment, and invasions of privacy; the interests of the press and the public in the subject matter of this MDL; and the interests of the parties in fair proceedings and trials. Accordingly, Ne w GM's motion is granted in part and denied in part. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate 14-MD-2543 Docket No. 1058, and as further set forth in this order. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 7/24/2015) ***As per chambers, Filed In All Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(tn)
|
|
Filing
109
OPINION AND ORDER: In complex, multidistrict litigation of this sort, courts must grapple with - indeed, juggle a host of challenges and considerations. Among the most important of those challenges and considerations is striking the right balance between, on the one hand, protecting and preserving the rights and interests of individual litigants while, on the other hand, ensuring that such solicitude does not undermine the central purpose of MDL consolidation - namely, promoting "just and efficient" resolution of the parties' disputes. 28 U.S.C. § 1407(a). In its effort to streamline the litigation, the Court's initial order addressing the effect of the Consolidated Complaints in this MDL - Order No. 29 - fai led to grant appropriate weight to the former concern. For the reasons stated above, however, the Court concludes that Order No. 50 - a copy of which is attached for ease of reference does strike the right balance. As noted, Order No. 50 contem plates entry of additional orders touching on these issues. Through those orders and others, the Court will undoubtedly refine the balance between the individual and collective even further. For now, however, the Court finds that Order No. 50 ap propriately protects the interests of all individual parties while ensuring that the Court is able to "expeditiously and thoroughly resolve" the common legal and factual issues that motivated the JPML to transfer these cases here. In re Asbestos Cases of Hatch, James & Dodge, G. Patterson Keahey, No. 06-CV-741 (TS), 2007 WL 582983, at *2 (D. Utah Feb. 20, 2007). (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 6/10/2015) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al.(kl)
|
|
Filing
79
OPINION AND ORDER: For the foregoing reasons, the Court agrees with New GM that the Interview Materials are protected by both the attorney-client privilege and the attorney work product doctrine. The Court acknowledges that that ruling deprives Plaintiffs of material that might be helpful in the preparation of their cases. In reality, however, it "puts [Plaintiffs] in no worse position than if the communications had never taken place," Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 395, as Plaintiffs the mselves are free to question the witnesses who were interviewed by the Valukas team. Moreover, in the memorable words of Justice Robert Jackson, "[d]iscovery was hardly intended to enable a learned profession to perform its functions... on w its borrowed from the adversary." Hickman, 329 U.S. at 516 (Jackson, J., concurring). And, in the final analysis, the cost of withholding the materials is outweighed by the benefits to society of "encourag[ing] 'full and frank commu nication between attorneys and their clients and thereby promot[ing] broader public interests in the observance of law and the administration of justice.'" Swidler & Berlin v. United States, 524 U.S. 399, 403 (1998) (quoting Upjohn, 449 U.S. at 389). Accordingly, and for the reasons explained above, Plaintiffs' application to compel disclosure of the Interview Materials and other items is DENIED, except that New GM is ordered to disclose, within two weeks, the names of all witnesses who were interviewed by Valukas and his colleagues but not mentioned by name in the Valukas Report itself. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 1/15/2015) As per chambers, filed in all Member Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al., and 14mc2543(tn) Modified on 1/15/2015 (tn).
|
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.
