Shah v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Filing 29

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO AMEND granting 13 Motion to Dismiss. (Illston, Susan) (Filed on 11/7/2023)

1
2

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

3

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

4
5

POONAM D. SHAH,
Plaintiff,

6
v.

7
8

Case No. 23-cv-04319-SI

GENERAL MOTORS LLC,
Defendant.

9

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S
MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S
COMPLAINT WITH LEAVE TO
AMEND
Re: Dkt. No. 13

United States District Court
Northern District of California

10
11

Before the Court is defendant’s motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action of

12

plaintiff’s complaint. Dkt. No. 13.1 Plaintiff requests leave to file a First Amended Complaint. Dkt.

13

No. 21. Defendant does not oppose permitting plaintiff to serve an Amended Complaint, but

14

requests that the Court dismiss the fraud claims for failure to state a cause of action on which relief

15

may be granted. Dkt. No. 23 at 3. For the reasons set forth in the order on motion to dismiss at Dkt.

16

No. 31 in 23-cv-04358-SI, Wieg et al. v. General Motors LLC, the Court GRANTS defendant’s

17

motion to dismiss WITH LEAVE TO AMEND.2 Plaintiff shall file the first amended complaint no

18

later than November 17, 2023.

19
20
21

IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: November 7, 2023
______________________________________
SUSAN ILLSTON
United States District Judge

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

The fifth cause of action in plaintiff’s complaint alleges violations of California’s Unfair
Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code Section 17200, et seq. This statute prohibits “any
unlawful, unfair… or fraudulent business act or practice.” Defendant does not move to dismiss
alleged violations of the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs, only alleged violations of the “fraudulent”
prong. See Dkt. No. 13 at 1.
1

2

Counsel for plaintiff and defendant are the same in 23-cv-04358-SI and the present action
and the briefs are virtually identical.