(2006-2007) SIGNER PROPOSES AMICABLE
RESOLUTION, GM REJECTS; SIGNER FILES SUIT
(2006) GM again attempts Signer exit inducement; Signer chronologically-filed documents connect conspiracy dots; Signer contacts GM for appointment to resolve; GM urges against litigation: In both May and July 2006, Jim Gentry again approached me about GM’s desire to buy me out. In light of GM’s relentless drumbeat, and after suffering seemingly endless abuse from it and GMAC, I decided it was time to resolve the issues. From multiple files that had accumulated over the years, such as “Fremont Auto Mall”, “Newark”, “Buick”, “Cadillac”, “Buick/Olds trade”, “MHD”, “Union”, “Warranty Audit”, “IRS Audit”, “GMAC”, etc., I gathered documents and placed them in one master chronological order file. Among other things, this master file connected the dots, and thus painted a clear picture in my mind of the conspired acts I describe herein. On September 14, 2006, Network Planning Regional Director Ann Blakney returned my call from a voice mail I left the day before. Before I even stated the reason for my call, she repeatedly said that my situation is a difficult one, but litigation isn’t the way to handle it. Dumbfounded at her unprompted litigation comment, I told her I didn’t say anything about litigation, but that I only called to schedule a meeting with her.
(2006) Signer presents resolution proposal to GM; Regional Director offers mediation and then prepares report to GM senior management; Regional Director retracts mediation offer; Signer meets with GM attorney at GM’s request; Signer briefly discusses with Susan Docherty and Rick Wagoner: I met with Ms. Blakney on October 4, 2006, informally without any signed documents or confidentiality agreement. I presented the history of events and my calculations of the eight-figure (>$10,000,000) total that GM’s denials of my Pontiac-GMC and Fremont Auto Mall plans had cost me, followed by a reduced resolution proposal good until December 15, 2006. In response, Ms. Blakney offered me mediation, but cautioned me that GM’s mediation process had a limit of $10,000,000. As that was considerably less than my calculated damages, I responded that mediation wouldn’t work unless she could get the limit waived. Before the conclusion of the meeting, she again urged me not to take legal action, even though I still had not mentioned it. In a phone conversation on October 6, Ms. Blakney informed me that she was putting together a report to GM senior management, and asked me to make the same presentation to a GM in-house attorney. I asked her if she had been able to get the $10,000,000 mediation limit waived, to which she replied that she had been. (I later learned that there is no such monetary cap in GM’s mediationprocess, thus causing me to conclude that the stated cap was an apparent untruthful attempt to get me to agree to a slashing of my requested amount before mediation, providing a lower “starting point” that GM might attempt to negotiate down further.) In a phone conversation on November 9, Ms. Blakney informed me that she had decided against mediation, and instead for she and GM’s in-house attorney to meet with me after she met with GM senior managementthe week of November 27. She said she would contact me the week of December 4. As Ms. Blakney had requested, I made my history and resolution presentation to the GM attorney on November 21. On November 28, at a Buick Enclave reveal event, I briefly talked to Western Regional Manager Susan Docherty, who informed me that she was working with Ms. Blakney on my resolution. I also briefly met GM Chairman Rick Wagoner, who stated that he had been made aware of my situation.
(2006) GM informs Signer of GM senior management needing more time for review of proposal; Signer files for mediation and initiates financing transfer from GMAC to Wells Fargo: Having not heard from Ms. Blakney the week of December 4, and not having phone calls to her returned, I e-mailed her on December 9. On December 14 I received an e-mail from the GM Attorney stating that my information was in the hands of senior management, and I would hear back from the team “later in January.” On December 15, I responded that I would file for GM mediation, and as a one-time courtesy, would extend my offer to January 24, 2007. I also initiated a transfer of my floorplan and mortgage from GMAC to Wells Fargo Bank, which prompted an e-mail from GMAC Area Manager Dan Antonelli, followed by my responding e-mail.
(2007) Signer attorney urges GM to resolve Signer situation; GM senior management rejects Signer proposal: In 2006, I had consulted an attorney regarding GM’s many damaging actions. The attorney was a partner in a highly regarded out-of-state law firm that specialized in dealer-factory issues who, when hearing my story and reviewing the documents, stated, “This is the most egregious situation I have ever seen.” The attorney’s statement is especially significant due to the fact that his firm may have seen more dealer-factory disputes than any other law firm in the country. Due to GM’s disregard for my December 15 deadline, on January 5, 2007, the attorney sent a GM in-house attorney acquaintance of his an e-mail urging him to take whatever steps necessary to resolve my situation, as if I filed suit, it would be for a higher amount. On January 23, 2007, GM’s California outside attorney issued a statement that senior management determined there was no merit to my claims, and declined my proposal.
(2007) Signer files suit, attends mediation; GM files demurrer motion; court upholds eight causes of action: Due to statute of limitations concerns, I filed suit against GM and GMAC on February 21, 2007. The mediation session I had requested was held March 25, 26, and 27, but was unsuccessful. In April 2007, GM filed a demurrer motion to dismiss the case. The demurrer was subsequently argued, resulting in the court upholding eight causes of action against GM and allowing the case to go forward.
