Danny Ray Palomo v. General Motors, LLC et al.
Opinion
Trial Court Opinion
I. BACKGROUND
Plaintiff filed his Complaint in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, on February 3, 2025. Notice of Removal (“Notice”), Ex. A, Dkt. No. 1-1. The original complaint was brought against Defendant and Carvana LLC (“Carvana”). See id.
Plaintiff served Defendant and Carvana with the complaint and summons on February 3, 2025. Yang Decl. ¶ 5 & Ex. 1. On February 14, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal to dismiss Carvana. Dkt. No. 16-2. On March 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). Dkt. No. 16-3. Although “Carvanza [sic]” was included in the caption, only General Motors LLC was identified as a defendant within the FAC. See id. On May 28, 2025, Plaintiff filed a request for dismissal to dismiss the seventh cause of action. Dkt. No. 16-4.
1 On November 21, 2025, the Court issued an order requiring a response from the parties regarding Carvana as a defendant. Dkt. No. 15. Because the Court had only the original complaint before
CIVIL MINUTES – GENERAL
Case No.: 2:25-cv-9635-RAO Date: December 5, 2025 Title: Danny Ray Palomo v. General Motors, LLC et al.