Ford Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit Survives, Barely

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

A Pennsylvania federal judge last week trimmed the majority of claims from a class action lawsuit accusing Ford Motor Co. of knowingly selling vehicles with defective engines, saying they weren’t sufficiently pled.

The Ford engine class action lawsuit was launched in December by a group of plaintiffs who claimed that Ford manufactured, assembled and marketed a class of vehicles with defective 5.4 L V8 engines that caused acceleration hesitation, stalling, loss of revolutions per minute (RPM), sudden deceleration and loss of power. They claim that this defect affects certain Ford vehicles, including the F-150, Expedition and Lincoln Navigator. They allege that Ford knew about the defect because it issued a technical service bulletin with instructions on how to repair the defects to its dealers in August 2008.

On September 23, U.S. District Judge Eduardo C. Robreno dismissed more than a dozen claims in the class action lawsuit. He found that the plaintiffs failed to provide details about when, where and from whom they acquired their allegedly defective vehicles. Specifically, the plaintiffs did not specify whether any Ford employees were involved in the transactions.

Judge Robreno also took issue with the plaintiffs who did not have to pay for any repairs because they did not state how they had been harmed by Ford’s alleged omissions. For this reason, he dismissed the claims for common law fraud and alleged violations of consumer protection laws. He also dismissed claims for negligent misrepresentation under Pennsylvania, Illinois and California law.

“They plead, in the fashion of a formulaic recitation of the elements of their fraud-related causes of action, that they ‘justifiably and reasonably relied on defendant’s deceptive conduct, nondisclosure, misrepresentation or omission,’” Judge Robreno said. “But they fail to plead any facts or circumstances that might support this bare allegation of justifiable reliance.”

In its motion to dismiss the Ford engine class action lawsuit, the automaker claimed that the 17-count complaint sought relief under the laws of five different states, but the plaintiffs failed to plead notice according to their respective state laws. Judge Robreno agreed with Ford in this respect.

“This already-complex legal situation is further exacerbated by the fact that the plaintiffs are not similarly situated,” Ford said in its motion. “They own different vehicles, with different model years; some vehicles are within warranty and some without; some vehicles have allegedly malfunctioned, and some have not; and some plaintiffs have ‘repaired’ their vehicles, while others have not.”

Judge Robreno will allow claims for express and implied breach of warranty for lead plaintiff Jason Schmidt to proceed, and unjust enrichment claims under Illinois law for plaintiff Stephen Gooder. He will also allow plaintiff Lee Pullen’s quasi-contract claim under California law and the nationwide injunction claim to proceed.

The plaintiffs are represented by Larry E. Coben, Sol H. Weiss and Julie P. Thompson of Anapol Schwartz.

The Ford Engine Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Schmidt et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:12-cv-07222, in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Pennsylvania.