— In a motion to dismiss a GM brake master cylinder failure lawsuit, the automaker argues the two customers who sued are complaining about having their master cylinders replaced for free.
The lawsuit includes the 2025 Chevrolet Traverse, 2025 GMC Acadia, 2025 Buick Enclave, 2025 Chevrolet Colorado and 2025 GMC Canyon.
However, the class action currently includes all persons or entities who purchased or leased a vehicle only in New York or Pennsylvania.
According to the lawsuit, brake master cylinder failures occurred to Pennsylvania plaintiff and 2025 Chevrolet Traverse owner Eric Barron, and New York plaintiff and 2025 Chevrolet Traverse owner Chelsey Thompson. Both owners had their master cylinders replaced for free by General Motors.
However, the plaintiffs complain it took too long to repair their vehicles.
The two plaintiffs claim the master cylinders make their vehicles unsafe, unreliable and worth less money, with the plaintiffs going so far as alleging the GM vehicles are "unmerchantable."
General Motors supposedly knew before the vehicles were first sold that the master cylinders were defective and would fail. But instead of repairing the problems, GM purportedly covered up the braking defects even though it knew drivers and others would be placed in danger.
Motion to Dismiss the GM Master Cylinder Failure Lawsuit
According to its motion, General Motors argues the lawsuit fails because the plaintiffs fail to allege any actual injury or damages from the purported defect or repair.
General Motors turns to a common sense argument, something that may be meaningless if past automotive class action lawsuits are any indication.
The plaintiffs paid $405 to file a lawsuit for more than $5 million because their vehicles were repaired for free?
"Rather, Plaintiffs specifically allege that when they took their vehicles to GM dealerships to fix the alleged braking problem, the GM dealerships 'repaired' those vehicles. Plaintiffs do not allege that they ever experienced a braking issue again, and they do not even allege that they incurred any out-of-pocket expenses in connection with the braking issue or repairs." — General Motors
This, according to GM, means the plaintiffs "fail to allege any actual injury."
GM told the judge the plaintiffs try to establish standing to sue through "vague assertions" that they and other customers “have been harmed and suffered actual and economic damages” because the vehicles “are defective and require repairs or replacement, and are worth less money" because of the master cylinders.
"But Plaintiffs’ counsel have merely copied and pasted these allegations directly from previous complaints [lawsuits] that they have filed against GM." — General Motors
Arguing the brake master cylinder failure allegations are "conclusory," GM told the judge there is no evidence the automaker knew of some supposed braking defect before dealers first sold the vehicles to the plaintiffs.
And although the lawsuit references a "service update," General Motors contends it has nothing to do with the alleged master cylinder defect which is the subject of this class action.
As for the plaintiffs complaining about violations of New York and Pennsylvania Lemon Laws, GM argues those claims fail because the plaintiffs don't claim they followed GM’s informal dispute settlement procedure as those laws require. In addition, the plaintiffs allegedly have not claimed there was a failure to repair their vehicles within a "reasonable number of attempts."
The GM master cylinder failure lawsuit was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania: Eric Barron, et al., v. General Motors LLC.
The plaintiffs are represented by Sergei Lemberg.
