Not a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

In re GM LLC CP4 Fuel Pump Litig.

United States District Court for the Northern District of California

July 2, 2019, Decided; July 2, 2019, Filed

Case No. 18-cv-07054-JST



Before the Court is Defendant General Motors LLC ("GM")'s motion to dismiss. ECF No. 39. The Court will grant the motion in part and deny it in part.


Plaintiffs Christopher Moonan, Sean T. Smith, Isaiah Rudy, Sean M. Buob, Richard Samson, Ryan Arthur Jensen, Anthony  [*875]  Raymond Smith, Bradley Rice, Bruce K. Garlock, Chris S. McAlister, Colby Barry, Douglas Hughes, Geoff Cochems, John Thomas White, Kevin Allen Lawson, Kevin Sutherland, Michael L. McCoy, Milton Leon Huss, Jr., Stacy Wade Sizelove, Thorin Jay Askin, Ryan [**4]  Maduro, Michele Diniz, Brandon Tirozzi, and Calvin Smith bring this suit on behalf of themselves and a putative class of owners of GM vehicles.1 ECF No. 36 ("Compl.") at 4. The proposed class is defined as "[a]ll persons or entities who have purchased or leased one of the [Class Vehicles] in the state of California," excluding those who have personal injury claims resulting from the complained-of defects. Id. ¶¶ 140-41. Plaintiffs allege that they, along with the other class members, "paid a premium for their diesel vehicles, and were harmed by being sold vehicles with a defective fuel injection pump that is substandard for American fuel." Id. ¶ 7. Specifically, Plaintiffs assert that the Bosch-supplied CP4 high-pressure fuel injunction pump, which came standard in their vehicles, is incompatible with American diesel fuel. Id. ¶ 1.

American diesel is cleaner than European diesel and therefore provides less lubrication. Id. ¶ 3. When "run through the fast-moving, high-pressure, lower volume CP4 pump," the cleaner, thinner diesel fuel "allows air pockets to form inside the pump during operation, causing metal to rub against metal, generating metal shavings which are dispersed throughout [**5]  the fuel injection system" and the engine, "until it suddenly and catastrophically fails without warning." Id. While the pump offers increased fuel efficiency and power, that "comes at the cost of running the pump nearly dry so that it destroys itself" and eventually "destroys the fuel injection system and the engine altogether," a process that "begins at the very first fill of the tank" and can result in repair bills from $8,000 to $20,000. Id. ¶¶ 2, 4. Plaintiffs accuse GM of choosing to include the CP4 fuel pump in its engines despite knowing of this defect. Id. ¶ 6.

Plaintiffs now bring suit against GM asserting seven causes of action on behalf of themselves and the putative class. Id. ¶¶ 150-251. Count I alleges fraud by concealment. Id. ¶¶ 150-70. Count II asserts violations of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL"), California Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 171-87. Count III alleges violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), California Civil Code § 1750 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 188-99. Count IV pleads unjust enrichment. Id. ¶¶ 200-11. Count V asserts breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under California Commercial Code §§ 2314 and 10212. Id. ¶¶ 212-26. Count VI alleges breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under California Civil Code § 1791 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 227-34. Finally, Count VII alleges [**6]  violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act ("MMWA"), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. Id. ¶¶ 235-51.

Read The Full CaseNot a Lexis Advance subscriber? Try it out for free.

Full case includes Shepard's, Headnotes, Legal Analytics from Lex Machina, and more.

393 F. Supp. 3d 871 *; 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 124538 **; 99 U.C.C. Rep. Serv. 2d (Callaghan) 500; 2019 WL 3315286


Subsequent History: Later proceeding at Dawson v. GM LLC, 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 121469 (D.N.J., July 22, 2019)

Later proceeding at Nunez v. Ford Motor Co., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 147579 (S.D. Fla., Aug. 28, 2019)

Stay granted by In re GM LLC CP4 Fuel Pump Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 226431 (N.D. Cal., Sept. 26, 2019)

Transfer denied by In re CP4 Fuel Pump Mktg. Sales Practices, & Prods. Liab. Litig., 2019 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 217013 (J.P.M.L., Dec. 18, 2019)


pump, fuel, allegations, warranty, pleaded, diesel fuel, diesel, implied warranty, dealers, fuel injection, asserts, unjust enrichment, manufacturer, engine, metal, motion to dismiss, misrepresentations, advertisements, specifications, consumers, discovery, cause of action, representations, unmerchantable, concealment, replacement, dealership, durability, customer, omission

Civil Procedure, Defenses, Demurrers & Objections, Motions to Dismiss, Failure to State Claim, Pleadings, Complaints, Requirements for Complaint, Heightened Pleading Requirements, Fraud Claims, Antitrust & Trade Law, Consumer Protection, Deceptive & Unfair Trade Practices, State Regulation, Torts, Products Liability, Types of Defects, Business & Corporate Compliance, Contracts Law, Types of Contracts, Quasi Contracts, Contracts Law, Remedies, Equitable Relief, Quantum Meruit, Third Parties, Beneficiaries, Claims & Enforcement, Sales of Goods, Warranties, Merchantability, Commercial Law (UCC), Contract Provisions, Implied Warranty of Merchantability, Theories of Liability, Breach of Warranty, Sales (Article 2), Standards of Performance & Liability, Products Liability, Types of Commercial Transactions, Warranties, Governments, Legislation, Statute of Limitations, Time Limitations, Tolling, Amendment of Pleadings, Leave of Court