Mulders v. General Motors, LLC
- Jacquelyn Corley
- 3:23-cv-06395
- U.S. District Court · Northern District of California
- 2
In Mulders v. General Motors, Judge Corley granted General Motors’s dismissal motion, allowing some fraud claims to be amended but dismissing others and the unfair-competition claims.
Marc Anthony Mulders’s claims against General Motors, LLC: some fraud claims may be amended, one fraud claim cannot be amended, and the Unfair Competition Law claims were dismissed without prejudice; the remaining claims were not dismissed by this order.
What happened
In Mulders v. General Motors, LLC, Marc Anthony Mulders sued General Motors over statements about a car’s battery charging capacity, indoor storage, and a promise to replace the battery. The order addressed General Motors’s motion to dismiss the first amended complaint.
The court dismissed the brochure-based misrepresentation claims and fraudulent concealment claim, but allowed Mulders to amend those claims. It dismissed the claim based on Mr. Hill’s battery-replacement letter without leave to amend. It dismissed the California Unfair Competition Law claims without prejudice because the court found Mulders had an adequate remedy under the Song-Beverly Act. The case could proceed on the remaining claims, and any amended fraud claims were due May 10, 2024.
Judge Jacqueline Scott Corley granted General Motors’s motion to dismiss and stated that the order disposed of the motion. The order also kept the initial case-management conference scheduled for May 2, 2024.
The detailed version
- Mulders v. General Motors, LLC · No. 3:23-cv-06395
- Jacquelyn Corley
- Apr. 23, 2024
Background
Marc Anthony Mulders sued General Motors, LLC. The order concerns General Motors’s motion to dismiss Mulders’s first amended complaint. The court stated that its reasons were given on the record at the April 18, 2024 hearing.
Claims based on the marketing brochure
The court dismissed Mulders’s affirmative misrepresentation claims based on General Motors’s marketing brochure statements about the car’s battery charging capacity and indoor storage. Mulders admitted at the hearing that he had not alleged facts supporting a plausible inference that General Motors knew the statements were false when made. The court dismissed these claims with leave to amend because Mulders indicated that he could allege additional facts supporting the required knowledge.
The court also dismissed Mulders’s fraudulent concealment claim with leave to amend for the same reasons. At this stage, the court declined to rule as a matter of law that Mulders could not bring a fraudulent concealment claim against General Motors. The court noted that the California Supreme Court was considering the applicability of the economic-loss rule and the continued viability of Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc.
Claim based on the battery-replacement letter
The court dismissed without leave to amend Mulders’s affirmative misrepresentation claim based on Mr. Hill’s letter promising battery replacement. Mulders conceded that he could not allege facts supporting a plausible inference that General Motors did not intend to keep the promise when it was made.
Unfair Competition Law claims
The court dismissed Mulders’s claims under California’s Unfair Competition Law without prejudice. It relied on the conclusion that Mulders had an adequate remedy at law under the Song-Beverly Act.
Amendment and case status
The court granted General Motors’s motion to dismiss. Any amended complaint was due May 10, 2024, but Mulders was given leave to amend only the Fourth Cause of Action for fraud consistent with the order. The court stated that if Mulders did not amend, the case would proceed on the remaining claims. The initial case-management conference remained scheduled for May 2, 2024, and the joint conference statement was due April 25, 2024. The order stated that it disposed of Docket No. 23.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.