Document ID: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00437/USCOURTS-caed-1_13-cv-00437-5/pdf.json

Parties Involved:
Chris Aguilar
Plaintiff
General Motors Company
Defendant
General Motors LLC
Defendant

Document Text:

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

CHRIS AGUILAR, on behalf of himself and others 

similarly situated, 

 Plaintiff, 

 v. 

GENERAL MOTORS LLC,

 Defendant.

1:13-CV-00437-LJO-GSA

ORDER ON REQUEST FOR 

CLARIFICATION

(Doc. 47)

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiff Chris Aguilar (“Aguilar”) brought this purported class action for violations of the 

California Consumer Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq., the California 

Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”), Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq., the Song-Beverly 

Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly Act”), Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1 and 1792, et seq., the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“Magnuson-Moss Act”), 15 U.S.C. § 2303, et seq., and Cal. Comm. 

Code § 2313 against defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) in this Court. Aguilar invokes this 

Court’s jurisdiction on the basis of federal question and under the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005 

(“CAFA”). This Court granted in part with leave to amend GM’s motion to dismiss Aguilar’s first 

amended complaint pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2), 9(b), and 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 

Following this Court’s order granting in part GM’s motion to dismiss the claims in Aguilar’s second 

amended complaint, Aguilar moved for clarification.

BACKGROUND

On March 22, 2013, Aguilar filed his original complaint for violations of the CLRA, UCL, 

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 50 Filed 12/18/13 Page 1 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

2

Song-Beverly Act, Magnuson-Moss Act, and Cal. Comm. Code § 2313.1Specifically, as relevant 

here, Aguilar brought a claim for breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act. (Doc. 1, 

pp. 31-32).

After GM and General Motors Company moved to dismiss Aguilar’s original complaint, 

Aguilar filed a first amended complaint.2 In his first amended complaint, Aguilar again brought a 

claim for breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act. (Doc. 14, pp. 32-33). On July 

25, 2013, this Court dismissed with leave to amend Aguilar’s claim for breach of express warranty 

under the Magnuson-Moss Act. (Doc. 27).

Aguilar filed a second amended complaint on August 14, 2013. There, Aguilar brought 

claims for breach of express and implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act. (Doc. 33, pp. 40-

42). On August 28, 2013, GM moved this Court “for an order pursuant to F.R.Civ.P. 8(a)(2), 9(b) and 

12(b)(6) dismissing in part plaintiff’s Second Amended Complaint[.]” (Doc. 34, p. 1). Specifically, 

GM moved to dismiss Aguilar’s claims “on the grounds that [...] the Fourth and Fifth Causes of 

Action for alleged breach of express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act and section 2313 of the 

California Commercial Code fail to state claims upon which relief can be granted against GM.” (Doc. 

35, p. 1). Aguilar filed an opposition on September 24, 2013, and GM filed a reply on October 1, 

2013. 

On October 16, 2013, this Court granted without leave to amend GM’s motion to dismiss 

Aguilar’s claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act. (Doc. 41). Aguilar filed the instant request for 

clarification on December 13, 2013. (Doc. 47). 

CLARIFICATION

GM moved this Court to dismiss Aguilar’s fourth cause of action “for alleged breach of 

express warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act[.]” (Doc. 34, p. 1). The parties accordingly 

submitted arguments as to whether Aguilar’s claim for breach of express warranty under the 

Magnuson-Moss Act was subject to dismissal under Fed. R. Civ. P. 12(b)(6) for failure to state a claim. 

(Docs. 35, 38, 39). This Court considered the parties’ arguments and granted without leave to amend 

 

1 This Order only discusses the procedural history of Aguilar’s relevant warranty claims. Aguilar does not seek 

clarification with regard to his nondisclosure claims. 

2 On June 19, 2013, upon the stipulation of the parties, this Court ordered the dismissal of defendant General Motors 

Company.

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 50 Filed 12/18/13 Page 2 of 3
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

3

GM’s motion to dismiss Aguilar’s claim under the Magnuson-Moss Act in his fourth cause of action. 

(Doc. 41). 

GM did not move this Court to dismiss Aguilar’s claim for breach of implied warranty under 

the Magnuson-Moss Act in Aguilar’s fourth cause of action and made no mention of Aguilar’s implied 

warranty claim under Magnuson-Moss in any of its submissions. (Docs. 34, 35, 38, 39). Because 

Aguilar’s claim for breach of implied warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Act was never a part of the 

motion to dismiss proceedings, this Court’s ruling dismissing without leave to amend Aguilar’s cause 

of action under the Magnuson-Moss Act addressed only the express warranty claim under that Act. 

Moreover, as Aguilar’s implied warranty claim under Magnuson-Moss was never subject to a motion 

to dismiss, it remains unchallenged and viable. 

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: December 17, 2013 /s/ Lawrence J. O’Neill 

UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Case 1:13-cv-00437-LJO-GSA Document 50 Filed 12/18/13 Page 3 of 3