Stephen Yagman v. General Motors Company

Background

Stephen Yagman filed a pro se putative class action in federal court in California concerning alleged defects in his 2007 Buick Lucerne. He alleged that the car’s engine stopped while he was operating it and that its electrical system shut down. His amended complaint asserted warranty, fraud, bankruptcy fraud, civil Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, and emotional-distress claims, and sought to represent owners of Buick Lucerne vehicles from model years 2006 through 2011.

The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation transferred the case to the Southern District of New York as part of the General Motors ignition-switch multidistrict litigation. The court later dismissed Yagman’s complaint as part of its case-management orders, while stating that individual plaintiffs could pursue claims if no class was certified or if they opted out of a certified class.

In 2020, the court approved a settlement covering economic-loss claims involving certain General Motors vehicles, including 2006–2011 Buick Lucerne vehicles. Yagman did not mail the required written opt-out request by the stated deadline. After preliminary approval of the settlement, however, he filed a submission stating that he would never be a member of a settlement class and would never agree to any class settlement. The court’s final judgment later dismissed the claims of class members with prejudice and identified Yagman’s individual case.

Issues and Arguments

Yagman again asked the court to remand, or return, his case to the federal court in California. He argued that his case had been improperly transferred to the multidistrict litigation and that he was not a member of the settlement class. General Motors argued that he was a class member, had failed to opt out, and therefore had released his claims through the settlement.

Court’s Analysis

Judge Furman rejected Yagman’s arguments that the transfer was improper and that he was outside the settlement class. The court noted that the alleged vehicle symptoms were consistent with the type of defect covered by the multidistrict litigation and that the settlement definition expressly included owners of the relevant Buick Lucerne vehicles.

The court then applied Second Circuit authority stating that, when a class member disputes whether the formal opt-out procedure was followed, any written evidence providing a reasonable indication of an intent to opt out may be sufficient. The court held that Yagman’s personally signed May 7, 2020 filing met that standard. The court distinguished merely pursuing an individual lawsuit from the filing at issue, which expressly stated that Yagman would never agree to any class settlement and was submitted after the settlement had received preliminary approval.

Disposition

The court concluded that Yagman had opted out of the settlement. It therefore held that his claims were not subject to the settlement’s release and that his complaint had been improperly dismissed. The court vacated the dismissal and reinstated the First Amended Complaint, except that it struck the class allegations in paragraphs 68 through 78.

The court granted Yagman’s motion for an order suggesting that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation remand the case to the United States District Court for the Central District of California. The clerk was directed to terminate the motion, reopen the individual case, and send the opinion and order to the panel. The court also permanently approved limited redactions in General Motors’ filings.