Diesel Place banner

LML CP4 lawsuit

Info: 
17K views 38 replies 20 participants last post by  OkDually 
#1 · (Edited by Moderator)
#3 ·
Nothing came of the LB7 injectors problem except extending the warranty and part redesign, I doubt anything comes of this other than that.
 
#4 ·
You never know. Back then social media and capability of information sharing was in its infantry. Now, a brand reputation hangs in the balance of public perception. Depending on how this is played it could mean interesting things for the company. I’ll be curious to see what happens.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
 
#7 ·
More likely they will add it as a warranty for some specific mileage.
 
#9 ·
Since 2011 when LML came out, my dealership has repaired approximately 10 with grenaded pumps. I’ve also replaced 2 that did not grenade, just couldn’t put out the pressure. Keep in mind, we only hear of broken ones on this forum, yes it is more common than a CP3 pump failure, but still not THAT common.
 
#10 ·
interesting perspective, would be interested to know the actual percent that have failed.:confuzeld
 
#14 ·
I dont' have a CP4, Thank Goodness, but I have been reading lots about this issue. It seems the CP4 is very much lubricity sensitive. It would be interesting to know where those who have had grenaded pumps buy their diesel.

Some may disagree but I always buy my fuel at Murphy stations. They not only have a high fuel turnover their fuel is either B5 or B20. The Bio adds the lubricity the ULSD diesel lacks. In fact there is no lubricity additive that is superior to Bio in this respect.

If I had an LML I would insure I got Bio at each fill up.
 
#15 ·
I’ve not seen any particular year that is more prone than another. I know the earlier trucks it was an updated pump we were installing, but the update was the lift/low pressure side of the pump, not the high pressure side. On our internal GN tech forum one of the techs disassembled a particularly bad failed pump and posted pictures. I can’t find those pictures but I found some on google, what fails is the rollers on the bottom of the pressure pistons, similar to a gas engine can have a lifter/camshaft gall, the roller in the CP4 does the same thing. In the photo below, the piston and pump camshaft both shown in the front. Being that it’s a similar fsilure to the lifters/cams in 5.3L’s, I think it’s a part issue, not a lubricity issue.

 
#16 ·
Another reason Im glad I have a CP3.
 
#20 · (Edited)
any chance gm will use the cp3 to put in the newer trucks since their more reliable?
 
#21 ·
Yhey're not using Bosch at all on the L5P.

L5P uses Denso HPFP and injectors.
It also has a lift pump in the fuel tank.
 
#23 ·
#28 ·
#30 ·
A Google search shows the last news article I can find ws back on Aug 17,2019

Considering this, I would say it's still in "Discovery" mode and will probably be in the courts sometime next year or so depending on how long it takes for "Discovery" between both parties
 
#31 · (Edited)
#33 ·
Has anybody heard anything about GM a lawsuit about our engines not being compatible with US fuel? It's on dieselarmy.com.
Did you see my post in the original 9 page thread on this topic?
 
#35 ·
The information in this thread should be moved to the other.

In reading the court doc related to consolidation the claims and change of venue it would appear that there are far too few owners who have joined the action. That alone could kill this thing.

It is pretty simple to become involved. Google CP4 litigation. The firm I contacted in in Texas.
 
#36 ·
#38 · (Edited)
CP4 Court Update

Received this a few minutes ago:

Dear Ken,

First and foremost, I hope this email finds you and your family healthy and safe. I wanted to take a moment and update you on our efforts in response to Covid-19 (Coronavirus), as well as the status of the CP4 fuel pump defect class action pending against General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Despite the halt in business that many are currently facing, I wanted to let you know that our firm is fully operational and not missing a beat. Team HMG, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, will continue to work diligently and fight for you on the CP4 fuel pump defect matter.

Our law firm offices in the Hilliard Building in Corpus Christi were temporarily closed out of an abundance of caution. However, HMG’s technology and established protocols allow our lawyers and staff to work remotely. That means that we are still here to answer any questions you may have on your case through the main phone line, email, text, and even videoconference.

Additionally, you should be aware that many courts are experiencing delays due to Covid-19. Trials have been postponed, hearings have been cancelled, and new rules have been put in place by courts nationwide. This means we must be flexible when it comes to some of the timelines that the courts previously established—as many things have changed as a result of Covid-19. Accordingly, in our CP4-defect-based litigation with GM, GM has requested, and we have agreed to, a temporary stay of the case through May 11, 2020, as GM’s regular business operations have completely ceased and (as you may or may not already be aware) GM is now working on manufacturing mass supplies of medical equipment pursuant to the president’s mandate.

Now for the good news: on Friday, March 27th, Judge Nelva G. Ramos of the Southern District of Texas issued an order rejecting the vast majority of arguments brought by GM in its motion to dismiss the pending CP4 fuel pump class action we have in a “sister” action to the one involving your claims.

GM originally moved to dismiss the Texas motorists’ first amended class action complaint on April 22, 2019, arguing that the auto giant's advertisements touting the CP4-equipped vehicles’ durability and fuel efficiency were “mere puffery” upon which the Texas motorists could not base fraud allegations. In the Court’s ruling, however, Judge Ramos disagreed, explaining that “[n]one of the [Duramax] advertisement materials noted that the vehicles were incompatible with U.S. diesel fuel,” and noting that “[m]isrepresentations are not merely puffery or opinion if they are of a material fact:”

“GM’s statements were not mere sales hype in light of the fact that the CP4 fuel pump was incompatible with U.S. diesel fuel, causing the engine to stall and requiring costly repairs. Because the CP4 pump exerted higher pressure to increase fuel efficiency, it destroyed the fuel injection system and the engine altogether. Plaintiffs allege that GM had superior knowledge that the vehicles were not durable or reliable. This information was not equally available to Plaintiffs."

The Court went on to roundly reject GM’s “suggestion” that the risk of catastrophic CP4 failure did not present an inherent safety risk:

"The worst case scenario of a truck spontaneously stalling at high speeds is not a mere inconvenience. Nor is it a mere inconvenience to spend between $8,000 to $20,000 on repairs to make the trucks fit for their ordinary purpose. The Court rejects GM’s suggestion that the risk of spontaneous engine failure while driving is not, as a matter of law, unreasonably dangerous, depriving the vehicles of fitness for their purpose of transportation.”

We are extremely pleased with this result and are encouraged that a similar ruling could be forthcoming when GM files its motion to dismiss this action in the Eastern District of Michigan.

In closing, let me reiterate that at HMG, we have taken steps to stop the spread of COVID-19, and to protect our co-workers, families, friends, clients, and all other loved ones. We have also planned for unforeseen circumstances and taken steps to insure your case remains the highest of priorities. We are confident that we can all work together to pull through this difficult time. At the end of the day, we remain steadfast in fighting on your behalf.

Please feel free to visit HMGlawfirm.com for additional firm information and updates, or reach out to our CP4 fuel pump litigation team at FuelPump@hmglawfirm.com. Stay safe and stay healthy!

Sincerely,

Robert C. Hilliard
Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP
719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Phone: 361.882.1612
Web: hmglawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs in the Matter of Chapman, et al. v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:19-cv-12333 (E.D. Mich.)
 
#39 ·
Received this a few minutes ago:

Dear Ken,

First and foremost, I hope this email finds you and your family healthy and safe. I wanted to take a moment and update you on our efforts in response to Covid-19 (Coronavirus), as well as the status of the CP4 fuel pump defect class action pending against General Motors LLC (“GM”) in the Eastern District of Michigan.

Despite the halt in business that many are currently facing, I wanted to let you know that our firm is fully operational and not missing a beat. Team HMG, along with co-counsel at Morgan & Morgan and Hagens Berman Sobol Shapiro, will continue to work diligently and fight for you on the CP4 fuel pump defect matter.

Our law firm offices in the Hilliard Building in Corpus Christi were temporarily closed out of an abundance of caution. However, HMG’s technology and established protocols allow our lawyers and staff to work remotely. That means that we are still here to answer any questions you may have on your case through the main phone line, email, text, and even videoconference.

Additionally, you should be aware that many courts are experiencing delays due to Covid-19. Trials have been postponed, hearings have been cancelled, and new rules have been put in place by courts nationwide. This means we must be flexible when it comes to some of the timelines that the courts previously established—as many things have changed as a result of Covid-19. Accordingly, in our CP4-defect-based litigation with GM, GM has requested, and we have agreed to, a temporary stay of the case through May 11, 2020, as GM’s regular business operations have completely ceased and (as you may or may not already be aware) GM is now working on manufacturing mass supplies of medical equipment pursuant to the president’s mandate.

Now for the good news: on Friday, March 27th, Judge Nelva G. Ramos of the Southern District of Texas issued an order rejecting the vast majority of arguments brought by GM in its motion to dismiss the pending CP4 fuel pump class action we have in a “sister” action to the one involving your claims.

GM originally moved to dismiss the Texas motorists’ first amended class action complaint on April 22, 2019, arguing that the auto giant's advertisements touting the CP4-equipped vehicles’ durability and fuel efficiency were “mere puffery” upon which the Texas motorists could not base fraud allegations. In the Court’s ruling, however, Judge Ramos disagreed, explaining that “[n]one of the [Duramax] advertisement materials noted that the vehicles were incompatible with U.S. diesel fuel,” and noting that “[m]isrepresentations are not merely puffery or opinion if they are of a material fact:”

“GM’s statements were not mere sales hype in light of the fact that the CP4 fuel pump was incompatible with U.S. diesel fuel, causing the engine to stall and requiring costly repairs. Because the CP4 pump exerted higher pressure to increase fuel efficiency, it destroyed the fuel injection system and the engine altogether. Plaintiffs allege that GM had superior knowledge that the vehicles were not durable or reliable. This information was not equally available to Plaintiffs."

The Court went on to roundly reject GM’s “suggestion” that the risk of catastrophic CP4 failure did not present an inherent safety risk:

"The worst case scenario of a truck spontaneously stalling at high speeds is not a mere inconvenience. Nor is it a mere inconvenience to spend between $8,000 to $20,000 on repairs to make the trucks fit for their ordinary purpose. The Court rejects GM’s suggestion that the risk of spontaneous engine failure while driving is not, as a matter of law, unreasonably dangerous, depriving the vehicles of fitness for their purpose of transportation.”

We are extremely pleased with this result and are encouraged that a similar ruling could be forthcoming when GM files its motion to dismiss this action in the Eastern District of Michigan.

In closing, let me reiterate that at HMG, we have taken steps to stop the spread of COVID-19, and to protect our co-workers, families, friends, clients, and all other loved ones. We have also planned for unforeseen circumstances and taken steps to insure your case remains the highest of priorities. We are confident that we can all work together to pull through this difficult time. At the end of the day, we remain steadfast in fighting on your behalf.

Please feel free to visit HMGlawfirm.com for additional firm information and updates, or reach out to our CP4 fuel pump litigation team at FuelPump@hmglawfirm.com. Stay safe and stay healthy!

Sincerely,

Robert C. Hilliard
Hilliard Martinez Gonzales LLP
719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
Corpus Christi, Texas 78401
Phone: 361.882.1612
Web: hmglawfirm.com

Attorney for Plaintiffs in the Matter of Chapman, et al. v. General Motors LLC, No. 2:19-cv-12333 (E.D. Mich.)

Thread merged for updated info ..
 
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
Top