Attorneys for more than a dozen plaintiffs whose lemon law cases against Ford Motor Co. were dismissed last month by a federal judge overseeing consolidated litigation are appealing.
Consumer Legal Remedies (CLR) of Beverly Hills on Jan. 24 filed notice of appeal at the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals on an order entered by U.S. District Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. dismissing 15 of 30 CLR cases pending at the Central District of California, in the Ford Motor Powershift Transmission multi-district litigation.
On Dec. 26, Birotte adopted a blistering report and recommendation of Magistrate Judge Frederick Mumm who oversees pre-trial discovery in the MDL.
Mumm found in his October report that CLR plaintiffs "willfully refused to comply with their discovery obligations."
"CLR plaintiffs engaged in the same pattern of obstructionist behaviour with respect to Ford’s first, second, and third sets of discovery requests and manipulated Ford into granting extensions of time, only to provide utterly frivolous objections-only responses," he wrote.
Ford, represented by attorneys at Shook Hardy & Bacon and others, has maintained that CLR had obstructed discovery by refusing to produce "a single document" in response to repeated requests or provide "a single substantive" interrogatory answer during the discovery period.
Mumm wrote that CLR plaintiffs offered "no legally tenable justification for their behaviour," prejudicing Ford.
"The Court further concludes that Ford has been prejudiced and that any sanction other than dismissal would not ameliorate that prejudice," Mumm wrote.
Ford has been fighting the cases which allege power shift transmission are prone to delayed acceleration and downshifting and that some vehicles have crashed, arguing in part that they are lawyer-driven.
In the last six years, more than 30,000 complaints have been filed against the auto industry, and each year since 2015 the number has grown. Ford has been hit with the most lemon lawsuits in the state.
CLR attorneys Allen-Michel Resnick and Neil Gieleghem had argued against the motion for sanctions saying that it was Ford that ignored its communications and did not meet and confer as required as to the discovery responses at issue. They further argued that Ford "lied" that its plaintiffs had not produced any documents in discovery.
In recommending dismissal of the CLR cases, Mumm wrote that "no lesser sanction would be appropriate."
He wrote that CLR plaintiffs obstructed important discovery as to the entirety of their claims.
"Considering all of the facts, including the willfulness demonstrated by the CLR plaintiffs’ repeated obstruction of discovery, both as to depositions and written discovery, the Court need not try lesser sanctions before dismissal," Mumm wrote.
CLR cases dismissed by Birotte:
Brown v. Ford, 2:18-cv-4190
Cannon v.. Ford, 2:18-cv-4817
Einbund v. Ford, 2:18-cv-2901
Garza v. Ford, 2:18-cv-2745
Hernandez v. Ford, 2:18-cv-8736
Hill v. Ford, 2:18-cv-4409
Holmstedt f. Ford, 2:18-cv-4328
Mowrer v. Ford, 2:18-cv-4602
Nichols v. Ford, 2:18-cv-8733
Pisarkiewicz v. Ford, 2:18-cv-4423
Snyder v. Ford, 2:18-cv-4618
Straw v. Ford, 2:18-cv-4425
Sullivan v. Ford 2:18-cv-4622
Valencia v. Ford, 2:18-cv-2865
Vanidestine v. Ford, 2:18-cv-2618