Stephen Yagman v. General Motors Company
- Jesse Furman
- 1:14-cv-09058
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 2
In Yagman v. General Motors Co., Judge Jesse M. Furman denied New GM’s request for expedited briefing after suggesting the case be sent back to California.
Stephen Yagman and New GM; the ruling denied New GM’s request for expedited briefing and left the court’s suggestion of remand in place, without deciding the underlying claims.
What happened
In Yagman v. General Motors Co., the court had suggested sending Stephen Yagman’s case back to the Central District of California after finding that he had opted out of a class settlement and had not released his claims.
New GM asked for expedited briefing, arguing that it understood an earlier court order to limit the issues to whether Yagman belonged to the settlement class. The court said New GM should have raised any objections earlier and that additional briefing was unnecessary because the grouped proceedings were complete and Yagman’s remaining case would require only case-specific work.
Judge Jesse M. Furman denied New GM’s application. The opinion did not decide the underlying economic-loss claims or state that the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation had completed the remand.
The detailed version
- Stephen Yagman v. General Motors Company · No. 1:14-cv-09058
- Jesse M. Furman
- Apr. 23, 2021
Background
This case was part of the General Motors ignition-switch litigation, which had been centralized in the Southern District of New York for coordinated pretrial proceedings. On April 20, 2021, the court granted pro se Plaintiff Stephen Yagman’s motion and issued a formal suggestion to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation that his case be remanded, or sent back, to the Central District of California. The court had determined that Yagman opted out of the class settlement approved in December 2020 and therefore had not released his claims.
New GM’s request
New GM asked for expedited briefing on whether remand was appropriate. It said that it understood an earlier court order to have limited briefing to whether Yagman was a member of the settlement class.
Court’s analysis
The court stated that the earlier order had directed Yagman to explain why his claims were not released under the settlement and to address whether and how he had timely and validly opted out. Because Yagman then filed a motion seeking remand, the court said New GM should have argued in its opposition that remand was improper or reserved the right to raise additional objections later. The court noted that New GM had done so in earlier briefing and concluded that it had forfeited the objections it was now attempting to raise.
Even apart from forfeiture, the court found further briefing unnecessary. It stated that it had broad discretion to suggest remand and was convinced that remand was appropriate after seven years of proceedings in the multidistrict litigation. Yagman was the only remaining plaintiff litigating economic-loss claims, and general discovery had been completed. The court reasoned that further proceedings would necessarily be specific to this case, rather than part of the coordinated pretrial work for which the multidistrict litigation court was established.
Disposition
The court denied New GM’s application for expedited briefing. It stated that it remained available to assist and coordinate with the court receiving the case as appropriate. The Clerk of Court was directed to terminate the listed docket entries for the multidistrict litigation and Yagman’s case. This opinion did not decide the merits of Yagman’s underlying claims and did not state that the Judicial Panel had completed the remand.
Read the full 2-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.