MacDonald v. Ford Motor Co.
37 F. Supp. 3d 1087
N.D. Cal.2014Background
- Plaintiffs allege MECS coolant pump defect in 2005–2008 Ford Escape Hybrid and 2006–2008 Mercury Mariner Hybrid, with Ford allegedly knowing of the defect and failing to disclose.
- Plaintiffs claim the defect causes abrupt loss of power and safety risks, including loss of vehicle control on highways.
- Plaintiffs purchased the vehicles based on Monroney stickers and Ford’s website, and seek relief for alleged concealment or misrepresentation.
- Plaintiffs assert the defect is widespread and known to Ford at sale, supporting CLRA, UCL, and implied warranty claims.
- Named plaintiffs include MacDonald (2007 Escape Hybrid), Aguirre (2007 Escape Hybrid), and Barbee (2008 Escape Hybrid), with specific post-sale pump failures and repair costs.
- Ford moves to dismiss all claims for failure to state a claim; the court grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| CLRA knowledge and omission | Ford knew of the defect pre-sale | TSBs and timing show no pre-sale knowledge | CLRA claim survives (knowledge and omission adequately alleged) |
| UCL unlawful/fraudulent/unfair | Knowledge supports unlawful/fraudulent; unfairness shown under balancing or Cel-Tech tether | No adequate predicate or misrepresentation proof; unfairness lacking | UCL claim survives under all three prongs |
| Song-Beverly statute of limitations | Implied warranty claim tolled by express warranty or latent defect | Implied warranty not tolled; four-year limit from breach applies | Song-Beverly claim dismissed as time-barred (no tolling) |
| Magnuson-Moss implied warranty claim | MMSA claim rests on viable Song-Beverly implied warranty | Dependent on time-barred state claims | Dismissed as to MMSA because underlying state warranty claims are time-barred |
Key Cases Cited
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (predicate CLRA knowledge requirement for CLRA/UCL)
- Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F.Supp.2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (pre-sale complaints used to support knowledge)
- Mui Ho v. Toyota Motor Corp., 931 F.Supp.2d 987 (N.D. Cal. 2013) (knowledge based on internal sources sufficient to plead CLRA)
- Lozano v. AT&T Wireless Servs., Inc., 504 F.3d 718 (9th Cir. 2007) (adopts Cel-Tech tethering or balancing approach to unfairness)
- Ehrlich v. BMW of N. Am. LLC, 801 F.Supp.2d 908 (C.D. Cal. 2010) (tolled warranty limitations not supported for implied warranty)
- Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp., 169 Cal.App.4th 116 (Cal. Ct. App. 2008) (implied warranty not extending to future performance generally)
- Camacho v. Automobile Club of Southern California, 142 Cal.App.4th 1394 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (discusses Cel-Tech and FTC-based unfairness framework)