O'Connor v. Ford Motor Co.
Decision Date | 30 September 2021 |
Docket Number | 20-cv-2612,20-cv-2095,20-cv-1981,19-cv-5045 |
Court | U.S. District Court — Northern District of Illinois |
Parties | JUSTIN O'CONNOR, et al., on behalf of himself and all other similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. |
Plaintiffs bring this class action complaint against Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant” or “Ford”) for damages allegedly arising out of Defendant's sale and lease of 2017 to 2020 Model Year Ford F-150 trucks with defective 10R80 10-speed automatic transmissions. Currently before the Court is Defendant's motion [64] to dismiss the Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint [63]. For the reasons explained below, the motion to dismiss [64] is granted in part and denied in part. In particular, the motion to dismiss:
Counsel are directed to file a joint status report by no later than 10/21/2021 that includes (a) a proposed discovery schedule; and (b) a statement in regard to any settlement discussions and/or any mutual request for a referral to the assigned Magistrate Judge for a settlement conference.
This action was originally brought by Illinois Plaintiff Justin O'Connor on behalf of himself and a proposed class. In July 2020, the Executive Committee reassigned three related, higher-numbered cases (Case Nos. 20-cv-1981, 20-cv-2095, and 20-cv-2612) to this Court to be consolidated with Case No. 19-cv-5045. See [57]. On August 7, 2020, the Court entered an order dismissing the amended complaint in the lead case, but authorizing Plaintiffs to file a second amended complaint. See [59]. Plaintiffs filed their 127-page Consolidated Amended Class Action Complaint [63] (“Complaint”) on September 25, 2020.
The following facts are taken from the Complaint [63]. All well-pled allegations in the Complaint are assumed to be true for purposes of Defendant's motion to dismiss. See Calderon-Ramirez v. McCament, 877 F.3d 272, 275 (7th Cir. 2017). Defendant is a publicly traded company, incorporated in Delaware and with a principal place of business in Dearborn, Michigan. The twelve named Plaintiffs are individuals who purchased or leased Model Year 2017-2020 Ford F-150 vehicles (“Class Vehicles” or “Vehicles”) that were designed, manufactured, distributed, marketed, sold, and leased by Defendant or Defendant's parent, subsidiary, or affiliates.[2] Each Vehicle was equipped with a 10R80, which is a 10-speed automatic transmission (“Transmission”). The Complaint explains that an automatic transmission is essentially an automatic gear shifter. Instead of manually shifting the gears with a clutch, the automatic transmission does it on its own. The transmission acts as a powertrain to convert the vehicle engine's force into a controlled source of power. It allows drivers to safely and reliably accelerate and decelerate their vehicles.
Plaintiffs have proposed a class that includes at least 100 members and aggregated claims that exceed $5 million, exclusive of interest and costs. The proposed Class is defined as: “All persons in the United States and its territories who formerly or currently own or lease one or more of 2017 to 2020 Model Year Ford F-150 trucks with a 10R80 10-speed automatic transmission.” [63] at 58. The Complaint also proposes Illinois, California, Florida, Massachusetts, New Jersey, New York, Pennsylvania, and Texas Subclasses. Id. at 59-60.
The Complaint details all of the Plaintiffs' decisions to buy or lease their Vehicles from Ford and their experiences driving the Vehicles. See [63] at 14-45. The Court will discuss the more granular details of each Plaintiff's decision and experience as necessary in the Analysis section below. At a high level, many or most of the Plaintiffs performed research before deciding to buy or lease their Vehicles, including reviewing Vehicle specifications and advertising touting the Vehicles' performance and reliability, as well as speaking with salespeople at Ford dealerships. None of the Plaintiffs were informed of the problems with the Vehicles' Transmissions. Plaintiffs allege that they would not have purchased/leased the Vehicles or would have paid significantly less if they had known that the Transmission contain a defect (“Defect”).
All of the Plaintiffs report experiencing problems with their Transmissions, including: a loud “clunking” or banging noise when the engine starts; a “clanking” noise from the Transmission; jerky and rough acceleration and deceleration; delayed engagement of the Transmission and gears holding too long then roughly slamming into gear; the Vehicle failing to speed up when trying to accelerate; the Transmission slipping and jerking while accelerating and shifting gears; the Transmission slipping while driving in any gears; and, most seriously, the loss of acceleration and shifting capability while driving. The Complaint alleges that because of the Defect, the Class Vehicles are likely to suffer serious damages and potentially catch fire if accidents occur, causing an unreasonable and extreme risk of serious bodily harm or death to the Vehicle's occupants and others in the vicinity. [63] at 7. Nearly all of the Plaintiffs report that they took their Vehicles into Ford dealerships for repairs and/or complained to Ford, but the problems with their Vehicles were not fixed and they were not provided the relief they requested.
The Complaint alleges that Defendant knew or should have known of the Transmission Defect prior to Plaintiffs' purchase or lease of their Vehicles. It details numerous complaints that consumers filed with the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration (“NHTSA”) concerning the Transmissions, beginning in late 2017 and continuing through 2020. See [63] at 47-53. Defendant issued its first Technical Service Bulletin (“TSB”) concerning the Defect in March 2018 and additional TSBs after that. The TSBs stated that 2017 and 2018 F-150 vehicles “may exhibit harsh/bumpy upshift, downshift and/or engagement concerns.” Id. at 46. To address this problem, the TSBs suggested reprogramming the powertrain control module (“PCM”). The TSBs explained that the Vehicles were Id. However, the Complaint alleges, Defendant's “adaptive transmission shift strategy” fails to remedy the Transmission's shifting problems. Defendant nonetheless took no further steps to remedy the problem, leaving Plaintiffs and other members of the proposed class with knowingly defective Vehicles.
Instead the Complaint alleges, Defendant misrepresented and actively concealed...
To continue reading
Request your trial