Search

Attributes

This case was last updated from PACER on 06/06/2021 at 08:28:19 (UTC).

Cunningham et al v. Ford Motor Company

Case Summary

On April 07, 2021, William Cunningham and Tri-State Collision, LLC (“Plaintiffs”), individually and on behalf of the other members of the nationwide and statewide classes seek to represent (collectively, the “Class”), represented by Dennis A. Lienhardt, E. Powell Miller and Sharon S. Almonrode of The Miller Law Firm, P.C., filed a class action product liability lawsuit against Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”), seeking restitution, actual and statutory damages for allegedly selling defective tailgates. This case was filed in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of Michigan with Judges Kimberly G. Altman and Matthew F. Leitman presiding. 

 

Class definition: “Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated. Plaintiffs seek to represent a Nationwide Class (“Nationwide Class”), Tri State Collision, LLC, also seek to represent an Alabama statewide class (“Alabama Class”), and Georgia statewide class (“Georgia Class”)”.

 

In their complaint, the Plaintiffs alleged that, “the plaintiffs and other class members purchased leased one or more model year 2017-2021 Ford F-250, F-350, and F-450 Super Duty vehicles equipped with an electronic tailgate latch release switch (the “Class Vehicles”). The Class Vehicles are Ford’s “Super Duty” pickup trucks that are marketed and used for hauling and towing heavy cargo and equipment. Under normal operation, tailgate latches retract only after the operator engages the tailgate latch release switch. This act opens the tailgate. The tailgate system in the Class Vehicles, however, is defective because the tailgates unintentionally open, including while the vehicle is in motion (“Tailgate Defect”)”.

 

The Plaintiffs further alleged that, “The Tailgate Defect presents a serious risk of harm to occupants and others sharing the road. First, the Tailgate Defect can result in loss of unrestrained cargo, increasing the risk of injury or crash. Second, the Tailgate Defect can cause the tailgate to release and contact towed trailers, damaging both the tailgate and trailer. Third, the Tailgate Defect can reduce the clearance between the Class Vehicle and a towed trailer, limiting the vehicle’s range of mobility and increasing the risk of injury or crash. Class Vehicles do not provide any warning sounds or have any other method of alerting drivers when there is an unintentional opening of the tailgate. The electronic tailgate system is not disabled when the vehicle is in gear. The Tailgate Defect jeopardizes Plaintiffs’ and the other Class members’ safe operation of their Class Vehicles, exposing them and other drivers on the road to the risk of serious injury and even death.”



There are multiple claims laid down by Plaintiffs, including alleged unjust enrichment, alleged fraudulent omission, alleged breach of implied warranty of merchantability ga. stat. ann. §§ 84-2-314 and 84-2a-212, alleged breach of express warranty ga. code ann. §§ 11-2-313 and 11-2a-210, alleged violations of Georgia's uniform deceptive trade practices act, ga. code ann. § 10-1-370 et seq., and alleged violations of Georgia's fair business practices act ga. stat. ann. §§ 10-1-390, et seq., 

 

In their prayer for relief, the Plaintiffs have requested the court to certify this action as class action, order Ford to pay actual and statutory damages (including punitive damages) and restitution to Plaintiff and the other Class members, order all necessary and proper equitable relief against Ford, including enjoining Ford from continuing the unfair business practices alleged in this Complaint and order disgorgement of all profits obtained by Ford, to pay both prejudgment and post-judgement interest, and grant such additional relief as the Court deems just and proper.

 

This case summary may not reflect the current position of the parties to this litigation or the status of this case. Sign up to view the latest case updates and court documents.



Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    4:21-CV-10781

  • Filing Date:

    04/07/2021

  • Case Status:

    Pending - Other Pending

  • Case Type:

    Contract - Product Liability

  • Court:

    U.S. District Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Michigan Eastern District

Judge Details

Referral Judge

Kimberly G. Altman

Presiding Judge

Matthew F. Leitman

 

Party Details

Plaintiffs

Tri-State Collision, LLC

William Cunningham

Defendant

Ford Motor Company

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

E. Powell Miller

Attorney at The Miller Law Firm

950 W. University Drive, Suite 300

Rochester, MI 48307

Dennis A. Lienhardt

Attorney at The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

950 W. University Drive, Suite 300

Rochester, MI 48307

Sharon S. Almonrode

Attorney at The Miller Law Firm, P.C.

950 West University Drive, Suite 300

Rochester, MI 48307

James Mitchell Williams

Attorney at Beasley, Allen, Crow, Methvin, Portis & Miles P.C>

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

W. Daniel Miles, III

Attorney at BEASLEY ALLEN CROW METHVIN PORTIS & MILES PC

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

H. Clay Barnett, III

Attorney at Beasley Allen Law Firm

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, AL 36104

Defendant Attorney

Sunny Rehsi

Attorney at Bowman and Brooke LLP

41000 Woodward Avenue, Suite 200

Bloomfield, MI 48304

 

Court Documents

#10

(#10) STIPULATED ORDER Extending Deadline for Responsive Pleading re #1 Complaint. Response due by 6/15/2021. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

#9

(#9) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Sunny Rehsi appearing on behalf of Ford Motor Company (Rehsi, Sunny) (Entered: 04/26/2021)

1 #15

Exhibit N - Ford US Super Duty 2016

1 #14

Exhibit M - Ford US Super Duty 2014

1 #13

Exhibit L - Ford US Super Duty 2012

1 #12

Exhibit K - Ford US Super Duty 2010

1 #11

Exhibit J - 2020 Super Duty

1 #10

Exhibit I - 2019 F-350 Super Duty

1 #9

Exhibit H - 2018 F-250 Super Duty

1 #8

Exhibit G - 2017 Super Duty

1 #7

Exhibit F - NHTSAs PE 18-011 Closing Resume

1 #6

Exhibit E - NHTSAs RQ 21-001 Opening Resume

1 #5

Exhibit D - Recall Chronology

1 #4

Exhibit C - December 4, 2019 Part 573 Safety Recall Report

1 #3

Exhibit B - NHTSAs PE 18-011 Opening Resume

1 #2

Exhibit A - Technical Service Bulletin October 16, 2017

1 #1

Index of Exhibits

#1

(#1) COMPLAINT Class Action Complaint and Jury Trial Demanded filed by All Plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-8416976 - Fee: $ 402. County of 1st Plaintiff: Out of State - County Where Action Arose: Wayne - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit A - Technical Service Bulletin October 16, 2017, #3 Exhibit B - NHTSAs PE 18-011 Opening Resume, #4 Exhibit C - December 4, 2019 Part 573 Safety Recall Report, #5 Exhibit D - Recall Chronology, #6 Exhibit E - NHTSAs RQ 21-001 Opening Resume, #7 Exhibit F - NHTSAs PE 18-011 Closing Resume, #8 Exhibit G - 2017 Super Duty, #9 Exhibit H - 2018 F-250 Super Duty, #10 Exhibit I - 2019 F-350 Super Duty, #11 Exhibit J - 2020 Super Duty, #12 Exhibit K - Ford US Super Duty 2010, #13 Exhibit L - Ford US Super Duty 2012, #14 Exhibit M - Ford US Super Duty 2014, #15 Exhibit N - Ford US Super Duty 2016) (Miller, E.) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

14 More Documents Available
View All Documents

 

Docket Entries

  • 04/27/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#10) STIPULATED ORDER Extending Deadline for Responsive Pleading re #1 Complaint. Response due by 6/15/2021. Signed by District Judge Matthew F. Leitman. (HMon) (Entered: 04/27/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/26/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#9) ATTORNEY APPEARANCE: Sunny Rehsi appearing on behalf of Ford Motor Company (Rehsi, Sunny) (Entered: 04/26/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/22/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#8) CERTIFICATE of Service/Summons Returned Executed. Ford Motor Company served on 4/16/2021, answer due 5/7/2021. (Miller, E.) (Entered: 04/22/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#7) NOTICE of Appearance by W. Daniel Miles, III on behalf of William Cunningham, Tri-State Collision, LLC. (Miles, W.) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#6) NOTICE of Appearance by James Mitchell Williams on behalf of William Cunningham, Tri-State Collision, LLC. (Williams, James) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#5) NOTICE of Appearance by H. Clay Barnett, III on behalf of William Cunningham, Tri-State Collision, LLC. (Barnett, H.) (Entered: 04/19/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • DocketA United States Magistrate Judge of this Court is available to conduct all proceedings in this civil action in accordance with 28 U.S.C. 636c and FRCP 73. The Notice, Consent, and Reference of a Civil Action to a Magistrate Judge form is available for download at #http://www.mied.uscourts.gov (DAll) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/09/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#4) SUMMONS Issued for *Ford Motor Company* (DAll) (Entered: 04/09/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#3) NOTICE of Appearance by Dennis A. Lienhardt on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Lienhardt, Dennis) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#2) NOTICE of Appearance by Sharon S. Almonrode on behalf of All Plaintiffs. (Almonrode, Sharon) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/07/2021
  • View Court Documents
  • Docket(#1) COMPLAINT Class Action Complaint and Jury Trial Demanded filed by All Plaintiffs against Ford Motor Company with Jury Demand. Plaintiff requests summons issued. Receipt No: AMIEDC-8416976 - Fee: $ 402. County of 1st Plaintiff: Out of State - County Where Action Arose: Wayne - County of 1st Defendant: Wayne. [Previously dismissed case: No] [Possible companion case(s): None] (Attachments: #1 Index of Exhibits, #2 Exhibit A - Technical Service Bulletin October 16, 2017, #3 Exhibit B - NHTSAs PE 18-011 Opening Resume, #4 Exhibit C - December 4, 2019 Part 573 Safety Recall Report, #5 Exhibit D - Recall Chronology, #6 Exhibit E - NHTSAs RQ 21-001 Opening Resume, #7 Exhibit F - NHTSAs PE 18-011 Closing Resume, #8 Exhibit G - 2017 Super Duty, #9 Exhibit H - 2018 F-250 Super Duty, #10 Exhibit I - 2019 F-350 Super Duty, #11 Exhibit J - 2020 Super Duty, #12 Exhibit K - Ford US Super Duty 2010, #13 Exhibit L - Ford US Super Duty 2012, #14 Exhibit M - Ford US Super Duty 2014, #15 Exhibit N - Ford US Super Duty 2016) (Miller, E.) (Entered: 04/07/2021)

    Read MoreRead Less
related-case-search

Dig Deeper

Get Deeper Insights on Court Cases


Latest cases where Tri State Collision, LLC is a litigant

Latest cases where Ford Motor Company is a litigant