This case was last updated from PACER on 09/01/2021 at 06:59:05 (UTC).


Case Summary

On August 31, 2021, Jorge L. Orihuela and Eric Pfeffer, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“Plaintiffs”), represented by David Magagna of Levin Sedran & Berman, filed a personal injury lawsuit against General Motors LLC, General Motors Holdings LLC, General Motors Company (collectively, “General Motors”), and Aptiv Services US, LLC (f/k/a) Delphi Automotive Systems, LLC (“Delphi” together with General Motors, “Defendants”), seeking declaratory and injunctive relief together with restitution, disgorgement and punitive damages for the alleged catastrophic system failure in the airbag control unit for General Motors’ vehicles. This case was filed in U.S. District Court in the District of New Jersey. 


In their complaint, Plaintiffs alleged that, “This Action concerns a catastrophic system failure in the airbag control unit for General Motors’ vehicles. At the time of failure, airbags and/or seatbelts fail to deploy properly and vehicle occupants have no protection when they need it most. This unnecessarily risks the lives of millions of consumers.”


Plaintiffs also alleged that, “This airbag control unit in General Motors’ vehicles is referred to as a Sensing and Diagnostic Module (“SDM” or “SDM System”). The SDM is essentially a computer dedicated to the airbag and seatbelt system.”


Plaintiffs further alleged that, “More specifically, the SDM in Class Vehicles (defined below) contains a dangerous defect in its software.3 The software in the SDM engages the airbags and/or seatbelt pre-tensioners based on pre-programmed algorithms and thresholds. However, the software also contains a calibration not to deploy the airbagsshould the calibrated time for deployment pass(the “Deployment Window”), causing a ‘dead-zone’ where the airbags and/or seatbelts will not deploy despite further impacts or collisions (the “SDM System Defect” or the “Defect”). The consequences of the SDM System Defect manifest during specific accidents triggering this dead zone, such as those involving multiple impacts and/or accidents that increase in severity over time, causing the airbags and seatbelts in the Class Vehicles to fail to deploy. The Defect deprives consumers of life-saving protection.”


Plaintiffs even further alleged that, “Defendants have knowingly omitted, concealed and suppressed material facts from consumers, who may only learn the truth when the Defect manifests in the moments following a car crash, at which time it may be too late. This Action seeks to hold General Motors accountable for its failure to disclose and remedy the Defect. As alleged herein, Defendants’ wrongful conduct has harmed owners and lessees of the Class Vehicles, and Plaintiffs and members of the Class are entitled to damages and injunctive and declaratory relief.”


Plaintiffs have laid down eight claims for relief, wherein the first claim alleged is for Fraud by concealment under Common Law, the second claim alleged is for Unjust Enrichment under Common law, the third claim allege is for Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”) N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 et seq., the fourth claim alleged is for Breach of Express Warranty N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12A:2-314 and 12A:2A-210, the firth claim allege is for Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 12A:2-314, 12A:2A-103 and 12A:2A-212, the sixth claim alleged is for Violations of the New York General Business Law NY GBL § 349, the seventh claim alleged is for Violations of the New York General Business Law NY GBL § 350 and the last claim alleged is for Breach of Express and Implied Warranties under New York law. 


In their prayer for relief, Plaintiffs requested the Court to certify this action as class action; grant declaratory relief; grant injunctive and equitable relief in the form of a comprehensive program to repair or replace the SDM System in all Class Vehicles; grant costs, restitution, disgorgement, punitive damages, treble damages and exemplary damages under applicable law; grant compensatory damages for economic loss, overpayment damages, and out-of-pocket costs; and award statutory damages together with civil penalties and interests along with costs of litigation to Plaintiffs and Class members. 


This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.


Case Details Parties Documents Dockets


Case Details

  • Case Number:


  • Filing Date:


  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Motor Vehicle Product Liability

  • Courthouse:

    New Jersey District


Party Details









Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney



510 Walnut Street, Suite 500

Philadelphia, PA 19106


Court Documents

1 #1

Civil Cover Sheet

1 #1

Main Document


Docket Entries

  • 08/31/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT against APTIV SERVICES US, LLC, GENERAL MOTORS COMPANY, GENERAL MOTORS HOLDINGS LLC, GENERAL MOTORS LLC ( Filing and Admin fee $ 402 receipt number ANJDC-12763868) with JURY DEMAND, filed by JORGE I ORIHUELA, ERIC PFEFFER. (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet)(MAGAGNA, DAVID) (Entered: 08/31/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases

Latest cases where General Motors, LLC. is a litigant

Latest cases represented by Lawyer David C. Magagna, Jr.