Tyman v. Ford Motor Co.
| Decision Date | 23 February 2021 |
| Docket Number | Case No. 20-22485-Civ-COOKE/GOODMAN |
| Citation | 521 F.Supp.3d 1222 |
| Court | U.S. District Court — Southern District of Florida |
| Parties | Steven J. TYMAN, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation, et al., Defendants. |
Michael Thomas Fraser, Granite Bay, CA, Paula R. Brown, Pro Hac Vice, Timothy G. Blood, Pro Hac Vice, Blood Hurst & O'Reardon, LLP, San Diego, CA, Laurence Marc Krutchik, Law Office of Laurence M. Krutchik, P.A., Palmetto Bay, FL, for Plaintiff.
David B. Massey, Hogan Lovells US LLP, Reginald Cuyler, Jr., Hogan Lovells LLP, Miami, FL, Jessica Marie Kennedy, McDonald Toole Wiggins, P.A., Orlando, FL, Michael L. Kidney, Pro Hac Vice, Hogan & Hartson, Washington, DC, for Defendants.
ORDER ADOPTING AND APPROVING REPORT AND RECOMMENDATION
THIS MATTER is before the Court upon the Report and Recommendation (the "R&R") of the Honorable Jonathan Goodman, U.S. Magistrate Judge. ECF No. 50.
Defendant Ford Motor Company ("Ford") filed its Motion to Compel Arbitration (the "Motion") on August 14, 2020. ECF No. 25. Plaintiff Steven J. Tyman ("Tyman") filed an opposition in response to the Motion on August 28, 2020. ECF No. 29. Ford filed its reply brief in support of the Motion on September 9, 2020. ECF No. 35. The undersigned referred the Motion to Judge Goodman for a report and recommendation on December 11, 2020. Judge Goodman issued the R&R on January 2021. ECF No. 48. Tyman filed his Objections to the R&R on February 3, 2021.
In his R&R, Judge Goodman recommends that Ford's Motion be granted and this matter be sent to arbitration. I have reviewed Ford's Motion, Judge Goodman's R&R, Tyman's objections thereto, the record, and the relevant legal authorities. Having done so, I find Judge Goodman's R&R to be clear, cogent, and compelling. Accordingly, Judge Goodman's R&R (ECF No. 50) is APPROVED and ADOPTED as the Order of this Court. It is, therefore, ORDERED and ADJUDGED as follows:
1. Defendant Ford Motor Company's Motion to Compel Arbitration (ECF No. 25) is GRANTED.
2. Plaintiff Steven Tyman and Defendant Ford Motor Company are directed to arbitrate this matter in accordance with the terms of the Retail Lease Order and the Florida Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement.
3. The Clerk of Courts is directed to STAY this case pending completion of the arbitration.
4. The Clerk of Courts is also directed to CLOSE this case for administrative purposes only, and without prejudice to the Parties to move to re-open the case once the arbitration has been completed.
5. All pending motions not otherwise ruled upon herein are DENIED as moot.
DONE and ORDERED in Chambers at Miami, Florida this 23rd day of February 2021.
REPORT AND RECOMMENDATIONS ON [ECF NO. 25] DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY'S MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION AND STAY PROCEEDINGS
Plaintiff Steven J. Tyman ("Plaintiff") filed a class action lawsuit against Defendant Ford Motor Co. ("Ford"), alleging various counts, including violation of Florida's Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act, fraudulent concealment, negligence, and negligent misrepresentation, all stemming from Defendant's alleged failure to perform required Field Service Actions ("FSAs") on his vehicle. In its motion to compel arbitration and stay proceedings [ECF No. 25], Ford requests an order compelling Plaintiff to submit to binding arbitration all of his claims against Ford. It also requests that the Court stay proceedings in this lawsuit pending the completion of the arbitration.
Plaintiff filed an opposition in response to Ford's motion and Ford filed a reply in support of its motion. [ECF Nos. 29; 35]. United States District Court Judge Marcia G. Cooke referred the motion to the Undersigned for a Report and Recommendations. [ECF No. 48].
For the reasons outlined below, the Undersigned respectfully recommends that Judge Cooke grant Ford's motion to compel arbitration, which, if adopted, would result in a stay of the instant case.
On October 20, 2019, Plaintiff leased a new 2020 model year Ford Explorer from Lorenzo Ford (the "Dealer"), an authorized Ford dealership in Homestead, Florida. [ECF No. 1, ¶ 34]. As part of that lease transaction, Plaintiff entered into two contracts with the Dealer in which Plaintiff agreed broadly to arbitrate all disputes arising from or relating to, among other things, the purchase or condition of his vehicle. Plaintiff executed (1) the Retail Lease Order and (2) the Florida Motor Vehicle Lease Agreement ("MVLA") (collectively the "Agreements"). [ECF No. 18-1]. The Retail Lease Order consummates the Plaintiff's agreement to lease the vehicle, and the MVLA concerns the financing of that lease. Both the Agreements contain arbitration provisions.
a. Alleged misrepresentations by the Dealer
In his complaint, Plaintiff details his interpretation of Ford's instructions to all dealers to perform FSAs. [ECF No 1, ¶¶ 17-19, 21, 22]. Plaintiff alleges that Ford offers a 172-point inspection that "requires dealers" to address "open FSAs" and executes agreements under which dealers "must perform" FSAs. Id. Plaintiff alleges that the Dealer represented that it had followed these instructions by requesting and receiving warranty reimbursement from Ford for the FSAs that the complaint alleges were not performed. See id. at ¶¶ 26, 27, 52, 54.
Plaintiff alleges that the Dealer represented that it had performed certain FSAs on Plaintiff's vehicle, when it supposedly had not. Id. at ¶¶ 35-37. Plaintiff further alleges that the Dealer intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented to him that it had performed certain FSAs before leasing him the vehicle. Id. at ¶¶ 2, 3, 35, 37, 53-55.
The Dealer was originally named as a party Defendant to this class action complaint. Nevertheless, the Dealer was dropped as a Defendant on August 4, 2020 when Plaintiff filed a Notice of Voluntary Dismissal without Prejudice of Only Defendant, Lorenzo Enterprises Corp. [ECF No. 21]. With the Dealer dropped from the case, Plaintiff seeks to hold Ford liable on the theory that it allegedly knew, yet failed to tell Plaintiff, that some dealers had not performed certain FSAs. See id. ¶¶ 4, 5, 60, 61.
The Federal Arbitration Act ("FAA") governs the validity of an arbitration agreement. Walthour v. Chipio Windshield Repair, LLC , 745 F.3d 1326, 1329 (11th Cir. 2014) (citation omitted). The FAA "embodies a liberal federal policy favoring arbitration agreements." Id. (internal quotations omitted). The FAA provides that a written agreement to arbitrate is "valid, irrevocable, and enforceable, save upon such grounds as exist at law or in equity for the revocation of any contract." Id. (internal quotations and citations omitted).
The party seeking to avoid arbitration bears the burden of establishing that the agreement in question should not be enforced. See Green Tree Fin. Corp.-Alabama v. Randolph , 531 U.S. 79, 91-92 (2000).
In its motion to compel arbitration and stay the proceedings, Ford argues that the Agreements executed by Plaintiff include arbitration provisions. [ECF No. 25, pp. 2-4]. Both Agreements signed by Plaintiff expressly provide for the arbitration of any disputes with the affiliates of the company that financed Plaintiff's lease, and Ford argues that it is an affiliate. The MVLA contract advises Plaintiff to "READ THIS ARBITRATION PROVISION CAREFULLY AND IN ITS ENTIRETY [.]" [ECF Nos. 18-1, p. 11; 25, p. 3 (emphasis in original)]. "Either you or Lessor/Finance Company/Holder (‘us’ or ‘we’) (each, a ‘Party’) may choose at any time, including after a lawsuit is filed, to have any Claim related to this contract decided by arbitration." Id.
The MVLA provides for the arbitration of disputes with, among others, "affiliates" of the Finance Company, such as Ford Motor Credit Company ("Ford Credit"). [ECF Nos. 18-1, pp. 5, 11; 25, p. 3]. Ford argues that Ford Credit is an indirect, wholly owned subsidiary of Defendant Ford Motor Company. [ECF No. 25-1, ¶ 4 (Decl. of C. MacGillivray)].
Similarly, the Retail Lease Order also includes an arbitration provision. In bold, all capital letters, it advises that an "ARBITRATION PROVISION " followed and to "PLEASE REVIEW – IMPORTANT – AFFECTS YOUR LEGAL RIGHTS [.]" [ECF Nos. 18-1, p. 18; 25, p. 4 (emphasis in original)]. "EITHER YOU OR WE MAY CHOOSE TO HAVE ANY DISPUTE BETWEEN US DECIDED BY ARBITRATION AND NOT IN COURT OR BY JURY TRIAL ." Id. The Retail Lease Order broadly defines the claims that are subject to arbitration as:
Next to Plaintiff's signature on the Retail Lease Order is the acknowledgment that he has "read each page of this Order and Agreement, including the arbitration provision on the reverse side, and agree to its terms." Id. at p. 16.
Both Agreements are governed by the FAA. See, e.g. , Epic Sys. Corp. v. Lewis , 138 S. Ct. 1612, 1621 (2018) () (internal quotations omitted); see also John B. Goodman Ltd. P'ship v. THF Constr., Inc. , 321 F.3d 1094, 1095 (11th Cir. 2003) (...
To continue reading
Request your trial