Stephen Yagman v. General Motors Company

Background

This opinion arose from the General Motors ignition-switch multidistrict litigation. 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—returned—to the Central District of California, where it had originally been transferred from. The court had determined that Yagman opted out of the class settlement approved in December 2020 and therefore had not released his claims.

The request for more briefing

General Motors, which the opinion calls “New GM,” sought expedited briefing on whether remand was appropriate. New GM asserted that it understood an earlier multidistrict-litigation order to have limited the briefing to whether Yagman was a member of the settlement class.

The court rejected that understanding. The earlier order had directed Yagman to provide the factual and legal reasons why his claims were not released under the settlement and to address whether and how he timely and validly opted out. The court stated that, if New GM believed remand was improper for substantive or procedural reasons, it should have raised those objections in its opposition or reserved the right to raise them later. The court noted that New GM had done so in earlier briefing and concluded that any objections not timely raised were forfeited.

Ruling and reasoning

Judge Jesse M. Furman denied New GM’s application. Separately from the forfeiture issue, he held that further briefing on remand was unnecessary. The court stated that it had broad discretion to suggest remand to the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation and was convinced that remand was appropriate after seven years of proceedings in the multidistrict litigation.

The court explained that Yagman was the only remaining plaintiff litigating economic-loss claims and that general discovery had long been completed. As a result, further proceedings would necessarily be specific to his case rather than part of the coordinated pretrial work for the multidistrict litigation. The court said it remained available to assist and coordinate with the transferor court as appropriate.

The clerk was directed to terminate the docket entries identified as 14-MD-2543, ECF No. 8501, and 14-CV-9058, ECF No. 349. The opinion does not state that the Judicial Panel had already completed the remand itself; it describes the court’s action as a formal suggestion to that panel.