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

Background

Chinari Santosh Kumar Patra sued General Motors LLC in Santa Clara County Superior Court over an allegedly defective Chevrolet Bolt that Patra leased on or about August 31, 2020. The complaint alleged that the vehicle’s batteries could ignite when fully charged or when fewer than 70 miles remained, that the vehicle could not safely be parked inside overnight, and that GM falsely advertised it as safe and functional.

The complaint asserted five causes of action: breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Act; breach of implied warranty under that Act; violation of Song-Beverly Act section 1793.2; fraud; and violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law. GM removed the case to federal court based on diversity jurisdiction.

Motion to Remand

Patra moved to remand, or return, the case to state court. Patra argued that GM had not shown that the parties were diverse, that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000, or that removal complied with the required procedures. The court struck Patra’s evidentiary objections to a declaration from GM counsel because the objections were not included in the brief as required by the court’s rules. The court also stated that the objections lacked merit.

The court found that the amount in controversy exceeded $75,000. It considered the $8,413 amount paid or payable for the vehicle, a possible civil penalty of twice that amount, attorneys’ fees, and punitive damages sought on the fraud claim. The court accepted GM’s unchallenged estimate of $50,000 for attorneys’ fees and found it reasonable to assume that at least $50,000 in punitive damages could be at issue based on the allegations.

The court also found that the parties were diverse, relying on evidence that Patra resided in California and GM was a resident of Michigan. Finally, the court found removal procedurally proper because GM filed its notice of removal fewer than 30 days after service and attached the required documents. The court therefore denied Patra’s motion to remand.

Motion to Dismiss

GM moved under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), which permits dismissal when a complaint does not adequately state a claim for relief, against 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. GM did not challenge the fifth cause of action’s unfair or unlawful prongs.

Patra acknowledged possible pleading deficiencies and requested permission to file an amended complaint. Patra stated that an amendment could allege that GM knew about battery issues and failed to disclose that knowledge through dealership personnel, and could establish a transactional relationship for purposes of the fraud claim. GM did not oppose allowing an amended complaint.

Because the parties agreed to amendment, the court granted GM’s motion to dismiss the fourth cause of action and granted GM’s motion to dismiss the fifth cause of action based on fraud, each with leave to amend. The order required any amended complaint to be filed within 14 days and stated that amendment must be consistent with the order. Patra also had to file a redlined version of any amended complaint.

Disposition

The court vacated the scheduled hearing, denied the motion to remand, and granted both specified dismissal motions with leave to amend. The order did not dismiss the fifth cause of action’s unfair or unlawful prongs.