Pulyankote v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company ( 2023 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 GOPINATH PULYANKOTE, Case No. 23-cv-04323-SI 8 Plaintiff, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT'S MOTION TO DISMISS PLAINTIFF'S 10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT 11 Defendant. Re: Dkt. No. 37 12 13 14 Defendant has filed a motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action of plaintiff’s 15 First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 37. Plaintiff opposes and requests leave to file a 16 Second Amended Complaint. Dkt. No. 39. Pursuant to Civil Local Rule 7-1(b), the Court determines 17 that the motion is suitable for resolution without oral argument, and VACATES the January 5, 2024 18 hearing. For the reasons set forth in the order on motion to dismiss at Dkt. No. 40 of 23-cv-04319- 19 SI, Poonam D. Shah v. General Motors LLC, the Court GRANTS defendant’s motion to dismiss the 20 fraud claims1 without leave to amend and DENIES defendant’s motion to dismiss claims under the 21 “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of Business & Professions Code § 17200 (California’s Unfair 22 Competition Law).2 23 1 The fraud claims include the fourth cause of action alleging affirmative misrepresentation 24 and fraudulent concealment and claims under the “fraudulent” prong of Business & Professions Code § 17200. 25 2 The First Amended Complaints and briefs in 23-cv-04319-SI and this action are virtually 26 identical. The Court notes that plaintiff in this action purchased the subject vehicle on December 27, 2018 so there are fewer allegations of pre-sale knowledge in this action than in 23-cv-04319, 27 where the plaintiff bought the subject vehicle on July 17, 2019. See Dkt. No. 35 ¶¶ 6, 16-22. 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. 2 Dated: December 21, 2023 3 SUSAN ILLSTON 4 United States District Judge 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 © 15 16 = 17 Z 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 2020-2022 model-year Chevrolet Bolts have a total range of 259 miles. Dkt. No. 38. The Court 97 || notes that plaintiffs Bolt’s model-year is pre-2020, but nevertheless GRANTS this request for judicial notice because this data is not subject to reasonable dispute and is publicly available on the 28 EPA’s website. See Jarose v. Cnty. of Humboldt, No. C 18-07383 SBA, 2020 WL 999791, at *4 (N.D. Cal. Mar. 2, 2020).