United States District Court, C.D. California
Present: The Honorable MICHAEL W. FITZGERALD, U.S. District
(In Chambers): ORDER RE: DEFENDANT GENERAL MOTORS
LLC'S MOTION TO TRANSFER VENUE ; PLAINTIFFS'
MOTION TO REMAND 
the Court are two motions:
first is Defendant General Motors LLC's
(“GM”) Motion to Transfer Venue, filed on
September 3, 2019 (“Transfer Motion”). (Docket
No. 31). On September 16, 2019, Plaintiffs filed an
Opposition, and on September 23, 2019, GM filed a Reply.
(Docket Nos. 34, 37).
second is Plaintiffs' Motion to Remand this Case to Los
Angeles Superior Court, filed on September 3, 2019
(“Remand Motion”). (Docket No. 30). On September
16, 2019, GM filed an Opposition, and on September 23, 2019,
Plaintiffs filed a Reply. (Docket Nos. 35, 36). On September
30, 2019, Plaintiffs filed a Notice of Recent Decision in
support of the Remand Motion. (Docket No. 38).
Court has read and considered the papers filed on the
Transfer Motion and the Remand Motion, and held a hearing on
October 7, 2019.
reasons set forth below, the Court rules as follows:
The Transfer Motion is GRANTED, and the case
is transferred to the Eastern District of Michigan.
Plaintiffs' sole argument for why this case should not be
transferred is that the Court should decide the Transfer
Motion prior to the Remand Motion. However, the Court will
exercise its discretion to decide the Transfer Motion without
ruling on the first, considering the complexity of the Remand
Motion, the number of cases with similar, if not exact,
issues pending in the Eastern District of Michigan, and the
cases in the Ninth Circuit clearly stating that the Court can
exercise its discretion to rule on the Transfer Motion first.
The Court declines to rule on the Remand Motion.
their Complaint, Plaintiffs allege as follows:
are a collection of aggrieved buyers of GM's Chevrolet
Silverado and GMC Sierra vehicles. (Complaint ¶¶ 1,
21-93). GM promised that the Duramax engines in these
vehicles turned “heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist,
” which resulted in “low emissions” that
were a “whopping reduction” compared to the prior
model. (Id.). GM promised that the vehicles could
still produce “great power, ” as a result of its
engineers accomplishing “a remarkable reduction of
diesel emissions.” (Id.).
scientifically valid emissions testing conducted by
engineering experts who were retained by Class Counsel in
In re Duramax Diesel Litigation, No. 2:17-cv-11661
(E.D. Mich.) (the “Duramax Class
Action”) has revealed that the Silverado and Sierra
2500 and 3500 models do not emit low emissions. (Id.
¶ 2). Instead, they emit levels of NOx many times higher
than (i) their gasoline counterparts; (ii) what a reasonable
consumer would expect; (iii) what GM had advertised; (iv) the
Environmental Protection Agency's maximum standards; and
(v) the levels set for the vehicles to obtain a certificate
of compliance that allows them to be sold in the United
States. (Id.). Making matters worse, the only way to
reach GM's promises is to turn off or turn down emissions
controls when the software in the vehicles senses they are
not in an emissions testing environment. (Id.).
Accordingly, Plaintiffs allege that these vehicles emit far