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
Breach of Warranty
Texas Deceptive Trade Pratices - Consumer Protection Act

Philip Zwerling v. Ford Motor Company, Keller Ford Lincoln, and Does 1 through 10, inclusive

Published: Aug. 2, 2024 | Result Date: Jan. 2, 2024 | Filing Date: Jun. 21, 2019 |

Case number: 5:19-cv-03622-EJD Bench Decision –  Dismissal

Judge

Edward J. Davila

Court

USDC Northern District of California


Attorneys

Plaintiff

Christopher J. Campbell
(Strategic Legal Practices APC)

Tionna G. Carvalho
(Strategic Legal Practices APC)

Elizabeth A. LaRocque
(Strategic Legal Practices APC)

Payam Shahian
(Strategic Legal Practices APC)

Rabiya F. Tirmizi
(Strategic Legal Practices APC)

Nadine Alsaadi
(Cohen Business Law Group)

Dara Tabesh
(EcoTech Law Group, PC)

Michael L. Tracy
(Law Offices of Michael L. Tracy)


Defendant

Hailey M. Rogerson
(Gordon & Rees LLP)

Spencer P. Hugret
(Gordon & Rees LLP)

Elizabeth V. McNulty
(Evans, Fears & Schuttert LLP)

Stephen H. Dye
(Mortenson, Taggart & Adams LLP)

Charles F. Harlow
(Mortenson, Taggart & Adams LLP)


Facts

On October 26, 2013, Philip Zwerling purchased an F-350 Super Duty SRW diesel-engine vehicle manufactured by Ford Motor Company. On May 6, 2019, Zwerling sued Ford Motor in Santa Clara Superior for, among others, breaches of warranty. Defendant later removed the case to federal court.

Contentions

PLAINTIFF'S CONTENTIONS: Plaintiff asserted that the vehicle's engine or exhaust system was defective. Between 2013 and 2022, he had 15 visits to the repair facility. He then contacted defendant in January 2019 for a buy back of the vehicle but defendant refused.

DEFENDANT'S CONTENTIONS: Defendant contended that it did reimburse plaintiff for repairs covered under warranty. That not all his visits pertained to purported defects but rather were for service. Finally, plaintiff failed to provide specifics as to certain claims but rather generally provided information not pertinent to the case.

Result

Defendant's motion to dismiss was granted.


#142662

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

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