Cases

CHIN, Circuit Judge: On June 1, 2009, General Motors Corporation (“Old GM”), the nation’s largest manufacturer of automobiles and the creator of such iconic American brands as Chevrolet and Cadillac, filed for bankruptcy. During the financial crisis of 2007 and 2008, as access to credit tightened and consumer spending diminished, Old GM posted net losses of $70 billion over the course of a year and a half. The U.S. Department

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 25a0170p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DENNIS SPEERLY; JOSEPH SIERCHIO; DARRIN │ DEGRAND; DANIEL DRAIN; WAVERS SMITH; RICHARD

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 24a0204p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ DENNIS SPEERLY; JOSEPH SIERCHIO; DARRIN DEGRAND; │ DANIEL

313 Ga. 811 FINAL COPY S21G1147. GENERAL MOTORS, LLC v. BUCHANAN et al. BETHEL, Justice. In a civil lawsuit in Georgia, the discovery process allows litigants to gather information about a case from other litigants and third parties in an orderly and defined manner. Georgia, like most states, also provides various mechanisms for litigants and third parties to seek relief from the demands of discovery. One such method is by moving for a protective order under OCGA § 9-11-26

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 22a0185p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ GENERAL MOTORS, LLC; GENERAL MOTORS │ COMPANY,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0021p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ HALEY HRDLICKA, │ Plaintiff-Appellant,

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 23a0053p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT ┐ HALEY HRDLICKA, │ Plaintiff-Appellant,

21-2640-cv Billie R. Banks v. General Motors, LLC UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SECOND CIRCUIT August Term 2022 (Argued: December 6, 2022 Decided: September 7, 2023) Docket No. 21-2640 BILLIE R. BANKS, Plai

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS THOMAS L. LUDINGTON, United. States District Judge On June 7, 2016, nine plaintiffs filed a 442-page, complaint alleging deceptive advertising, breach of contract, and fraudulent concealment claims under the. laws of thirty states against Defendant General Motors (“GM”). ECF No. 1. Fundamentally, Plaintiffs allege that GM installed a “defeat

879 A.2d 1049 (2005) 388 Md. 341 GENERAL MOTORS CORPORATION, et al. v. Randall C. SEAY. No. 66 September Term 2004. Court of Appeals of Maryland. August 10, 2005. *1050 David C. Vogel (Sara J. Kagay of Lathrop & Gage L.C., of Kansas City, Missouri) on brief, for petitioners/cross respondents. By

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0039p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JAMES SMITH, et al., ┐ Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ │

RECOMMENDED FOR PUBLICATION Pursuant to Sixth Circuit I.O.P. 32.1(b) File Name: 21a0039p.06 UNITED STATES COURT OF APPEALS FOR THE SIXTH CIRCUIT JAMES SMITH, et al., ┐ Plaintiffs-Appellants, │ │

GARY ALLEN FEESS, Judge. Renee Fisher, Deputy Clerk. I. INTRODUCTION Plaintiff Yung Kim brings this putative class action against Defendant General Motors, LLC (“GM”), alleging that GM engaged in a systematic and misleading advertising scheme in which EPA estimated mileage figures and numbers derived from these figures were represented as “actual, expected mileag

ORDER HAYES, Judge: The matter before the Court is the Motion to Dismiss the Amended Complaint filed by Defendant General Motors LLC (“Defendant”). (ECF No. 27). I. Introduction This case was initiated on October 19, 2015 when Plaintiffs Armando J. Becerra and Guillermo Ruelas, on behalf of themselves and those similarly situated, filed a Complaint. (ECF No. 1)

OPINION AND ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT DAVID M. LAWSON, District Judge. This matter is before the Court on the defendant’s motion for summary judgment. Plaintiff Patricia Kienzle alleges in a complaint filed in this Court that from July 2009 to January 2010, defendant General Motors LLC (GM) paid Kienzle less money for doing the same work a

MEMORANDUM OPINION AND ORDER MILLS, District Judge. This cause comes before the court on plaintiffs’ motion [73-1] to remand this case to the Circuit Court of Leflore County. Defendants have responded in opposition to the motion, and the court, having considered the memoranda and submissions of the parties, concludes that the motion is well taken and should be granted. On Novemb

ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS JAMES I. COHN, District Judge. THIS CAUSE is before the Court upon Defendant’s Motion to Dismiss [DE 22] (“Motion”), Plaintiffs’ Response [DE 24] and Defendant’s Reply [DE 25]. The Court has reviewed these motion papers, the relevant portions of the case file, and is otherwise advised in the premises. Upon review, the Court will DENY the Motions.</

OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, District Judge. This appeal arises out of an adversary proceeding related to the Chapter 11 bankruptcy of Motors Liquidation Company, formerly known as General Motors (“Old GM”). After Old GM filed for bankruptcy, General Motors LLC (“New GM”) *335purchased the majority of Old GM’s assets pursuant to Se

LINDA V. PARKER, UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE On January 30, 2018, Plaintiff filed this lawsuit against Defendants asserting the following claims: (I) age discrimination in violation of the federal Age Discrimination and Employment Act ("ADEA"); (II) age discrimination in violation of Michigan's Elliott-Larsen Civil Rights Act ("ELCRA"); (III) race and ethnic discrimination in violation of

OPINION AND ORDER JESSE M. FURMAN, United States District Judge: [Regarding New GM’s Partial Motion To Dismiss the Fourth Amended Consolidated Class Action Complaint] INTRODUCTION .. .391 BACKGROUND .. .392 LEGAL STANDARDS .. .394 DISCUSSION .. .395 A. Brand Devaluation Claims... .395 B. Damages for L