Swearingen v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-04314
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Swearingen v. General Motors LLC, Judge Illston granted GM’s request to judicially notice EPA range data for Chevrolet Bolts in connection with its dismissal motion.
The ruling allowed General Motors to have the specified EPA range data judicially noticed in connection with its motion to dismiss. The order did not resolve the plaintiffs’ claims or decide the motion to dismiss.
What happened
Swearingen v. General Motors LLC concerned General Motors’ request to have the court recognize publicly available Environmental Protection Agency data stating that 2020–2022 Chevrolet Bolts had an estimated total range of 259 miles. General Motors made the request in support of its motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.
The court explained that judges generally cannot consider material outside the complaint when deciding a motion to dismiss, but may recognize public records and facts that are not reasonably disputed. Because the data was publicly available on the EPA’s website and could be accurately checked, the court granted General Motors’ request.
Judge Illston’s order addressed only the request for judicial notice; it did not rule on the motion to dismiss or the underlying claims. The order was entered on November 6, 2023.
The detailed version
- Swearingen v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company · No. 3:23-cv-04314
- Susan Illston
- Nov. 6, 2023
Background
General Motors requested that the court take judicial notice of data from the Environmental Protection Agency stating that 2020–2022 model-year Chevrolet Bolts had an estimated total range of 259 miles. The request was submitted in support of General Motors’ motion to dismiss the plaintiffs’ complaint.
Legal standard
The court noted that, generally, a district court may not consider material outside the pleadings when deciding a motion to dismiss for failure to state a claim under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Federal Rule of Evidence 201 creates an exception for judicial notice: a court may recognize a fact without requiring formal proof when the fact is not reasonably disputed because it is generally known or can be accurately and readily determined from a source whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.
Court’s ruling
The court found it proper to take judicial notice of the EPA range data because it was publicly available on the EPA’s website and was not subject to reasonable dispute. The court therefore granted General Motors’ request for judicial notice.
The order did not decide General Motors’ motion to dismiss or the merits of the plaintiffs’ claims. Susan Illston signed the order as United States District Judge.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.