1.  Complaints Lodged with NHTSA   2.  Customer Complaints on Third-Party Websites   31.  The engines in the Class Vehicles produce power and then send that  power to the 6L50 automatic transmission. The transmission then takes that power  and delivers it to the rear drive wheels of the Class Vehicle, while ensuring the  engine stays within predetermined revolutions per minute (“RPMs”). The  transmission also seeks to maximize the efficiency of the Class Vehicles’ engines  by balancing fuel consumption and torque.    32.  As background, transmissions use toothed gears that interact with each  other to produce torque. The term “gear ratio” refers to the relationship between  gears. For example, if an input gear has 20 teeth and it interacts with an output gear  that has 10 teeth, the 10-tooth gear must spin twice to fully spin the 20-tooth gear.  A gear ratio is then calculated by taking the number of teeth on the output gear and  dividing it by the input gear. In this example, the gear ratio would be 1:2 (typically  expressed as 0.5:1).    34.  The Class Vehicles were sold with a defective 6L50 Transmission that,  among other things, slips, bucks, kicks, jerks and harshly engages; has premature  internal wear, sudden acceleration, delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration and  difficulty stopping the vehicle, and eventually suffers a catastrophic failure requiring  replacement of the transmission.  C.  GM’s Longstanding Knowledge of the Defect   35.   GM learned of the defective transmissions in 2014, if not earlier, and  well before it began to sell and lease Class Vehicles, yet failed to disclose the  Transmission Defect to Plaintiff and Class members through its advertising,  including on vehicle window stickers or at the point of sale or lease.    37.  Federal law requires automakers like GM to be in close contact with  NHTSA regarding potential auto defects, including imposing a legal requirement  (backed by criminal penalties) compelling the confidential disclosure of defects and  related data by automakers to NHTSA, including field reports, customer complaints,  and warranty data. See TREAD Act, Pub. L. No. 106-414, 114 Stat. 1800 (2000).   38.  Automakers, including GM, have a legal obligation to identify and  report emerging safety-related defects to NHTSA under the Early Warning Report  requirements. Id. Similarly, automakers, including GM, monitor NHTSA databases  for consumer complaints regarding their automobiles as part of their ongoing  obligation to identify potential defects in their vehicles, including safety-related  defects. Id. Thus, GM knew or should have known of the many complaints about the  Transmission Defect logged by NHTSA ODI, and the content, consistency, and large  number of those complaints alerted, or should have alerted, GM to the Transmission  Defect.   52.  Plaintiff brings this action on her own behalf, and on behalf of a  nationwide class pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2),  and/or 23(b)(3).   Nationwide Class:  All persons or entities in the United States who are current  or former owners and/or lessees of a model year 2015- 2017 GMC Canyon and Chevrolet Colorado.   54.  The Nationwide Class and the Florida Class shall be collectively  referred to herein as the “Class.” Excluded from the Class are Defendant, its  affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or entities that purchased the  Class Vehicles for resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case. Plaintiff reserves  the right to modify, change, or expand the various class definitions set forth above  based on discovery and further investigation.    55.  Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is  appropriate because Plaintiff can prove the elements of her claims on a class-wide  basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove those elements in individual  actions alleging the same claim.   56.  Numerosity: Upon information and belief, the Class is so numerous that  joinder of all members is impracticable. Plaintiff believes that hundreds of thousands  of Class Vehicles have been sold and leased in the United States, and in each of the  States that are within the Class.    58.  Typicality: All of the Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the  Class since Plaintiff purchased a Class Vehicle with a defective transmission, as did  each member of the Class. Furthermore, Plaintiff and all members of the Class  suffered monetary and economic injuries arising out of GM’s wrongful conduct.  Plaintiff is advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of themselves and  all absent Class members.    59.  Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative because her interests  do not conflict with the interests of the Class that she seeks to represent, she has  retained counsel competent and highly experienced in complex class action  litigation, and she intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the  Class will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and her counsel.    61.  GM has acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally applicable to  the Class, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with respect to the Class  as a whole.  62.  Plaintiff and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and  succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.   63.  Plaintiff and the Class members are “consumers” within the meaning  of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   64.  Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of 15  73.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.    74.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf  of the members of the Florida Class against Defendant.   75.  Plaintiff and the members of the Florida Class are “consumers” within  the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 501.203(7).   76.  At all relevant times, Defendant was engaged in trade or commerce  within the meaning of Fla. Stat. § 501.203(8).    77.  The purpose of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,  Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq., is to “protect the consuming public . . . from those who  engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive or unfair acts  or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.202(2).   78.  Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act prohibits “[u]nfair  methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive  acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.” Fla. Stat. § 501.204(1).   80.  Defendant has engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices,  including representing that the Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits,  and qualities which they do not have; representing that the Class Vehicles are of a  particular standard and quality when they are not; advertising the Class Vehicles  with the intent to not sell them as advertised; and otherwise engaging in conduct  likely to deceive. Further, Defendant’s acts and practices described herein offend  established public policy because of the harm they cause to consumers outweighs  any benefit associated with such practices, and because Defendant fraudulently  concealed the defective nature of the Class Vehicles from consumers.   82.  Plaintiff and the other Class members have suffered an injury in fact,  including the loss of money or property, as a result of Defendant’s unfair, unlawful,  and/or deceptive practices. In purchasing their Class Vehicles, Plaintiff and the other  Class members relied on the misrepresentations and/or omissions of Defendant with  respect to the reliability of the Class Vehicles. Defendant’s representations were  untrue because the Class Vehicles were defectively designed and manufactured. Had  Plaintiff and the other Class members known this, they would not have purchased  their Class Vehicles and/or paid as much for them. Accordingly, Plaintiff and the  other Class members overpaid for their Class Vehicles and did not receive the benefit  of their bargain.   84.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   85.  Plaintiff bring this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  the members of the Class against Defendant.   86.  Defendant’s misrepresentations, nondisclosures, and/or concealment of  material facts to Plaintiff and the members of the Class, as set forth above, were  known, or through reasonable care should have been known, by Defendant to be  false and material and were intended to mislead Plaintiff and the members of the  Class.    87.  Plaintiff and the Class were actually misled and deceived and were  induced by Defendant to purchase the Class Vehicles which they would not  otherwise have purchased, or would have paid substantially less for, absent  Defendant’s fraudulent conduct.   89.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   90.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf  of the members of the Class against Defendant.   91.  Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred a benefit on Defendant by  purchasing or leasing the Class Vehicles.   92.  The benefit conferred by Plaintiff and members of the Class on  Defendant was at the Plaintiff’s and Class members’ expense.   93.  Defendant had knowledge that this benefit was conferred upon it.    94.  Defendant has been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff, and  its retention of this benefit under the circumstances would be inequitable.  95.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   97.  Defendant expressly warranted that the Class Vehicles were of high  quality and, at a minimum, would work properly.  Defendant also expressly  warranted that they would repair and/or replace defects in material and/or  workmanship free of charge that occurred during the New Vehicle Limited Warranty  and Powertrain Warranty.   A.  Brief Overview of the Class Vehicles’ Transmissions   ACCELERATION AFTER GAS PEDAL IS PRESSED AND THEN  CAN SURGE UNPREDICTABLY. I HAVE SEEN THIS ISSUE  REPORTED IN GMC FORUMS BY OTHERS. GMC SAYS THERE  ACCELERATING INTO THE TURN. AS A RESULT OF THE  DELAY, I WAS NEARLY HIT BY ONCOMING TRAFFIC. THIS  VEHICLE MODEL, 2016 GMC CANYON, HAS A HISTORY OF  AND WHEN PULLING FROM ONE ROAD INTO TRAFFIC ON  ANOTHER ROAD. THE SITUATION WHEN PULLING INTO  TRAFFIC IS DANGEROUS BECAUSE THE TRUCK DOES NOT  ANY PICK UP HAPPENS. DOESN'T SOUND LIKE MUCH, BUT NO  OTHER CAR I HAVE HAD, DID THIS. AT THE SPEED OF  ONCOMING VEHICLES, A 1-2 SECOND LAG CAN MEAN A 30 - 60  APPROXIMATE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 11,635.  cc. DATE OF INCIDENT:  December 6, 2017  DATE COMPLAINT FILED:  December 6, 2017  BEING ARE BEING EXPERIENCED BY MANY CUSTOMERS.  CHEVROLET IS NOT PROVIDING ANY SOLUTIONS". *TR]   BREACH OF WRITTEN WARRANTY UNDER THE MAGNUSON-MOSS  WARRANTY ACT   (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class, or Alternatively, the Florida Class)   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the State Classes)    BULLETIN #PIP5342 WHICH STATES "SHUDDER OR CHUGGLE  WHEN ACCELERATING AT LOW SPEEDS OF 12-15 MPH IN  SECOND GEAR IS NORMAL OPERATION OF THE AUTOMATIC  COMMON LAW FRAUD  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the Florida Class)   DRIVING BUT STRESSFUL AS WELL, BECAUSE I FEEL AS IF  MY SAFETY IS IN JEOPARDY DUE TO THIS "LEARNING"  TRANSMISSION. IT'S SO DISAPPOINTING.  yy. DATE OF INCIDENT:  July 30, 2016  DATE COMPLAINT FILED:  September 17, 2016  FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 6,000.  oo. DATE OF INCIDENT:  October 1, 2015  DATE COMPLAINT FILED:  July 1, 2016  GEAR BY 15 MILES PER HOUR AND NEVER GOES ABOVE 2K  RPM'S??? I ADMIT I AM A BIT LIGHT-FOOTED ON DRIVING,  WHICH  GEAR, HESITATES AGAIN, AND THEN DROPS TO AN EVEN  LOWER GEAR AND OVER ACCELERATES. WHAT I HAVE  OBSERVED IS THAT THE VEHICLE IS TOO EAGER TO UPSHIFT  MANUAL APPROACH IS TO CAUSE THE VEHICLE TO  ACCELERATE RADICALLY IN AN ENVIRONMENT OF  OBSCURED CORNERS AND UPHILL DRIVING. I BELIEVE THIS  MORE LATER THE TRANSMISSION REACTS. IN HEAVY  TRAFFIC, A COUPLE OF CARS GET BETWEEN ME AND THE  CAR I WAS FOLLOWING BEFORE IT REACTS AND I HAVE TO  NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE AND INFORMED THE CONTACT  THAT THE REMEDY WOULD BE AT HIS EXPENSE. THE  CONTACT STATED THAT HE WAS NEVER NOTIFIED BY THE  NOTIFIED. THE VEHICLE WAS NOT REPAIRED. THE  MANUFACTURER ISSUED A LETTER RELATED TO THE ISSUE  (PIP 5342A, DATED 12/21/2015). THE APPROXIMATE FAILURE  NOTIFIED OF THE FAILURE. THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS  18,000. ...UPDATED 09/14/16 *BF  pp. DATE OF INCIDENT:  July 3, 2015  DATE COMPLAINT FILED:  July 5, 2016  OF OWNERSHIP, BUT THIS WAS THE FIRST TIME I NEARLY  HAD A DANGEROUS COLLISION. GMC SHOULD CORRECT  THIS PROBLEM WITH THE TRANSMISSION NOT BEING IN THE  REACTING WHEN YOU NEED TO GET THE POWER FROM THE  ENGINE.  ll. DATE OF INCIDENT:  April 1, 2015  DATE COMPLAINT FILED:  April 7, 2016  SLOW TRANSMISSION THAT IS ALWAYS IN THE WRONG  GEAR. CURRENTLY I AM AT 7,000 MILES. THE ONLY THING  THE TECH COULD SAY WAS NOT TO DRIVE IT IN STOP AND  GO  STOP AND GO CITY TRAFFIC.  I THINK THE OVERARCHING PROBLEM HERE IS THE SHIFT  POINTS THAT THE ECM HAS DETERMINED (OR BEEN  THEN IT FINALLY PICKS A LOW GEAR AND VIOLENTLY  THROWS THE DRIVER AND PASSENGERS BACK AND ROARS  TO LIFE. THE 2 OR MORE SECONDS OF HESITATION COULD  THE SAME CONDITIONS - DRY ROADS, DAYTIME, GOING  DOWNHILL ON A HIGHWAY. THERE WERE NOT ANY  WARNINGS, AND NONE OF THE SERVICE LIGHTS CAME ON.  THEN JUMPS GEARS TO PICK UP SPEED. DRIVING ON CRUISE  IN MODERATE HILLS, VEHICLE WILL NOT DOWN SHIFT  SOON ENOUGH UNTIL EVENTUALLY ENOUGH SPEED IS  THE VEHICLE WAS DRIVEN. IT'S GETTING WORSE.THIS  DRIVER BELIEVES THE UNSAFE OPERATING PERFORMANCE  OF THIS VEHICLE AS DESCRIBED ABOVE, IS EXACERBATED  TIME THEY DID A SOFTWARE UPDATE BUT STILL DOING  SAME PROBLEM. DEALER SAY'S TRUCK NORMAL. WAITING  FOR AN ACCIDENT BECAUSE TRANSMISSION WILL NOT  TO GEAR. ITS FUNNY BECAUSE I HAVE DRIVEN A LOT OF  VEHICLES AND NONE OF THEM HAVE DONE THAT OR TOOK  THAT LONG TO SHIFT. I KNOW THE TRANSMISSION IS  TO THE DEALER FOR AN EXHAUST SENSOR REPLACEMENT  AND TOLD THEM ABOUT THE SHIFTING PROBLEM. THEY  CLAIMED TO DO A COMPUTER UPDATE AND SAID IT WAS  UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the State Classes)    VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND UNFAIR TRADE  PRACTICES ACT  (On Behalf of the Florida Class)  