Leslie v. General Motors LLC

Filing 12

ORDER ADOPTING Findings and Recommendations, GRANTING Defendant's Motion to Dismiss, and dismissing the Fourth Cause of Action for Violations of California's Unfair Competition Law without leave to amend #7 , #11 signed by District Judge Jennifer L. Thurston on 10/1/2024. (Docs. 7, 11) (Lundstrom, T)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

9

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

10
11

TRICIA RAYLENE LESLIE,

12
13
14
15
16

Plaintiff,
v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendants.

)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)
)

Case No.: 1:24-cv-0915 JLT SAB
ORDER ADOPTING FINDINGS AND
RECOMMENDATIONS, GRANTING
DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS, AND
DISMISSING THE FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
FOR VIOLATIONS OF CALIFORNIA’S UNFAIR
COMPETITION LAW WITHOUT LEAVE TO
AMEND
(Docs. 7, 11)

17
18

Tricia Raylene Leslie purchased a Chevrolet Bolt manufactured by General Motors, which she

19

asserts was defective. Plaintiff seeks to hold Defendant liable for violations of California’s Song

20

Beverly Act and California’s Unfair Competition Law, as set forth in Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.

21

(See generally Doc. 1-3.) Defendant moved to dismiss Plaintiff’s UCL claim pursuant to Rule 12(b)(6)

22

of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. (Doc. 7.) Plaintiff did not oppose the motion.

23

The magistrate judge found Plaintiff failed to state a cognizable claim for a violation of the

24

UCL, under each of the three prongs—fraud, unfair practices, and unlawful business practice—

25

enumerated under Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200. (Doc. 11 at 6-10.) In addition, the magistrate judge

26

found that “Plaintiff has an adequate remedy at law under the [Song Beverly] Act,” and Plaintiff did not

27

establish equitable jurisdiction over the UCL claim. (Id. at 11.) Therefore, the magistrate judge

28

recommended the UCL claim be dismissed without leave to amend. (Id. at 12.)
1

1

The Court served the Findings and Recommendations on the parties and notified them that any

2

objections were due within 14 days. (Doc. 11 at 12.) The Court advised Plaintiff that the “failure to

3

file objections within the specified time may result in the waiver of rights on appeal.” (Id., citing

4

Wilkerson v. Wheeler, 772 F.3d 834, 838-39 (9th Cir. 2014).) Plaintiff did not file objections, and the

5

time to do so has passed.

6

According to 28 U.S.C. § 636(b)(1), this Court performed a de novo review of this case. Having

7

carefully reviewed the matter, the Court concludes the Findings and Recommendations are supported

8

by the record and proper analysis. Thus, the Court ORDERS:

9

1.

The Findings and Recommendations dated September 13, 2024 (Doc. 11) are
ADOPTED in full.

10
11

2.

Defendant’s motion to dismiss the Fourth Cause of Action (Doc. 7) is GRANTED.

12

3.

Plaintiff’s claim for a violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law is
DISMISSED without leave to amend.

13
14
15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated:

October 1, 2024

17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
2