John Harvey vs General Motors

Case Number

24CV02181

Case Type

Hearing Date / Time

Wed, 08/06/2025 - 10:00

Nature of Proceedings

Motion to Continue

Tentative Ruling

Claude Manookian for Plaintiff

Mary Lynn Arens McBride, Xylon Quezada, Arash Yaraghchian, Jordan Hampton for Defendant

Issue

Motion to Continue

RULING

The matter is continued to 11/5/25 at 8:30am.

Analysis

The case was filed on 4/18/24; answer filed 6/5/24; on 8/21/24 the trial date was set for 7/16/25; on 5/14/25 the trial date was confirmed.

On 6/18/25 Defendant filed this motion to continue the MSC (then set for June 20, 2025) and to stay this action pending disposition of a determination in a federal action whether the Plaintiff is precluded from bringing this action.

On 6/20/25, at the CMC, Plaintiff’s attorney Claude Mannokian informed the Court that there is a concurrent matter pending in the eastern district in Michigan.  The subject vehicle in this case is also involved in a class action lawsuit, it is a federal multi-jurisdictional matter. The federal Court had issued a deadline for opt outs from the class action suit.  Plaintiffs submitted an opt out and abided by those deadlines. The federal Court denied them due to the Court wanting wet signatures, therefore a motion has been filed to show good cause as to why the signatures are valid. The hearing on that motion should be concluded by late August or early September. The Court continued the Settlement Conference to 11/21/25, and the 7/16/25 trial date to 12/17/25.

The Court has received a [Proposed] Order granting the stay that provides; on August 6, 2025, the joint motion of General Motors LLC (“GM”) and John Harvey (“Harvey”) for an order staying this case pending the upcoming proceedings before the Eastern District Court of Michigan in In re Chevrolet Bolt EV Battery Litigation, No. 2:20-cv-13256-TGB-CI and finding good cause therefore, the motion is GRANTED.  This case is hereby stayed until the adjudication of matters pending before the Eastern District Court of Michigan.

The Order submitted appears premature. Apparently, the federal Court proceeding has not been concluded.

This case should be continued to 11/5/25 to permit the motion that has been filed “to show good cause as to why the signatures are valid” and which this Court was informed “should be concluded by late August or early September” has been finally concluded.   

Thus, it is too early to vacate the trial date for this case.