This is the property of the Daily Journal Corporation and fully protected by copyright. It is made available only to Daily Journal subscribers for personal or collaborative purposes and may not be distributed, reproduced, modified, stored or transferred without written permission. Please click "Reprint" to order presentation-ready copies to distribute to clients or use in commercial marketing materials or for permission to post on a website. and copyright (showing year of publication) at the bottom.

Consumer Law
Consumer Protection
Defective Vehicle Axle

Jenelle Ford and Barry Ford, h/w, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated v. Ford Motor Company, and Does 1 through 100

Published: Aug. 9, 2014 | Result Date: Jul. 10, 2014 | Filing Date: Jan. 1, 1900 |

Case number: 2:13-cv-08335-PSG-SS Summary Judgment –  Defense

Court

USDC Central


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Ruben Honik

Gillian L. Wade
(Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade LLP)

Stephanie Mazepa

Kevin Fay

Sara D. Avila
(Milstein, Jackson, Fairchild & Wade LLP)


Defendant

Tamara A. Bush
(Dykema Gossett PLLC)

Joan Dinsmore

Ashley R. Fickel
(Dykema Gossett LLP)

Janet Congliaro

J. Tracy Walker IV


Facts

Jenelle Ford and Barry Ford filed a class action against Ford Motor Co.. in connection with Ford Windstar minivans with the model years 1998.5 tp 2003/

Contentions

PLAINTIFFS' CONTENTIONS:
Plaintiffs alleged that in 2001, they purchased a used 1999 Ford Windstar that was still covered under the original factory warranty. In 2011, they began experiencing issues with the vehicle, and after conducting a research, they learned about Ford's limited recall involving the minivan's rear axle. However, when they took their vehicle to Ford for repairs under the recall, Ford declined. As a result, they had to pay $1,500 to an automotive repair shop for a replacement axle.

Plaintiffs alleged that Ford Windstar minivans with the model years 1998.5 to 2003 were defective, and that the defect predisposed the rear axles to premature wear and failure due to metal fatigue. They asserted claims for violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices under California Business and Professions Code, breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, breach of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, breach of express warranty under California Commercial Code Section 2313, and fraudulent concealment.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS:
Ford moved for summary judgment on all claims. Ford argued that plaintiffs failed to show any injury. As such, plaintiffs failed to state a claim for which relief may be granted.

Result

The court concluded that plaintiffs' case fails because no reasonable jury could conclude that they suffered an injury due to Ford's conduct, and granted Ford's motion for summary judgment.


#116312

For reprint rights or to order a copy of your photo:

Email jeremy@reprintpros.com for prices.
Direct dial: 949-702-5390