In a motion to dismiss a lawsuit over GM’s brake master cylinder failure, the automaker argues that the two customers who filed suit are complaining about having their master cylinders replaced for free.
The lawsuit includes the 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, 2025 GMC Acadia, 2025 Buick Enclave, 2025 Chevrolet Colorado and 2025 GMC Canyon.
However, the class action currently includes any person or entity that purchased or leased a vehicle solely in New York or Pennsylvania.
According to the lawsuit, master cylinder problems occurred at Pennsylvania plaintiff and Eric Barron, owner of the 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, and New York plaintiff and Chelsey Thompson, owner of the 2025 Chevrolet Traverse. Both owners had their master cylinders replaced free of charge by General Motors.
However, the plaintiffs complain that it took too long to repair their vehicles.
The two plaintiffs allege that the master cylinders make their vehicles unsafe, unreliable, and worth less money, with the plaintiffs even going so far as to claim that GM vehicles are “unsaleable.”
General Motors probably knew before the vehicles were first sold that the master cylinders were defective and would fail. But instead of fixing the problems, GM apparently covered up the brake defects, even though it knew it would endanger drivers and others.
Motion to dismiss GM master cylinder failure lawsuit
According to its motion, General Motors argues that the lawsuit fails because the plaintiffs fail to allege actual injuries or damages resulting from the alleged defect or repair.
General Motors is turning to a common sense argument, one that could be futile if past auto industry lawsuits are any indication.
The plaintiffs paid $405 to sue for over $5 million because their vehicles were repaired for free?
“Rather, Plaintiffs specifically allege that when they took their vehicles to GM dealers to have the alleged brake problem fixed, the GM dealers ‘repaired’ those vehicles. Plaintiffs do not allege that they ever experienced a brake problem again, and they do not even allege that they incurred any out-of-pocket costs associated with the brake problem or the repairs.” — General engines
According to GM, this means that the plaintiffs “are not alleging any actual injury.”
GM told the judge that the plaintiffs are trying to establish standing through “vague claims” that it and other customers have “suffered actual and economic damages” because the vehicles are “defective and require repair or replacement, and are worth less money” because of the master cylinders.
“But plaintiffs’ counsel merely copied and pasted these allegations directly from previous complaints [lawsuits] that they filed against GM.” – General engines
Arguing that the allegations of brake master cylinder defects are “conclusive,” GM told the judge there is no evidence the automaker knew of an alleged brake defect before dealers first sold the vehicles to the plaintiffs.
And while the lawsuit refers to a “service update,” General Motors claims this has nothing to do with the alleged master cylinder defect that is the subject of this class action.
As for the plaintiffs alleging violations of the New York and Pennsylvania Lemon Laws, GM claims that these claims fail because the plaintiffs do not allege that they followed GM’s informal dispute resolution process as those laws require. Furthermore, the plaintiffs would not have alleged that they were unable to repair their vehicles within a “reasonable number of attempts.”
The GM master cylinder failure lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Eric Barron, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sergei Lemberg.
#lawsuit #brake #master #cylinder #failure #fails