Complaint,Petition: ISRAEL GARCIA-WOOD, ET AL. VS FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL.

On June 20, 2024 a Complaint,Petition was filed involving a dispute between Garcia-Wood Carlos Andres, Garcia-Wood Israel, and Ford Motor Company, Sunrise Ford Of North Hollywood, for Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence) (General Jurisdiction) in the District Court of Los Angeles County.

Preview
Tionna Carvalho (SBN 299010) Electronically FILED by
Email: tearvalho@slpattorney.com Superior Court of California,
County of Los Angeles
Sanam Vaziri (SBN 177384) 6/20/2024 10:46
Email: svaziri@slpattorney.com David W. Slayton,
Executive Officer/Clerk of Court,
(emailservices@slpattorney.com) By Y. Ayala, Deputy Clerk
Strategic Legal Practices, APC
1888 Century Park East, 19" Floor
Los Angeles, CA 90067
Telephone: (310) 929-4900
Facsimile: (310) 943-3838

Attorneys for Plaintiffs:
ISRAEL GARCIA-WOOD AND CARLOS ANDRES GARCIA-WOOD

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

10 COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

12 ISRAEL GARCIA-WOOD AND CARLOS Case No.: 245T C¥15391
ANDRES GARCIA-WOOD,
13 Hon.
14
Plaintiffs, Dept.

15 vs.
COMPLAINT FOR VIOLATION OF
16 FORD MOTOR COMPANY; SUNRISE FORD| STATUTORY OBLIGATIONS
OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD; and DOES 1
17 through 10, inclusive,
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
18
n Defendants.
19

COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Plaintiffs allege as follows:

PARTIES

1 As used in this Complaint, the word "Plaintiffs" shall refer to Plaintiffs ISRAEL

GARCIA-WOOD AND CARLOS ANDRES GARCIA-WOOD.

2 Plaintiffs are residents of Los Angeles County, California.

3 As used in this Complaint, the word "Defendants" shall refer to all Defendants

named in this Complaint.

4 Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY ("FMC") is a corporation organized and

in existence under the laws of the State of Delaware and registered with the California

10 Department of Corporations to conduct business in California. Defendant FMC's principal place

11 of business is in the State of Michigan. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was engaged in

12 the business of designing, manufacturing, constructing, assembling, marketing, distributing, and

13 selling automobiles and other motor vehicles and motor vehicle components in Los Angeles

14 County, California.

15 5 Defendant SUNRISE FORD OF NORTH HOLLYWOOD ("SUNRISE FORD")

16 is an unknown business entity organized and in existence under the laws of the State of

17 California. At all times relevant herein, Defendant was engaged in the business of selling

18 automobiles and automobile components, and servicing and repairing automobiles in Los
n
19 Angeles County, California.

20 6. Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of the Defendants sued

21 under the fictitious names DOES | to 10. They are sued pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure

22 section 474. When Plaintiffs become aware of the true names and capacities of the Defendants

23 sued as DOES 1 to 10, Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to state their true names and

24 capacities.

25 FACTUAL BACKGROUND
7
26 On or about August 6, 2022, Plaintiffs entered into a warranty contract with

27 Defendant FMC regarding a 2022 Ford F150, vehicle identification number

28 1FTFW1E81NFB36414 (hereafter "Vehicle"), which was manufactured and/or distributed by

1
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
Defendant FMC.

8 The warranty contract contained various warranties, including but not limited to

the bumper-bumper warranty, powertrain warranty, emission warranty, etc. A true and correct

copy of the warranty contract is attached hereto as Exhibit A. The terms of the express warranty

are described in Exhibit A and are incorporated herein.

9 Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (the "Act") Civil Code

sections 1790 et seq. the Subject Vehicle constitutes "consumer goods" used primarily for

family or household purposes, and Plaintiffs have used the vehicle primarily for those purposes.

Plaintiffs are "buyers" of consumer goods under the Act. Defendant FMC is a "manufacturer"

10 and/or "distributor" under the Act.

11 10. Plaintiffs justifiably revoke acceptance of the Subject Vehicle under Civil Code,

12 section 1794, et seq. by filing this Complaint and/or did so prior to filing the instant Complaint.

13 11. These causes of action arise out of the warranty obligations of FMC in connection

14 with a motor vehicle for which FMC issued a written warranty.

15 12. Defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within the

16 applicable express warranty period, including but not limited to, transmission defects, engine

17 defects, electrical defects, body defects; among other defects and non-conformities.

18 13. Said defects/nonconformities substantially impair the use, value, or safety of the
n
19 Vehicle.

20 14. The value of the Vehicle is worthless and/or de minimis.

21 15. Under the Song-Beverly Act, Defendant FMC had an affirmative duty to

22 promptly offer to repurchase or replace the Subject Vehicle at the time it failed to conform the

23 Subject Vehicle to the terms of the express warranty after a reasonable number of repair

24 attempts. !

26 ' A manufacturer's duty to repurchase a vehicle does not depend on a consumer's
request, but instead arises as soon as the manufacturer fails to comply with the warranty within
27 a reasonable time. (Krotin v. Porsche Cars North America, Inc. (1995) 38 Cal.App.4th 294,
301-302, 45 Cal.Rptr.2d 10.) Chrysler performed the bridge operation on Santana's vehicle in
28 August 2014 with 30,262 miles on the odometer—within the three-year, 36,000 mile warranty.
The internal e-mails demonstrating Chrysler's awareness of the safety risks inherent in the
bridge operation were sent in September 2013, and thus Chrysler was well aware of the problem
when it performed the bridge operation on Santana's vehicle. Thus, Chrysler's duty to repurchase
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
16. Defendant FMC has failed to either promptly replace the Subject Vehicle or to

promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly Act.

17. Under the Act, Plaintiffs are entitled to reimbursement of the price paid for the

vehicle less that amount directly attributable to use by the Plaintiffs prior to the first presentation

to an authorized repair facility for a nonconformity.

18. Plaintiffs are entitled to replacement or reimbursement pursuant to Civil Code,

section 1794, et seq. Plaintiffs are entitled to rescission of the contract pursuant to Civil Code,

section 1794, et seq.

19. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover any "cover" damages under Civil Code, section

10 1794, et seq.

11 20. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover all incidental and consequential damages

12 pursuant to Civil Code, section 1794 et seq.

13 21. Plaintiffs suffered damages in a sum to be proven at trial in an amount that is not

14 less than $35,001.00.

15 22. Plaintiffs are entitled to all incidental, consequential, and general damages

16 resulting from Defendant's failure to comply with its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act.

17 TOLLING OF THE STATUTES OF LIMITATION

18 23. To the extent there are any statutes of limitation applicable to Plaintiffs' claims-
n
19 including, without limitation, the express warranty, implied warranty, and negligent repair — the

20 running of the limitation periods have been tolled by, inter alia, the following doctrines or rules:

21 equitable tolling, the discovery rule, the fraudulent concealment rules, equitable estoppel, the

22 repair rule, and/or class action tolling (e.g., the American Pipe rule).

23
24. Plaintiffs discovered Defendant's wrongful conduct alleged herein shortly before
24

25
or provide restitution arose prior to the expiration of the three-year, 36,000 mile warranty.
26 Moreover, although we do not have the actual five-year, 100,000 mile power train warranty in
our record, Santana's expert testified that the no-start/stalling issues Santana experienced were
27 within the scope of the power train warranty, which was still active when Santana requested
repurchase in approximately January 2016, at 44,467 miles. Thus the premise of Chrysler's
28 argument—that Santana's request for repurchase was outside the relevant warranty—is not only
irrelevant, but wrong." Santana v. FCA US, LLC, 56 Cal. App. 5th 334, 270 Cal. Rptr. 3d 335
(2020).
3
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
the filing of the complaint, as the Vehicle continued to exhibit symptoms of defects following

FMC's unsuccessful attempts to repair them. However, FMC failed to provide restitution

pursuant to the Song — Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

A. Class Action Tolling

25. Under the tolling rule articulated in Am. Pipe & Const. Co. v. Utah, 414 U.S. 538,

94 S. Ct. 756, 38 L. Ed. 2d 713 (1974) (“American Pipe”), the filing of a class action lawsuit in

federal court tolls the statute of limitations for the claims of unnamed class members until the

class certification issue is resolved. In applying American Pipe tolling to California cases, the

California Supreme Court summarized the tolling rule derived from American Pipe and stated

10 that the statute of limitations is tolled from the time of commencement of the suit to the time of

11 denial of certification for all purported members of the class. Jolly v. Eli Lilly & Co., 44 Cal.3d

12 1103, 1119 (1988). Tolling lasts from the day a class claim is asserted until the day the suit is

13 conclusively not a class action. Falk v. Children's Hosp. Los Angeles, 237 Cal. App. 4th 1454,

14 1464 (2015).
15 26. The tolling of Plaintiffs’ individual statute of limitations encourages the protection

16 of efficiency and economy in litigation as promoted by the class action devise, so that putative

17 class members would not find it necessary to seek to intervene or to join individually because of

18 fear the class might never be certified or putative class members may subsequently seek to request
n
19 exclusion.

20 B Discovery Rule Tolling

21 27. Plaintiffs had no way of knowing about Defendant’s deception with respect to

22 the defect until the defect manifested itself and Defendant was unable to repair it after a

23 reasonable number of repair attempts.

24 28. Within the time period of any applicable statutes of limitation, Plaintiffs could

25 not have discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence that Defendant were

26 concealing the defect and conduct complained of herein and concealing the companies’ true

27 position with respect to the defect.

4
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
29. Defendant was under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiffs the true character,

quality, and nature of the Vehicles suffering from the defect, and the inevitable repairs, costs,

time, and monetary damage resulting from the defects.

30. Plaintiffs did not discover, and did not know of, facts that would have caused a

reasonable person to suspect that Defendants had concealed information about the defect in

Defendants’ Vehicles prior to and at the time of sale and thereafter, which was discovered by

Plaintiffs shortly prior to the filing of this Complaint.

C. The Repair Doctrine

31. The statute of limitations is tolled by various unsuccessful attempts to repair the

10 vehicle.”
11 32. Additionally, the limitations period for warranty claims is tolled against a

12 defendant whenever that defendant claims that the defect is susceptible to repair and attempts

13 to repair the defect.>

14 33. Here, Defendant (and its dealership) undertook to perform various repair

15 measures. During the time in which Defendant represented to Plaintiffs that the Subject Vehicle

16 was fixable and attempted to fix it, the warranty period may have thus been tolled.

17 D. Fraudulent Concealment Tolling (Estoppel)

18 34. Separately, the statute of limitations is equitably tolled due to Defendant’s
n
19 fraudulent conduct alleged herein.*

21 ? See Aced v. Hobbs—Sesack Plumbing Co., 55 Cal.2d 573, 585 (1961) (“The statute of limitations is tolled
where one who has breached a warranty claims that the defect can be repaired and attempts to make repairs.”) and
22 A&B Painting & Drywall, Inc. v. Sup. Ct., 25 Cal.App.4th 349, 355 (2002) (“Tolling during a period of repairs
rests upon the same basis as does an estoppel to assert the statute of limitations, i.e., reliance by the plaintiff upon
23 the words or actions of the defendant that repairs will be made.”).

24 “Tolling during a period of repairs generally rests upon the same legal basis as does an estoppel to assert
the statute of limitations, i.e., reliance by the plaintiff on the words or actions of the defendant that repairs will be
25 made.” Cardinal Health 301, Inc. v. Tyco Electronics Corp., 169 Cal.App.4th 116, 133-134 (2008).
26 4 Silence, when there is a duty to speak, may be the basis for equitable estoppel. See Dettamanti v.
Lompoc Union High School Dist. of Santa Barbra County, 143 Cal. App. 2d 715, 720 (1956) (“The basis for an
27 estoppel may be found in the failure of the party sought to be estopped to speak when he is under a duty to speak
as well as in his speaking falsely and in a manner which tends to deceive.”). Estoppel to plead the statute of
28 limitations is a well-accepted doctrine under California law. See 3 Witkin Cal. Proc. 4th § 693 at 885 (“‘[T]he
fraudulent concealment by the defendant of the facts upon which the existence of which the cause of action depends
tolls the statute,’ and that the statute does not begin to runsuntil discovery . .
o” (quoting Kimball v. Pacific Gas

COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
35. Defendant (and its agents, representatives, officers, directors, employees,

affiliates, and/or dealerships) concealed the defects, minimized the scope, cause, and dangers

of the defects with inadequate TSBs and/or Recalls, and refused to investigate, address, and

remedy the defects as it pertains to all affected vehicles as set forth herein.

36. Furthermore, Defendant’s fraudulent concealment was ongoing. Defendant

blamed the symptoms of the defects on other issues and not the actual defect itself and purported

to be able to repair.

37. Based on the foregoing, Defendant is estopped from relying on any statutes of

limitation in defense of this action.

10 38. By filing this Complaint, Plaintiffs hereby revoke acceptance of the Subject

11 Vehicle yet again.

12 Defendant FMC Had Superior and/or Exclusive Knowledge of the Transmission Defect

13 39. Prior to Plaintiffs purchasing the Vehicle, Defendant FMC knew that vehicles

14 equipped with the same 10-speed transmission as the Vehicle suffered from one or more defects

15 that can cause the vehicles and their 10-speed transmissions to experience hesitation and/or

16 delayed acceleration; harsh and/or hard shifting; jerking, shuddering, and/or juddering

17 ("Transmission Defect").

18 40. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereon allege, that Defendant acquired
n
19 this knowledge prior to Plaintiffs purchasing the Vehicle through various sources of information,

20 including but not limited to pre-production testing, pre-production design failure mode and

21 analysis data, production failure mode and analysis data, early consumer complaints made

22 exclusively to Ford's network of dealers and directly to Ford, aggregate warranty data compiled

23 from Ford's network of dealers, testing conducted by Ford in response to consumer complaints,

24 and repair order and parts data received by Ford from Ford's network of dealers.

25 Al. As a result of this internal knowledge and investigations, Defendant FMC

26 subsequently issued technical service bulletins ("TSBs") concerning the Transmission Defect.

27 42. For example, on or about March 2, 2018, Defendant FMC issued TSB 18-2079,

28
& Elec. Co.,220 Cal. 203, 215 (1934)).
6
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
entitled "10R80 Automatic Transmission — Harsh or Delayed Shift Concerns And/Or

Illuminated MIL — DTC P0711 — Built On or Before 1-Aug-2017," which covers 2017 F-150

vehicles equipped with a 10R80 automatic transmission (the same type of transmission in the

Subject Vehicle). According to the TSB, "[s]ome 2017 F-150/Raptor vehicles equipped with a

10R80 automatic transmission built on or before 1-Aug-2017 may exhibit harsh or delayed

shifts and/or an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) with diagnostic trouble code

(DTC) P0711 stored in the transmission control module (TCM)."

TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 18-2079
10R80 Automatic Transmission — Harsh Or Delayed Shift Concerns 02 March
And/Or Illuminated MIL - DTC P0711 - Built On Or Before 1-Aug-2017 2018
10
Model:
11
om . Ford
2017 F-150
12
Issue: Some 2017 F-150/Raptor vehicles equipped with a 10R80 automatic transmission built on or before 1-
13 Aug-2017 may exhibit harsh or delayed shifts and/or an illuminated malfunction indicator lamp (MIL) with
diagnostic trouble code (DTC) P0711 stored in the transmission control module (TCM).
14 Action: Reprogram the powertrain control module (PCM) using Integrated Diagnostic System (IDS) or Ford
J2534 Diagnostic Software (FJDS) release 108.04 or higher. Make sure you are connected to the internet when
entering module programming to obtain the latest updates. Calibration files may also be obtained at
15 jice.com.
Warranty Status: Eligible Under Provisions Of New Vehicle Limited Warranty Coverage And Emissions
16 Warranty Coverage Warranty/ESP coverage limits/policies/prior approvals are not altered by a TSB.
S Warranty/ESP coverage limits are determined by the identified causal part and verified using the OASIS part
17 coverage tool.
Labor Times
18
Operation Time
Description
No.
19
2017 F-150 3.5L GTDI: Retrieve DTCs And Reprogram The PCM (Do Not Use With 182079A 03
Any Other Labor Operations) Hrs.
20
Repair/Claim Coding
21 Causal Part: RECALEM
‘Condition Code: | 04
22
Service Procedure
23
NOTE: ADVISE THE CUSTOMER THAT THIS VEHICLE IS EQUIPPED WITH AN ADAPTIVE TRANSMISSION
SHIFT STRATEGY WHICH ALLOWS THE VEHICLE'S COMPUTER TO LEARN THE TRANSMISSION'S.
24 UNIQUE PARAMETERS AND IMPROVE SHIFT QUALITY. WHEN THE ADAPTIVE STRATEGY IS RESET,
THE COMPUTER WILL BEGIN A RE-LEARNING PROCESS. THIS RE-LEARNING PROCESS MAY RESULT
25 IN FIRMER THAN NORMAL UPSHIFTS AND DOWNSHIFTS FOR SEVERAL DAYS.

26 43. In TSB 18-2079, Defendant FMC attributed the transmission issues to problems

27 with the vehicles’ powertrain control module ("PCM")—specifically, to problems with the

28 vehicles' mn adaptive transmission shift strategy which allows the vehicle's computer to learn the

COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
transmission's unique parameters and improve shift quality."

44. Then, on or about September 7, 2018, Defendant FMC issued TSB 18-2274,

entitled "2.7L/3.5L/5.0L Engine And 10R80 Transmission - Harsh/Bumpy Shift And/Or

Engagement Concems - Built On Or Before 15-May-2018[,]" which covers 2018 F-150

vehicles. According to the TSB, "[s]ome 2018 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 2.7L, 3.5L or

5.0L engine and 10R80 automatic transmission and built on or before 15-May 2018 may exhibit

harsh/bumpy upshift, downshift and/or engagement concerns. Follow the Service Procedure

steps to correct the condition."

TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN 18-2274
2.7L/3.5L/5.0L Engine And 10R80 Transmission - Harsh/Bumpy Shift 07 September
10 2018
And/Or Engagement Concerns - Built On Or Before 15-May-2018
11
om .
Model:
12
Ford
2018 F-150
13
Issue: Some 2018 F-150 vehicles equipped with a 2.7L, 3.5L or 5.0L engine and 10R80 automatic transmission and
14 built on or before 15-May 2018 may exhibit harsh/bumpy upshift, downshift and/or engagement concems.
Action: Follow the Service Procedure steps to correct the condition.
15 Warranty Status: Eligible Under Provisions Of New Vehicle Limited Warranty Coverage Warranty/ESP coverage
limits/policies/prior approvals are not altered by a TSB. Warranty/ESP coverage limits are determined by the
16 identified causal part and verified using the OASIS part coverage tool.
S Labor Times
17 Operation
Description Time

18 2018 F-150 2.7L/3.5L/5.0L: Reprogram The PCM (Do Not Use With Any Other Labor 182274A 03
Operations) Hrs.
19 Repair/Claim Coding
Causal Part: RECAL
20
Condition Code: | 04

21
Service Procedure
22 1. Check the vehicle build date. Was the vehicle built on or before 15-May-2018?
(1); Yes - reprogram the powertrain control module (PCM) using the latest version of the appropriate Ford scan
23
+ NOTE: ADVISE THE CUSTOMER THAT THIS VEHICLE IS EQUIPPED WITH AN ADAPTIVE TRANSMISSION SHIFT
24 STRATEGY WHICH ALLOWS THE VEHICLE'S COMPUTER TO LEARN THE TRANSMISSION'S UNIQUE PARAMETERS
AND IMPROVE SHIFT QUALITY. WHEN THE ADAPTIVE STRATEGY IS RESET, THE COMPUTER WILL BEGIN A RE-
LEARNING PROCESS. THIS RE-LEARNING PROCESS MAY RESULT IN FIRMER THAN NORMAL UPSHIFTS AND.
25 DOWNSHIFTS FOR SEVERAL DA\
(2). No - this article does not apply. Refer to Workshop Manual (WSM), Section 307-01 for normal diagnostics.
26

27 45. Like TSB 18-2079, TSB 18-02274 attributed the transmission issues to problems

28 with the vehicles' PCM—specifically, to problems with the vehicles 0 adaptive transmission

8
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
shift strategy which allows the vehicle's computer to learn the transmission's unique parameters

and improve shift quality."

46. Then, on September 27, 2021, Defendant issued TSB 21-2315, entitled "10R80

— Harsh Engagement/Harsh Shift/Delayed Shift With or Without DTCs", which covers 2017 —

2020 Ford vehicles, including the Subject Vehicle. The TSB advised that "Some 2017-20220

F-150 vehicles equipped with a 10R80 automatic transmission may exhibit a harsh

engagement/harsh shift/delayed shift...This may be due to incompatibility of the adaptive

calibration to adapt to hardware wear-in over time. To correct the condition, follow the Service

Procedure steps to overhaul the main control valve body and/or perform an adaptive learning

10 drive cycle."

11
10R80 - Harsh Engagement/Harsh Shift/Delayed Shift With Or Without DTCs
Vericle } Technical Service Bulletins > 10R80--Hersh Engagement/Harsh Shif/Delayed Shift With Or Without DTCs
12

13
TECHNICAL SERVICE BULLETIN naa
‘10780 - Harsh Engagement/Harsh Shift/Delayed Shift With Or Without DTCs 27 September 2021
14
Model
15 ransmission/Transahle TORSO]
Expedition]
or 150 [ransmission/Transal oa
16 01 wustangfransn SionvTraNsa ToR&0)
01 21 Ranger ransmission/Transaal ToRa0]
ine ransmission/Transazl TORO]
018-2021 Navigator
17
Issue: Some 2017-2020 F-150, 2018-2021 Expecition/Navigator/Mustang and 2018-2021 Ranger ver oped with a somatic wan n may exnibit a n engagemeni/naish shift/deayea si
venicle ve aniluminated mafu stot lamp (MIL) of ciagnostic trouale cot (00) Pr 1752, POTS, P0761, PO762, PO7E6, PO767, PC’
18 2704, PZTOE Pz 29, POT 2, 0734, PAT35, 2 6 PO: 0709, PO7ES and/or PO7ET stored in the powertrain control module (PCM) or cont edule
WTF sy De due to in patty adaptive ration apt (0 Nara Hin over time. TD cortect the condition follow the Service Procedure steps To overaul the jl valve body
or pear
an edeptive leasing divece
19 ‘Action: Fallow the S ice Procedure steps to correct the condition on vehicles
that meet allofthe following criteria:
+ One of the following vehicles:
20
2017-2020 F-150
= 2018-2021 Expedition/Navigator/Mustang
21 - 2019-2021 Ranger
+ 10880 automatic transmission
22 + At least one of the following symptoms:
- Harsh engagement
23 Harsh shift
~ Delayed shift
24 [NOTE: Part quantity refers to the numberof that service part number requited which may be different than the number of individual pleces. Service part numbers contain 1 piece unless otherwise stated. “AS
Needed" indicates the partis required but the number may vary oris not a whole number; parts can be billed cut as non-whole numbers, including less than 1. if Needed” indicates the partis not mandatory.
25 47. Like TSBs 18-2079 and 18-02274, TSB 21-2315 attributed the transmission

26 issues to similar "adaptive calibration" shift learning issues and the 10-speed Transmission.

27 48. However, they fail to fix the transmission defects which affects the subject

28 vehicle.

9
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
49. Plaintiffs would not have purchased the Subject Vehicle, or would have paid less

for it, had Plaintiffs known of the Transmission Defect, given the unsafe nature of the Defect.

Furthermore, Plaintiffs unknowingly exposed themselves to the risk of accident, injury, and/or

liability to others as a result of the nature or the Transmission Defect, which can lead to

hesitation, loss of power, and other shifting issues while driving at highway speeds. Plaintiffs

are reasonable consumers who expected the Subject Vehicle to be safe and free of defects, and

that Defendant FMC would not sell or lease vehicles with known safety-related defects, such as

the Transmission Defect, and would disclose any such defects to its consumers when it learns

of them.

10 50. Although it has been fully aware of the Transmission Defect, Defendant FMC

11 actively concealed the existence and nature of the Defect from Plaintiffs at the time of purchase,

12 repair, and thereafter.

13 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

14 BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT FMC

15 VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (D) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.2

16 S51. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set

17 forth above.

18 §2. Defendant FMC and its representatives in this state have been unable to service
n
19 or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties after a reasonable number

20 of opportunities. Despite this fact, Defendant FMC failed to promptly replace the Vehicle or

21 make restitution to Plaintiffs as required by Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) and Civil

22 Code section 1793.1, subdivision (a)(2).

23 53. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its

24 obligations pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (d) and Civil Code section

25 1793.1, subdivision (a)(2), and therefore bring this cause of action pursuant to Civil Code

26 section 1794.

27 54. Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

28 1793.2, subdivision (d) was willful, in that Defendant FMC and its representative were aware

10
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
that they were unable to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express

warranties after a reasonable number of repair attempts, yet Defendant FMC failed and refused

to promptly replace the Vehicle or make restitution. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a

civil penalty of two times Plaintiffs' actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794,

subdivision (c).

55. Defendant FMC does not maintain a qualified third-party dispute resolution

process which substantially complies with Civil Code section 1793.22. Accordingly, Plaintiffs

are entitled to a civil penalty of two times Plaintiffs' actual damages pursuant to Civil Code

section 1794, subdivision (e).

10 56. Plaintiffs seek civil penalties pursuant to Civil Code, section 1794, subdivisions

11 (c), and (e) in the alternative and does not seek to cumulate civil penalties, as provided in Civil

12 Code section 1794, subdivision (e).

13 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

14 BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT FMC

15 VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (B) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.2

16 57. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set

17 forth above.

18 58. Although Plaintiffs presented the Vehicle to Defendant FMC's representative in
n
19 this state, Defendant FMC and its representative failed to commence the service or repairs

20 within a reasonable time and failed to service or repair the Vehicle so as to conform to the

21 applicable warranties within 30 days, in violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (b).

22 Plaintiffs did not extend the time for completion of repairs beyond the 30-day requirement.

23 59. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its

24 obligations pursuant to Civil Code section 1793.2(b), and therefore bring this Cause of Action

25 pursuant to Civil Code section 1794.

26 60. Plaintiffs have rightfully rejected and/or justifiably revoked acceptance of the

27 Vehicle, and has exercised a right to cancel the purchase. By serving this Complaint, Plaintiffs

28 do so again. Accordingly, Plaintiffs seek the remedies provided in California Civil Code section

ll
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
1794(b)(1), including the entire contract price. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek the remedies

set forth in California Civil Code section 1794(b)(2), including the diminution in value of the

Vehicle resulting from its defects. Plaintiffs believe that, at the present time, the Vehicle's value

is de minimis.

61. Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

1793.2(b) was willful, in that Defendant FMC and its representative were aware that they were

obligated to service or repair the Vehicle to conform to the applicable express warranties within

30 days, yet they failed to do so. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil penalty of two

times Plaintiffs' actual damages pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

10 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

11 BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT FMC

12 VIOLATION OF SUBDIVISION (A)(3) OF CIVIL CODE SECTION 1793.2

13 62. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in paragraphs set

14 forth above.

15 63. In violation of Civil Code section 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3), Defendant FMC

16 failed to make available to its authorized service and repair facilities sufficient service literature

17 and replacement parts to effect repairs during the express warranty period. Plaintiffs have been

18 damaged by Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its obligations pursuant to Civil Code
n
19 section 1793.2(a)(3), and therefore bring this Cause of Action pursuant to Civil Code section

20 1794.

21 64. Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its obligations under Civil Code section

22 1793.2, subdivision (a)(3) was wilful, in that Defendant FMC knew of its obligation to provide

23 literature and replacement parts sufficient to allow its repair facilities to effect repairs during

24 the warranty period, yet Defendant FMC failed to take any action to correct its failure to comply

25 with the law. Accordingly, Plaintiffs are entitled to a civil penalty of two times Plaintiffs’ actual

26 damages, pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(c).

27 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

28 BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT FMC

12
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY

(CIV. CODE, § 1791.1; § 1794; § 1795.5)
65. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set

forth above.

66. Pursuant to Civil Code section 1792, the sale of the Vehicle was accompanied

by Defendant FMC's implied warranty of merchantability. Pursuant to Civil Code section

1791.1, the duration of the implied warranty is coextensive in duration with the duration of the

express written warranty provided by Defendant FMC, except that the duration is not to exceed

one-year.
10 67. Pursuant to Civil Code section 1791.1 (a), the implied warranty of

11 merchantability means and includes that the Vehicle will comply with each of the following

12 requirements: (1) The Vehicle will pass without objection in the trade under the contract

13 description; (2) The Vehicle is fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used; (3)

14 The Vehicle is adequately contained, packaged, and labelled; (4) The Vehicle will conform to

15 the promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label.

16 68. The subject vehicle was sold with one or more latent defect(s) set forth above.

17 The existence of the said latent defect(s)constitutes a breach of the implied warranty because

18 the Vehicle (1) does not pass without objection in the trade under the contract description, (2)
n
19 is not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, (3) is not adequately

20 contained, packaged, and labelled, and (4) does not conform to the promises or affirmations of

21 fact made on the container or label.

22 69. Plaintiffs have been damaged by Defendant FMC's failure to comply with its

23 obligations under the implied warranty, and therefore bring this Cause of Action pursuant to

24 Civil Code section 1794.

25 FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

26 BY PLAINTIFFS AGAINST DEFENDANT FMC

27 (Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment)

28 70. Plaintiffs incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the paragraphs set

13
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
forth above.

71. Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle as manufactured with Defendant's 10-Speed

automatic transmission.

72. Defendant FMC committed fraud by allowing the Subject Vehicle to be sold to

Plaintiffs without disclosing that the Subject Vehicle and its transmission was defective and

susceptible to sudden and premature failure.

23. In particular, the Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that prior to

Plaintiffs acquiring the Vehicle, FMC was well aware and knew that the transmission installed in

the Vehicle was defective but failed to disclose this fact to the Plaintiffs at the time of the sale and

10 thereafter.

11 74. Specifically, Defendant FMC knew that vehicles equipped with the same 10-speed

12 transmission as the Vehicle suffered from one or more defects that can cause the vehicles and

13 their 10-speed transmissions to experience hesitation and/or delayed acceleration; harsh and/or

14 hard shifting; jerking, shuddering, and/or juddering ("Transmission Defect"). These conditions

15 present a safety hazard and are unreasonably dangerous to consumers because they can suddenly

16 and unexpectedly affect the driver's ability to control the vehicle's speed, acceleration,

17 deceleration, and/ or overall responsiveness ofthe vehicle in various driving conditions.

18 75. Plaintiffs are informed, believe and thereon allege that FMC acquired its
n
19 knowledge of the Transmission Defect prior to Plaintiffs acquiring the Subject Vehicle, through

20 sources not available to consumers such as Plaintiffs, including but not limited to pre-production

21 and post-production testing data, early consumer complaints about the transmission defect made

22 directly to FMC and its network of dealers, aggregate warranty data compiled from FMC's

23 network of dealers, testing conducted by FMC in response to these complaints, as well warranty

24 repair and part replacements data received by FMC from FMC's network of dealers, amongst

25 other sources of internal information.

26 76. Plaintiffs are informed, believe, and thereon allege that while Defendant knew

27 about the Transmission Defect, and its safety risks, Defendant nevertheless concealed and failed

28 to disclose the defective nature of the Vehicle and its transmission to Plaintiffs at the time of sale,

14
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
repair, and thereafter. Had Plaintiffs known that the Subject Vehicle suffered from the

Transmission Defect, they would not have purchased the Subject Vehicle.

77. Indeed, Plaintiffs allege that Defendant knew that the Vehicle and its transmission

suffered from an inherent defect, was defective, would fail prematurely, and was not suitable for

its intended use.

78. Defendant FMC was under a duty to Plaintiffs to disclose the defective nature of

the Subject Vehicle and its transmission, its safety consequences and/or the associated repair costs

because:

a. Defendant FMC acquired its knowledge of the Transmission

10 Defect and its potential consequences prior to Plaintiffs acquiring the Vehicle,

11 through sources not available to consumers such as Plaintiffs, including but not

12 limited to pre-production testing data, early consumer complaints about the

13 Transmission Defect made directly to Defendant FMC and its network of dealers,

14 aggregate warranty data compiled from Defendant FMC's network of dealers,

15 testing conducted by Defendant FMC in response to these complaints, as well as

16 warranty repair and part replacements data received by Defendant FMC from

17 Defendant FMC's network of dealers, amongst other sources of internal

18 information;
n
19 b. Defendant FMC was in a superior position from various internal

20 sources to know (or should have known) the true state of facts about the material

21 defects contained in vehicle equipped with the defective transmission; and;

22 Cc As early as January 2018, Consumers who purchased vehicles

23 equipped with Ford's 10-speed transmission have been complaining about the

24 transmission defect; and

25 d Plaintiffs could not reasonably have been expected to learn or

26 discover of the Vehicle's Transmission Defect and its potential consequences

27 until well after Plaintiffs purchased the Vehicle.

28 79. In failing to disclose the defects in the Vehicle's transmission, Defendant FMC has

15
COMPLAINT; JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
knowingly and intentionally concealed material facts and breached its duty not to do so.

80. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendant FMC to Plaintiffs are material

in that a reasonable person would have considered them to be important in deciding whether or

not to purchase the Subject Vehicle. Had Plaintiffs known that the Subject Vehicle and its

transmissions were defective at the time of sale, they would not have purchased the Subject

Vehicle.

Case Info

Judge

Bruce G. Iwasaki Track Judge’s New Case

Case No.

(Subscribe to View)

Document Filed Date

June 20, 2024

Case Filing Date

June 20, 2024

County

Parties

For full print and download access, please subscribe at https://www.trellis.law/.