– A General Motors hitchhiker lawsuit is still trying to get to court, more than four years after the class action lawsuit was filed in December 2021.
The latest update to the GM hitchhiker lawsuit involves a vehicle owner action that failed in court.
According to the class action, numerous GM models are defective because the valvetrains, active fuel management lifters and dynamic fuel management lifters are defective in these models.
Cadillac Escalade from 2014 to present
Cadillac CTS-V 2016-2019
2014-present Chevrolet Silverado
2014-present Chevrolet Silverado 1500
2014-2019 Chevrolet Corvette
2014-2016 Chevrolet Avalanche
2014-present Chevrolet Suburban
2014-present Chevrolet Tahoe
2016-present Chevrolet Camaro
2014-present Chevrolet Camaro SS
2014-2016 Chevrolet Corvette
2014 to present GMC Sierra
2014 to present GMC Sierra 1500
GMC Yukon from 2014 to present
Yukon XL from 2014-present
Those General Motors vehicles are equipped with V8 engines of 5.3 liters, 6.0 or 6.2 liters, in which supposedly lightweight lifters are installed in the wrong positions. This reportedly leaves customers having to change the oil regularly and face the cost of replacing the valve tappet oil manifold.
The plaintiffs further complain that the engines do not function properly because the valves do not open and close properly, and a vehicle makes a “ticking sound coming from the engine” along with “chirping, squeaking and squealing.”
The GM hitchhiker lawsuit alleges that drivers experience vehicles hesitating, rocking, shuddering and stalling. Replacing the allegedly defective lifters is pointless because the lawsuit says the replacement parts are also defective.
In more than four years, several owners who originally sued GM have voluntarily dismissed their claims, while certain attorneys have also dropped the hitchhiker class action lawsuit. In addition, 17 plaintiffs’ claims were sent to arbitration, but many of those clients returned to the class action.
Update from the GM Lifter lawsuit
On the four-year anniversary of the GM lifter lawsuit, the plaintiffs asked Judge Laurie J. Michelson “to dismiss their claims based on the type of cylinder deactivation technology in the Class Vehicles’ valve train systems.”
Specifically, the plaintiffs have learned that some of their vehicles have an alleged defective part that is not present in the engines of the other vehicles. This can be a problem in a class action lawsuit involving all vehicles in the same lawsuit with supposedly the same defects.
The plaintiffs asked the judge to divide the case into claims regarding vehicles with the Active Fuel Management (AFM) engine and claims regarding vehicles with the Dynamic Fuel Management (DFM) engine.
According to the plaintiffs, they now know that there is a “significant distinction between the vehicles owned by AFM plaintiffs and those owned by DFM plaintiffs.” But General Motors resisted the motion to sever the claims, telling the judge that splitting the claims would multiply the workload for all parties and for the court.
GM argued that splitting the claims at this stage will result in “two separate sets of expert testimony, two separate sets of summary judgment motions, two separate sets of Daubert motions, two separate sets of class certification briefs, two separate sets of pretrial motions, and two separate trials.”
The judge agreed with GM.
According to the judge, it has been four years since the hitchhiker lawsuit was filed and the plaintiffs have been aware of these separate alleged defects for some time.
According to Judge Michelson:
“In a January 2023 opinion, the Court noted that while plaintiffs ‘alleged one uniform defect… the sum of their… allegations actually indicate that three separate component defects are at issue in this case.’”
The judge even asked the parties to “be willing to discuss terminating this lawsuit” based on the specific engine part.
“So while the Court is not surprised to see a party seeking relief from claims here, it is surprised at the timing of this request: four years after the lawsuit was filed and almost three years after the Court issued that warning.”
CarComplaints.com will update our website once the status of the GM lifter class action becomes clearer.
The GM lifter lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Harrison, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
#Lifter #Lawsuit #Update #Sever #Request #Denied