How cited: Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. · Go Syfert

Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp. (2007)

green · 231 citation events across 34 courts. Showing the 50 strongest citers on record (one row per citing case, strongest signal kept).
Treatment trajectory · 2007 → 2026 · click a year to view the case as of then
200720162026
Rule Authority · 9th Cir. · 2 citations in this opinion
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 879 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying Nevada law).
applying Nevada law
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Since there is no case directly on point, our task is to “predict how the state high court would resolve [the issue].” Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2007) (in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue “we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply”); Mycogen Corp. v. Monsanto Co., 51 P.3d 297, 306-07 (Cal. 2002) (California’s doctrine of res judicata).
in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue “we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply”
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007) .
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007). 1.
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 884 (9th Cir. 2007) (in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue “we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply”). 2 18-56453 The district court properly dismissed plaintiffs’ remaining claims because plaintiffs failed to respond to the arguments raised in defendants’ motion to dismiss these claims.
in diversity cases where only substantive state law is at issue “we apply the preclusion law that the [state court which issued the first judgment] would apply”
Rule Authority · 9th Cir.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007), and plaintiffs allege only economic injuries, not property damage or physical injury.
Rule Authority · N.D. Ohio · 2 citations in this opinion
For example, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals observed that the economic loss doctrine has caused much confusion, primarily because some courts have mistakenly stated in “overly broad terms that purely economic losses cannot be recovered in tort.” Giles v. GMAC, 494 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · Nev. · 2 citations in this opinion
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 876 (9th Cir. 2007) (noting that duplicative remedies "add[ 1 unnecessary complexity to the law" (internal quotation marks omitted)). 9The federal cases cited by Appellants are distinguishable on this ground.
noting that duplicative remedies "add[ 1 unnecessary complexity to the law" (internal quotation marks omitted)
Quote Authority · D. Nev. · signal: see, e.g. · 2 citations in this opinion
Id. at 38; see e.g., Giles, 494 F.3d at 881 (“[T]he existence of the special relationship is a factual question .... ”).
“[T]he existence of the special relationship is a factual question .... ”
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors 21 Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir.2007) (quotation omitted).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance 26 Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (federal courts confronting a state law 27 issue without binding precedent may use persuasive cases from other 28 jurisdictions).
federal courts confronting a state law 27 issue without binding precedent may use persuasive cases from other 28 jurisdictions
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007). 24 The Court finds, by applying the framework established by the Nevada Supreme Court in 25 1 Indeed, the Court is foreclosed from applying the statute of limitations period for medical malpractice to a 26 claim under the Nevada constitution.
green Bai v. Johnson (2025)
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th 19 Cir. 2007).
Quote Authority · S.D.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 874 (9th Cir. 2007) (“When applied in cases outside the product liability context, the doctrine has produced difficulty and confusion.”). ________________________ (. . . continued) 699 N.W.2d at 171–72.
“When applied in cases outside the product liability context, the doctrine has produced difficulty and confusion.”
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th 12 Cir. 2007). 13 Although the Nevada Supreme Court has not stated whether elevators are 14 products, it has “long recognized that the doctrine of strict products liability in 15 tort is governed by the Restatement (Second) of Torts § 402A.” See Schueler v. Ad 16 Art, Inc., 472 P.3d 686 , 691 (Nev.
Rule Authority · W.D. Wash.
Motors 3 Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Rule Authority · D. Or.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (internal quotation 19 marks omitted).
internal quotation 19 marks omitted
green Alexander v. Chadwick (2024)
Quote Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 879 (9th Cir. 2007) (“As a general matter, the 23 economic loss doctrine bars actions in tort where an allegedly breached duty arises from failure 24 to perform contractual obligations.”) (collecting Supreme Court of Nevada cases).
“As a general matter, the 23 economic loss doctrine bars actions in tort where an allegedly breached duty arises from failure 24 to perform contractual obligations.”
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors 11 Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (quoting Hoopes v. Hammargren, 102 Nev. 12 425, 431 (1986) (internal citations omitted).
quoting Hoopes v. Hammargren, 102 Nev. 12 425, 431 (1986) (internal citations omitted
Rule Authority · D. Ariz.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th 13 Cir. 2007) (citation omitted).
citation omitted
Rule Authority · D. Ariz.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 877-78 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance 25 Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · D. Me.
Me. 2014) (quoting Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 876 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing All–Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862 , 865–66 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Where there are well-developed contractual remedies . . . there is no need to provide tort remedies for misrepresentation”))).9 Based on the economic loss doctrine, I conclude that the customer list scheme and the lobster crate scheme are not actionable as tort claims.
citing All–Tech Telecom, Inc. v. Amway Corp., 174 F.3d 862 , 865–66 (7th Cir. 1999) (“Where there are well-developed contractual remedies . . . there is no need to provide tort remedies for misrepresentation”)
Rule Authority · W.D. Wash.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Where 2 the state’s highest court has not decided an issue, the task of the federal courts is to predict how 3 the state high court would resolve it.” (citation omitted)).
“Where 2 the state’s highest court has not decided an issue, the task of the federal courts is to predict how 3 the state high court would resolve it.” (citation omitted)
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors 7 Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 879 (9th Cir. 2007) (citing Nevada cases).
citing Nevada cases
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Ass’n, 21 979 P.2d 1286, 1287 (Nev. 1999) (noting that a fiduciary relationship “exists when one has the right to expect trust and confidence in the integrity and fidelity of another”); Giles v. Gen. 22 Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 881 (9th Cir. 2007) (finding that, to prove the existence of a special relationship under Nevada law, “a party must show that (1) the conditions would 23 cause a reasonable person to impart special confidence and (2) the trusted party re…
finding that, to prove the existence of a special relationship under Nevada law, “a party must show that (1) the conditions would 23 cause a reasonable person to impart special confidence and (2) the trusted party reasonably should have known of that confidence.”
Rule Authority · D.N.J.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 879 (9th Cir. 2007) (collecting cases).
collecting cases
Quote Authority · S.D. Cal. · signal: see also
The rule is intended to “prevent[] 23 the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving into one another.” Robinson 24 Helicopter Co., Inc. v. Dana Corp., 34 Cal. 4th 979, 988 (2004); see also Giles v. General 25 Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007) (“’[T]he doctrine is intended 26 to maintain traditional limits on manufacturers’ liability provided by the law of warranty, 27 except in cases of physical injury to persons or property.”). 28 1 For th…
“’[T]he doctrine is intended 26 to maintain traditional limits on manufacturers’ liability provided by the law of warranty, 27 except in cases of physical injury to persons or property.”
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007) (analyzing 21 Nevada’s economic-loss rule). 22 23 Terracon Consultants W., Inc. v. Mandalay Resort Grp., 206 P.3d 81, 83 (Nev. 2009). 24 Giles, 494 F.3d at 873 . 23 25 Local Joint Exec.
analyzing 21 Nevada’s economic-loss rule
Rule Authority · D. Alaska
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 18 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).) 19 To best effectuate the legislative intent, Nevada Courts interpret statutes according 20 to their plain and ordinary meaning.
green Israyelyan Vs. Chavez (2020)
Rule Authority · Nev.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2007) (applying Nevada law)).
applying Nevada law
Rule Authority · E.D. Cal.
Cal. 2015) (quoting Giles v. General Motors 23 Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007)).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Giles v. 7 General Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007).
Quote Authority · N.D. Cal.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 10 2007) (“The economic loss doctrine provides that certain economic losses are properly 11 remediable only in contract.”). 12 Here, plaintiff’s breach of duty of loyalty claim is a based on a breach of fiduciary 13 duty and plaintiff does not allege the duty arose by contractual obligation.
“The economic loss doctrine provides that certain economic losses are properly 11 remediable only in contract.”
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance 15 Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 881 (9th Cir. 2007).
Quote Authority · C.D. Cal.
See Robinson Helicopter, 34 Cal. 4th at 988 (“Quite simply, the economic loss rule “prevent[s] the law of contract and the law of tort from dissolving one into the other.”) (citations omitted); see_also Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 873 (9th Cir. 2007) (“Broadly speaking, the economic loss doctrine 1s designed to maintain a distinction between damage remedies for breach of contract and for tort.”).
“Broadly speaking, the economic loss doctrine 1s designed to maintain a distinction between damage remedies for breach of contract and for tort.”
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Giles v. General Motors Acceptance Corp., 13 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · N.D. Cal.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 882 (9th Cir. 27 2007) (holding that, as a matter of law, a fiduciary relationship presumptively does not exist 1 breach of fiduciary, it fails as a matter of law. 2 C.
green Toranto v. Jaffurs (2019)
Rule Authority · S.D. Cal.
It is sufficient that “the claimed factual dispute be shown to require a jury or judge 13 to resolve the parties’ differing versions of the truth at trial.” First Nat’l Bank of Ariz. V. 14 Cities Service Co., 391 U.S. 253, 289-90 (1968)); Giles v. General Motors Acceptance 15 Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 872 (9th Cir. 2007).
green Leftenant v. Blackmon (2019)
Rule Authority · D. Nev.
Motors Acceptance 17 Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 880-81 (9th Cir. 2007).
Rule Authority · D. Ariz.
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 880 (9th 4 Cir. 2007) (Nevada economic loss doctrine did not bar claims for fraud); Jes Solar Co., 5 Ltd. v. Matinee Energy, Inc., No. 12-CV-626-TUC-DCB, 2015 WL 10943562 , at *4-5 (D. 6 Ariz. Nov. 2, 2015) (declining to apply economic loss rule to fraudulent misrepresentation 7 claim). 8 Despite these authorities, the Galushas contend that the economic loss rule requires 9 dismissal of Plaintiffs’ fraud claim.
Nevada economic loss doctrine did not bar claims for fraud
green Kayser v. McClary (2012)
Quote Authority · D. Idaho
Motors Acceptance Corp., 494 F.3d 865, 875-76 (9th Cir.2007) (citing and quoting Grynberg v. Questar Pipeline Co., 70 P.3d 1, 11 (Utah 2003) (“[Tjorts such as fraud and conversion exist to remedy purely economic losses.”) (emphasis added); United Int’l Holdings, Inc. v. Wharf (Holdings) Ltd., 210 F.3d 1207 , 1226 (10th Cir.2000) (refusing to apply Economic Loss Doctrine because, under Colorado law, “the economic loss rule applies only to tort claims based on negligence, and …
“[Tjorts such as fraud and conversion exist to remedy purely economic losses.”