Preview
1 Adam M. Zolonz, S.B.N. 250591
Stephen Parnell, S.B.N. 314517
2 LAW OFFICES OF ADAM ZOLONZ, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
3 Encino, CA 91436
Telephone: 310.247.8230
4 Facsimile: 310.888.1129
5 Attorneys for Plaintiff
Jayadev Yalavarti
6
SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
7
FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
8
9
Jayadev Yalavarti, an individual, Case No.
10
11 Plaintiff,
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 v.
Encino, CA 91436
13
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., a Delaware Limited
14 Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20,
inclusive,
15
Defendants.
16
17
18
1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.
19
2. Breach of Express Warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act.
20
21
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED.
22
Plaintiff Jayadev Yalavarti, an individual, hereby alleges and complains as follows:
23
GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION
24
1. On or about October 31, 2020, Plaintiff leased a vehicle from FREMONT CHEVROLET
25
(hereinafter referred to as “Retailer”) that was manufactured, distributed and/or warrantied by
26
GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as “Warrantor”) that was unmerchantable
27
when delivered and contained defects that Warrantor failed to begin repairing within a reasonable
28
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-1-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 time, failed to repair within 30 days, and failed to repair after reasonable opportunity.
2 THE PARTIES
3 2. Plaintiff is an individual, residing in San Joaquin County in the State of California.
4 3. Defendant Warrantor is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the
5 County of Alameda, State of California, and, at all times relevant herein, was/is engaged in the
6 manufacture, sale, distribution, and/or importing of motor vehicles and related equipment.
7 4. If evidence establishes that Warrantor manufactures, assembles, or produces consumer
8 goods, specifically motor vehicles, it is a “manufacturer” as defined by California Civil Code
9 section 1791, subdivision (j), and subject to all the duties imposed on a manufacturer by
10 California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SBCWA”).
11 5. Alternatively, if evidence establishes that Warrantor instead stands between the
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 manufacturer and the retail seller in purchases or contracts for the sale of motor vehicles,
Encino, CA 91436
13 Warrantor would be a “distributor” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, subdivision
14 (e), but nevertheless subject to all the duties imposed upon a manufacturer by the SBCWA as a
15 result of providing warranties for its vehicles regardless of whether they are purchased or leased
16 while covered by any portion of Warrantor’s new vehicle or certified pre-owned vehicle warranty.
17 (See Civ. Code §§1793.2(e)(2), 1795, 1795.4, 1795.5.)
18 6. Retailer, Fremont Automotive Retailing Group, Inc., a California Corporation, is doing
19 business in Alameda County, State of California, and, at all times relevant herein, a Warrantor-
20 authorized agent engaged in the business of selling, leasing, servicing, and repairing Warrantor’s
21 vehicles.
22 7. Retailer regularly sells and leases consumer goods, specifically Warrantor’s motor vehicles.
23 Retailer is therefore both a “lessor” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, subdivision
24 (i), and a “retail seller” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, subdivision (l).
25 8. Discussed further below, Retailer also provides warranty repair services on behalf of
26 Warrantor, acting as Warrantor’s agent pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.2.
27 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of
28 Defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-2-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Defendants by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to set forth
2 their true names and capacities when they have ascertained them. Further, after a reasonable
3 opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to show that each of the
4 Defendants designated herein as a “Doe” is responsible in some manner for the events and
5 happenings herein referred to and caused injury and damage to Plaintiff as herein alleged.
6 10. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
7 show that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants,
8 and/or employees of each of their Co-Defendants. After a reasonable opportunity for further
9 investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to show that in doing the things hereinafter alleged
10 Defendants, and each of them, were acting in the course and scope of their employment as such
11 agents, servants, and/or employees, and with the permission, consent, knowledge, and/or
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 ratification of their Co-Defendants, principals, and/or employers.
Encino, CA 91436
13 OVERVIEW
14 11. On or about October 31, 2020, Plaintiff acquired a new 2020 Chevrolet Bolt bearing vehicle
15 identification number 1G1FZ6S09L4142207 (hereinafter referred to as the “Vehicle”) from
16 Retailer that had been manufactured and/or distributed by Warrantor.
17 12. The vehicle contained a latent defect at the time of delivery, discussed below as the
18 “Battery Fire Defect”, for which Warrantor initiated a recall (hereinafter referred to as the
19 “Recall”).
20 13. The Battery Fire Defect was unknown to Plaintiff at the time of delivery.
21 14. After Plaintiff had taken delivery of the Vehicle, Warrantor announced the Recall, notifying
22 the national Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Warrantor’s authorized service and repair
23 facilities, including Retailer, and consumers, including Plaintiff.
24 15. Plaintiff first learned of the Battery Fire Defect and the Recall due to Warrantor’s Recall
25 notification and/or contemporaneous news coverage.
26 16. Plaintiff wanted to present the Vehicle to Warrantor’s authorized service and repair
27 facilities for repair, but Warrantor failed to make sufficient service literature or replacement parts
28 available until substantially more than 30 days had passed.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-3-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 17. The Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the Vehicle’s use.
2 18. The Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the Vehicle’s value.
3 19. The Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the Vehicle’s safety.
4 20. Warrantor knows that it failed to make sufficient service literature or repair parts available
5 for more than 30 days.
6 21. Warrantor knew, or had reason to know, the Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the
7 Vehicle’s use.
8 22. Warrantor knew, or had reason to know, the Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the
9 Vehicle’s value.
10 23. Warrantor knew, or had reason to know, the Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the
11 Vehicle’s safety.
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 24. Nevertheless, Warrantor has failed to repurchase or replace the Vehicle.
Encino, CA 91436
13 THE VEHICLE’S ACQUISITION
14 25. Prior to October 31, 2020, defendants Warrantor and Does 1 through 20 inclusive,
15 manufactured and/or distributed into the stream of commerce the Vehicle for its eventual sale
16 and/or lease in the State of California.
17 26. On or about the same date, Plaintiff leased the Vehicle from the Retailer for a total
18 consideration over the term of the contract’s term of approximately $20,000. The terms are recited
19 in a retail sales installment contract (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”), the terms of
20 which are known to Defendants and in their possession.
21 27. A copy of the Agreement is in Defendants’ possession.
22 THE EXPRESS WARRANTY
23 28. Warrantor provided an express limited warranty (hereinafter the “Express Warranty”) for
24 the Vehicle to Plaintiff.
25 29. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
26 show that Warrantor’s Express Warranty includes a Basic Warranty, which covers all non-
27 excluded components of the Vehicle for 3 years or 36,000 miles, a Powertrain Warranty, which
28 covers an enumerated list of the Vehicle’s components for 5 years or 60,000 miles, a Federal
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-4-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 Emission System Defect Warranty applicable to the Vehicle for 2 years or 24,000 miles or, for
2 designated parts only, for 8 years or 80,000 miles, a Federal Emission System Performance
3 Warranty applicable to the Vehicle for 2 years or 24,000 miles or, for designated parts only, for 8
4 years or 80,000 miles, a California Emission Control Defect Warranty applicable to the Vehicle for
5 3 years or 50,000 miles, a California Emission Control Performance Warranty applicable to the
6 Vehicle for 3 years or 50,000 miles, among other warranties.
7 30. Warrantor, in providing an express warranty for the Vehicle, assumed the duties of a
8 manufacturer under the SBCWA.
9 31. Warrantor’s Express Warranty guarantees that the Vehicle and its components would be
10 free from all defects in material and workmanship; Warrantor would perform any repairs,
11 alignments, adjustments, and/or replacements of any parts necessary to ensure that the Vehicle was
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 free from any defects in material and workmanship; and Warrantor would maintain the utility of
Encino, CA 91436
13 the Vehicle for the terms and distances specified under each warranty.
14 32. A copy of the written warranty is in the possession of the Defendants.
15 THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES
16 33. In addition to the Express Warranty, Plaintiff received an express warranty of
17 merchantability for the Vehicle from Warrantor by operation of California Civil Code section 1792
18 and 1795.
19 34. Plaintiff received an express warranty of merchantability for the Vehicle from Retailer by
20 operation of California Civil Code section 1792.
21 35. Both implied warranties of merchantability guarantee that the Vehicle will pass without
22 objection in the trade under the contract description, is fit for the ordinary purposes for which
23 goods like the Vehicle are used, and was adequately contained, packaged, and labeled. (Civ. Code
24 §1791.1.)
25 36. Retailer’s warranty of merchantability for the Vehicle is implied as a result of selling the
26 Vehicle.
27 37. Warrantor’s warranty of merchantability for the Vehicle is implied as a result of providing
28 an express warranty.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-5-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 38. Because Warrantor provided the Express Warranty for the Vehicle, California Civil Code
2 section 1793 bars limitation, modification, or disclaimer of the implied warranties guaranteed by
3 the SBCWA.
4 PLAINTIFF’S STANDING UNDER THE SBCWA
5 39. The Vehicle is a “consumer good” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791,
6 subdivision (a), which is part of the SBCWA.
7 40. The Vehicle is also a “new motor vehicle” as defined by California Civil Code section
8 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2).
9 41. Plaintiff bought the Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes.
10 42. Plaintiff has used the Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes
11 43. Plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions on Plaintiffs’ part under the Agreement and
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 under the express and implied warranties given to Plaintiff, except insofar as the acts and/or
Encino, CA 91436
13 omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, prevented and/or excused such
14 performance.
15 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WARRANTOR AND REPAIRING DEALERSHIPS
16 44. The SBCWA requires Warrantor to provide warranty repair services through facilities
17 reasonably close to all areas in which its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of its
18 warranties.
19 45. California Civil Code section 1793.2 permits Warrantor to either provide warranty services
20 directly or through independent service and repair facilities that Warrantors authorizes to act on its
21 behalf via warranty service contracts with a duration of not more than one year.
22 46. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.2, Warrantor and each of its authorized
23 service and repair facilities may include within the warranty service contract a fixed schedule of
24 rates to be charged for warranty service or warranty repair work.
25 47. The regularly conducted business of Warrantor’s California dealerships, including Retailer,
26 includes automotive repair.
27 48. Retailer is one of Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities within the meaning of
28 California Civil Code section 1793.2.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-6-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 49. Warrantor attempts to comply with the SBCWA’s warranty repair requirements, including
2 those articulated within California Civil Code section 1793.2, by having its dealerships act as its
3 authorized service and repair facilities and carry out the terms of its warranties.
4 50. The relationship between Warrantor and each of its dealerships is governed by a dealership
5 agreement and documents referenced and/or incorporated therein.
6 51. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
7 show that these documents grant the authorized service and repair facilities actual and/or ostensible
8 authority to conduct diagnosis and repair of Warrantor’s vehicle and otherwise carry out the terms
9 of Warrantor’s warranties on behalf of Warrantor.
10 52. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
11 show that each the various agreements between Warrantor and the service and repair facilities
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 authorized to carry out the terms of its warranties, including Retailer, grant the authorized service
Encino, CA 91436
13 and repair facilities actual and/or ostensible authority to communicate with consumers, including
14 Plaintiff, about concerns with their vehicles; the specific jobs that will be performed; all parts and
15 labor that are anticipated; the price for parts and labor; whether the parts that will be new, used,
16 rebuilt, or reconditioned; anticipated sublet repairs; consumer authorization of repair activities,
17 changes to the proposed method of repairing the vehicle or parts to be used in repairs; an itemized
18 list of all services and repairs performed in language that the consumer can understand; the prices
19 for each service and repair performed, including diagnosis, warranty repairs and repairs performed
20 at no charge; the parts used in terms the consumer can understand and the price; whether each part
21 used is new, used, reconditioned, rebuilt, OEM or non-OEM; diagnostic results; the nature of
22 defects found; the manner in which defects were repaired; the manner and source of payment for
23 parts and labor; whether and why warranty payment was granted or denied for each service
24 performed and/or part used; and recommended further actions. (Civ. Code §§2315, 2316, 2317,
25 2319; B&P §§9884.7, 9884.8, 9884.9; CCR §§3353, 3353.1, 3356.) The preceding list is
26 illustrative rather than exhaustive.
27 53. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
28 show that the documents comprising the dealership agreement between Warrantor and each of its
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-7-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 authorized service and repair facilities authorized to carry out the terms of its warranties, including
2 Retailer, grant Warrantor the right to supervise and/or control the manner in which Warrantor’s
3 authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, carry out the terms of Warrantor’s
4 warranties.
5 54. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
6 show that portions the various agreements between Warrantor and the service and repair facilities
7 authorized to carry out the terms of its warranties, including Retailer, also describe and define the
8 means by which Warrantor may control and supervise its authorized service and repair facilities,
9 including Retailer.
10 55. More specifically, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery,
11 evidence is likely to show that, among other means of supervision and control, Warrantor controls
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 the manner in which its authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, must diagnose
Encino, CA 91436
13 and repair Warrantor’s vehicles when they are under warranty; Warrantor provides its authorized
14 service and repair facilities, including Retailer, with service literature, which includes but is not
15 limited to step by step diagnostic and repair instructions for most, if not all, of the Vehicle’s
16 components and systems, supplemented by later manufacturer communications, including technical
17 service bulletins and recalls.
18 56. Warrantor also provides its authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, with
19 technical assistance for its warranty service and/or warranty repair service activities undertaken as
20 Warrantor authorized service and repair facility.
21 57. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
22 show that Warrantor will not, under ordinary circumstances, compensate its authorized service and
23 repair facilities, including Retailer, for warranty service and/or warranty repair service activities
24 undertaken as Manufactuer’s authorized service and repair facility unless its authorized service and
25 repair facility, including Retailer, has followed the instructions from Warrantor’s service literature,
26 supplementation of the service literature, and/or technical assistance.
27 58. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
28 show that the agreements between Warrantors and its authorized service and repair facilities,
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-8-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 including Retailer, entitle Warrantor to audit warranty service and/or warranty repair service
2 activities undertaken by Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer for
3 compliance with Warrantor’s policies and procedures and/or the costs related to the authorized
4 service and repair facility’s warranty diagnosis and repair activities.
5 59. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
6 show that Warrantor otherwise holds the rights to supervise and control service and/or warranty
7 repair service activities undertaken by Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities,
8 including Retailer.
9 60. Similarly, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is
10 likely to show that the annually renewed agreements between Warrantor and its authorized service
11 and repair facilities, including Retailer, in effect following the distribution of the Vehicle grant
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 Warrantor the power to intervene in warranty repairs as they occur and audit warranty repairs after
Encino, CA 91436
13 they are completed.
14 BATTERY FIRE DEFECT
15 61. Warrantor has recalled all 2017 to 2021 Chevrolet Bolt EVs and all 2022 Chevrolet Bolt
16 EUVs due to a defect or defects that can cause the batteries to produce so much heat that they may
17 cause vehicle components to smoke, melt and even ignite, endangering other property and persons
18 in the vicinity of the vehicle in the event of a fire.
19 62. Hereinafter, the above-described defect or defects is referred to as the “Battery Fire
20 Defect”.
21 63. Investigation by both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”)
22 Office of Defect Investigation (“ODI”) and Warrantor began following multiple reports of vehicle
23 fires, some or all of which had originated beneath the back seat and some or all of which had
24 occurred while vehicles were parked and/or unattended.
25 64. On or about August 13, 2020, Warrantor notified the National Highway Traffic Safety
26 Administration (“NHTSA”) that it would be recalling all 2017, all 2018, and some 2019 Chevrolet
27 Bolt EVs under recall number 20V-701.
28 65. Initially, Warrantor did not have a solution for the Battery Fire Defect, but, having
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-9-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 concluded from its review of data from vehicles that had burned, that the fires occurred after
2 vehicles were fully, or almost fully, charged, Warrantor instructed owners to either change
3 consumer-accessible settings to prevent charging beyond 90% or park vehicles outside of
4 structures.
5 66. On or about November 16, 2020, Warrantor instructed its authorized service and repair
6 facilities to install software that would prevent charging beyond 90% in a bid to prevent additional
7 fires while Warrantor identified the root cause and developed a permanent solution.
8 67. On or about July 17, 2021, Warrantor launched a second related recall, number 21V-560,
9 68. Recall number 21V-560 expanded recall number 20V-701 to include all 2019 Chevrolet
10 Bolt EVs.
11 69. On July 21, 2021, Warrantor claimed that it “experts from GM and LG” had “identified the
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 root cause” for recall 20V-701, stating the fires occurred as a result of “the simultaneous presence
Encino, CA 91436
13 of two rare manufacturing defects in the same battery cell in design level N2.1 batteries produced
14 at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility” that appear “to be aggravated by routinely charging the
15 battery to a full or nearly full state of charge after it has been substantially depleted.”
16 70. On or about August 20, 2021, Warrantor launched a third related recall, number 21V-650.
17 71. Warrantor has claimed that all three recall vehicle populations, which, in total, includes all
18 2017 to 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EVs and all 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUVs, are all related to the Battery
19 Fire Defect.
20 72. Recall number 21V-650 expanded recall number 20V-701 to include all 2020 and 2021
21 Chevrolet Bolt EVs and all 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUVs.
22 73. As of August 20, 2021, Warrantor planned to mail notifications to consumers affected by
23 recall numbers 21V-560 and 21V-650 on October 4, 2021.
24 74. Warrantor has claimed that the “root cause” was related to the coincidence of “two rare
25 manufacturing defects in the same battery cell” that appear “to be aggravated by routinely charging
26 the battery to a full or nearly full state of charge after it has been substantially depleted.”
27 75. However, as Warrantor had previously asserted that this defect was design level N2.1
28 batteries produced at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility, which was not used in Chevrolet Bolt
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-10-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 vehicles after 2019, it is not clear whether or not Warrantor has actually identified the “root cause”.
2 76. On or about September 21, 2021, NHTSA ODI requested documents and information from
3 companies related to LG Chem, including LG Energy Solutions and LG Electronics, as part of its
4 ongoing investigation into Chevrolet Bolt fires potentially related to battery defect(s).
5 77. To date, Warrantor’s repair instructions related to the recalls instruct its authorized service
6 and repair facilities to conduct diagnostics to identify defective battery modules, which are then
7 replaced with new modules.
8 78. The Vehicle is part of the population of recalled vehicles affected by the Battery Fire
9 Defect.
10 79. The Vehicle contained the defect(s) that are the subject of Warrantor recall numbers 20V-
11 701, 21V-560, and/or 21V-650, which put the vehicle at risk cause of battery overheating that
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 could cause vehicle components to smoke, melt and even ignite, endangering other property and
Encino, CA 91436
13 persons in the vicinity of the vehicle in the event of a fire.
14 80. The defect(s) substantially impaired the Vehicle’s use, value and/or safety.
15 81. Warrantor had a duty to repair the Battery Fire Defect within a reasonable number of
16 opportunities.
17 82. Warrantor had a duty to begin repair of the Battery Fire Defect within a reasonable time.
18 83. Warrantor had a duty to complete repair of the Battery Fire Defect within 30 days.
19 84. Warrantor had a duty to make sufficient replacement parts available to its authorized
20 service and repair facilities sufficient service literature to effect repair of the Battery Fire Defect
21 within the warranty period.
22 85. Warrantor had a duty to make sufficient service literature available to its authorized service
23 and repair facilities sufficient service literature to effect repair of the Battery Fire Defect within the
24 warranty period.
25 86. Warrantor has breached each of the preceding duties with respect to the Battery Fire Defect
26 in the Vehicle.
27 87. As a result of its individual and aggregate breaches of the Song-Beverly Consumer
28 Warranty Act, Warrantor has a duty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to repurchase
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-11-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 or replace the Vehicle.
2 88. Warrantor has not repurchased or replaced the Vehicle.
3 WARRANTOR’S WARRANTY REPAIR SCHEME
4 89. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
5 show that in addition to requirements imposed by California law, Warrantor requires certain
6 content in repair records, and these duties are imposed through the warranty service contracts,
7 and/or supplemental documents, that govern the provision of warranty service and/or warranty
8 repair services on behalf of Warrantor by Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities.
9 90. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
10 show that Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, are required to
11 include in their records labor operation codes, which may also be known as “op codes” or other
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 synonyms; these labor operation codes correspond to specific procedures for warranty service
Encino, CA 91436
13 and/or warranty repair service found in the service literature provided by Warrantor pursuant to its
14 duty under Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3) to make sufficient service literature and repair parts
15 available to authorized service and repair facilities to effect repairs during the warranty period.
16 91. The portions of the service literature referenced by labor operation codes normally contain
17 substantially more detail about what should have, or did, occur during warranty repair than what
18 dealerships otherwise record in their invoices; the full repair procedure often cannot be understood
19 without reviewing Warrantor’s service literature.
20 92. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
21 show that the labor operation codes used in repair records correspond to a fixed schedule of rates to
22 be paid by Warrantor to its authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, for warranty
23 service or warranty repair work. In other words, Warrantor has assigned a fixed pay rate to each
24 warranty service and/or warranty repair services for which it has provided step-by-step instructions
25 within its service literature, and Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including
26 Retailer, claim fix-rate compensation for warranty service or warranty repair work undertaken on
27 behalf of Warrantor by use of a labor operation code that refers to portions of Warrantor’s service
28 literature.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-12-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 93. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
2 show that these fixed pay rates are calculated by multiplying Warrantor’s time rating, calculated in
3 six-minute increments, multiplied by the shop rate that Warrantor and the authorized service and
4 repair facility have negotiated.
5 94. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
6 show that the shop rates negotiated by Warrantor and its authorized service and repair facilities are
7 typically lower than the shop rate that the authorized service and repair facility would charge for
8 services or repairs rendered when customers are not entitled to warranty protection.
9 95. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
10 show that Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, use time
11 estimates provided by third parties, such as All Data, when estimating the price for labor before
Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C.
16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210
12 rendering services or repairs for which the consumer must pay.
Encino, CA 91436
13 96. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
14 show that the time estimated by third party services, such as All Data, are for the same procedures
15 described within Warrantor’s service literature.
16 97. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
17 show that the third-party services, such as All Data, nevertheless estimate time necessary to
18 complete labor operations that are consistently longer than the fixed time set by Warrantor for
19 warranty repairs.
20 98. In short, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is
21 likely to show that Warrantor’s warranty compensation scheme creates financial pressure for its
22 authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, to complete repairs more quickly than
23 what is recognized within the automotive repair industry as normal or reasonable when the same
24 diagnostic or repair procedures are performed outside of Warrantor’s warranty.
25 99. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to
26 show that Warrantor further incentivizes hasty repair by paying the full amount for which each
27 labor operation is rated even if the authorized service and repair facility completes the labor
28 operation in less time.
Printed On
Recycled Paper
-13-
COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
1 100. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is
2 likely to show that Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, pass this
3 incentive to shorten warranty service and repair times on to their service technicians, the
4 employees who normally service and repair Warrantor’s vehicles under warranty. Like the
Preview
1 Adam M. Zolonz, S.B.N. 250591 Stephen Parnell, S.B.N. 314517 2 LAW OFFICES OF ADAM ZOLONZ, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 3 Encino, CA 91436 Telephone: 310.247.8230 4 Facsimile: 310.888.1129 5 Attorneys for Plaintiff Jayadev Yalavarti 6 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA 7 FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA 8 9 Jayadev Yalavarti, an individual, Case No. 10 11 Plaintiff, Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 v. Encino, CA 91436 13 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC., a Delaware Limited 14 Liability Company; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive, 15 Defendants. 16 17 18 1. Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. 19 2. Breach of Express Warranty under the Song-Beverly Warranty Act. 20 21 JURY TRIAL DEMANDED. 22 Plaintiff Jayadev Yalavarti, an individual, hereby alleges and complains as follows: 23 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION 24 1. On or about October 31, 2020, Plaintiff leased a vehicle from FREMONT CHEVROLET 25 (hereinafter referred to as “Retailer”) that was manufactured, distributed and/or warrantied by 26 GENERAL MOTORS, LLC. (hereinafter referred to as “Warrantor”) that was unmerchantable 27 when delivered and contained defects that Warrantor failed to begin repairing within a reasonable 28 Printed On Recycled Paper -1- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 time, failed to repair within 30 days, and failed to repair after reasonable opportunity. 2 THE PARTIES 3 2. Plaintiff is an individual, residing in San Joaquin County in the State of California. 4 3. Defendant Warrantor is a Delaware Limited Liability Company doing business in the 5 County of Alameda, State of California, and, at all times relevant herein, was/is engaged in the 6 manufacture, sale, distribution, and/or importing of motor vehicles and related equipment. 7 4. If evidence establishes that Warrantor manufactures, assembles, or produces consumer 8 goods, specifically motor vehicles, it is a “manufacturer” as defined by California Civil Code 9 section 1791, subdivision (j), and subject to all the duties imposed on a manufacturer by 10 California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (hereinafter referred to as the “SBCWA”). 11 5. Alternatively, if evidence establishes that Warrantor instead stands between the Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 manufacturer and the retail seller in purchases or contracts for the sale of motor vehicles, Encino, CA 91436 13 Warrantor would be a “distributor” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, subdivision 14 (e), but nevertheless subject to all the duties imposed upon a manufacturer by the SBCWA as a 15 result of providing warranties for its vehicles regardless of whether they are purchased or leased 16 while covered by any portion of Warrantor’s new vehicle or certified pre-owned vehicle warranty. 17 (See Civ. Code §§1793.2(e)(2), 1795, 1795.4, 1795.5.) 18 6. Retailer, Fremont Automotive Retailing Group, Inc., a California Corporation, is doing 19 business in Alameda County, State of California, and, at all times relevant herein, a Warrantor- 20 authorized agent engaged in the business of selling, leasing, servicing, and repairing Warrantor’s 21 vehicles. 22 7. Retailer regularly sells and leases consumer goods, specifically Warrantor’s motor vehicles. 23 Retailer is therefore both a “lessor” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, subdivision 24 (i), and a “retail seller” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, subdivision (l). 25 8. Discussed further below, Retailer also provides warranty repair services on behalf of 26 Warrantor, acting as Warrantor’s agent pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.2. 27 9. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, or otherwise, of 28 Defendants Does 1 through 20, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff, who therefore sues these Printed On Recycled Paper -2- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Defendants by these fictitious names. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to set forth 2 their true names and capacities when they have ascertained them. Further, after a reasonable 3 opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to show that each of the 4 Defendants designated herein as a “Doe” is responsible in some manner for the events and 5 happenings herein referred to and caused injury and damage to Plaintiff as herein alleged. 6 10. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 7 show that at all times mentioned herein, Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, 8 and/or employees of each of their Co-Defendants. After a reasonable opportunity for further 9 investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to show that in doing the things hereinafter alleged 10 Defendants, and each of them, were acting in the course and scope of their employment as such 11 agents, servants, and/or employees, and with the permission, consent, knowledge, and/or Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 ratification of their Co-Defendants, principals, and/or employers. Encino, CA 91436 13 OVERVIEW 14 11. On or about October 31, 2020, Plaintiff acquired a new 2020 Chevrolet Bolt bearing vehicle 15 identification number 1G1FZ6S09L4142207 (hereinafter referred to as the “Vehicle”) from 16 Retailer that had been manufactured and/or distributed by Warrantor. 17 12. The vehicle contained a latent defect at the time of delivery, discussed below as the 18 “Battery Fire Defect”, for which Warrantor initiated a recall (hereinafter referred to as the 19 “Recall”). 20 13. The Battery Fire Defect was unknown to Plaintiff at the time of delivery. 21 14. After Plaintiff had taken delivery of the Vehicle, Warrantor announced the Recall, notifying 22 the national Highway Traffic Safety Administration, Warrantor’s authorized service and repair 23 facilities, including Retailer, and consumers, including Plaintiff. 24 15. Plaintiff first learned of the Battery Fire Defect and the Recall due to Warrantor’s Recall 25 notification and/or contemporaneous news coverage. 26 16. Plaintiff wanted to present the Vehicle to Warrantor’s authorized service and repair 27 facilities for repair, but Warrantor failed to make sufficient service literature or replacement parts 28 available until substantially more than 30 days had passed. Printed On Recycled Paper -3- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 17. The Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the Vehicle’s use. 2 18. The Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the Vehicle’s value. 3 19. The Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the Vehicle’s safety. 4 20. Warrantor knows that it failed to make sufficient service literature or repair parts available 5 for more than 30 days. 6 21. Warrantor knew, or had reason to know, the Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the 7 Vehicle’s use. 8 22. Warrantor knew, or had reason to know, the Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the 9 Vehicle’s value. 10 23. Warrantor knew, or had reason to know, the Battery Fire Defect substantially impaired the 11 Vehicle’s safety. Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 24. Nevertheless, Warrantor has failed to repurchase or replace the Vehicle. Encino, CA 91436 13 THE VEHICLE’S ACQUISITION 14 25. Prior to October 31, 2020, defendants Warrantor and Does 1 through 20 inclusive, 15 manufactured and/or distributed into the stream of commerce the Vehicle for its eventual sale 16 and/or lease in the State of California. 17 26. On or about the same date, Plaintiff leased the Vehicle from the Retailer for a total 18 consideration over the term of the contract’s term of approximately $20,000. The terms are recited 19 in a retail sales installment contract (hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”), the terms of 20 which are known to Defendants and in their possession. 21 27. A copy of the Agreement is in Defendants’ possession. 22 THE EXPRESS WARRANTY 23 28. Warrantor provided an express limited warranty (hereinafter the “Express Warranty”) for 24 the Vehicle to Plaintiff. 25 29. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 26 show that Warrantor’s Express Warranty includes a Basic Warranty, which covers all non- 27 excluded components of the Vehicle for 3 years or 36,000 miles, a Powertrain Warranty, which 28 covers an enumerated list of the Vehicle’s components for 5 years or 60,000 miles, a Federal Printed On Recycled Paper -4- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 Emission System Defect Warranty applicable to the Vehicle for 2 years or 24,000 miles or, for 2 designated parts only, for 8 years or 80,000 miles, a Federal Emission System Performance 3 Warranty applicable to the Vehicle for 2 years or 24,000 miles or, for designated parts only, for 8 4 years or 80,000 miles, a California Emission Control Defect Warranty applicable to the Vehicle for 5 3 years or 50,000 miles, a California Emission Control Performance Warranty applicable to the 6 Vehicle for 3 years or 50,000 miles, among other warranties. 7 30. Warrantor, in providing an express warranty for the Vehicle, assumed the duties of a 8 manufacturer under the SBCWA. 9 31. Warrantor’s Express Warranty guarantees that the Vehicle and its components would be 10 free from all defects in material and workmanship; Warrantor would perform any repairs, 11 alignments, adjustments, and/or replacements of any parts necessary to ensure that the Vehicle was Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 free from any defects in material and workmanship; and Warrantor would maintain the utility of Encino, CA 91436 13 the Vehicle for the terms and distances specified under each warranty. 14 32. A copy of the written warranty is in the possession of the Defendants. 15 THE IMPLIED WARRANTIES 16 33. In addition to the Express Warranty, Plaintiff received an express warranty of 17 merchantability for the Vehicle from Warrantor by operation of California Civil Code section 1792 18 and 1795. 19 34. Plaintiff received an express warranty of merchantability for the Vehicle from Retailer by 20 operation of California Civil Code section 1792. 21 35. Both implied warranties of merchantability guarantee that the Vehicle will pass without 22 objection in the trade under the contract description, is fit for the ordinary purposes for which 23 goods like the Vehicle are used, and was adequately contained, packaged, and labeled. (Civ. Code 24 §1791.1.) 25 36. Retailer’s warranty of merchantability for the Vehicle is implied as a result of selling the 26 Vehicle. 27 37. Warrantor’s warranty of merchantability for the Vehicle is implied as a result of providing 28 an express warranty. Printed On Recycled Paper -5- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 38. Because Warrantor provided the Express Warranty for the Vehicle, California Civil Code 2 section 1793 bars limitation, modification, or disclaimer of the implied warranties guaranteed by 3 the SBCWA. 4 PLAINTIFF’S STANDING UNDER THE SBCWA 5 39. The Vehicle is a “consumer good” as defined by California Civil Code section 1791, 6 subdivision (a), which is part of the SBCWA. 7 40. The Vehicle is also a “new motor vehicle” as defined by California Civil Code section 8 1793.22, subdivision (e)(2). 9 41. Plaintiff bought the Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes. 10 42. Plaintiff has used the Vehicle primarily for personal, family, or household purposes 11 43. Plaintiff has duly performed all the conditions on Plaintiffs’ part under the Agreement and Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 under the express and implied warranties given to Plaintiff, except insofar as the acts and/or Encino, CA 91436 13 omissions of the Defendants, and each of them, as alleged herein, prevented and/or excused such 14 performance. 15 RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN WARRANTOR AND REPAIRING DEALERSHIPS 16 44. The SBCWA requires Warrantor to provide warranty repair services through facilities 17 reasonably close to all areas in which its consumer goods are sold to carry out the terms of its 18 warranties. 19 45. California Civil Code section 1793.2 permits Warrantor to either provide warranty services 20 directly or through independent service and repair facilities that Warrantors authorizes to act on its 21 behalf via warranty service contracts with a duration of not more than one year. 22 46. Pursuant to California Civil Code section 1793.2, Warrantor and each of its authorized 23 service and repair facilities may include within the warranty service contract a fixed schedule of 24 rates to be charged for warranty service or warranty repair work. 25 47. The regularly conducted business of Warrantor’s California dealerships, including Retailer, 26 includes automotive repair. 27 48. Retailer is one of Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities within the meaning of 28 California Civil Code section 1793.2. Printed On Recycled Paper -6- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 49. Warrantor attempts to comply with the SBCWA’s warranty repair requirements, including 2 those articulated within California Civil Code section 1793.2, by having its dealerships act as its 3 authorized service and repair facilities and carry out the terms of its warranties. 4 50. The relationship between Warrantor and each of its dealerships is governed by a dealership 5 agreement and documents referenced and/or incorporated therein. 6 51. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 7 show that these documents grant the authorized service and repair facilities actual and/or ostensible 8 authority to conduct diagnosis and repair of Warrantor’s vehicle and otherwise carry out the terms 9 of Warrantor’s warranties on behalf of Warrantor. 10 52. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 11 show that each the various agreements between Warrantor and the service and repair facilities Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 authorized to carry out the terms of its warranties, including Retailer, grant the authorized service Encino, CA 91436 13 and repair facilities actual and/or ostensible authority to communicate with consumers, including 14 Plaintiff, about concerns with their vehicles; the specific jobs that will be performed; all parts and 15 labor that are anticipated; the price for parts and labor; whether the parts that will be new, used, 16 rebuilt, or reconditioned; anticipated sublet repairs; consumer authorization of repair activities, 17 changes to the proposed method of repairing the vehicle or parts to be used in repairs; an itemized 18 list of all services and repairs performed in language that the consumer can understand; the prices 19 for each service and repair performed, including diagnosis, warranty repairs and repairs performed 20 at no charge; the parts used in terms the consumer can understand and the price; whether each part 21 used is new, used, reconditioned, rebuilt, OEM or non-OEM; diagnostic results; the nature of 22 defects found; the manner in which defects were repaired; the manner and source of payment for 23 parts and labor; whether and why warranty payment was granted or denied for each service 24 performed and/or part used; and recommended further actions. (Civ. Code §§2315, 2316, 2317, 25 2319; B&P §§9884.7, 9884.8, 9884.9; CCR §§3353, 3353.1, 3356.) The preceding list is 26 illustrative rather than exhaustive. 27 53. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 28 show that the documents comprising the dealership agreement between Warrantor and each of its Printed On Recycled Paper -7- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 authorized service and repair facilities authorized to carry out the terms of its warranties, including 2 Retailer, grant Warrantor the right to supervise and/or control the manner in which Warrantor’s 3 authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, carry out the terms of Warrantor’s 4 warranties. 5 54. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 6 show that portions the various agreements between Warrantor and the service and repair facilities 7 authorized to carry out the terms of its warranties, including Retailer, also describe and define the 8 means by which Warrantor may control and supervise its authorized service and repair facilities, 9 including Retailer. 10 55. More specifically, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, 11 evidence is likely to show that, among other means of supervision and control, Warrantor controls Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 the manner in which its authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, must diagnose Encino, CA 91436 13 and repair Warrantor’s vehicles when they are under warranty; Warrantor provides its authorized 14 service and repair facilities, including Retailer, with service literature, which includes but is not 15 limited to step by step diagnostic and repair instructions for most, if not all, of the Vehicle’s 16 components and systems, supplemented by later manufacturer communications, including technical 17 service bulletins and recalls. 18 56. Warrantor also provides its authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, with 19 technical assistance for its warranty service and/or warranty repair service activities undertaken as 20 Warrantor authorized service and repair facility. 21 57. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 22 show that Warrantor will not, under ordinary circumstances, compensate its authorized service and 23 repair facilities, including Retailer, for warranty service and/or warranty repair service activities 24 undertaken as Manufactuer’s authorized service and repair facility unless its authorized service and 25 repair facility, including Retailer, has followed the instructions from Warrantor’s service literature, 26 supplementation of the service literature, and/or technical assistance. 27 58. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 28 show that the agreements between Warrantors and its authorized service and repair facilities, Printed On Recycled Paper -8- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 including Retailer, entitle Warrantor to audit warranty service and/or warranty repair service 2 activities undertaken by Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer for 3 compliance with Warrantor’s policies and procedures and/or the costs related to the authorized 4 service and repair facility’s warranty diagnosis and repair activities. 5 59. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 6 show that Warrantor otherwise holds the rights to supervise and control service and/or warranty 7 repair service activities undertaken by Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, 8 including Retailer. 9 60. Similarly, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is 10 likely to show that the annually renewed agreements between Warrantor and its authorized service 11 and repair facilities, including Retailer, in effect following the distribution of the Vehicle grant Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 Warrantor the power to intervene in warranty repairs as they occur and audit warranty repairs after Encino, CA 91436 13 they are completed. 14 BATTERY FIRE DEFECT 15 61. Warrantor has recalled all 2017 to 2021 Chevrolet Bolt EVs and all 2022 Chevrolet Bolt 16 EUVs due to a defect or defects that can cause the batteries to produce so much heat that they may 17 cause vehicle components to smoke, melt and even ignite, endangering other property and persons 18 in the vicinity of the vehicle in the event of a fire. 19 62. Hereinafter, the above-described defect or defects is referred to as the “Battery Fire 20 Defect”. 21 63. Investigation by both the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) 22 Office of Defect Investigation (“ODI”) and Warrantor began following multiple reports of vehicle 23 fires, some or all of which had originated beneath the back seat and some or all of which had 24 occurred while vehicles were parked and/or unattended. 25 64. On or about August 13, 2020, Warrantor notified the National Highway Traffic Safety 26 Administration (“NHTSA”) that it would be recalling all 2017, all 2018, and some 2019 Chevrolet 27 Bolt EVs under recall number 20V-701. 28 65. Initially, Warrantor did not have a solution for the Battery Fire Defect, but, having Printed On Recycled Paper -9- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 concluded from its review of data from vehicles that had burned, that the fires occurred after 2 vehicles were fully, or almost fully, charged, Warrantor instructed owners to either change 3 consumer-accessible settings to prevent charging beyond 90% or park vehicles outside of 4 structures. 5 66. On or about November 16, 2020, Warrantor instructed its authorized service and repair 6 facilities to install software that would prevent charging beyond 90% in a bid to prevent additional 7 fires while Warrantor identified the root cause and developed a permanent solution. 8 67. On or about July 17, 2021, Warrantor launched a second related recall, number 21V-560, 9 68. Recall number 21V-560 expanded recall number 20V-701 to include all 2019 Chevrolet 10 Bolt EVs. 11 69. On July 21, 2021, Warrantor claimed that it “experts from GM and LG” had “identified the Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 root cause” for recall 20V-701, stating the fires occurred as a result of “the simultaneous presence Encino, CA 91436 13 of two rare manufacturing defects in the same battery cell in design level N2.1 batteries produced 14 at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility” that appear “to be aggravated by routinely charging the 15 battery to a full or nearly full state of charge after it has been substantially depleted.” 16 70. On or about August 20, 2021, Warrantor launched a third related recall, number 21V-650. 17 71. Warrantor has claimed that all three recall vehicle populations, which, in total, includes all 18 2017 to 2020 Chevrolet Bolt EVs and all 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUVs, are all related to the Battery 19 Fire Defect. 20 72. Recall number 21V-650 expanded recall number 20V-701 to include all 2020 and 2021 21 Chevrolet Bolt EVs and all 2022 Chevrolet Bolt EUVs. 22 73. As of August 20, 2021, Warrantor planned to mail notifications to consumers affected by 23 recall numbers 21V-560 and 21V-650 on October 4, 2021. 24 74. Warrantor has claimed that the “root cause” was related to the coincidence of “two rare 25 manufacturing defects in the same battery cell” that appear “to be aggravated by routinely charging 26 the battery to a full or nearly full state of charge after it has been substantially depleted.” 27 75. However, as Warrantor had previously asserted that this defect was design level N2.1 28 batteries produced at LG Chem’s Ochang, Korea facility, which was not used in Chevrolet Bolt Printed On Recycled Paper -10- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 vehicles after 2019, it is not clear whether or not Warrantor has actually identified the “root cause”. 2 76. On or about September 21, 2021, NHTSA ODI requested documents and information from 3 companies related to LG Chem, including LG Energy Solutions and LG Electronics, as part of its 4 ongoing investigation into Chevrolet Bolt fires potentially related to battery defect(s). 5 77. To date, Warrantor’s repair instructions related to the recalls instruct its authorized service 6 and repair facilities to conduct diagnostics to identify defective battery modules, which are then 7 replaced with new modules. 8 78. The Vehicle is part of the population of recalled vehicles affected by the Battery Fire 9 Defect. 10 79. The Vehicle contained the defect(s) that are the subject of Warrantor recall numbers 20V- 11 701, 21V-560, and/or 21V-650, which put the vehicle at risk cause of battery overheating that Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 could cause vehicle components to smoke, melt and even ignite, endangering other property and Encino, CA 91436 13 persons in the vicinity of the vehicle in the event of a fire. 14 80. The defect(s) substantially impaired the Vehicle’s use, value and/or safety. 15 81. Warrantor had a duty to repair the Battery Fire Defect within a reasonable number of 16 opportunities. 17 82. Warrantor had a duty to begin repair of the Battery Fire Defect within a reasonable time. 18 83. Warrantor had a duty to complete repair of the Battery Fire Defect within 30 days. 19 84. Warrantor had a duty to make sufficient replacement parts available to its authorized 20 service and repair facilities sufficient service literature to effect repair of the Battery Fire Defect 21 within the warranty period. 22 85. Warrantor had a duty to make sufficient service literature available to its authorized service 23 and repair facilities sufficient service literature to effect repair of the Battery Fire Defect within the 24 warranty period. 25 86. Warrantor has breached each of the preceding duties with respect to the Battery Fire Defect 26 in the Vehicle. 27 87. As a result of its individual and aggregate breaches of the Song-Beverly Consumer 28 Warranty Act, Warrantor has a duty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act to repurchase Printed On Recycled Paper -11- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 or replace the Vehicle. 2 88. Warrantor has not repurchased or replaced the Vehicle. 3 WARRANTOR’S WARRANTY REPAIR SCHEME 4 89. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 5 show that in addition to requirements imposed by California law, Warrantor requires certain 6 content in repair records, and these duties are imposed through the warranty service contracts, 7 and/or supplemental documents, that govern the provision of warranty service and/or warranty 8 repair services on behalf of Warrantor by Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities. 9 90. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 10 show that Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, are required to 11 include in their records labor operation codes, which may also be known as “op codes” or other Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 synonyms; these labor operation codes correspond to specific procedures for warranty service Encino, CA 91436 13 and/or warranty repair service found in the service literature provided by Warrantor pursuant to its 14 duty under Civil Code section 1793.2(a)(3) to make sufficient service literature and repair parts 15 available to authorized service and repair facilities to effect repairs during the warranty period. 16 91. The portions of the service literature referenced by labor operation codes normally contain 17 substantially more detail about what should have, or did, occur during warranty repair than what 18 dealerships otherwise record in their invoices; the full repair procedure often cannot be understood 19 without reviewing Warrantor’s service literature. 20 92. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 21 show that the labor operation codes used in repair records correspond to a fixed schedule of rates to 22 be paid by Warrantor to its authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, for warranty 23 service or warranty repair work. In other words, Warrantor has assigned a fixed pay rate to each 24 warranty service and/or warranty repair services for which it has provided step-by-step instructions 25 within its service literature, and Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including 26 Retailer, claim fix-rate compensation for warranty service or warranty repair work undertaken on 27 behalf of Warrantor by use of a labor operation code that refers to portions of Warrantor’s service 28 literature. Printed On Recycled Paper -12- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 93. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 2 show that these fixed pay rates are calculated by multiplying Warrantor’s time rating, calculated in 3 six-minute increments, multiplied by the shop rate that Warrantor and the authorized service and 4 repair facility have negotiated. 5 94. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 6 show that the shop rates negotiated by Warrantor and its authorized service and repair facilities are 7 typically lower than the shop rate that the authorized service and repair facility would charge for 8 services or repairs rendered when customers are not entitled to warranty protection. 9 95. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 10 show that Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, use time 11 estimates provided by third parties, such as All Data, when estimating the price for labor before Law Offices of Adam Zolonz, A.P.C. 16501 Ventura Blvd., Suite 210 12 rendering services or repairs for which the consumer must pay. Encino, CA 91436 13 96. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 14 show that the time estimated by third party services, such as All Data, are for the same procedures 15 described within Warrantor’s service literature. 16 97. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 17 show that the third-party services, such as All Data, nevertheless estimate time necessary to 18 complete labor operations that are consistently longer than the fixed time set by Warrantor for 19 warranty repairs. 20 98. In short, after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is 21 likely to show that Warrantor’s warranty compensation scheme creates financial pressure for its 22 authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, to complete repairs more quickly than 23 what is recognized within the automotive repair industry as normal or reasonable when the same 24 diagnostic or repair procedures are performed outside of Warrantor’s warranty. 25 99. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is likely to 26 show that Warrantor further incentivizes hasty repair by paying the full amount for which each 27 labor operation is rated even if the authorized service and repair facility completes the labor 28 operation in less time. Printed On Recycled Paper -13- COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES 1 100. After a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery, evidence is 2 likely to show that Warrantor’s authorized service and repair facilities, including Retailer, pass this 3 incentive to shorten warranty service and repair times on to their service technicians, the 4 employees who normally service and repair Warrantor’s vehicles under warranty. Like the