– A class action lawsuit over General Motors’ 8-speed transmission is having trouble in court after being filed in April 2022.
Six customers from five states filed the lawsuit claiming multiple models have 8L90 or 8L45 transmission problems.
The GM transmission lawsuit includes these models.
2019-2022 Chevrolet Camaro
2019-2022 Chevrolet Colorado
2019-2022 Chevrolet Silverado
2019 Chevrolet Corvette
Cadillac ATS 2019
Cadillac ATS-V 2019
Cadillac CTS 2019
2019 Cadillac CT6
2019 Cadillac CTS-V
GMC Canyon 2019-2022
GMC Sierra 2019-2022
Replacing the transmission will probably not solve the shifting problems, because the defective 8-speed gearbox will be replaced by an equally defective 8-speed gearbox.
According to prosecutors, problems with GM’s 8-speed transmission include problems with hesitation, jerking, rocking, snaking and acceleration. The plaintiffs claim that drivers complain about hard shifting in lower gears.
Taking a vehicle to a GM dealer is a seemingly waste of time because customers are often told that the vehicles perform as designed.
GM 8-Speed Transmission Lawsuit – No New Model Years
In January 2024, the judge paused the class action to await the outcome of two other lawsuits, including one titled Speerly vs. General Motors. Speerly includes the same GM transmissions.
The judge also referred the claims of four plaintiffs to arbitration. Additionally, the judge also allowed the plaintiffs to file their first amended lawsuit. GM’s new class action lawsuit added customers from nine additional states and the spouses of existing plaintiffs.
After an appeals court dismissed the Speerly transmission class action, the plaintiffs in this case told the judge that they “intended[ed] to act on behalf of a limited number of state classes and claims.”
GM argued that the plaintiffs “giv[en] leave…to amend their complaint by dropping all plaintiffs and class claims in the [f]first [a]restored [c]complain about that [P]Plaintiffs no longer intend to proceed.”
But the plaintiffs told the judge that two California plaintiffs never initiated arbitration and that the judge was not told that one plaintiff had sold his GM vehicle a year earlier.
GM argued that these two plaintiffs should not be replaced, but the judge did allow the plaintiffs to file a second amended class action and a separate motion to replace the two California plaintiffs. A second amended lawsuit was filed, but on the same day the plaintiffs filed for a “second” amended lawsuit.
This confused the judge who ruled that a second amended lawsuit had already been filed, meaning the plaintiffs were actually asking to file a third amended transmission lawsuit. GM complained about the situation and the judge agreed with the automaker.
According to GM and the judge, the plaintiffs waited too long to replace the plaintiffs and add new model years to the lawsuit over the 8-speed transmission. General Motors told the judge that the plaintiffs have not explained why they delayed expanding the class action.
The judge agreed, ruling that the plaintiffs showed a “clear lack of due diligence,” and that GM would be “unreasonably prejudiced if the Court allowed the plaintiffs to add model years.”
The judge also rejected the proposal to expand GM model years, “because more recent model years would involve a new transmission.”
CarComplaints.com will update our website as future court proceedings regarding the GM 8-speed transmission issues occur.
The GM 8-speed transmission lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan: Helms, et al., v. General Motors, LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll PLLC, Gordon & Partners, PA, Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, The Miller Law Firm, PC, Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Keller Rohrback LLP, and Pitt, McGehee, Palmer & Rivers, PC
#Lawsuit #8speed #transmission #runs #trouble