Stephen Yagman v. General Motors Company

Background

Stephen Yagman, representing himself, filed an “Amended Complaint” on October 4, 2019, in the General Motors ignition-switch multidistrict litigation. The court stated that the filing was nearly identical to an earlier complaint dated August 22, 2014. That earlier complaint had been dismissed without prejudice on December 18, 2014, under MDL Orders Nos. 29 and 50.

Arguments and analysis

The court ruled that the new amended complaint was a nullity—that is, it had no legal effect—because Yagman’s complaint had already been dismissed and remained dismissed. The court considered whether the filing could instead be treated as a motion asking the court to reconsider the earlier orders. It concluded that such a motion would have been filed almost five years too late under the Southern District of New York’s fourteen-day deadline. The court also said Yagman did not identify controlling decisions or factual matters that the court had overlooked, and therefore did not satisfy the strict standards for reconsideration.

Yagman claimed that the earlier orders had not been served on him and that he did not know their contents or that his amended complaint had been dismissed. The opinion states that New GM disputed those claims and that, regardless, they did not affect the court’s analysis or conclusion. The court granted New GM permission to file its reply after the deadline.

Disposition

Judge Jesse M. Furman disregarded the amended complaint and stated that Yagman’s complaint remained dismissed. The complaint was dismissed without prejudice to refiling in accordance with MDL Orders Nos. 29 and 50. Under the court’s description of those orders, if a class were certified that included Yagman, he could recover as a class member or opt out and refile; if class certification were denied, he could refile.