Condrashoff
Condrashoff v. General Motors LLC
Opinion
trial_court Opinion
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 GEORGE W. CONDRASHOFF, et al., No. 2:24-cv-00108-DAD-DB 12 Plaintiffs, 13 v. ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION TO DISMISS CERTAIN CLAIMS
14 GENERAL MOTORS LLC, (Doc. No. 5) 15 Defendant.
16 17 This matter is before the court on defendant’s motion to dismiss certain claims brought by 18 plaintiffs in this action. (Doc. No. 5.) On February 5, 2024, the pending motion was taken under 19 submission to be decided on the papers pursuant to Local Rule 230(g). (Doc. No. 7.) For the 20 reasons explained below, the court will grant defendant’s motion to dismiss. 21 BACKGROUND 22 Plaintiffs George W. Condrashoff and Benita Gwyn Asher bring this automobile “lemon 23 law” and fraud action against defendant General Motors LLC (“defendant” or “GM”), alleging 24 the following in their complaint. In August or September 2020, plaintiffs acquired a new 2020 25 Chevrolet Bolt (“the subject vehicle”) from “Tracy Chevrolet, an authorized dealer and agent of…