Aldama v. General Motors LLC, a Delaware limited liability company

Background

Adrian Aldama filed five claims in Santa Clara County Superior Court concerning an allegedly defective Chevrolet Bolt that he leased on or about December 18, 2019. The complaint alleged that the vehicle’s batteries could ignite when fully charged or when the vehicle had fewer than 70 miles of remaining range, and that the vehicle could not safely be parked indoors overnight. The claims were for breach of express warranty, breach of implied warranty, violation of section 1793.2 of the Song-Beverly Act, fraud, and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law.

General Motors LLC removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction. Aldama moved to remand the case to state court. General Motors separately moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which allows dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim, targeting the fourth cause of action for fraud and the fifth cause of action to the extent it relied on the Unfair Competition Law’s fraud prong. The motion did not challenge the fifth cause of action’s unfair or unlawful prongs. Aldama acknowledged possible pleading deficiencies and requested permission to amend; General Motors did not oppose that request.

Motion to Remand

The court denied Aldama’s motion to remand. It struck Aldama’s evidentiary objections to statements by General Motors’ counsel about the company’s corporate structure because the objections were filed improperly under the court’s local rules and standing order. The court also concluded that the objections lacked merit.

The court found that General Motors showed the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. The complaint sought the amount paid or payable for the vehicle, a civil penalty of twice that amount, attorney’s fees, and punitive damages on the fraud-based claim. General Motors provided evidence that the vehicle’s cash price was $41,800. The court accepted an uncontested estimate of $50,000 in attorney’s fees and concluded that at least $50,000 in punitive damages was reasonably at stake based on the allegations. Considering the pleaded damages together, the court found the amount-in-controversy requirement satisfied.

The court also found the parties diverse based on evidence that Aldama was a California resident and General Motors was a Michigan resident. Finally, it found removal procedurally proper because General Motors filed its notice of removal fewer than 30 days after service and attached the required documents.

Motion to Dismiss

The court granted General Motors’ motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action for fraud with leave to amend. It also granted the motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action based on the Unfair Competition Law’s fraud prong with leave to amend. The order did not dismiss or otherwise address the fifth cause of action’s unfair or unlawful prongs.

The court ordered that any amended complaint be filed within 14 days of the order’s issuance, be consistent with the order, and include a redlined version. The hearing scheduled for March 21, 2024, was vacated.