Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., Civ. A. No. 81-1998.
| Decision Date | 13 April 1984 |
| Docket Number | Civ. A. No. 81-1998. |
| Citation | 592 F. Supp. 1359 |
| Parties | John F. "Jack" WALSH, et al., Plaintiffs, v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendant. |
| Court | U.S. District Court — District of Columbia |
Beverly C. Moore, Bethesda, Md., Landon Gerald Dowdey, Washington, D.C., Seymour Kurland, Barry F. Schwartz, Kenneth J. Warren, Wolf, Block, Schorr & Solis-Cohen, Philadelphia, Pa., for plaintiff.
William T. Coleman, Jr., Richard Warmer, Carl R. Schenker, Jr., John H. Beisner, O'Melveny & Myers, Washington, D.C., for defendant.
Upon consideration of a number of motions filed by plaintiffs and defendant herein, the briefing in support of and opposition thereto, as well as the entire record in this action, and pursuant to rulings issued from the bench during a status conference in this action on April 4, 1984, it is by the Court this 12th day of April 1984,
ORDERED that plaintiffs' first Motion to Add Parties (dated October 7, 1983) to the Second Amended Complaint is denied; it is further
ORDERED that denial of this motion shall not affect those individuals' rights, which they may have, as members of any class that may be certified; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion for Leave to Amend the Second Amended Complaint to Include 1980 Model Year Pre-Design Change Automatic Overdrive ("AOD") Transmissions or, Alternatively to Amend ¶ 19 II(a) to Allege Breach of Warranty and Negligence with Respect to the AOD Transmission in Connection with Claims of Plaintiffs B & W Grain, Inc. and Nola B. Whitley (dated November 14, 1983) is denied; it is further
ORDERED that pursuant to the foregoing ruling, this Court's Memorandum Opinion of March 14, 1984, 588 F.Supp. 1513, shall be amended to indicate that the claims of Nola B. Whitley and B & W Grain, Inc. (¶ 19(II)(a)) may not be counted toward meeting the 100-plaintiff jurisdictional requirement of the Magnuson-Moss Act but without prejudice to Ms. Whitley's diversity jurisdictional claim; it is further
ORDERED that plaintiffs' Motion to Amend the Second Amended Complaint to Conform to the Record Already Developed (dated March 26, 1984), is denied; it is further
ORDERED that defendant's Motion for Reconsideration Regarding Classification of Further Plaintiffs in the Appendices to Memorandum Opinion (dated March 26, 1984) is granted, in part, to the extent that this Court's March 14 Memorandum Opinion shall be amended to indicate that the relevant District of Columbia statute of limitations concerning warranty claims, D.C.Code...
To continue reading
Request your trial
-
Kiper v. LA. STATE BD. OF ELEMENTARY EDUC., Civ. A. No. 81-204-A.
... ... Walker v. Ford Motor Co., 684 F.2d 1355, 1364 (11th Cir.1982). Punitive ... ...
-
Dewey v. Volkswagen Ag
...In re Ford Motor Co., 1999 WL 33495352 at *11 (citing Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F.Supp. 1513, 1522 (D.D.C.1984), as amended, 592 F.Supp. 1359 (D.D.C.1984) and 612 F.Supp. 983 Defendants do not address Plaintiffs' fraudulent concealment argument in the context of Plaintiffs' implied warra......
-
Stuessy v. Microsoft Corp.
...most of the Act's litigation into State courts." Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F.Supp. 1513, 1521 (D.D.C. 1984), as amended, 592 F.Supp. 1359 (D.D.C. 1984). Plaintiff agrees with defendant that the Magnuson-Moss Act creates a federal cause of action, but contends that it only permits federal......
-
Sernak v. Krenzen Cadillac, Inc., C7-87-326
...applies to actions based upon the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act. Walsh v. Ford Motor Co., 588 F.Supp. 1513, 1521 (D.C.1984), amended, 592 F.Supp. 1359 (D.C.1984). "A breach of warranty occurs when tender of delivery is made." Id. (quoting U.C.C. Sec. 2-725). Pursuant to Walsh, appellant's Magn......