Pulyankote v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company
- Susan Illston
- 3:23-cv-04323
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Pulyankote v. General Motors LLC, Judge Illston granted in part and denied in part General Motors’ motion to dismiss.
Gopinath Pulyankote’s fraud claims were dismissed without leave to amend, while his claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of California’s Unfair Competition Law were allowed to proceed past this motion to dismiss.
What happened
Pulyankote v. General Motors LLC concerned General Motors’ motion to dismiss the fourth and fifth claims in Gopinath Pulyankote’s First Amended Complaint. The opinion states that the claims included fraud allegations and claims under the “unlawful,” “unfair,” and “fraudulent” parts of California’s Unfair Competition Law.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the fraud claims without leave to amend. It denied the motion to dismiss the claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” parts of the Unfair Competition Law. The court also vacated the scheduled hearing and decided the motion without oral argument.
Judge Susan Illston issued the order on December 21, 2023. The court relied on its order in a related case because the complaints and briefs were described as virtually identical, while noting that this plaintiff bought the vehicle on a different date.
The detailed version
- Pulyankote v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company · No. 3:23-cv-04323
- Susan Illston
- Dec. 21, 2023
Background
Gopinath Pulyankote sued General Motors LLC. General Motors moved to dismiss the fourth and fifth causes of action in Pulyankote’s First Amended Complaint. Pulyankote opposed the motion and requested permission to file a Second Amended Complaint.
The court stated that the complaints and briefing in this case and a related case were virtually identical. It also noted a difference: Pulyankote purchased the subject vehicle on December 21, 2018, resulting in fewer allegations about General Motors’ knowledge before the sale than in the related case.
Ruling
The court decided the motion without oral argument and vacated the January 5, 2024 hearing. Relying on the reasoning in its order in the related case, the court granted in part and denied in part General Motors’ motion to dismiss.
The court granted the motion to dismiss the fraud claims without leave to amend. The opinion identifies those claims as the fourth cause of action for affirmative misrepresentation and fraudulent concealment, along with claims under the “fraudulent” prong of California Business and Professions Code § 17200.
The court denied the motion to dismiss Pulyankote’s claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of California Business and Professions Code § 17200, California’s Unfair Competition Law.
Disposition
The order’s disposition was: the fraud claims were dismissed without leave to amend, while the claims under the “unlawful” and “unfair” prongs of the Unfair Competition Law were not dismissed by this motion. The provided text also contains a fragment concerning judicial notice of publicly available Environmental Protection Agency vehicle-range data, but it does not clearly identify how that request relates to the main motion ruling.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.