Davids v. General Motors LLC
- Jesse Furman
- 1:24-cv-03203
- U.S. District Court · Southern District of New York
- 6
In Davids v. General Motors, Judge Furman paused the case and response deadlines while the Judicial Panel considers transferring related lawsuits.
The plaintiffs, General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., and Verisk Analytics, Inc.; specifically, the response deadlines for Verisk and LexisNexis were adjourned indefinitely.
What happened
Davids v. General Motors LLC is one of 23 proposed class actions alleging that driving data was collected and shared. The parties asked the court to pause this case while a federal panel considers whether to transfer and coordinate the related lawsuits.
The parties said a pause would avoid duplicated work, inconsistent rulings, and unnecessary responses to the complaint before the panel decides where the cases should proceed. The plaintiffs agreed to the pause, and the opinion says no party opposed it.
Judge Jesse M. Furman ordered the response deadlines for Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions adjourned indefinitely and directed the clerk to terminate three listed docket entries. The excerpt also reflects the parties’ request to stay all proceedings pending the panel’s decision, but it does not clearly state a separate disposition using the words “granted” or “denied.”
The detailed version
- Davids v. General Motors LLC · No. 1:24-cv-03203
- Jesse Furman
- May 20, 2024
Background
Joseph Davids and Thomas Fuhrer sued General Motors LLC, OnStar LLC, LexisNexis Risk Solutions Inc., and Verisk Analytics, Inc. The complaint concerns the alleged collection and sharing of driving data. The case was described as one of 23 proposed class actions filed in eight federal districts involving similar allegations.
A motion was pending before the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation to transfer and centralize related cases under 28 U.S.C. § 1407. The panel had scheduled a hearing for May 30, 2024. The defendants supported centralization but proposed different transferee courts. The parties in this case jointly asked the district court to pause the case until the panel ruled.
Reasons Given for the Requested Pause
The parties argued that a pause would conserve judicial resources and prevent duplicative proceedings. The related cases raised overlapping factual and legal questions, including possible arbitration issues. The parties also said that preparing motions or other responses before the panel’s decision could waste time if the cases were later transferred and coordinated.
The opinion states that the plaintiffs agreed to the requested pause, that no party opposed it, and that the case was at an early stage: no responsive pleadings had been filed and no discovery had occurred. It also states that plaintiffs in 21 of the 23 related cases had consented to stays.
Court Action
The excerpt states that the deadlines for Verisk Analytics and LexisNexis Risk Solutions to respond to the complaint were adjourned indefinitely. It also directs the Clerk of Court to terminate ECF Nos. 32, 33, and 36. The parties’ filing asks for a stay of all proceedings pending the Judicial Panel’s decision, but the excerpt does not clearly identify a separate order granting or denying that request with those exact words. Judge Jesse M. Furman therefore clearly adjourned the specified response deadlines, while the excerpt is incomplete or unclear as to the precise formal disposition of the broader stay request.
Read the full 6-page opinion on CourtListener, the free public archive maintained by the Free Law Project.