CSK&D Files Amended Complaint and Motion to Transfer & Consolidate Related Actions in Chevy Bolt EV Battery Class Action

On January 22, CSK&D and its co-counsel filed an amended complaint in the United States District Court for the Northern District of Illinois against General Motors LLC (“GM”) for alleged defects in its Chevrolet Bolt Electric Vehicle (EV).  The amended complaint adds plaintiffs from four additional states, all asserting allegations that the Chevy Bolt is defective because when its high voltage batteries are charged to full, or very close to full, they pose a risk of fire. GM’s only purported “fix” to reduce the risk of fire is an interim software update that limits the maximum charge to approximately 90% battery capacity, thereby also reducing the amount of mileage that these vehicles can otherwise travel on a full charge.  Plaintiffs in the amended complaint assert claims under the consumer protection statutes of Arizona, Arkansas, California, Illinois, and New York, as well as nationwide claims under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and common law fraud and breach of warranty statutes.

CSK&D and its co-counsel also filed a motion with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) to transfer its amended complaint to the United States District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan in order to consolidate CSK&D’s action with four other related actions filed in separate jurisdictions for coordinated pretrial proceedings. Consolidation of the five actions will conserve judicial resources since these cases involve common questions of fact and law.  In addition, Defendant GM is headquartered in Detroit, which is in the Eastern District of Michigan.  In the alternative, the motion requests that the other four cases be transferred and consolidated in the Northern District of Illinois for coordinated proceedings.

  • Date Format: MM slash DD slash YYYY
  • Date Format: MM slash DD slash YYYY

(*) Indicates required field: When communicating with us through this site or otherwise in connection with a matter for which we do not already represent you, your communication may not be treated as privileged or confidential, and does not create an attorney-client relationship between you and our Firm.

Attorneys for this case:

Benjamin F. Johns
Beena M. McDonald
Samantha E. Holbrook