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

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Lori E. Andrus (SBN 205816)

Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 203586)

ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP

155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415-986-1400

jennie@andrusanderson.com

lori@andrusanderson.com

Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice) 

DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC

Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: 312-214-7900

alevitt@dlcfirm.com

W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III (pro hac vice)

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

272 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: 334-269-2343

Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs (additional counsel appear on signature page)

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MONTEVILLE SLOAN, JR., RAUL 

SIQUEIROS, TODD AND JILL CRALLEY, 

JOSEPH BRANNAN, LARRY GOODWIN, 

MARC PERKINS, THOMAS SHORTER, 

DERICK BRADFORD, GABRIEL DEL 

VALLE, KEVIN HANNEKEN, EDWIN AND 

KATELYN DOEPEL, DAN MADSON, 

JAMES FAULKNER, JOSEPH OLIVIER, 

SCOTT SMITH, ROSS DAHL, DREW 

PETERSON, MICHAEL WARE, STEVE 

KITCHEN, JOHN KNOLL, BARBARA 

MOLINA, DENNIS VITA, STEVEN EHRKE, 

THOMAS GULLING, RONALD JONES, 

MIKE WARPINSKI, WILLIAM MARTELL, 

JOHN GRAZIANO, JOSHUA BYRGE, RUDY 

SANCHEZ, CHRISTOPHER THACKER, 

KELLY HARRIS, JAMES ROBERTSON, and 

JONAS BEDNAREK, individually and on 

behalf of all others similarly situated,

 Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC, 

 Defendant.

Case No.: 16-cv-07244-EMC

THIRD AMENDED

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 1 of 236
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

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs Monteville Sloan Jr., Raul Siqueiros, Todd and Jill Cralley, Joseph Brannan, Larry 

Goodwin, Marc Perkins, Thomas Shorter, Derick Bradford, Gabriel Del Valle, Kevin Hanneken, Edwin 

and Katelyn Doepel, Dan Madson, James Faulkner, Joseph Olivier, Scott Smith, Ross Dahl, Drew 

Peterson, Michael Ware, Steve Kitchen, John Knoll, Barbara Molina, Dennis Vita, Steven Ehrke, Thomas 

Gulling, Ronald Jones, Mike Warpinski, William Martell, John Graziano, Joshua Byrge, Rudy Sanchez, 

Christopher Thacker, Kelly Harris, James Robertson, and Jonas Bednarek (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), 

individually and on behalf of the other members of the below-defined nationwide and statewide classes 

they respectively seek to represent (collectively, the “Class”), hereby allege as their Third Amended 

Complaint against Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM” or “Defendant”), upon personal knowledge 

as to themselves and their own acts, and as to all other matters upon information and belief, based upon 

the investigation made by the undersigned attorneys, as follows:

I. NATURE OF THE CASE

1. This class action lawsuit is brought by Plaintiffs seeking damages and equitable relief 

individually and on behalf of the other Class members, each of whom purchased or leased one or more 

model year 2010-2013 GM vehicles fitted with GM’s defective Generation IV 5.3 Liter V8 Vortec 5300 

engines (the “Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines”).

2. GM made the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine available as an engine option in the 

following vehicles:

• 2010-2014 Chevrolet Avalanche;

• 2010-2012 Chevrolet Colorado;

• 2010-2013 Chevrolet Express;

• 2010-2013 Chevrolet Silverado;

• 2010-2014 Chevrolet Suburban;

• 2010-2014 Chevrolet Tahoe;

• 2010-2013 GMC Canyon;

• 2010-2013 GMC Savana; 

• 2010-2013 GMC Sierra;

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 2 of 236
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

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• 2010-2014 GMC Yukon; and

• 2010-2014 GMC Yukon XL.

Those vehicles listed above in which the Defective Engines were installed are defined herein as the “Class 

Vehicles.”1

3. As more fully explained below, the Class Vehicles were engineered to fail. GM failed to 

disclose the truth about these vehicles and failed to remedy the well-established defects in the Class 

Vehicles that were on the road.

4. In 2006, for its model year 2007 vehicles, General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”) 

introduced its redesigned Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine and installed it in many of its most popular

vehicles, as listed above. 

5. Unfortunately, the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine consumes an abnormally and 

improperly high quantity of oil that far exceeds industry standards for reasonable oil consumption. This 

excessive oil consumption results in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding 

internal engine component damage.

6. On June 8, 2009, Old GM filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States 

Bankruptcy Code. Defendant GM acquired its assets and, for model years 2010-2013, continued 

manufacturing and selling Chevrolet and GMC vehicles equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines.2

7. Multiple factors contribute to the excessive oil consumption problem in the Generation 

IV Vortec 5300 Engines. The combination of these factors, and the resultant excessive oil consumption, 

is herein referred to as the “Oil Consumption Defect.” It is an inherent defect in each of the Class 

Vehicles. 

8. The primary cause of the Oil Consumption Defect is that the piston rings that GM installed 

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines do not maintain sufficient tension to keep oil in the 

crankcase.

 1 “Class Vehicles” are only vehicles produced after GM emerged from bankruptcy on July 10, 2009.

2 Plaintiffs do not assert any claims against Old GM, nor were any of the Class Vehicles manufactured 

by Old GM. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 3 of 236
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

4

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

9. The Active Fuel Management (“AFM”) system that GM included in the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines further contributes to the Oil Consumption Defect. The AFM system comprises an

oil pressure relieve valve that assists the AFM system by spraying oil directly at the piston skirts. This 

oil spray overloads and fouls the defective piston rings, triggering oil migration past the rings. The 

migrating oil either burns or accumulates as carbon buildup on the combustion chamber’s surfaces.

10. In addition, the Generation IV Vortec 5300 include a flawed PCV system that vacuums

oil from the valvetrain into the intake system, where it is ultimately burned in the combustion chambers. 

This vacuuming process also contributes to excessive oil consumption. 

11. Exacerbating the excessive oil loss and concomitant engine damage problems caused by 

the Oil Consumption Defect in the Class Vehicles is GM’s implementation of a defective Oil Life 

Monitoring System in each of those vehicles that fails to advise drivers of insufficient oil in their vehicles 

until those levels are critically low.

12. Despite its name, GM’s Oil Life Monitoring System does not monitor oil level. Rather, 

it monitors engine conditions, such as revolutions and temperature, to calculate the expected deterioration 

in oil quality and thus the time for a recommended oil change. The Oil Life Monitoring System’s adaptive 

change intervals do not take oil level into account. The result is a system that directs drivers to travel 

thousands of miles with inadequate engine lubricity levels, wearing out and damaging moving internal 

engine components – a particularly serious problem in light of the fact that the Oil Consumption Defect

causes improper and excessive oil loss in each of the Class Vehicles.

13. In addition to the Oil Life Monitoring System (which does not monitor oil level), the Class 

Vehicles include an oil pressure gauge on the dash and an oil canister image that will ostensibly illuminate 

when a vehicle is low on oil. As discussed in more detail below, however, the oil pressure gauge does 

not provide any indication as to when the oil pressure in the Class Vehicles falls to levels low enough to 

damage internally lubricated parts or cause engine failure. Nor does the oil canister symbol illuminate 

until well past the time when the Class Vehicles are critically oil starved. Furthermore, even if the Class 

Vehicles did adequately warn drivers of critically low oil conditions (which they do not), any such 

warnings would do nothing to prevent the full scope of the harms caused by the Oil Consumption Defect.

14. Moreover, oil migration from the Oil Consumption Defect fouls spark plugs no matter 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 4 of 236
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

5

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

how often drivers top off their oil levels. Importantly, oil fouled spark plugs produce an 

anemic/weakened spark, an intermittent spark and/or no spark at all – causing engine misfires and 

shutdown events. Engine misfires and shutdown events put occupants at risk, as the Class Vehicles 

become stranded in hazardous traffic conditions, dangerous weather conditions and/or remote locations. 

15. Over the years, GM has instructed its dealers to address the excessive oil loss problem in 

the Class Vehicles by performing stop-gap fixes of the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines’ PCV and 

AFM systems. Additionally, GM instructed dealers to decarbonize combustion chambers and rings with 

chemical abrasives. Such fixes, however, failed to provide a complete, and adequate, remedy for the Oil 

Consumption Defect that has plagued – and continues to plague – each of the Class Vehicles. Moreover, 

GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect, or any of its causes, to consumers prior to their 

purchasing or leasing of their Class Vehicles. 

16. Beginning with certain of its model year 2014 vehicles, GM scrapped the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engine it installed and implemented in the Class Vehicles and replaced it with a materially 

redesigned Generation V Vortec 5300 engine, which was designed and intended to remedy the excessive 

oil consumption problem plaguing the Class Vehicles. As part of that 2014 model year overhaul, GM

installed an improved sealing ring package, an AFM shield that deflected oil spray away from the piston 

skirts, and a new valve cover with relocated and baffled PCV orifice, while, at the same time, 

reintroducing an oil level sensor.

17. While GM’s redesign of its Generation V Vortec 5300 engines confirms the prior defects 

and may benefit subsequent purchasers and lessees of those vehicles, it did nothing for the owners and 

lessees of the Class Vehicles, namely, Plaintiffs and the other Class members. Those people remain 

saddled with their defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines with no relief from GM. 

18. GM has long known of the Oil Consumption Defect and the resulting engine damage. As 

shown more fully below, excessive oil consumption resulted in an extraordinary number of complaints, 

dating back to model year 2007 vehicles with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. Further, GM 

issued Technical Service Bulletins to its dealers (not consumers), prior to the sale and lease of the Class 

Vehicles, which explicitly addressed the issue of excessive oil consumption in Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engines, and which recognized all causes of the Oil Consumption Defect: (a) the PCV flaw, (b) the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 5 of 236
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

6

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

AFM flaw, and (c) flaws in piston rings. 

19. Despite this knowledge, GM continued selling and leasing Class Vehicles without ever 

disclosing the Oil Consumption Defect. Indeed, GM has never disclosed the Oil Consumption Defect to 

consumers. Rather, GM has allowed drivers of the Class Vehicles to continue driving those vehicles, 

despite knowing that they are consuming oil at an abnormally high rate, and has continued allowing 

drivers of the Class Vehicles to rely on the Oil Life Monitoring System, despite knowing that they were 

driving well past the point at which their vehicles have consumed the amount of oil necessary for proper 

engine lubrication and proper, safe operation. The result is Class Vehicles that suffer engine failure and 

engine damage, including spark plug fouling, ring wear, lifter collapse, bent pushrods, camshaft wear, 

valve wear, rod bearing wear, rod breakage, wristpin wear, wristpin breakage, crankshaft wear and main 

bearing wear or destruction and other forms of internal component wear/breakage due to unacceptable 

heat and friction levels and oil breakdown.

20. Each current or former purchaser or lessee of a Class Vehicle paid for a vehicle fitted with 

a defective engine that consumed an abnormally high volume of oil, subjecting their vehicles to the 

problems described herein. Each of these current and/or former owners and/or lessees were damaged in 

that they paid more for their Class Vehicles than they would have paid had they known about the defect 

that GM failed to disclose, or they would not have purchased or leased their Class Vehicles at all.

II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

21. This Court has diversity jurisdiction over this action under 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and (d) 

because the amount in controversy for the Class exceeds $5,000,000 and Plaintiffs and one or more of 

the other Class members are citizens of a different state than Defendant. 

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over GM because GM has purposefully availed itself 

of the privilege of conducting business in the State of California by advertising and selling its 

manufactured vehicles (including the Class Vehicles) within the State of California. Additionally, GM 

has maintained systematic and continuous business contacts with the State of California and is registered 

to conduct business in this State. 

23. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because GM is deemed to reside 

in any judicial district in which it is subject to personal jurisdiction. Additionally, Plaintiff Sloan Jr.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 6 of 236
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

7

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

resides in this District, and GM has marketed, advertised, sold, and leased Class Vehicles within this 

District.

III. PARTIES

A. Plaintiffs

1. California

24. Raul Siqueiros is a resident of Vallejo, California. 

25. Mr. Siqueiros owns a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Siqueiros purchased his Silverado new from Team Chevrolet Cadillac in Vallejo, 

California.

26. Mr. Siqueiros has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

Mr. Siqueiros first noticed what he thought to be excessive oil consumption in 2011.

27. In 2011, Mr. Siqueiros complained to Team Chevrolet regarding the excessive oil 

consumption, and was told that it was normal. 

28. Mr. Siqueiros has experienced problems with his vehicle running “rough,” which, upon 

information and belief, is the result of camshaft and lifter wear from excessive oil consumption and 

inadequate engine lubricity. This problem began occurring in or around April of 2016. 

29. Mr. Siqueiros experienced significant engine troubles despite Team Chevrolet’s 

representations that the oil consumption in his vehicle was normal. 

30. Mr. Siqueiros did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

31. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Siqueiros before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Siqueiros, therefore, purchased his 

Silverado with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

32. Todd and Jill Cralley are residents of Santa Maria, California.

33. Mr. and Mrs. Cralley own a 2010 Chevrolet Suburban, which was equipped with a 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine. Mr. and Mrs. Cralley purchased their Suburban new from Home 

Motors in Santa Maria, California.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 7 of 236
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

8

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

34. Mr. and Mrs. Cralley noticed that their Suburban consumed an unusually high volume of 

oil.

35. Mr. and Mrs. Cralley noticed excessive oil consumption within the first year after 

purchasing their vehicle. 

36. In the summer of 2016, Mr. and Mrs. Cralley experienced rough idle, and brought their 

vehicle to a mechanic. The mechanic attempted to address the problem by installing an oil shield. 

37. Despite this, in the summer of 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Cralley noticed poor engine 

performance, including a lack of acceleration, due to the excessive oil consumption, inadequate engine 

lubricity, and spark plug fouling. Ultimately, due to the poor engine performance, Mr. and Mrs. Cralley

had to pay for their engine to be replaced. 

38. The shop that performed the engine replacement, Peterson Chevrolet in Boise, Idaho, 

noted in their evaluation of the original engine that they “found pistons in need of replacement causing 

oil consumption and oil fouling of plugs...recommend replacing to updated pistons and rings to correct 

concern for rough idle and engine light.”

39. Mr. and Mrs. Cralley never saw a low oil warning light illuminate or appear in their 

vehicle. 

40. Mr. and Mrs. Cralley did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil 

Consumption Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in their vehicle was the result 

of the Oil Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

41. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. and Mrs. Cralley before they 

purchased their Suburban, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. and Mrs. Cralley, therefore, 

purchased their Suburban with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

2. Alabama

42. Joseph Brannan is a resident of Columbus, Georgia. 

43. Mr. Brannan owns a 2010 GMC Yukon equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Brannan purchased his Yukon in 2011 used with 29,168 miles from Joe V. Clayton 

Chevrolet, located at 327 Brindlee Mountain Parkway, Arab, Alabama.

44. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Brannan before he purchased 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 8 of 236
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

9

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

his Yukon, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Brannan, therefore, purchased his Yukon with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

3. Arkansas

45. Larry Goodwin is a resident of Mabelvale, Arkansas.

46. Mr. Goodwin owns a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Goodwin purchased his Silverado new in 2010 from Landers Chevrolet in Benton, 

Arkansas.

47. Mr. Goodwin has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

Mr. Goodwin first noticed excessive oil consumption in or around the summer of 2014. 

48. Mr. Goodwin’s vehicle has been two quarts low on oil, without a low oil warning ever 

illuminating in his vehicle. Mr. Goodwin complained to Landers Chevrolet regarding excessive oil 

consumption, and was told to simply check the oil more often. Landers Chevrolet did not disclose the 

Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Goodwin. 

49. Mr. Goodwin did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

50. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Goodwin before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Goodwin, therefore, purchased his 

Silverado with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

4. Delaware

51. Marc Perkins is a resident of Stafford, Virginia.

52. Mr. Perkins owns a 2011 Chevrolet Avalanche equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Perkins purchased his Avalanche new in 2011 from Porter Chevrolet in Newark, 

Delaware.

53. Mr. Perkins has noticed that his Avalanche consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

54. In 2015, the lifters in Mr. Perkins’ vehicle’s engine collapsed, which, upon information 

and belief, was due to the excessive consumption of oil and corresponding inadequate engine lubricity. 

55. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Perkins before he purchased his 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 9 of 236
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

10

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Avalanche, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Perkins, therefore, purchased his Avalanche

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

5. Florida

56. Thomas Shorter is a resident of Okeechobee, Florida. 

57. Mr. Shorter owns a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Shorter purchased his Silverado new from Gilbert Chevrolet in Okeechobee, Florida.

58. Mr. Shorter has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. Mr. 

Shorter first noticed excessive oil consumption in 2015.

59. In 2015, Mr. Shorter complained of excessive oil consumption to Gilbert Chevrolet, and 

was told that “oil was backing into the cylinders.” His vehicle was still under warranty at this time. The 

dealership attempted repair, but did not fix the problem. 

60. In early 2016, Mr. Shorter noticed his lifters were ticking, and he checked his oil. He 

found none on his dipstick. The lifter tick resulted from excessive oil consumption and corresponding 

inadequate engine lubricity.

61. Mr. Shorter did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption was the result of the Oil Consumption Defect 

until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

62. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Shorter before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Shorter, therefore, purchased his Silverado 

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

6. Georgia

63. Derick Bradford is a resident of Bainbridge, Georgia.

64. Mr. Bradford owns a 2010 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Bradford purchased his Silverado used with 70,000 miles in 2014 from Action GM in 

Bainbridge, Georgia.

65. Mr. Bradford has noticed that his vehicle consumes an unusually high volume of oil. In 

or around February of 2016, Action GM told Mr. Bradford that excessive oil consumption was normal.

66. Later in 2016, the lifters and cam shaft in Mr. Bradford’s vehicle failed and were replaced.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 10 of 236
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

11

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Upon information and belief, these repairs were necessitated by excessive oil consumption and 

corresponding inadequate engine lubricity. 

67. He experienced engine damage despite his dealership’s representation that the oil 

consumption in his vehicle was normal. 

68. Mr. Bradford did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption was the result of the Oil Consumption Defect 

until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016

69. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Bradford before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Bradford, therefore, purchased his 

Silverado with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

7. Idaho

70. Gabriel Del Valle is a resident of Antelope, California. 

71. Mr. Del Valle owns a 2013 Chevrolet Avalanche equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Del Valle purchased his Avalanche used with 40,000 miles in February 2016 from 

Peterson Chevrolet Buick Cadillac, located at 12300 West Fairview Ave, Boise, Idaho. 

72. Mr. Del Valle has noticed that his Avalanche consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

73. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Del Valle before he purchased 

his Avalanche, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Del Valle, therefore, purchased his 

Avalanche with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

8. Illinois

74. Kevin Hanneken is a resident of Jerseyville, Illinois.

75. Mr. Hanneken owns a 2011 GMC Sierra equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Hanneken purchased his Sierra new in 2011 from Quality Buick GMC Cadillac in Alton, 

Illinois. 

76. Mr. Hanneken has noticed that his Sierra consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

77. Mr. Hanneken first recognized an oil consumption issue in 2014. When Mr. Hanneken’s 

odometer read 100,000 miles, he was four quarts low on oil. Mr. Hanneken complained to his dealership, 

and his dealership falsely told him that the oil consumption was normal.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 11 of 236
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

12

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

78. Mr. Hanneken did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption was the result of the Oil Consumption Defect 

until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

79. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Hanneken before he purchased 

his Sierra, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Hanneken, therefore, purchased his Sierra with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

80. Katelyn Doepel and Edwin Doepel III are residents of Yorkville, Illinois.

81. Mr. and Mrs. Doepel own a 2013 GMC Yukon, equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. and Mrs. Doepel purchased their Yukon used from Thomas Toyota in Joliet, Illinois.

82. Before purchasing their vehicle, Mr. and Mrs. Doepel researched the vehicle. Because 

Mr. and Mrs. Doepel were particularly interested in the purported gas savings of Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine’s AFM system, Mr. and Mrs. Doepel reviewing information available on GM’s website, 

specifically including a fact sheet, regarding the AFM system and the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines.

83. Mr. and Mrs. Doepel have noticed that their Yukon consumes an unusually high volume

of oil.

84. In or around June 2017, Mr. and Mrs. Doepel heard loud knocking in their vehicle’s engine 

and white smoke was coming from the tailpipe. The lifters within Mr. and Mrs. Doepel’s vehicle had 

failed. Multiple mechanics told Mr. and Mrs. Doepel that the problem was caused by excessive oil 

consumption. Mr. and Mrs. Doepel were forced to pay for a new engine. 

85. Mr. and Mrs. Doepel never saw a low oil warning illuminate or appear in their vehicle.

86. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. and Mrs. Doepel before they 

purchased their Yukon, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. and Mrs. Doepel, therefore, 

purchased their Yukon with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

9. Kansas

87. Dan Madson is a resident of Cheney, Kansas.

88. Mr. Madson owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Madson purchased his Silverado used with 12,000 miles in December 2013 from Lubbers 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 12 of 236
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

13

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Chevrolet in Cheney, Kansas.

89. Mr. Madson has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

90. Mr. Madson first recognized an issue with excessive oil consumption issue in March 2014. 

91. He later noticed a knocking noise in the engine of his vehicle, which, upon information 

and belief, is the result of excessive oil consumption and corresponding inadequate engine lubricity.

92. Mr. Madson did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption was the result of the Oil Consumption Defect 

until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016

93. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Madson before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Madson, therefore, purchased his Silverado 

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle

10. Kentucky

94. James Faulkner is a resident of Manchester, Kentucky.

95. Mr. Faulkner owns a 2011 GMC Sierra equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Faulkner purchased his Sierra used with 19,000 miles in 2015 from Legacy Chevrolet in 

Corbin, Kentucky.

96. Mr. Faulkner has noticed that his Sierra consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

97. Mr. Faulkner first noticed excessive oil consumption when his vehicle had approximately 

34,000 miles on the odometer. Since first noticing excessive oil consumption, Mr. Faulkner has had to 

add a quart of oil every 1,000 miles.

98. Mr. Faulkner has had to replace multiple spark plugs due to fouling from the excessive oil 

consumption.

99. Mr. Faulkner previously owned a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. That vehicle required four quarts of oil between oil changes. 

100. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Faulkner before he purchased 

his Sierra, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Faulkner, therefore, purchased his Sierra with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 13 of 236
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

14

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

11. Louisiana

101. Joseph Olivier is a resident of Houma, Louisiana.

102. Mr. Olivier owns a 2013 GMC Sierra equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine. 

Mr. Olivier purchased his Sierra new from Barker Buick GMC in, Houma, Louisiana.

103. Mr. Olivier has noticed that his Sierra consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

104. Mr. Olivier has experienced knocking in his engine, which, upon information and belief, 

is due to excessive oil consumption and inadequate engine lubricity.

105. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Olivier before he purchased his 

Sierra, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Olivier, therefore, purchased his Sierra with the 

incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

12. Massachusetts

106. Scott Smith is a resident of Plymouth, Massachusetts.

107. Mr. Smith owned a 2011 GMC Yukon equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Smith purchased his Yukon in 2012 from Colonial GMC in Watertown, Massachusetts.

108. In the fall of 2016, Mr. Smith first noticed that his Yukon consumed an unusually high 

quantity of oil.

109. Mr. Smith first noticed excessive oil consumption when his vehicle had approximately 

85,000 miles on the odometer. Mr. Smith’s Yukon consumed 2-3 quarts of oil per 3,000 miles. Due to 

the oil consumption and corresponding inadequate engine lubricity, the spark plugs in Mr. Smith’s Yukon 

fouled, and the cam and lifters in Mr. Smith’s Yukon failed. 

110. In January 2017, Marty’s GMC in Kingston, Massachusetts noted the oil consumption in 

Mr. Smith’s vehicle. Mr. Smith was informed that his engine had suffered catastrophic internal failure 

and that the estimated cost of a new engine was $6,470. Mr. Smith ultimately traded in his vehicle.

111. Mr. Smith did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption was the result of the Oil Consumption Defect 

until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016

112. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Smith before he purchased his 

Yukon, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Smith, therefore, purchased his Yukon with the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 14 of 236
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

15

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

13. Minnesota

113. Ross Dahl is a resident of Willmar, Minnesota.

114. Mr. Dahl owns a 2010 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Dahl purchased his Silverado in 2010 new from Davis Motors in Litchfield, Minnesota.

115. Mr. Dahl has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

116. Mr. Dahl first noticed excessive oil consumption when his vehicle had approximately 

56,000 miles on the odometer and his oil screen clogged. A mechanic confirmed to Mr. Dahl that his 

vehicle was low on oil, although a low oil warning never illuminated or appeared in his vehicle. 

117. Mr. Dahl had to have his spark plugs changed, which, upon information and belief, was 

due to fouling from excessive oil consumption. 

118. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Dahl before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Dahl, therefore, purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

119. Drew Peterson is a resident of Vernon Center, Minnesota.

120. Mr. Peterson owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado, equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Peterson purchased his Silverado in December 2012 new from Mankato Motors in 

Mankato, Minnesota.

121. Mr. Peterson has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

122. Mr. Peterson first noticed excessive oil consumption in or around November 2015. 

123. Mr. Peterson’s vehicle consumes approximately 2 quarts of oil every 1,000-2,000 miles. 

124. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Peterson before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Peterson, therefore, purchased his 

Silverado with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

14. Mississippi

125. Michael Ware is a resident of Abbeville, Mississippi. 

126. Mr. Ware owned a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Ware purchased his Silverado used with 75,000 miles in 2016 from Barnes Crossing 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 15 of 236
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

16

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Hyundai Mazda in Tupelo, Mississippi 38804.

127. Mr. Ware noticed that his Silverado consumed an unusually high volume of oil.

128. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Ware before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Ware, therefore, purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

15. Missouri

129. Steve Kitchen is a resident of Saint Charles, Missouri.

130. Mr. Kitchen owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Kitchen purchased his Silverado used with 39,000 miles in July 2013 from Weber Chevrolet 

Creve Coeur in Creve Coeur, Missouri. 

131. Mr. Kitchen has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

132. Mr. Kitchen noticed excessive oil consumption within 3-4 months of purchasing his 

vehicle. 

133. Due to the excessive oil consumption and corresponding inadequate engine lubricity, Mr. 

Kitchen’s vehicle suffered camshaft, lifter and push rod failures, and these components needed to be 

replaced. 

134. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Kitchen before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Kitchen, therefore, purchased his Silverado

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

16. New Jersey

135. John Knoll is a resident of Hazlet, New York.

136. Mr. Knoll owns a 2013 GMC Sierra equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine. 

Mr. Knoll purchased his Sierra new from Straub Motors, a GMC dealership in Keyport, New Jersey.

137. In 2015, Mr. Knoll noticed that his vehicle was consuming excessive oil. 

138. In 2015, Mr. Knoll complained to his dealership regarding the excessive oil consumption,

and was told that the oil consumption was normal for his type of vehicle.

139. Due to excessive oil consumption, Mr. Knoll’s vehicle has experienced spark plug fouling.

140. Mr. Knoll did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 16 of 236
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

17

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption was the result of the Oil Consumption Defect 

until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016

141. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Knoll before he purchased his 

Sienna, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Knoll, therefore, purchased his Sienna with the 

incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

17. New Mexico

142. Barbara Molina is a resident of Seboyeta, New Mexico.

143. Ms. Molina owns a 2012 Chevrolet Avalanche equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Ms. Molina purchased her Avalanche used with 2,334 miles from Galles Chevrolet, located 

at 1601 Lomas Boulevard, Albuquerque, New Mexico.

144. Ms. Molina did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known of the Oil Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s

investigation in late 2016

145. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Ms. Molina before she purchased 

her Avalanche, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Ms. Molina, therefore, purchased her 

Avalanche with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

17. New York

146. Dennis Vita is a resident of Saint James, New York.

147. Mr. Vita owns a 2013 GMC Sierra, equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine. 

Mr. Vita purchased his Sierra new from King O’Rourke Buick/GM in Smithtown, New York. 

148. Mr. Vita has noticed that his Sierra consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

149. Mr. Vita noticed excessive oil consumption when his vehicle had approximately 80,000 

miles on the odometer. 

150. His vehicle consumes one quart of oil every 200 miles. Mr. Vita changes spark plugs 

every 500 miles due to fouling from excessive oil consumption.

151. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Vita before he purchased his 

Sierra, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Vita, therefore, purchased his Sierra with the 

incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 17 of 236
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

18

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

18. North Carolina

152. Steven Ehrke is a resident of Spring Hill, Florida. 

153. Mr. Ehrke owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Ehrke purchased his Silverado used with 16,844 miles on it in February 2016 from Reed 

Lallier Chevrolet in Fayetteville, North Carolina. 

154. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Ehrke before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Ehrke, therefore, purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

19. Ohio

155. Thomas Gulling is a resident of Newton Falls, Ohio.

156. Mr. Gulling owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, equipped with a Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engine. Mr. Gulling purchased his Silverado from Doug Chevrolet in Akron, Ohio. 

157. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Gulling before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Gulling, therefore, purchased his Silverado 

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

158. Ronald Jones is a resident of Newton Falls, Ohio.

159. Mr. Jones owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Jones purchased his Silverado from Spitzer Chevrolet Lordstown in North Jackson, Ohio.

160. Mr. Jones has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

161. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Jones before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Jones, therefore, purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

20. Oklahoma

162. Mike Warpinski is a resident of Lawton, Oklahoma.

163. Mr. Warpinski owns a 2012 Chevrolet Express equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Warpinski purchased his Express used with 24,000 miles in October 2014 from Toyota 

of Lawton in Lawton, Oklahoma.

164. Mr. Warpinski has noticed that his Express consumes an unusually high volume of oil and 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 18 of 236
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

19

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

has produced knocking and ticking sounds. Mr. Warpinski first noticed excessive oil consumption in 

January 2015. 

165. Mr. Warpinski’s vehicle has suffered numerous engine problems, which, upon 

information and belief, are due to excessive oil consumption and corresponding inadequate engine 

lubricity. Mr. Warpinski has experienced engine knocking and ticking, a damaged cam shaft, his engine 

shaking and running rough, and failed lifters. 

166. Mr. Warpinski presented his vehicle to Classic Lawton Chevrolet (formally Jim Glover 

Chevrolet) for oil consumption remediation, along with lifter and camshaft replacement. Classic Lawton 

Chevrolet performed all oil changes subsequent to Mr. Warpinski’s first oil consumption inquiry. The 

dealership never told him of the Oil Consumption Defect, but instead recommended regular oil changes. 

167. Prior to purchasing his Express, Mr. Warpinski visited two GM dealerships (Lawton 

Chevrolet and David Stanley Chevrolet) and test-drove 2012 and 2013 Express vehicles. A David 

Stanley representative stressed the fuel savings offered by the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine’s 

Active Fuel Management system. Mr. Warpinski studied the two GM dealerships’ webpages for 

information relating to the 2012-13 Express vehicles. The materials promoted GM’s warranty, quality, 

reliability, and dependability, but did not reference the Oil Consumption Defect. 

168. Mr. Warpinski did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

169. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Warpinski before he purchased 

his Express, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Warpinski, therefore, purchased his Express 

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

21. Oregon

170. William Martell is a resident of Klickitat, Washington.

171. Mr. Martell owns a 2011 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Martell purchased his Silverado new in 2011 from Bob Stone Chevrolet in The Dalles, 

Oregon.

172. Mr. Martell has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 19 of 236
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

20

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

173. Mr. Martell first noticed excessive oil consumption in 2015 while his vehicle was under 

warranty. 

174. Mr. Martell’s vehicle has suffered numerous engine problems while under warranty, 

which, upon information and belief, are due to excessive oil consumption and corresponding inadequate 

lubricity. Mr. Martell experienced pre-ignition detonation, valvetrain/lifter tick, spark plug fouling, 

rough idle, and engine shaking. On multiple occasions, Mr. Martell sought warranty repair at Tonkin 

Chevrolet (formerly Bob Stone Chevrolet). Tonkin performed an oil consumption test and replaced the 

vehicle’s fouled spark plugs on multiple occasions. 

175. Mr. Martell complained about oil consumption to Dalles Chevrolet, but the service 

manager denied that the vehicle was using excessive oil according to GM standards, and told Mr. Martell 

that the oil consumption was normal under GM standards. Only after Mr. Martell’s warranty expired did 

the dealership conduct an oil consumption test, in July 2017, which confirmed that his vehicle was using 

excessive oil. 

176. Mr. Martell did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

177. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Martell before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Martell, therefore, purchased his Silverado 

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

22. Pennsylvania

178. John Graziano is a resident of Lake Ariel, Pennsylvania. 

179. Mr. Graziano owns a 2012 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Graziano purchased his Silverado new in December 2011 from Reedman Toll 

Chevrolet in Philadelphia, Pennsylvania. 

180. Mr. Graziano has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

Mr. Graziano complained to Tom Hesser Chevrolet dealership in 2012. The dealership told Mr. Graziano 

that the oil consumption was normal, and that he should simply bring in his vehicle for regular oil checks. 

181. Mr. Graziano did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 20 of 236
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

21

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

182. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Graziano before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Graziano, therefore, purchased his 

Silverado with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

23. South Carolina

183. Monteville Sloan, Jr. is a resident of Novato, California. 

184. Mr. Sloan owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Sloan purchased his Silverado used with 9,100 miles from Master Chevrolet Cadillac in 

Aiken, South Carolina in August 2014. He then moved to Novato, California in April 2015.

185. Mr. Sloan, a certified motorcycle mechanic, has noticed that his Silverado consumes an 

unusually high volume of oil.

186. Mr. Sloan has complained about the excessive oil consumption to Nevado Chevrolet, but 

the problem has not been fixed. 

187. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Sloan before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Sloan, therefore, purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

24. Tennessee

188. Joshua Byrge is a resident of Maynardville, Tennessee. 

189. Mr. Byrge owns a 2012 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Byrge purchased his Silverado used with 44,160 miles in 2016 from Rusty Wallace Honda 

in Knoxville, Tennessee. 

190. In early 2017, Mr. Byrge first noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high 

volume of oil.

191. In February 2017, Mr. Byrge spoke with a technician at Reeder Chevrolet, who informed 

Mr. Byrge that excessive oil consumption was a widespread issue with respect to Silverados. 

192. Before purchasing his vehicle, Mr. Byrge studied Silverado and Sierra vehicles with 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines on the webpages of Fox Chevrolet and Reeder Chevrolet. The 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 21 of 236
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

22

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

webpages did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect. 

193. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Byrge before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Byrge therefore purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

25. Texas

194. Rudy Sanchez is a resident of San Antonio, Texas. 

195. Mr. Sanchez owns a 2013 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec

5300 Engine. Mr. Sanchez purchased his Silverado new in July 2013 new from Freedom Chevrolet in 

San Antonio, Texas. 

196. Mr. Sanchez has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil. 

Mr. Sanchez first noticed excessive oil consumption in January 2017.

197. At 29,000 miles, his vehicle was 4 1/2 quarts low of oil.

198. In 2017, GM replaced a valve cover in his Silverado after he complained about excessive 

oil consumption.

199. Mr. Sanchez did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

200. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Sanchez before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Sanchez, therefore, purchased his Silverado

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

26. Virginia

201. Christopher Thacker is a resident of Charlottesville, Virginia.

202. Mr. Thacker owns a 2010 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec

5300 Engine. Mr. Thacker purchased his Silverado used with 128,000 miles in June 2014 from Mallow 

Ford of Charlottesville in Charlottesville, Virginia.

203. Mr. Thacker has noticed that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

204. Mr. Thacker’s vehicle has suffered numerous engine problems, which, upon information 

and belief, are due to excessive oil consumption and corresponding inadequate engine lubricity. One 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 22 of 236
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

23

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

week after purchasing his vehicle, Mr. Thacker’s vehicle began emitting blue/grey smoke. His vehicle’s 

piston rings are failing. Mr. Thacker regularly replaces spark plugs fouled from excessive oil 

consumption. 

205. In February 2016, Mr. Thacker presented his vehicle to Jim Price Chevrolet for oil 

consumption testing and remediation. On February 25, 2016, Jim Price Chevrolet informed him that his 

engine’s piston rings were failing and that ring replacement or engine replacement was the only remedy 

for his engine’s oil consumption. Jim Price Chevrolet also informed Mr. Thacker that ring failure was 

common in 2007-2014 Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. 

206. Mr. Thacker did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

207. Prior to purchasing his Silverado, Mr. Thacker viewed numerous advertisements 

regarding the Silverado that emphasized its dependability and reliability. In addition, he viewed the 

vehicle’s CARFAX report. Neither the advertisements nor the CARFAX report revealed the Oil 

Consumption Defect. 

208. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Thacker before he purchased 

his Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Thacker, therefore, purchased his Silverado

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

27. Washington

209. Kelly Harris is a resident of Seattle, Washington.

210. Mr. Harris owns a 2012 Chevrolet Silverado equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Harris received his Silverado used in 2012 as part of a separation agreement with a previous 

employer. 

211. Mr. Harris first became aware that his Silverado consumes an unusually high volume of 

oil in late 2015. 

212. Mr. Harris has experienced continual engine problems due to excessive oil consumption

and corresponding inadequate engine lubricity. Specifically, Mr. Harris has experience continually 

fouled spark plugs, causing misfiring in his engine. He has needed his spark plugs replaced in this vehicle

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 23 of 236
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

24

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

on numerous occasions. 

213. Mr. Harris first needed a new spark plug in 2014, but it was not until late 2015 that he 

became aware that oil consumption was causing problems with his spark plugs. 

214. He has taken his truck to a Chevrolet dealership on multiple occasions due to his spark 

plug issues, and has been informed that: (a) the spark plugs are oil fouled, (b) he was over a quart low on 

oil, and (c) the suspected cause of the fouled spark plugs was “oil consumption due to piston rings.” 

Eventually, the Chevrolet dealership told Mr. Harris that he would need to have his engine replaced. 

215. Mr. Harris did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

216. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Harris before he purchased his 

Silverado, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Harris, therefore, purchased his Silverado with 

the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

28. West Virginia

217. James Robertson is a resident of Inwood, West Virginia.

218. Mr. Robertson owns a 2010 GMC Sierra equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engine. Mr. Robertson purchased his Sierra new in 2010 from Opequon Motors in Martinsburg, West 

Virginia.

219. Mr. Robertson has noticed that his Sierra consumes an unusually high volume of oil. Mr. 

Robertson first noticed excessive oil consumption in October or November 2014. Around that same time 

period, Mr. Robertson brought his Sierra to Opequon Motors, a GM dealership, who did not disclose the 

Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Robertson. 

220. Mr. Robertson did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

221. Mr. Robertson has had to replace a camshaft lifter due to excessive oil consumption and 

corresponding inadequate engine lubricity. 

222. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Robertson before he purchased 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 24 of 236
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

25

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

his Sierra, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Robertson, therefore, purchased his Sierra 

with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle.

29. Wisconsin

223. Jonas Bednarek is a resident of Verona, Wisconsin.

224. Mr. Bednarek owns a 2010 Chevrolet Suburban equipped with a Generation IV Vortec 

5300 Engine. Mr. Bednarek purchased his Suburban used with 17,667 miles in 2010, from Ballweg 

Chevrolet in Middleton, Wisconsin.

225. Mr. Bednarek has noticed that his Suburban consumes an unusually high volume of oil.

226. Mr. Bednarek first noticed excessive oil consumption when there were approximately 

20,000 miles on his vehicle’s odometer. 

227. At various times between 2010 and 2013, Mr. Bednarek reported the oil consumption 

issues to Symdon Chevrolet in Mr. Horeb, Wisconsin, but was told that the oil consumption was normal 

and that he should simply add more oil or come in more often for oil changes. The dealer told Mr. 

Bednarek that because the oil consumption was normal, there would be no need to perform or seek any 

warranty work.

228. Mr. Bednarek has noticed tapping and knocking coming from the engine, which, upon 

information and belief, is due to excessive oil consumption and corresponding inadequate engine 

lubricity. 

229. Mr. Bednarek did not receive any notification from GM regarding the Oil Consumption 

Defect, and could not have known that the oil consumption in his vehicle was the result of the Oil 

Consumption Defect until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation in late 2016.

230. GM failed to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Mr. Bednarek before he purchased 

his Suburban, despite GM’s knowledge of the defect, and Mr. Bednarek, therefore, purchased his 

Suburban with the incorrect understanding that it would be a reliable vehicle

B. Defendant

231. General Motors LLC (“GM”) is a Delaware limited liability company, with its principal 

place of business located at 300 Renaissance Center, Detroit, Michigan, and is a citizen of Delaware and 

Michigan. The sole member and owner of General Motors LLC is General Motors Holding LLC. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 25 of 236
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

26

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

General Motors Holdings LLC is a Delaware limited liability company with its principal place of business 

in the State of Michigan. The sole member and owner of General Motors Holdings LLC is General 

Motors Company, which is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in the State of 

Michigan, and is a citizen of Delaware and Michigan. 

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Introduction and Background

232. Beginning with certain model year 2000 vehicles, Old GM introduced its Vortec 5300 

engines. The Vortec 5300 was met with anticipation and fanfare due to its close resemblance to the 

adored 327ci of the 1960s, which was best known as the powerplant in the Corvette Stingray.

233. Old GM faced regulatory pressure to increase its fuel economy standards. In December 

2007, Congress passed the Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007, which increased fuel 

economy standards by 40% by 2020.3 

234. For certain model year 2007 vehicles, Old GM introduced its Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines. 

235. The Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines suffer from excessive oil consumption and the 

resulting internal component damage caused by inadequate engine lubricity levels. This excessive oil 

consumption problem negates any minor increase in performance associated with those engines. 

236. Old GM continued selling vehicles equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines 

through 2009. 

237. On June 8, 2009, Old GM filed for protection under Chapter 11 of the United States 

Bankruptcy Code.

238. Defendant General Motors LLC (“GM”) acquired the assets of Old GM and emerged from 

bankruptcy on July 10, 2009. Defendant GM continued manufacturing and selling vehicles under the 

GMC and Chevrolet brands.

 3 See “Fact Sheet: Energy Independence and Security Act of 2007” at https://georgewbushwhitehouse.archives.gov/news/releases/2007/12/20071219-1.html

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 26 of 236
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

27

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

239. For model years 2010-2014, GM manufactured and sold the Class Vehicles – each of 

which came equipped with the defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engine.

B. The Class Vehicles Suffer from Excessive Oil Consumption.

1. The Piston Rings in the Class Vehicles Lead to Oil Consumption and Engine 

Damage.

240. The primary cause of the Oil Consumption Defect is GM’s installation of piston rings that 

do not apply sufficient tension to prevent oil from being consumed in the combustion chamber, fouling 

spark plugs, and creating harmful carbon buildup in the pistons and cylinders. 

241. In the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, as is normal in automobile engines, pistons 

move vigorously up and down inside of cylinders, as shown below. 

242. In order for the engine to run effectively and without causing engine damage, such as heat 

and friction wear, the pistons and cylinders require a thin film of oil between the opposing metal surfaces. 

The oil reduces friction and heat, prevents surface scarring, and helps the moving components slide freely 

past each other. 

243. To keep oil in the crankcase, and to prevent oil from traveling around the pistons and into 

the combustion chamber, pistons are fitted with compression and oil control rings (collectively, “piston 

rings"), as shown below. Rings must also withstand combustion pressures and hold combustion gases in 

the combustion chambers, keeping the gases out of the crankcase. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 27 of 236
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

28

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

244. Unfortunately for purchasers and lessees of the Class Vehicles, the piston rings that GM 

installed in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines fail to achieve their intended purpose of keeping oil 

in the crankcase and out of the combustion chamber. Further, the rings fail to achieve their intended 

purpose of trapping combustion gases in the combustion chamber and out of the crankcase. Specifically, 

the rings do not maintain sufficient tension, with respect to their interaction with the cylinder walls, to 

keep oil from seeping past. This results in excessive oil consumption and, at least, the following 

problems. 

245. First, in the Class Vehicles, oil travels around the piston rings and reaches the combustion 

chamber, where it is burned during the engines’ power stroke, thereby reducing the quantity of oil in the 

vehicle, reducing engine lubricity, and increasing the risk of correspondent engine damage. 

246. Second, the defective piston rings allow for oil to constantly foul the spark plugs in the 

Class Vehicles. Spark plug electrodes, protrude into the combustion chamber and generate the ignition 

spark. Importantly, the electrodes must be dry and free of debris to fire properly. When oil migrates into 

the combustion chamber in the Class Vehicles, the oil coats the spark plugs’ electrodes and either 

weakens or altogether disables their firing function. 

247. Third, the oil that passes around the rings in the Class Vehicles, and that is not burned in 

the combustion chamber, gathers and hardens, creating carbon buildup. Due to the excessive carbon 

buildup in the combustion chamber and on top of the pistons, the Class Vehicles suffer from pre-ignition 

detonation, or “spark knock” as it is commonly called. Pre-ignition detonation disrupts the proper seating 

of the piston rings in their respective grooves, which causes them to wear out as they grind against the 

cylinder walls improperly. This results in the rings not sealing properly and thus allows for even more 

oil consumption. Pre-ignition detonation also vaporizes the cylinder wall oil film, pushing it past the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 28 of 236
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

29

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

rings and into the crankcase where it is vacuumed into the intake manifold via the PCV system. 

248. When GM introduced its fifth-generation Vortec 5300 engines for its model year 2014 

vehicles, GM remedied the Oil Consumption Defect by improving piston rings oil and combustion gas 

control by decreasing the ring end gaps, adding a protective coating increasing the ring radial thickness,

and increasing the ring height. 

2. The AFM System in the Class Vehicles Contributes to Oil Consumption and Engine 

Damage.

249. GM’s AFM system, installed in each of the Class Vehicles, contributes to oil consumption

and engine damage by overwhelming the independently defective piston rings. 

250. The AFM system’s intended function is to deactivate four of the eight engine cylinders 

for fuel-saving purposes in low-load operating conditions. The AFM system includes an oil pressure 

relief valve that GM installed in the crankcase beneath the crankshaft. 

251. The AFM system’s oil pressure relief valve sprays oil directly into the piston skirts 

(undersides) in quantities that the rings cannot control. The defective rings allow excessive quantities of 

oil in the combustion chambers where it is burned. This leads to excessive oil loss. 

252. In addition, the excessive oil spray collects on the piston ring surfaces forming carbon 

buildup. Carbon buildup on the piston rings interferes with the rings’ seating in their grooves, and thus 

interferes with the rings’ ability to seal out oil. Once the rings lose proper groove seating, they become 

misaligned with the cylinder bores. Immediate and aggressive ring deterioration occurs as the fragile 

rings scrape against the harder steel cylinder bores at unintended angles.

253. GM acknowledged that the AFM system’s oil pressure relief valve contributed to oil 

consumption and carbon buildup on the piston rings in TSB# 10-06-001, dated August 24, 2010. In that 

TSB, GM instructs its dealers to install a deflector over the AFM oil pressure relief valve. This purported 

fix, however, fails to address the fundamental problem of the defective piston rings, and thus does not 

resolve the Oil Consumption Defect. Indeed, in this TSB, GM recognizes that piston and ring 

replacement is the ultimate fix. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 29 of 236
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

30

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

3. The PCV System in the Class Vehicles Contributes to Oil Consumption and Engine 

Damage.

254. GM’s PCV system, as installed in each of the Class Vehicles, also contributes to oil 

consumption and engine damage by vacuuming oil from the valvetrain. 

255. The PCV system’s intended purpose is to vent valvetrain gas pressures and recirculate 

that gas pressure into the intake manifold. The intake manifold distributes fresh air pulled through the 

intake filter, and recirculated air vented from the valvetrain, to the engines’ combustion chambers. PCV 

systems are not intended to vacuum oil from the valvetrain.

256. In the Class Vehicles, however, the PCV system vacuums oil from the valvetrain and 

feeds it into the intake manifold runners and ultimately into the combustion chambers. By vacuuming oil 

from the valvetrain, the PCV system results in increased oil consumption, carbon buildup and the 

associated pre-ignition detonation, ring wear, ring failure, ring buildup, spark plug fouling, combustion 

chamber oil burn, low lubricity levels, internal component wear and component failure.

257. GM acknowledged that its PCV system contributed to oil consumption in TSB #10-06-

008, dated March 7, 2011. In that TSB, GM instructs dealers to “replace the left rocker arm cover with 

GM P/N 12642655. This rocker arm cover has relocated PCV drain holes that prevents PCV pullover 

into the intake manifold.” This purported fix does not address the fundamental problem of the defective 

piston rings, and thus does not resolve the Oil Consumption Defect. Indeed, in this TSB, GM recognizes 

that piston and ring replacement is the ultimate fix.

4. GM’s Oil Life Monitoring System Exacerbates the Oil Loss and Engine Damage 

Problems Caused by the Oil Consumption Defect.

258. GM’s Oil Life Monitoring System, installed in each of the Class Vehicles, exacerbates the 

oil loss and engine damage problems caused by the Oil Consumption Defect, because the Oil Life 

Monitoring Stystem fails to advise drivers of a decreased oil level in their Class Vehicle, even at critically 

low levels. 

259. The Oil Life Monitoring System alerts the driver to the estimated percentage of oil life 

left before an oil change is required. With respect to the Oil Life Monitoring System, “oil life” means 

the quality of the engine oil, not the oil level. The system uses varying factors to estimate oil health, such 

as heat cycles and engine running conditions. The Oil Life Monitoring System does not, however, alert 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 30 of 236
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

31

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

drivers to low oil levels or oil loss, thereby exacerbating the Oil Consumption Defect by failing to alert 

owners or lessees of their Class Vehicles’ oil loss until it is much too late. 

5. The Class Vehicles Do Not Include a Warning System that Protects Drivers From 

the Effects of the Oil Consumption Defect.

260. In addition to the Oil Life Motoring System (which does not monitor oil level), the Class 

Vehicles include an oil pressure gauge on the dash and an oil canister image that will ostensibly illuminate 

when a vehicle is low on oil. But that’s not what it does in the Class Vehicles

261. Indeed, the oil pressure gauge in the Class Vehicles fails provide any indication as to when 

a vehicle is dangerously low on oil. The oil pressure gauges in the Class Vehicles either have no indicator 

that indicates when oil pressure is too low, or they contain a single red hash mark. To the extent that 

there is a red hash mark on the oil pressure gauge, it is at the zero PSI mark. Thus, the oil pressure gauges 

in the Class Vehicles do not indicate a dangerously low oil level until the vehicles have no oil pressure. 

This is well beyond the point at which a lack of oil, and oil pressure, will damage or destroy an engine. 

262. Further, the oil canister symbol will not illuminate, and the Class Vehicles will not provide 

any low oil pressure warning, until well past the time when the Class Vehicles are critically low on oil. 

According to GM documentation, the minimum oil specification for the Class Vehicles is 24 PSI. Based 

on testing performed on a Class Vehicle, the oil canister symbol does not illuminate and a low oil pressure 

warning is not displayed until the oil pressure drops below six PSI. An engine generating six PSI of oil 

pressure will suffer immediate internal destruction if put under operating loads. This means that the Class 

Vehicles communicate no visible or audible warnings of destructive oil pressure levels until the engines 

internally seize or disintegrate. Because the Class Vehicles provide no warnings prior to engine seizure 

or disintegration, they put occupants’ safety at risk. 

263. Furthermore, even if the Class Vehicles did adequately warn drivers of dangerously low 

oil conditions (which they do not), any such warnings would do nothing to prevent the full scope of the 

harms caused by the Oil Consumption Defect. Because the Oil Consumption Defect results in oil 

migrating past the piston rings, it results in carbon buildup on the ring and cylinder surfaces and fouls

spark plugs, even if drivers diligently, and constantly, top-off their oil. Once the spark plugs foul, 

hazardous engine misfire and engine shutdown events are unavoidable. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 31 of 236
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

32

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

C. The Oil Consumption Defect Within the Class Vehicles Has Caused Excessive Oil Loss, 

Which Can Lead to Engine Damage.

264. The Oil Consumption Defect in the Class Vehicles results in excessive oil consumption, 

pre-ignition detonation, ring wear, ring fouling, ring failure, and spark plug fouling. It also results in 

inadequate engine lubricity, which creates increased friction, heat, metal on metal contact, and resulting 

engine damage. That means that each Class Vehicle has suffered, and will continue to suffer, internally 

lubricated component wear and failure.

265. The internal engine components subject to wear and failure include: pistons, cylinder 

walls, rings, valves, valve guides, valve stem seals, lifters, push rods, camshafts, rockers, bearings, piston 

rods, wrist pins, crankshafts, and timing chain components.

266. Due to the Oil Consumption Defect, all of the Class Vehicles have suffered, and will 

continue to suffer, excessive oil consumption, creating metal-on-metal friction, heat levels that far exceed 

GM’s specifications, and resulting engine damage and rapid destruction.

267. Excessive friction and heat expansion will wear the internal steel components, sending 

steel shavings into the crankcase. The steel shavings travel through the oil passages and inevitably 

become lodged in tight spaces, where they cut into component surfaces moving against them.

268. Once the internal components are scarred and/or worn, they cannot be repaired and must 

be replaced. The friction and heat expansion damage caused by the Oil Consumption Defect is 

irreversible.

D. The Oil Consumption Defect Within the Class Vehicles Presents an Unreasonable Safety 

Risk.

269. As GM acknowledges, low oil conditions, such as those that can result from the Oil 

Consumption Defect, present dangerous safety hazards to the driver, other passengers of the Class 

Vehicles, and the public. 

270. With insufficient oil and lubricity, the engines in the Class Vehicles will overheat and 

potentially catch fire. For this reason, GM warns in the manuals for the Class Vehicles: “Do not keep 

driving if the oil pressure is low. The engine can become so hot that it catches fire. Someone could be 

burned.”

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 32 of 236
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

33

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

271. Low oil conditions are also unsafe because, if the engine experiences enough damage, the 

Class Vehicles’ engines will seize and the Class Vehicles will shut down unexpectedly, which could 

cause an accident or leave drivers and passengers stranded in an unsafe situation. GM also warns against 

this possibility in the manuals for the Class Vehicles when it states: “If you drive the vehicle while the 

engine oil pressure is low, severe engine damage may occur. If a low oil pressure warning appears on 

the Driver Information Center (DIC), stop the vehicle as soon as possible.”

272. The Oil Consumption Defect also causes an unreasonable safety risk because excessive 

oil getting past the piston rings and fouling spark plugs causes engine misfires and engine shutdown that 

can leave drivers stranded and without the use of their vehicle. Further, the ignition failure caused by 

fouled spark plugs results in sluggish throttle response which places occupants in harm’s way as they 

interact with other traffic. A Class Vehicle suffering from weakened ignition function cannot accelerate 

as GM intended. A Class Vehicle suffering from total ignition failure will not even run. Both conditions 

place occupants in any number of hazardous conditions that would not exist but for the Oil Consumption 

Defect.

273. As explained above, drivers are not protected from these safety risks by any timely 

warning from their Class Vehicles that their oil levels are too low. As confirmed in testing, the Class 

Vehicles do not provide any warning of low oil levels until the oil has already reached a level that is 

concurrent with engine misfire and shutdown and therefore unsafe.

E. GM’s Knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect

274. GM’s awareness of the Oil Consumption Defect is evident from the fact that GM 

abandoned the design flaws causing excessive oil consumption in the Class Vehicles in its redesigned 

Generation V Vortec 5300 Engines. GM’s redesign of the defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines 

began as early as May 2011.4

275. Further, as shown below, excessive oil loss has been a common complaint among drivers 

of vehicles fitted with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, dating back to vehicles manufactured by 

 4 Mike Levine, Inside GM’s State-of-the-Art Powertrain Engineering Center, PICKUPTRUCKS.COM, 

May 17, 2011, http://news.pickuptrucks.com/2011/05/inside-gms-state-of-the-art-powertrainengineering-center-.html. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 33 of 236
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

34

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Old GM. For example, at www.carcomplaints.com, there are posts from as early as June 2008 regarding 

excessive oil consumption problems with the 2007 Chevrolet Silverado with the Generation IV Vortec 

5300 engine. Indeed, an online search reveals an extraordinary number of complaints regarding excessive 

oil consumption in Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, including many from prior to 2009.

276. Knowledge derived from complaints received by Old GM can be imputed to Defendant 

GM, at least insofar as that knowledge was in the possession of an Old GM employee who continued 

employment at New GM or contained in a file transferred from Old GM to New GM. See In re Motors 

Liquidation Co., 541 B.R. 104, 108 (Bankr. S.D.N.Y. 2015). As recognized by the Second Circuit, 

Defendant GM immediately took over the business of Old GM, without any “reorganization” as 

traditionally takes place in the case of a bankruptcy. Elliot v. GM LLC, 829 F.3d 135, 145-46 (2d Cir. 

2016). Thus, upon information and belief, Defendant GM, at its inception, also had knowledge of the 

Oil Consumption Defect from complaints from drivers of vehicles with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

engines.

277. Moreover, as discussed further below, complaints regarding excessive oil consumption in 

vehicles with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines continued following the commencement of 

Defendant GM’s business in 2009.

278. Faced with the fact that vehicles with Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines were suffering 

excessive oil and engine damage due to the Oil Consumption Defect, GM issued multiple Technical 

Service Bulletins addressing the oil consumption issue (“TSBs”). 

279. The TSBs stated that the oil loss in the vehicles with Generation IV Vortec 5300 engines 

could be caused by two conditions: (a) oil pulled through the PCV system; or (b) oil spray that is 

discharged from the AFM system’s pressure relief valve within the crankcase. The TSBs suggested fixes 

for each of these issues, but recognized that neither fix may solve the oil loss problem. Indeed, as noted 

in the online complaints cited below, these fixes do not solve the oil loss problem. Rather, as stated in 

the TSBs, the ultimate fix for the oil consumption problem was the replacement of the piston

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 34 of 236
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

35

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

assemblies.

5

 Upon information and belief, the first version of these TSBs was released on August 24, 

2010.6 These TSBs continued to be issued through, at least, November 26, 2014 – thereby covering the 

entirety of the Class Period.7

280. Despite this knowledge, GM took no steps to remedy this issue, leaving Plaintiffs and the 

other Class Members with knowingly defective Class Vehicles.

F. Consumers Repeatedly Complained About Excessive Oil Consumption and Engine Damage 

in the Class Vehicles.

281. Numerous complaints have been filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety 

Administration (“NHTSA”) regarding excessive oil loss and resultant engine damage in the Class 

Vehicles. By way of example:

• On September 14, 2014, a consumer reported an excessive oil consumption problem with 

a 2010 Chevrolet Silverado 1500: 

Excessive oil consumption caused spark plugs to prematurely fail causing 

the engine to misfire and run rough. . . . Initial repairs did not correct the 

oil consumption problem (1/2 quart burned in approximately 1,000 – 2,000 

miles) . . . . I was told this was “normal” according to General Motors’ 

standards.

NHTSA ID number: 10633824.

• On March 31, 2015, a consumer reported an excessive oil consumption problem with a 

2011 Chevrolet Avalanche:

At 40000 we noticed we were having issues with my Avalanche burning 

oil. When we asked the tech at Chevy he told me that was normal for the 

newer engines to burn oil, at 130,000 miles we started having problems 

with the sparkplug fouling out . . . . At 180,000 mile and only four years 

old we had to replace the engine after replacing the sparkplug and wire 3 

times. . . .

NHTSA ID Number: 10852819.

 5 See TSB No. 10-06-01-008G: Engine Oil Consumption on Aluminum Block/Iron Block Engines with 

Active Fuel Management.

6 See http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/119095-update/

7 See http://gm.oemdtc.com/683/engine-oil-consumption-engine-oil-consumption-on-aluminumblockiron-block-engines-with-active-fuel-management-afm-2007-2015-cadillac-chevrolet-gmcpontiac/2.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 35 of 236
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

36

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• On January 12, 2016, a consumer reported an excessive oil consumption problem with a 

2010 Chevrolet Suburban: “The vehicle is consuming excessive amounts of engine oil and 

fouling spark plugs.” NHTSA ID Number: 10819877.

• On February 4, 2016, a consumer reported an excessive oil consumption problem with a 

2011 Chevrolet Suburban: “Excessive oil consumption that GM refuses to fix under 

warranty.” NHTSA ID Number: 10826046.

282. Consumer complaints about excessive oil consumption and resultant engine damage in 

the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines long predated the Class Vehicles. Indeed, numerous consumer 

complaints were filed with NHTSA regarding excessive oil loss and resultant engine damage within pre2010 vehicles manufactured by Old GM and equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. By 

way of example: 

• A consumer reported an excessive oil consumption problem with a 2007 Chevrolet 

Silverado 1500: “The contact stated that the engine was consuming excessive oil. 

The vehicle was taken to the dealer, who stated that the vehicle was operating to 

standard and that it was normal for a vehicle to burn oil between maintenance. The 

manufacturer was made aware of the failure. The vehicle was not repaired. . . . The 

consumer stated the dealer stated this is a malfunction with the oil consumption. 

The manufacturer denies any malfunctions.” NHTSA ID Number: 10498188.

• A consumer reported an excessive oil consumption problem with a 2007 GMC 

Yukon: “The contact stated that the vehicle would continue to drive sluggish and 

consume excessive amounts of oil. The vehicle was not repaired. Manufacturer 

was made aware of the failure.” NHTSA ID Number: 10854334.

283. Owners of the Class Vehicles, and their Old GM-manufactured predecessors with the 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, have also posted an extraordinary number of online complaints 

about excessive oil consumption with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

284. For example, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 68 complaints regarding excessive 

oil consumption from owners of 2007 Chevrolet Silverados equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 

5300.

8 Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2007 Silverado. These 

complaints include:

 8 Consumer Reviews of 2007 Chevrolet Silverado, available at: 

http://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Silverado/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 36 of 236
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

37

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “Must add 1⁄2 quart of oil 1800-200 miles after each oil change and then again each 

700 miles until new oil change.” (June 15, 2009)

• “[A] quart of oil every 800 miles. Now the lifters clack every start up until they 

get oil. Now I am hearing a low knock, main bearing maybe.” (Jan. 1, 2010)

• “I started to have problems with my new 2007 Chevy Silverado in 2010 at 45,000 

miles. I had multiple fixes attempted but it continued to burn oil. They performed 

a repair consisting of changing the valves, pistons, and rings which cost $1800. . . 

. The truck is now at 164,000 miles and I am burning through a quart of oil a 

week.” (Mar. 1, 2016)

• “DO NOT purchase a 2007 Chevrolet Silverado unless you want to spend more 

time putting oil in the engine than you do driving the vehicle itself. I love Chevrolet 

Silverados but I am extremely disappointed with this issue because there isn’t a 

fix.” (June 1, 2014)

• “The 5.3 uses a quart of oil every 1000 miles since it was new.” (July 1, 2008)

• “From day one this truck has burned about a quart an oil change, and no, this isn’t 

normal. Traction control problems, engine reduced power, this problem cripples 

the vehicle.” (Jan. 1, 2007)

• “The 2007 Silverado 1500 5.3L I have has been using oil and like everyone else I 

got the run around from the dealership.” (Jan. 2, 2010)

• “They Chevy dealer had it in the shop for 3 days . . yes it was under warranty still, 

however they did not fix the damn problem!!! . . . I complained once again. . . . I 

was told I had to take it to a Chevy dealer for oil change so it could be tracked, so 

I did their solution . . straight from the shop manager was, ‘Chevy had sent emails 

to them regarding this problem and they were recommending you get your oil 

changed every 2000 miles!!! This is fraud boys.” (June 15, 2010)

285. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 33 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2008 Chevrolet Silverados equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

9

 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2008 Silverado. Exemplary

complaints include:

• “Purchased my truck brand new in 2008. Started using oil at 60,000 miles. 

Mentioned this several times & GM says this is normal. Now, it is requiring at 

least a quart of oil to be added at 2,000 miles between oil changes. I’ve also had 

to change plugs & wires due to this. I have always maintained my truck & looks 

better than most out there. Trying to make a decision on what I should do. I feel 

GM should take care of this because it has been a known problem from 2007. . .

.” (June 2, 2017)

 9 Consumer Reviews of 2008 Chevrolet Silverado, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Silverado/2008/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 37 of 236
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

38

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “I started to notice the problem when there was oil missing at my first oil change 

in 2011. After that every 3000 miles I was adding two quarts of oil between 

changes. So from now on I’m adding a quart of oil approximately every 1000 

miles, that’s a serious problem.” (Feb. 1, 2011)

• “Burning oil at 3 quarts between oil changes and starting to hear a rattle in the 

engine” (May 15, 2014)

• ‘My 2008 Silverado has been using oil at a rate of 2-3 quarts between oil changes. 

. . . The latest check today now puts it at about a quart every 1000 miles. . . . . I 

bought this truck new to be my keep til I die truck. Now I am concerned that 

keeping it – even if GM repairs it – will be nothing but trouble later.” (Oct. 2, 

2012).

• “Been a Chevy buyer all my life (47 years . . . 10 vehicles). Bought my 2008 

Silverado 1500 LT1 brand new and always got regular maintenance and oil 

changes. No issues at all until Check Engine Light comes one . . . LOW OIL 

PRESSURE. I pull over, check oil level and THERE IS LITERALLY NO OIL 

ON THE STICK...BONE DRY. I limp to the nearest gas station and it took 4.5 

quarts to bring the oil level to normal. UNBELIEVABLE considering I had oil & 

filter change 2 weeks prior and had no leaks.” (Sept. 22, 2011).

286. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 43 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2009 Chevrolet Silverados equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

10 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2009 Silverado. Exemplary

complaints include:

• “09 Silverado 5.3 burning 1 quart of oil in 1000 miles is ridiculous.” (Dec. 6, 2016)

• “Upset about 2009 Silverado oil consumption, no recalls from Chevy to take care 

of this problem, no solution when talked with Chevy dealer, they claimed a qt 

every 1000 miles was normal, very disappointed with GM.” (April 4, 2012)

• “Very high oil consumption on 2009 silverado. No signs of leaking.” (April 16, 

2016)

• “I’ve always been a General Motors truck buyer. I’m totally crippled 

(handicapped) I have five back fractures that are inoperable. . . . I bought a new, 4 

miles on it, 2009 Chevy Silverado 5.3L LTZ package. After my third oil & filter 

change, I was told by a service mechanic that my engine oil was very low. He was 

surprised because he knows how often he changes my oil, and that he saw no leaks. 

I had him check every 400 miles or so. He told me I might have a serious problem. 

I’m blowing out approximately 2 quarts of oil every 600 miles. Since that time, I 

no longer drive my truck. I can’t afford to break down, while using a wheelchair. 

. . . So I’m not the proud owner (paid for) of a 2009 Silverado LTZ that I won’t 

trust to drive. I’m now a recluse in my home.” (Nov. 3, 2015)

 10 Consumer Reviews of 2009 Chevrolet Silverado, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Silverado/2009/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 38 of 236
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

39

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “I had to stop on the side of the road due to the Low Oil Pressure light coming on. 

I found no oil on the dipstick and had to walk to the store to get 4 quarts of oil. 

This was within 3000 miles of an oil change. The dealership did an oil 

consumption analysis and stated that it was normal for this engine to use 1 quart 

of oil every thousand miles.” (Jan. 18, 2013)

• “Truck uses excessive oil, a quart every 1000 miles. . . . gone back to dealer 3 

times to no avail, they tell me my oil is within operating range even tho I’m down 

a quart . . . . . they tell me to come back every 1000 miles. . . .” (Aug. 1, 2009)

• “I own three 2009’s. all have the exact same oil consumption problem. They are 

located in three different cities and I have gotten three different stories from the 

dealers until recently. All are making us record oil consumption on a weekly basis. 

One tried the shield the recall refers to but it did not help.” (Feb. 4, 2010)

• “Just got oil changed after 3k miles and only 1.5 liters was left in the engine. There 

are no leaks and no smoke.” (Nov. 4, 2011).

• “I’ve always had a Chevy, and I usually have minimal problems but having to pour 

4 quarts of oil in between oil changes is annoying to say the least. Especially since 

this is my first show room vehicle, the other 3 were used.” (Nov. 10, 2010)

287. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 12 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2010 Chevrolet Silverados, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

11 

Such complaints include:

• “I began noticing the issue with excessive loss of oil when the vehicle had around 

25,000+/- miles on it. I had to add 2-3 quarts of oil approx. every 1000-1500 

miles.” (April 2, 2015)

• “Bought my 2010 Silverado 4WD with the 5.2 (used) and had it for about 15 

months. . . . . I went to start it one morning and it was acting like maybe a bad fuel 

filter (rough running and not getting enough fuel). Took it to the dealership where 

I purchased it and the mechanic after an hour or so came out holding a couple of 

spark plugs. Claimed it was the #1 and #7 plugs and it appeared to be carbon up 

and fouled. Note: these plugs only had about 20k miles on them. Mechanic went 

on to say that they see this A LOT with the 5.3 and that the only true fix is to 

replace the rings and pistons which will cost somewhere nere $4700. . . .Bottom 

line here is, Chevrolet has known about the 5.3 oil consumption issues for years 

and has done NOTHING to correct it and these so called service contracts that 

cover “EVERYTHING” except engine problems caused by carbon buildup, 

sludge, stuck rings AND oil consumption - the average owner has no idea ANY 

of this is happening within their engine until it fails. . . . .” (June 1, 2016)

• ‘[A]fter 100,000 miles an 2 coil pacts and 5 spark plugs I still have miss fire an 

heavy oil consumption. The local GM says I need new pistons an rings that will 

cost between 4,000 and 5,000 dollars to fix it.” (May 5, 2016)

 11 Consumer Reviews of 2010 Chevrolet Silverado, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Silverado/2010/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 39 of 236
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

40

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “I had an oil change less than 3000 miles ago. I checked the oil level after the oil 

change and it was right where it should be. I was driving down the highway the 

other day and the check engine light came on. The oil pressure gauge dropped 

below normal, vertical position. Note: the ‘Check Oil’ light never came on! I 

pulled into a gas station and checked te oil Nothing was on the dipstick. Added a 

quart. Nothing. I finally had oil appear on the dipstick after adding another 1⁄2 

quart. . . . It took 3 full quarts to bring it up to normal oil level. On the ‘Oil Life 

Remaining’ information panel it says 12%. So, less than 3000 miles and the truck 

needed 3 quarts of oil. Something is definitely wrong!” (Jan. 31, 2015)

• “Truck has been in and out of the dealership 18 times regarding ticking in the 

motor, excessive oil consumption and blue smoke on start up.” (Feb. 9, 2015)

288. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 180 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2007 Chevrolet Suburbans, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

12 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2007 Suburban. Exemplary 

complaints include:

• “I have had this vehicle into GM with this issue at least 3 times. Once at about 

35,000 miles, again at about 50,000 miles, and again at about 70,000 miles. I have 

up as they told me they would not replace the engine. I have been a loyal GM 

owner for 34 years. I haven’t ever had an engine start using oil like this until it 

was leaking it or had over 100,000 miles. Something is wrong and GM should do 

something about it.” (July 28, 2008).

• “The engine burns through oil before it is time for another oil change and we only 

drive back and forth to work about 20 miles per day!!! We must have oil on hand 

at all times!!! This is ridiculous! Certainly not worth the money you pay for the 

SUV!” (Oct. 9, 2015)

• “Apparently we are having the same issue that most 2007 Suburban owners are 

having with excessive oil consumption. Currently 1 quart every 500-1000 miles. 

What a black eye for Chevy! I didn’t realize the extent of the issue until I started 

researching online and found volumes of complaints.” (Mar. 15, 2013)

• “All I can say about the 2007 Suburban is it is an oil sucking money pit!!! . . . It 

started sucking down a quart of oil every 2000 miles after we got to 85000 miles. 

We had to have two cylinders repaired and the cam lifter. Also, the rings and a 

bunch of other stuff I can’t even remember. . . . The dealership was less than 

helpful.” (Dec. 30, 2011)

• “The truck started using about 1.5 quarts of oil per month depending on the amount 

of driving. All of a sudden the engine light came on and lights on the dash. The 

vehicle was miss firing and running rough, so much so you could not drive it. . . . 

It turned out to be two plugs fowled with oil. (This has happened several more 

times.) . . . . I was told the only way to cure this is engine replacement. . . . I think

 12 Consumer Reviews of 2007 Chevrolet Suburban, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Suburban/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 40 of 236
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

41

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

GM should step up and admit that they have a chronic problem with this model 

engine.” (Sept. 30, 2011)

• “Like many others, we are experiencing the same Excessive Oil Consumption with 

our LTZ. We can drive it for approx. 800 miles and yup, you guessed it, we need 

to put at least a quart of oil in it. I have had numerous situations where I will check 

the dip stick and it is BONE dry. This is clearly unacceptable and it is a shame 

that GM is not stepping up to the plate to create a fix.” (Mar. 18, 2011)

• “General Motors should stand behind there products. They have proved to just 

ignore the complaints and give you the run around.” (Sept. 2, 2010)

• “We were having excessive oil issues almost immediately. We took it in, and the 

local dealership said they were aware of the issue, and they had a fix coming and 

would let us know when it was available. We took it back in just before 100,000 

and were told the same thing. Now 60,000 miles later, not only do we have a large 

oil spring on our drive way, and blue smoke when we start it, but the engine has a 

terrible knocking. We’ve been adding oil on a much too regular basis. I think we 

were sold a lemon, and they did not want to deal with [it].” (June 1, 2010).

289. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 34 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2008 Chevrolet Suburbans, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

13 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2008 Suburban. Exemplary

complaints include:

• “From what I can gather, the 5.3 L V8 engines in a lot of Suburbans over many 

years all have this problem of 2-3 quarts of oil being consumed between oil 

changes. This is no not normal. I’ve never had any car do that before in 30 years 

of owning cars. GM need to address this issue.” (April 10, 2015)

• “At approximately 40,000 to 50,000 miles started to notice my oil consumption 

rising. . . . At about 80,000 miles it was up to a quart every 1,000 miles . . . .That’s 

when I found many other owners with the same problem and discovered the two 

GM recommended fixes. . . . Both GM Service Bulletin fixes implemented, end of 

problem, right??? Wishful thinking. Still consumes a quart every 2,000 miles or 

less.” (Jan. 1, 2010)

• “As with many others with the 5.3L AFM engine, mine is burning 1 qt every 800 

miles or so. Spark plugs gummed up with oil, running rough, and even a smell of 

burn oil.” (Jan. 27, 2014)

• “Oil consumption issues are all over the internet and market in 2008 Suburbans. 

We bought ours new and have taken it to Chevy dealers for all service and 

scheduled maintenance and continue to do so. Around 54,000 miles we started to 

see excessive oil consumption. Chevy has had service bulleting after service 

bulletin concerning this issue. Band-aid after band-aid by GM has not fixed the 

problem. Now we deal with Stabilitrak and Traction Control warning lights, 

 13 Consumer Reviews of 2008 Chevrolet Suburban, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Suburban/2008/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 41 of 236
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

42

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

engine lights, low oil pressure warnings, and fouled spark plugs all tied to this 

unidentified unresolved issue on a regular basis. As always, GM puts another band 

aid on the problem, tells me that its normal for this engine to burn a quart of oil 

every’2,000’ miles (event though its really 1,200). . . .” (Oct. 10, 2010).

• “2008 Suburban is going through excessive amounts of oil. Plan on a visit 

tomorrow to my local Chevy dealership about the problem.” (May 1, 2010)

• “I purchased my 2008 Chevy Suburban LT March 2008. I was taking my wife out 

on our anniversary when my engine light came on (90 miles from home). I pulled 

over checked the oil and there was none showing on the stick. I added 2 qts then 

and another 2 qts once I got home the next day. . . . Dealership is stating GM is 

not letting them know how to fix the problem. “ (Aug. 6, 2010)

290. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are seventeen complaints regarding excessive 

oil consumption from owners of 2009 Chevrolet Suburbans, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 

5300.

14 Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2009 Suburban. 

Exemplary complaints include:

• “excessive oil consumption, 3 QUART LOW WHEN OIL CHANGE OR 

SOMETIMES BONE DRY” (June, 21, 2012)

• “Engine uses more oil than gas.” (Jan. 18, 2016)

• “Chevrolet is highly aware of this problem. I have been dealing with this for over 

50k miles. Never should a consumer be expected to pay for a known manufacturer 

problem but that is exactly what is being expected of me.” (Dec. 2, 2015)

• “My wife’s 2009 Suburban began to lose/use oil at an unbelievable rate at about 

30,000 miles without evidence of oil loss or burn. 2 of the 3 times, no check oil 

or warning proceeded the more serious symptoms of loud engine tapping and black 

smoke. Dealer has no answer thus far.” (Nov. 28, 2012)

291. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 68 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2007 Chevrolet Avalanches, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 

5300.

15 Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2007 Avalanche. 

Exemplary complaints include:

• “Our avalanche needs at least a quart of oil every 1000 miles. We obviously carry 

oil . . . .” (Jan. 6, 2014)

 14 Consumer Reviews of 2009 Chevrolet Suburban, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Suburban/2009/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

15 Consumer Reviews of 2007 Chevrolet Avalanche, available at:

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Avalanche/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 42 of 236
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

43

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “Definitely burning oil! I’m not sure exactly the issue but it seems like a lot of 

other owners are having the same problem! I would gladly endorse any legal 

action taken to correct the problem with this engine!” (Aug. 10, 2015)

• “Like others with the 2007 5.3L engine, my Avalanche starting going through oil 

at an average of one quart every 1,100 miles at about 30,000 miles. The dealer 

told me ‘normal’ oil consumption was up to one quart every 1,800 miles. After 

monitoring it for oil consumption, they added the oil deflector and it decreased oil 

consumption to a quart every 2,000 miles for about 6,000 miles. I am back to one 

quart every 1,100 miles. It rolled 103,000 miles today and there has been a 

noticeable engine tick for at least 50,000 miles.” (Oct. 1, 2008)

• “I have a 2007 Chevy Avalanche with 65,000 miles on it now. I took it in at 38,000 

miles when I started noticing that it was burning oil and the oil light was coming 

on at anywhere between 1500 & 2500 miles after my oil change. The dealership 

took a look at it and said that I needed to do an oil consumption test. Well, I did 

that, they told me that the factory didn’t put on oil deflector, and that this would 

fix my problem. So I had them (under warranty) install the oil deflector. Sure 

enough, this didn’t fix it. So I took it back in, and I was told that I would have to 

do another oil consumption test. So I did that. . . . Turns out that there is a problem 

with the installation of the piston rings.” (Nov. 21, 2011)

• “Our truck is using oil. We have been through the GM oil watch program and was 

told nothing is wrong. Last week were told the truck does have a problem, duh!” 

(Jan. 1, 2009)

• “This truck has been burning oil about 1 1⁄2 years after I bought it and has continued 

to do so faster and faster had to add 2 quarts 500 miles before my last oil change 

was even due. Dealer stated that there was some oil coming from spark plug 

number 7 so he cleaned it and put it back in. Oil consumption test is now in 

progress.” (Oct. 8, 2009)

• “My 2007 Chev. Avalanche is using over 2 qts of oil every 2500 miles. I had the 

Dealership run there oil consumption test also.” (Jan. 2, 2010)

• “I am experiencing excessive oil consumption and the dealership installed a 

deflector in the oil plan. Along with the oil consumption, I also have what sounds 

like Piston Slap when it started for the first time everyday. . . .” (Mar. 9, 2010)

• “THIS OIL CONSUMPTION STUFF IS RIDICULOUS!!! I take my Avalanche 

in 5 times for them to do the oil consumption test only to find out it has the same 

problem everyone else seems to have.” (Sept. 8, 2010)

292. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are thirteen complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2008 Chevrolet Avalanches, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 

5300.

16 Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed problem with the 2008 Avalanche. 

Exemplary complaints include:

 16 Consumer Reviews of 2009 Chevrolet Suburban, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Avalanche/2008/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 43 of 236
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

44

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “This is the second time this has happened to me in less than six months where the 

vehicle has warned me to shut the car off because of the oil pressure.” (Jan. 21, 

2016)

• “Dealing with Chevy and the dealership is the worst part. Neither will accept the 

fact that several others have the same issue. Neither will budge at all on parts 

cost.” (May 1, 2015)

• “The fact that this seems to be a common issue and known by GM is extremely 

frustrating. I have noticed that my oil consumption has been getting worse over 

the last year, and then the engine light came on followed by the oil pressure 

dropping to 9 and getting a warning to shut off the engine. Had the oil changed 

and the lights went off and seemed to be okay, but then a few days later, while on 

the highway, the engine started making a loud banging noise, oil pressure dropped 

off again, and lights came back on. Had to have it towed to a repair shop on a 

Saturday, now awaiting the wonderful news on how much this is going to cost 

me.” (Mar. 21, 2015)

• “During one of my oil changes, at around 30,000 miles, I noticed that there was 

only approx. 3.5 quarts of oil remaining when the pan and filter were drained. I 

began checking the oil every 1,000 and 1,500 miles between the next two oil 

changes. At every check the oil level was at or over 1qt low and oil was added . . . . I took the truck to the dealer and showed them my records. After having the 

truck for a couple of day’s the service manager called and said that they would be 

installing some sort of baffle in the oil pan and would be cleaning carbon from the 

cylinders. When the work was complete and I picked up the truck I was told to 

keep checking for oil consumption and maintain a log. The 1st check I made was 

approx. 1300 miles after the work was performed and the engine was over 1qt low. 

. . . Well they decided to install new rings and pistons.” (April 1, 2011)

293. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 48 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2007 Chevrolet Tahoes, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

17 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed engine problem with the 2007 Tahoe. Such 

complaints include:

• “Another complaint about the 2007 Chevy Tahoe excessive oil consumption issue. 

I took it in to an auto shop who told me they could ‘fix’ it and charged me &800- $1000. They said it was a ‘known issue’ but was not a recall. The issue continues 

and I’m out the cost! Plus I have to put 1-2 quarts in every 1500-2000 miles.” 

(Aug. 30, 2012)

• “A month after oil change this vehicle needs 2 quarts of oil! Dealer says it needs 

pistons and rings and that it’s a shame.” (Feb. 16, 2015)

 17 Consumer Reviews of 2007 Chevrolet Tahoe, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Tahoe/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 44 of 236
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

45

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “2007 Tahoe . . . THERE NEEDS TO BE A LAWSUIT. Chevy knows about the 

problem of consumption of too much oil and they do NOTHING about it. . . .

something needs to be done about this!!!! (Jan. 2, 2012)

294. Moreover, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are ten complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2008 Chevrolet Tahoes, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

18 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed engine problem with the 2008 Tahoe. Such 

complaints include:

• “I have owned Chevys for 42 years, never has one of them burned as much oil as 

this one. I have been around cars most of my life, currently I own a service station 

where we see a lot of late model Chevys using oil. . . . I am told by my Chevy 

dealer they have replaced pistons to correct this problem. I feel Chevrolet should 

recall this problem . . . .” (Dec. 30, 2015)

• “I have had this Chevy Tahoe for 3 years now, I have had it serviced regularly 

without problem or so I thought. One morning my wife calls and says there was 

smoke coming out the exhaust I thought it might have been condensation. I drove 

it the next week and when I started it, it blew out a white smoke so I knew 

something was wrong. I checked the oil and it wouldn’t even show on the dip 

stick . . . . I took to chevy dealership and now I have to take it back every 1000 

miles for them to check how much oil it is using. They have not told me anything 

to fix it no recalls or anything.” (Sept. 26, 2011)

• “We have 2 chevy Tahoe LTs with extras and both started to use oil, 2-4 qrts 

between oil changes. This is a bunch of bull and they better step up.” (Jan 2, 

2012).

295. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are fifteen complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2009 Chevrolet Tahoes, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.

19 

Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed engine problem with the 2009 Tahoe. Such 

complaints include:

• “What a load of crap! This is most disturbing. I have a 2009 Tahoe. . . . I just 

received the news that the pistons and rings will need to be replaced, due to oil 

leaking by. The engine light came on for the first time, and the car was sluggish 

at stops. We took it to the dealership right away. . . . What I got hung up on was 

the statement made by the service manager; ‘this is a known problem, and not 

specific to MY car.” (May 23, 2017)

 18 Consumer Reviews of 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Tahoe/2008/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

19 Consumer Reviews of 2008 Chevrolet Tahoe, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/Chevrolet/Tahoe/2008/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 45 of 236
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

46

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “On going issue, 5.3l engine has excessive oil consumption 3⁄4 to 1 quart every 

800-1000 miles, seems to be getting worse. There are NO signs of leakage, 

average 1⁄2 a quart to a tank of fuel, also feels sluggish and seems to miss at times 

but no check engine light.” (Sept. 20, 2014)

296. Also, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are 22 complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of 2007 GMC Yukons and Yukon XLs, equipped with the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300.

20 Excessive oil consumption is the most commonly listed engine problem with the 2007 

Yukon. These complaints include:

• “Engine is making rattle noises with full oil in sump. Also using oil at a high rate. 

Sounds like lifters or valves are shot. Heard this is a GM defect that has been 

known for these types engines in 2007 models. Any idea on fix would be great.” 

(Oct. 1, 2016)

• “I feel the same pain as everyone who has posted. It was using 2qts of oil between 

changes. Took it into local dealer in Little Rock and kept getting the song of, that 

is the way it was designed. . . . I guess that is the truth but it was a baaaad design. 

Eventually it keep losing oil pressure, changed out the 25 cent filter, changed out 

numerous oil sensors. The engine one day starts running extremely rough, so I 

took it to a local shop and they begin investigating. They find that GM has a 

suggested fix but not a recall. . . . . On the top of the engine there needs to be a 

new valve cover installed to prevent oil leaking into the idle cylinders. . . . On the 

bottom a deflector to prevent excessive oil splatter needs to be installed. . . . Now 

the kicker is that GM does not say that all the work will fix your engine but that it 

might improve it. . . . So I spent $3000 got it running and am still adding about 1 

qt of oil every 3k miles.” (May 2, 2011)

• “I just want to say this is my second 07 model with this problem. Silverado 1500 

is just as bad. After many oil consumption test I found thru my local dealer that 

the rings are leaking allowing oil to be burned. Changing the baffle in the oil pan, 

seals, etc. did nothing. . . . .Yet, silly me I bought an 07 Yukon. Needless to say 

it’s the same annoying cycle, except worse. It burns 4 quarts per 2000 miles!!!. . . 

. I want to warn that the more you add the more it burns. You may eventually get 

a check engine light and notice blue smoke out the exhaust pipes. The check 

engine light usually is a signal for the throttle body in this situation. If oil begins 

to puddle it’s going to cause slow to start, hesitate accceleration, RPM’s that idle 

high, less fuel efficiency, and eventually a blown motor.” (Aug. 2, 2013)

• “This car is the biggest POS I have ever owned!!!!! . . . . This vehicle has spent 

more time in the service department than it has on the road. . . . Despite 100’s of 

attempts to contact GM about the excessive oil consumption issue I’ve been told 

by the dealer that there is nothing else that they can do, they have done everything 

that GM requires them to do to fix the issue. . . but it hasn’t fixed anything. . . . 

Now, I have 135k on my car . . . and my engine is toast!! It needs to be replace . . 

.no way around it. It ALWAYS stinks of burning oil . . . . .” (Oct. 12, 2011)

 20 Consumer Reviews of 2007 GMC Yukon, available at: 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/GMC/Yukon/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 46 of 236
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

47

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “GM is aware of the problem. Fix it. 2-4 qts of oil every 3000 miles or so is not 

acceptable.” (Feb. 1, 2011)

297. Further, on www.carcomplaints.com, there are nine complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption from owners of the 2007 GMC Sierra 1500, equipped with the Generation IV Vortec 5300.21 

Such complaints include:

• “Oil consumption issue like many others, now my rings are bad and I have been 

told it is because oil consumption issue. (Oct. 15, 2008)

• “Infamous 5.3 burning oil . . . lots of it. 1 quart every 2-3000 miles. . . . . Seems 

like a lot of 5.3 owners are having this issue and not help from a dealer . . . every 

dealer I talked to says its normal.” (May 20, 2015)

• “I reported the issues while the truck was still covered under my extended 

warranty. The dealership ignored it and told me it was normal. Now that the 

warranty has expired, the issue is much worse and neither the dealership nor the 

ESP wants to be held completely responsible.” (May 24, 2012).

298. There is a multitude of additional excessive oil consumption complaints on 

www.carcomplaints.com with respect to other Class Vehicles. These complaints include:

• “My pickup guzzles oil. When I took it to the Dealer they said they were aware 

of the problem. They said they had three band-aide solutions to try and if that did 

not work they replace the engine. . . . My complaint is that I purchased this pickup 

new and never received any recall or notice of any kind to let me know of this 

issue so I could deal with it before my warranty expired. I have used the prescribed 

oil and had the oil changed every 5,000 miles. On the current oil change alone I 

have used nearly 2 quarts in the first 1500 miles! I bought this truck based on the 

advertising that they were the best built and longest lasting trucks with the best gas 

mileage. . . .” (2013 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Nov. 1, 2016)

• “Took in for oil change, discovered almost no oil in engine. Low oil light never 

came on at all. Watching closely since then and have to add a quart on oil between 

750 and 1000 miles.” (2012 Chevrolet Silverado 1500, Aug. 25, 2014).

• “2011 Suburban. Oil consumption started 18-24 months ago. Twice #1 spark plug 

founded. Went through all the fixes. Had rings replaced, 8000 miles ago.” (2011 

Chevrolet Suburban, May 1, 2014)

• “Bought truck in Nov. 2016 have put 3 1⁄2 quarts of oil so far. No leaks and is not 

smoking.” (2012 Chevrolet Suburban, Feb. 9, 2017)

• “Excessive oil usage that leads to spark plug issues. My vehicle is only 2 years 

old. At approximately 85000 miles on a car that is properly maintained it suddenly 

started to burn out spark plugs. After numerous spark plug burns out and service 

appointments I was told that the engine is damaged because the number 1 cylinder 

was cracked and opening the engine was the only way to confirm how significant 

 21 Consumer Reviews of 2007 GMC Sierra 1500, available at 

https://www.carcomplaints.com/GMC/Sierra_1500/2007/engine/excessive_oil_consumption.shtml

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 47 of 236
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

48

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

the issue was. . . . Overview of the many issues: Excessive oil usage spark plugs 

burning out or failing sluggish engine clicking noise in engine.” (2013 Chevrolet 

Suburban, Oct. 1, 2014)

• “Purchased a new, 2011 Chevy Avalanche LTZ. Beautiful vehicle and expected 

the same longevity I had with my 1998 Burb. Since my past two oil changes, I’m 

not sure that is going to happen. Around 16-17K miles, I took in for a standard oil 

change. Dealer mentioned I was a quart and a half low!. New car burning this 

kind of oil is unheard of in my book. . . . Started up yesterday, all the dash 

lights/warning start flashing, engine light comes on, truck is running like crap. 

Headed to the dealer and wasn’t really sure I’d make it. Dropped it, expressed my 

concern around oil again but told them to focus on the bigger issue. They called 

back in a couple hours and told me the cylinder walls were scored and that they 

were ordering a new engine!” (2011 Chevrolet Avalanche, Dec. 1, 2013)

• “GM says the new pistons and rings will solve the oil consumption.” (2012 

Chevrolet Avalanche, July 1, 2016)

• “Just met with GM’s District After Sales Manager and my GMC dealer’s Service 

Manager regarding excessive oil consumption by my GMC Sierra 1500 4-WD 

Crew Cab with 37000 miles. As you might guess, nothing accomplished. . . . Early 

2012, I noticed the dipstick was dry and took truck to dealer for oil change. Closely 

monitored oil use thereafter and discovered need to topoff with more than a quart 

every 200 miles during normal driving . . . This should not be considered normal!” 

(2011 GMC Sierra 1500, Jan. 1, 2014)

• “My 2009 Chevy Tahoe started consuming a lot of oil at about 68,000 miles. It 

uses up about 2 + quarts every 2000 miles. Chevy said that’s normal . . . really? 

Well when you don’t want to take responsibility for your design mistakes than we 

just call it normal and it goes away and we don’t have to fix it.” ((2009 Chevrolet 

Tahoe, Aug. 4, 2014)

299. Class Vehicle owners have also extensively complained of excessive oil consumption on 

other GM forums. For example, on the forum at www.GM-Trucks.com a thread was started on July 8, 

2011 entitled “Anyone Still Having Oil Consumption Problems on the Afm 5.3.”22 The thread discusses

oil consumption issues in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. That thread includes the following 

exemplary comments:

• “I had the deflector installed first . . . didn’t help. Then they replaced all the piston 

rings. They say that is the issue. It has only been 600 miles and I haven’t seen 

any oil lose, of course they over filled it by a good 1⁄2 quart.” (July 10, 2011)

• “Talked with a friend who is SM at GMC dealer just last week on this subject. 

New engine is far down the road right now. They will install new rings and pistons 

before that ever happens. He said they did one and so far things are looking better. 

He said the GM service advisors have their hands tied on what they can do, they 

 22 GM-Trucks.com, available at http://www.gm-trucks.com/forums/topic/134276-anyone-still-havingoil-consumption-problems-on-the-afm-53/

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 48 of 236
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

49

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

have to follow what GM wants them to do and replacing the engine is not one of 

the options they have at the moment. That’s a decision the area service rep makes 

and as you can imagine, they are not going to make any snap decisions along those 

lines soon.” (July 11, 2011)

300. On the forum at wwww.gminsidenews.com, a thread was started on October 29, 2011 

entitled “My truck has the infamous 5.3 oil consumption problem.”23 The thread discusses oil 

consumption problems with the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. That thread includes the following 

exemplary comments:

• “I actually brought my truck in for service to have the front end checked, as it 

makes a tremendous amount of racket on cold mornings.” (Oct. 29, 2011)

• “The AFM system is a joke on these engines. we see issues with them on a regular 

basis. Which would be daily. Anyways, 2 different fixes. Depending on what 

they do, you will either have the pistons and rings replaced, and possible have 

AFM lifters replaced as well, and a new VLOM, and oil deflector installed, or, 

they will do the piston soaking with Top engine cleaner, and install the oil 

deflector. More than likely, probably remove engine, replaced rings and pistons. 

Depending on which cylinder is the issue, may need lifters as well. Im sure they 

will replace the VLOM. Oil doesn’t have any affect on it, so conventional or 

synthetic doesn’t matter. They burn oil wither way. One thing I would do, always 

change oil every 3000 miles. Regardless of oil life monitor. Do not follow the oil 

life monitor. It is inaccurate. Be glad yours doesnt knock, see a few in for that 

problem as well, or misfires. Camshaft failure, lifters, etc.” (Oct. 29, 2011)

• “Ok, I too have the oil consumption in an 08 5.3l aluminum block. I bought it 

used at 112k. I was told it had this issue and it had been ‘repaired’ at 100k by 

replacing the left valve cover. They said it fixed 90% of them, so I bought it. 

Dealership did a fresh oil change when I picked it up. 1600 miles later, I’m a qt 

& 1⁄2 low . . . .With all this being said, I called GMC and explained what had 

happened, so they sent me back to dealership to get another oil change and sart oil 

consumption test. So, that’s where we are. I decided to pull that #7 plug today, 

badly coated with carbon, not to the point of miss, but well on its way.” (Dec. 2, 

2012)

301. On the forum at www.gmtruckclub.com, a thread was started on April 11, 2012, entitled 

“Oil Consumption Issue.”24 On information and belief, the thread discusses oil consumption issues in 

the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. The thread includes the following exemplary comments:

• “So a couple months before I left in February, I noticed my truck was starting to 

get low on oil rather quickly. I didn’t find a leak anywhere, but my pressure kept 

getting really low and I’d have to add it in.” (April 11, 2012)

 23 http://www.gminsidenews.com/forums/f53/my-truck-has-infamous-5-3l-oil-consumption-problem106584/

24 http://www.gmtruckclub.com/forum/threads/oil-consumption-issue.88684/

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 49 of 236
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

50

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “My story. Standard ‘low oil pressure, turn off engine.’ However, when I went to 

check the oil there was not a drop on the dipstick. I put in at least 3 qts of oil. No 

kidding. So I take it in and they are starting the ‘oil consumption test.’ This dealers 

service manager actually told me that it is normal for this engine to burn 1 qt of oil 

for the first 3000 miles. Thereafter 1 qt of oil for each additional 1000 miles. . . . 

I am at 65000 miles and have never experienced oil consumption like this.” (April 

29, 2012)

302. On the forum at www.gmtruckclub.com, a thread was started on June 26, 2010, entitled 

“5.3L’s that eat oil.”25 The thread discusses oil consumption issues in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines. The thread includes the following exemplary comments:

• “Anyone else have one of the 5.3L’s that likes to eat oil? . . . I have a 2007 that 

has eaten 2 quarts in less than 2,000 miles. I took it back to the dealership as I 

have just bought the truck May 5th. The service rep told me that I was not the 

only one that was having the problem and that GM was working on a fix.” (June 

26, 201)

• “Yes, I am having this same problem with my 2009 Silverado Crew Cab 4X4 with 

5.3L with 36,000 miles on it. Mine just started smoking really bad whenever I 

would start it after it would sit there for a couple hours. And we aren’t talking 

about a little bit of smoke . . . it was a lot. So much so that everybody would 

always stop and look to see what was on fire. And you could smell the oil burning 

if you were anywhere close to it.” (July 27, 2012)

• “Mine uses 2 to 3 quarts between changes.” (July 30, 2012)

303. On the forum at www.gmtruckclub.com, a thread was started on December 4, 2012 

entitled “Should i Trade my 2010 cc Z71 in re oil consumption.”26 The thread discusses oil consumption 

issues in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. The thread includes the following exemplary 

comments:

• “started having the elusive oil burning issue with my 2010 Chevy Crew Cab 

[Silverado] z71 5.3 aluminum block with the 6 speed and AFM. A fouled no 1 

cylinder spark plug left me on the side of the road at 42,000 miles. Did oil 

consumption test and was ‘within spec’ at 1.5 quarts low during allotted time. 

Raised hell and am currently getting valve cover, oil deflector – blah blah blah 

done today. I’ve read just about every post on every gm forum on this but nothing 

has been stated within the past 6 mos on actually fixing the issues. I know most 

ppl are having the rings/pistons changes.” (Dec. 4, 2012)

 25 http://www.gmtruckclub.com/forum/threads/5-3ls-that-eat-oil.46470/

26 http://www.gmtruckclub.com/forum/threads/should-i-trade-my-2010-cc-z71-in-re-oilconsumption.107325/#post-524945

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 50 of 236
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

51

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• “I have had the exact same problem on my 2010 with the 5.3 and 6 speed. Thanks 

to the poster who posted the service bulletin. I’m going to take it in next I’m at 

the dealership.” (Dec. 9, 2012)

304. On the forum at www.silveradosierra.,com, a thread was started on January 12, 2012 

entitled “5.3 engine issues with fouled plugs.”27 The thread discusses oil consumption issues in the 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. The thread includes the following exemplary comment:

• “2010 Silverado CrewCab 5.3/6 speed transmission. The problem started in May 2011, 

started running rough and then check engine, service stabilitrak lights came on. Dealer 

said had a number 7 cylinder misfire condition and fouled plug. Replaced plugs and back 

in business. Oct 2011 began running rough again and check engine light came on. Dealer 

said had misfire and replaced all the spark plugs. Nov 211, oil level low light comes on, 

Dealer says there is a tech bulletin to add oil splash due to the AFM relief valve 

misdirecting oil and allowing oil to bypass rings and burn up. Bulletin completed and 

now beginning to run rough yet again. From a start it surges and sometimes after turning 

feels like the throttle goes flat. Gas pedal in the same position, just feels like lost power.” 

(Jan. 12, 2012)

305. In contrast to the plethora of vociferous complaints regarding excessive oil consumption 

in the Class Vehicles, consumers have not had the same complaints regarding competitor vehicles. A 

search on www.carcomplaints.com reveals the following:

• Model year 2007-2013 Ford F-150 – zero complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption.

• Model year 2007-2013 Dodge Ram – three complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption

• Model year 2007-2013 Ford Expedition – zero complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption.

• Model year 2007-2013 Toyota Sequoia – zero complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption.

• Model year 2007-2013 Ford Explorer – zero complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption.

• Model year 2007-2013 Nissan Titan – one complaint regarding excessive oil 

consumption.

• Model year 2007-2013 Honda Ridgeline – five complaints regarding excessive oil 

consumption.

 27 http://www.silveradosierra.com/vortec-5-3l-v8/5-3-engine-issues-with-fouled-plugs-t8725.html

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 51 of 236
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

52

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

306. The unusual number of complaints regarding excessive oil consumption in the Class 

Vehicles thus reveals that GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect. Indeed, GM has known about 

this defect in its Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines before, during, and after it sold and leased the Class 

Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

G. GM Trumpeted the Performance of the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines and 

Continuously Proclaimed That the Class Vehicles Were Dependable and of the Highest 

Quality, Concealing and Omitting the Oil Consumption Defect.

307. GM extensively advertised the performance benefits of the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines within the Class Vehicles. At all times relevant to this action, GM omitted and/or concealed the 

Oil Consumption Defect. Indeed, at no point during the time period relevant to this action did GM inform 

buyers and/or lessees of the Class Vehicles that the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines in the Class 

Vehicles suffered from the Oil Consumption Defect that led to significant oil consumption and resultant 

engine damage.

308. Likewise, GM repeatedly told consumers that the Class Vehicles were dependable, longlasting, and of the highest quality. In so doing, GM led consumers to believe that the Class Vehicles 

would be free from defects that result in excessive oil loss and engine damage.

309. In its brochures and advertisements for the Class Vehicles, GM consistently touted the 

performance benefits of the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

310. For example, GM’s brochure for the 2013 Chevrolet Silverado advertises: “THE MOST 

POWERFUL V8 ENGINES IN SILVERADO HISTORY” and claims that the 5.3L engine “offers V8 

fuel efficiency that’s unsurpassed in its class.”28

311. Similarly, GM’s brochure for the 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe advertises: “Great Power Without 

Sacrifice,” and “fuel economy its competitors can’t beat.”29

 28 2013 Chevrolet Silverado brochure, available at 

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Help%20Ce

nter/Download%20a%20Brochure/02_PDFs/MY13%20Silverado%201500%20eBrochure.pdf

29 2013 Chevrolet Tahoe brochure, available at 

https://www.chevrolet.com/content/dam/Chevrolet/northamerica/usa/nscwebsite/en/Home/Help%20Ce

nter/Download%20a%20Brochure/02_PDFs/MY13%20Tahoe-Suburban%20eBrochure.pdf

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 52 of 236
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

53

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

312. Likewise, GM’s brochure for the 2010 Chevrolet Colorado advertises that: “Chevy 

Colorado is up to the challenge with reliability and strength that delivers on a dollar. . . . The available 

5.3L V8 engine pumps out 300 horsepower and has better fuel economy than Dodge Dakota. . . . Most 

important, every Colorado has the endurance and dependability you expect from a Chevy truck.”30

313. GM’s brochure for the 2012 GMC Sierra advertises that: “[T]rue craftsmanship is 

timeless. . . . That’s the same attitude that’s built into every Sierra. It’s why Sierra offers you over 300 

horsepower and 22 EPA-estimated highway miles per gallon in the same engine – V-8 fuel economy that 

no other competitor can beat. It’s why Sierra offers advanced technology like Active Fuel Management, 

maximizing your engine’s performance to give you power and efficiency as you need it. . . .When you 

need to rely on something to keep your life on course, there is no substitute for professional grade 

engineering. GMC Sierra.”31

314. GM’s brochure for the 2011 Chevrolet Silverado states, “Silverado – the most dependable, 

long-lasting full size pickups on the road.” It goes on to say, “There are three stages of safety. Silverado 

takes every one as seriously as you do.”32

315. On August 29, 2011, GM’s website advertised: “Chevrolet provides consumers with fuelefficient, safe and reliable vehicles that deliver high quality, expressive design, spirited performance and 

value.”33

316. One online ad for “GM certified” used vehicles that ran through April 5, 2010 stated that 

“GM certified means no worries.” 

317. In April 2010, General Motors Company Chairman and CEO Ed Whitacre proclaimed in 

a commercial that GM was “designing, building, and selling the best cars in the world.”

318. A radio ad that ran during the time period relevant to this action stated that “[a]t GM, 

 30 2010 Chevrolet Colorado brochure, available at http://www.auto- brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/Colorado/Chevrolet_US%20Colorado_2010.pdf

31 2012 GMC Sierra brochure, available at http://www.auto- brochures.com/makes/GMC/Sierra/GMC_US%20Sierra_2012.pdf

32 https://www.auto-brochures.com/makes/Chevrolet/HHR/Chevrolet_US%20HHR_2010.pdf.

33 https://media.gm.com/media/us/en/gm/news.detail/content/Pages/news/us/en/2014/Jul/0731-mpg.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 53 of 236
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

54

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

building quality cars is the most important thing we can do.”

319. On November 10, 2010, GM published a video that told consumers that GM actually 

prevents any defects from reaching consumers. The video, entitled “Andy Danko: The White Glove 

Quality Check,” explains that there are “quality processes in the plant that prevent any defects from 

getting out.” The video also promoted the ideal that, when a customer buys a GM vehicle, they “drive it 

down the road and they never go back to the dealer.”34

320. No GM brochure, advertisement, or other marketing materials for or relating to the Class 

vehicles alerted customers to the Oil Consumption Defect and the problems arising therefrom. Indeed, 

all such materials omitted the problem in all respects.

321. Moreover, in its public statements, GM consistently proclaimed that the Class Vehicles 

were of the highest quality.

322. In its 2010 Annual Report, GM told consumers that it built the world’s best

vehicles:

We truly are building a new GM, from the inside out. Our vision is clear: to design, build, 

and sell the world’s best vehicles . . . . Our plan is to steadily invest in creating worldclass vehicles, which will continuously drive our cycle of great design, high quality and 

higher profitability.35

323. Likewise, in its 2010 Annual Report, GM represented that it had a “world-class lineup” 

of vehicles.36

324. In a “Letter to Stockholders” contained in its 2011 Annual Report, GM noted that its 

brand had grown in value and that it designed the “World’s Best Vehicles”:

Design, Build and Sell the World’s Best Vehicles

This pillar is intended to keep the customer at the center of everything we do, and success 

is pretty easy to define. It means creating vehicles that people desire, value and are proud 

 34 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=JRFO8UzoNho&list=UUxN-Csvy_9sveql5HJviDjA.

35 GM 2010 Annual Report at 2.

36 GM 2010 Annual Report at 12-13.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 54 of 236
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

55

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

to own. When we get this right, it transforms our reputation and the company’s bottom 

line.37

325. In its 2012 Annual Report, GM boasted that: 

What is immutable is our focus on the customer, which requires us to go from “good” 

today to “great” in everything we do, including product design, initial quality, durability, 

and service after the sale.38

326. In its 2012 Annual Report, GM represented that product quality was a key focus:

Product quality and long-term durability are two other areas that demand our unrelenting 

attention, even though we are doing well on key measures.39

327. GM consistently promoted all its vehicles as reliable, and presented itself as a responsible 

manufacturer that stands behind GM-branded vehicles after they are sold. 

328. GM knowingly omitted and concealed information about material defects in the Class 

Vehicles from the driving public, including Plaintiffs and the other Class members, thereby allowing 

unsuspecting vehicle owners and lessees to continue unknowingly driving defective vehicles that were 

of diminished value and bound to cause costly problems. 

H. Pre-Filing Notice

329. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, notified GM 

of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its corresponding breach 

of warranties, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by United States Certified 

Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on October 28, 2016. 

GM never responded to this letter. 

330. Further, in accordance with California Civil Code Section 1782, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a 

certified letter to GM on November 23, 2016, notifying GM of violations of the California Consumer 

Legal Remedies Act through its failure to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect. The letter was sent on 

behalf of Plaintiff Siqueiros and the other members of the California Class. 

331. By a letter dated November 29, 2016, GM acknowledged receipt of the November 23, 

 37 GM 2011 Annual Report at 2

38 GM 2012 Annual Report at 12.

39 GM 2012 Annual Report at 10.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 55 of 236
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

56

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

2016 letter, and assigned Plaintiff Siqueiros’s case file to its Early Resolution Program. In its November 

29, 2016 letter, GM did not commit to provide any remedy for the Oil Consumption Defect within 

Plaintiff Siqueiros’s Class Vehicle, did not state that it has taken or will take any actions to identify or 

notify consumers similarly situated to Plaintiff Siqueiros, and did not commit to ceasing from engaging 

in the conduct complained of in Plaintiffs’ November 23, 2016 letter. Indeed, in its November 29, 2016 

letter, GM did not even acknowledge the Oil Consumption Defect. 

V. TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION

A. Discovery Rule Tolling

332. Plaintiffs could not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that their 

Class Vehicles were defective within the time period of any applicable statutes of limitation.

333. Neither Plaintiffs nor the other Class members knew or could have known that the Class 

Vehicles are equipped with Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines with the Oil Consumption Defect, which 

causes those engines to consume oil at an abnormally high rate and to sustain engine damage resulting 

therefrom, until after Plaintiffs’ counsel’s investigation into the Oil Consumption Defect in late 2016.

B. Fraudulent Concealment Tolling

334. Throughout the time period relevant to this action, GM concealed from and failed to 

disclose to Plaintiffs and the other Class members vital information about the Oil Consumption Defect

described herein. 

335. Indeed, GM kept Plaintiffs and the other Class members ignorant of vital information 

essential to the pursuit of their claims. As a result, neither Plaintiffs nor the other Class members could 

have discovered the defect, even upon reasonable exercise of diligence.

336. Specifically, throughout the Class Period, GM has been aware that the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines it designed, manufactured, and installed in the Class Vehicles contained the Oil 

Consumption Defect, resulting in excessive oil loss and engine damage.

337. Despite its knowledge of the defect, GM failed to disclose and concealed, and continues 

to conceal, this critical information from Plaintiffs and the other Class members, even though, at any 

point in time, it could have done so through individual correspondence, media release, or by other means.

338. GM affirmatively and actively concealed the Oil Consumption Defect when it issued the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 56 of 236
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

57

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

TSBs, described above, that instructed dealers to offer purported repairs that it knew would not cure the 

Oil Consumption Defect. 

339. Plaintiffs and the other Class members justifiably relied on GM to disclose the Oil 

Consumption Defect in the Class Vehicles that they purchased or leased, because that defect was hidden 

and not discoverable through reasonable efforts by Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

340. Thus, the running of all applicable statutes of limitation have been suspended with respect 

to any claims that Plaintiffs and the other Class members have sustained as a result of the defect, by virtue 

of the fraudulent concealment doctrine. 

C. Estoppel

341. GM was under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs and the other Class members the 

true character, quality, and nature of the defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. 

342. GM knowingly concealed the true nature, quality, and character of the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines from consumers. 

343. Based on the foregoing, GM is estopped from relying on any statutes of limitations in 

defense of this action.

VI. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS

344. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal 

Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated.

345. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class (“the Nationwide Class”) defined as: 

All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that was 

purchased in the United States.

346. Plaintiffs also respectively seek to represent the following statewide classes (“the 

Statewide Classes”) defined as follows:

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of California (“the California Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Alabama (“the Alabama Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Arkansas (“the Arkansas Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 57 of 236
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

58

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

was purchased or leased in the State Delaware (“the Delaware Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Florida (“the Florida Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Georgia (“the Georgia Class”).

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Idaho (“the Idaho Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Illinois (“the Illinois Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Kansas (“the Kansas Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Kentucky (“the Kentucky Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Louisiana (“the Louisiana Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Massachusetts (“the Massachusetts Class”).

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Minnesota (“the Minnesota Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Mississippi (“the Mississippi Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Missouri (“the Missouri Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of New Jersey (“the New Jersey Class”).

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of New Mexico (“the New Mexico Class”).

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of New York (“the New York Class”)

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of North Carolina (“the North Carolina Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Ohio (“the Ohio Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Oklahoma (“the Oklahoma Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Oregon (“the Oregon Class”).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 58 of 236
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

59

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Pennsylvania (“the Pennsylvania Class”).

• All current and former owners and lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of South Carolina (“the South Carolina Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Tennessee (“the Tennessee Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Texas (“the Texas Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Virginia (“the Virginia Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Washington (“the Washington Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of West Virginia (“the West Virginia Class”).

• All current and former owners or lessees of a Class Vehicle (as defined herein) that 

was purchased or leased in the State of Wisconsin (“the Wisconsin Class”).

347. Excluded from each of the Nationwide and Statewide Classes are Defendant General 

Motors LLC and any of its members, affiliates, parents, subsidiaries, officers, directors, employees, 

successors, or assigns; the judicial officers, and their immediate family members; and Court staff assigned 

to this case. Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend these Nationwide and Statewide Class 

definitions, as appropriate, during the course of this litigation.

348. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained on behalf of the Nationwide 

and Statewide Classes proposed herein under the criteria of Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil 

Procedure.

349. Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1). The members of the 

Nationwide and Statewide Classes are so numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder 

of all class members is impracticable. While Plaintiffs are informed and believe that there are not less 

than two million members of the Nationwide and Statewide Classes, the precise number of Nationwide 

and Statewide Class is unknown to Plaintiffs, but may be ascertained from GM’s books and records. 

Nationwide and Statewide Class Members may be notified of the pendency of this action by recognized, 

Court-approved notice dissemination methods, which may include U.S. Mail, electronic mail, Internet 

postings, and/or published notice. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 59 of 236
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

60

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

350. Commonality and Predominance – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(2) and 

23(b)(3). This action involves common questions of law and fact, which predominate over any questions 

affecting individual Nationwide and Statewide Class members, including, without limitation:

a. whether GM engaged in the conduct alleged herein;

b. whether GM’s alleged conduct violates applicable law;

c. whether GM designed, advertised, marketed, distributed, leased, sold, or otherwise 

placed the Class Vehicles into the stream of commerce in the United States;

d. whether GM misled Nationwide and Statewide Class members about the quality of the 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines in the Class Vehicles;

e. whether the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines contain the Oil Consumption Defect

alleged herein;

f. whether GM had actual or imputed knowledge about the alleged defect but failed to 

disclose it to Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide and Statewide Class members;

g. whether GM’s omissions and concealment regarding the quality of the Class Vehicles 

were likely to deceive Statewide Class members in violation of the state consumer 

protection statutes alleged herein;

h. whether GM breached its express warranty to the Nationwide and Statewide Class 

members with respect to the Class Vehicles;

i. whether Nationwide and Statewide Class members overpaid for their Class Vehicles as a 

result of the defect alleged herein;

j. whether Nationwide and Statewide Class members are entitled to damages, restitution, 

restitutionary disgorgement, equitable relief, statutory damages, exemplary damages, 

and/or other relief; and

k. the amount and nature of relief to be awarded to Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide and 

Statewide Class members.

351. Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3). Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of 

the other Nationwide and Statewide Class members’ claims because Plaintiffs and the Nationwide and 

Statewide Class members purchased or leased Class Vehicles that contain defective Generation IV Vortec 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 60 of 236
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

61

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

5300 Engines. Neither Plaintiffs nor the other Nationwide and Statewide Class Members would have 

purchased the Class Vehicles, or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles, had they known of the Oil 

Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide and 

Statewide Class members suffered damages as a direct proximate result of the same wrongful practices 

in which GM engaged. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the same practices and course of conduct that give 

rise to the claims of the other Nationwide and Statewide Class members.

352. Adequacy of Representation – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(4). Plaintiffs 

are adequate Class representatives because their interests do not conflict with the interests of the other 

members of the Nationwide and Statewide Classes that they respectively seek to represent, Plaintiffs have 

retained counsel competent and experienced in complex class action litigation, and Plaintiffs intend to 

prosecute this action vigorously. The Nationwide and Statewide Classes’ interests will be fairly and 

adequately protected by Plaintiffs and their counsel. 

353. Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2). GM 

has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide and 

Statewide Class members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory relief, as 

described below, with respect to the Nationwide and Statewide Class members as a whole.

354. Superiority – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3). A class action is superior to 

any other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and no unusual 

difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. The damages or other 

financial detriment suffered by Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide and Statewide Class members are 

relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be required to individually litigate their 

claims against GM, so it would be impracticable for the Nationwide and Statewide Class members to 

individually seek redress for GM’s wrongful conduct. Even if the Nationwide and Statewide Class 

members could afford litigation the court system could not. Individualized litigation creates a potential 

for inconsistent or contradictory judgments, and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the 

court system. By contrast, the class action device presents far fewer management difficulties, and 

provides the benefits of single adjudication, economy of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single 

court.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 61 of 236
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

62

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

A. Claim Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class

COUNT 1

VIOLATION OF THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT40

15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.

355. Plaintiffs41 repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

356. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Nationwide Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

357. This Court has jurisdiction to decide claims brought under 15 U.S.C. § 2301 by virtue of 

28 U.S.C. §§ 1332(a) and (d).

358. Plaintiffs are “consumers” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 

U.S.C. § 2301(3).

359. GM is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty 

Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4)-(5).

360. The Class Vehicles are “consumer products” within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss 

Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).

361. 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) provides a cause of action for any consumer who is damaged by 

the failure of a warrantor to comply with a written warranty. 

362. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

 40 In light of the Court’s ruling that Plaintiffs’ allegations concerning breach of express warranty do not 

fall within the terms of GM’s warranty as to materials and workmanship (Dkt. No. 62 at 14-15), Plaintiffs 

include those claims in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint strictly to preserve them for purposes 

of appeal. These Counts include Counts 1 (as to express warranty only, not implied warranty), 3, 8, 13, 

18, 23, 27, 32, 37, 41, 46, 52, 57, 62, 66, 70, 79, 84, 89, 94, 99, 104, 109, 114, 119, 124, 129, 134, 138, 

and 143.

41 Recognizing that their express warranty claims had previously been dismissed, the Court dismissed the 

Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act claims of Plaintiffs Clausen, Harris, Ludington, Shorter, Bednarek, 

Hanneken, the Doepels, Gulling, and Jones. (Dkt. No. 99 at 62-63). Accordingly, the term “Plaintiffs,” 

as used in this Count, shall only include Plaintiffs Clausen, Harris, Ludington, Shorter, Bednarek, 

Hanneken, the Doepels, Gulling, and Jones for the purpose of preserving these Plaintiffs’ MagnusonMoss Warranty Act claims for appeal.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 62 of 236
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

63

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally operated in 

the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any subsequent owners 

of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials or 

workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

363. GM’s Limited Warranty is a written warranty within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss 

Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6). The Class Vehicles’ implied warranty of merchantability is covered 

by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(7).

364. With respect to Class members’ purchases or leases of the Class Vehicles, the terms of 

GM’s written warranty and implied warranty became part of the basis of the bargain between GM, on 

the one hand, and Plaintiffs and each of the other Class members, on the other.

365. GM breached these warranties as described in more detail above. Without limitation, the 

Class Vehicles are equipped with defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, which, as a result of the 

Oil Consumption Defect, are designed so as to prematurely consume an abnormally large amount of oil, 

resulting in low oil levels, reduced lubricity, and engine damage. The Oil Consumption Defect and the 

problems arising therefrom are exacerbated by the defective Oil Life Monitoring System on each of the 

Class Vehicles that fails to advise drivers of a decreased oil level in their Class Vehicle until it is at a 

chronically low level. 

366. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, notified GM 

of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its corresponding breach 

of warranties, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by United States Certified 

Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on October 28, 2016. 

GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous complaints filed against 

it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering knowledge. GM has not taken 

any measures to cure its warranty breaches to Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

367. At the time of sale or lease of each Class Vehicle, GM knew, should have known, or was 

reckless in not knowing of the Class Vehicles’ inability to perform as warranted, but nonetheless failed 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 63 of 236
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

64

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

to rectify the situation and/or disclose the defective design. Under the circumstances, the remedies 

available under any informal settlement procedure would be inadequate, and any requirement that 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members resort to an informal dispute resolution procedure and/or afford 

GM a reasonable opportunity to cure its breach of warranties is excused and thus deemed satisfied. 

368. The amount in controversy of Plaintiffs’ individual claims meets or exceeds the sum of 

$25. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds the sum of $50,000, exclusive of interest and costs, 

computed on the basis of all claims to be determined in this lawsuit.

369. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breaches of its Limited Warranty and the implied 

warranty of merchantability, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have sustained damages in an amount 

to be determined at trial.

370. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all the other Class members, seek all damages 

permitted by law, including the diminution in value of their vehicles, in an amount to be proven at trial.

B. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Statewide Classes

1. Claims Brought on Behalf of the California Class

COUNT 2

VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT

Cal. Civ. Code. §§ 1750, et seq.

371. Plaintiff Siqueiros and Cralley (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the California Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

372. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

California Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

373. Plaintiffs and the other Class members were deceived by GM’s failure to disclose that the 

Class Vehicles share a common design defect in that they are fitted with defective engines that consume 

an excessive amount of oil, leading to engine damage.

374. GM engaged in unfair or deceptive acts or practices when, in the course of its business, it 

knowingly omitted material facts as to the characteristics and qualities of the Class Vehicles.

375. GM failed to disclose material information concerning the Class Vehicles that it had a 

duty to disclose. GM had a duty to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect because, as detailed above: (a) 

GM knew about the Oil Consumption Defect, (b) GM had exclusive knowledge regarding the Oil 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 64 of 236
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

65

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Consumption Defect not known to the general public, Plaintiffs, or the other Class members; and (c) GM 

actively concealed material facts concerning the Oil Consumption Defect from the general public, 

Plaintiffs, and the other Class members. As detailed above, the information concerning the defect was 

known to GM at the time of advertising and selling the Class Vehicles, all of which was intended to 

induce consumers to purchase the Class Vehicles.

376. GM intended for Plaintiffs and the other Class members to rely on it to provide adequately 

designed and adequately manufactured automobiles, and to honestly and accurately reveal the problems 

described throughout this Complaint.

377. GM intentionally failed or refused to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to consumers.

378. GM’s deceptive omissions were intended to induce Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

to believe that the Class Vehicles were adequately designed and manufactured.

379. GM’s conduct constitutes unfair acts or practices as defined by the California Consumer 

Legal Remedies Act.

380. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have suffered injury in fact and actual damages 

resulting from GM’s material omissions because they paid inflated purchase prices for the Class Vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, punitive damages, costs and 

attorneys’ fees, and all other relief that the Court deems proper under California Civil Code § 1780.

381. In accordance with California Civil Code Section 1782, Plaintiffs’ counsel sent a certified 

letter to GM on November 23, 2016, notifying GM of its § 1770 violations. Pursuant to § 1782 of the 

Act, GM is hereby on notice of its particular § 1770 violations, and Plaintiffs’ demands that GM rectify 

the problems associated with the actions detailed above and give notice to all affected consumers of GM’s 

intent to so act.

382. By a letter dated November 29, 2016, GM acknowledged receipt of the November 23, 

2016 letter, and assigned Plaintiff Siqueiros’s case file to its Early Resolution Program. In its November 

29, 2016 letter, GM did not commit to provide any remedy for the Oil Consumption Defect within 

Plaintiff Siqueiros’s Class Vehicle, did not state that it has taken or will take any actions to identify or 

notify consumers similarly situated to Plaintiff Siqueiros, and did not commit to ceasing from engaging 

in the conduct complained of in Plaintiffs’ letter. Indeed, in its November 29, 2016 letter, GM did not 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 65 of 236
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

66

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

even acknowledge the Oil Consumption Defect. Accordingly, Plaintiffs’ participation in the Early 

Resolution Program would be futile. 

383. Pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(d), attached hereto as Exhibit A is the affidavit 

showing that this action has been commenced in the proper forum.

COUNT 3

VIOLATION OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT

FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790, et seq.

384. Plaintiff Siqueiros (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the California Class’s claims) repeat and 

reallege Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

385. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

California Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

386. Plaintiff and the other Class members are “buyers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code. 

§ 1791.

387. The Class Vehicles are “consumer goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.

388. GM is a “manufacturer” of the Class Vehicles within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 

1791.

389. Plaintiff and the other Class members bought or leased Class Vehicles manufactured by 

GM.

390. GM made an express warranty to Plaintiffs and the other Class members within the 

meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.2 and 1793.2, as described above.

391. The Class Vehicles share a common design defect, in that they are equipped with 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, which have the Oil Consumption Defect, causing the abovedescribed excessive oil consumption, resulting in low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and 

corresponding internal engine component damage.

392. The Class Vehicles are covered by GM’s express warranty. The defect described herein 

substantially impairs the use, value, and safety of the Class Vehicles to reasonable consumers, including 

Plaintiff and the other Class members.

393. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 66 of 236
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

67

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

394. GM has had the opportunity to cure the defect in the Class Vehicles, but it has chosen not 

to do so. Giving GM a chance to cure the defect is not practicable in this case and would serve only to 

delay this litigation, and is thus unnecessary.

395. As a result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

received goods with substantially impaired value. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been 

damaged as a result of the diminished value of the Class Vehicles resulting from the Oil Consumption 

Defect.

396. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1793.2 & 1794, Plaintiff and the other Class members are 

entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief, including, at their election, the purchase price of 

their vehicles, or the overpayment or diminution in value of their Class Vehicles.

397. Pursuant to Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to 

costs and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT 4

VIOLATION OF THE SONG-BEVERLY CONSUMER WARRANTY ACT 

FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1790, et seq.

398. Plaintiffs Siqueiros and Cralley (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the California Class’s 

claims) repeats and realleges Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

399. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

California Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

400. Plaintiffs and the other Class members who purchased their Class Vehicles in California 

are “buyers” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code. § 1791.

401. The Class Vehicles are “consumer goods” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 67 of 236
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

68

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

402. GM is a “manufacturer” of the Class Vehicles within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 

1791.

403. GM impliedly warranted to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class that the Class 

Vehicles were “merchantable” within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(a) & 1792.

404. Cal. Civ. Code § 1791.1(a) states that: “Implied warranty of merchantability” or “implied 

warranty that goods are merchantable” means that the consumer goods meet each of the following:

(1) Pass without objection in the trade under the contract description;

(2) Are fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used;

(3) Are adequately contained, packaged, and labeled; and

(4) Conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.

405. The Class Vehicles would not pass without objection in the automotive trade because they 

share a common design defect in that they are equipped with Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, which 

have the Oil Consumption Defect, causing the above-described excessive oil consumption, resulting in 

low oil levels, insufficient lubricity levels, and corresponding internal engine component damage.

406. Because of the Oil Consumption Defect, the Class Vehicles are not fit for their ordinary 

purposes.

407. The Class Vehicles were not adequately labeled because the labeling failed to disclose the 

defects described herein.

408. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

409. GM has had the opportunity to cure the defect in the Class Vehicles, but it has chosen not 

to do so. Giving GM a chance to cure the defect is not practicable in this case and would serve only to 

delay this litigation, and is thus unnecessary.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 68 of 236
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

69

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

410. As a result of GM’s breach of its implied warranty, Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

received goods with substantially impaired value. Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been 

damaged as a result of the diminished value of the Class Vehicles.

411. Under Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1791.1(d) & 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class members are 

entitled to damages and other legal and equitable relief, including, at their election, the purchase price of 

their Class Vehicles, or the overpayment or diminution in value of their Class Vehicles.

412. Under Cal. Civ. Code § 1794, Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to costs 

and attorneys’ fees.

COUNT 5

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

413. Plaintiffs Siqueiros and Cralley (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the California Class’s 

claims) repeat and reallege Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

414. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

California Class (“Class,” for purposes of this Count).

415. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

416. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

417. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

418. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

419. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

420. Had Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 69 of 236
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

70

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

421. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

422. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiffs and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 6

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

423. Plaintiffs Siqueiros and Cralley (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the California Class’s 

claims) repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

424. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

California Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

425. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

426. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiffs and the other members of 

the Class, and inequity has resulted.

427. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

428. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

429. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

430. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 70 of 236
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

71

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 7

VIOLATION OF THE CALIFORNIA UNFAIR COMPETITION LAW

CAL. BUS. & PROF. CODE §§ 17200, et seq.

431. Plaintiffs Siqueiros and Cralley (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the California Class’s 

claims) repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

432. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

California Class (“Class,” for purposes of this Count).

433. California Business and Professions Code § 17200 prohibits any “unlawful, unfair, or 

fraudulent business acts or practices.”

434. GM’s conduct violated multiple statutes and the common law, as alleged herein.

435. GM has violated § 17200 by knowingly selling Class Vehicles that include the Oil 

Consumption Defect and omitting mention of this defect to consumers.

436. GM’s conduct was unscrupulous, offended established public policy, and was fraudulent.

437. The harm caused by GM’s conduct greatly outweighs any benefit to consumers. 

438. Plaintiffs relied on the omissions of GM with respect to the quality and reliability of the 

Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other Class members would not have purchased or leased their Class 

Vehicles, and/or paid as much for them, but for GM’s omissions.

439. GM concealed and failed to disclose material information about the Class Vehicles in a 

manner that is likely to, and in fact did, deceive consumers and the public.

440. All of the wrongful conduct alleged herein occurred in the conduct of GM’s business. 

441. Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other Class members, requests that this Court 

restore to Plaintiff and the other Class members any money acquired by unfair competition, including 

restitution and/or restitutionary disgorgement.

2. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Alabama Class

COUNT 8

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Ala. Code. §§ 7-2-313 and 7-2A-210

442. Plaintiff Brannan (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Alabama Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

443. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Alabama 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 71 of 236
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

72

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

444. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

445. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally operated in 

the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any subsequent owners 

of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials or 

workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

446. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

447. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

448. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

449. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

450. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 72 of 236
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

73

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

451. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

452. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

453. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT 942

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Ala. Code §§ 7-2-314 and 7-2A-212

454. Plaintiff Brannan (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Alabama Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

455. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Alabama 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

456. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Ala. 

Code §§ 7-2-104 and 7-2A-103.

457. Pursuant to Ala. Code §§ 7-2-314 and 7-2A-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles were 

in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject to 

an implied warranty of merchantability. 

458. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

 42 In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Brannan’s implied warranty claim (Dkt. No. 99 at 46-47), 

Plaintiffs include this Count in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint strictly to preserve it for 

purposes of appeal. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 73 of 236
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

74

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

459. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

460. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

461. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 10

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

462. Plaintiff Brannan (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Alabama Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

463. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Alabama 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

464. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

465. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

466. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 74 of 236
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

75

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

467. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

468. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

469. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

470. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

471. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 11

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

472. Plaintiff Brannan (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Alabama Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

473. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Alabama 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

474. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

475. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

476. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 75 of 236
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

76

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

477. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

478. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

479. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

3. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Arkansas Class

COUNT 12

VIOLATIONS OF ARKANSAS’S 

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101, et seq.

480. Plaintiff Goodwin (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Arkansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

481. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the Arkansas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

482. The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-107, prohibits 

“[e]ngaging in . . . unconscionable, false, or deceptive act[s] or practice[s] in business, commerce, or 

trade.” The Arkansas Deceptive Trade Practices Act, Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-108, also prohibits in 

connection with the sale or advertisement of goods: “(1) The act, use, or employment by any person of 

any deception, fraud, or false pretense; or (2) The concealment, suppression, or omission of any material 

fact with the intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression, or omission.”

483. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in 

deceptive trade practices.

484. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

485. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 76 of 236
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

77

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

486. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

487. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

488. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

489. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

490. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Ark. Code Ann. § 4-88-113.

COUNT 13

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-2-313 and 4-2A-210

491. Plaintiff Goodwin (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Arkansas Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

492. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Arkansas 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 77 of 236
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

78

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

493. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

494. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

495. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

496. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

497. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

498. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

499. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 78 of 236
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

79

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

500. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted, leased, and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

501. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

502. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 1443

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Ark. Code Ann. 4-2-314 and 4-2A-212

503. Plaintiff Goodwin (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Arkansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

504. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Arkansas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

505. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Ark. 

Code Ann. §§ 4-2-104 and 4-2A-103.

506. Pursuant to Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-2-314 and 4-2A-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

507. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

 43 In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Goodwin’s implied warranty claim (Dkt. No. 99 at 47-48), 

Plaintiffs include this Count in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint strictly to preserve it for 

purposes of appeal. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 79 of 236
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

80

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

508. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 and delivered by United 

States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on 

October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

509. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

510. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 15

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

511. Plaintiff Goodwin (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Arkansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

512. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Arkansas

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

513. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

514. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

515. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 80 of 236
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

81

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

516. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

517. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

518. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

519. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

520. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 16

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

521. Plaintiff Goodwin (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Arkansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

522. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Arkansas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

523. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

524. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

525. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 81 of 236
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

82

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

526. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

527. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

528. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

4. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Delaware Class

COUNT 17

VIOLATIONS OF THE DELAWARE 

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2511, et seq.

529. Plaintiff Perkins (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Delaware Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

530. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the Delaware 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

531. The Delaware Consumer Fraud Act, Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2511, et seq., states that: 

“The act, use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense . . . or the concealment, 

suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, 

suppression or omission, in connection with the sale, lease or advertisement of any merchandise, whether 

or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby, is an unlawful practice.”

532. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of the Delaware Consumer Fraud Act.

533. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

534. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

535. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 82 of 236
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

83

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

536. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

537. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

538. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiffs and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

539. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2511, et seq.

COUNT 18

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2-313 and 2A-210

540. Plaintiff Perkins (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Delaware Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

541. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Delaware Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 83 of 236
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

84

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

542. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

543. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally operated in 

the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any subsequent owners 

of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials or 

workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

544. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

545. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

546. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

547. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiffs and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

548. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 84 of 236
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

85

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

549. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

550. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

551. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 19

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2-314 and 2A-212

552. Plaintiff Perkins (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Delaware Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

553. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Delaware Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

554. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Del. 

Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2-104 and 2A-103.

555. Pursuant to Del. Code Ann. tit. 6, §§ 2-314 and 2A-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

556. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 85 of 236
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

86

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

557. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 and delivered by United 

States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on 

October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

558. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

559. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 20

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

560. Plaintiff Perkins (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Delaware Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

561. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Delaware Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

562. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.

563. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

564. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

565. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 86 of 236
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

87

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

566. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

567. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

568. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

569. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 21

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

570. Plaintiff Perkins (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Delaware Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

571. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Delaware Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

572. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

573. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

574. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

575. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 87 of 236
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

88

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

576. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

577. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

5. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Florida Class

COUNT 22

VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE 

AND UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Fla. Stat. §§ 502.201, et seq.

578. Plaintiff Shorter (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Florida Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

579. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the Florida 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

580. The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, F.S.A. §§ 501.201, et seq., states 

that, “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

581. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of F.S.A. § 501.204.

582. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

583. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

584. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

585. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 88 of 236
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

89

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

586. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

587. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiffs and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

588. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under F.S.A. §§ 501.201, et seq.

COUNT 23

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Fla. Stat. §§ 672.313 and 680.21

589. Plaintiff Shorter (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Florida Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

590. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Florida 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

591. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

592. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally operated in 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 89 of 236
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

90

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any subsequent owners 

of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials or 

workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

593. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

594. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

595. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

596. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

597. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

598. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 90 of 236
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

91

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

599. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

600. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 24

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

601. Plaintiff Shorter (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Florida Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

602. Plaintiff bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Florida 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

603. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.

604. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

605. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

606. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

607. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

608. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 91 of 236
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

92

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

609. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

610. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 25

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

611. Plaintiff Shorter (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Florida Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

612. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Florida 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

613. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

614. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiffs and the other members of 

the Class, and inequity has resulted.

615. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

616. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

617. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

618. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 92 of 236
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

93

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

6. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Georgia Class

COUNT 26

VIOLATIONS OF GEORGIA’S 

FAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

Ga. Stat. Ann. §§ 10-1-390, et seq.

619. Plaintiff Bradford (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Georgia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

620. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the Georgia 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

621. The Georgia Fair Business Practices Act, Ga. Stat. Ann. § 10-1-393, states that, “[u]nfair 

or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of consumer transactions and consumer acts or practices in 

trade or commerce are declared unlawful.”

622. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

and deceptive trade practices.

623. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

624. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

625. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

626. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

627. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 93 of 236
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

94

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

628. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

629. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Ga. Stat. Ann. § 10-1-399.

COUNT 27

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 

Ga. Stat. Ann. §§ 11-2-313 and 11-2a-210

630. Plaintiff Bradford (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Georgia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

631. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Georgia 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

632. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

633. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 94 of 236
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

95

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

634. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

635. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

636. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

637. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

638. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

639. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted, leased, and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

640. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 95 of 236
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

96

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

641. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 28

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Ga. Stat. Ann. 84-2-314 and 84-2A-212

642. Plaintiff Bradford (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Georgia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

643. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Georgia 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

644. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Ga. 

Stat. Ann. §§ 11-2-104 and 11-2A-103.

645. Pursuant to Ga. Stat. Ann. §§ 11-2-314 and 84-2A-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

646. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

647. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 and delivered by United 

States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on 

October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

648. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 96 of 236
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

97

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

649. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 29

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

650. Plaintiff Bradford (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Georgia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

651. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Georgia

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

652. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

653. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

654. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

655. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

656. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

657. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

658. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 97 of 236
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

98

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

659. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 30

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

660. Plaintiff Bradford (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Georgia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

661. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Georgia 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

662. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

663. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

664. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

665. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

666. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

667. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

7. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Idaho Class

COUNT 31

VIOLATIONS OF THE IDAHO CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Idaho Code Ann. §§ 48-601, et seq.

668. Plaintiff Del Valle (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Idaho Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 98 of 236
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

99

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

669. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Idaho 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

670. GM, Plaintiff and the other members of the Idaho Class are natural persons and legal 

entities and, as such, constitute “persons” as defined by Idaho Code Ann. § 48-602(1).

671. GM is engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of Idaho Code Ann. § 48-

602(2).

672. The Idaho Consumer Protection Act (“Idaho CPA”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or 

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” Idaho Code Ann. § 48-603.

673. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of Idaho Code Ann. § 48-603.

674. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

675. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

676. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

677. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

678. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

679. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 99 of 236
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

100

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

680. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Idaho Code Ann. § 48-608.

COUNT 32

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Idaho Code Ann. §§ 28-2-313 and 28-12-210

681. Plaintiff Del Valle (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Idaho Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

682. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Idaho 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

683. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

684. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

685. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 100 of 236
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

101

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

686. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

687. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

688. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

689. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

690. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

691. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

692. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 101 of 236
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

102

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 33

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Idaho Code Ann. §§ 28-2-314 and 28-12-212

693. Plaintiff Del Valle (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Idaho Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

694. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Idaho 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

695. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Idaho 

Code Ann. §§ 28-2-104 and 28-12-103.

696. Pursuant to Idaho Code §§ 28-2-314 and 28-12-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

697. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

698. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 and delivered by United 

States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on 

October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

699. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

700. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 102 of 236
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

103

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 34

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

701. Plaintiff Del Valle (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Idaho Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

702. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Idaho 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

703. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

704. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

705. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

706. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

707. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

708. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

709. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

710. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 103 of 236
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

104

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 35

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

711. Plaintiff Del Valle (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Idaho Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

712. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Idaho 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

713. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

714. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

715. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

716. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

717. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

718. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

8. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Illinois Class

COUNT 36

VIOLATIONS OF THE ILLINOIS CONSUMER FRAUD 

AND DECEPTIVE BUSINESS PRACTICES ACT

815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq.

719. Plaintiffs Hanneken and Doepel (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Illinois Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

720. Plaintiffs brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the Illinois

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

721. The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act, 815 Ill. Comp. Stat. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 104 of 236
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

105

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

505/2, states that, “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices. . . are hereby 

declared unlawful whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.”

722. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act.

723. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

724. GM intended for Plaintiffs and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

725. Plaintiffs and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

726. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiffs and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

727. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

728. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiffs and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiffs or the other 

Class members could have reasonably avoided.

729. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiffs and the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 105 of 236
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

106

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

other Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased 

the Class Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil 

Consumption Defect been disclosed. Plaintiffs and the other Class members also suffered diminished 

value of their vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief allowed under 815 Ill Comp. Stat. 505/1, et seq.

COUNT 37

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

810 Ill. Comp. Stat. 5/2-313 and 5/2A-210

730. Plaintiff Hanneken (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Illinois Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

731. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Illinois 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

732. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

733. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

734. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

735. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

736. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 106 of 236
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

107

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

737. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

738. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

COUNT 38

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

739. Plaintiffs Hanneken and Doepel (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Illinois Class’s claims) 

repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

740. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Illinois

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

741. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

742. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiffs

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

743. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

744. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 107 of 236
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

108

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

745. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

746. Had Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

747. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

748. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiffs and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 39

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

749. Plaintiffs Hanneken and Doepel (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Illinois Class’s claims) 

repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

750. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Illinois

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

751. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

752. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

753. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

754. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 108 of 236
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

109

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

755. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

756. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

9. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Kansas Class

COUNT 40

VIOLATIONS OF KANSAS

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 50-623, et seq.

757. Plaintiff Madson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

758. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the Kansas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

759. The Kansas Consumer Protection Act, Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-626, states that, “no supplier 

shall engage in any deceptive act or practice in connection with a consumer transaction.”

760. GM is a “supplier” within the meaning of the Kansas Consumer Protection Act. 

761. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in 

deceptive trade practices.

762. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

763. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

764. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

765. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 109 of 236
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

110

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

766. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

767. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

768. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Kan. Stat. Ann. § 50-634.

COUNT 41

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 

Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 84-2-313 and 84-2a-210

769. Plaintiff Madson (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Kansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

770. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Kansas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

771. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

772. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 110 of 236
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

111

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

773. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

774. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

775. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

776. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

777. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

778. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted, leased, and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

779. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 111 of 236
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

112

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

780. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 42

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Kan. Stat. Ann. 84-2-314 and 84-2a-212

781. Plaintiff Madson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

782. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Kansas

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

783. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Kan. 

Stat. Ann. §§ 84-2-104 and 842a-103.

784. Pursuant to Kan. Stat. Ann. §§ 84-2-314 and 84-2a-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

785. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

786. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 and delivered by United 

States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on 

October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 112 of 236
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

113

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

knowledge. 

787. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

788. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 43

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

789. Plaintiff Madson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

790. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Kansas

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

791. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

792. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

793. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

794. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

795. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

796. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

797. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 113 of 236
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

114

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

798. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 44

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

799. Plaintiff Madson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kansas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

800. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Kansas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

801. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

802. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

803. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

804. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

805. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

806. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 114 of 236
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

115

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

10. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Kentucky Class

COUNT 45

VIOLATIONS OF THE KENTUCKY 

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 367.110, et seq.

807. Plaintiff Faulkner (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kentucky Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

808. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Kentucky Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

809. Pursuant to the Kentucky Unfair Trade Practices Act, “[u]nfair, false, misleading, or 

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 

367.170(1).

810. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. § 367.170.

811. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

812. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

813. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

814. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

815. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 115 of 236
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

116

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

816. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

817. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 367.110, et seq.

COUNT 46

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 355.2-313 and 355.2A-210

818. Plaintiff Faulkner (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the Kentucky Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

819. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Kentucky Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

820. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

821. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 116 of 236
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

117

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

822. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

823. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

824. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

825. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

826. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

827. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

828. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 117 of 236
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

118

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

829. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 47

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 355.2-314 and 355.2A-212

830. Plaintiff Faulkner (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kentucky Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

831. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Kentucky Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

832. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Ky. 

Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 355.2-104 and 355.2A-103.

833. Pursuant to Ky. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 355.2-314 and 355.2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

834. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

835. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

836. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 118 of 236
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

119

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

837. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 48

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

838. Plaintiff Faulkner (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kentucky Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

839. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Kentucky Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

840. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

841. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

842. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

843. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

844. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

845. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

846. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 119 of 236
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

120

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

847. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 49

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

848. Plaintiff Faulkner (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Kentucky Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

849. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Kentucky Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

850. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

851. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

852. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

853. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

854. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

855. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

11. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Louisiana Class

COUNT 50

REDHIBITION

La. Civ. Code Art. 2520, et seq.

856. Plaintiff Olivier (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Louisiana Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 120 of 236
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

121

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

857. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Louisiana Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

858. GM, as seller of the Class Vehicles that include defective engines with the Oil 

Consumption Defect that causes excessive oil consumption and resultant engine damage, warranted to

the Plaintiff and the other Class members against redhibitory defects, or vices, in the Class Vehicles. 

859. GM, as the manufacturer of the Class Vehicles, is responsible for damage caused by the 

failure of its product. GM manufactured, sold, and promoted the Class Vehicles and placed the Class 

Vehicles into the stream of commerce. Under Louisiana law, the seller and manufacturer warrants the 

buyers of a product against redhibitory defects or vices in the things sold. La. Civ. Code Art. 2520. 

860. The Class Vehicles contain redhibitory defects, as the Oil Consumption Defect renders

them either useless or their use so inconvenient that it must be presumed that a buyer, such as Plaintiff 

and other Class members, would not have bought the Class Vehicles had they known of the Oil 

Consumption Defect. Pursuant to La. Civ. Code Art. 2520, Plaintiff and the other Class members are 

entitled to obtain a rescission of the sale of the Class Vehicles. Alternatively, without rendering the Class

Vehicles totally useless, the Oil Consumption Defect diminishes the Class Vehicles’ usefulness or value 

so that it must be presumed that if Plaintiff and the other Class members would still have bought the 

Class Vehicles, they would have done so for a lesser price. La. Civ. Code Art. 2520. In this instance, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to a reduction of the purchase price.

861. The Class Vehicles contained the redhibitory defect described herein at the time of 

purchase and the defect was not apparent to the Plaintiff and the other Class members. GM knew of the 

Oil Consumption Defect in the Class Vehicles, and failed to disclose this defect to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members. Additionally, GM, as manufacturer and seller of the Class Vehicles, is deemed to have 

known that the Class Vehicles they sold had redhibitory defects, and is liable as a bad faith seller under 

redhibition. 

862. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 121 of 236
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

122

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. Pursuant to La. Civil Code Art. 2522, such notice is not required when, as here, the seller 

has actual knowledge of the existence of the defect. 

863. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its warranty of redhibition, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

864. Having known of the Oil Consumption Defect contained in the Class Vehicles, GM is 

liable to Plaintiff and the Class members for the return of the purchase price with interest from the time 

it was paid, for reimbursement of the reasonable expenses occasioned by the sale and those expenses 

incurred for the preservation of the Class Vehicles, and also for damages and reasonable attorneys’ fees. 

COUNT 51

BREACH OF WARRANTY OF FITNESS FOR ORDINARY USE

La. Civ. Code Art. 2524

865. Plaintiff Olivier (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Louisiana Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

866. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Louisiana Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

867. In addition to warranting against redhibitory defects, GM, as sellers of the Class Vehicles, 

warranted that the Class Vehicles were reasonably fit for their ordinary and intended use. La. Civ. Code 

Art. 2524.

868. The Class Vehicles equipped with defective Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines are 

defectively designed in that they contain a defect or flaw that causes the vehicles to be consume excessive 

amounts of engine oil resulting in engine damage and are unduly prone to break down, malfunction, and 

require costly repair. As a result, the Plaintiff and Class members’ vehicles are not reasonably fit for 

their ordinary use.

869. As a direct and proximate cause of GM’s design, manufacture, assembly, marketing, and 

sales of the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the Class members have been damaged in an amount to be 

determined at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 122 of 236
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

123

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 52

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Louisiana Products Liability Act 

La. R.S. § 9:2800.51, et seq.

870. Plaintiff Olivier (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Louisiana Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges Paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

871. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Louisiana Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

872. GM is and was at all relevant times a seller and manufacturer with respect to the Class 

Vehicles.

873. GM has defectively designed, manufactured, sold, or otherwise placed in the stream of 

commerce Class Vehicles as set forth herein.

874. The Class Vehicles in question are unreasonably dangerous and defective under the 

Louisiana Products Liability Act (“LPLA”), La. R.S. § 9:2800.58, because the vehicles do not conform 

to the express warranty provided by GM.

875. GM knew and expected that the Class Vehicles would eventually be sold to and operated 

by purchasers, lessees, and/or eventual owners of the Class Vehicles, including Plaintiff and the other 

Class members; consequently, Plaintiff and the other Class members were expected users of the products

which GM manufactured.

876. The Class Vehicles reached Plaintiff and the other Class members without substantial 

changes in their condition from time of completion of manufacture by GM.

877. The defects in the Class Vehicles could not have been contemplated by any reasonable 

person expected to operate the Class Vehicles and, therefore, presented an unreasonably dangerous 

situation for expected users of the Class Vehicles even though the Class Vehicles were operated by 

expected users in a reasonable manner.

878. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 123 of 236
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

124

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

879. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false pretenses.

880. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

881. As a direct and proximate cause of GM’s design, manufacture, assembly, marketing, and 

sales of the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs and the other Class members have sustained and will continue to 

sustain the loss of use of their Class Vehicles, economic losses and consequential damages, and are 

therefore entitled to compensatory relief in an amount to be determined at trial. Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, asserts the application of res ipsa loquitur under the Louisiana 

Products Liability Act.

COUNT 53

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

882. Plaintiff Olivier (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Louisiana Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

883. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Louisiana Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

884. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 124 of 236
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

125

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

885. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

886. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

887. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines concerns material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

888. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

889. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

890. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

891. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 54

VIOLATION OF LOUISIANA UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 51:1401, et seq.44

892. Plaintiff Olivier (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Louisiana Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

 

44 In light of the Court’s ruling that the continuing violation doctrine does not apply to claims under the 

Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act (Dkt. No. 99 at 55), Plaintiff Olivier includes this claim in the 

Third Amended Class Action Complaint strictly to preserve it for purposes of appeal. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 125 of 236
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

126

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

893. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Louisiana Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

894. GM had the duty to refrain from the use of unfair methods of competition and unfair or 

deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of its trade and commerce. This includes the duty to refrain 

from knowingly exploiting consumers in an effort to gain an unfair advantage over them.

895. GM’s sale of the Class Vehicle to Plaintiff and the other Class members was a “consumer 

transaction” within the scope of the Louisiana Unfair Trade Practices Act, La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 51: 

1401, et seq. The transactionsinvolved commerce with a natural person, the subject of which transactions

was primarily intended for personal, family or household use and resulted in an ascertainable loss of 

money or property, as a result of the unfair or deceptive act or practice. 

896. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

897. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect. GM failed to give Plaintiff and the other Class members 

sufficient notice or warning regarding this defect.

898. Plaintiff and the other Class members relied upon GM’s omissions when purchasing 

vehicles containing the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. 

899. Plaintiff and the other Class members were deceived by GM’s concealment of the defect.

900. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

901. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

902. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members’ Class Vehicles with defective engines. The 

injuries to Plaintiff and the other Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 126 of 236
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

127

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and the other Class members or to competition under all of the 

circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the 

injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class members could have reasonably avoided.

903. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, treble and/or punitive 

damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief allowed under La. Rev. Stat. Ann. §§ 51: 1401, et 

seq.

904. Plaintiff and the other Class Members are also entitled to and hereby seek an order 

directing GM to pay Plaintiffs’ reasonably attorneys’ fees and costs of suit, as awarded by the Court.

COUNT 55

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

905. Plaintiff Olivier (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Louisiana Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

906. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Louisiana Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

907. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

908. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

909. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

910. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 127 of 236
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

128

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

911. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

912. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

12. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Massachusetts Class

COUNT 56

VIOLATIONS OF THE MASSACHUSETTS

REGULATION OF BUSINESS PRACTICES FOR CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Mass Gen. Laws ch. 93A, §§ 1, et seq.

913. Plaintiff Smith (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Massachusetts Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

914. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Massachusetts Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

915. The Massachusetts Regulation of Business Practices for Consumer Protection Act

prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive practices in the conduct of any trade 

or commerce. . . .” Mass Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2.

916. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of Mass Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 2.

917. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

918. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

919. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

920. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 128 of 236
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

129

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

921. GM’s omissions deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived or 

are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

922. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

923. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Mass Gen. Laws ch. 93A, § 9.

COUNT 57

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Mass Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-313 and 2A-210

924. Plaintiff Smith (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Massachusetts Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

925. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Massachusetts Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

926. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

927. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 129 of 236
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

130

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

928. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

929. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

930. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

931. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

932. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

933. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 130 of 236
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

131

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

934. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

935. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 58

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Mass Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-314 and 2A-212

936. Plaintiff Smith (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Massachusetts Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

937. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Massachusetts Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

938. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Mass 

Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-104 and 2A-103.

939. Pursuant to Mass Gen. Laws ch. 106, §§ 2-314 and 2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

940. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

941. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 131 of 236
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

132

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

942. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

943. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 59

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

944. Plaintiff Smith (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Massachusetts Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

945. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Massachusetts Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

946. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.

947. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

948. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

949. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

950. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

951. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect 

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 132 of 236
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

133

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

952. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

953. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 60

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

954. Plaintiff Smith (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Massachusetts Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

955. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Massachusetts Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

956. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

957. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

958. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

959. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

960. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

961. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 133 of 236
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

134

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

13. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Minnesota Class

COUNT 61

VIOLATIONS OF THE MINNESOTA PREVENTION OF CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

Minn. Stat. §§ 325F.68, et seq.

962. Plaintiffs Dahl and Peterson (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Minnesota Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

963. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Minnesota Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

964. The Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act prohibits “any fraud, false pretense, 

false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice.” Minn. Stat. § 325F.69.

965. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of Minn. Stat. § 325F.69.

966. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

967. GM intended for Plaintiffs and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

968. Plaintiffs and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiffs and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

969. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members, Plaintiffs and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

970. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiffs, and those same business practices have 

deceived or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

971. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiffs and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 134 of 236
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

135

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiffs and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiffs or the other 

Class members could have reasonably avoided.

972. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiffs and the 

other Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased 

the Class Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil 

Consumption Defect been disclosed. Plaintiffs and the other Class members also suffered diminished 

value of their vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief allowed under Minn. Stat. § 8.31, subd. 3a.

COUNT 62

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Minn. Stat. §§ 325G.19, 336.2-313

973. Plaintiffs Dahl and Peterson (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Minnesota Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

974. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Minnesota Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

975. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

976. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

977. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiffs 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 135 of 236
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

136

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

978. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

979. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

980. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiffs and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

981. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiffs and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiffs, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seek all remedies allowable by law.

982. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

983. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 136 of 236
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

137

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

984. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiffs and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 63

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Minn. Stat. § 336.2-314

985. Plaintiffs Dahl and Peterson (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Minnesota Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

986. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Minnesota Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

987. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Minn. 

Stat. § 336.2-314.

988. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. § 336.2-314, a warranty that the Class Vehicles were in 

merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject to an 

implied warranty of merchantability. 

989. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

990. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

991. Plaintiffs and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

992. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 137 of 236
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

138

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 64

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

993. Plaintiffs Dahl and Peterson (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Minnesota Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

994. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Minnesota Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

995. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.

996. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiffs 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

997. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

998. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

999. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1000. Had Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1001. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1002. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiffs and the other members of 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 138 of 236
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

139

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 65

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1003. Plaintiffs Dahl and Peterson (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Minnesota Class’s claims) 

repeat and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1004. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Minnesota Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1005. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1006. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiffs and the other members of 

the Class, and inequity has resulted.

1007. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1008. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1009. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1010. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

14. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Mississippi Class

COUNT 66

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-313 and 75-2a-210 

1011. Plaintiff Ware (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the Mississippi Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1012. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Mississippi Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 139 of 236
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

140

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1013. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1014. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1015. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1016. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1017. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1018. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1019. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 140 of 236
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

141

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1020. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1021. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1022. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 67

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-314 and 75-2a-212 

1023. Plaintiff Ware (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Mississippi Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1024. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of other members of the Mississippi 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1025. GM has defectively designed, manufactured, sold, or otherwise placed in the stream of 

commerce the Class Vehicles as set forth above.

1026. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Miss. 

Code Ann. §§ 75-2-104 and 75-2A-103.

1027. Pursuant to Miss. Code Ann. §§ 75-2-314 and 75-2a-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition and useful for their ordinary purpose for which they were 

designed, manufactured, and sold was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold 

subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1028. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 141 of 236
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

142

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1029. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1030. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1031. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 68

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1032. Plaintiff Ware (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Mississippi Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1033. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Mississippi Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1034. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1035. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1036. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1037. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 142 of 236
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

143

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

misconduct.

1038. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1039. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

15. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Missouri Class

COUNT 69

VIOLATIONS OF MISSOURI MERCHANDISING PRACTICES ACT

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010, et. seq.

1040. Plaintiff Kitchen (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Missouri Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1041. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Missouri 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1042. GM, Plaintiff and the other Class members are “persons” within the meaning of Mo. Rev. 

Stat. § 407.010(5).

1043. GM engaged in “trade” or “commerce” in the State of Missouri within the meaning of 

Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010(7).

1044. The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act (“Missouri MPA”) makes unlawful the “act, 

use or employment by any person of any deception, fraud, false pretense, misrepresentation, unfair 

practice, or the concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact in connection with the sale or 

advertisement of any merchandise.” Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020. In the course of GM’s business, it 

willfully failed to disclose and actively concealed the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that 

results in abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the GM Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines. Accordingly, GM used or employed 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 merchandise in trade or commerce, in violation of the 

Missouri MPA. GM’s conduct offends public policy; is unethical, oppressive, or unscrupulous; and 

presents a risk of, or causes, substantial injury to consumers.

1045. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 143 of 236
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

144

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1046. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1047. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1048. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1049. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

1050. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1051. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.025.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 144 of 236
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

145

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 70

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-313 and 400.2a-210

1052. Plaintiff Kitchen (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Missouri Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1053. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Missouri

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1054. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1055. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally operated in 

the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any subsequent owners 

of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials or 

workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1056. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1057. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1058. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 145 of 236
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

146

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1059. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1060. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiffs, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seek all remedies allowable by law.

1061. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1062. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1063. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 71

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-314 and 400.2a-212

1064. Plaintiff Kitchen (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Missouri Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1065. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Missouri 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1066. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Mo. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-104 and 400.2a-103.

1067. Pursuant to Mo. Rev. Stat. §§ 400.2-314 and 400.2a-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 146 of 236
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

147

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability.

1068. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1069. GM was provided notice of these issues by numerous complaints filed against it, including 

the instant complaint. Additionally, Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other 

Nationwide Class members, notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec

5300 Engines, and its corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 

and delivered by United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return 

receipt was signed on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect

through numerous complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal 

engineering knowledge. 

1070. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1071. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 72

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1072. Plaintiff Kitchen (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Missouri Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1073. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Missouri

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1074. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1075. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect, and having known that Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class could not have reasonably been expected to know of the Oil Consumption 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 147 of 236
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

148

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Defect, GM had a duty to disclose these defects to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in 

connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1076. GM disclosed information concerning the reliability and performance of the Class 

Vehicles, but GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1077. For the reasons set forth above, the existence of the Oil Consumption Defect comprises 

material information with respect to the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1078. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1079. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect, 

they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1080. GM actively concealed and/or suppressed these material facts, in whole or in part, with 

the intent to induce Plaintiff and the other Class members to purchase or lease Class Vehicles.

1081. Through its omission regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, GM intended to induce, and 

did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they 

otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have 

paid.

1082. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omission, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class either paid too much for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles if the 

Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and therefore have incurred damages in an amount 

to be determined at trial.

COUNT 73

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1083. Plaintiff Kitchen (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Missouri Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1084. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Missouri

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1085. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 148 of 236
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

149

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1086. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1087. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1088. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1089. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1090. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

16. Claims Brought on Behalf of the New Jersey Class

COUNT 74

VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY 

CONSUMER FRAUD ACT

N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1, et seq.

1091. Plaintiff Knoll (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Jersey Class’s claims) repeats and

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1092. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Jersey Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1093. Pursuant to the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, “[t]he act, use or employment by any 

person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, 

misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent 

that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or 

advertisement of any merchandise or real estate . . . is declared to be an unlawful practice. . . .” N.J. Stat. 

Ann. § 56:8-2.

1094. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 149 of 236
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

150

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1095. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1096. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1097. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1098. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1099. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

1100. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members’ Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1101. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 150 of 236
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

151

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and all other relief allowed under N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-2, et seq.

COUNT 75

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12a:2-314 and 12a:2a-212

1102. Plaintiff Knoll (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Jersey Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1103. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Jersey Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1104. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under N.J. 

Stat. Ann. §§ 12a:2-104 and 12a:2a-103.

1105. Pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12a:2-314 and 12a:2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1106. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1107. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1108. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1109. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 151 of 236
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

152

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 76

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1110. Plaintiff Knoll (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Jersey Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1111. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Jersey Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1112. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1113. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1114. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1115. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1116. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1117. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1118. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1119. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 152 of 236
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

153

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 77

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1120. Plaintiff Knoll (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Jersey Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1121. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Jersey Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1122. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1123. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1124. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1125. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1126. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1127. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

17. Claims Brought on Behalf of the New Mexico Class

COUNT 78

VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW MEXICO 

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT

N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1, et seq.

1128. Plaintiff Molina (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Mexico Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1129. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Mexico Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1130. Pursuant to the New Mexico Unfair Trade Practices Act, “[u]nfair or deceptive trade 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 153 of 236
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

154

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

practices and unconscionable trade practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.” 

N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3.

1131. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of N.M. Stat. Ann. § 57-12-3.

1132. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1133. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1134. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1135. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1136. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

1137. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1138. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 154 of 236
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

155

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 57-12-1, et seq.

COUNT 79

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 55-2-313 and 55-2A-210

1139. Plaintiff Molina (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the New Mexico Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1140. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Mexico Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1141. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1142. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1143. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1144. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1145. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 155 of 236
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

156

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1146. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1147. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

1148. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1149. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1150. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 80

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 55-2-314 and 55-2A-212

1151. Plaintiff Molina (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Mexico Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1152. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 156 of 236
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

157

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Mexico Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1153. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under N.M. 

Stat. Ann. §§ 55-2-104 and 55-2A-103.

1154. Pursuant to N.M. Stat. Ann. §§ 55-2-314 and 55-2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1155. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1156. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1157. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1158. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 81

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1159. Plaintiff Molina (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Mexico Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1160. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Mexico Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 157 of 236
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

158

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1161. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1162. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1163. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1164. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1165. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1166. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1167. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1168. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 82

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1169. Plaintiff Molina (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New Mexico Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 158 of 236
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

159

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1170. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

Mexico Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1171. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1172. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1173. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1174. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1175. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1176. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

18. Claims Brought on Behalf of the New York Class

COUNT 83

VIOLATIONS OF NEW YORK 

GENERAL BUSINESS LAW, DECEPTIVE ACTS AND PRACTICES

N.Y. GBL § 349

1177. Dennis Vita (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New York Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1178. Plaintiff brings this count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

York Class (the “Class” for purposes of this Count).

1179. GM engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the New 

York Gen. Bus. Law § 349 by advertising, selling, and warranting the defective Class Vehicles.

1180. GM knew that the Class Vehicles suffered from the Oil Consumption Defect that results 

in abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage. 

1181. In advertising, selling, and warranting the Class Vehicles, GM omitted material facts 

concerning the Oil Consumption Defect that results in abnormally high oil consumption and resultant 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 159 of 236
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

160

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

engine damage. GM failed to give Plaintiff and the other Class members sufficient notice or warning 

regarding this defect. 

1182. GM intended that Plaintiff and the other Class members rely upon GM’s omissions when 

purchasing vehicles containing the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1183. Plaintiff and the other Class members were deceived by GM’s concealment of the defect. 

1184. GM’s conduct was in commerce and affected commerce. 

1185. As a direct and proximate result of these unfair, willful, unconscionable, and deceptive 

commercial practices, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged and are entitled to 

recover actual and treble damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief allowed under 

N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349.

COUNT 84

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-313 and 2-a-210

1186. Plaintiff Vita (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New York Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1187. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

York Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1188. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1189. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1190. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 160 of 236
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

161

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1191. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1192. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1193. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1194. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1195. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

1196. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1197. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 161 of 236
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

162

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 85

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-314 and 2-a-212

1198. Plaintiff Vita (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New York Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1199. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

York Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1200. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under N.Y. 

U.C.C. Law §§ 2-314 and 2-a-212.

1201. Pursuant to N.Y. U.C.C. Law §§ 2-314 and 2-a-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1202. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1203. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1204. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1205. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 162 of 236
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

163

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 88

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1206. Plaintiff Vita (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New York Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1207. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

York Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1208. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect when it marketed and sold the Class 

Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1209. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect, and having known that Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class could not have reasonably been expected to know of the Oil Consumption 

Defect, GM had a duty to disclose these defects to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in 

connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1210. GM disclosed information concerning the reliability and performance of the Class 

Vehicles, but GM did not disclose Oil Consumption Defect to Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1211. For the reasons set forth above, the existence of the Oil Consumption Defect comprises 

material information with respect to the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1212. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1213. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect, 

they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1214. Through its omission regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, GM intended to induce, and 

did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they 

otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have 

paid.

1215. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omission, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class either paid too much for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles if the 

Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and therefore have incurred damages in an amount 

to be determined at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 163 of 236
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

164

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 87

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1216. Plaintiff Vita (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the New York Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1217. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the New 

York Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1218. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1219. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1220. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1221. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1222. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1223. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

19. Claims Brought on Behalf of the North Carolina Class

COUNT 88

VIOLATIONS OF THE NORTH CAROLINA 

UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1, et seq.

1224. Plaintiff Ehrke (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the North Carolina Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1225. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the North 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1226. GM engaged in unlawful, unfair, and deceptive trade practices in violation of the North 

Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act by advertising, selling, and warranting the defective 

Class Vehicles. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 164 of 236
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

165

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1227. GM knew that the Class Vehicles suffered from the Oil Consumption Defect that results 

in abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage.

1228. In advertising, selling, and warranting the Class Vehicles, GM omitted material facts 

concerning the Oil Consumption Defect that results in abnormally high oil consumption and resultant 

engine damage. GM failed to give Plaintiff and the other Class members sufficient notice or warning 

regarding this defect. 

1229. GM intended that Plaintiff and the other Class members rely upon GM’s omissions when 

purchasing vehicles containing the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines. 

1230. Plaintiff and the other Class members were deceived by GM’s concealment of the defect.

1231. GM’s conduct was in commerce and affected commerce. 

1232. As a direct and proximate result of these unfair, willful, unconscionable, and deceptive 

commercial practices, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged and are entitled to 

recover actual and treble damages, as well as attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief allowed under 

N.C. Gen. Stat §§ 75-16 and 75-16.1.

COUNT 89

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 25-2-313 and 25-2A-210

1233. Plaintiff Ehrke (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the North Carolina Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1234. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the North 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1235. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1236. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 165 of 236
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

166

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1237. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1238. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1239. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1240. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1241. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1242. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

1243. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 166 of 236
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

167

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1244. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT 90

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 25-2-314 and 25-2A-212

1245. Plaintiff Ehrke (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the North Carolina Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1246. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the North 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1247. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under N.C. 

Gen Stat. § 25-2-314 and 25-2A-212.

1248. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 25-2-314 and 25-2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1249. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1250. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1251. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 167 of 236
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

168

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1252. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 91

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1253. Plaintiff Ehrke (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the North Carolina Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1254. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the North 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1255. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect when it marketed and sold the Class 

Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1256. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect, and having known that Plaintiff and 

the other members of the Class could not have reasonably been expected to know of the Oil Consumption 

Defect, GM had a duty to disclose these defects to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in 

connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1257. GM disclosed information concerning the reliability and performance of the Class 

Vehicles, but GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1258. For the reasons set forth above, the existence of the Oil Consumption Defect comprises 

material information with respect to the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1259. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1260. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect, 

they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1261. Through its omission regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, GM intended to induce, and 

did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they 

otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have 

paid.

1262. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omission, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 168 of 236
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

169

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class either paid too much for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles if the 

Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and therefore have incurred damages in an amount 

to be determined at trial.

COUNT 92

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1263. Plaintiff Ehrke (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the North Carolina Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1264. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the North 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1265. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1266. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1267. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1268. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1269. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1270. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

20. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Ohio Class

COUNT 93

VIOLATIONS OF THE OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1345.01, et seq.

1271. Plaintiffs Jones and Gulling (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Ohio Class’s claims) repeat 

and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1272. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Ohio 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 169 of 236
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

170

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1273. GM, Plaintiffs, and the other Class members are “persons” within the meaning of Ohio 

Rev. Code Ann. § 145.01(B). GM is a “supplier” as defined by Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01(c).

1274. Plaintiffs and the other Class members are “consumers” as that term is defined in Ohio 

Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01(D), and their purchase and lease of the Class Vehicles are “consumer 

transactions” within the meaning of Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.01(A).

1275. Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.02 prohibits unfair or deceptive acts or practices in 

connection with consumer transactions.

1276. In the course of GM’s business, GM violated the Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act 

(“CSPA”) by selling Class Vehicles with the Oil Consumption Defect, leading to excessive oil 

consumption and engine damage, or negligently concealing or suppressing material facts concerning the 

Oil Consumption Defect in the Class Vehicles.

1277. Further, as a result of placing a defective product into the stream of commerce, GM has 

breached its implied warranty in tort, which is an unfair and deceptive act, as defined in Ohio Rev. Code 

Ann. § 1345.09(B).

1278. GM has committed unfair and deceptive acts in violation of the Ohio CSPA by knowingly 

placing into the stream of commerce the Class Vehicles with the Oil Consumption Defect.

1279. Moreover, GM has committed an unfair and deceptive act by knowingly concealing the 

Oil Consumption Defect in the Class Vehicles and failing to inform Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members of this defect.

1280. The Ohio Attorney General has made available for public inspection prior state court 

decisions which have held that the acts and omissions of GM as detailed in this Complaint, including, 

but not limited to, the failure to honor both its implied and express warranties; and the concealment and/or 

non-disclosure of a substantial defect, constitute deceptive sales practices in violation of the CSPA. 

These cases include, but are not limited to, the following:

a. Mason v. Mercedes Benz USA, LLC (OPIF #10002382);

b. State ex rel. Betty D. Montgomery v. Ford Motor co. (OPIF #10002123);

c. State ex rel. Betty D. Montgomery v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (OPIF #10002025);

d. Bellinger v. Hewlett-Packard Co., No. 20744, 2002 Ohio App. LEXIS 1573 (Ohio Ct. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 170 of 236
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

171

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

App. Apr. 10, 2002) (OPIF #10002077);

e. Borror v. MarineMax of Ohio, No. OT-06-010, 2007 Ohio App. LEXIS 525 (Ohio Ct. 

App. Feb. 9, 2007) (OPIF #10002388);

f. State ex rel. Jim Petro v. Craftmatic Organization, Inc. (OPIF #10002347);

g. Cranford v. Joseph Airport Toyota, Inc. (OPIF #10001586);

h. Brown v. Spears (OPIF #10000403);

i. Brinkman v. Mazda Motor of America, Inc. (OPIF #10001427);

j. Mosley v. Performance Mitsubishi AKA Automanage (OPIF #10001326); and

k. Walls v. Harry Williams dba Butch’s Auto Sales (OPIF #10001524).

1281. GM’s unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to, and did, in fact, deceive 

consumers, including Plaintiff and the other Class members, about the true reliability, dependability, 

efficiency, and quality of the Class Vehicles.

1282. Plaintiffs and the other Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages as 

a direct result of GM’s concealment of and failure to disclose material information, namely, the Oil 

Consumption Defect. Plaintiffs and the other Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles 

would not have done so, or would have paid significantly less, if the true nature of the Class Vehicles 

had been disclosed. Plaintiffs and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their 

vehicles.

1283. GM is liable to Plaintiffs and the other Class members for compensatory damages, 

injunctive/equitable relief, and attorneys’ fees pursuant to Ohio Rev. Code Ann. § 1345.09.

COUNT 94

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Ohio Rev. Code Ann. §§ 1302.26 and 1310.17

1284. Plaintiffs Jones and Gulling (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Ohio Class’s claims) repeat 

and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1285. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Ohio 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1286. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1287. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 171 of 236
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

172

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1288. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiffs 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1289. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials and 

workmanship defects.

1290. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1291. Furthermore, the limited warranty of repair fails in its essential purpose because the 

contractual remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiffs and the other Class members whole and because GM 

has failed and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1292. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiffs and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiffs, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seek all remedies as allowed by law.

1293. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 172 of 236
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

173

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false pretenses.

1294. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make Plaintiffs and the other Class members whole.

1295. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of express warranty, Plaintiffs and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT 95

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY IN TORT

1296. Plaintiffs Jones and Gulling (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Ohio Class’s claims) repeat 

and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1297. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Ohio 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1298. GM manufactured and sold the defective Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members.

1299. The Class Vehicles are defective because they have a Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines 

with the Oil Consumption Defect, causing the Class Vehicles to consume excessive amounts of oil, 

resulting in engine damage.

1300. These defects existed at the time the Class Vehicles left the control of GM.

1301. Based upon these defects, GM has failed to meet the expectations of a reasonable 

consumer. The Class Vehicles have failed in their ordinary, intended use, because they suffer from the 

Oil Consumption Defect, causing excessive oil loss and resultant engine damage.

1302. The above-described defects in the Class Vehicles were the direct and proximate cause of 

economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 173 of 236
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

174

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 96

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1303. Plaintiffs Jones and Gulling (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Ohio Class’s claims) repeat 

and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1304. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Ohio 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1305. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other Class members.

1306. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other Class members could not have reasonably been 

expected to know of this defect, GM had a duty to disclose the Oil Consumption Defect to Plaintiffs and 

the other Class members in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1307. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiffs and the other Class members in connection with the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1308. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1309. In purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiffs and the other Class members 

reasonably relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles. Had 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members known of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or would have paid less for the 

Class Vehicles.

1310. Through its omissions regarding the latent oil consumption defect within the Generation 

IV Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other Class members 

to purchase or lease a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or to pay more for a 

Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1311. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiffs and the other Class 

members either paid too much for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles if 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 174 of 236
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

175

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 97

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1312. Plaintiffs Jones and Gulling (“Plaintiffs,” for purposes of the Ohio Class’s claims) repeat 

and reallege paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1313. Plaintiffs bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Ohio 

Class (“Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1314. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1315. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiffs and the other members of 

the Class, and inequity has resulted.

1316. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1317. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiffs and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1318. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1319. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

21. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Oklahoma Class

COUNT 98

VIOLATIONS OF THE OKLAHOMA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 751, et seq.

1320. Plaintiff Warpinksi (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oklahoma Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1321. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Oklahoma Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1322. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 175 of 236
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

176

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

trade practices and deceptive trade practices in violation of Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 752 and 753. 

1323. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1324. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1325. Plaintiffs and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiffs and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1326. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiffs and the other Class members, Plaintiffs and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1327. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiffs, and those same business practices have 

deceived or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

1328. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiffs and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiffs and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiffs and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiffs or the other 

Class members could have reasonably avoided.

1329. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiffs and the 

other Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased 

the Class Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil 

Consumption Defect been disclosed. Plaintiffs and the other Class members also suffered diminished 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 176 of 236
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

177

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

value of their vehicles. Plaintiffs and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, 

attorneys’ fees and costs, and all other relief allowed under Okla. Stat. tit. 15, §§ 751, et seq.

COUNT 99

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, §§ 2-313 and 2A-210

1330. Plaintiff Warpinksi (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the Oklahoma Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1331. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Oklahoma Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1332. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1333. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1334. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1335. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1336. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 177 of 236
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

178

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1337. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1338. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

1339. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1340. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1341. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 100

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, §§ 2-314 and 2A-212

1342. Plaintiff Warpinski (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oklahoma Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1343. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Oklahoma Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1344. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Okla. 

Stat. tit. 12A, §§ 2-104 and 2A-103.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 178 of 236
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

179

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1345. Pursuant to Okla. Stat. tit. 12A, §§§ 2-314 and 2A-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1346. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1347. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1348. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1349. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 101

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1350. Plaintiff Warpinski (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oklahoma Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1351. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Oklahoma Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1352. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1353. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 179 of 236
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

180

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1354. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1355. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1356. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1357. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1358. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1359. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 102

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1360. Plaintiff Warpinski (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oklahoma Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1361. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Oklahoma Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1362. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 180 of 236
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

181

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1363. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1364. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1365. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1366. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1367. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

22. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Oregon Class

COUNT 103

VIOLATIONS OF THE OREGON UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES LAW 

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 646.605, et seq.

1368. Plaintiff Martell (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oregon Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1369. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Oregon

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1370. GM, Plaintiff, and the Washington Class are “person[s]” under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605.

1371. GM engaged in “trade” or “commerce” under Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.605.

1372. The Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Law broadly prohibits “unfair or deceptive conduct 

in trade or commerce.” Or. Rev. Stat. § 646.608(u). 

1373. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive conduct in violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Law.

1374. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 181 of 236
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

182

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1375. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1376. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiffs and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1377. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1378. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

COUNT 104

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.3130 and 72a.2100

1379. Plaintiff Martell (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Oregon Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1380. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Oregon

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1381. GM is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” with respect to motor vehicles under Or. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1040 and 72.1030, and a “seller” of motor vehicles under § 72.1030.

1382. With respect to leases, GM is and was at all relevant times a “lessor” of motor vehicles 

under Or. Rev. Stat. § 72a.1030.

1383. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning of OR. 

Rev. Stat. 72.1050 and 72a.1030. 

1384. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 182 of 236
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

183

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1385. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1386. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1387. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1388. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1389. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1390. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false pretenses.

1391. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 183 of 236
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

184

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole.

1392. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT 10545

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.3140 and 72a.2120

1393. Plaintiff Martell (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oregon Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1394. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Oregon

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1395. GM is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” with respect to motor vehicles under Or. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1040 and 72.1030, and a “seller” of motor vehicles under § 72.1030.

1396. With respect to leases, GM is and was at all relevant times a “lessor” of motor vehicles 

under Or. Rev. Stat. § 72a.1030.

1397. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning of OR. 

Rev. Stat. §§ 72.1050 and 72a.1030. 

1398. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the ordinary 

purpose for which vehicles are used is implied in law pursuant to Or. Rev. Stat. §§ 72.3140 and 72a.2120.

1399. The Class Vehicles, when sold or leased and at all times hereafter, were not in 

merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used. Specifically, 

the Class Vehicles are inherently defective in that they contain the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and engine damage.

1400. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

 45 In light of the Court’s dismissal of Plaintiff Martell’s implied warranty claim for lack of privity (Dkt. 

No. 99 at 45), Plaintiffs include this Count in this Third Amended Class Action Complaint strictly to 

preserve it for purposes of appeal. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 184 of 236
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

185

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1401. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

1402. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the implied warranty of 

merchantability, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at 

trial.

COUNT 106

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1403. Plaintiff Martell (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oregon Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1404. Plaintiff bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Oregon 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1405. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1406. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1407. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1408. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1409. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1410. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 185 of 236
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

186

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1411. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1412. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 107

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1413. Plaintiff Martell (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Oregon Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1414. Plaintiff bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Oregon

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1415. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1416. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1417. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1418. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1419. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1420. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 186 of 236
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

187

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

23. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Pennsylvania Class

COUNT 108

VIOLATIONS OF THE PENNSYLVANIA 

UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICS AND CONSUMER PROTECTION LAW

73 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 201-1, et seq.

1421. Plaintiff Graziano (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Pennsylvania Class’s claims) 

repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1422. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Pennsylvania Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1423. GM, Plaintiff, and the other members of the Class are “persons” within the meaning of 73 

Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-2(2).

1424. GM is engaged in “trade” or “commerce” within the meaning of 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-

2(3).

1425. The Pennsylvania Unfair Trade Practices Act (“Pennsylvania UTPA”) prohibits “unfair 

or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce . . . .” 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-3.

1426. GM violated the Pennsylvania UTPA by engaging in unfair or deceptive acts or practices 

by marketing, selling, and leasing Class Vehicles that it knew to contain the Oil Consumption Defect, 

while not disclosing the Oil Consumption Defect to Plaintiff and the other Class members.

1427. GM intentionally and knowingly omitted material facts regarding the Class Vehicles with 

the intent to mislead Plaintiff and the other Class members.

1428. GM knew or should have known that its conduct violated the Pennsylvania UTPA.

1429. GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect was material to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members.

1430. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages as a 

direct and proximate result of GM’s deceptive acts and omissions. Plaintiff and the other Class members 

who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased them at all and/or—if 

the Vehicles’ true nature had been disclosed and mitigated, and the Vehicles rendered legal to sell—

would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered 

diminished value of their vehicles, as well as lost or diminished use.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 187 of 236
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

188

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1431. Pursuant to 73 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 201-9.2(a), Plaintiff and the other Class members seek an 

order enjoining GM’s unfair and/or deceptive acts or practices, damages – trebled, punitive damages, and 

attorneys’ fees, costs, and any other just and proper relief available under the Pennsylvania UTPA.

COUNT 109

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

13 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2313 and 2A210

1432. Plaintiff Graziano (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Pennsylvania Class’s claims) 

repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1433. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Pennsylvania Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1434. GM is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” with respect to motor vehicles under 13 

Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2104 and 2A103, and a “seller” of motor vehicles under § 2103(a).

1435. With respect to leases, GM is and was at all relevant times a “lessor” of motor vehicles 

under 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2A103(a).

1436. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning of 13 

Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2105(a) and 2A103(a). 

1437. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1438. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1439. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 188 of 236
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

189

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and workmanship defects.

1440. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1441. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1442. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1443. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false pretenses.

1444. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole.

1445. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT 110

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

13 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2314 and 2A212

1446. Plaintiff Graziano (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Pennsylvania Class’s claims) repeats

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 189 of 236
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

190

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1447. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Pennsylvania Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1448. GM is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” with respect to motor vehicles under 13 

Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2104 and 2A103, and a “seller” of motor vehicles under § 2103(a).

1449. With respect to leases, GM is and was at all relevant times a “lessor” of motor vehicles 

under 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. § 2A103(a).

1450. The Class Vehicles are and were at all relevant times “goods” within the meaning of 13 

Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2105(a) and 2A103(a). 

1451. A warranty that the Class Vehicles were in merchantable condition and fit for the ordinary 

purpose for which vehicles are used is implied in law pursuant to 13 Pa. Cons. Stat. §§ 2314 and 2A212.

1452. The Class Vehicles, when sold or leased and at all times hereafter, were not in 

merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles are used. Specifically, 

the Class Vehicles are inherently defective in that they contain the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and engine damage.

1453. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1454. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the implied warranty of merchantability.

1455. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the implied warranty of 

merchantability, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at 

trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 190 of 236
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

191

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 111

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1456. Plaintiff Graziano (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Pennsylvania Class’s claims) repeats

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1457. Plaintiff bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Pennsylvania Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1458. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1459. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1460. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1461. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1462. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1463. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1464. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1465. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 191 of 236
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

192

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 112

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1466. Plaintiff Graziano (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Pennsylvania Class’s claims) repeats

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1467. Plaintiff bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Pennsylvania Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1468. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and 

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1469. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1470. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1471. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1472. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1473. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

24. Claims Brought on Behalf of the South Carolina Class

COUNT 113

VIOLATIONS OF THE SOUTH CAROLINA REGULATION OF MANUFACTURERS, 

DISTRIBUTORS, AND DEALERS ACT

S.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-151-10, et seq.

1474. Plaintiff Sloan Jr. (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the South Carolina Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1475. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the South 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1476. Plaintiff and the other members of the South Carolina Class are natural persons and legal 

entities and, as such, constitute “persons” as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10(n).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 192 of 236
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

193

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1477. GM is a “manufacturer” as defined by S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-10(b).

1478. S.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-16-30 and 56-15-40 declare unlawful all “unfair or deceptive acts 

or practices” by a manufacturer.

1479. S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110 provides a private right of action for any person who is 

injured in his or her business or property by an unfair and/or deceptive act or practice.

1480. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

and/or deceptive acts or practices in violation of S.C. Code Ann. §§ 56-15-30 and 56-15-40.

1481. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1482. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1483. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1484. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1485. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

1486. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 193 of 236
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

194

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

members could have reasonably avoided.

1487. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under S.C. Code Ann. § 56-15-110.

COUNT 114

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

S.C. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-313 and 36-2A-210

1488. Plaintiff Sloan Jr. (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the South Carolina Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1489. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the South 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1490. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1491. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1492. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1493. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 194 of 236
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

195

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and workmanship defects.

1494. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1495. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1496. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1497. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the Class 

Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently defective, 

and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the other Class 

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

1498. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1499. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial. 

COUNT 115

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

S.C. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-314 and 36-2A-212

1500. Plaintiff Sloan Jr. (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the South Carolina Class’s claims) repeats 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 195 of 236
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

196

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1501. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the South 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1502. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under S.C. 

Code Ann. §§ 36-2-104 and 36-2A-103.

1503. Pursuant to S.C. Code Ann. §§ 36-2-314 and 36-2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1504. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1505. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1506. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1507. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 116

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1508. Plaintiff Sloan Jr. (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the South Carolina Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1509. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the South 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 196 of 236
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

197

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1510. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1511. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1512. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1513. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1514. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1515. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1516. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1517. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 197 of 236
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

198

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 117

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1518. Plaintiff Sloan Jr. (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the South Carolina Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1519. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the South 

Carolina Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1520. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1521. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1522. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1523. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1524. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1525. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

25. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Tennessee Class

COUNT 118

VIOLATIONS OF THE TENNESSEE

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-18-101, et seq.

1526. Plaintiff Byrge (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Tennessee Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1527. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Tennessee Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1528. Pursuant to the Tennessee Consumer Protection Act, “[u]nfair or deceptive acts or 

practices affecting the conduct of any trade or commerce” are unlawful. Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104.

1529. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 198 of 236
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

199

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

or deceptive acts in violation of Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-104

1530. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1531. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1532. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1533. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1534. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

1535. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1536. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 199 of 236
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

200

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Tenn. Code Ann. § 47-18-101, et seq.

COUNT 119

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-313 and 47-2A-210

1537. Plaintiff Byrge (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the Tennessee Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1538. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Tennessee Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1539. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1540. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1541. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1542. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1543. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 200 of 236
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

201

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1544. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1545. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

1546. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1547. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1548. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 120

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-314 and 47-2A-212

1549. Plaintiff Byrge (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Tennessee Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1550. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Tennessee Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1551. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Tenn. 

Code Ann. §§ 47-2-104 and 47-2A-103.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 201 of 236
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

202

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1552. Pursuant to Tenn. Code Ann. §§ 47-2-314 and 47-2A-212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1553. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1554. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1555. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1556. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 121

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1557. Plaintiff Byrge (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Tennessee Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1558. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Tennessee Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1559. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1560. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 202 of 236
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

203

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1561. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1562. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1563. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1564. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1565. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1566. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 122

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1567. Plaintiff Byrge (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Tennessee Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1568. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Tennessee Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1569. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 203 of 236
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

204

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1570. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1571. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1572. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1573. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1574. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

26. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Texas Class

COUNT 123

VIOLATION OF TEXAS DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES –

CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 17.01, et seq.

1575. Plaintiff Sanchez (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Texas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1576. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Texas 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count). 

1577. The Texas Deceptive Trade Practices—Consumer Protection Act (“TDTPA”) states that 

it is unlawful to commit “[f]alse, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or 

commerce.” Tex. Bus. & Com. Code § 17.46. 

1578. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in false, 

misleading and deceptive trade practices.

1579. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 204 of 236
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

205

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1580. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1581. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1582. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1583. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1584. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

1585. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1586. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 205 of 236
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

206

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under the TDTPA.

COUNT 124

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 2.313 and 2A.210

1587. Plaintiff Sanchez (“Plaintiff” for purposes of the Texas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1588. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Texas Class (the “Class,” for 

purposes of this Count).

1589. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1590. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1591. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1592. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1593. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 206 of 236
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

207

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1594. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1595. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

1596. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1597. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1598. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 125

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY 

Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 2.314 and 2A.212

1599. Plaintiff Sanchez (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Texas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1600. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the Texas Class (the “Class,” for 

purposes of this Count).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 207 of 236
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

208

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1601. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Tex. 

Bus. & Com. Code §§ 2.104 and 2A.103.

1602. Pursuant to Tex. Bus. & Com. Code §§ 2.314 and 2A.212, a warranty that the Class 

Vehicles were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and 

sold subject to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1603. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1604. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1605. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1606. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 126

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1607. Plaintiff Sanchez (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Texas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1608. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Texas

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1609. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 208 of 236
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

209

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1610. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1611. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1612. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1613. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1614. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1615. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1616. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial

COUNT 127

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1617. Plaintiff Sanchez (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Texas Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1618. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Texas 

(the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 209 of 236
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

210

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1619. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1620. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1621. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1622. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1623. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1624. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

27. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Virginia Class

COUNT 128

VIOLATIONS OF THE VIRGINIA CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT

Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-196, et seq.

1625. Plaintiff Thacker (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Virginia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1626. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Virginia 

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1627. GM, Plaintiffs, and the other Class members are “persons” within the meaning of Va. 

Code Ann. § 59.1-198. GM is a “supplier” as defined by Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-198.

1628. The purchase and lease of the Class Vehicles by Plaintiff and the other Class members are 

“consumer transactions” within the meaning of Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-198.

1629. The Virginia Consumer Protection Act prohibits “deception, fraud, false pretense, false 

promise, or misrepresentation in connection with a consumer transaction.” Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-

200(14).

1630. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of Va. Code Ann. § 59.1-200.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 210 of 236
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

211

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1631. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1632. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions of fact 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1633. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1634. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1635. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other Class members.

1636. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1637. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 211 of 236
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

212

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and all other relief allowed under Va. Code Ann. §§ 59.1-196, et seq.

COUNT 129

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.2-313 and 8.2a-210

1638. Plaintiff Thacker (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the Virginia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1639. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Virginia

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1640. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1641. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1642. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1643. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1644. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 212 of 236
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

213

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

knowledge. 

1645. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1646. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

1647. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1648. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1649. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 130

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.2-314 and 8.2a-212

1650. Plaintiff Thacker (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Virginia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1651. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Virginia

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1652. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under Va. 

Code Ann. §§ 8.2-104 and 8.2a-103.

1653. Pursuant to Va. Code Ann. §§ 8.2-314 and 8.2a-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 213 of 236
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

214

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1654. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1655. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1656. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1657. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 131

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1658. Plaintiff Thacker (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Virginia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1659. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Virginia

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1660. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1661. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 214 of 236
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

215

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1662. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1663. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1664. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1665. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1666. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1667. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 132

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1668. Plaintiff Thacker (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Virginia Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1669. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the Virginia

Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1670. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 215 of 236
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

216

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1671. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1672. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1673. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1674. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1675. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

28. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Washington Class

COUNT 133

VIOLATIONS OF THE WASHINGTON CONSUMER PROTECTION ACT 

Wash. Rev. Code §§ 19.86.010, et seq.

1676. Plaintiff Harris (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Washington Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1677. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Washington Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1678. GM, Plaintiff, and the Washington Class are “person[s]” under Wash. Rev. Code § 

19.86.010(1).

1679. GM engaged in “trade” or “commerce” under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.010(2).

1680. The Washington Consumer Protection Act broadly prohibits “[u]nfair methods of 

competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Wash. 

Rev. Code. § 19.86.020. 

1681. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of the Washington Consumer Protection Act.

1682. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 216 of 236
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

217

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1683. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1684. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1685. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1686. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

1687. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiff and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1688. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Wash. Rev. Code § 19.86.090.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 217 of 236
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

218

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

COUNT 134

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Wash. Rev. Code § 62A.2-313 and 62A.2A-210

1689. Plaintiff Harris (“Plaintiff,” for purpose of the Washington Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1690. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Washington Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1691. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1692. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if they became apparent during the warranty period. GM 

provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge.

1693. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1694. GM breached the express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1695. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 218 of 236
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

219

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1696. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1697. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies allowable by law.

1698. Also, and as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were, therefore, induced to purchase or lease the Class Vehicles under false 

pretenses.

1699. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1700. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 135

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1701. Plaintiff Harris (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Washington Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1702. Plaintiff bring this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Washington Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1703. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.

1704. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 219 of 236
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

220

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a good-faith duty to disclose the defect 

to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1705. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1706. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1707. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1708. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1709. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1710. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 136

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1711. Plaintiff Harris (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Washington Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1712. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Washington Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1713. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 220 of 236
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

221

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1714. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1715. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1716. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1717. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1718. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

29. Claims Brought on Behalf of the West Virginia Class

COUNT 137

VIOLATIONS OF THE WEST VIRGINIA 

CONSUMER CREDIT AND PROTECTIONS ACT

W. Va. Code §§ 46A-6-101, et seq.

1719. Plaintiff Robertson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the West Virginia Class’s claims) repeats

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1720. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the West 

Virginia Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1721. The West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protections Act, W. Va. Code § 46A-6-104, 

states that, “[u]nfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of 

any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.”

1722. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in unfair 

or deceptive acts in violation of the West Virginia Consumer Credit and Protections Act.

1723. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1724. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 221 of 236
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

222

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1725. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1726. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1727. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

1728. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiffs and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1729. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under W. Va. Code § 46A-6-101, et seq.

COUNT 138

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY 

W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-213 and 46-2A-210

1730. Plaintiff Robertson (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the West Virginia Class’s claims) 

repeats and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 222 of 236
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

223

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1731. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the West 

Virginia Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1732. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1733. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1734. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff 

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1735. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1736. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1737. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1738. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 223 of 236
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

224

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1739. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted, leased, and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

1740. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1741. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 139

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-314 and 46-2A-212

1742. Plaintiff Robertson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the West Virginia Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1743. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the West 

Virginia Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1744. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to motor vehicles under W. 

Va. Code §§ 46-2-104 and 46-2A-103.

1745. Pursuant to W. Va. Code §§ 46-2-314 and 46-2A-212, a warranty that the Class Vehicles 

were in merchantable condition was implied by law, and the Class Vehicles were bought and sold subject 

to an implied warranty of merchantability. 

1746. The Class Vehicles did not comply with the implied warranty of merchantability because, 

at the time of sale and at all times thereafter, they were defective and not in merchantable condition, 

would not pass without objection in the trade, and were not fit for the ordinary purpose for which vehicles 

were used. Specifically, the Class Vehicles suffer from the Oil Consumption Defect which causes 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 224 of 236
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

225

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

excessive oil loss and leads to engine damage.

1747. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016 and delivered by United 

States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed on 

October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1748. Plaintiff and the other Class members suffered injuries due to the defective nature of the 

Class Vehicles and GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability.

1749. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of the warranty of merchantability, 

Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT 140

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1750. Plaintiff Robertson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the West Virginia Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1751. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the West 

Virginia Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1752. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1753. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1754. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1755. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 225 of 236
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

226

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Vehicles.

1756. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1757. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

1758. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1759. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 141

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1760. Plaintiff Robertson (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the West Virginia Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1761. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the West 

Virginia Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1762. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1763. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1764. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1765. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 226 of 236
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

227

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

misconduct.

1766. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1767. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

30. Claims Brought on Behalf of the Wisconsin Class

COUNT 142

VIOLATIONS OF WISCONSIN’S 

DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES ACT

Wis. Stat. § 100.18

1768. Plaintiff Bednarek (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Wisconsin Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1769. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Wisconsin Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1770. Wis. Stat. § 100.18 prohibits, in connection with the sale and lease of merchandise any 

“representation or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive or misleading.”

1771. By the conduct described in detail above and incorporated herein, GM engaged in 

deceptive trade practices.

1772. GM’s omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect, described above, that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, are material facts that a reasonable person would have considered in deciding whether or not to 

purchase (or to pay the same price for) the Class Vehicles.

1773. GM intended for Plaintiff and the other Class members to rely on GM’s omissions 

regarding the Oil Consumption Defect.

1774. Plaintiff and the other Class members justifiably acted or relied to their detriment upon 

GM’s omissions of fact concerning the above-described Oil Consumption Defect that results in 

abnormally high oil consumption and resultant engine damage within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, as evidenced by Plaintiff and the other Class members’ purchases of Class Vehicles.

1775. Had GM disclosed all material information regarding the Oil Consumption Defect to 

Plaintiff and the other Class members, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have purchased 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 227 of 236
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

228

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

or leased Class Vehicles or would have paid less to do so.

1776. GM’s omissions have deceived Plaintiff, and those same business practices have deceived 

or are likely to deceive members of the consuming public and the other members of the Class.

1777. In addition to being deceptive, the business practices of GM were unfair because GM 

knowingly sold Plaintiffs and the other Class members Class Vehicles with defective engines that are 

essentially unusable for the purposes for which they were sold. The injuries to Plaintiff and the other 

Class members are substantial and greatly outweigh any alleged countervailing benefit to Plaintiff and 

the other Class members or to competition under all of the circumstances. Moreover, in light of GM’s 

exclusive knowledge of the Oil Consumption Defect, the injury is not one that Plaintiff or the other Class 

members could have reasonably avoided.

1778. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiff 

and the other Class members have suffered ascertainable loss and actual damages. Plaintiff and the other 

Class members who purchased or leased the Class Vehicles would not have purchased or leased the Class 

Vehicles, or, alternatively, would have paid less for them had the truth about the Oil Consumption Defect

been disclosed. Plaintiff and the other Class members also suffered diminished value of their vehicles. 

Plaintiff and the other Class members are entitled to recover actual damages, attorneys’ fees and costs, 

and all other relief allowed under Wis. Stat. § 100.18.

COUNT 143

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

Wis. Stat. §§ 402.313 and 411.210

1779. Plaintiff Bednarek (“Plaintiff,” for the purposes of the Wisconsin Class’s claims) repeats 

and realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1780. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Wisconsin Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1781. GM is and was at all relevant times a merchant with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1782. In its Limited Warranty, GM expressly warranted that it would repair or replace defects 

in material or workmanship free of charge if those defects became apparent during the warranty period. 

GM provides the following language in its 2012 Chevrolet Limited Warranty guide:

This warranty is for GM vehicles registered in the United States and normally 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 228 of 236
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

229

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

operated in the United States and Canada, and is provided to the original and any 

subsequent owners of the vehicle during the warranty period.

The warranty covers repairs to correct any vehicle defect . . . related to materials 

or workmanship occurring during the warranty period.

Warranty repairs, including towing, parts, and labor, will be made at no charge. 

1783. GM’s Limited Warranty formed the basis of the bargain that was reached when Plaintiff

and the other Class members purchased or leased their Class Vehicles equipped with the defective 

Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines.

1784. GM breached its express warranty to repair defects in materials and workmanship within 

the Class Vehicles. GM has not repaired, and has been unable to repair, the Class Vehicles’ materials 

and workmanship defects.

1785. Donald Ludington, individually and on behalf of the other Nationwide Class members, 

notified GM of the Oil Consumption Defect in the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, and its 

corresponding breach of warranty, through a notice letter dated October 27, 2016, and delivered by 

United States Certified Mail to GM’s headquarters in Detroit, Michigan. The return receipt was signed 

on October 28, 2016. GM was also provided notice of the Oil Consumption Defect through numerous 

complaints filed against it directly and through its dealers, as well as its own internal engineering 

knowledge. 

1786. Furthermore, the Limited Warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual 

remedy is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other Class members whole and because GM has failed 

and/or has refused to adequately provided the promised remedies within a reasonable time.

1787. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other Class members is not limited to the 

limited warranty of repair to parts defective in materials and workmanship, and Plaintiff, individually 

and on behalf of the other Class members, seeks all remedies as allowed by law.

1788. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time that GM warranted, leased, and sold the 

Class Vehicles it knew that the Class Vehicles did not conform to the warranty and were inherently 

defective, and GM improperly concealed material facts regarding its Class Vehicles. Plaintiff and the 

other Class members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the GM Vehicles under false pretenses.

1789. Moreover, much of the damage flowing from the Class Vehicles cannot be resolved 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 229 of 236
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

230

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

through the limited remedy of repairs, as those incidental and consequential damages have already been 

suffered due to GM’s improper conduct as alleged herein, and due to its failure and/or continued failure 

to provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on Plaintiff’s and the other 

Class members’ remedies would be insufficient to make them whole.

1790. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiff and the 

other Class members have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 144

FRAUDULENT OMISSION

1791. Plaintiff Bednarek (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Wisconsin Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein. 

1792. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Wisconsin Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1793. GM was aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines when it marketed and sold the Class Vehicles to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class.

1794. Having been aware of the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines, and having known that Plaintiff and the other members of the Class could not have reasonably 

been expected to know of the Oil Consumption Defect, GM had a duty to disclose the defect to Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale or lease of the Class Vehicles.

1795. GM did not disclose the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 

Engines to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in connection with the sale of the Class Vehicles.

1796. For the reasons set forth above, the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines comprises material information with respect to the sale or lease of the Class 

Vehicles.

1797. In purchasing the Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other members of the Class reasonably 

relied on GM to disclose known material defects with respect to the Class Vehicles.

1798. Had Plaintiff and the other members of the Class known of the Oil Consumption Defect

within the Generation IV Vortec 5300 Engines, they would have not purchased the Class Vehicles or 

would have paid less for the Class Vehicles.

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 230 of 236
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

231

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

1799. Through its omissions regarding the Oil Consumption Defect within the Generation IV 

Vortec 5300 Engines, GM intended to induce, and did induce, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class to either purchase a Class Vehicle that they otherwise would not have purchased, or pay more for 

a Class Vehicle than they otherwise would have paid.

1800. As a direct and proximate result of GM’s omissions, Plaintiff and the other members of 

the Class either overpaid for the Class Vehicles or would not have purchased the Class Vehicles at all if 

the Oil Consumption Defect had been disclosed to them, and, therefore, have incurred damages in an 

amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT 145

UNJUST ENRICHMENT

1801. Plaintiff Bednarek (“Plaintiff,” for purposes of the Wisconsin Class’s claims) repeats and 

realleges paragraphs 1-354 as if fully set forth herein.

1802. Plaintiff brings this Count individually and on behalf of the other members of the 

Wisconsin Class (the “Class,” for purposes of this Count).

1803. GM has benefitted from selling and leasing at an unjust profit defective Class Vehicles 

that had artificially inflated prices due to GM’s concealment of the Oil Consumption Defect, and Plaintiff 

and the other members of the Class have overpaid for these vehicles.

1804. GM has received and retained unjust benefits from Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class, and inequity has resulted.

1805. It is inequitable and unconscionable for GM to retain these benefits.

1806. Because GM concealed its fraud and deception, Plaintiff and the other members of the 

Class were not aware of the true facts concerning the Class Vehicles and did not benefit from GM’s 

misconduct.

1807. GM knowingly accepted the unjust benefits of its wrongful conduct.

1808. As a result of GM’s misconduct, the amount of its unjust enrichment should be disgorged 

and returned to Plaintiff and the other members of the Class in an amount to be proven at trial.

VIII. REQUEST FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of the other members of the Nationwide 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 231 of 236
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

232

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Class and the Statewide Classes they respectively seek to represent, respectfully request that the Court 

enter judgment in their favor and against Defendant, General Motors LLC, as follows:

1. Declaring that this action is a proper class action, certifying the Nationwide and Statewide 

Classes as requested herein, designating Plaintiffs as Nationwide and Statewide Class Representatives, 

an appointing Plaintiffs’ attorneys as Class Counsel;

2. Enjoining GM from continuing the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint;

3. Ordering GM to pay actual and statutory damages (including punitive damages) and 

restitution to Plaintiffs and the other Nationwide and Statewide Class members, as allowable by law;

4. Ordering GM to pay both pre- and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded;

5. Ordering GM to pay attorneys’ fees and costs of suit; and

6. Ordering such other and further relief as may be just and proper.

IX. JURY DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby demand a trial by jury on all issues so triable.

DATED: March 23, 2018 /s/ Adam J. Levitt

Adam J. Levitt (pro hac vice)

John E. Tangren (pro hac vice)

Daniel R. Ferri (pro hac vice)

DICELLO LEVITT & CASEY LLC

Ten North Dearborn Street, Eleventh Floor

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: 312-214-7900

alevitt@dlcfirm.com 

jtangren@dlcfirm.com

dferri@dlcfirm.com 

Jennie Lee Anderson

Lori E. Andrus

ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP

155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415-986-1400

jennie@andrusanderson.com

lori@andrusanderson.com

W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III (pro hac vice)

H. Clay Barnett, III (pro hac vice)

Archie I. Grubb, II (pro hac vice)

Andrew E. Brashier (pro hac vice)

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, 

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

272 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 232 of 236
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

233

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

Telephone: 334-269-2343

Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com

Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com

Archie.Grubb@Beasleyallen.com

Andrew.Brashier@Beasleyallen.com

Nicholas R. Rockforte (pro hac vice motion to be filed) 

Christopher L. Coffin (pro hac vice motion to be filed) 

PENDLEY, BAUDIN & COFFIN, L.L.P.

1515 Poydras Street, Suite 1400

New Orleans, Louisiana 70112

Telephone: (504) 355-0086

nrockforte@pbclawfirm.com

ccoffin@pbclawfirm.com

Marcus Rael (pro hac vice motion to be filed)

ROBLES, RAEL & ANAYA, P.C.

500 Marquette NW, Suite 700

Albuquerque, New Mexico 87102

Telephone: 505-242-2228

marcus@roblesrael.com

Anthony J. Garcia, Esq. (pro hac vice)

AG LAW

742 South Village Circle

Tampa, Florida 33606

Telephone: 813-259-9555

anthony@aglawinc.com

Timothy J. Becker (pro hac vice)

JOHNSON BECKER, PLLC

444 Cedar Street, Suite 1800

St. Paul, Minnesota 55101

Telephone: 612-436-1800

tbecker@johnsonbecker.com

Ben Finley (pro hac vice motion to be filed)

THE FINLEY FIRM, P.C.

200 13th Street

Columbus, Georgia 31901

Telephone: 706-322-6226

bfinley@thefinleyfirm.com

Eric J. Haag (pro hac vice)

ATTERBURY, KAMMER, & HAAG, S.C.

8500 Greenway Boulevard, Suite 103

Middleton, Wisconsin 53562

Telephone: 608-821-4600

ehaag@wiscinjurylawyers.com

Counsel for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Classes 

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 233 of 236
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

EXHIBIT A TO COMPLAINT: DECLARATION OF RAUL SIQUEIROS

Lori E. Andrus (SBN 205816)

Jennie Lee Anderson (SBN 203586)

ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP

155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415-986-1400

jennie@andrusanderson.com

lori@andrusanderson.com

Adam J. Levitt*

John E. Tangren*

Daniel R. Ferri*

GRANT & EISENHOFER P.A.

30 North LaSalle Street, Suite 2350

Chicago, Illinois 60602

Telephone: (312) 214-0000

alevitt@gelaw.com

jtangren@gelaw.com

dferri@gelaw.com

W. Daniel “Dee” Miles, III*

H. Clay Barnett, III*

Archie I. Grubb, II*

Andrew E. Brashier*

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW,

METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

272 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Telephone: 334-269-2343

Dee.Miles@Beasleyallen.com

Clay.Barnett@BeasleyAllen.com

Archie.Grubb@Beasleyallen.com

Andrew.Brashier@Beasleyallen.com

*Motions to appear pro hac vice to be filed

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN FRANCISCO DIVISION

MONTEVILLE SLOAN, JR., RAUL

SIQUEIROS, JOSEPH BRANNAN, DONALD

LUDINGTON, THOMAS SHORTER,

GABRIEL DEL VALLE, GAIL LANNOM,

BRADLEY K. ZIERKE, ROSS DAHL, DREW

PETERSON, BARBARA MOLINA, STEVEN

EHRKE, BILL MAUCH, THOMAS GULLING,

RONALD JONES, and JOHN GRAZIANO,

individually and on behalf of all others similarly

situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

GENERAL MOTORS LLC,

Defendant.

Case No.:

EXHIBIT A TO COMPLAINT:

DECLARATION OF RAUL SIQUEIROS

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 234 of 236
Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 235 of 236
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

234

THIRD AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

ECF CERTIFICATION

Pursuant to Civil L.R. 5-1(i)(3), the filing attorney attests that she has obtained concurrence 

regarding the filing of this document from the signatories to the document.

Date: March 23, 2018

By: /s/ Jennie Lee Anderson

Jennie Lee Anderson

Jennie Lee Anderson

Lori E. Andrus

ANDRUS ANDERSON LLP

155 Montgomery Street, Suite 900

San Francisco, California 94104

Telephone: 415-986-1400

jennie@andrusanderson.com

lori@andrusanderson.com

Case 3:16-cv-07244-EMC Document 107 Filed 03/23/18 Page 236 of 236