FYI: 98-01 Malibu Brake Pad Recall Rejected in Texas
Dawnna
02-22-2005, 05:34 AM
1998 through 2001 Malibu owners start complaining about your brakes ... the more that complain, the more this rejection won't happen.
PLEASE READ MY PS IN THE FOLLOWING POST ... THANKS!
Volume: 33 Number: 7
February 14, 2005
Texas Appeals Court Reverses Certification In Brake Defect Suit Against General Motors
HOUSTON--A Texas appeals court Jan. 26 reversed a trial court ruling certifying a class in a suit against General Motors over a defective brake system in Chevrolet Malibu vehicles (General Motors Corp. v. Garza, Tex. Ct. App., No. 04-03-00702-CV, 1/26/05).
Writing for the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in San Antonio, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin said the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a class that did not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42, which governs class certification. Speedlin and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The court concluded that individual issues of both causation and reliance predominated over common ones. "We therefore hold the plaintiffs failed to establish either that common issues predominate or that a class action is a superior method for handling these claims," Speedlin wrote.
Brake Defect Caused Cars to Pulsate.
The ruling stemmed from a suit filed by Elodia Garza and five other named plaintiffs in 2001 against General Motors, seeking damages from alleged defective brakes on Chevy Malibu sedans manufactured from 1997 through 2001. The plaintiffs claimed the defect caused the vehicle to pulsate when the brakes are applied at some time during the life of the automobile. They said GM never developed an effective repair to prevent the pulsation from returning.
Since the flaw existed when they purchased the vehicles, the plaintiffs argued that damage amounts could be calculated as the difference between the value of the Malibu with a brake defect and the value of a vehicle without the brake defect. The plaintiffs held that no individual issues existed in the case because the measure of damages was the same for each purchaser of a defective Malibu.
The Duval County trial court certified the class in 2003, allowing the group to pursue claims dealing with breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty to repair.
General Motors appealed the order, asserting the trial court failed to correctly analyze and apply the law to the plaintiffs' causes of action. They also claimed the plaintiffs failed to establish a commonality or typicality. The company said the named plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives, damages could not be determined on a class basis, and the trial plan was "fatally flawed," among other allegations.
Single Damage Theory Rejected.
"In this case, the trial court's trial plan assumes that, if a jury finds a defect and finds that the defect cannot be effectively repaired, a single damage amount can be determined for each year the Malibu was sold," Speedlin wrote. "We disagree."
"The trial court's approach does not require the plaintiffs to prove causation is the same for each individual in the class nor does it permit GM to disprove damages for any given individual," the opinion said. "Review of the testimony clearly establishes that individual questions regarding causation outweigh common issues."
The trial court's class definition and trial plan do not allow GM to challenge the claims of these individuals who either never experienced pulsation or knew of the brake problem, but did not care enough to either forgo purchase of the vehicle or have it repaired, Speedlin said.
The appeals court recognized that if the Malibu brake system is defective, the defect may well exist in each of the class members' vehicles--a significant common issue. However, that issue does not predominate over individual issues. The test for predominance is not whether common issues outnumber uncommon issues, but "whether common or individual issues will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants in court."
Speedlin said that a cursory examination of the testimony showed that each of the named plaintiffs noticed pulsation at different mileages. The judge also pointed out that at least one of the named plaintiffs never experienced defect-induced pulsation but nonetheless complained of a similar brake problem with a completely unrelated cause.
GM testified in the trial court that it had experienced some brake problems with Malibus manufactured from 1997 through 2001 and repaired vehicles that developed pulsation.
PLEASE READ MY PS IN THE FOLLOWING POST ... THANKS!
Volume: 33 Number: 7
February 14, 2005
Texas Appeals Court Reverses Certification In Brake Defect Suit Against General Motors
HOUSTON--A Texas appeals court Jan. 26 reversed a trial court ruling certifying a class in a suit against General Motors over a defective brake system in Chevrolet Malibu vehicles (General Motors Corp. v. Garza, Tex. Ct. App., No. 04-03-00702-CV, 1/26/05).
Writing for the Texas Court of Appeals for the Fourth District in San Antonio, Justice Phylis J. Speedlin said the trial court abused its discretion by certifying a class that did not meet the requirements of Texas Rule of Civil Procedure 42, which governs class certification. Speedlin and remanded the case to the trial court for further proceedings.
The court concluded that individual issues of both causation and reliance predominated over common ones. "We therefore hold the plaintiffs failed to establish either that common issues predominate or that a class action is a superior method for handling these claims," Speedlin wrote.
Brake Defect Caused Cars to Pulsate.
The ruling stemmed from a suit filed by Elodia Garza and five other named plaintiffs in 2001 against General Motors, seeking damages from alleged defective brakes on Chevy Malibu sedans manufactured from 1997 through 2001. The plaintiffs claimed the defect caused the vehicle to pulsate when the brakes are applied at some time during the life of the automobile. They said GM never developed an effective repair to prevent the pulsation from returning.
Since the flaw existed when they purchased the vehicles, the plaintiffs argued that damage amounts could be calculated as the difference between the value of the Malibu with a brake defect and the value of a vehicle without the brake defect. The plaintiffs held that no individual issues existed in the case because the measure of damages was the same for each purchaser of a defective Malibu.
The Duval County trial court certified the class in 2003, allowing the group to pursue claims dealing with breach of implied warranty of merchantability and breach of express warranty to repair.
General Motors appealed the order, asserting the trial court failed to correctly analyze and apply the law to the plaintiffs' causes of action. They also claimed the plaintiffs failed to establish a commonality or typicality. The company said the named plaintiffs were not adequate class representatives, damages could not be determined on a class basis, and the trial plan was "fatally flawed," among other allegations.
Single Damage Theory Rejected.
"In this case, the trial court's trial plan assumes that, if a jury finds a defect and finds that the defect cannot be effectively repaired, a single damage amount can be determined for each year the Malibu was sold," Speedlin wrote. "We disagree."
"The trial court's approach does not require the plaintiffs to prove causation is the same for each individual in the class nor does it permit GM to disprove damages for any given individual," the opinion said. "Review of the testimony clearly establishes that individual questions regarding causation outweigh common issues."
The trial court's class definition and trial plan do not allow GM to challenge the claims of these individuals who either never experienced pulsation or knew of the brake problem, but did not care enough to either forgo purchase of the vehicle or have it repaired, Speedlin said.
The appeals court recognized that if the Malibu brake system is defective, the defect may well exist in each of the class members' vehicles--a significant common issue. However, that issue does not predominate over individual issues. The test for predominance is not whether common issues outnumber uncommon issues, but "whether common or individual issues will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants in court."
Speedlin said that a cursory examination of the testimony showed that each of the named plaintiffs noticed pulsation at different mileages. The judge also pointed out that at least one of the named plaintiffs never experienced defect-induced pulsation but nonetheless complained of a similar brake problem with a completely unrelated cause.
GM testified in the trial court that it had experienced some brake problems with Malibus manufactured from 1997 through 2001 and repaired vehicles that developed pulsation.
Dawnna
02-22-2005, 06:20 AM
P.S. The distribution for recalls CANNOT be within one locale, they must be disbursed within the contiguous states for the NHTSA to investigate ....
hence, the Court's statement:
The appeals court recognized that if the Malibu brake system is defective, the defect may well exist in each of the class members' vehicles--a significant common issue. However, that issue does not predominate over individual issues. The test for predominance is not whether common issues outnumber uncommon issues, but "whether common or individual issues will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants in court."
So, even though the issue is "common", it MUST be "individual" as well. The more that have this problem and the more that let it be known to the NHTSA, (not only class action) will prevail. My complaint is from Massachusetts. If there are other individuals from the contiguous states ready to stand up for their rights and stop this bul$sh$t, go to the NHTSA and use the power in your voice. If not, keep putting in pads and rotors and waste your money on this piece of crap Malibu and other GM models.
But, remember, the more complaints recieved, the better chance NHTSA will contact GM and investigate. I know this works, REALLY, they recalled the Durango ... just another piece of American crapmanship!
hence, the Court's statement:
The appeals court recognized that if the Malibu brake system is defective, the defect may well exist in each of the class members' vehicles--a significant common issue. However, that issue does not predominate over individual issues. The test for predominance is not whether common issues outnumber uncommon issues, but "whether common or individual issues will be the object of most of the efforts of the litigants in court."
So, even though the issue is "common", it MUST be "individual" as well. The more that have this problem and the more that let it be known to the NHTSA, (not only class action) will prevail. My complaint is from Massachusetts. If there are other individuals from the contiguous states ready to stand up for their rights and stop this bul$sh$t, go to the NHTSA and use the power in your voice. If not, keep putting in pads and rotors and waste your money on this piece of crap Malibu and other GM models.
But, remember, the more complaints recieved, the better chance NHTSA will contact GM and investigate. I know this works, REALLY, they recalled the Durango ... just another piece of American crapmanship!
Automotive Network, Inc., Copyright ©2024