1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of 12 themselves and others similarly ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS 13 situated, CONFERENCE 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 20 On February 11, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition in this 21 matter affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part this Court’s class certification 22 order. (Doc. No. 242.) On April 23, 2026, the Court held an Appeal Mandate and Status 23 Hearing (the “Status Hearing”) with the parties. (Doc. No. 241.) At the Status Hearing, the 24 Court discussed several distinct issues with the partes. This Order follows. 25 I. BRIEF BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiffs initiated this class action lawsuit on June 10, 2019, alleging latent 27 defects—specifically, an “insufficient damping system” that causes steering oscillation 28 1 (the “Shimmy”)—in Ford F-250 and F-350 “Super Duty” trucks across four design 2 platforms: 3 • P131 – Model Year (“MY”) 2005–2007; • P356 – MY 2008–2010; 4 • P473 – MY 2011–2016; and 5 • P558 – MY 2017–2019 6 7 The Court previously certified multiple state law classes for individuals who 8 purchased or leased Class Vehicles primarily for personal, family, or household purposes 9 from authorized Ford dealerships. (Doc. No. 202.) As it relates to the Maine subclass, the 10 Court found that Named Plaintiff Hamilton used her Vehicle predominantly for business 11 purposes and thus did not meet the requirements of the class definition. (Id. at 48.) 12 However, the Court found this does not defeat certification of the Maine subclass. (Id.) The 13 Court granted Plaintiffs leave to substitute another class representative for the Maine class.1 14 (Id.) 15 The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification as to express warranty claims and the 16 personal-use predominance ruling. It reversed and remanded on four issues. The Court and 17 the parties agree those issues require further analysis and supplemental briefing. The Court 18 outlines those issues, in Part IV, below. 19 II. DISCOVERY 20 At the Status Hearing, the Court inquired as to whether Plaintiffs would need 21 additional fact discovery prior to providing supplemental briefing on the class certification 22 issues. Plaintiffs request limited additional fact discovery. Ford counters that fact discovery 23 is closed and opposes reopening discovery. Having taken the matter under consideration, 24
25 1 On October 10, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Leave to Amend. (Doc. No. 232.) Plaintiffs sought leave to name Plaintiff David Huffstetler, the current representative of the certified South Carolina 26 class, as the representative of the Maine class. (Doc. No. 216.) The Court denied the request without prejudice finding amendment would be futile because Plaintiff Huffstetler was not a member of the Maine 27 class. (Doc. No. 232.) The subsequently stayed the case pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. 28 (Id.) 1 the Court finds Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to engage in discovery and have not 2 presented cause to reopen discovery at this point. The Court DENIES the request to reopen 3 discovery.2 4 III. LEAVE TO AMEND 5 The next issue addressed at the Status Hearing relates to allowing Plaintiffs’ leave 6 to amend to name a representative for the Maine Class. Ford opposes allowing Plaintiffs 7 the opportunity to amend to name a Maine representative. Because the Court previously 8 said it would allow Plaintiffs’ the opportunity to amend their complaint to name a Maine 9 representative (see Doc. No. 202), and because the case has been stayed since the Court 10 denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ last request to amend (see Doc. No. 232), the Court 11 finds it appropriate to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to move for leave to amend to name 12 a Maine representative. 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend by 14 no later than May 26, 2026. The motion must be limited to adding a named plaintiff(s) for 15 the Maine class—no other amendments will be considered. Plaintiffs must adhere to the 16 undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures prior to filing any noticed motion. See J. Battaglia 17 Civ. Case Proc. § III. The Court will set a briefing schedule if a motion for leave to amend 18 is filed. If no motion is filed, the Court will dismiss the Maine class implied warranty claims 19 without prejudice. 20 IV. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS 21 Upon resolution of the amendment issue, the Court will issue a supplemental 22 briefing schedule. As discussed at the Status Hearing, the four issues to be addressed in the 23 supplemental briefs are as follows: 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 2 The Court recognizes the Plaintiffs did not specifically ask to reopen discovery and the issue was raised 28 sua sponte by the Court at the Status Hearing. 1 A. Issue 1: Shimmy Manifestation Evidence and the Predominance Inquiry 2 (All Classes) 3 The Ninth Circuit held that this Court misread Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., 4 LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010), by treating manifestation evidence as irrelevant to 5 class certification where the alleged injury is a design defect present at the point of sale. 6 The panel clarified that Wolin did not foreclose consideration of variable manifestation 7 rates across platforms; rather, Wolin found manifestation evidence non-dispositive only 8 because a single platform and limited model years were at issue. 9 The parties must address whether variable shimmy manifestation rates across 10 platforms are fatal to certification of the putative classes under the Rule 23(b)(3) 11 predominance standard. 12 B. Issue 2: Shimmy Manifestation Evidence and Implied Warranty Claims 13 (South Carolina and Maine Classes) 14 The Ninth Circuit directed the Court to examine the certified South Carolina implied 15 warranty class and the contingent Maine implied warranty class (the Maine class being 16 contingent on substitution of a new named plaintiff following summary judgment). The 17 partes must address whether the shimmy manifestation evidence affects the 18 merchantability of the putative Class Vehicles under applicable state law—and if so, 19 whether that undermines predominance. 20 C. Issue 3: Shimmy Manifestation Evidence and Fraud-Based Claims – 21 Materiality (California, Colorado, Illinois, and New Mexico Classes) 22 The Ninth Circuit reversed the certification order with respect to fraud-based claims 23 and directed this Court to evaluate predominance for the California, Colorado, Illinois, and 24 New Mexico fraud-based classes. The parties must address whether the shimmy 25 manifestation evidence impacts whether the alleged defect constitutes a “material fact” that 26 Ford had a duty to disclose. The parties must address DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 27 96 F.4th 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1051 (2025), which held that 28 materiality can be an objective, class-wide inquiry where the question is the same for every 1 || class member—but noted that whether the alleged defect’s materiality varies across Class 2 || Vehicles is relevant when considering whether common questions predominate. 3 D. Issue 4: Ford’s Pre-Sale Knowledge and the Fraud-Based Claims (P131 4 and P558 Classes) 5 The Ninth Circuit held that the Court erred in determining that generalized proof 6 ||could demonstrate Ford’s pre-sale knowledge of the alleged defect across all Class 7 || Vehicles.
Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI
1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 WILLIAM LESSIN, CAROL Case No.: 19-cv-01082-AJB-AHG SMALLEY, et al., on behalf of 12 themselves and others similarly ORDER FOLLOWING STATUS 13 situated, CONFERENCE 14 Plaintiffs, 15 v. 16 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware corporation; and Does 1 through 10, 17 inclusive, 18 Defendant. 19 20 On February 11, 2026, the Ninth Circuit issued a memorandum disposition in this 21 matter affirming in part and reversing and remanding in part this Court’s class certification 22 order. (Doc. No. 242.) On April 23, 2026, the Court held an Appeal Mandate and Status 23 Hearing (the “Status Hearing”) with the parties. (Doc. No. 241.) At the Status Hearing, the 24 Court discussed several distinct issues with the partes. This Order follows. 25 I. BRIEF BACKGROUND 26 Plaintiffs initiated this class action lawsuit on June 10, 2019, alleging latent 27 defects—specifically, an “insufficient damping system” that causes steering oscillation 28 1 (the “Shimmy”)—in Ford F-250 and F-350 “Super Duty” trucks across four design 2 platforms: 3 • P131 – Model Year (“MY”) 2005–2007; • P356 – MY 2008–2010; 4 • P473 – MY 2011–2016; and 5 • P558 – MY 2017–2019 6 7 The Court previously certified multiple state law classes for individuals who 8 purchased or leased Class Vehicles primarily for personal, family, or household purposes 9 from authorized Ford dealerships. (Doc. No. 202.) As it relates to the Maine subclass, the 10 Court found that Named Plaintiff Hamilton used her Vehicle predominantly for business 11 purposes and thus did not meet the requirements of the class definition. (Id. at 48.) 12 However, the Court found this does not defeat certification of the Maine subclass. (Id.) The 13 Court granted Plaintiffs leave to substitute another class representative for the Maine class.1 14 (Id.) 15 The Ninth Circuit affirmed certification as to express warranty claims and the 16 personal-use predominance ruling. It reversed and remanded on four issues. The Court and 17 the parties agree those issues require further analysis and supplemental briefing. The Court 18 outlines those issues, in Part IV, below. 19 II. DISCOVERY 20 At the Status Hearing, the Court inquired as to whether Plaintiffs would need 21 additional fact discovery prior to providing supplemental briefing on the class certification 22 issues. Plaintiffs request limited additional fact discovery. Ford counters that fact discovery 23 is closed and opposes reopening discovery. Having taken the matter under consideration, 24
25 1 On October 10, 2025, the Court denied Plaintiffs’ Motion to Leave to Amend. (Doc. No. 232.) Plaintiffs sought leave to name Plaintiff David Huffstetler, the current representative of the certified South Carolina 26 class, as the representative of the Maine class. (Doc. No. 216.) The Court denied the request without prejudice finding amendment would be futile because Plaintiff Huffstetler was not a member of the Maine 27 class. (Doc. No. 232.) The subsequently stayed the case pending resolution of the interlocutory appeal. 28 (Id.) 1 the Court finds Plaintiffs had ample opportunity to engage in discovery and have not 2 presented cause to reopen discovery at this point. The Court DENIES the request to reopen 3 discovery.2 4 III. LEAVE TO AMEND 5 The next issue addressed at the Status Hearing relates to allowing Plaintiffs’ leave 6 to amend to name a representative for the Maine Class. Ford opposes allowing Plaintiffs 7 the opportunity to amend to name a Maine representative. Because the Court previously 8 said it would allow Plaintiffs’ the opportunity to amend their complaint to name a Maine 9 representative (see Doc. No. 202), and because the case has been stayed since the Court 10 denied without prejudice Plaintiffs’ last request to amend (see Doc. No. 232), the Court 11 finds it appropriate to allow Plaintiffs the opportunity to move for leave to amend to name 12 a Maine representative. 13 Accordingly, the Court ORDERS Plaintiffs to file a motion for leave to amend by 14 no later than May 26, 2026. The motion must be limited to adding a named plaintiff(s) for 15 the Maine class—no other amendments will be considered. Plaintiffs must adhere to the 16 undersigned’s Civil Case Procedures prior to filing any noticed motion. See J. Battaglia 17 Civ. Case Proc. § III. The Court will set a briefing schedule if a motion for leave to amend 18 is filed. If no motion is filed, the Court will dismiss the Maine class implied warranty claims 19 without prejudice. 20 IV. ISSUES TO BE ADDRESSED IN SUPPLEMENTAL BRIEFS 21 Upon resolution of the amendment issue, the Court will issue a supplemental 22 briefing schedule. As discussed at the Status Hearing, the four issues to be addressed in the 23 supplemental briefs are as follows: 24 /// 25 /// 26 27 2 The Court recognizes the Plaintiffs did not specifically ask to reopen discovery and the issue was raised 28 sua sponte by the Court at the Status Hearing. 1 A. Issue 1: Shimmy Manifestation Evidence and the Predominance Inquiry 2 (All Classes) 3 The Ninth Circuit held that this Court misread Wolin v. Jaguar Land Rover N. Am., 4 LLC, 617 F.3d 1168 (9th Cir. 2010), by treating manifestation evidence as irrelevant to 5 class certification where the alleged injury is a design defect present at the point of sale. 6 The panel clarified that Wolin did not foreclose consideration of variable manifestation 7 rates across platforms; rather, Wolin found manifestation evidence non-dispositive only 8 because a single platform and limited model years were at issue. 9 The parties must address whether variable shimmy manifestation rates across 10 platforms are fatal to certification of the putative classes under the Rule 23(b)(3) 11 predominance standard. 12 B. Issue 2: Shimmy Manifestation Evidence and Implied Warranty Claims 13 (South Carolina and Maine Classes) 14 The Ninth Circuit directed the Court to examine the certified South Carolina implied 15 warranty class and the contingent Maine implied warranty class (the Maine class being 16 contingent on substitution of a new named plaintiff following summary judgment). The 17 partes must address whether the shimmy manifestation evidence affects the 18 merchantability of the putative Class Vehicles under applicable state law—and if so, 19 whether that undermines predominance. 20 C. Issue 3: Shimmy Manifestation Evidence and Fraud-Based Claims – 21 Materiality (California, Colorado, Illinois, and New Mexico Classes) 22 The Ninth Circuit reversed the certification order with respect to fraud-based claims 23 and directed this Court to evaluate predominance for the California, Colorado, Illinois, and 24 New Mexico fraud-based classes. The parties must address whether the shimmy 25 manifestation evidence impacts whether the alleged defect constitutes a “material fact” that 26 Ford had a duty to disclose. The parties must address DZ Reserve v. Meta Platforms, Inc., 27 96 F.4th 1223, 1235 (9th Cir. 2024), cert. denied, 145 S. Ct. 1051 (2025), which held that 28 materiality can be an objective, class-wide inquiry where the question is the same for every 1 || class member—but noted that whether the alleged defect’s materiality varies across Class 2 || Vehicles is relevant when considering whether common questions predominate. 3 D. Issue 4: Ford’s Pre-Sale Knowledge and the Fraud-Based Claims (P131 4 and P558 Classes) 5 The Ninth Circuit held that the Court erred in determining that generalized proof 6 ||could demonstrate Ford’s pre-sale knowledge of the alleged defect across all Class 7 || Vehicles. The panel noted that evidence that post-dates the P131 platform (MY 2005- 8 ||2007) but pre-dates the P558 platform (MY 2017-2019) could only establish Ford’s 9 || knowledge with respect to the P558. Such evidence cannot serve as class-wide proof of 10 || Ford’s knowledge that the P131 was defective. Accordingly, grouping P131 and P558 11 || vehicles within the same class for fraud-based claims may be improper unless Ford had 12 || pre-P131 knowledge of the defect. The parties must address whether the fraud-based claims 13 || can proceed as subclasses. The parties must also address whether Plaintiffs can demonstrate 14 || presale knowledge as to both the P131 and P558 vehicles. 15 CONCLUSION 16 For the reasons stated above, the Court ORDERS as follows: 17 l. Plaintiffs’ request to reopen discovery is DENIED; 18 2. Plaintiffs must move for leave to amend their complaint to name a Maine 19 || representative by no later than May 26, 2026. Failure to file a motion for leave to 20 ||amend will result in the Maine implied warranty claims being dismissed without 21 ||prejudtce. The Court will issue a supplemental briefing schedule at a later date. 22 IT IS SO ORDERED. 23 |!Dated: April 23, 2026 © 7 er : 24 Hon. Anthony J.Battaglia 25 United States District Judge 26 27 28