reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Main Document Pg 1 of 2

Transcription

1 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Main Document Pg 1 of 2 SUPPLEMENT 1 TO SCHEDULE 1 CHART OF ADDITIONAL IGNITION SWITCH ACTIONS COMMENCED SINCE THE FILING OF NEW GM S MOTION TO ENFORCE Name Class Models Plaintiffs Model Court Filing Date 1 Witherspoon (Class Action) 2 Various models from 2003 to Saturn Ion Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence 4/07/ CV Salazar, III (Class Action) 3 Various models from 2003 to Chevy HHR Western District of Texas 4/21/14 5:14-cv Espineira (Class Action) 4 Various models from 2003 to Saturn Ion Southern District of Florida 4/21/14 1:14-cv Gebremariam (Class Action) 5 Various models from 2003 to Chevy Cruze Central District of California 4/21/14 8:14-cv Arnold (Class Action) 6 Various models from 2003 to Chevy HHR 2010 Chevy Cobalt Northern District of Illinois 1:14-cv /22/ This schedule supplements Schedule 1 [Dkt. No ] filed with the Motion of General Motors LLC Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105 and 363 to Enforce the Court s July 5, 2009 Sale Order and Injunction on April 21, 2014 [Dkt. No ]. A copy of the complaint filed in the Witherspoon Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the complaint filed in the Salazar, III Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A copy of the complaint filed in the Espineira Action is attached hereto as Exhibit C. A copy of the complaint filed in the Gebremariam Action is attached hereto as Exhibit D. A copy of the complaint filed in the Arnold Action is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

2 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Main Document Pg 2 of 2 6 LaReine (Class Action) 7 Various models from 2003 to Chevy Cobalt (3) Central District of California 4/23/ Saturn ION 2:14-cv Saturn Sky 2007 Chevy HHR 7 A copy of the complaint filed in the LaReine Action is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 2

3 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 to Motion Pg 1 of 2 SUPPLEMENT 1 TO SCHEDULE 1 CHART OF ADDITIONAL IGNITION SWITCH ACTIONS COMMENCED SINCE THE FILING OF NEW GM S MOTION TO ENFORCE Name Class Models Plaintiffs Model Court Filing Date 1 Witherspoon (Class Action) 2 Various models from 2003 to Saturn Ion Circuit Court of Jackson County, Missouri at Independence 4/07/ CV Salazar, III (Class Action) 3 Various models from 2003 to Chevy HHR Western District of Texas 4/21/14 5:14-cv Espineira (Class Action) 4 Various models from 2003 to Saturn Ion Southern District of Florida 4/21/14 1:14-cv Gebremariam (Class Action) 5 Various models from 2003 to Chevy Cruze Central District of California 4/21/14 8:14-cv Arnold (Class Action) 6 Various models from 2003 to Chevy HHR 2010 Chevy Cobalt Northern District of Illinois 1:14-cv /22/ This schedule supplements Schedule 1 [Dkt. No ] filed with the Motion of General Motors LLC Pursuant to 11 U.S.C. 105 and 363 to Enforce the Court s July 5, 2009 Sale Order and Injunction on April 21, 2014 [Dkt. No ]. A copy of the complaint filed in the Witherspoon Action is attached hereto as Exhibit A. A copy of the complaint filed in the Salazar, III Action is attached hereto as Exhibit B. A copy of the complaint filed in the Espineira Action is attached hereto as Exhibit C. A copy of the complaint filed in the Gebremariam Action is attached hereto as Exhibit D. A copy of the complaint filed in the Arnold Action is attached hereto as Exhibit E.

4 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 to Motion Pg 2 of 2 6 LaReine (Class Action) 7 Various models from 2003 to Chevy Cobalt (3) Central District of California 4/23/ Saturn ION 2:14-cv Saturn Sky 2007 Chevy HHR 7 A copy of the complaint filed in the LaReine Action is attached hereto as Exhibit F. 2

5 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 1 of 36 Exhibit A

6 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 2 of CV08092 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE PATRI CE WITHERSPOON, on behalf of ) herself and all others similarly situated, ) ) Civil Case No. Plaintiff, ) ) v. ) Division: ) GENERAL MOTORS LLC; GENERAL ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED MOTORS COMPANY, ) ) Defendants. ) )> 'C =- INDIVIDUAL AND CLASS ACTION PETITION Plaintiff Patrice Witherspoon on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, makes the following allegations pursuant to the investigation of her counsel and based upon information and belief, except as to allegations specifically pertaining to herself, which are based on personal knowledge, to obtain damages, costs of suit, and attorneys' fees from General Motors LLC and General Motors Co. (collectively "GM" or "Defendants"): NATURE OF THE ACTION 1. Pursuant to the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat et seq., ("MMPA"), Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant on her own behalf and as representative of the class for damages arising from their purchases or leases of the following vehicles: Saturn Ion (model years ); Chevrolet Cobalt (model years ); Pontiac GS (model years ); Chevrolet HHR (model years ); Pontiac Solstice (model years ); Saturn Sky (model years ) (singly or together, "Defective Vehicles") 1

7 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 3 of 36 m 2. For many years, GM sold consumers the above-referenced GM vehicles with defective ignition systems. When the defective parts failed, GM replaced defective ignition systems with the same or similar parts containing the same defect. I (_ Ill () 7'" [/) 0 :J 3. GM designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised, marketed, promoted, warranted and sold these vehicles with defective ignition systems installed thereon without disclosing to any single consumer or any of its authorized dealerships: 1) that the ignition systems were defective and could fail under normal operating conditions causing the vehicle to shut off or go into "accessory" mode where it would lose power, disabling ! N 0.::. many vehicle systems including power steering, the braking system and the airbag deployment system; 2) that the replacement parts being sold or otherwise provided by GM to fix the original ignition systems were, themselves, similarly defective; and 3) that GM would, as a matter of practice or policy, refuse to cover such failures under their warranty in almost every circumstance. THE PARTIES 4. Plaintiff Patrice Witherspoon is a citizen of the state of Missouri, residing in Lee's Summit, Missouri. Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Saturn Ion containing the defective ignition system within the jurisdiction of this Court. 5. Defendant General Motors LLC is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan. General Motors LLC is a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Company. 6. General Motors Company is a corporation formed under the laws of Delaware whose principal place of business also is 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, 2

8 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 4 of 36 m ii) Michigan. General Motors Company exerts substantial control over and operates through General Motors LLC in Missouri and other locations in the United States. 7. General Motors LLC maintains an agent for service of process in Missouri. c... OJ 0 A' (fl 0 ".:I General Motors LLC and General Motors Company have offices and at least one manufacturing plant in Missouri, and conduct substantial and continuous business in Missouri, including through a dealership network. 8. At all relevant times, there has existed, and presently exists, a unity of l> g 0... interest in ownership and operation between General Motors Company and General Motors LLC. These defendants are the alter-egos of one another and General Motors Company exercised decision-making and control over General Motors LLC with respect to the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs claims. Alternatively, Defendants constitute a single business enterprise. Defendants will be referred to herein jointly as "GM" unless otherwise indicated. 9. Defendants are engaged in the design, development, manufacture, marketing, and sale of vehicles including those at issue in this case. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 10. Venue is properly in this Court because Plaintiffs causes of action accrued in Jackson County, Missouri and all or part of Defendants' conduct alleged herein occurred in Jackson County, Missouri, where Defendants carries on regular business. 11. As a result of the manufacture, distribution, delivery and sales of the subject parts and vehicles to purchasers within Jackson County and throughout the State of Missouri, Defendant, directly or through subsidiaries, affiliates or agents, obtained the benefits of the laws of the State of Missouri and the Missouri market for vehicles, and other 3

9 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 5 of 36 m related markets. GM, directly and through its authorized dealerships did and does engage in substantial and continuous business in Missouri where it sells, advertises, markets, promotes and warrants both its vehicles and its ignition system replacement parts to consumers throughout the State of Missouri. Personal jurisdiction is thus proper in this Court. TOLLING OR NON-ACCRUAL OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATIO N 12. Any applicable statutes of limitations have been tolled or have not run because Defendants knowingly and actively concealed and denied the facts as alleged 0 " I\) 0 herein. Defendants had actual or constructive knowledge of the wrongful courses of action alleged here. Plaintiff and Class members have been kept in ignorance of information essential to the pursuit of these claims, without any fault or lack of diligence on their part. 13. Plaintiff, Class members, and the general public, did not discover the facts constituting Defendants' illegal business practices until a date within the limitations period governing this action, and promptly exercised due diligence by filing this Petition. Plaintiff, Class members, and the general public were not at fault for failing to discover Defendants' misconduct sooner, and had no actual or presumptive knowledge of the facts of Defendants' misconduct to put them on inquiry notice. Plaintiff, Class members and the general public could not reasonably have discovered Defendants' misrepresentations and/or material omissions and, therefore, their claims have not yet accrued, and/or any statute of limitations was tolled. 14. Defendants are and were under a continuing duty to disclose the true nature of the defective ignition system in GM vehicles to Plaintiff, Class members and the general public. In addition and/or in the alternative, because of Defendants' concealment of the 4

10 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 6 of 36 defective nature of the ignition system in GM vehicles, Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitations defense. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS c... ru ~ (/) 0 Old GM and New GM 15. In or about May, 2009, Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC was formed as a limited liability company under the laws of Delaware for the purpose of purchasing substantially all of the assets of General Motors Corporation. NGMCO, Inc., was incorporated in Delaware on or about May 29, 2009, became the successor-in-interest to 0..., N 0 Vehicle Acquisition Holdings LLC. NGMCO, Inc. changed its name to General Motors Company on or about July 9, On July 10, 2009 General Motors Company acquired substantially all of the assets (and assumed certain liabilities) of General Motors Corporation (which subsequently changed its name to Motors Liquidation Company). On or about August 11, 2009, General Motors Holding Company was incorporated under the laws of Delaware for the purpose of holding the operational assets of former General Motors Corporation. At some time on or after August 11, 2009 and prior to October 15, 2009, GM Merger Subsidiary Inc. was incorporated under the Jaws of Delaware as a wholly owned subsidiary of General Motors Holding Company. GM Merger Subsidiary, Inc. merged with General Motors Company on or about October 15, 2009, with General Motors Company being the survivor of the merger. On or about October 16, 2009, General Motors Company converted to a Delaware limited liability company under the name General Motors LLC. On or about December 9, 2010, General Motors Holding Company changed its name to General Motors Company. As a result of the corporate actions set forth in this paragraph, General Motors Company became the parent and sole owner of General 5

11 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 7 of 36 Motors LLC, which remained the operational company of former General Motors Corporation assets. On or about November 17, 2010, General Motors Company sold shares in an initial public offering. 16. In public filings (including Form 10-K Annual Reports with the SEC), General Motors Company refers to General Motors Corporation for periods on and before July 9, ' Ill 0 A" 0 ";] "O ::I a. ct> ::I (') ct> 2009 as "Old GM," and refers to itself as "New GM." It also has stated that "[p]rior to July 10, 2009 Old GM operated the business of [New GM]." SEC Form 10-K Annual Report for year ended Dec. 31, 2009 at In fact, GM is a mere continuation of the Old GM in that, among other things: (a) GM was formed solely for the purpose of acquiring and operating the assets of Old GM. GM admits in its corporate filings that it acquired "substantially all of the assets" of Old GM. (b) GM is operated by the same managers as Old GM. Of the twelve Executive Officers of GM appointed as of year-end 2009, five were Executive Officers of the Old GM. Five more held other management positions at Old GM. Only two of the twelve Executive Officers came from outside GM. Mary T. Barra, the current CEO, has been associated with Old GM in various management positions (including V.P., Global Manufacturing Engineering, and Executive Director, Vehicle Manufacturing Engineering) since (c) The business operations acquired by GM were nearly identical to the Old GM; in fact, new GM holds itself out as operating the same business as Old GM. 6

12 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 8 of 36 m (d) GM continued the operations of Old GM without interruption using the same assets, offices, plants, brand names, good will, dealerships, managers and employees. GM operates from the same corporate headquarters as Old GM. (e) GM holds itself out to its customers and the public as a continuation of Old GM. 18. Because GM is a mere continuation of Old GM, GM has successor liability for L. 0 ;><;'" en 0 c. "O m c. m ~ 0 (1) the conduct of Old GM as alleged herein. In addition, from the moment of its creation, GM itself was aware of the safety defect in the vehicles at issue and itself committed one or more deceptive and unfair practices as alleged herein. Defective Ignition Switch 0,:, Since 2002, GM has been manufacturing and selling vehicles with a defective ignition switch that can inadvertently turn from the "on" position to the "accessory" or "off' position due to jostling by anything from a bumpy road to a heavy key chain, causing loss or reduction of power, and impairing normal steering operation and disabling airbags. 20. On February 7, 2014, GM filed a Defect Notice with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA") stating that it had initiated a safety-related recall pertaining to a defect in model year Chevrolet Cobalt and 2007 Pontiac GS vehicles. According to that Notice, "[t]he ignition switch torque performance may not meet General Motors' specification. If the torque performance is not to specification, and the key ring is carrying added weight or the vehicle goes off road or experiences some other jarring event, the ignition switch may inadvertently be moved out of the "run" position" resulting in "airbags not deploying and increasing the potential for occupant injury in certain kinds of crashes." 7

13 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 9 of On February 13, 2014, GM announced a recall of approximately 780,000 Chevrolet Cobalt (model years 200S-2007) and Pontiac GS (model year 2007) vehicles due to faulty ignition switches. Eleven days later, on February 24, 2014, GM expanded the < Q> 0 ;>;"" Ill 0 recall with four additional models - the Saturn Ion (model years ), Chevrolet HHR (model years ) Pontiac Solstice (model years ) and Saturn Sky (model year 2007). 22. All of these vehicles used the same or substantially the same defective ignition switch. GM later expanded the recall to include the Chevrolet Cobalt (model years 200S-2010); Pontiac GS (model years 200S-2010); Chevrolet HHR (model years ); Pontiac Solstice (model years ); Saturn Sky (model years ). See CNBC, "General Motors recalling 824,000 more small cars" (March 28, 2014). 23. According to GM, the ignition switches were supplied by Delphi Packard Electrical/Electronic Architechure ("Delphi"). See Letter from General Motors LLC to Nancy Lewis, Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSF, dated February 7, 2014; Letter from General Motors LLC to Nancy Lewis, Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSF, dated March 11, GM has been closely associated with Delphi for decades. Old GM created Delphi (originally formed as Automotive Components Group) in 1994, and spun it off in See GM Heritage Center, "Delphi Automotive Systems." Delphi went bankrupt in October 200S, "emerging four years later, after two previous restructuring attempts had failed." Muller, "GM Divorce From Delphi Is Final," Forbes (March 31, 2011). GM, "which spent at least $12.S billion to prop up Delphi during the bankruptcy, ended up taking back Delphi's steering business and four Delphi plants as part of the final reorganization plan" 8

14 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 10 of 36!!! and also obtained an ownership interest in Delphi. Id. See also GM News, "New GM a. Subsidiaries will include Delphi Components Operations and Global Steering Business" dated July 30, 2007 (GM announcing that Delphi components operations and steering business became part of two new, wholly-owned GM; stating that "(t]he acquisition will help GM to maintain continued uninterrupted supply to its... car and truck operations."). Cl. 'O.:J a.., CD GM retained that interest until March, 2011, when it sold the stock back to Delphi for a reported $3.8 billion. See Bunkley, "G.M. Sells Delphi Stake for $3.8 Billion," New York Times (March 31, 2011). 25. Other models affected by the ignition switch defect are Pontiac Pursuit (model years ) sold in Canada and Opel GT (model year 2007) sold in Europe. In all, approximately 2.6 million vehicles are affected globally across 8 model lines, approximately 2.2 million in the United States. 26. In the United States, the vehicles recalled due to the ignition switch defect are Chevrolet Cobalt (model years ) and Pontiac GS (model years ), Saturn Ion (model years ), Chevrolet HHR (model years ), Pontiac Solstice (model years ) and Saturn Sky (model years ) vehicles (singly or together, the "Defective Vehicles"). 27. GM has admitted that at least 12 deaths and multiple crashes are associated with the recalled vehicles. Others, including the Center for Auto Safety, say that at least 303 deaths have been caused by disabled airbags due to the ignition switch defect. 28. GM currently is advising that "[u]ntil the recall repairs have been performed, it is~ important that you remove all items from your key ring, leaving only the vehicle key," and that even the key fob "should also be removed from your key ring." GM Website 9

15 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 11 of 36 (last visited March 26, 2016) (emphasis original). 29. GM also has indicated, however, that replacing the ignition switch may not resolve the risk, and that even after repair, "[w]e recommend that customers only utilize the key, key ring and key fob (if equipped) that came with the vehicle." Id. <- Cll n ;.; (/) 0 ::; :l Ll. "O 0 ::; a. (!) ::; C'l 0. GM's Knowledee 30. Both Old GM and New GM have known of the ignition switch defects for years, but have consistently concealed the defect, and the danger, from Defective-Vehicle owners. 31. Old GM had information indicating that the ignition switch was a problem as early as 2001 before it started selling the Saturn Ion. See Wallace, "GM ignition switch issue surfaced in 2001," CNNMoney (March 13, 2014) ("The company said in a federal filing Wednesday that it discovered an issue with the Saturn Ion ignition switch in 2001 during pre-production development."); see also Wayland, "Official: Documents paint 'unsettling picture' of GM, NHTSA ignition switch recall," MLive.com (March 31, 2014) ("[A] 2001 preproduction report for the 2003 Saturn Ion... 'identified issues with the ignition switch."') 32. The warning signs continued. In 2003, an internal inquiry revealed that a service technician observed the Saturn stall after the ignition had switched off while driving. After seeing that a heavy key ring had worn out the switch, the technician replaced it and the inquiry was closed. Ivory, "G.M. Reveals It Was Told of Ignition Defect in '01," New York Times (March 12, 2014). 33. According to Old GM's own filings with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ("NHTSA"), Old GM was aware of at least three fatal crashes involving the 10

16 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 12 of 36 Saturn Ion in 2003 and Two of these crashes (one in December 2003 in Connecticut; = a. the other in November, 2004 in Texas) involved non-deploying airbags. A third involved the May 2004 crash of a 2003 Ion in Pennsylvania. Lienert, "U.S. Safety Watchdog Says 303 Deaths Linked To Recalled GM Cars," Reuters (March 13, 2014). 34. Notwithstanding red flags relating to the ignition switch in Saturn Ions, Old GM used the same ignition switch in its production of the Chevrolet Cobalt. And Old GM learned that the same problems occurred in the Cobalt prior to launching that model. See )>..., = Healey and Meier, "9 revelations from GM's recall chronology," USA TODAY (February 27, 2014). 35. "Around the time production [of the Cobalt] started, GM learned of 'at least one incident' where Cobalt lost power when key moved out of 'run' position because of inadvertent contact. Engineers replicate[d] [this] failure during test drives. GM initiate[d] [an] internal problem resolution process. Solutions [were] considered to improve torque efficiency of the ignition switch, but '[a]fter consideration of the lead time required, cost and effectiveness of each of these solutions, the (report) was closed with no action." Detroit Free Press, "Interactive Timeline: General Motors ignition switch recall" (Mar. 19, 2014); see also Healey and Meier, "Lawsuit: GM knew of Cobalt ignition problem," USA TODAY (February 19, 2014) ("At least one GM engineer had the problem while testing the [Cobalt]... say documents obtained by USA TODAY from the lawsuit over a crash that... killed Brooke Melton."). 36. Nevertheless, Old GM made a "business decision not to fix this problem" before the Cobalt was launched in Bennett and Hughes, "New Details Emerge in GM Cobalt Recall, Engineers Knew of Ignition Problems and Expected Drivers to Coast Out of 11

17 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 13 of 36 Traffic, Documents Show," The Wall Street journal (March 24, 2014) (quoting Gary Altman, program engineering manager for the 2005 Cobalt from June 2013 deposition in Melton case). 37. In Notices to NHTSA, dated February 24, 2014 and March 11, 2014, GM provided a partial chronology of events concerning the ignition switch defects. See Letter from General Motors LLC to Nancy Lewis, Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA dated March ("March 11, 2014 Notice"); Letter from General Motors LLC to Nancy Lewis, Associate Administrator for Enforcement, NHTSA dated February 24, 2014 ("February 24, 2014 Notice"). 38. GM admitted that in 2004, "[a]round the time of the launch of the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt," that GM learned about the Cobalt losing engine power when the key moved out of the "run" position, and stated that "GM employees were able to replicate this phenomenon during test drives." February 24, 2014 Notice at 1. GM stated that an "engineering inquiry, known within GM as a Problem Resolution Tracking System inquiry ["PRTS"] was opened to investigate the issue." Id. At that time, GM "considered a number of potential solutions. After consideration of the lead time required, cost, and effectiveness of each of these solutions, the PRTS was closed with no action." Id. 39. GM also admitted that in 2005, GM employees received field reports of Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles losing engine power, "including instances in which the key moved out of the 'run' position when a driver inadvertently contacted the key or steering column." Id. at 1; see also March 11, 2014 Notice at 1 (same). GM opened additional PRTSs to assess the issue. February 24, 2013 Notice at 1. During the course of a PRTS opened in May 2005, an engineer proposed that GM redesign the key head from a 'slotted' to a 'hole' 12

18 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 14 of 36 configuration. That proposal was initially approved but later cancelled." March 11, 2014 Notice at 1. The same issue applied to the Saturn Ion, Chevrolet HHR, and Pontiac Solstice "all of which were equipped with the same ignition switch as the Cobalt" Id. ' Ql n A" (/) 0 :i 40. In March, 2005, another crash involving the Saturn Ion, involving two fatalities, occurred in which the air bags failed to deploy. See Letter from Center For Auto Safety to David J. Friedman Acting Administrator NHTSA, dated March 13, 2014 (citing data J> "O... from NHTSAS Fatal Analysis Reporting System). 41. Pursuant to 49 USC and accompanying regulations including 49 CFR 573.6, manufacturers are required to notify not only the National Highway Transportation System Administration ("NHTSA") but also vehicle owners and purchasers if it learns that a vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety. That notice must be provided within a reasonable time after learning about a safety-related defect, describe the defect, the risk, and the measures to obtain repair. 49 U.S.C Old GM should have but did not institute an ignition-switch recall and notify consumers about the problem. Instead, it issued non-public technical service bulletins to dealers. 43. Technical service bulletins in no way substitute for consumer notice because, among other things, "[m]ost owners will never know about [a service bulletin]." Plungis, "GM Had 2006 Ignition-Switch Remedy Unknown to Most Owners," Bloomberg (March 17, 2014) (quoting Allan Kam, former NHTSA senior enforcement attorneys). To the contrary, technical service bulletins "rely on customers coming into the dealer on their own, and often asking about a specific problem." Id. 13

19 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 15 of Not only did Old GM fail to disclose the defect to consumers, the technical service bulletins it sent to dealers were misrepresentative. 45. Old GM sent a service bulletin dated February 28, 2005 indicating that the potential for drivers to inadvertently turn off the ignition of their Cobalts was limited to a "profile" in which the driver's knee "contacts the key chain while the vehicle is turning." Cl. (_ :J Cl. (!) "C It> Cl..., <I> Old GM told its dealers to "question the customer thoroughly." In fact, however, Old GM )> "O ~ knew that the risk was not so limited but rather, present under normal foreseeable driving circumstances. Old GM ajso knew that the Saturn Ion suffered from the same risk. 46. Old GM sent another service bulletin to dealers in December 2005, again representing falsely the risk as it had in February. This bulletin also described a new key cover, which changed the key head to a hole, that could be provided to vehicle owners if they complained. See Gutierrez, "GM Changed Ignition Part Without Telling Drivers, Regulators," NBC News (March ). The service bulletin did not tell dealers to put the new key cover on the keys of new Cobalts before they were sold. Healey and Meier, "Lawsuit: GM knew of Cobalt ignition problem," USA TODAY (February 19, 2014). 47. Consistent with the ineffectiveness of technical service bulletins, GM records indicate that fewer than 500 drivers received new key covers. See Gutierrez, "GM Chose Not to Implement a Fix for Ignition Problem," NBC News (March ) ("[A]ccording to GM warranty records, fewer than 500 drivers" received the new key covers); March 11, 2014 Notice ("GM's warranty records indicate that GM dealers have provided key inserts to 474 customers who brought their vehicles into dealers for service."). 48. Meanwhile, Old GM otherwise was downplaying the problem. As of 2005, Old GM spokesman, Alan Adler, was telling the public that only in "rare cases when a 14

20 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 16 of 36 combination of factors is present" might a Cobalt lose power if the ignition switch were bumped to the accessory or off position, and that "[s]ervice advisers are telling customers they can virtually eliminate this possibility by taking several steps, including removing nonessential material from their key rings." Jensen, "General Motors Recalls 778,000 Small Cars for Ignition Switch Problem," New York Times (Feb. 13, 2014). In fact, removing material from key rings would not eliminate the possibility that the ignition switch would turn to accessory or off, causing loss of power and failure of airbags. 49. Old GM continued selling Defective Vehicles without disclosing the risk to consumers. 50. In late July, 2005, Amber Rose was killed in a frontal collision involving a "' "'U s: 2005 Cobalt whose airbags did not deploy. 51. "On April 26, 2006, the Old GM design engineer responsible for the ignition switch installed in all of the vehicles... signed a document approving changes to the ignition switch." March 11, 2014 Notice at 2. This design change was proposed by the supplier, Delphi, in order "to increase the torque in the switch with a new detent plunger and spring to prevent it from slipping." Colias, "Former GM engineers say quiet '06 redesign of faulty ignition switch was a major violation of protocol," Automotive News (March 24, 2014). Contrary to company protocol and industry standards, however, no new part number was assigned to the redesigned switch. Id.; see also March 11, 2014 Notice at 2 ("This change to the ignition switch was not reflected in a corresponding change in the part number for the ignition switch."). Neither did Old GM issue a recall for repair of older models still housing the defective ignition switch. 15

21 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 17 of Delphi did not begin providing the re-designed ignition switch until "some point during the 2007 model year." March 11, 2014 Notice at "Jn May 2006, a field evaluation inquiry, known within GM as a Field Performance Report ('FPR') was opened to address customer complaints that their Saturn Ion vehicles would neither crank nor start." March 11, 2014 Notice at 2. Attached thereto was a document from Delphi recommending design changes including the detent plunger to increase torque force. Id. The FPR was closed based apparently on the technical service bulletin. Id. 54. Old GM opened another PRTS on August 1, 2006 after a customer complained of stalling after the ignition switch had been replaced. This PRTS was canceled in October, 2006 without any action. See February 24, 2014 Notice at Two additional crashes, involving three fatalities, occurred on September 9, 2006 in West Virginia and on October 24, 2006 in Wisconsin involving the Saturn Ion and Chevrolet Cobalt, respectively, in which the air bags failed to deploy. See Letter from Center For Auto Safety to David J. Friedman Acting Administrator NHTSA, dated March 13, 2014 (citing data from NHTSAS Fatal Analysis Reporting System). 56. Data from NHTSA's Early Warning Reporting system indicates that "in model years 2005 and the first years Cobalts were manufactured -- GM reported more claims of injury and death with airbags as a contributing factor than any other car in its class. In 2006, Cobalts had more than 50 times as many airbag claims as Honda Civics, and five times the claims of the Toyota Corolla and Ford Focus." Glor, "GM's Cobalt had more airbag claims than other cars in class," CBSNEWS (March 25, 2014) 16

22 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 18 of 36 m ( (last visited March 26, 2014) 57. On March 29, 2007, a group of Old GM employees were meeting with NHTSA representatives about occupant restraint systems. NHTSA representatives advised that data retrieved from the sensing and diagnostic module ("black box") of the Cobalt involved in the fatal crash of July 29, 2005 confirmed that the power mode status was in the "accessory" position. February 24, 2014 Notice at 2. A file on this crash had been open in Old GM's legal department since Id. 58. As of March, 2007, Old GM assigned an "investigating engineer" to track Cobalt crashes involving frontal impacts where the air bags failed to deploy. February 24, 2014 Notice at 2; see also Healey and Meier, "9 revelations from GM's recall chronology," USA TODAY (February 27, 2014) (same); "Interactive time line: General Motors ignition switch recall," Detroit Free Press (Mar. 19, 2014) (March 29, "NHTSA rep tells GM employees about the July 29, 2005 Cobalt crash killing Amber Rose and says onboard recorder indicates ignition switch was in 'accessory' mode... Following the meeting, a GM investigating engineer is told to track crashes in which Cobalts were involved in frontal impacts and the airbags did not deploy."). 59. By year's end 2007, Old GM knew of at least 9 Cobalt crashes in which airbags did not deploy and that the key was in "accessory" position in at least 4 of them. March 11, 2014 Notice at 3; compare February 24, 2014 Notice at 2 (stating that GM "had notice of ten such incidents" by the end of 2007). Still, it did not issue an ignition switch recall or otherwise notify consumers of the defects. 17

23 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 19 of 36 ::; 60. In February 2009, Old GM initiated yet another PRTS regarding accidental ignition shut-off experienced by customers with, e.g., additional keys hanging from the ignition switch. The key fob was changed from a slot to hole design, to be implemented for L. Ql (") ;>;;"" tn c :::i 2010 model year Cobalts only. February 24, 2014 Notice at On May 15, 2009, several Old GM engineers meet with representatives of GM's supplier of the Cobalt's black boxes. Old GM by that time had recovered 14 modules, > "and according to [its supplier], the ignition was in the accessory position on [7] of the 14 cases." Stout, Vlasic, Ivory and Ruiz, "General Motors Misled Grieving Families on a Lethal Flaw," New York Times (March 24, 2014) / carmaker-misled-grieving-families-on-alethal-flaw.html?hpw&rref=business&_r=o (last visited March 25, 2014); see also February 24, 2014 Notice at On June 12, 2009, Christopher Hamberg, was killed driving his 2007 Cobalt home in Houston. On December 13, 2009, another crash in Charlottesville Virginia occurred, this time involving the Pontiac GS, in which the air bags failed to deploy. Id. 63. GM continued to receive complaints and investigate crashes in which the air bags failed to deploy. It admitted that between 2005 and February, 2014, GM was "aware of 23 frontal-impact crashes involving 2005 to 2007 Chevrolet Cobalts and 2007 Pontiac GSs in which the recall condition may have caused or contributed to the airbag's nondeployment... GM employees became aware of many of these crashes within a month of the dates on which they occurred... With respect to 22 of the 23 frontal-impact crashes... data retrieved from the vehicles' [black box] indicated that the ignition switches were in the... 'accessory' position in twelve of the crashes, and in the 'off position in one of the 18

24 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 20 of 36 m crashes." February 24, 2014 Notice at 5. In addition, and "[t]hroughout this period, GM a. was involved in claims and lawsuits in which allegations were made regarding the ignition switch issue." Id. 64. More crashes and fatalities occurred, including the 2010 Cobalt crashes that killed Amy Kosilla and Jennifer Brooke Melton when, among other things, the air bags failed a. 0 ltl ::i a. to deploy. 65. In July, 2011, "a meeting was held at GM involving Legal Staff, Field Performance Assessment ('FPA') and Product Investigations personnel who would be 0 -..i N 0 involved in the Field Performance Evaluation ('FPA') process. Soon thereafter, in August 2011, a Field Performance Assessment Engineer ('FPAE') was assigned to move forward with an FPE investigation of a group of crashes in which airbags in model year Chevrolet Cobalts and a 2007 Pontiac GS had not deployed during frontal impacts, which also included a review of information related to the Ion, HHR and Solstice vehicles." March 11, 2014 Notice at Contrary even to its own admitted design change approval in April 2006 (to increase the torque in the ignition switch), GM's 2014 communications with NHTSA states that GM somehow did not learn until late April 2013 that "the torque performance of a GM service part ignition switch purchased after 2010 differed substantially from that of an ignition switch that was original equipment installed on a 2005 Cobalt" and that ignition switches in the "early-model Ion and Cobalt vehicles did not meet GM's torque specifications." March 11, 2014 Notice at Moreover, a congressional report summarizing an investigation by the House Energy and Commerce Committee indicates that "[e]xecutives with Delphi... told 19

25 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 21 of 36 investigators that... GM signed off on what's known as a Production Part Approval Process, or PPAP, document in February 2002 for the switch "even though sample testing of the ignition switch was below the original specifications set by GM." Spangler, Detroit Free Press, "Delphi told GM ignition switch didn't meet specs," USAToday (March 30, 2014); see also Cowen, Beech and Lienert, "Delphi told panel GM approved ignition switches below specifications," Reuters (March 30, 2014) ("General Motors Co approved [the] ignition switches... even though the parts did not appear to meet the company's specifications, officials of Delphi Automotive told U.S. congressional investigators." ); Thompson and Lienert, "Key GM crisis questions: Who approved switch revision and why recall took so long," Reuters (March 30, 2014) ("Delphi told U.S. congressional investigators last week that GM approved the original part in 2002, despite the fact it did not meet GM specifications, according to congressional aides on Sunday."). 68. Not until February, 2014 did GM finally issue a recall of some of the Defective Vehicles. The recall was initially announced on February 13, 2014 and later broadened on February 24, 2014 to include additional vehicles. On March 28, 2014, the recall was expanded to include even more vehicles, which together with the prior recall encompasses all of the Defective Vehicles known to date. 69. GM's CEO Mary Barra acknowledged in a video presentation on March 14, 2014 that "[s]omething went wrong with [GM's] process in this instance, and terrible things happened." 70. Through at minimum, documents at Old GM retained by New GM and the knowledge of officers, employees and agents continuing to work at New GM after its asset 20

26 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 22 of 36 m purchase in July 2009, GM from the moment it was created had knowledge of the defective condition of the vehicles at issue. 71. Up to and including the latest recall announcement on March 11, 2014, GM failed to reveal and concealed the nature and extent of the problem from owners of the Defective Vehicles. At no time prior to that date did Old GM or New GM send notification to owners or prospective owners that the Defective Vehicles are dangerous..)> 'O Jn addition, and throughout the time it knew about the dangerous defects in the Defective Vehicles, GM was falsely promoting their safety. For example: a. In 2003, GM represented: "Saturn ION sets itself apart from competitors with innovative features, unique personalization opportunities and surprising levels of safety... The ION sedan and quad coupe are designed to carry on the Saturn tradition of being at the top of the class when it comes to safety and security." Saturn Overview,"SATURN JON GENERATES NEW CHARGE IN SMALL-CAR SEGMENT" (2003) 1 b. In 2004, GM stated: "Like all Saturns, the Jon was designed with a major emphasis on safety and security. The world-class structural design provides the foundation, as the steel spaceframe helps absorb the energy of a crash while protecting the integrity of the passenger compartment... Dualstage frontal air bags are standard... " GM Media Archive, 2005 SATURN Product Information (Release date Aug. 1, 2004)2 c. In 2004, GM announced that it was introducing Cobalt that year as well as a "5/60 powertrain warranty," by which it said, "we're letting or customers know that they can feel secure in the value and quality of the product." GM Communications "Chevrolet Announces Warranty On New Cobalt" (Release date )3 visited March 26, 2014) (last 2 (last visited March 26, 2014) 3 (last visited March 26, 2014) 21

27 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 23 of 36 d. In 200S, GM represented that it was "committed to keeping you and your family safe - from the start of your journey to your destination" and "[t]hat's why every Chevrolet is designed with a comprehensive list of safety and security features to help give you peace of mind." 4 e. In 2006, GM stated: "The rigid body structure [of the Pontiac GS] that lays thefoundation of GS's dynamic driving experience also reinforces its safety. In addition to the solid unibody structure, dual-stage air bags are standard... " (Release date Aug. 1, 2006)5 GM Media Archive, Pontiac Overview, 2007 PONTIAC GS,, a. :J a. (!) " Ill :J a. )>...,... f. In 2007, GM represented that the Saturn Sky "has a host of safety features, including a supplemental restraint system (SRS) with dual-stage frontal air bags." GM Media Archive, 2007 Press Release6 g. In 2008, still selling Cobalts, GM stated that "[a)lthough the Chevrolet Cobalt is no longer in production, used Cobalt models are readily available" and that "[r]easons for Cobalt's popularity included... a comprehensive standard safety package that included front air bags." As GM knows, vehicle safety is highly important to reasonable purchasers when making purchase decisions and when deciding whether to keep a vehicle already purchased. 74. The proper operation and integrity of vehicle systems, including power and airbags, also is highly important to safety of drivers, their passengers, and other persons on the roadways. 4 (last visited March 26, 2014) 5 (last visited March 26, 2014) 6 /archives.media.gm.com/us/saturn/ en/product_services/ r _cars/r_c_sky/07index.html#pr 7 (last visited March 26, 2014) 22

28 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 24 of 36 Statutory and Reeulatory Reguirements 75. When a vehicle manufacturer learns of a safety-related defect that could lead to injury or death, it is required to adhere to the requirements of Motor Vehicle Safety Act. The purpose of that Act is "to reduce traffic accidents and deaths and injuries resulting from traffic accidents." 49 USC USC 30118(c) requires that a manufacturer notify NHTSA as well as owners, purchasers and dealers if it learns that a vehicle or equipment contains a defect related to motor vehicle safety or does not comply with a motor vehicle safety standard. Section requires that such notification be given within a reasonable time after learning about a safety related defect or noncompliance. 49 U.S.C (c)(1)(2). 77. A "defect" is "any defect in performance, construction, a component, or material of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment. 49 USC 30102(a)(2). 78. "Motor vehicle safety" means "performance of a motor vehicle or motor vehicle equipment in a way that protects the public against unreasonable risk of accidents occurring because of the design, construction, or performance of a motor vehicle, and against unreasonable risk of death or injury in an accident." 49 USC 30102(a)(8). 79. The Defective Vehicles meet the definition of vehicles or equipment with a defect related to motor vehicle safety, presenting an unreasonable risk of accidents, death or injury. 80. Manufacturers must furnish a Defect and Noncompliance Information report to NHTSA not more than 5 working days after a defect in a vehicle or item of equipment is determined to be safety related or noncompliance with a motor vehicle safety standard is determined to exist This notice must contain information regarding the nature of the 23

29 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 25 of 36 defect, the affected vehicles, and the manufacturer's plan for remedying the issue. 49 CFR 573.6(a)-(c) The manufacturer must provide notification to vehicle owners of a safety recall within a reasonable time of determining a defect relates to motor vehicle safety or a (_ o:u 0 7' fl) g noncompliance exists (currently, no later than 60 days from the date it files the Defect and Noncompliance Information Report under part 573). See 49 CFR 577.S(a); 49 CFR 577.7(a). 81. The manufacturer must also within a reasonable time provide notice to dealers and distributors of a safety-related defect or noncompliance with a federal motor vehicle safety standard, clearly stating that the notice is a safety recall notice, identifying affected vehicles, with an advisory stating that the dealer or distributor cannot sell the affected vehicle until remedied. 49 CFR (a)-(b). Effective August 5, 2005, where the defect or noncompliance presents an immediate and substantial threat to motor vehicle safety, this notice must be transmitted to dealers and distributors within 3 business days (and not later than 5 business days) of transmitting the Defect and Noncompliance Information Report under 49 CFR CFR 577.7(c)(l). 82. Old GM and New GM violated one or more of these provisions by failing to issue a recall or notify owners and purchasers of the Defective Vehicles of a safety recall or even the defects. ALLEGATIONS RELATED TO PUNITIVE DAMAGES 83. Plaintiff incorporates the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein. 84. GM's unlawful and unfair practices including deception, false promises, false pretense, misrepresentation, and/or the concealment, suppression, or omission of material 24

30 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 26 of 36 facts in connection with the sale, distribution, or advertisement of GM vehicles and its ignition system were outrageous because of Defendants' evil motive and/or conscious disregard and/or reckless indifference to the rights and/or safety of Plaintiff, Class members, and others. 85. As a result of GM's conduct alleged herein, the jury should be permitted to return a verdict of punitive damages that will serve to punish GM and deter it and others from like conduct The MMPA expressly provides for punitive damages. See Mo. Rev. Stat. l> 'O 2. N "" INDIVIDUAL PLAINTIFF'S EXPERIENCE 86. In or about December 2005, Plaintiff purchased a 2006 Saturn Ion from a Saturn dealership in Blue Springs, Missouri. GM did not inform Plaintiff that the ignition switch in her vehicle was defective nor of the nature of the risks of the defect at the time of purchase nor anytime thereafter prior to the February 2014 recall. 87. Prior to the nationwide recall notice, GM still did not inform Plaintiff of the defect. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 88. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations above as though fully set forth in this paragraph. 89. Plaintiff brings this class action pursuant to Missouri Rules of Civil Procedure Rule and the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act on behalf of herself and the following class of similarly-situated persons (the "Class"): All persons or entities who purchased or leased within the State of Missouri, or Missouri residents who purchased or leased, one or more of the Defective Vehicles (as defined in 25

31 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 27 of 36 paragraph 1) for personal or family use (and their estates, administrators, legal representatives, heirs or beneficiaries). Excluded from the class are the officers, directors, agents or employees of GM or any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of GM; the judicial officers assigned to this litigation, as well as members of their staffs and immediate families. Also excluded from the class is any individual who has asserted a claim for personal injury as a result of purchasing a Defective!!! =.,, t..!ll ('),,.. C/l 0 ""l ~ a. CD "C ro ::J a. ;!) ~ (") Vehicle as to such injury. 90. The proposed class meets all requirements for class certification. The proposed Class satisfies the numerosity standards because the Class is believed to number in the thousands of persons in the state of Missouri. As a result, joinder of all Class members in a single action is impracticable. 91. There are questions of fact and law common to the Class that predominate over any questions affecting only individual members. The questions of law and fact common to the Class include, without limitation, the following: (a) (b) (c) (d) whether the ignition switch in the Defective Vehicles was/is defective; whether, in connection with advertising or selling the Defective Vehicles, Defendants failed to disclose, suppressed, omitted and/or concealed risks; whether in connection with marketing or selling the Defective Vehicles, Defendants falsely or fraudulently misrepresented in its advertisements, promotional materials or elsewhere, the safety of the Defective Vehicles; whether in connection with marketing or selling the Defective Vehicles, Defendants engaged any method, act, use, practice, advertisement or solicitation having the tendency or capacity to mislead, deceive or cheat, or that tends to create a false impression in regard to the safety of the Defective Vehicles; 26

32 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 28 of 36 (e) (f) (g) (g) (h) (i) whether, in connection with marketing or selling of the Defective Vehicles, Defendants made any assertions not in accord with the facts in regard to the safety of the Defective Vehicles; whether, in connection with marketing or selling of the Defective Vehicles, Defendants omitted any material fact necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading; whether in connection with marketing or selling the Defective Vehicles, Defendants failed to disclose material facts either known to them or that, upon reasonable inquiry would be known to them; whether Defendants failed to warn adequately of the defect and risks in the Defective Vehicles; whether Defendants knew or could have known of the defect and risks in the Defective Vehicles; whether Defendants continued to manufacture, market, distribute, and sell the Defective Vehicles notwithstanding its actual or constructive knowledge of their dangerous nature; ll:. (') A "' 0..., 0 -..i l\j 0... U) whether in connection with marketing or selling the Defective Vehicles, Defendants engaged any method, act, use or practice that operated to hide or keep material facts from consumers; (k) (I) (m) (n) whether in connection with marketing or selling the Defective Vehicles, Defendants engaged in any method, act, use or practice likely to curtail or reduce the ability of consumers to take notice of material facts which were stated; whether Defendants' conduct violated Missouri's Merchandising Practices Act; whether Defendants' conduct offends any public policy as established by statutes or common law of this state, or is unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous and presents a risk of, or causes, substantial injury to consumers; whether Defendants engaged in any method, use or practice which violates state or federal Jaw intended to protect the public and presents a risk of, or causes substantial injury to consumer; 27

33 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 29 of 36 (o) (p) whether the actual value of the Defective Vehicles was less than the value of those vehicles as they were represented by Defendants; whether GM has successor liability for the acts of Old GM. '<,, a. L ill Cl :>;"" rj) The questions set forth above, collectively and individually, predominate over any questions affecting only individual persons, and a class action is superior with respect to considerations of consistency, economy, efficiency, fairness and equity, to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. 93. A class action is the appropriate method for the fair and efficient adjudication ::I a. "O,..:J a. CD CD 0..., I\) 0... ~ of this controversy. The presentation of separate actions by individual class members could create a risk of inconsistent and varying adjudications, establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant, and/or substantially impair or impede the ability of class members to protect their interests. 94. Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the class because she is a member of the class and her interests do not conflict with the interests of the members of the class that she seeks to represent. The interests of the members of the class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her undersigned counsel, who have extensive experience prosecuting complex class action litigation. 95. On behalf of herself and the class, Plaintiff seeks damages equal to the difference between the actual value of the Defective Vehicle she purchased and the value of that vehicle had it been as represented by Defendant and/or free from the alleged defect. 96. Maintenance of this action as a class action is a fair and efficient method for the adjudication of this controversy. It would be impracticable and undesirable for each member of the class who suffered harm to bring a separate action. In addition, the maintenance of separate actions would place a substantial and unnecessary burden on the 28

34 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 30 of 36 courts and could result in inconsistent adjudications, while a single class action can determine, with judicial economy, the rights of all class members. 97. The Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to c... ni (") ;;<; (/) 0, all members of the classes, thereby making appropriate final judgment with respect to the classes as a whole. 98. Notice can be provided to class members by using techniques and forms of I > -0 notice customarily used in complex class actions, including by published and broadcast notice. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF COUNT I VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT (UNLAWFUL PRACTICES) 99. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set out above as though fully set forth herein Plaintiff did not learn of the dangerous design defect in her vehicle until she received the recall notice. Reasonably prudent persons were not on notice of that defect or an actionable injury due to Defendants' concealment. Moreover, Defendants committed multiple wrongs as described herein, up to and including at least March 11, 2014 when a recall was issued for all the Defective Vehicles if not later Defects in ignition switches and their dangerous propensities are facts that a reasonable consumer, including Plaintiff, would consider important in making a purchasing decision, or would be likely to induce a reasonable consumer to act, respond or change his/her behavior in a substantial manner in retaining or driving a vehicle and thus were material. See 15 CSR (l)(c). 29

35 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 31 of Under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act ("MMPA"), the "act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, unfair practice or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise in trade or commerce... in or from the state of Missouri, is declared to be an unlawful practice." Rev. Stat "Any act, use or employment declared unlawful by [Section ) violates Mo. m.., 0 ::I 0 Ill '< }1 r. a.. ' Ill (") 7' en 0 ::I ~ a. (i) ::I n ro =- [the Act) whether committed before, during or after the sale, advertisement or solicitation. Mo. Rev. Stat Under the MMPA, deception is any method, act, use, practice, advertisement or solicitation that has the tendency or capacity to mislead, deceive or cheat, or that tends to create a false impression. 15 CSR (1) Fraud includes any acts, omissions or artifices which involve falsehood, deception, trickery, breach of legal or equitable duty, trust, or confidence, and are injurious to another or by which an undue or unconscientious advantage over another is obtained. 15 CSR (1) Fraud, as used in Section is not limited to common Jaw fraud or deceit and is not limited to finite rules, but extends to the infinite variations of human invention. 15 CSR (2) 106. False pretense is any use of trick or deception, forgery, or false and fraudulent representation, statement, pretense, instrument or device with the intent to defraud. 15 CSR (1) Reliance and injury are not elements of false pretense as used in section CSR (2) 30

36 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 32 of A misrepresentation is an assertion that is not in accord with the facts. 15 a. CSR (1) Reliance, knowledge that the assertion is false or misleading, intent to defraud, intent that the consumer rely upon the assertion, or any other capable mental state such as recklessness or negligence, are not elements of misrepresentation as used in Section CSR (2) 108. It is a misrepresentation for any person in connection with the advertisement or sale of merchandise to make an untrue statement of material fact. 15 CSR (1) It is a misrepresentation for any person in connection with the l> "'... A 0!>. advertisement or sale of merchandise to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make statements made, in light of the circumstances under which they are made, not misleading. 15 CSR (1) 110. Concealment of a material fact is any method, act, use or practice which operates to hide or keep material facts from consumers. 15 CSR (1) Suppression of a material fact is any method, act, use or practice which is likely to curtail or reduce the ability of consumers to take notice of material facts which are stated. 15 CSR (2) Omission of a material fact is any failure by a person to disclose material facts known to him/her, or upon reasonable inquiry would be known to him/her. 15 CSR (3) In connection with the advertising, marketing, sale, and distribution of the Defective Vehicles, Defendants engaged in acts and practices including deception, false promises, misrepresentation, and/or concealment, suppression, or omission of material 31

37 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 33 of 36 m facts, each of which constitutes an unlawful and/or unfair practices in violation of the "Tl Q a. MMPA In addition to affirmative misrepresentations made in regard to the safety of the Defective Vehicles, Defendants omitted, suppressed and concealed material facts in by failing to notify consumers of material facts known to them or upon reasonably inquiry would be known to them concerning the defects and attendant risks that are the subject of ):> 'O this action The acts and practices engaged in by Defendants and described herein constitute unlawful and/or fraudulent practices in violation of the MMPA Plaintiff purchased her vehicle on or about December 2005 primarily for personal or family use As a direct and proximate result of the unlawful merchandising practices of Defendants, Plaintiff purchased their vehicles from GM, and as a result suffered economic damages in that they paid more for their vehicles than they would have had Defendants' not concealed and/or omitted material facts surrounding the defective nature of the ignition parts on their vehicles. COUNT II VIOLATION OF THE MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT (UNFAIR PRACTICES) 118. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above as though fully set forth herein Under the Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, an unfair practice is any practice which: (A) either 1. Offends any public policy as it has been established by the Constitution, statutes or common law of this state, or by the Federal Trade Commission, or 32

38 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 34 of 36 its interpretive decisions; or 2. Is unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; and (8) Presents a risk of, or causes, substantial injury to consumers. 15 CSR (1). Deception, fraud, or misrepresentation is not required to prove an unfair practice. 15 CSR (2) By selling and continuing to sell the Defective Vehicles, failing to notify consumers of the safety risks, and failing to recall the Defective Vehicles, Defendants l> "C engaged in unfair practices that (1) offend public policy; (2) are unethical, oppressive or unscrupulous; (3) or present a risk of or cause substantial injury to consumers Under the MMPA, it also is an unfair practice for any person in connection with the advertisement or sale of merchandise to engage in any method, use or practice which (A) violates state or federal Jaw intended to protect the public; and (8) Presents a risk of, or causes substantial injury to consumers. 15 CSR (1)(A)-(8) Old GM had an obligation to, but failed to notify Defective Vehicle owners as well as dealers of the safety-related defect and to repair the same within a reasonable time after learning of the safety-related defect in violation of federal statutes and regulations including those set out in the paragraphs above Among the obligations retained by GM after Old GM's bankruptcy was the obligation to "comply with the... reporting and recall requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act... and similar laws, in each case, to the extent applicable in respect of vehicles and vehicle parts manufactured or distributed by [Old GM]." July 2, K at 6.15(a) 33

39 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 35 of By selling and continuing to sell the Defective Vehicles, failing to notify a. consumers of the safety risks, and failing to recall the Defective Vehicles, Defendants engaged in unfair practices that violated federal statutes and regulations intended to protect the public, including those set out in the paragraphs above, and presented a risk or, or caused substantial injury to consumers, including but not limited to the risk that their air bags or brakes would fail and/or that their vehicle would lose power while being driven. PUNITIVE DAMAGES < 125. Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth above as though 0 fully set forth herein Punitive damages are warranted in this case based on Defendants' evil motive and/or conscious disregard and/or reckless indifference to the rights and/or safety of Plaintiff, class members, and others. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff requests that this Court enter judgment against Defendants and in favor of Plaintiff and award the following relief: (a) (b) Certification of the proposed class; Damages suffered by Plaintiff and the class including but not limited to consequential, statutory, and all other damages permitted by law; (c) Attorneys' fees and those costs, including expert witness fees, available under the law; (d) Punitive and or exemplary damages in an amount sufficient to punish Defendants and deter Defendants and others from like conduct in the future; 34

40 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. A Pg 36 of 36 (e) An injunction enjoining GM from continuing to engage in unlawful business practices as alleged herein; (t) Pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; t. OJ (")?<:" U'I 0 ::l (h) For an order awarding such other and further relief as this Court may deem just and proper. JURY DEMAND Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury on all claims so triable. Respectfully submitted, Date: April 7, 2014 STUEVE SIEGEL HANSON LLP y, # = By: Patrick J. Stueve, Mo. Bar #37682 Todd E. Hilton, Mo. Bar #51388 Bradley T. Wilders, Mo. Bar # Nichols Road, Suite 200 Kansas City, Missouri Telephone: (816) Facsimile: (816) GRAY, RITTER & GRAHAM, P.C. Don M. Downing, Mo. Bar # Market Street, Suite 800 St. Louis, Missouri Telephone: (314) Facsimile: (314) Attorneys for Plaintiffs 35

41 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 1 of 36 Exhibit B 4

42 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 2 of 36 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS JESSE SALAZAR III, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, v. Plaintiff, GENERAL MOTORS LLC; GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY; GENERAL MOTORS HOLDING, LLC; DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE PLC; AND DPH-DAS LLC F/K/A DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. 14-CV-362 CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED PLAINTIFF S ORIGINAL COMPLAINT 1. Plaintiff Jesse Salazar III brings this action for himself and on behalf of all persons similarly situated who purchased or leased certain vehicles manufactured, distributed, and/or sold by GENERAL MOTORS LLC, GENERAL MOTORS HOLDING, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, and/or its related subsidiaries, successors, or affiliates ( GM ) with defective ignition switches manufactured by DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE PLC, DPH-DAS LLC f/k/a DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE SYSTEMS, LLC, and/or its related subsidiaries, successors, or affiliates ( Delphi ), as described below. 2. As used in this complaint, the Defective Vehicles or Class Vehicles refers to the GM vehicles sold in the United States equipped at the time of sale with ignition switches (the Ignition Switches ) sharing a common, uniform, and defective design, including the following makes and model years: Chevrolet Cobalt Chevrolet HHR Pontiac Solstice Saturn Ion

43 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 2 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 3 of Saturn Sky Pontiac G5 3. An estimated 2.6 million vehicles were sold in the United States equipped with the Ignition Switches. Upon information and belief, there are other vehicles sold in the United States equipped with the Ignition Switches that have not yet been disclosed by GM. 4. The Ignition Switches in the Class Vehicles turn on the vehicle s motor engine and main electrical systems when the key is turned to the run or on position. The Ignition Switches have several common switch points, including RUN (or ON ), OFF, and ACC ( accessory ). At the run position, the vehicle s motor engine is running and the electrical systems have been activated; at the accessories position the motor is turned off, and electrical power is generally only supplied to the vehicle s entertainment system; and at the off position, both the vehicle s engine and electrical systems are turned off. In most vehicles a driver must intentionally turn the key in the ignition to move to these various positions. 5. GM began installing the Delphi-manufactured Ignition Switches beginning in 2002 vehicle models. Upon information and belief, Delphi knew the Ignition Switches were defectively designed, but nonetheless continued to manufacture and sell the defective Ignition Switches with the knowledge that they would be used in GM vehicles, including the Class Vehicles. Delphi also manufactured the ignition switch system after the 2007 change implemented by GM without reflecting a corresponding change in part number. 6. Because of defects in their design, the Ignition Switches installed in the Class Vehicles are, by their nature, loose and improperly positioned and are susceptible to failure during normal and expected conditions. The ignition module is located in a position in the vehicle that allows a driver to contact the key ring and inadvertently switch the ignition position. Due to faulty design and improper positioning, the Ignition Switches can unexpectedly and suddenly move from the on or run position while the vehicle is in operation to the off or acc position (the Ignition Switch Defect ). When this ignition switch failure occurs, the motor engine and certain electrical components such as power- 2

44 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 3 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 4 of 36 assisted steering and anti-lock brakes are turned off, thereby endangering the vehicle occupants and compromising the safety airbag system. 7. The Ignition Switch Defect can occur at any time during normal and proper operation of the Class Vehicles, meaning the ignition can suddenly switch off while the vehicle is moving at 65mph on the freeway, leaving the driver unable to control the vehicle. 8. GM has acknowledged that the Ignition Switch Defect has caused at least thirteen deaths. GM has refused, however, to disclose the identities of those it counts among these thirteen deaths. Independent safety regulators have recorded 303 deaths associated with only the Saturn Ion and Chevrolet Cobalt Class Vehicle models due to the Ignition Switch Defect. The actual number of deaths for all Class Vehicle models is expected to be much higher. 9. Persons who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles are herein referred to as Class Members ( Class Members ). 10. All Class Members were placed at risk by the Ignition Switch Defect from the moment they first drove their vehicles. The Ignition Switch Defect precludes all Class Members from proper and safe use of their vehicles, reduces vehicle occupant protection, and endangers Class Members and other vehicle occupants. However, no Class Members knew, or could reasonably have discovered, the Ignition Switch Defect, prior to it manifesting in a sudden and dangerous failure. 11. Upon information and belief, prior to the sale of the Class Vehicles, GM knew of the Ignition Switch Defect through sources such as pre-release design, manufacturing, and field testing data; in-warranty repair data; early consumer complaints made directly to GM, collected by the National Highway Transportation Safety Administration s Office of Defect Investigation ( NHTSA ODI ) and/or posted on public online vehicle owner forums; field testing done in response to those complaints; aggregate data from GM dealers; and accident data, yet despite this knowledge, GM failed to disclose and actively concealed the Ignition Switch Defect from Class Members and the public and continued to market and advertise the Class Vehicles as reliable and safe vehicles, which they are not. 3

45 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 4 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 5 of As a result of GM s alleged misconduct, Plaintiff and Class Members were harmed and suffered actual damages, in that the Class Vehicles are unsafe, unfit for their ordinary and intended use, and have manifested, or are at unreasonable risk of manifesting, the Ignition Switch Defect by way of a sudden and dangerous failure that puts them and others at serious risk of injury or death. Plaintiff and the Class did not receive the benefit of their bargain as purchasers and lessees, received vehicles that were of a lesser standard, grade, and quality than represented, and did not receive vehicles that met ordinary and reasonable consumer expectations. Class Members did not receive vehicles that would reliably operate with reasonable safety and that would not place drivers and occupants in danger of encountering an ongoing and undisclosed risk of harm, which could have been avoided, as GM knew but did not disclose, through the use of non-defective ignition parts. A car purchased or leased under the reasonable assumption that it is safe as advertised is worth more than a car such as the Class Vehicles that is known to contain a safety defect such as the Ignition Switch Defect. 13. As a result, all purchasers of the Class Vehicles overpaid for their cars at the time of purchase. Furthermore, GM s public disclosure of the Ignition Switch Defect has further caused the value of the Class Vehicles to materially diminish. Purchasers or lessees of the Class Vehicles paid more, either through a higher purchase price or higher lease payments, than they would have had the Ignition Switch Defect been disclosed. 14. Further, and in spite of GM s belated recall of the Class Vehicles, litigation is necessary in order to ensure that Class Members receive full and fair compensation, under the auspices of court order, for their injuries. Plaintiff Jesse Salazar III PARTIES 15. Plaintiff Jesse Salazar III is a citizen of the state of Texas, and he resides in San Antonio, Bexar County, Texas. Mr. Salazar owns a 2006 Chevrolet HHR, which he purchased used in 2008 at a dealership in Bexar County, Texas. Mr. Salazar s Chevrolet HHR was manufactured, sold, distributed, advertised, marketed, and warranted by GM. Mr. Salazar 4

46 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 5 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 6 of 36 purchased his vehicle primarily for his personal, family, and household use. Mr. Salazar has experienced several incidents caused by the Ignition Switch Defect. 16. On numerous occasions, the ignition in Mr. Salazar s Chevrolet HHR has switched out of the run position, causing the engine to lose power. At the time these incidents occurred, because of Defendants fraudulent concealment of the Ignition Switch Defect, Mr. Salazar did not realize that the Ignition Switch was defective or that the Defect had caused the engine to lose power. He therefore continued to drive the car, unaware of the danger he was in every time he got behind the wheel. 17. On or about January of 2014, Mr. Salazar was driving his Chevrolet HHR on Interstate 35 in Travis County, Texas when the ignition was inadvertently switched out of the run position, causing the engine to lose power and disabling the car s power steering and power braking systems, as well as the airbag. Mr. Salazar was able to slowly steer the vehicle to the side of the highway. 18. On or about March 10, 2014, Mr. Salazar received a letter from Jim Molony, General Director Customer & Relationship Services for General Motors, entitled Important Safety Recall (the Recall Notice ). Upon receiving this notice, Mr. Salazar realized for the first time that the Ignition Switch Defect had caused the multiple incidents he had experienced involving a sudden loss of engine power. The Recall Notice did not fully disclose the Ignition Switch Defect and in fact downplayed the widespread prevalence of the problem and minimized the risk of the Defect occurring during normal operation of Mr. Salazar s car. 19. Stating that parts were not immediately available to repair the defective ignition switch in Mr. Salazar s car, the Recall Notice informed Mr. Salazar that General Motors would not repair his vehicle until further notice and advised Mr. Salazar to continue driving the vehicle with heavy items removed from the keychain. Defendants 20. General Motors Corporation was a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The Corporation through its various entities designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Pontiac, Saturn, Chevrolet and other brand automobiles in Texas and multiple other locations in the United States and worldwide. 5

47 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 6 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 7 of In 2009, General Motors Corporation filed for bankruptcy, and substantially all of its assets were sold pursuant to a Master Sales and Purchase Agreement ( Agreement ) to General Motors LLC. 22. Under the Agreement, General Motors LLC also expressly assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation, including certain statutory requirements: From and after the Closing, Purchaser [GM] shall comply with the certification, reporting and recall requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act, the Clean Air Act, the California Health and Safety Code and similar Laws, in each case, to the extent applicable in respect of vehicles and vehicle parts manufactured or distributed by Seller. In addition, General Motors LLC expressly set forth that it: shall be responsible for the administration, management and payment of all Liabilities arising under (i) express written warranties of Sellers [General Motors Corporation] that are specifically identified as warranties and delivered in connection with the sale of new, certified used or pre-owned vehicles or new or remanufactured motor vehicle parts and equipment (including service parts, accessories, engines and transmissions) manufactured or sold by Sellers or Purchaser prior to or after the Closing and (ii) Lemon Laws. 23. General Motors LLC is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. General Motors LLC is registered with the Texas Secretary of State to conduct business in Texas. General Motors LLC may be served with process by its registered agent, Corporation Service Company d/b/a CSC-Lawyers Incorporation Service Company, 211 E. 7th Street, Suite 620, Austin, TX General Motors Company is a Delaware corporation with its headquarters in Detroit, MI. General Motors Company is not currently registered with the Texas Secretary of State. General Motors Company may be served with process by serving its registered agent in Michigan, The Corporation Company, Telegraph Road, Ste 2345, Bingham Farms, MI At all times relevant herein, General Motors Corporation and its successors in interest General Motors LLC and General Motors Company were engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, warranting, distributing, 6

48 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 7 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 8 of 36 selling, leasing, and servicing automobiles, including the Class Vehicles, and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components throughout the United States. 26. Defendant Delphi Automotive PLC ( Delphi ) is headquartered in Gillingham, Kent, United Kingdom, and is the parent company of DPH-DAS, LLC, formerly known as Delphi Automotive Systems LLC, which is headquartered in Troy, Michigan. DPH-DAS, LLC, f/k/a Delphi Automotive Systems LLC may be served with process by its registered agent, CT Corporation System, 1999 Bryan St., Ste. 900, Dallas TX Delphi began as a wholly-owned subsidiary of General Motors Corporation, until it was launched as an independent publicly-held corporation in In 2005, Delphi declared Chapter 11 bankruptcy. After emerging from bankruptcy in 2009, GM purchased certain Delphi assets, including Delphi s steering assets, and four Delphi plants to assist with its post-bankruptcy restructuring. In 2011, GM finally ended its ownership interest in Delphi by selling back the assets. 29. At all times relevant herein, Delphi, through its various entities, designed, manufactured, and supplied GM with motor vehicle components, including the subject ignition switches. 30. GM and Delphi are collectively referred to in this Complaint as Defendants. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 31. Jurisdiction is proper in this Court pursuant to the Class Action Fairness Act, 28 U.S.C. 1332(d), because members of the proposed Plaintiff Class are citizens of states different from Defendants home states, and the aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. 32. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. 1391(a) because GM conducts substantial business in this District, has caused harm to Class Members residing in this District, and Plaintiff Jesse Salazar resides in this District. The Defective Vehicles FACTUAL BACKGROUND 33. The Saturn Ion was a compact car first introduced in 2002 for the 2003 model year and was discontinued in

49 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 8 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 9 of The Chevrolet Cobalt was a compact car first introduced in 2004 for the 2005 model year and was discontinued in The Pontiac G5 was first introduced in 2004 for the 2005 model year and was discontinued in The coupe and four-door sedan version of the G5 was marketed in Canada from 2005 to 2010 but is not a vehicle at issue in this action. 36. The Chevrolet HHR was a compact car first introduced in 2005 for the 2006 model year and was discontinued in The Pontiac Solstice was a sports car first introduced in 2005 for the 2006 model year and was discontinued in The Saturn Sky was first introduced in 2006 for the 2007 model year and was discontinued in The Saturn Ion, Pontiac G5, Chevrolet HHR, and Chevrolet Cobalt were constructed on GM s Delta Platform. Platform. 40. The Saturn Sky and Pontiac Solstice were constructed on GM s Kappa 41. Upon information and belief, GM promoted these Class Vehicles as safe and reliable in numerous marketing and advertising materials. 42. No reasonable consumer expects that the vehicle that he or she purchases or leases contains a known but undisclosed design defect that poses a safety risk at the time or purchase or lease. 8

50 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 9 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 10 of 36 GM Field Reports and Internal Testing Reveal a Problem 43. In 2001, during pre-production of the 2003 Saturn Ion, GM engineers learned that the ignition switch could unintentionally move from the run position to the accessory or off position. In an internal report generated at the time, GM identified the cause of the problem as low detent plunger force. The detent is part of the ignition switch s inner workings that keeps the switch from rotating from one setting to another unless the driver turns the key. The report stated that than an ignition switch design change was believed to have resolved the problem. 44. In 2003, a second report documented an incident with a Saturn Ion where a service technician observed a stall while driving. There the technician noted that the owner had several keys on the key ring and surmised that the weight of the keys had worn out the ignition switch and replaced the switch and closed the matter. 45. GM engineers encountered the problem again in 2004 just prior to the launch of the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt. GM learned of an incident in which a Cobalt vehicle suddenly switched out of the run position and lost engine power. GM engineers were able to replicate this problem during test drives of the Cobalt. According to GM, an engineering inquiry known as a Problem Resolution Tracking System ( PRTS ) was able to pinpoint the problem and evaluate a number of solutions; however, after considering lead time required, cost, and effectiveness, GM decided to do nothing. 46. After the Chevrolet Cobalt entered the market in 2004, GM began receiving complaints about incidents of sudden loss of engine power. GM engineers determined that the low torque in the ignition switch could cause the key to move from the run to the accessory or off position under ordinary driving conditions with normal key chains because detent efforts on ignition switch are too low, allowing key to be cycled to off position inadvertently. Specifically, in February 2005, GM engineers concluded that there are two main reasons that we believe can cause a lower effort in turning the key: a lower torque detent in the ignition switch... [and a] low position of the lock module [on] the [steering] column. 47. Additional PRTS s were opened to investigate the problem, and in May 2005, GM engineers proposed redesigning the key head from a slotted to a hole configuration to 9

51 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 10 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 11 of 36 prevent inadvertent shifting of the key in the ignition. Although GM initially approved the design, the company once again declined to act. 48. In testimony April 1, 2014, before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce, GM CEO Mary Barra explained that the proposed fix for the Ignition Switch Defect was rejected in 2005 because it would have taken too long and cost too much. Ms. Barra testified that GM s decision making was the product of a cost culture versus a culture that focuses on safety and quality. 49. In April 2006, GM finally approved a design change for the Chevrolet Cobalt s ignition switch, as proposed by the supplier Delphi. According to GM, the changes included a new detent plunger and spring, but there was no corresponding change in the ignition switch part number. GM estimates that Delphi began producing the redesigned ignition switch for all Subject Vehicles during the 2007 model year. 50. Delphi assigned its newly designed switch the same part number assigned to the faulty ignition switch. Upon information and belief, Delphi s action was intended to make it difficult to trace the defective switch back to its original design in After another PRTS in 2009, GM redesigned the Chevrolet Cobalt key, changing the top of the key from a slot design to a hole design as had been suggested in GM instituted the change after finding that consumers with substantially weighted key chains/additional keys hanging from ignition key have experienced accidental ignition shutoff and the design change was intended to significantly reduce downward force and the likelihood of this occurrence. The new key design was produced for 2010 model year. 52. According to Delphi, the component required to fix the Ignition Switch Defect costs approximately $2 to $5. GM management estimated that replacement components would cost an additional 90 cents per vehicle, but would only save 10 to 15 cents in warranty costs. 53. GM also now acknowledges that Field Product Reports and PRTS reports related to the Subject Vehicles from 2003 and 2006 concerned engine stalling in the Saturn Ion and may be related to the Ignition Switch Defect. 10

52 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 11 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 12 of 36 GM Issues Information Service Bulletins 54. In 2005, as a result of internal investigation, GM issued an Information Service Bulletin entitled the Information on Inadvertent Turning of Key Cylinder, Loss of Electrical System and No DTCs (# ) to GM dealers warning about a stalling problem related to inadvertent shifting of the ignition switch. The bulletin applied to 2005 and 2006 Chevrolet Cobalt, 2006 Chevrolet HHR, 2005 and 2006 Pontiac Pursuit (Canada only), 2006 Pontiac Solstice, and 2003 to 2006 Saturn Ion, which all had the same ignition switch. 55. The bulletin advised that [t]here is potential for the driver to inadvertently turn off the ignition due to low ignition key cylinder torque/effort, noting that risk was greater if the driver is short and has a large and/or heavy key chain such that the driver s knee would contact the key chain while the vehicle was turning. GM dealers were told to inform consumers of this risk, and recommend removing unessential items from their key chain. The bulletin also informed dealers that GM had developed an insert for the key ring so that the key ring cannot move up and down in the slot any longer it can only rotate on the hole and that the key ring has been replaced by a smaller design such that the keys [will] not hang[ ] as low as in the past. 56. On July 19, 2005, the New York Times reported that Chevrolet dealers were telling Cobalt owners to remove extra items from their key rings to prevent accidental stalling of their vehicles. Alan Adler, GM s Manager for Safety Communications, stated that the problem manifested in only rare cases when a combination of factors is present. Adler advised that consumers can virtually eliminate this possibility by taking several steps, including removing nonessential material from their key rings. 57. The Times reporter noted that his wife had already encountered the problem with the Chevrolet Cobalt: she was driving on a freeway, accidentally bumped the steering column with her knee, and found the engine just went dead. She was able to safely coast to the side of the road. When the vehicle was brought back to the Chevrolet dealer for an inspection, nothing was found wrong and they were advised of the service bulletin. The reporter stated that the key chain being used at the time of the stalling incident was provided by GM, and included only the key fob and a tag. 11

53 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 12 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 13 of GM, in a statement at the time through Adler, insisted that this problem was not a safety issue because [w]hen this happens, the Cobalt is still controllable and the engine can be restarted after shifting to neutral. Adler also claimed that this ignition issue was widespread because practically any vehicle can have power to a running engine cut off by inadvertently bumping the ignition. 59. In October 2006, GM updated the Information Service Bulletin, Information on Inadvertent Turning of Key Cylinder, Loss of Electrical System and No DTCs (# A) to include additional vehicles and model years. Specifically, GM included the 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt, the 2007 Chevrolet HHR, the 2007 Pontiac G5, the 2007 Pontiac Solstice, the 2007 Saturn Ion, and the 2007 Saturn Sky. The updated bulletin included the same service advisories to GM dealers as the earlier version. 60. According to GM, the service bulletin was the appropriate response given that the car s steering and braking systems remained operational even after a loss of engine power. GM reports that GM dealers provided 474 key inserts to GM vehicle owners who brought their vehicles in for servicing. Reports of Unintended Engine Shut Down 61. A number of reports from warranty and technical assistance data beginning in 2003, addressed complaints of stalling Ion vehicles. Despite these reports, the Saturn Ion remained in production until On May 26, 2005, a reporter for The Daily Item in Sunbury, Pennsylvania reviewed the Chevrolet Cobalt and found that during his test drives of the vehicle there were [u]nplanned engine shutdowns [that] happened four times during a hard-driving test week with the vehicle. 12

54 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 13 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 14 of 36 Crash Reports and Data 63. The Defendants knew of the Ignition Switch Defect and its dangerous, even deadly consequences for consumers, but concealed that information from safety regulators and the public. 64. National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (NHTSA) data shows that there were three fatal car crashes involving Saturn Ions due to a failure of the airbag to deploy prior to July In July 2005, a sixteen-year old was killed when her 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt crashed with the ignition switch in the accessory mode, which disabled the airbag. 66. In 2006, there were at least two fatalities associated with a Chevrolet Cobalt crash. Information from the car s data recorder indicated that the ignition switch was in accessory instead of run, and the front airbags failed to deploy. 67. In 2007, GM reviewed available sensor data from nine front-impact Cobalt crashes where the airbags did not deploy. GM discovered that in four of the crashes, the ignition was in the accessory position. Crash information for the other Subject Vehicles was not reviewed. 68. In 2007, NHTSA s early warning division reviewed available data provided by GM on airbag non-deployments in Chevrolet Cobalt vehicles. This review identified 43 incidents in which airbags may not have deployed in a crash. The early warning division referred the case to NHTSA s data analysis division for further screening. A defects panel was convened, but after reviewing the data and consulting with GM, the panel ultimately concluded that [t]he data available at the time of this evaluation did not indicate a safety defect or defect trend that would warrant the agency opening a formal investigation. In prepared remarks delivered April 1, 2014, to the Committee on Energy and Commerce, NHTSA Acting Administrator David Friedman stated, At the time of these reviews, NHTSA did not have the information that GM has since provided for instance, new evidence linking airbag non-deployment to faulty ignition switches. 13

55 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 14 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 15 of GM has identified 23 frontal-impact crashes in the United States involving 2005 to 2007 Chevrolet Cobalts and 2007 Pontiac G5s in which the Ignition Switch Defect may have caused or contributed to the failure of the safety airbags to deploy. 70. GM has identified 8 frontal-impact crashes in the United States involving 2003 to 2007 Saturn Ion vehicles in which the Ignition Switch Defect may have caused or contributed to the failure of the safety airbags to deploy. These crashes resulted in four fatalities and six injuries to occupants. 71. GM has identified 3 frontal-impact crashes in the United States involving 2006 and 2007 model year Chevrolet HHR vehicles in which the Ignition Switch Defect may have caused or contributed to the failure of the safety airbags to deploy. These crashes resulted in three injuries to occupants. 72. On information and belief, many more crashes, resulting in injuries and deaths, have involved the Ignition Switch Defect and gone unreported because Defendants have concealed the problem. These crashes continue to occur, even as GM responds to Congressional investigation and has announced a recall; and the crashes will continue to occur unless and until the Ignition Switch defect is completely and effectively corrected. GM s Belated Repair Recall of Some Vehicles 73. On February 7, 2014, GM filed a Part 573 Defect Notice with the NHTSA to recall 2005 to 2007 model year Chevrolet Cobalt and 2007 Pontiac G5 vehicles. The notice identified that the ignition switch torque performance may not meet General Motors specifications, explaining that if the key ring is carrying weight or the vehicle goes off road or experiences some other jarring event, the ignition switch may inadvertently be moved out of the run position and may result in deactivating the airbags. The notice did not acknowledge that the Ignition Switch Defect could occur under normal driving conditions, even when the key ring is not carrying added weight. Defect. 74. The notice also did not identify all the vehicles affected by the Ignition Switch 75. The notice failed to indicate the full extent to which GM has been aware of the Defect. The notice suggests that GM s knowledge of the defect is recent, stating that [t]he 14

56 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 15 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 16 of 36 issue was presented to the Field Performance Evaluation Review Committee and on January 31, 2014, the Executive Field Action Decision Committee decided to conduct a safety recall. 76. In a February 24, 2014 letter to the NHTSA, GM amended the Part 573 Report to include a more detailed chronology. The chronology indicated that GM first learned of the Ignition Switch Defect during the launch of the 2005 Chevrolet Cobalt from field tests by its engineers. 77. On February 25, 2014, GM amended its Part 573 Report to cover additional models and model years due to the same Ignition Switch Defect. Specifically, GM identified the 2003 to 2007 model years of the MY Saturn Ion, 2006 and 2007 model years of the MY Chevrolet HHR, 2007 model year of the Pontiac Solstice, and 2007 model year of MY Saturn Sky vehicles. 78. According to the NHTSA Acting Administrator David Friedman, the chronology information provided by GM on February 24, 2014 raise[d] serious questions as to the timeliness of GM s recall. Therefore, the NHTSA opened a timeliness query on February 26, On March 4, 2014, the NTHSA issued GM a Special Order demanding that it provide additional information by April 3, 2014, on 107 specific requests, including information to evaluate the timing of GM s defect decision making and reporting of the safety defect to NHTSA. 80. On March 11, 2014, GM filed a new Part 573 report superseding its February 25 filing. The new chronology provided with the report indicated that GM was aware of the Ignition Switch Defect in 2001 significantly earlier than its previous 2004 disclosure. GM now indicated that it had a report from 2001 that revealed a problem with the ignition switch during pre-production of the Saturn Ion. 81. On March 28, 2014, GM filed a new Part 573 report, which expanded the recall set forth in its February 25, 2014 filing. GM s March 28 report indicated that several additional model year vehicles may be affected by the Ignition Switch Defect. GM identified those vehicles as the Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet HHR,

57 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 16 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 17 of 36 Pontiac Solstice, Pontiac G5, and Saturn Sky. The March 28 report added over one million vehicles to the total affected by the Ignition Switch Defect. 82. GM notified dealers of the Defective Vehicles of the recall in February and March GM also notified owners of the Defective Vehicles by letter of the recall. The letter minimized the risk of the defect, indicating that the Ignition Switch Defect would occur only under certain conditions and emphasized that the risk increased if the key ring is carrying added weight... or your vehicle experiences rough road conditions. 83. GM has advised the public that the replacement ignition switches ARE NOT CURRENTLY AVAILABLE. TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS Fraudulent Concealment Tolling 84. Upon information and belief, GM has known of the Ignition Switch Defect in the vehicles since at least 2001, and certainly well before Plaintiff and Class Members purchased the Class Vehicles, and has concealed from or failed to notify Plaintiff, Class Members, and the public of the full and complete nature of the Ignition Switch Defect, even when directly asked about it by Class Members during communications with GM and GM dealers. 85. Although GM has now acknowledged that [t]here is a risk, under certain conditions, that your ignition switch may move out of the run position, resulting in a partial loss of electrical power and turning off the engine, GM did not fully disclose the Ignition Switch Defect and in fact downplayed the widespread prevalence of the problem, and minimized the risk of the Defect occurring during normal operation of the Class Vehicles. 86. In 2005, GM issued a Technical Service Bulletin to dealers and service technicians directing that customers be advised to remove unessential items from their key chains to avoid inadvertent ignition switching, but did not identify or disclose the Defect. 87. GM also stated, in 2005, that it was rare for the Ignition Switches in Class Vehicles to unintentionally move from the on position to the accessory or off position. GM knew that this statement was untrue, but issued the statement to exclude suspicion and preclude inquiry. 16

58 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 17 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 18 of In 2007 and 2010, GM withheld information from the NHTSA when it knew that the NHTSA was investigating airbag non-deployment in certain GM vehicles. Indeed, NHTSA s understood that airbag systems were designed to continue to function in the event of a power loss during a crash. This understanding was confirmed by available GM service literature reviewed during NHTSA s due diligence effort. GM, however, had evidence that power loss caused by the Ignition Switch Defect could also prevent the deployment of airbags. Despite its knowledge and familiarity with NHTSA s investigation, GM withheld this information, which delayed its recall by several years. 89. In February 2014, GM instituted only a limited recall, only identifying two of the several models with the Ignition Switch Defect. Likewise, the later recall expanded to include five additional model years and makes does not fully disclose all the vehicles affected by the Ignition Switch Defect. On March 28, GM expanded the recall yet again to include all model years of each vehicle affected by the ignition switch recall. GM has revealed the scope of the recall in a hazardous, piecemeal fashion, under duress from Congress and intense consumer backlash. 90. Upon information and belief, there are other Class Vehicles that have the Ignition Switch Defect that have not yet been disclosed by GM. 91. As GM CEO Mary Barra explained during testimony before the House Committee on Energy and Commerce on April 1, 2014, GM s active concealment of the Ignition Switch Defect was the result of a cost culture versus one that placed an emphasis on safety. 92. Pursuant to 49 U.S.C (c), GM was obligated and had a duty to disclose the Ignition Switch Defect to the NHTSA when it learned of the Defect and/or decided in good faith that the Class Vehicles did not comply with an applicable motor vehicle safety standard. 93. Any applicable statute of limitation has therefore been tolled by GM s knowledge, active concealment, and denial of the facts alleged herein, which behavior is ongoing. 17

59 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 18 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 19 of 36 Estoppel 94. GM was and is under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiff and Class Members the true character, quality, and nature of the vehicles. GM actively concealed the true character, quality, and nature of the vehicles and knowingly made misrepresentations about the quality, reliability, characteristics, and performance of the vehicles. Plaintiff and Class Members reasonably relied upon GM s knowing and affirmative misrepresentations and/or active concealment of these facts. Based on the foregoing, GM is estopped from relying on any statutes of limitation in defense of this action. Discovery Rule 95. The causes of action alleged herein did not accrue until Plaintiff and Class Members discovered that their vehicles had the Ignition Switch Defect. 96. However, Plaintiff and Class Members had no realistic ability to discern that the vehicles were defective until at the earliest after the Ignition Switch Defect caused a sudden unintended ignition shut off. Even then, Plaintiff and Class Members had no reason to know the sudden loss of power was caused by a defect in the ignition switch because of GM s active concealment of the Ignition Switch Defect. 97. Not only did GM fail to notify Plaintiff or Class Members about the Ignition Switch Defect, GM in fact denied any knowledge of or responsibility for the Ignition Switch Defect when directly asked about it. Thus Plaintiff and Class Members were not reasonably able to discover the Ignition Switch Defect until after they had purchased the vehicles, despite their exercise of due diligence, and their causes of action did not accrue until they discovered that the Ignition Switch Defect caused their vehicles to suddenly lose power. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 98. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on his own behalf and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed Class pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and/or (b)(2) and/or c(4). This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions. 99. The proposed nationwide class is defined as: 18

60 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 19 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 20 of 36 Nationwide Class All persons in the United States who purchased or leased a GM Class Vehicle ( Chevrolet Cobalt; Chevrolet HHR; Pontiac Solstice; Saturn Ion; Saturn Sky; and Pontiac G5), and any other GM vehicle model containing the same ignition switch as those Class Vehicle models Plaintiff also brings this action on behalf of a statewide class of all persons who purchased or leased a Class Vehicle in the State of Texas Excluded from the Class are: (1) Defendants, any entity or division in which Defendants have a controlling interest, and their legal representatives, officers, directors, assigns, and successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and the Judge s staff; (3) governmental entities; and (4) those persons who have suffered personal injuries as a result of the facts alleged herein. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further investigation reveals that the Class should be expanded, divided into additional subclasses, or modified in any other way. Numerosity and Ascertainability 102. Although the exact number of Class Members is uncertain and can only be ascertained through appropriate discovery, the number is great enough such that joinder is impracticable. The disposition of the claims of these Class Members in a single action will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court. Class Members are readily identifiable from information and records in GM s possession, custody, or control. Typicality 103. The claims of the representative Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class in that the representative Plaintiff, like all Class Members, purchased or leased a GM Class Vehicle designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendants. The representative Plaintiff, like all Class Members, has been damaged by Defendants misconduct in that he has incurred costs relating to the Ignition Switch Defect. Furthermore, the factual bases of Defendants misconduct are common to all Class Members and represent a common thread of misconduct resulting in injury to all Class Members. 19

61 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 20 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 21 of 36 Adequate Representation 104. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel with substantial experience in prosecuting consumer class actions, including actions involving defective products Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action on behalf of the Class and have the financial resources to do so. Neither Plaintiff nor his counsel has interests adverse to those of the Class. Predominance of Common Issues 106. There are numerous questions of law and fact common to Plaintiff and Class Members that predominate over any question affecting only individual Class Members, the answers to which will advance resolution of the litigation as to all Class Members. These common legal and factual issues include: a. whether the Class Vehicles suffer from the Ignition Switch Defect; b. whether Defendants knew or should have known about the Ignition Switch Defect, and, if so, how long Defendants have known of the Defect; c. whether the defective nature of the Class Vehicles constitutes a material fact reasonable consumers would have considered in deciding whether to purchase a GM Class Vehicle; d. whether GM had a duty to disclose the defective nature of the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and Class Members; Vehicles; e. whether GM omitted and failed to disclose material facts about the Class f. whether GM s concealment of the true defective nature of the Class Vehicles induced Plaintiff and Class Members to act to their detriment by purchasing the Vehicles; g. whether GM violated state consumer protection statutes, including, inter alia, the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( DTPA ); h. whether the Class Vehicles were fit for their ordinary and intended use, in violation of the implied warranty of merchantability; 20

62 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 21 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 22 of 36 i. whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to a declaratory judgment stating that the ignition switches in the Class Vehicles are defective and/or not merchantable; j. whether Plaintiff and Class Members are entitled to equitable relief, including, but not limited to, a preliminary and/or permanent injunction; and k. whether GM should be declared responsible for notifying all Class Members of the Defect and ensuring that all GM vehicles with the Ignition Switch Defect are recalled and repaired. l. what aggregate amounts of punitive or exemplary damages or statutory penalties, as available under the laws of Michigan and Texas are sufficient to punish and deter Defendants and to vindicate statutory and public policy, and how such penalties should most equitably be distributed among Class members. Superiority 107. Plaintiff and Class Members have all suffered and will continue to suffer harm and damages as a result of Defendants unlawful and wrongful conduct. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy Absent a class action, most Class Members would likely find the cost of litigating their claims prohibitively high and would therefore have no effective remedy at law. Because of the relatively small size of the individual Class Members claims, it is likely that only a few Class Members could afford to seek legal redress for Defendants misconduct. Absent a class action, Class Members will continue to incur damages, and Defendants misconduct will continue without remedy Class treatment of common questions of law and fact would also be a superior method to multiple individual actions or piecemeal litigation in that class treatment will conserve the resources of the courts and the litigants, and will promote consistency and efficiency of adjudication Defendants have acted in a uniform manner with respect to the Plaintiff and Class Members, as demonstrated in the following form Dear GM Customer letter: 21

63 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 22 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 23 of 36 Dear General Motors Customer: July 2013 This notice is sent to you in accordance with the requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act. General Motors, based on data and information from supplier IMPCO Automotive, has decided that a defect, which relates to motor vehicle safety, exists in certain compressed natural gas (CNG) fuel systems installed by IMPCO Automotive on model year CNG equipped Chevrolet Express and GMC Savana vehicles. As a result, General Motors and IMPCO Automotive are conducting a safety recall. We apologize for this inconvenience. However, we are concerned about your safety and continued satisfaction with our products. I M P O R T A N T Your model year Chevrolet Express or GMC Savana CNG equipped vehicle is involved in safety recall Owners who have not been contacted by General Motors concerning this recall should schedule an appointment with their Chevrolet or GMC dealer to arrange for the repairs to be completed. This service will be performed for you at no charge. Why is your vehicle being recalled? The underbody shutoff solenoid connector to a CNG fuel tank may corrode and could form a high-resistance short in the connector, potentially causing overheating or a self- extinguishing flame. If there is a fuel leak or other combustible material in the vicinity, there is a risk of fire. What will we do? To correct this condition, improved solenoids and securing nuts will be installed for all exterior tanks and the regulator, and the 30 amp gas fuel pump fuse will be replaced with either a 7.5 amp fuse (for the four tank configuration) or a 5.0 amp fuse (for the three tank configuration). In addition, the wiring routing will be adjusted, if necessary, to eliminate any undue tension on the connector, and anti-corrosion sealing plugs will be installed into the valve body (2013 model year vehicles have these plugs already installed). This service will be performed at no charge. The approximate time for the actual repair can be as much as four hours per vehicle, but the wait time for your vehicle may be longer depending on how busy the dealership is. What should you do? General Motors will contact certain fleets directly to arrange for the performance of the required repair. If you have not already been contacted by General Motors, please schedule an appointment with your Chevrolet or GMC dealer for this repair. 22

64 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 23 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 24 of 36 Do you have questions? If you have questions or concerns that your dealer is unable to resolve, please contact the GM Fleet Action Center at If after contacting your dealer and the Fleet Action Center, you are still not satisfied GM has done their best to remedy this condition without charge and within a reasonable time, you may wish to write the Administrator, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, 1200 New Jersey Avenue, SE., Washington, DC 20590, or call the toll-free Vehicle Safety Hotline at (TTY ), or go to The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration Campaign ID Number for this recall is 13V225. Federal regulation requires that any vehicle lessor receiving this recall notice must forward a copy of this notice to the lessee within ten days. Jim Moloney General Director, Customer and Relationship Services GM Recall # Classwide declaratory, equitable, and injunctive relief is appropriate under Rule 23(b)(1) and/or (b)(2) because Defendants have acted on grounds that apply generally to the class, and inconsistent adjudications with respect to the Defendants liability would establish incompatible standards and substantially impair or impede the ability of Class Members to protect their interests. Classwide relief assures fair, consistent, and equitable treatment and protection of all Class Members, and uniformity and consistency in Defendants discharge of their duties to perform corrective action regarding the Ignition Switch Defect. CAUSES OF ACTION FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF Asserted on Behalf of the Nationwide Class (Violation of Michigan Consumer Protection Act ( MCPA), Michigan Comp. Laws Ann et seq., and the Consumer Protection Acts of Substantially Similar States) 112. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint This Claim is brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class At all times relevant hereto, there was in full force and effect MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN et seq. (the MCPA ). 23

65 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 24 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 25 of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class Members were person[s] within the meaning of the MCPA, M.C.L.A (1)(d) At all relevant times hereto, Defendants were persons engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of the MCPA, M.C.L.A (1)(d) and (g) The MCPA holds unlawful [u]nfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. M.C.L.A (1) The practices of Defendants violate the MCPA for, inter alia, one or more of the following reasons: a. represented that the Class Vehicles had approval, characteristics, uses, and benefits that they do not have; b. Defendants provided, disseminated, marketed, and otherwise distributed uniform false and misleading advertisements, technical data and other information to consumers regarding the safety, performance, reliability, quality, and nature of the Class Vehicles; c. Defendants represented that the Class Vehicles were of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when they were of another; d. Defendants engaged in unconscionable commercial practices in failing to reveal material facts and information about the Class Vehicles, which did and tended to mislead Plaintiff and the Class about facts that could not reasonably be known by the consumer until the February and March 2014 recalls; e. Defendants failed to reveal facts concerning the Ignition Switch Defect that were material to the transaction in light of representations of fact made in a positive manner; f. Defendants failed to reveal material facts concerning the Ignition Switch Defect to Plaintiff and the Class Members, the omission of which would tend to mislead or deceive consumers, including Plaintiff and the Class; g. Defendants made material representations and statements of fact to Plaintiff and the Class that resulted in Plaintiff and the Class Members reasonably believing the represented or suggested state of affairs to be other than what they actually were; and 24

66 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 25 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 26 of 36 h. Defendants intended that Plaintiff and Class Members rely on their misrepresentations and omissions, so that Plaintiff and other Class Members would purchase or lease the Class Vehicles; and 119. In the event that Michigan law is not applied, Defendants actions, as complained of herein, constitute unfair competition or unfair, unconscionable, deceptive or fraudulent acts or practices in violation of various state consumer protection statutes Plaintiff seeks injunctive relief to enjoin Defendants from continuing their unfair and deceptive acts or; seek monetary relief against Defendants measured as the greater of (a) actual damages in an amount to be determined at trial and (b) statutory damages in the amount of $250 for Plaintiff and each Class Member, reasonable attorneys fees; and any other just and proper relief available under the MICH. COMP. L. ANN Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against Defendants because they carried out despicable conduct with willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others. Defendants intentionally and willfully misrepresented the safety and reliability of Class Vehicles, deceived Plaintiff and Class Members on life-or-death matters, and concealed material facts that only they knew, all to avoid the expense and public relations nightmare of correcting a deadly flaw in the Class Vehicles they repeatedly promised Plaintiff and Class Members were safe. Defendants unlawful conduct constitutes malice, oppression, and fraud warranting punitive damages. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF Asserted on Behalf of the Nationwide Class and the Texas Class (Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. ( MMWA )) 122. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. Michigan law This Claim is brought against GM on behalf of the Nationwide Class under 124. At all times relevant hereto, there was in full force and effect the Magnuson- Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. ( MMWA ). 25

67 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 26 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 27 of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class are consumers as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2301(3). They are consumers because they are persons entitled under applicable state law to enforce against the warrantor the obligations of its implied warranty GM is a supplier and warrantor as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2301(4) and (5) Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(e), Plaintiff is entitled to bring this class action and is not required to give GM notice and an opportunity to cure until such time as the Court determines the representative capacity of Plaintiff pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure In connection with its sales of the Class Vehicles, GM gave an implied warranty as defined in 15 U.S.C. 2301(7); namely, the implied warranty of merchantability. As a part of the implied warranty of merchantability, GM warranted that the Class Vehicles were fit for their ordinary purpose as safe passenger motor vehicles, would pass without objection in the trade as designed, manufactured, marketed, and were adequately contained, packaged, and labeled. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN (2)(a), (c), and (e), and U.C.C (b)(1), (3), and (5). GM is liable to Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1), because it breached the implied warranty of merchantability GM breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class because the Class Vehicles were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which they are used namely, as a safe passenger motor vehicle. The Ignition Switch Defect, which affects Ignition Switches in the Class Vehicles, may, among other things, result in the vehicle s airbags not deploying in a crash event, increasing the potential for occupant injury or death. This safety defect makes the Class Vehicles unfit for their ordinary purpose of providing safe transportation GM further breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class because the Class Vehicles would not pass without objection in the trade, as they contained a defect that relates to motor vehicle safety due to the Ignition Switch Defect in each of the Class Vehicles GM further breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class because the Class Vehicles were not adequately contained, packaged, and 26

68 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 27 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 28 of 36 labeled. The directions and warnings that accompanied the Class Vehicles did not adequately instruct Plaintiff on the proper use of the Class Vehicles in light of the Ignition Switch Defect, or adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of improper use of the Class Vehicles At the time of the delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not provide instructions and warnings to Plaintiff to not place extra weight on his vehicle s key chain, including a fob or extra keys. According to GM, placing extra weight on the vehicle s key chain increases the chances that the Ignition Switch will unintentionally move from the on position to the accessory or off position At the time of the delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not provide instructions and warnings to Plaintiff to avoid rough, bumpy, and uneven terrain while driving his vehicle. Traveling across such terrain increases the chances that the Ignition Switch in the Class Vehicles will unintentionally move from the on position and into the accessory or off position, especially when the key chains were weighted down with a fob, additional keys, or other items At the time of the delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not provide instructions and warnings to Plaintiff to carefully avoid brushing or bumping up against their vehicles key chains with a body part. According to GM, brushing or bumping up against the Class Vehicles key chains increases the chances that the Ignition Switch in the Class Vehicles will unintentionally move from the on position and into the accessory or off position At the time of the delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of not taking the necessary steps outlined above to prevent the Ignition Switches in their vehicles from unintentionally moving from the on position and into the accessory or off position while in motion, including the loss of power and shut off of the engine resulting in an increased difficulty in maneuvering the vehicles, the lack of airbag deployment in the event of a crash, and injury or death Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1), Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class are entitled to recover the damages caused to them by GM s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, which damages constitute the difference in value between the Class Vehicles as warranted (their sales prices) and the Class Vehicles as actually delivered (perhaps worth 27

69 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 28 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 29 of 36 $0.00) (i.e, a total or partial refund of the full purchase prices of the Class Vehicles), plus loss of use and other consequential damages arising after the date of delivery of the Class Vehicles. In addition, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(2), Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class are entitled to recover a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses (including attorneys fees based on actual time expended) determined by the Court to have been reasonably incurred by Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF Asserted on Behalf of the Nationwide Class and the Texas Class (Breach of Implied Warranties) 137. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint This Claim is brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class under Michigan law Further, this Claim is brought on behalf of the Texas Class At all times relevant hereto, there was in full force and effect the MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN and TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE GM is a merchant as to the Class Vehicles within the meaning of MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN and TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE GM manufactured and sold the Class Vehicles, which are goods within the meaning of these statutory provisions. Consequently, pursuant to MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN and TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE 2.314, GM impliedly warranted that the Class Vehicles were merchantable, including that they were fit for their ordinary purposes as safe passenger vehicles, that they could pass without objection in the trade, and that they were adequately contained, packaged, and labeled GM breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Plaintiff and the Nationwide and Texas Class because the Class Vehicles were not fit for the ordinary purposes for which they are used a safe passenger vehicle. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN (2)(c); TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE Specifically, and according to GM s representatives, the Class Vehicles contain the Ignition Switch Defect, which makes the Class Vehicles unfit for their ordinary purpose of providing safe transportation. 28

70 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 29 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 30 of GM further breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Plaintiff and the Nationwide and Texas Class because the Class Vehicles would not pass without objection in the trade, as they contained the Ignition Switch Defect. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN (2)(a); TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE GM further breached its implied warranty of merchantability to Plaintiff and the Nationwide and Texas Class because the Class Vehicles were not adequately contained, packaged, and labeled in that the directions and warnings that accompanied the Class Vehicles did not adequately instruct Plaintiff on the proper use of the Class Vehicles in light of the Ignition Switch Defect. MICH. COMP. LAWS ANN (2)(e); TEX. BUS. & COMM. CODE At the time of delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not provide instructions and warnings to Plaintiff to not place extra weight on his vehicles key chain, including a fob or extra keys. In and around March of 2014, GM publicly stated that placing extra weight on the key chain of the Class Vehicles increases the chances that the Ignition Switch in the Class Vehicle will move from the on position and into the accessory or off position At the time of the delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not provide instructions and/or warnings to Plaintiff to avoid rough, bumpy, and uneven terrain while driving. In and around March of 2014, GM publicly stated that traveling across such terrain increases the chances that the Ignition Switch in the Class Vehicle will move from the on position to the accessory or off position Additionally, at the time of delivery of the Class Vehicles, GM did not adequately warn Plaintiff of the dangers of not taking the necessary steps outlined above to prevent the Ignition Switch in the Class Vehicle from moving from the on position to the accessory or off position while the Vehicle is in motion As a proximate result of GM s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and the Nationwide and Texas Class were damaged in the amount of, and entitled to recover, the difference in value between the Class Vehicles as warranted (their sales price) and the Class Vehicles as actually delivered (perhaps worth $0.00) (i.e., a total 29

71 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 30 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 31 of 36 refund of the full or partial purchase and/or lease price of the Class Vehicles), plus loss of use and other consequential damages arising after the date of delivery of the Class Vehicles It was not necessary for Plaintiff and each Nationwide and Texas Class Member to give GM notice of GM s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability because GM had actual notice of the Ignition Switch Defect. Prior to the filing of this action, GM issued a safety recall for the Class Vehicles acknowledging the Ignition Switch Defect. GM admitted it had notice of the Ignition Switch Defect as early as 2004, and possibly as early as At the time of the safety recall, GM also acknowledged that numerous accidents and fatalities were caused by the Ignition Switch Defect. In addition to the above, the filing of this action is sufficient to provide GM notice of its breaches of the implied warranty of merchantability with respect to the Class Vehicles. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Asserted on Behalf of the Nationwide Class (Fraud by Concealment) 150. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint This Claim is brought on behalf of the Nationwide Class As set forth above, Defendants concealed and/or suppressed material facts concerning the safety of their vehicles Defendants had a duty to disclose these safety issues because they consistently marketed their vehicles as reliable and safe and proclaimed that Defendants maintain the highest safety standards. Once Defendants made representations to the public about safety, Defendants were under a duty to disclose these omitted facts, because where one does speak one must speak the whole truth and not conceal any facts which materially qualify those facts stated. One who volunteers information must be truthful, and the telling of a half-truth calculated to deceive is fraud In addition, Defendants had a duty to disclose these omitted material facts because they were known and/or accessible only to Defendants who have superior knowledge and access to the facts, and Defendants knew they were not known to or reasonably 30

72 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 31 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 32 of 36 discoverable by Plaintiff and Class Members. These omitted facts were material because they directly impact the safety of the Class Vehicles. Whether or not a vehicle ignition switch will unexpectedly and suddenly move to the off or accessory position, thereby disabling power steering, anti-lock brakes and air bag deployment while the car is in motion, are material safety concerns. Defendants possessed exclusive knowledge of the defects rendering Class Vehicles inherently more dangerous and unreliable than similar vehicles Defendants actively concealed and/or suppressed these material facts, in whole or in part, with the intent to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase Class Vehicles at a higher price for the vehicles, which did not match the vehicles true value Plaintiff and Class Members were unaware of these omitted material facts and would not have acted as they did if they had known of the concealed and/or suppressed facts. Plaintiff s and Class Members actions were justified. Defendants were in exclusive control of the material facts concerning the Ignition Switch Defect and such facts were not known to the public or the Class Members As a result of the concealment and/or suppression of facts, Plaintiff and Class Members have sustained and will continue to sustain damages arising from the difference between the actual value of that which Plaintiff and the Classes paid and the actual value of that which they received Defendants acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff s and Class Members rights and well-being to enrich Defendants. Defendants conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future, which amount is to be determined according to proof. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF Asserted on Behalf of the Texas Class (Violations of the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act ( Texas DTPA ) TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE 17.41, et seq.) 159. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 31

73 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 32 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 33 of 36 Class This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff Jesse Salazar III and the Texas 161. Defendants above-described acts and omissions constitute false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices under the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Consumer Protection Act, TEX. BUS. & COM. CODE 17.41, et seq. ( Texas DTPA ) Plaintiff and the Texas Class are consumers within the meaning of the Texas DTPA, who purchased or leased one or more Class Vehicles By failing to disclose and actively concealing the dangerous risk of ignition switch movement, engine shutdown, and disabled safety airbags in Class Vehicles, Defendants engaged in deceptive business practices prohibited by the Texas DTPA, including a) representing that Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits, and qualities which they do not have; b) representing that Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality, and grade when they are not; c) advertising Class Vehicles with the intent not to sell them as advertised; d) representing that a transaction involving Class Vehicles confers or involves rights, remedies, and obligations which it does not, and e) failing to disclose information concerning Class Vehicles with the intent to induce consumers to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles As alleged above, Defendants made material statements about the safety and reliability of Class Vehicles that were either false or misleading. Each of these statements contributed to the deceptive context of Defendants unlawful advertising and representations as a whole Defendants unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did in fact deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and Texas Class Members, about the true safety and reliability of Class Vehicles In purchasing or leasing their vehicles, the Plaintiff and Texas Class Members relied on the misrepresentations and/or omissions of Defendants with respect to the safety and reliability of the vehicles. Defendants representations turned out not to be true because the 32

74 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 33 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 34 of 36 vehicles can unexpectedly and dangerously have ignition switch movement, shutting down the engine, and disabling the safety airbags Had the Plaintiff known this they would not have purchased or leased their Class Vehicles and/or paid as much for them Defendants also breached express and implied warranties to Plaintiff and the Texas Class, as set out above, and are, therefore liable to Plaintiff and the Texas Class for damages under 17.50(a)(2) and 17.50(b) of the Texas DTPA. Defendants actions also constitute an unconscionable action or course of action under 17.50(a)(3) of the Texas DTPA Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages as a result of the Defendants unlawful acts and are, therefore, entitled to damages and other relief provided for under 17.50(b) of the Texas DTPA. Because Defendants conduct was committed knowingly and/or intentionally, Plaintiff and the Texas Class are entitled to treble damages For Plaintiff and those Texas Class Members who wish to rescind their purchases, they are entitled under 17.50(b)(4) to rescission and other relief necessary to restore any money or property that was acquired from them based on violations of the Texas DTPA Plaintiff and the Texas Class also seek court costs and attorneys fees under 17.50(d) of the Texas DTPA Plaintiff presently does not claim the relief sought above pursuant to TEX. BUS. COM. CODE , until Plaintiff s counsel, on behalf of Plaintiff Jesse Salazar and the Texas Class, serve Defendants with notice of their alleged violations of the Texas DTPA relating to the Class Vehicles purchased by the Plaintiff and Class Members and demanding that Defendants correct or agree to correct the actions described therein. If Defendants fail to do so within the requisite time period, Plaintiff seeks all damages and relief to which Plaintiff and the Texas Class are entitled. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Claim for Actual Damages/Expense Reimbursement Fund) 173. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint. 33

75 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 34 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 35 of This Count is brought on behalf of Plaintiff and Members of the Texas Class Plaintiff and Texas Class Members have incurred out-of-pocket expenses and damages in attempting to rectify the Ignition Switch Defect in their Vehicles, and such expenses and losses will continue as they must take time off from work, pay for rental cars or other transportation arrangements, child care, and the myriad expenses involved in going through the recall process to correct the Defect Plaintiff and Class Members seek payment of such damages and reimbursement of such expenses under the consumer statutes and applicable law invoked in this Complaint. While such damages and expenses are individualized in detail and amount, the right of the Class Members to recover them presents common questions of law. Equity and fairness to all Class Members requires the establishment by court decree and administration under Court supervision of a Defendant-funded program, using transparent, consistent, and reasonable protocols, under which such claims can be made and paid, such that Defendants, not the Class Members, absorb the losses and expenses fairly traceable to the recall of the vehicles and correction of the Defect. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, requests the Court to enter judgment against the Defendants, as follows: A. an order certifying the proposed Classes, designating Plaintiff as the named representative of the Classes, and designating the undersigned as Class Counsel; B. a declaration that the Ignition Switches in Class Vehicles are defective; C. a declaration that the Defendants are financially responsible for notifying all Nationwide and Texas Class Members about the defective nature of the Class Vehicles; D. an order enjoining Defendants to desist from further deceptive distribution, sales, and lease practices with respect to the Class Vehicles and directing Defendants to permanently, expeditiously, and completely repair the Class Vehicles to eliminate the Ignition Switch Defect; E. an award to Plaintiff and Class Members of compensatory, exemplary, and statutory penalties, damages, including interest, in an amount to be proven at trial; 34

76 Case 5:14-cv Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 35 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. B Pg 36 of 36 F. a declaration that the Defendants must disgorge, for the benefit of Plaintiff and Class Members, all or part of the ill-gotten profits they received from the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles, or make full restitution to Plaintiff and Class Members; G. an award of attorneys fees and costs, as allowed by law; H. an award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest, as provided by law; I. leave to amend this Complaint to conform to the evidence produced at trial; and J. such other relief as may be appropriate under the circumstances. JURY DEMAND Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 38(b), Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of any and all issues in this action so triable of right. Dated: April 21, 2014 Respectfully submitted, By: /s/ Michael A. Caddell Michael A. Caddell (State Bar No ) mac@caddellchapman.com Cory S. Fein (State Bar No ) csf@caddellchapman.com CADDELL & CHAPMAN 1331 Lamar, Suite 1070 Houston TX Telephone: (713) Facsimile: (713) Attorneys for Plaintiff Jesse Salazar III 35

77 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 1 of 40 Exhibit C 5

78 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 1 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 2 of 40 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO. REYNALDO A. ESPINEIRA, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, CLASS ACTION JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. Plaintiff, GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, and DELPHI AUTOMOTIVE, PLC, Defendants. / CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff Reynaldo A. Espineira, individually and on behalf of all similarly situated persons, brings this action against Defendant General Motors, LLC ( GM ) and Defendant Delphi Automotive, PLC ( Delphi ) (collectively Defendants ) for violation of the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c), ( RICO ), asserts additional statutory and common law claims, and alleges as follows: NATURE OF THE CASE 1. This case arises from GM s recent string of recalls (collectively the Recall ), the culmination of GM and Delphi s scheme to defraud GM consumers through their unconscionable failure to disclose and active concealment of a defect in certain GM vehicles that renders them unsafe to drive and has killed at least 12 innocent victims and possibly hundreds more. 2. The defect involves the vehicles ignition switch system, which is dangerously susceptible to failure during normal and foreseeable driving conditions (the Ignition Switch Defect ). When the system fails, the switch turns from the Run (or On ) position to either

79 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 2 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 3 of 40 the Off or the accessory position, which then results in a loss of power, speed control, and braking, as well as a disabling of the vehicle s airbags. 3. Delphi manufactured the defective ignition switches. 4. On information and belief, Delphi knew its ignition switches were defective yet it continued to manufacture and sell the defective ignition switch systems knowing they would be used in the vehicles of Plaintiff and the Class. 5. The vehicles that have this defect ( Defective Vehicles ) are: Saturn Ion 2007 Saturn Sky Pontiac G Pontiac Solstice Chevrolet Cobalt Chevrolet HHR 6. So far, there are approximately 2.6 million Defective Vehicles. 7. GM, acknowledging that [s]omething went wrong with our process in this instance and terrible things happened, has recalled the Defective Vehicles to replace their ignition switch systems. But merely replacing the ignition switch systems will not completely solve the problem, make the Defective Vehicles safe, or restore the Defective Vehicles value because the design defect pervades the entire structure of the ignition switch and has destroyed the reputation of the Defective Vehicles. Specifically, the design defect also includes the location of the ignition switch, a lack of adequate protection of the ignition switch from forces of inadvertent driver contact, and the type of key that is used. 8. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of a Class of all persons in the United States who currently own or lease one or more Defective Vehicles. 2

80 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 3 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 4 of Plaintiff also brings this action for a subclass of Florida residents who own or lease one or more Defective Vehicles. 10. In light of the recent Recall, Defendants scheme to defraud and gross misconduct have harmed Plaintiff and Class Members and caused them actual damages. Plaintiff and Class Members did not receive the benefit of their bargains as purchasers and lessees as they received vehicles that were less safe, less useful, of lower quality, and, most significantly, are now less valuable in light of the Recall. Plaintiff and Class Members contracted to purchase or lease vehicles that do not unexpectedly turn off and become uncontrollable without airbag protection, but because of the Ignition Switch Defect, received defective vehicles that unexpectedly turn off and become uncontrollable without airbag protection. As a result of publicity regarding the Ignition Switch Defect and GM s misconduct, punctuated by the Recall, the value of the Defective Vehicles has diminished, and GM s offer to replace the ignition switch system does not adequately address the diminished value of Plaintiff s and Class Members vehicles. JURISCTION AND VENUE 11. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. 1332(d) because the amount in controversy for the Class exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs, there are more than 100 class members, and more than two-thirds of the Class is diverse from Defendants. This Court also has original federal question jurisdiction because Plaintiff s first claim arises under the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations Act, 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) ( RICO ) and Plaintiff s second claim arises under the Magnuson-Moss Consumer Products Warranties Act, 15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq. ( Magnuson-Moss ). The Court has supplemental jurisdiction over Plaintiff s remaining claims pursuant to 28 U.S.C

81 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 4 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 5 of This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because Defendants conduct substantial business in this District, and some of the actions giving rise to the complaint took place in this District. 13. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to the claims occurred in this District, and because Defendants have caused harm to Class Members residing in this District, including, but not limited to, Plaintiff. PARTIES 14. Plaintiff Reynaldo Espineira is a resident of Miami, Miami-Dade County, Florida. Plaintiff owns a 2004 Saturn Ion, which he bought new in September 2003 with a standard warranty. Plaintiff chose the Saturn in part because he wanted a safely designed and manufactured vehicle and he understood that Saturns had a reputation for being high-quality, durable, and safe vehicles. But since the purchase, Plaintiff has had repeated trouble with the defective ignition switch, including trouble getting the key out of the ignition and difficulty even starting the vehicle. Plaintiff tried to have the vehicle repaired on at least three separate occasions, yet the defect remains. Like millions of others, Plaintiff did not learn of the Ignition Switch Defect until around March 2014, the time of the Recall. Had GM disclosed the Ignition Switch Defect, Plaintiff would not have purchased his Saturn Ion, or would have paid less than he did, and would not have retained the vehicle only to suffer the diminished value brought on by the Recall. Moreover, since the Recall, Plaintiff has attempted to sell the vehicle and has been unable to do so. 15. Defendant GM is a limited liability company formed under the laws of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. GM was incorporated in 2009, and on July 10, 4

82 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 5 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 6 of , acquired substantially all the assets and assumed certain liabilities of General Motors Corporation ( Old GM ) through a Section 363 sale under Chapter 11 of the U.S. Bankruptcy Code, pursuant to a Master Sales and Purchase Agreement ( Agreement ). 16. Under the Agreement, GM expressly assumed the following obligation: From and after the Closing, Purchaser [GM] shall comply with the certification, reporting and recall requirements of the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Act, the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act, the Clean Air Act, the California Health and Safety Code, and similar laws, in each case, to the extent applicable in respect of vehicles and vehicles parts manufactured or distributed by [Old GM]. 17. GM also expressly assumed: All Liabilities arising under express written warranties of [Old GM] that are specifically identified as warranties and delivered in connection with the sale of new, certified used or pre-owned vehicles or new or remanufactured motor vehicle parts and equipment (including service parts, accessories, engines and transmissions) manufactured or sold by [Old GM] or Purchaser prior to or after the Closing and (B) all obligations under Lemon Laws. 18. Based on the express language of the Agreement, GM assumed liability for the claims at issue in this lawsuit. 19. GM is also liable through successor liability for the deceptive and unfair acts and omissions of Old GM, as alleged in this Complaint, because GM acquired and operated Old GM and ran it as a continuing business enterprise, utilizing substantially the same brand names, logos, plants, offices, leadership, personnel, engineers, and employees, GM was aware from its inception of the Ignition Switch Defect in the Defective Vehicles, and GM and Old GM concealed the Ignition Switch Defect from the public, regulators, and the bankruptcy court. Because GM is liable for the wrongful conduct of Old GM, there is no need to distinguish between the conduct of 5

83 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 6 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 7 of 40 Old GM and GM, and the complaint will hereinafter simply refer to GM as the corporate actor when describing the relevant facts. 20. Defendant Delphi is a foreign corporation based in the United Kingdom. Delphi can be served through the Hague Convention at Courteney Road, Hoath Way, Gillingham, Kent ME8 0RU, United Kingdom. Once a subsidiary of Old GM, Delphi spun-off in 1999 and became an independent publicly held corporation. Delphi, through its various entities, has designed, manufactured, and supplied GM with motor vehicle components, including the defective ignition switches at issue here. 21. Notwithstanding Delphi s 2009 bankruptcy, Defendant Delphi is also liable through successor liability for the deceptive and unfair acts and omissions of Old Delphi, as alleged in this Complaint, because Delphi acquired and operated Old Delphi and ran it as a continuing business enterprise, utilizing substantially the same brand names, logos, plants, offices, leadership, personnel, engineers, and employees, Delphi was aware from its inception of the Ignition Switch Defect in the Defective Vehicles, and Delphi and Old Delphi concealed the Ignition Switch Defect from the public, regulators, and the bankruptcy court. Because Delphi is liable for the wrongful conduct of Old Delphi, there is no need to distinguish between the conduct of Old Delphi and Delphi, and the complaint will hereinafter simply refer to Delphi as the corporate actor when describing the relevant facts. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS A. Defendants Decade of Concealment 22. In documents filed with the federal government, GM has admitted that it learned of the Ignition Switch Defect in 2001, during the pre-preproduction development of the Saturn Ion. At that time, an internal report indicated that the car was stalling due to problems with the 6

84 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 7 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 8 of 40 ignition switch, which included low detent plunger force in the ignition switch. The report stated that an ignition switch design change solved the problem, but it obviously did not. 23. GM nonetheless began manufacturing and selling the Ion in 2002 (for the 2003 model year) with the defective ignition switch systems, which were manufactured by Delphi. 24. In 2003, an internal GM inquiry documented that a service technician observed the Saturn Ion stall after the ignition had switched off while driving. The technician noticed that [t]he owner had several keys on the key ring, and the report stated that [t]he additional weight of the keys had worn out the ignition switch. The technician replaced the ignition switch, and the inquiry was closed without further action. 25. In 2004, three GM employees driving production Ions reported that their cars had stalled from a loose ignition switch. The switch should be raised at least one inch toward the wiper stalk.... This is a basic design flaw and should be corrected if we want repeat sales, one engineer reported. 26. Despite these reports, after considering lead time required, cost, and effectiveness, GM decided to do nothing. 27. Even worse, when GM began manufacturing and selling the Chevrolet Cobalt in 2004 (for the 2005 model year), which was essentially the same car as the Saturn Ion, it installed the same ignition switch system as it installed in the Ion. 28. Soon after the Cobalt entered the market, GM began receiving complaints about incidents of vehicles losing engine power, including instances in which the key moved out of the run position when a driver inadvertently contacted the key or steering column. Engineering inquiries, known within GM as Problem Resolution Tracking System ( PRTS ) reports, were opened to assess the issue. 7

85 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 8 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 9 of In February 2005, GM engineers concluded that the problem had two causes: a lower torque detent in the ignition switch... [and the] low position of the lock module on the [steering] column. Again, however, GM decided not to take action. 30. On February 28, 2005, GM issued a Service Bulletin to its dealers addressing the potential for the driver to inadvertently turn off the ignition due to low key ignition cylinder torque/effect in 2005 Cobalts and 2005 Pontiac Pursuits, which GM stated was more likely to occur if the driver is short and has a large heavy key chain. Notably, GM did not disseminate this information to Plaintiff and the Class members. 31. The February 28, 2005 Service Bulletin directed the dealers to advise customers that removing unessential items from their key chains would prevent the ignition from being turned off inadvertently. 32. But GM knew at that time that the problem was a result of design defects in the key and ignition system, and not short drivers using heavy key chains. Moreover, GM knew that the fix it directed dealers to offer customers was insufficient to prevent the problem with the ignition. 33. GM transmitted the February 28, 2005 Service Bulletin to its dealers through the mail or wires. 34. During the course of a PRTS opened in May 2005, an engineer proposed that GM redesign the key head from a slotted to a hole configuration. The slot design allowed the key chain to hang lower on the key, which placed more torque on the ignition switch when the chain was contacted or moved. The proposal was initially approved, but later cancelled. 35. In June 2005, the New York Times reported that Chevrolet dealers were telling customers to lighten their key rings to prevent intermittent stalling and the loss of electrical 8

86 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 9 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 10 of 40 power in their cars. The article included a statement from Alan Adler, GM s Manager for Safety Communications, in which he reassured the public that the problem only occurred in rare cases when a combination of factors is present, that customers can virtually eliminate this possibility by taking several steps, including removing nonessential material from their key rings, and that when [the stalling] happens, the Cobalt is still controllable and the engine can be restarted after shifting to neutral. GM intended Adler s statement to be disseminated to the public through the mail or wires. 36. These statements were false because GM s internal documents showed that these incidents occurred when drivers were using keys with the standard key fob, and that removing non-essential items from the key ring would not virtually eliminate the risk of an incident. 37. In July 2005, Amber Marie Rose, who was 16-years old, was killed when she drove her 2005 Cobalt off the road and struck a tree. Her driver s side airbag did not deploy, even though it should have given the circumstances of the head-on crash, and the car s ignition switch was in the accessory/off position at the time of the crash. GM learned of these facts in 2005 and documented them in an internal investigation file. 38. Instead of fixing the defect, in December 2005, GM issued a service bulletin to its dealers that reiterated much of the same deceptive message Adler delivered earlier in the year. It indicated that the possibility of the driver inadvertently turning off the ignition was more likely to occur if the driver is short and has a large or heavy key chain, and recommended that drivers remove unessential items from key chains. In addition, it informed dealers that it had developed an insert for the key ring to prevent it from moving up and down in the slot, and that the key ring had been replaced with a smaller design that would not hang as low as in the past. The service bulletin applied to Saturn Ions, Chevrolet Cobalts, the 2006 Chevrolet HHR, 9

87 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 10 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 11 of 40 and the 2006 Pontiac Solstice, all of which were equipped with the same defective ignition switch system. GM issued the December 2005 Service Bulletin to its dealers through the mail or wires. 39. In October 2006, GM updated its December 2005 Service bulletin to include the 2007 Saturn Ion, the 2007 Saturn Sky, the 2007 Chevrolet Cobalt, the 2007 Chevrolet HHR, the 2007 Pontiac G5, and the 2007 Pontiac Solstice. GM issued this update to its dealers through the mail or wires. 40. In 2006, at least two fatal accidents involving Cobalts occurred in which the cars data recorders indicated that the ignition switches were in the accessory position and the front airbags failed to deploy. GM learned of this information in In 2007 and 2008, GM became aware of at least four more such fatal accidents. 42. NHTSA s Fatal Analysis Reporting System (FARS) reveals 303 deaths of front seat occupants in Cobalts and Ions where the airbag failed to deploy in nonrear impact crashes. 43. GM finally made some changes to the design of the ignition switch system in 2006 to include a new detent plunger and spring. The new switch, however, did not receive a new part number, which is considered a cardinal sin in the engineering community, and further concealed the defect in the switch that was installed in the Defective Vehicles. 44. In 2012, GM engineers studied 44 vehicles across a range of make and model years, and results revealed that vehicles tested from model years 2003 through 2007 exhibited torque performance below the original specifications established by GM. Rather than immediately notify NHTSA of the results of this study or conduct a recall, GM continued to conceal the nature of the Ignition Switch Defect. 10

88 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 11 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 12 of In April 2013, GM hired an outside engineering consulting firm to investigate the ignition switch system. The external report concluded that ignition switches installed in early model Cobalt and Ion vehicles did not meet GM s torque specification. Rather than immediately notify NHTSA of the results of this report, GM continued to conceal the nature of the Ignition Switch Defect. 46. Despite its utter disregard for public safety, GM vehicles have been marketed based on safety from 2002 through the present. For example, in 2005, Chevrolet emphasized on its website that [y]our family s safety is important to us.... That s why every Chevrolet is designed with a comprehensive list of safety and security features to help give you peace of mind. Likewise, in advertisements for Saturns, GM utilized the slogan, Saturn. People First, and stated that, [i]n cars, it s about things like reliability, durability, and of course, safety. That s where we started when developing our new line of cars. B. GM Finally Discloses the Ignition Switch Defect 47. It was not until February of 2014 almost thirteen years after first recognizing the defect that GM finally admitted publicly that the ignition switch system is defective and agreed to recall the Defective Vehicles to replace the old ignition switch with the re-designed version. 48. In a February 14, 2014 letter to the NHTSA regarding the Recall, GM finally acknowledged in contrast to its prior representations to the agency that changes were made to the ignition switches during the 2007 model year. Specifically, GM stated that on April 26, 2006, the GM design engineer responsible for the Cobalt s ignition switch signed a document approving changes to the ignition switch proposed by the supplier, Delphi Mechatronics. The GM design engineer referenced was Ray DeGiorgio. 11

89 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 12 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 13 of GM s Recall is insufficient because it does not address the location of the ignition switch system or how low the key fob hangs on the steering column, all of which create a risk of inadvertent driver contact and an inadvertent turning of the switch. The Recall also fails to account for the permanent loss of value of (and reputation to) the Defective Vehicles. 50. Under the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and Documentation Act ( TREAD Act ), 49 U.S.C , and its accompanying regulations, when a manufacturer learns that a vehicle contains a safety defect, the manufacturer must promptly disclose the defects. If it is determined that the vehicle is defective, the manufacturer must notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and must remedy the defect. GM repeatedly violated the TREAD Act by actively concealing information about the Ignition Switch Defect for more than a decade. 51. On March 17, 2014, GM s CEO Mary T. Barra issued an internal video to employees, wherein she admits that [t]hese are serious developments that shouldn t surprise anyone. After all, something went wrong with our process in this instance and terrible things happened Throughout the relevant period, GM possessed vastly superior knowledge and information to that of consumers if not exclusive information about the design and function on the ignition switches in the Defective Vehicles and the existence of the defects in those vehicles. 53. The Ignition Switch Defect has caused actual damages to Plaintiff and the Class. 1 The Ignition Switch Defect is not the only example of GM s misconduct when it comes to concealing defects. Recent reports indicate that GM waited years to recall nearly 335,000 Saturn Ions for power steering failures despite getting thousands of consumer complaints and more than 30,000 warranty repair claims. This other defect the power steering defect can cause the affected vehicle to lose power steering, making turning the vehicle much more difficult. Complaints filed with the NHTSA reveal incidents in which 2004 Saturn Ion steering wheels locked, causing the affected vehicles to crash into a tree or get pulled into oncoming traffic. GM has admitted that it didn t do enough to take care of the power steering problem. 12

90 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 13 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 14 of A vehicle purchased, leased, or retained with a known serious safety defect is worth less than the equivalent vehicle leased, purchased or retained without the known defect. 55. A vehicle purchased, leased, or retained under the reasonable assumption that it is safe is worth more than a vehicle known to be subject to the unreasonable risk of catastrophic accident because of the ignition switch defects. 56. As a result of publicity regarding the Ignition Switch Defect and GM s misconduct, punctuated by the Recall, the value of the Defective Vehicles has diminished, and GM s offer to replace the ignition switch system does not adequately address the diminished value of Plaintiff s and Class Members vehicles. Plaintiff and the Class are stuck with unsafe vehicles that are now worth less than they would have been but for GM s wrongful conduct. STATUTES OF LIMITATION 57. There are no applicable statutes of limitations because the claims of Plaintiff and the Class did not accrue until the Recall, the instant the value of the Defective Vehicles diminished. 58. Alternatively, any applicable statutes of limitation have been tolled by Defendants knowing and active fraudulent concealment and denial of the Ignition Switch Defect. On information and belief, Defendants have been aware of the Ignition Switch Defect since at least 2001, and have concealed from Plaintiff, the Class, the public, and the government the complete nature of the Ignition Switch Defect. 59. Even now, after the Defective Vehicles have been recalled, Defendants continue to engage in their scheme to defraud by downplaying the significance, danger, and nature of the Ignition Switch Defect. 60. Plaintiff and the Class did not discover and could not have discovered with reasonable diligence the facts that would have caused a reasonable person to suspect that the 13

91 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 14 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 15 of 40 Ignition Switch Defect existed or that Defendants did not report information within their knowledge regarding the existence of a dangerous defect to federal authorities or consumers until shortly before this class action was filed. 61. Defendants actively concealed the true character, quality, and nature of the Defective Vehicles. Plaintiff and the Class relied on Defendants active concealment of these facts. Moreover, GM was and remains under a continuing duty to disclose to NHTSA, Plaintiff, and the Class the true character, quality, and nature of the Defective Vehicles. Defendants are therefore estopped from relying on any statutes of limitation in this action. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 62. Under Rules 23(a), (b)(2), and (b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure, Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and a Class initially defined as follows: All persons in the United States who currently own or lease one or more of the following GM vehicles: Saturn Ion; Chevrolet Cobalt; Pontiac G5; Chevrolet HHR; Pontiac Solstice; and 2007 Saturn Sky (the Defective Vehicles ). 63. Included within the Class is a subclass of Florida residents who own or lease Defective Vehicles (the Florida Subclass ). 64. Excluded from the Class are GM, its employees, co-conspirators, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; class counsel and their employees; and the judicial officers and their immediate family members and associated court staff assigned to this case. Also excluded from the Class are Delphi, its employees, co-conspirators, officers, directors, legal representatives, heirs, successors and wholly or partly owned subsidiaries or affiliated companies; class counsel and their employees. 14

92 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 15 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 16 of 40 Also excluded are any individuals claiming damages from personal injuries allegedly arising from the Defective Vehicles. 65. The Class can be readily identified using registration records, sales records, production records, and other information kept by GM or third parties in the usual course of business and within their control. 66. As there are approximately 2.6 million Defective Vehicles, the number of Class Members is great enough that joinder is impracticable. 67. The claims of Plaintiff are typical of the claims of the Class, as Plaintiff and Class Members alike purchased or leased Defective Vehicles and were harmed in the same way by Defendants uniform misconduct. 68. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the other members of the Class and Subclasses. Plaintiff s counsel has substantial experience in prosecuting class actions. Plaintiff and his counsel are committed to vigorously prosecuting this action, have the financial resources to do so, and do not have any interests adverse to the Class. 69. There are numerous questions of law and fact that are common to the Class and the Subclasses and predominate over questions affecting only individual members, including the following: (a) Whether Defendants, as part of a racketeering scheme to defraud, concealed information about the dangerous and defective condition of the relevant vehicles from Plaintiff and the Class; (b) Whether Defendants, through their RICO Enterprise, as described below, used the mail or wires in furtherance of their scheme to defraud; (c) Whether the Defective Vehicles suffer from Ignition Switch Defects; (d) Whether Defendants concealed the defects; 15

93 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 16 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 17 of 40 (e) Whether Defendants misrepresented that the Defective Vehicles were safe; (f) Whether Defendants owed Plaintiff and the Class a duty to disclose the Ignition Switch Defect; (g) Whether Defendants engaged in fraudulent concealment; (h) Whether Defendants engaged in unfair, deceptive, unlawful or fraudulent acts or practices in trade or commerce by failing to disclose that the Defective Vehicles were designed, manufactured, and sold with defective ignition switches; and (i) Whether Defendants unlawful, unfair or deceptive practices harmed Plaintiff and the Class. 70. A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, since joinder of all the individual Class members is impracticable. Likewise, because the damages suffered by each individual Class member may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation would make it very difficult or impossible for individual Class members to redress the wrongs done to each of them individually, and the burden imposed on the judicial system would be enormous. 71. The prosecution of separate actions by the individual Class members would also create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications for individual Class members, which would establish incompatible standards of conduct for Defendants. The conduct of this action as a class action presents far fewer management difficulties, conserves judicial resources and the parties resources, and protects the rights of each Class member. COUNT I VIOLATION OF RACKETEER INFLUENCED & CORRUPT ORGANIZATIONS ACT (18 U.S.C. 1962(c)) (Against Defendants on behalf of all Classes) 72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein. 16

94 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 17 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 18 of This claim is brought on behalf of all Classes. 74. Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) by participating in or conducting the affairs of the RICO Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity. 75. At all times relevant, GM, Delphi, their associates-in-fact, Plaintiff, and the Class members were and are each a person, as that term is defined in 18 U.S.C. 1961(3). 76. At all times relevant, Plaintiff and each Class member were and are a person injured in his or her business or property by reason of a violation of RICO within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). 77. At all times relevant, Defendants were and are a person who participated in or conducted the affairs of the RICO Enterprise through the pattern of racketeering activity described below. While Defendants participated in the RICO Enterprise, they have an existence separate and distinct from the Enterprise. Further, the RICO Enterprise is separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity in which Defendants have engaged and are engaging. 78. At all times relevant, Defendants were associated with, operated, or controlled the RICO Enterprise, and participated in the operation and management of the affairs of the RICO Enterprise, through a variety of actions described herein. Defendants participation in the RICO Enterprise was necessary for the successful operation of their scheme to defraud. The RICO Enterprise 79. Section 1961(4) of RICO defines an enterprise as any individual, partnership, corporation, association, or other legal entity, and any union or group of individuals associated in fact although not a legal entity. 17

95 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 18 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 19 of The following persons, and others presently unknown, have been members of and constitute the enterprise within the meaning of RICO, which are referred to herein collectively as the RICO Enterprise: a. Defendant General Motors, LLC; b. GM s Officers, Executives, and Engineers, who have collaborated and colluded with each other and with other associates-in-fact in the Enterprise to deceive Plaintiff and other Class members into purchasing dangerous and defective vehicles, and actively concealing the danger and defect from Plaintiff and the other Class members, including, but not limited to Alan Adler, GM s Manager for Safety Communications who, in June of 2005, issued the deceptive public statement regarding the ignition problem; Ray DeGiorgio, GM s design engineer who signed off on the ignition switch change that was never disclosed; and Mary T. Barra, GM s current CEO; c. Defendant Delphi Automotive PLC, who, at all times material, manufactured the defective ignition switch system for GM, even though it knew that the system did not meet GM s own design specifications. Delphi also manufactured the ignition switch system after the 2007 change implemented by GM without reflecting a corresponding change in part number; d. GM s Dealers, who GM instructed to present false and misleading information to Plaintiff and other members of the Class, through, inter alia, multiple Service Bulletins, and who did in fact present such false and misleading information. 81. The RICO Enterprise of GM, GM s officers, executives, and engineers, Delphi, and GM s dealers, which engaged in, and whose activities affected interstate and foreign commerce, is an association-in-fact within the meaning of 18 U.S.C. 1961(4) and consists of 18

96 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 19 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 20 of 40 persons associated together for the common purpose of employing the multiple deceptive, abusive and fraudulent acts described herein. The RICO Enterprise is an ongoing organization with an ascertainable structure, and a framework for making and carrying out decisions, that functions as a continuing unit with established duties, and that is separate and distinct from the pattern of racketeering activity in which Defendants have engaged and are engaging. The RICO Enterprise was and is used as a tool to effectuate the pattern of racketeering activity. 82. The members of the RICO Enterprise all had a common purpose: to increase and maximize Defendants revenues by deceiving Plaintiff and other Class members into purchasing dangerous and defective vehicles, and actively concealing the Ignition Switch Defect from Plaintiff and the other Class members. The members of the RICO Enterprise shared the bounty of their enterprise, e.g., by sharing the benefit derived from increased sales revenue generated by the scheme to defraud. Each member of the RICO Enterprise benefited from the common purpose of the scheme to defraud: GM sold or leased more vehicles with the Ignition Switch Defect, Delphi sold more of the defective ignition switches, and GM s dealers sold and serviced more vehicles with the Ignition Switch Defect. 83. Defendants conducted and participated in the affairs of this RICO Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity that lasted more than a decade, and that consisted of numerous and repeated violations of the federal mail and wire fraud statutes, which prohibit the use of any interstate or foreign mail or wire facility for the purpose of executing a scheme to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C and As part and in furtherance of the scheme to defraud, Defendants deceptive scheme to increase revenue depended on actionable deceptive conduct. Defendants actively 19

97 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 20 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 21 of 40 concealed the dangerous and defective condition of GM s vehicles from its customers through deceptive misrepresentations and omitting material information. Predicate Acts: Mail and Wire Fraud 85. Section 1961(1) of RICO provides that racketeering activity is, among other things, any act that is in indictable under any of the provisions of 18 U.S.C (mail fraud) and 1343 (wire fraud). 86. As set forth below, to carry out, or attempt to carry out its scheme to defraud, Defendants have engaged in, and continue to engage in, the affairs of the RICO Enterprise through the following pattern of racketeering activity, in violation of 18 U.S.C (mail fraud) and 1343 (wire fraud): a. GM, with the assistance and collaboration of the other persons associated in fact with the enterprise devised and employed a scheme or artifice to defraud by use of the telephone and internet and transmitted, or caused to be transmitted, by means of wire communication travelling in interstate or foreign commerce, writing(s) or signal(s), including GM s website, Service Bulletins to dealers, and communications with other members of the Enterprise, for the purpose of executing such scheme or artifice to defraud, in violation of 18 U.S.C and b. As part of the scheme to defraud, the RICO Enterprise utilized the interstate and international mail and wires for the purpose of obtaining money or property by means of the false pretenses and artifice to defraud, as described herein. c. The concealment of the dangerous and defective condition of the defective GM vehicles is the core purpose of the underlying racketeering offense. The Enterprise had an ascertainable structure by which GM operated and managed the association-in-fact by using its 20

98 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 21 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 22 of 40 Dealers and Delphi to concoct, obfuscate, carry out, and attempt to justify the fraudulent scheme described herein. 87. GM s February 28, 2005 Service Bulletin was issued in furtherance of its scheme to defraud. It instructed GM s dealers to disseminate false and misleading information about the dangerous and defective condition of the defective vehicles to customers, including Plaintiff and other members of the Class. The February 28, 2005 Service Bulletin was sent via the mail or wires and constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C and In 2005, in furtherance of its scheme to defraud, GM emphasized on its Chevrolet website that [y]our family s safety is important to us.... That s why every Chevrolet is designed with a comprehensive list of safety and security features to help give you peace of mind. This false statement, maintained on the internet through the wires, constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C In June of 2005, GM issued a public statement through the mail and wires in furtherance of its scheme to defraud. The statement provided the public, including Plaintiff and the other Class members, with false and misleading information about the dangerous and defective condition of the defective vehicles, and sought to conceal that condition by minimizing the issue and offering an ineffective fix. As such, the statement constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C and GM s December 2005 Service Bulletin was issued in furtherance of its scheme to defraud. It instructed GM s dealers to disseminate false and misleading information about the dangerous and defective condition of the defective vehicles to customers, including Plaintiff and other members of the Class namely, that the issue could be resolved by removing items from 21

99 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 22 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 23 of 40 key chains. The December 2005 Service Bulletin was sent via the mail or wires and constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C and In October of 2006, GM issued an update to its December 2005 Service Bulletin in furtherance of its scheme to defraud. The update repeated the instruction to GM s dealers to disseminate false and misleading information about the dangerous and defective condition of the defective vehicles to customers, including Plaintiff and other members of the Class. The update to the December 2005 Service Bulletin was sent via the mail or wires and constitutes a violation of 18 U.S.C and In furtherance of the scheme to defraud, GM communicated with Delphi via the mail or wires regarding the manufacture of the defective ignition switch system. Through those communications, GM instructed Delphi to continue manufacturing the defective part even though it did not meet GM s own specifications. Delphi followed these instructions and continued to manufacture the defective parts. Through those communications, GM also instructed Delphi to make a change to the defective ignition switch system in 2006, and to fraudulently conceal the change by not assigning a new part number. Delphi also followed these instructions, making a change to the defective ignition switch system in 2006 and fraudulently concealing the change by not assigning a new part number. GM s communications with Delphi, and Delphi s responses, constitute repeated violations of 18 U.S.C and Defendants conduct in furtherance of this scheme was intentional. Plaintiff and the other Class members were harmed in that they relied to their detriment on Defendants conduct and, as a result, purchased dangerous and defective vehicles that saw their value plummet the moment GM issued the Recall. Defendants unfairly reaped millions of dollars in excessive sales revenue as a result of this scheme and its conduct in furtherance of this scheme. 22

100 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 23 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 24 of As described throughout this Complaint, Defendants engaged in a pattern of related and continuous predicate acts for over a decade: the scheme began sometime in or around 2000 and continued until approximately March The predicate acts constituted a variety of unlawful activities, each conducted in furtherance of the Enterprise and with the common purpose of defrauding Plaintiff and other Class members and obtaining significant funds while providing defective vehicles that are now worth significantly less in light of the Recall. The predicate acts also had the same or similar results, participants, victims, and methods of commission. The predicate acts were related and not isolated events. 96. The predicate acts all had the purpose of generating significant revenue and profits for Defendants at the expense of Plaintiff and the other Class members, who were never informed of the Ignition Switch Defect in their defective vehicles and who have now been damaged by the diminution in value cause by the Recall. The predicate acts were committed or caused to be committed by Defendants, through their participation in the RICO Enterprise and in furtherance of their fraudulent scheme, and were interrelated in that they involved obtaining Plaintiff s and all other Class members funds. 97. Count I seeks relief pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c) from Defendants for violation of 18 U.S.C. 1962(c). COUNT II VIOLATIONS OF THE MICHIGAN CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT (Michigan Comp. Laws Ann. 445, et seq.) (Against Defendants on behalf of all Classes) 98. Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth at length herein. 99. This claim is brought on behalf of all Classes. 23

101 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 24 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 25 of Plaintiff and Class Members are all persons under the Michigan Consumer Protection Act ( MCPA ), M.C.L.A (1)(d) Defendants were each a person engaged in trade or commerce under the MCPA, M.C.L.A (1)(d) and (g) The MCPA prohibits any [u]nfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. M.C.L.A (1) Defendants conduct, as alleged in the preceding paragraphs, constitutes unfair, unconscionable, or deceptive methods, acts, or practices in the conduct of trade or commerce. In particular, Defendants violated the MCPA by a. [f]ailing to reveal a material fact, the omission of which tends to mislead or deceive the consumer, and which fact could not reasonably be known by the consumer, M.C.L.A (s); b. [m]aking a representation of fact or statement of fact material to the transaction such that a person reasonably believes the represented or suggested state of affairs to be other than it actually is, M.C.L.A (bb); and c. [f]ailing to reveal facts that are material to the transaction in light of representations of fact made in a positive manner, M.C.L.A (cc) GM s practices that violated the MCPA include, without limitation, the following: a. GM represented that the Defective Vehicles had safety characteristics that they do not have; b. GM represented that the Defective Vehicles were of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when they are not; 24

102 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 25 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 26 of 40 c. GM knew of the Ignition Switch Defect, but failed to disclose its existence or its complete nature, even though GM knew that such information was material to the transaction in light of GM s prior representations; d. GM failed to reveal material facts concerning the Ignition Switch Defect to Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government, the omission of which would tend to mislead or deceive consumers, and which could not be reasonably known to Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government; e. GM intended for Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government to rely on its misrepresentations and omissions, so that Plaintiff and Class Members would purchase or lease the Defective Vehicles; and f. GM repeatedly violated the TREAD Act Delphi s practices that violated the MCPA include, without limitation, the following: a. Delphi represented that the defective ignition switches had safety characteristics that they do not have; b. Delphi represented that the Defective Vehicles were of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when they are not; c. Delphi knew of the Ignition Switch Defect, but failed to disclose its existence or its complete nature; d. Delphi failed to reveal material facts concerning the Ignition Switch Defect to Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government, the omission of which would tend to mislead or deceive consumers, and which could not be reasonably known to Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government; and 25

103 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 26 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 27 of 40 e. Delphi intended for Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government to rely on its misrepresentations and omissions, so that Plaintiff and the Class would purchase or lease the Defective Vehicles; 106. Defendants acts and practices were unfair and unconscionable, because their acts and practices offend established public policy, and because the harm Defendants caused consumers greatly outweighs any benefits associated with its acts and practices. Defendants conduct has also impaired competition within the automotive vehicles market and has prevented Plaintiff and the Class from making fully informed decisions about whether to lease, purchase, or retain Defective Vehicles Plaintiff and the Class have suffered an injury, including the loss of money or property, as a result of Defendants unfair, unlawful, or deceptive practices. Had Plaintiff and the Class known about the full extent of the Ignition Switch Defect, they would not have purchased their vehicles at all or would have paid less for them, and would not have retained their Defective Vehicles only to suffer the diminution in value caused by the Recall. Plaintiff and the Class have therefore suffered a loss because of the violations of the MCPA complained of here All of the wrongful conduct alleged here occurred, and continues to occur, in the conduct of Defendants business Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin Defendants from continuing their unfair, unlawful, or deceptive practices; require Defendants to repair Plaintiff s and Class Members vehicles to completely eliminate the Ignition Switch Defect; provide to Plaintiff and each Class Member either their actual damages as the result of Defendants unfair, unlawful, and deceptive 26

104 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 27 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 28 of 40 trade practices, or $250 per Class member, whichever is higher; award reasonable attorneys fees; and provide other appropriate relief under the MCPA Plaintiff also seeks punitive damages against Defendants because they carried out reprehensible conduct with willful and conscious disregard of the rights and safety of others. Defendants intentionally, willfully, and repeatedly misrepresented the reliability and safety of the Defective Vehicles, and continued to conceal material facts that only they knew, even while numerous innocent victims were being killed as a result of its conduct. Defendants unlawful conduct constitutes malice, oppression, and fraud justifying punitive damages. COUNT III FRAUD BY CONCEALMENT (Against Defendants on behalf of all Classes) 111. Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth at length herein. Switch Defect This claim is brought on behalf of all Classes Defendants concealed and suppressed material facts concerning the Ignition 114. Defendants had a duty to disclose the Ignition Switch Defect because GM consistently represented that its vehicles were reliable and safe and proclaimed that it maintained the highest safety standards, and the defect was known or accessible only to Defendants, who had superior knowledge and access to the facts, and Defendants knew that the facts were not known to or reasonably discoverable by Plaintiff and the Class. These omitted and concealed facts were material because they directly impact the safety of the Defective Vehicles, and GM s prior representations regarding the safety of its vehicles became materially misleading when Defendants concealed facts regarding the Ignition Switch Defect. 27

105 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 28 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 29 of Defendants actively concealed or suppressed these material facts, in whole or in part, to induce Plaintiff and Class Members to purchase or lease the Defective Vehicles at high prices, and to protect Defendants profits and avoid a costly recall, and Defendants did so at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class Plaintiff and the Class were unaware of these omitted material facts and would not have acted as they did if they had known of the concealed or suppressed facts. Plaintiff s and the Class s actions were justified Because of the concealment or suppression of the facts, Plaintiff and the Class sustained damages because the value of the Defective Vehicles has been diminished by the Recall, the direct result of Defendants wrongful conduct Defendants acts were done maliciously, oppressively, deliberately, with intent to defraud, and in reckless disregard of Plaintiff s and the Class s rights and well-being to enrich Defendants. Defendants conduct warrants an assessment of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the future. COUNT IV VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA UNFAIR & DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT (FDUTPA, Fla. Stat , et seq.) (Against Defendants on behalf of the Florida Subclass) 119. Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth at length herein This Count is brought on behalf of the Florida Subclass Plaintiff is a consumer under FDUTPA, (7), Fla. Stat Defendants engaged in trade or commerce within the meaning of FDUTPA, (8), Fla. Stat. 28

106 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 29 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 30 of Under the TREAD Act, 49 U.S.C , et seq., and its corresponding regulations, if a manufacturer learns that a vehicle contains a defect and that defect is related to motor vehicle safety, the manufacturer must disclose the defect, and must promptly notify vehicle owners, purchasers, and dealers of the defect and remedy the defect. The TREAD Act also requires manufacturers to file various reports and notify NHTSA within days of learning of a defect From at least as early as 2001, Defendants were aware of the Ignition Switch Defect. But GM waited until February 7, 2014, to finally send a letter to NHTSA confessing that it knew of the Ignition Switch Defect and that the defect could cause vehicles to lose power and control and cause the airbags not to deploy GM s failure to disclose and active concealment of the Ignition Switch Defect violated the TREAD Act, and thereby violated FDUTPA Defendants violated FDUTPA by engaging in the following practices: a. Defendants represented that the Defective Vehicles had safety characteristics that they do not have; b. Defendants represented that the Defective Vehicles were of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when they are not; c. Defendants knew of the Ignition Switch Defect, but failed to disclose its existence or its complete nature. GM knew that such information was material to the transaction in light of its prior representations; d. Defendants failed to reveal material facts concerning the Ignition Switch Defect to Plaintiff, the Florida Subclass, the public, and the government, the omission of which 29

107 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 30 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 31 of 40 would tend to mislead or deceive consumers, and which could not be reasonably known to Plaintiff, Class Members, the public, and the government; and e. Defendants intended for Plaintiff, the Florida Subclass, the public, and the government to rely on their misrepresentations and omissions, so that Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass would purchase or lease the Defective Vehicles Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass were injured as a result of Defendants misconduct because Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass now own or lease Defective Vehicles that have seen their value plummet in light of the Recall Plaintiff seeks damages and an order enjoining Defendants unfair or deceptive acts or practices and an order requiring Defendants to completely remedy the defect in Plaintiff s and the Florida Subclass Members vehicles, and attorneys fees, and any other just and proper relief available under FDUTPA. COUNT V VIOLATIONS OF MAGNUSON-MOSS CONSUMER PRODUCTS WARRANTIES ACT ( Magnuson-Moss ) (15 U.S.C. 2301, et seq.) (Against GM on behalf of all Classes) 129. Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth at length herein Magnuson-Moss provides a private right of action by purchasers of consumer products against manufacturers or retailers who, among other things, fail to comply with the terms of the written, express, or implied warranties. See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). As alleged above, GM has failed to comply with the terms of its written, express, or implied warranties The Defective Vehicles are consumer products, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 2301(1). 30

108 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 31 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 32 of GM is a warrantor, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 2301(5) Plaintiff and each member of the Classes are consumers, as that term is defined in 15 U.S.C. 2301(3) As a warrantor, GM is obligated to afford the Classes, as consumers, all rights and remedies available under Magnuson-Moss, regardless of privity Magnuson-Moss provides a cause of action for, among other things, breach of warranty. See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). GM breached its express warranties as alleged above. GM has also breached its implied warranties of merchantability, which it cannot disclaim under Magnuson-Moss, see 15 U.S.C. 2308(a)(1), by failing to provide merchantable goods. Plaintiff and the Classes have suffered damages as a result of GM s breaches of express and implied warranties as set forth above. See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1)-(2) GM was on notice of the ignition switch defects as early as 2001, yet did not undertake any opportunity to cure until 2014, nearly thirteen years later, when GM s knowledge of the ignition switch defects was first made public. Also, once Plaintiff s representative capacity is determined, notice and opportunity to cure on behalf of the Classes through Plaintiff can be provided under 15 U.S.C. 2310(e) Plaintiff and the Class members have suffered, and are entitled to recover, damages as a result of GM s breaches of warranty and violations of Magnuson-Moss Additionally, or in the alternative, Magnuson-Moss provides for other legal and equitable relief where there has been a breach of warranty or failure to abide by other obligations imposed by Magnuson-Moss. See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(1). Rescission and Revocation of Acceptance are equitable remedies available to Plaintiff and the Class members under Magnuson-Moss. 31

109 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 32 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 33 of Plaintiff also seeks an award of costs and expenses, including attorney s fees, under Magnuson Moss to prevailing consumers in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action. See 15 U.S.C. 2310(d)(2). Plaintiff and the Class intend to seek such an award, including expert witness costs and other recoverable costs, as prevailing consumers at the conclusion of this lawsuit. COUNT VI BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (Against GM on behalf of the Florida Subclass) 140. Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth at length herein This Count is brought on behalf of the Florida Subclass GM is a merchant that sold or leased the Defective Vehicles to Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass GM impliedly warranted to Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass that the Defective Vehicles were free of defects, and were merchantable and fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods were sold and used As alleged above, GM s sales of the Defective Vehicles breached this implied warranty of merchantability because the Defective Vehicles were sold with latent defects described above as the ignition switch defects. Accordingly, the Defective Vehicles are unfit for the ordinary intended purpose at the time of sale. These ignition switch defects create serious safety risks in the operation of the Defective Vehicles Yet GM marketed, promoted, and sold the Defective Vehicles as safe and free from defects GM had knowledge of and concealed this defect for over a decade. 32

110 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 33 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 34 of GM failed to cure the ignition switch defects that existed and were known to GM when Plaintiff and members of the Florida Subclass purchased the Defective Vehicles Any purported disclaimer or exclusion of the implied warranty of merchantability in GM s written warranty is invalid, void, and unenforceable under Magnuson-Moss, 15 U.S.C. 2308(a)(1) GM s warranty disclaimers, exclusions, and limitations were unconscionable and unenforceable because they disclaimed a defect known but not disclosed to consumers at or before the time of purchase Any contractual language contained in GM s written warranty that attempts to limit remedies is unconscionable, fails to conform to the requirements for limiting remedies under applicable law, causes the warranty to fail of its essential purpose, and thus is unconscionable, unenforceable, or void As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranty, Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass suffered and will continue to suffer losses as alleged above in an amount to be determined at trial Additionally, or in the alternative, Plaintiff and the Florida Subclass seek declaratory relief relating to the ignition switch defect described above, and the opportunity to rescind the purchase agreement for the Defective Vehicle. COUNT VII BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (Against GM on behalf of the Florida Subclass) 153. Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 as though fully set forth at length herein This Count is brought on behalf of the Florida Subclass. 33

111 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 34 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 35 of As part of the basis of the bargain when all members of the Florida Subclass purchased their vehicles, GM provided a warranty promising bumper to bumper repair or replacement of any part, component, or system that was defective in materials or workmanship Plaintiff brought his vehicle to authorized dealers for repairs on at least three separate occasions Despite these opportunities, and despite GM s knowledge of the ignition switch defect, GM failed to cure the defect and failed to comply with the promises of its express warranty GM knowingly concealed from Plaintiff its knowledge of the defect in the ignition switch and failed to comply with its promise to repair or replace defective parts, systems, or components Before and during the warranty period, GM knew that the ignition switch system was defective By failing to repair or replace the defective ignition switch system, and by fraudulently concealing the existence of this known defect, GM breached the express warranties and its duties of good faith and fair dealing under those warranties As a result of these breaches of contract, Plaintiff and all members of the Florida Subclass have been damaged because they were deprived of the benefit of the bargain, which can be measured by the amount they overpaid for an express warranty that the seller consciously but secretly refused to fulfill, thus rendering the warranty worthless; by the reasonable repair and replacement costs necessary to put each car in a non-defective condition upon delivery to each consumer and thereafter; or by the diminution in the Defective Vehicles value caused by the Recall. 34

112 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 35 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 36 of In light of these breaches of warranty, Plaintiff and all members of the Florida Subclass are entitled to, at a minimum, nominal damages. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, individually and on behalf all others similarly situated, respectfully requests that this Court enter a judgment against Defendants, and grant the following relief: A. Determine that this action may be maintained as a Class action and certify it as such under Rule 23(b)(3) and or 23(b)(2), or alternatively certify all issues and claims that are appropriately certified; and designate and appoint Plaintiff as Class and Subclass Representative and Plaintiff s chosen counsel as Class Counsel; B. Declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants violated 18 U.S.C. 1962(c) by conducting the affairs of the RICO Enterprise through a pattern of racketeering activity; C. Declare, adjudge, and decree the conduct of Defendants as alleged herein to be unlawful, unfair or deceptive, and enjoin any such future conduct; D. Declare, adjudge, and decree that the ignition switches in the Defective Vehicles are defective; E. Declare, adjudge, and decree that Defendants must disgorge, for the benefit of Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members all or part of the ill-gotten gains it received from the sale or lease of the Defective Vehicles; F. Award Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members actual, compensatory damages, or, in the alternative, statutory damages, as proven at trial; G. Award Plaintiff and the nation-wide Class Members treble damages pursuant to 18 U.S.C. 1964(c). 35

113 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 36 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 37 of 40 H. Alternatively, if elected by Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members, require Defendants to repair the defective ignition switches or provide a comparable vehicle that does not have ignition switch defects; I. Award Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members punitive damages in such amount as proven at trial; J. Award Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members their reasonable attorneys fees, costs, and pre-judgment and post-judgment interest; and K. Award Plaintiff, Class Members, and Subclass Members such other further and different relief as the case may require or as determined to be just, equitable, and proper by this Court. JURY TRIAL DEMAND Plaintiff requests a trial by jury on all the legal claims alleged in this Complaint. Respectfully submitted, KOZYAK, TROPIN, & THROCKMORTON P.A. Counsel for Plaintiff 2525 Ponce de Leon Blvd., 9th Floor Coral Gables, Florida Telephone: (305) By: /s/ Adam M. Moskowitz Adam M. Moskowitz amm@kttlaw.com Harley S. Tropin hst@kttlaw.com Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti tr@kttlaw.com Tal J. Lifshitz tjl@kttlaw.com Robert Neary rn@kttlaw.com Harke Clasby & Bushman LLP 9699 NE Second Avenue 36

114 Case 1:14-cv FAM Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 04/21/2014 Page 37 of reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 38 of 40 Miami Shores, Florida Telephone: Lance A. Harke lharke@harkeclasby.com Howard Bushman hbushman@harkeclasby.com Freidin Dobrinsky 2 S. Biscayne Blvd., Suite 3100 Miami, Florida Telephone: (ext. 201) Manuel L. Dobrinsky mdobrinsky@fdlaw.net PODHURST ORSECK, P.A. City National Bank Building 25 West Flagler Street, Suite 800 Miami, Florida Telephone: Aaron S. Podhurst, Esq. apodhurst@podhurst.com Peter Prieto, Esq. pprieto@podhurst.com John Gravante, III jgravante@podhurst.com Matthew Weinshall mweinshall@podhurst.com

115 JS 44 (Rev. 12/12) Case reg 1:14-cv FAM Doc Document Filed /30/14 CIVIL Entered Entered COVER on FLSD 04/30/14 SHEET Docket 16:54:11 04/21/2014 Supplement Page 1 of 2 to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 39 of 40 The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service of pleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE OF THIS FORM.) NOTICE: Attorneys MUST Indicate All Re-filed Cases Below. I. (a) PLAINTIFFS DEFENDANTS Reynaldo A. Espineira General Motors, LLC, and Delphi Automotive, PLC (b) County of Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Miami-Dade County of Residence of First Listed Defendant (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) (IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. (c) Attorneys (Firm Name, Address, and Telephone Number) Attorneys (If Known) Harley S. Tropin, Adam M. Moskowitz, Thomas A. Tucker Ronzetti, Tal J. Lifshitz & Robert Neary, Kozyak Tropin & Throckmorton P A 2525 Ponce de Leon 9th Floor (d)check County Where Action Arose: MIAMI- DADE MONROE BROWARD PALM BEACH MARTIN ST. LUCIE INDIAN RIVER OKEECHOBEE HIGHLANDS II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an X in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an X in One Box for Plaintiff) (For Diversity Cases Only) and One Box for Defendant) 1 U.S. Government 3 Federal Question PTF DEF DEF PTF Plaintiff (U.S. Government Not a Party) Citizen of This State 1 1 Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4 of Business In This State 2 U.S. Government 4 Diversity Citizen of Another State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 5 Defendant (Indicate Citizenship of Parties in Item III) of Business In Another State Citizen or Subject of a 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE OF SUIT (Place an X in One Box Only) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY PERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure 422 Appeal 28 USC False Claims Act 120 Marine 310 Airplane 365 Personal Injury - of Property 21 USC Withdrawal 400 State Reapportionment 130 Miller Act 315 Airplane Product Product Liability 690 Other 28 USC Antitrust 140 Negotiable Instrument Liability 367 Health Care/ 430 Banks and Banking 150 Recovery of Overpayment 320 Assault, Libel & Pharmaceutical PROPERTY RIGHTS 450 Commerce & Enforcement of Judgment Slander Personal Injury 820 Copyrights 460 Deportation 151 Medicare Act 330 Federal Employers Product Liability 830 Patent 470 Racketeer Influenced and 152 Recovery of Defaulted Liability 368 Asbestos Personal 840 Trademark Corrupt Organizations Student Loans 340 Marine Injury Product 480 Consumer Credit (Excl. Veterans) 345 Marine Product Liability LABOR SOCIAL SECURITY 490 Cable/Sat TV 153 Recovery of Overpayment Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 710 Fair Labor Standards 861 HIA (1395ff) 850 Securities/Commodities/ of Veteran s Benefits 350 Motor Vehicle 370 Other Fraud Act 862 Black Lung (923) Exchange 160 Stockholders Suits 355 Motor Vehicle 371 Truth in Lending 720 Labor/Mgmt. Relations 863 DIWC/DIWW (405(g)) 890 Other Statutory Actions 190 Other Contract Product Liability 380 Other Personal 740 Railway Labor Act 864 SSID Title XVI 891 Agricultural Acts 195 Contract Product Liability 360 Other Personal Property Damage 751 Family and Medical 865 RSI (405(g)) 893 Environmental Matters 196 Franchise Injury 385 Property Damage Leave Act 895 Freedom of Information 362 Personal Injury - Product Liability 790 Other Labor Litigation Act Med. Malpractice 791 Empl. Ret. Inc. 896 Arbitration REAL PROPERTY CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS Security Act FEDERAL TAX SUITS 899 Administrative Procedure 210 Land Condemnation 440 Other Civil Rights Habeas Corpus: 870 Taxes (U.S. Plaintiff Act/Review or Appeal of 220 Foreclosure 441 Voting 463 Alien Detainee or Defendant) Agency Decision 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 442 Employment 510 Motions to Vacate Sentence 240 Torts to Land 443 Housing/ Accommodations Other: 245 Tort Product Liability 445 Amer. w/disabilities General IMMIGRATION 290 All Other Real Property Employment 535 Death Penalty 462 Naturalization Application 446 Amer. w/disabilities Mandamus & Other 465 Other Immigration Other 550 Civil Rights Actions 448 Education 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainee Conditions of Confinement 871 IRS Third Party 26 USC 7609 V. ORIGIN (Place an X in One Box Only) 1 Original 2 Removed from 3 Re-filed (See 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidistrict Proceeding State Court VI below) Reopened another district Litigation (specify) Constitutionality of State Statutes Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment 8 Remanded from Appellate Court VI. RELATED/ a) Re-filed Case YES NO b) Related Cases YES NO (See instructions): RE-FILED CASE(S) JUDGE Williams 14-cv DOCKET NUMBER Cite the U.S. Civil Statute under which you are filing and Write a Brief Statement of Cause (Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity): VII. CAUSE OF ACTION RICO, 18 U.S.C. section 1962(c) LENGTH OF TRIAL via 10 days estimated (for both sides to try entire case) VIII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS IS A CLASS ACTION DEMAND $ CHECK YES only if demanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER F.R.C.P. 23 JURY DEMAND: Yes No ABOVE INFORMATION IS TRUE & CORRECT TO THE BEST OF MY KNOWLEDGE DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECORD April 21, 2014 /s/ Tal J. Lifshitz FOR OFFICE USE ONLY RECEIPT # AMOUNT IFP JUDGE MAG JUDGE

116 Case reg 1:14-cv FAM Doc Document Filed /30/14 Entered Entered on FLSD 04/30/14 Docket 16:54:11 04/21/2014 Supplement Page 2 of 2 to Schedule 1 Exh. C Pg 40 of 40 JS 44 Reverse (Rev. 12/12) INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet The JS 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the use of the Clerk of Court for the purpose of initiating the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. (a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. (b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the defendant is the location of the tract of land involved.) (c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section (see attachment). II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Rule 8(a), F.R.C.P., which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an X in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. United States plaintiff. (1) Jurisdiction based on 28 U.S.C and Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. United States defendant. (2) When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an X in this box. Federal question. (3) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. Diversity of citizenship. (4) This refers to suits under 28 U.S.C. 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an X in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerks in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an X in one of the seven boxes. Original Proceedings. (1) Cases which originate in the United States district courts. Removed from State Court. (2) Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 U.S.C., Section When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. Refiled (3) Attach copy of Order for Dismissal of Previous case. Also complete VI. Reinstated or Reopened. (4) Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. Transferred from Another District. (5) For cases transferred under Title 28 U.S.C. Section 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. Multidistrict Litigation. (6) Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 U.S.C. Section When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. Appeal to District Judge from Magistrate Judgment. (7) Check this box for an appeal from a magistrate judge s decision. Remanded from Appellate Court. (8) Check this box if remanded from Appellate Court. VI. Related/Refiled Cases. This section of the JS 44 is used to reference related pending cases or re-filed cases. Insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judges name for such cases. VII. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC 553 Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service VIII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an X in this box if you are filing a class action under Rule 23, F.R.Cv.P. Demand. In this space enter the dollar amount (in thousands of dollars) being demanded or indicate other demand such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet.

117 reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 1 of 51 Exhibit D 6

118 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 1 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 2 of MARY E. ALEXANDER, ESQ. (SBN: ) JENNIFER L. FIORE, ESQ. (SBN: ) Mary Alexander & Associates, P.C. 44 Montgomery Street, Suite 1303 San Francisco, CA Telephone: (415) Fax: (415) malexander@maryalexanderlaw.com jiore@maryalexanderlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiff MESAFINT GEBREMARIAM UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA MESAFINT GEBREMARIAM, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, vs. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC, Defendant. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES, INJUNCTIVE RELIEF AND EQUITABLE RELIEF JURY TRIAL DEMANDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

119 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 2 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 3 of 51 1 TABLE OF CONTENTS 2 Page I. INTRODUCTION...1 A. Chevrolet Cruze Front Axle Right Half Shaft Fracture Defect...1 B. Ignition Switch and Related Defects...4 II. JURISDITION AND VENUE...9 III. PARTIES...9 A. Plaintiffs...9 B. Defendant...10 IV. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS...12 Numerosity...13 Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law & Fact...13 Typicality...14 Adequacy of Representation...14 Superiority...14 Proper Maintenance of the Class...14 V. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS...15 A. Front Axle Right Half Shaft Fracture Defect...15 B. Ignition Switch and Related Defects The $.57 Per Vehicle Fix that GM Failed to Implement GM Promoted the Defective Vehicles as Safe and Reliable GM Knew of the Defects for Years, But Concealed the Defects from Plaintiff and the Class No Recall Was Issued Until The Redesigned Switch Did Not Meet GM Specifications The Cruze Has Been Plagued with Same Problems as the Recalled Cars...26 C. GM Violated the Tread Act by Failing to Notify the NHTSA of the Known Defects...26 D. The Defects Have Harmed Plaintiff and the Class...28 VI. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS...28 i CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

120 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 3 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 4 of VII. TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS...29 VIII. CAUSES OF ACTION...30 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT (Cal. Civ. Code 1750, et seq.)...30 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code 17200, et seq.)...35 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION FALSE ADVERTISING (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code et seq.)...37 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY...40 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION - VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY (CALIFORNIA LEMON LAW ) (Cal. Civ. Code & 1792)...41 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY...42 SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION - NEGLIGENCE...43 EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION - FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT...44 NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION UNJUST ENRICHMENT...45 TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION CLAIM FOR ACTUAL DAMAGES AND EXPENSE REIMBURSEMENT FUND...45 IX. PRAYER FOR RELIEF...46 X. JURY DEMAND ii CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

121 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 4 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 5 of Plaintiff, Mesafint Gebremariam, individually and on behalf of other members of the nationwide and statewide classes he seeks to represent, as described below, for his Class Action Complaint alleges against Defendant General Motors, LLC ( GM ), upon personal knowledge as to himself and his own acts, and as to all other matters upon information and belief, based upon the investigation made by Plaintiff and Plaintiff s attorneys, as follows: I. INTRODUCTION 1. Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of all persons in the United States who own or lease one or more of the following GM vehicles: Chevrolet Cruze, Chevrolet Cobalt, Chevrolet HHR, Pontiac G5, Pontiac Solstice, Saturn Ion, Saturn Sky, Cadillac CTS, Cadillac SRX, Saab 9-7x, Chevrolet Malibu and Saturn Aura, as set forth herein, (collectively the Defective Vehicles ). A. Chevrolet Cruze Front Axle Right Half Shaft Fracture Defect 2. Since at least model year 2013, GM has designed, manufactured, promoted, marketed and sold defective Chevrolet Cruzes throughout the United States, including the State of California, that pose known and significant dangers to unsuspecting drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and the other motorists and cars on the road. The Chevy Cruze is the successor vehicle to the Cobalt in North America, with model year 2011 going on sale in late GM allowed these dangers to persist without taking adequate measures to eliminate the dangers and without taking adequate measures to notify the public and the government of the design defects. GM has completely disregarded the safety of its customers and the public and continues to jeopardize public safety. 4. GM has recalled 174,046 Chevy Cruze vehicles, model years 2013 and 2014, with 1.4-liter turbocharged four-cylinder gasoline engines, because there is a serious safety defect in the power train, axle assembly. The interconnecting tubular bar on the front right axle half shaft may fracture and separate, resulting in power loss to the vehicle. GM reported that it had warranty reports of several dozen shaft fractures. The March 2014 Product Safety Recall Bulletin No informs service providers to inspect the right (passenger side) half shaft near the front 1 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

122 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 5 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 6 of wheel. If the green stripe is not present on the half shaft, it is to be replaced. See Diagram Nos. 3 (with green) and No. 4 (without green): On September 13, 2013, GM first recalled only certain model year 2013 and 2014 Chevrolet Cruze vehicles equipped with manual transmissions (MF3/MR5) and manufactured January 24, 2013, through August 1, On the affected vehicles, the right front half shaft may fracture and separate. (September 13, 2013 Recall Notice from U.S. Department of Transportation, National Highway Traffic Safety Administration ( NHTSA ) website, (emphasis added). 6. The Consequence is: If the half shaft fractures and separates while driving, the vehicle would lose power and coast to a stop. If a vehicle with a fractured half shaft is parked without the parking brake applied, the vehicle could move unexpectedly. Either condition increases the risk of a crash. (Id.) (emphasis added) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

123 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 6 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 7 of On March 28, 2014, GM recalled all Chevy Cruze vehicles equipped with a 1.4L turbo engine, and manufactured between November 28, 2012, and March 7, On the affected vehicles, the right front half shaft may fracture and separate. (March 28, 2014 Recall Notice) (emphasis added) The same Consequence is: If the half shaft fractures and separates while driving, the vehicle would lose power and coast to a stop. If a vehicle with a fractured half shaft is parked without the parking brake applied, the vehicle could move unexpectedly. Either condition increases the risk of a crash. (Id.) (emphasis added). The March 2014 recall covers about 2,500 replacement shafts used to fix the manual transmission Cruzes after the September 2013 recall. This means that the replacements were defective as well. 9. GM knew there was the serious risk of harm with all Chevy Cruzes before it initiated the first recall for manual transmissions, yet failed to recall all 1.4L automatic transmissions. This failure and GM s hiding of this defect resulted in defective manual transmission Cruzes being sold to the unsuspecting public, including the Class Representative, 3 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

124 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 7 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 8 of Mesafint Gebremariam. He purchased his automatic transmission Cruze on November 13, 2013, two months after the first recall. He would not have purchased it had he known about this defect. B. Ignition Switch and Related Defects 10. For over ten years, GM has designed, manufactured, promoted, marketed and sold Defective Vehicles that pose known and significant dangers to unsuspecting drivers, passengers, pedestrians, and the other motorists and cars on the road. GM allowed these dangers to persist without taking adequate measures to eliminate the dangers and without taking adequate measures to notify the public and the government of design defects. GM has jeopardized and continues to jeopardize public safety, and has had a corporate culture of complete disregard for the safety concerns of its customers and the safety of the public at large. 11. The ignition switch defects can cause the vehicle s engine and electrical system to shut off, disabling the power steering and power brakes and causing the non-deployment of the vehicle s air bags in the event of a crash. The Defective Vehicles are, thus, unreasonably prone to be involved in accidents, which will likely result in serious bodily harm or death to the drivers, passengers as well as other motorists and pedestrians. 12. Going back to at least 2001, GM learned that vehicles it designed, manufactured, promoted and sold contained defective ignition switches. GM took no action to remedy or mitigate the danger inherent in this faulty system to drivers, passengers, pedestrians and the other motorists and cars on the road. These defective vehicles have caused at least thirteen (13) deaths and thirty-two (32) crashes, likely including the Class Representative, Mesafint Gebremariam on April 11, There have been three recalls related to the defective ignition switches; the latest being issued on April 10, GM has issued recalls for the following models: February 13 and 25, 2014: Chevrolet Cobalt Pontiac G Saturn Ion Chevrolet HHR Pontiac Solstice 2007 Saturn Sky 4 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

125 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 8 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 9 of March 28, 2014: Pontiac Solstice Pontiac G Saturn Sky Chevrolet Cobalt Chevrolet HHR April 10, 2014: Chevrolet Cobalt Chevrolet HHR Pontiac G Pontiac Solstice Saturn Ion Saturn Sky 14. With respect to the February 13, February 25 and March 28, 2014 recalls, the defective ignition switches have switch points, including RUN or ON, OFF, and ACC or accessory. When the ignition switch is in the RUN position, the vehicle s motor engine is running and the electrical system is activated. When the ignition switch is in the ACC position, the motor is turned off but electrical power is activated, supplying electricity to the vehicle s entertainment system. When the ignition is in the OFF position, both the engine and electrical systems are turned off. 15. The February 7, 2014 GM letter to NHTSA first informing the NHTSA of the problem explained the problem as follows: The ignition switch torque performance may not meet General Motor s specification. If the torque performance is not to specification, and the key ring is carrying added weight or the vehicle goes off road or experiences some other jarring event, the ignition switch may inadvertently be moved out of the run position. The time of the key movement out of the run position, relative to the activation of the sensing algorithm of the crash event, may result in the airbags not deploying, increasing the potential for occupant injury in certain kinds of crashes. Until this correction is performed, customers should remove nonessential items from their key ring. Dealers are to replace the ignition switches. 16. The ignition switches are loose and improperly positioned, making the switches prone to failure during usual and expected conditions. The ignition switch can suddenly and without warning move from the ON or RUN position to the OFF or ACC position. When 5 CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

126 Case 8:14-cv JFW-DFM Document 1 Filed 04/21/14 Page 9 of 50 Page ID #: reg Doc Filed 04/30/14 Entered 04/30/14 16:54:11 Supplement to Schedule 1 Exh. D Pg 10 of this, the Ignition Switch Defect happens, the motor engine and certain important electrical components, including the power-assisted steering, anti-lock brakes, seatbelt pretensioners and airbags, are abruptly turned off. The ignition can suddenly switch to OFF while the Defective Vehicle is moving at expected speeds, for example, mph on the highway. When this happens, the driver is left without the necessary means to control the vehicle, the safety airbag system is compromised and the vehicle s driver, passengers, other motorists, pedestrians and cars are at serious risk of injury or death. 17. With respect to the most recent recall on April 10, 2014, involving the same vehicles, GM issued an additional recall because the key can be removed from the ignition when the ignition is not in the "Off" position. (April 10, 2014 Recall Notice.) The Consequence is: If the key can be removed from the ignition when the ignition is not in the off position, the vehicle could roll away: (a) for an automatic transmission, if the transmission is not in the "Park" position; or (b) for a manual transmission, if the parking brake is not engaged and the transmission is not in the Reverse position. This potential for rollaway increases the risk for a crash and occupant or pedestrian injuries. (Id.) (emphasis added). GM Safety recall is for key replacements while GM Safety recall is for replacement of the ignition lock cylinder and key replacement. 18. Below is an illustration of the defective ignition switch, which includes the components contained in latest recall: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT