JASON COUNTS; DONALD KLEIN; OSCAR ZAMORA; JASON SILVEUS; JOHN MISKELLY; THOMAS HAYDUK; JOSHUA RODRIGUEZ; BASSAM HIRMIZ; CHRISTOPHER HEMBERGER; DEREK LONG, individually and on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated v. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; ROBERT BOSCH LLC - Articles

All Content


Posted by: Azya Thornton on Jun 6, 2025

Court: 6th Circuit Court (Published Opinions)

Attorneys 1: ARGUED: Garth Wojtanowicz, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, Seattle, Washington, for Appellants.

Attorneys 2: Jay P. Lefkowitz, KIRKLAND & ELLIS LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee General Motors. Patrick Swiber, CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP, New York, New York, for Appellee Robert Bosch LLC.

Attorneys 3: ON BRIEF: Garth Wojtanowicz, Steve W. Berman, HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO, LLP, Seattle, Washington, Christopher A. Seeger, SEEGER WEISS LLP, Ridgefield Park, New Jersey, Shauna B. Itri, SEEGER WEISS LLP, Philadelphia, Pennsylvania, James E. Cecchi, James A. O’Brien III, CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN, BRODY & AGNELLO, P.C., Roseland, New Jersey, for 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: Abena A. Mainoo, Carmine D. Boccuzzi Jr., CLEARY, GOTTLIEB, STEEN & HAMILTON, LLP, New York, New York, Matthew D. Slater, CLEARY GOTTLIEB STEEN & HAMILTON LLP, Washington, D.C., William R. Jansen, Jonathan E. Lauderbach, WARNER NORCROSS & JUDD LLP, Detroit, Michigan, for Appellee Robert Bosch LLC.

Attorneys 6: ON BRIEF: Jonathan S. Martel, ARNOLD & PORTER KAYE SCHOLER LLP, San Francisco, California, for Amici Curiae.

Judge(s): GRIFFIN, KETHLEDGE, and BUSH, Circuit Judges

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

KETHLEDGE, Circuit Judge. The plaintiffs appeal the district court’s judgment in favor of the defendants as to their claims that GM and Bosch misled consumers regarding the emissions generated by certain Chevrolet Cruze vehicles. We affirm in part, vacate in part, and remand for further proceedings consistent with this opinion.

Attachments: