Siqueiros v. General Motors LLC ( 2021 )

1 2 3 4 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 5 NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 6 7 RAUL SIQUEIROS, et al., Case No. 16-cv-07244-EMC 8 Plaintiffs, ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND 9 v. DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION 10 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, Docket No. 324 11 Defendant. 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 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. 11 Plaintiffs argue that this Court’s decisions in FCA, 295 F. Supp. 3d at 1022, and In re 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. 25 That being said, the ICPA claim is still suitable for class-wide adjudication because the 26 1 The Court does not agree with GM that only individuals who purchased new Class Vehicles from 27 GM-authorized dealerships have privity of contract with GM. For example, individuals who 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 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 5 dealer. The Court certifies the claims of the Idaho Class for violation of the Idaho Consumer Protection Act, Idaho Code Ann. 6 §§ 48-601–48-619. The Court appoints Gabriel Del Valle as the class representative for the Idaho Class. 7 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 serves to clarify such ambiguity. 11 This order disposes of Document No. 324. 12 13 IT IS SO ORDERED. 14 15 Dated: August 2, 2021 16 17 ______________________________________ EDWARD M. CHEN 18 United States District Judge 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27