Chapman et al v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:2019cv12333 - Document 80 (E.D. Mich. 2021)

Court Description: OPINION and ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART 48 Motion to Dismiss; and Resolving 52 , 62 , 68 , 69 , 72 , 74 , 75 , 78 Other Motions. Signed by District Judge Terrence G. Berg. (Attachments: # 1 Table of Claims) (AChu)

Download PDF

3 III Breach of K X 4 C.I CP X 16 G.I CP 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 IWM UE CP UE CP IWM CP IWM CP UE IWM G.II G.III H.I H.II I.I I.II J.I J.II K.I K.II K.III 28 L.I CP 29 30 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 CP UE CP IWM CP UE CP IWM UE CP L.II L.III M.I M.II N.I N.II O.I O.II O.III P.I AZ AR CA CO CT DC DE FL GA HI ID IL X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X P ot es Cannot maintain a class claim seeking damages under state statute X* AK N X Fradulent Concealment X w /o Placeholder claim 2 II AL re ju di ce e ju di c X X* IWM UE CP IWM CP CP IWM CP CP IWM IWM D X MMWA C.II C.III D.I D.II E.I Ark.I Ark.II F.I F.II F.III F.IV Doc. 80 Att. 1 *Only survives as to any sub-class with valid IWM claims. *Dismissed as to OH, NJ, SC (failure to allege duty to disclose), CA, MI, NH (barred by economic loss doctrine), LA, MS, TN, OR (preempted by state statute) subclasses. Plaintiffs concede this claim Plaintiff does not meet use requirements of state statute Lack of privity 1I 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 is m is s w /P re is m is s D Su rv iv es St at e T yp e C C la im ou nt Chapman et al v. General Motors LLC X Lack of privity Class claim preempted by state statute Lack of privity, time-barred Dockets.Justia.com 39 40 41 42 43 44 P.II P.III Q.I R.I R.II S.I IWM UE CP CP IWM CP 45 T.I CP 46 47 48 49 50 51 52 IWM CP IWM CP IWM CP IWM T.II U.I U.II V.I V.II W.I W.I 53 X.I CP 54 55 56 57 58 59 60 61 62 63 64 65 66 67 68 69 70 71 72 73 74 75 76 77 78 IWM UE CP IWM IWM CP IWM UE CP IWM CP IWM CP IWM CP IWM UE CP IWM CP IWM CP CP IWM UE X.II X.III Y.I Y.II Z.I AA.I AA.II AA.III BB.I BB.II CC.I CC.II DD.I DD.II EE.I EE.II EE.III FF.I FF.II GG.I GG.II HH.I HH.II HH.III HH.IV 79 II.I CP 80 II.II IWM 81 JJ.I CP 82 JJ.II 83 KK.I 84 KK.II IWM CP IWM 85 LL.I CP 86 LL.II 87 MM.I 88 MM.II WIM CP IWM IN IA KS KY LA ME MD MA X X X X X X X X X X X X X MS MO MT NE NV NH NJ NM NY X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X X NC ND OH OK OR X Automobile sales are exempted from the MCPA Lack of notice, time-barred X Lack of privity X Claims solely for economic losses are barred by state statute X Claims for injunctive relief barred by state statute X MI MN Class claim preempted by state statute, precluded by LPLA X X X X X X X X X Improperly pled under OCSPA Claims for injunctive relief barred by state statute 89 NN.I CP 90 91 92 93 94 IWM UE CP IWM UE NN.II NN.III OO.I OO.II OO.III 95 PP.I CP 96 97 98 99 CP IWM CP IWM PP.II PP.III QQ.I QQ.II 100 RR.I CP 101 102 103 104 105 106 107 108 109 110 111 112 113 114 IWM CP IWM CP IWM CP IWM CP IWM CP IWM CP CP IWM RR.II SS.I SS.II TT.I TT.II UU.I UU.II VV.I VV.II WW.I WW.II XX.I YY.I YY.II PA RI SC SD VT VA WA WV WI WY TOTAL: 114 X Class claim preempted by state statute X X X X X X X X X X Class claim preempted by state statute Lack of privity X Time-barred X TN UT X Claims solely for economic losses are barred by state statute, Plaintiff does not meet use requirements of state statute X X X X X X X X X X X X 93 20 1

Some case metadata and case summaries were written with the help of AI, which can produce inaccuracies. You should read the full case before relying on it for legal research purposes.

This site is protected by reCAPTCHA and the Google Privacy Policy and Terms of Service apply.