462 F. App'x 660
9th Cir.2011Background
- Plaintiffs Richard Smith and Rebecca Klein sue Ford Motor Company challenging Ford's Focus ignition-lock defect from 2000–2006.
- Plaintiffs bring CLRA, fraud, UCL, unjust enrichment, and related claims based on alleged failure to disclose post-warranty defect risks.
- District court granted Ford summary judgment on all claims, including CLRA disclosure duty and safety-risk interpretations.
- Court held the ignition-lock defect did not pose a legally cognizable safety risk, foreclosing duty to disclose under Daugherty and related law.
- Plaintiffs argued Ford’s After-Warranty Assistance program violated California Secret Warranty Law; district court rejected as ad hoc and not a covered adjustment program.
- Court rejected UCL, unjust enrichment, and related theories, affirming summary judgment for Ford on all counts.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| Duty to disclose post-warranty defect | Ford had exclusive knowledge of the ignition-lock defect. | No duty to disclose absent affirmative misrepresentation or statutory requirement. | No duty to disclose; CLRA claim fails. |
| Safety risk of ignition-lock defect | Defect poses safety risks like immobilization or theft. | Risks were speculative and not a cognizable safety issue. | Safety risk not established as a matter of law. |
| Unconscionability of Ford's warranty | Non-negotiable, three-year/36,000-mile warranty was unconscionable. | Smith had meaningful choice and no duty to disclose failure rates. | Warranty not unconscionable. |
| Secret Warranty Law program | After-Warranty Assistance program falls within ad hoc adjustment program. | Program is not an ad hoc adjustment and is not within statute. | Program not within Secret Warranty Law. |
| Unfair Competition Law and related claims | UCL supports relief for deceptive or unfair practices including disclosure failures. | Lack of cognizable misconduct under CLRA, fraud, or secret warranty law negate UCL claims. | UCL fails on fraudulent, unfair, and unlawful prongs. |
Key Cases Cited
- Daubert v. Merrell Dow Pharm., Inc., 509 U.S. 579 (S. Ct. 1993) (standard for admissibility of expert testimony)