Date: 10-18-2024

Case Style:

Steven Charles Poston v. General Motors, LLC

Case Number: 3:24-cv-00082

Judge: Cynthia Bashant

Court: United States District Court for the Southern District of California (San Diego County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here For The Best San Diego Breach of Contract Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: John R. Lawless and Steven Dean Park

Description:

San Diego, California breach of contract, breach of warranty, consumer law lawyer represented the Plaintiff.

This case is about an allegedly defective electric car purchased by the plaintiff and manufactured by the defendant. The plaintiff has sued the defendant car manufacturer, alleging breach of warranty claims under the Song-Beverly Act as well as claims for common-law fraud and violation of California's Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”).

Presently before the Court is Defendant General Motors, LLC's (“GM” or “Defendant”) Motion to Dismiss the Complaint of Plaintiff Steven Charles Poston (“Poston” or “Plaintiff”). (ECF No. 5.) Defendant moves to dismiss on the grounds that Plaintiff fails to plead a claim upon which relief may be granted. (Id.) Plaintiff opposes. (ECF No. 6.) Defendant replies. (ECF No. 7.) Defendant additionally requests judicial notice of publicly available information. (ECF No. 5-2.) Plaintiff does not oppose.

The Court finds the motions suitable for determination on the papers submitted and without oral argument. Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b); CivLR 7.1(d)(1). For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Defendant's Request for Judicial Notice (ECF No. 5-2), and GRANTS IN PART and DENIES IN PART Defendant's Motion to Dismiss the Complaint.

Poston brings this automobile “lemon law” and fraud action against GM, alleging the vehicle Poston purchased, manufactured by GM, does not function as GM represented it would. On either April 29, 2021, or September 6, 2020, Poston purchased a new 2021 Chevrolet Bolt from “Kearny Mesa Chevrolet, an authorized dealer and agent of [GM].” As part of that transaction, GM “issued an express warranty which would only be issued by [GM] as a result of the sale of the vehicle.” GM does “not sell vehicles directly to members of the general public.” According to Poston, however, the sale of the Bolt by a GM dealership, coupled with the issuance of the express warranty, created a transactional and contractual relationship between GM and Poston such that the dealership was an agent of GM for the purpose of the transaction. At the time Poston acquired the Bolt in 2020 or 2021, GM had advertised it “as a long range . . . electric vehicle on its website,” and GM “dealership personnel assured Plaintiff of the long-range and safe nature of the vehicle.”

* * * *

Outcome: Dismissed without prejudice.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:

Comments: