Taylor v. General Motors LLC

Filing 100

ORDER OF DISMISSAL... In light of his continued failure to submit substantially complete PFSs or document productions as required by Order No. 25, Order No. 108, and Order No. 148, Plaintiff Hemingway's claims are hereby DISMISSED without pr ejudice. Should Plaintiff Hemingway submit all required documentation within the next thirty days, or otherwise contest this dismissal, he may move to vacate the dismissal within 30 days of the date of this order, pursuant to Paragraph 25 of Order No. 25. The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate: 1. 14-MD-2543, ECF No. 8072; 2. 19-CV-11922, ECF No. 37;3. 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 110; 4. 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 120; 5. 19-CV-6528, ECF No. 35; 6. 17-CV-6155, ECF No. 94; 7. 20-CV-3307, ECF No. 16.Be cause (1) Plaintiff Hemingway still has an opportunity to vacate his dismissal, (2) the motion to dismiss was withdrawn as to Plaintiffs Dukes, Taylor and Tenley, and (3) the motion to dismiss was denied without prejudice as to the Hancock Plaintif fs, the Clerk of Court is directed not to terminate the Affected Plaintiffs or to close their cases. SO ORDERED., Motions terminated: (120 in 1:18-cv-01019-JMF) FIRST MOTION to Amend/Correct (119) Response in Opposition to Motion,, to dismiss. filed by CN, Tia Maynard, RN, LH, April Hollon, TH, (8072 in 1:14-md-02543-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice Wave Four Plaintiffs for Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Order Nos. 108 and 148 Production Deficiencies. f iled by General Motors LLC, (35 in 1:19-cv-06528-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice Wave Four Plaintiffs for Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Order Nos. 108 and 148 Production Deficiencies. filed by General Motors L.L.C., (37 in 1:19-cv- 11922-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice Wave Four Plaintiffs for Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Order Nos. 108 and 148 Production Deficiencies. filed by General Motors LLC, (16 in 1:20-cv-03307-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Without Prej udice Wave Four Plaintiffs for Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Order Nos. 108 and 148 Production Deficiencies. filed by General Motors, (110 in 1:18-cv-01019-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice Wave Four Plaintiffs for Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Order Nos. 108 and 148 Production Deficiencies. filed by General Motors L.L.C., (94 in 1:17-cv-06155-JMF) MOTION to Dismiss Without Prejudice Wave Four Plaintiffs for Plaintiff Fact Sheet and Order Nos. 108 and 148 Production Deficiencies. filed by General Motors L.L.C. (Signed by Judge Jesse M. Furman on 9/25/20) Filed In Associated Cases: 1:14-md-02543-JMF et al. (yv)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x
IN RE:
GENERAL MOTORS LLC IGNITION SWITCH LITIGATION
14-MD-2543 (JMF)
This Document Relates To:
Dukes v. General Motors LLC, 19-CV-11922
Hancock v. General Motors LLC, 18-CV-1019
Hemingway v. General Motors LLC, 19-CV-6528
Taylor v. General Motors LLC, 17-CV-6155
Tenley v. General Motors LLC, 20-CV-3307
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------x

ORDER OF DISMISSAL

JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge:
On July 29, 2020, New GM filed a motion to dismiss, without prejudice, the claims of
several personal injury and wrongful death plaintiffs identified in Exhibit A (the “Affected
Plaintiffs”) who had allegedly failed to submit substantially complete plaintiff fact sheets
(“PFSs”) or document productions as required by Order No. 25, ECF No. 422, Order No. 108,
ECF No. 3115; and Order No. 148, ECF No. 5366. See ECF No. 8072.1 Pursuant to an
extension granted by the Court, see ECF No. 8097, Affected Plaintiffs had until August 24, 2020
to file responses either certifying submission of a completed PFS or document productions or
opposing New GM’s motion for other reasons. On August 31, 2020, New GM filed a reply in
support of their motion to dismiss, in which they indicated that they were withdrawing the
motion as to Plaintiffs Jennifer Dukes, Matthew Chase Taylor, and William Tenley because each
of these Plaintiffs had since agreed to settle their claims against New GM. See ECF No. 8129.

1

All docket references are to 14-MD-2543 unless otherwise noted.

In contrast, New GM informed the Court that “Plaintiff Marcus Hemingway (on behalf of
Kenya Robinson) ha[d] not provided a revised PFS or additional Order 108 Documents. Counsel
for Mr. Hemingway did not respond to repeated requests from counsel for New GM to meet and
confer regarding Mr. Hemingway’s ongoing discovery deficiencies.” Id. at 2. New GM also
identified ongoing discovery deficiencies as to Plaintiffs Tia Maynard and April Hollon as next
friends of T.H., L.H., C.N., and R.N (the “Hancock Plaintiffs”), see id., notwithstanding the
Hancock Plaintiffs’ filing of an opposition on July 30, 2020 representing that they were in
compliance with their discovery obligations, see 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 111.
On September 14, 2020, the Hancock Plaintiffs filed a further response to New GM’s
motion to dismiss, asserting that “[t]here is no outstanding discovery for T.H. and L.H.,” but
acknowledging that legal guardianship of Plaintiffs C.N. and R.N. had shifted and requesting
more time to obtain the cooperation of C.N. and R.N.’s biological father in order to cure their
remaining discovery deficiencies. 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 119 at 1-2. In subsequent filings, the
Hancock Plaintiffs’ indicated that the biological father’s cooperation had been secured, but that
still more time was required to meet their discovery obligations. See 18-CV-1019, ECF Nos.
120, 123.
In the meantime, on August 19, 2020, New GM filed a notice identifying the Hancock
Plaintiffs’ claims as barred by Ohio’s statute of repose. See ECF No. 8118. On September 16,
2020, the Hancock Plaintiffs filed a response to New GM’s notice, contending that their claims
are not barred by the statute of repose, and stating an intention to move to reinstate Plaintiff
Megan Hancock’s claims. See 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 121; see also 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 86
(dismissing Megan Hancock with prejudice).

On September 24, 2020, the Court conducted a telephone conference on the record with
the Hancock Plaintiffs and New GM to resolve the path forward for their claims. As discussed,
and for the reasons stated, in that conference, New GM’s motion to dismiss the Hancock
Plaintiffs is DENIED without prejudice to renewal within two weeks of the Court’s resolution
of New GM’s forthcoming motion to dismiss based on Ohio’s statute of repose. The parties
are urged, however, to resolve any remaining discovery deficiencies while the statute of repose
issue is litigated. Further, no later than today, September 25, 2020, the Hancock Plaintiffs and
New GM shall submit a joint letter proposing a briefing schedule for New GM’s anticipated
motion to dismiss on statute of repose grounds.
In contrast to the Hancock Plaintiffs, Plaintiff Hemingway has not filed any response to
New GM’s motion identifying outstanding discovery deficiencies. Accordingly, in light of his
continued failure to submit substantially complete PFSs or document productions as required by
Order No. 25, Order No. 108, and Order No. 148, Plaintiff Hemingway’s claims are hereby
DISMISSED without prejudice. Should Plaintiff Hemingway submit all required documentation
within the next thirty days, or otherwise contest this dismissal, he may move to vacate the
dismissal within 30 days of the date of this order, pursuant to Paragraph 25 of Order No. 25.
The Clerk of Court is directed to terminate:
1. 14-MD-2543, ECF No. 8072;
2. 19-CV-11922, ECF No. 37;
3. 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 110;
4. 18-CV-1019, ECF No. 120;
5. 19-CV-6528, ECF No. 35;
6. 17-CV-6155, ECF No. 94;

7. 20-CV-3307, ECF No. 16.
Because (1) Plaintiff Hemingway still has an opportunity to vacate his dismissal, (2) the
motion to dismiss was withdrawn as to Plaintiffs Dukes, Taylor and Tenley, and (3) the motion
to dismiss was denied without prejudice as to the Hancock Plaintiffs, the Clerk of Court is
directed not to terminate the Affected Plaintiffs or to close their cases.

SO ORDERED.
Dated: September 25, 2020
New York, New York

__________________________________
JESSE M. FURMAN
United States District Judge

EXHIBIT A

EXHIBIT A
Name

Cause No.

Dukes, Jennifer
Hemingway, Marcus (OBO
Kenya Robinson)
Hollon, April and Maynard,
Tia (NF L.H.)
Hollon, April and Maynard,
Tia (NF T.H.)
Hollon, April and Maynard,
Tia (NF C.N.)
Hollon, April and Maynard,
Tia (NF R.N.)
Taylor, Matthew Chase

Dukes v. General Motors LLC, 19-CV-11922

Tenley, William

Tenley v. General Motors LLC, 1:20-CV-3307

Hemingway v. General Motors LLC, 1:19-CV-6528
Hancock v. General Motors LLC, 1:18-CV-1019
Hancock v. General Motors LLC, 1:18-CV-1019
Hancock v. General Motors LLC, 1:18-CV-1019
Hancock v. General Motors LLC, 1:18-CV-1019
Taylor v. General Motors LLC, 1:17-CV-6155