Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC

Filing 349

ORDER Granting in Part and Denying in Part #324 Defendant's Motion for Reconsideration. Signed by Judge Edward M. Chen on 8/2/2021. (emcsec, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 8/2/2021)

1
2
3
4

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

5

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

6
7

RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al.,
Plaintiffs,

8
9
10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC

v.
GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.

ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND
DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION
Docket No. 324

12
13
14

Pending before the Court is Defendant General Motors LLC’s (“GM’s”) motion for

15

reconsideration. See Docket No. 324 (“Mot.”). For the following reasons, the motion is

16

GRANTED in part and DENIED in part.

17

In its May 25, 2021 order, the Court held that immediate or direct privity of contract is not

18

required to bring a claim under the Idaho Consumer Protection Act (ICPA). See Docket No. 320

19

(“Order”) at 9. Instead, Idaho Plaintiffs need only show that their ICPA claims are “founded on a

20

contract, not that the contract must be one entered into directly by the plaintiff and the defendant

21

[i.e., GM].” Id. (emphases added) (citing In re Chrysler-Dodge-Jeep Ecodiesel Mktg., Sales

22

Pracs., & Prod. Liab. Litig. (“FCA”), 295 F. Supp. 3d 927, 1022 (N.D. Cal. 2018) and Taylor v.

23

McNichols, 243 P.3d 642, 662 (Idaho 2010)). The Court then certified the ICPA claim for class-

24

wide adjudication. Id. at 37–38.

25

GM asks for leave to file a motion to urge the Court to reconsider its certification of the

26

ICPA claim because “the Court did not consider whether plaintiffs could establish privity by class-

27

wide evidence common to all class members, including those who acquired used vehicles from

28

third-parties and non-GM dealerships, and did not address GM’s uncontroverted evidence that the

1

majority of Idaho class members did not purchase new vehicles from GM-authorized dealerships.”

2

Mot. at 2 (emphases added). The Court agrees to the extent that the Idaho class cannot include

3

individuals who purchased their vehicles from third parties who are unaffiliated with GM.1 See

4

Taylor, 243 P.3d at 662. The Court held that the ICPA only requires indirect privity between the

5

Idaho Plaintiffs and GM; thus, Plaintiffs who purchased their vehicle from a GM-authorized

6

dealer have standing to sue. See Order at 9. Plaintiffs who purchased their vehicle from third

7

parties and who do not have indirect privity with GM (through a GM-authorized dealer) do not

8

have standing. Id. Here, Idaho Plaintiff Gabriel Del Valle has standing because he testified that

9

he purchased his vehicle from “Meridian Chevrolet just outside of Boise, Idaho,” which is a GM-

10

authorized dealer. See Docket 293-5 (“Del Valle Dep. Tr.”) at 17:14-16, 38:9- 13.
Plaintiffs argue that this Court’s decisions in FCA, 295 F. Supp. 3d at 1022, and In re

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11
12

Toyota RAV4 Hybrid Fuel Tank Litig. (“Rav4”), No. 20-cv-00337, 2021 WL 1338949, at *25-26

13

(N.D. Cal. Apr. 16, 2021), stand for the proposition that any contractual transaction to purchase a

14

Class Vehicle is sufficient to show privity. However, the plaintiffs in those cases—like Mr. Del

15

Valle here—purchased their vehicles from Chrysler-authorized and Toyota-authorized dealers, not

16

from third parties entirely unrelated to those defendants. See FCA, 295 F. Supp. 3d at 1022; Rav4,

17

2021 WL 1338949, at *25–*26. Therefore, the result under the facts of those cases is not

18

inconsistent with the holding here that Idaho Plaintiffs—including unnamed class members—

19

must show that they have indirect privity with GM. To hold that the Idaho Plaintiffs can sue GM

20

under the ICPA if they entered into any contract with anyone to purchase their vehicles, regardless

21

of whether the transaction had any connection whatsoever with GM, would eliminate the

22

substantive privity requirement under Idaho state law altogether. After all, in nearly every

23

instance (with the exception e.g. of gifts and inheritances), acquisition of a vehicle involves some

24

contract whether express or implied.
That being said, the ICPA claim is still suitable for class-wide adjudication because the

25
26
27
28

1

The Court does not agree with GM that only individuals who purchased new Class Vehicles from
GM-authorized dealerships have privity of contract with GM. For example, individuals who
purchased used Class Vehicles from GM-authorized dealers during the class period could still be
part of the class.
2

1

class definition can be narrowed to include only putative class members who purchased Class

2

Vehicles from a GM-authorized dealer. Accordingly, the Court amends the definition of the Idaho

3

Class as follows (additions in italics and underlined):

4
5
6
7

1. Idaho Class. All current owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle that
was purchased or leased in the State of Idaho from a GM-authorized
dealer. The Court certifies the claims of the Idaho Class for
violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code Ann.
§§ 48-601–48-619. The Court appoints Gabriel Del Valle as the
class representative for the Idaho Class.

8

Accordingly, GM’s motion for leave to file a motion for reconsideration is GRANTED in

9

part and DENIED in part. To the extent the prior Order suffered from any ambiguity, this order

10

United States District Court
Northern District of California

11

serves to clarify such ambiguity.
This order disposes of Document No. 324.

12
13

IT IS SO ORDERED.

14
15

Dated: August 2, 2021

16
17
18

______________________________________
EDWARD M. CHEN
United States District Judge

19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
3