ANDREI FENNER et al. v. PHILLIP BURNS, et al. (23-1648); NANCY ANDERTON, et al. (23-1696); MIKE BULAON, et al. (23-1697); TAYLOR PANTEL, et al. (23-1698) - Articles

All Content

ANDREI FENNER et al. v. PHILLIP BURNS, et al. (23-1648); NANCY ANDERTON, et al. (23-1696); MIKE BULAON, et al. (23-1697); TAYLOR PANTEL, et al. (23-1698)

Posted by: Azya Thornton on Aug 21, 2024

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, Seattle, Washington, for all Appellants.

Attorneys 2: ARGUED: Jay P. Lefkowitz, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee General Motors.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, Seattle, Washington, E. Powell Miller, THE MILLER LAW FIRM, P.C., Rochester, Michigan, for the Burns Appellants.

Attorneys 4: ON BRIEF: Jay P. Lefkowitz, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, Renee D. Smith, Jeffrey S. Bramson, Cole T. Carter, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, Chicago, Illinois, for Appellee General Motors.

Attorneys 5: ON BRIEF: Eric D. Pearson, Charles W. Miller, HEYGOOD, ORR & PEARSON, Irving, Texas, for the Anderton, Bulaon, and Patel Appellants. Jonathan S. Martel, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, Washington, D.C., for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): MOORE, KETHLEDGE, and BLOOMEKATZ, Circuit Judges

Court Appealed: United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan at Bay City

KAREN NELSON MOORE, Circuit Judge. Plaintiffs are a group of consumers who purchased or leased a model year 2011–2016 GM Silverado or Sierra 2500 or 3500. Plaintiffs allege that they selected and ultimately purchased or leased their vehicles, at least in part, because of the Duramax diesel engine and systems therein, as advertised and represented by GM. In advertisements for the subject vehicles, GM claimed that the vehicles ran “clean diesel,” had “low emissions,” had “a whopping 63%” reduction of “Nitrogen Oxide (NOx) emissions” when compared to previous models and turned “heavy diesel fuel into a fine mist.” GM omitted any reference to how—or when—its emissions system worked to accomplish these “clean diesel” imperatives. Contrary to GM’s advertisements, however, Plaintiffs allege that the subject vehicles actually emit NOx and other pollutants at levels many times higher than (i) their counterparts, (ii) what a reasonable consumer would expect, (iii) what GM advertised, (iv) the Environmental Protection Agency’s emissions 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. On those bases, Plaintiffs brought this action against General Motors LLC, Robert Bosch GMBH, and Robert Bosch LLC, alleging violations of state consumer protection, fraud, and deceptive trade practices laws, as well as the Racketeer Influenced and Corrupt Organizations (RICO) Act. Defendants filed motions for summary judgment on all claims. The district court granted summary judgment, finding that (1) Plaintiffs’ state-law claims were preempted by the Clean Air Act, and (2) Plaintiffs did not have standing to bring a RICO action. Because Plaintiffs’ state- law claims are not impliedly preempted by the Clean Air Act, we REVERSE the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the state-law claims. Because Plaintiffs are indirect-purchasers and thus do not have standing under RICO, however, we AFFIRM the district court’s grant of summary judgment on the RICO claims.

Attachments: