— A General Motors 8-speed transmission class action lawsuit is having trouble in court after it was filed in April 2022.
Six customers from five states filed the lawsuit which alleges 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
- 2019 Cadillac ATS
- 2019 Cadillac ATS-V
- 2019 Cadillac CTS
- 2019 Cadillac CT6
- 2019 Cadillac CTS-V
- 2019-2022 GMC Canyon
- 2019-2022 GMC Sierra
A replacement of the transmission supposedly doesn't repair the shift problems because the defective 8-speed transmission will allegedly be replaced with an equally defective 8-speed transmission.
According to the plaintiffs, the GM 8-speed transmission problems include hesitating, jerking, surging, lurching and acceleration issues. The plaintiffs contend drivers complain about harsh gear shifts in lower gears.
Taking a vehicle to a GM dealer purportedly is a waste of time because customers are often told the vehicles are performing as designed.
GM 8-Speed Transmission Lawsuit — No New Model Years
In January 2024, the judge paused the class action to wait for the outcome of two other lawsuits, including one titled Speerly v. General Motors. Speerly involves the same GM transmissions.
The judge also sent the claims of four plaintiffs to arbitration. Additionally, the judge also allowed the plaintiffs to file their first amended lawsuit. The new GM class action lawsuit added customers from nine additional states and the spouses of the existing plaintiffs.
After an appeals court decertified the Speerly transmission class action, the plaintiffs in this case told the judge they “intend[ed] to proceed on behalf of a narrowed set of state classes and claims.”
GM argued the plaintiffs should be “giv[en] leave…to amend their complaint by dropping any plaintiffs and class claims in the [f]irst [a]mended [c]omplaint that [P]laintiffs no longer intend to pursue."
But the plaintiffs told the judge two California plaintiffs never began arbitration and the judge was not told one plaintiff had sold their GM vehicle a year earlier.
GM argued those two plaintiffs should not be substituted, but the judge did allow the plaintiffs to file a second amended class action and a separate motion to substitute the two California plaintiffs. A second amended lawsuit was filed, but on the same day the plaintiffs asked to file a "second" amended lawsuit.
This confused the judge who ruled a second modified lawsuit had already been filed, meaning the plaintiffs really asked 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 substitute plaintiffs and add new model years to the 8-speed transmission lawsuit. General Motors told the judge the plaintiffs haven't explained why they delayed in seeking to expand the class action.
The judge agreed and ruled the plaintiffs showed a "clear lack of diligence," and GM "would be unfairly prejudiced if the Court were to permit Plaintiffs to amend to add model years."
The judge also denied the motion to expand the GM model years "because a new transmission would be involved with more recent model years."
CarComplaints.com will update our website when future proceedings in court occur about the GM 8-speed transmission problems.
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, P.A., Berger Montague PC, Capstone Law APC, The Miller Law Firm, P.C., Kessler Topaz Meltzer & Check, LLP, Keller Rohrback L.L.P., and Pitt, McGehee, Palmer & Rivers, P.C.
