Notice

Cal. Super. - 6th Dist.April 30, 2018

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 18CV327384 Unlimited Jurisdiction NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT Complaint Filed: April 30, 2018 LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) TO THE COURT, PLAINTIFF, AND THEIR ATTORNEYS OF RECORD: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), by its counsel GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, filed a Notice of Removal of this action with the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, assigned Case Number 5:18-cv-03533-NC on June 13, 2018. Copies of the file-stamped Notice of Removal documents are attached to this Notice as Exhibit A. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 6/13/2018 4:51 PM Reviewed By: F. Miller Case #18CV327384 Envelope: 1621471 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL OF ACTION TO FEDERAL COURT G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 Dated: June 14, 2018 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP By: Spencer P. Hugret Molly J. Mrowka Anastasia Bondarchuk Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY EXHIBIT A 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Sup Ct Complaint: April 30, 2018 NOTICE OF REMOVAL TO THE CLERK OF THE ABOVE-ENTITLED COURT: PLEASE TAKE NOTICE that Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), by its counsel GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP, hereby removes to this court, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, and 1446, based on diversity of citizenship, the claims pending as Case No. 18CV327384 of the Superior Court of Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL California, County of Santa Clara. In support of this removal, Ford states as follows: I. THE REMOVED CASE 1. The removed case is a civil action commenced in the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara by Plaintiff Linda McGill against Ford, entitled Linda McGill v. Ford Motor Company, et al., Case No. 18CV327384 (the “State Action”). The two named Defendants are Ford and THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL (“Ford Store Morgan Hill”). 2. Plaintiff filed the State Action on April 30, 2018, asserting breach of warranty and fraudulent inducement claims against Ford. See Complaint. II. PROCEDURAL REQUIREMENTS 1. Generally, a defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of service of a copy of the Complaint to remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b). However, if the case stated by the initial pleading is not removable, a defendant has thirty (30) days from the date of service or receipt of a copy of an amended pleading, motion, order or other paper from which it may first be ascertained that the case is one which is or has become removable to remove a case. 28 U.S.C. § 1446(3). Ford was served with a copy of the Complaint on May 1, 2018. However, the Complaint did not contain any means of ascertaining the amount in controversy on its face. (See Compl. generally. ) 2. On May 17, 2018, upon receipt of a true and correct copy of the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“Sales Contract”) from Ford Store Morgan Hill, counsel for Ford was able to ascertain the amount in controversy and first learned that this case was removable. (Declaration of Molly J. Mrowka (“Mrowka Decl.”) ¶ 4, filed concurrently herewith; Declaration of Tim Paulus (“Paulus Decl.”), ¶ 6, and Exhibit A, filed concurrently herewith.) This Notice of Removal is therefore timely filed. 3. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), copies of all process, pleadings, and orders for the State Action in Ford’s possession are contained in Exhibits A-H filed herewith. / / / Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 4. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(a), venue is proper in the Northern District of California because this district embraces the place in which the removed action has been pending. 5. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), a true and correct copy of this Notice of Removal will be filed with the Superior Court of California, County of Santa Clara promptly after filing of same in this Court. 6. Pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1446(d), written notice of filing of this Notice of Removal will be given to all adverse parties promptly after the filing of same in this Court. 7. If any question arises as to the propriety of the removal of this action, Ford requests the opportunity to conduct discovery, brief any disputed issues and to present oral argument in favor of its position that this case is properly removable. 8. Nothing in this Notice of Removal shall be interpreted as a waiver or relinquishment of Ford’s right to assert defenses including, without limitation, the defenses of (i) lack of jurisdiction over person, (ii) improper venue and/or forum non conveniens, (iii) insufficiency of process, (iv) insufficiency of service of process, (v) improper joinder of claims and/or parties, (vi) failure to state a claim, (vii) failure to join indispensable party(ies), or (viii) any other procedural or substantive defense available under state or federal law. III. THE AMOUNT IN CONTROVERSY REQUIREMENT IS MET 9. The amount in controversy in this action exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interest and costs. See 28 U.S.C. § 1332. 10. The removing party’s initial burden is to “file a notice of removal that includes ‘a plausible allegation that the amount in controversy exceeds the jurisdictional threshold.’” Ibarra v. Manheim Invs., Inc., 775 F.3d 1193, 1195 (9th Cir. 2015) (quoting Dart Cherokee Basin Operating Co., LLC v. Owens, 135 S. Ct. 547, 554 (2014)). “By design, § 1446(a) tracks the general pleading requirement Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL stated in Rule 8(a)” which requires only that the grounds for removal be stated in a “short and plain statement.” Dart, 135 S. Ct. at 553. 11. Generally, a federal district court will first “consider whether it is ‘facially apparent’ from the complaint that the jurisdictional amount is in controversy.” Abrego v. Dow Chem. Co., 443 F.3d 676, 690 (9th Cir. 2006) (internal citation omitted). But a defendant may remove a suit to federal court notwithstanding the failure of the plaintiff to plead the required amount. Absent the facial showing from the complaint, the court may consider facts averred in the removal petition. Id. Next, if the defendant’s allegation(s) regarding the amount in controversy is challenged, then “both sides submit proof and the court decides, by a preponderance of the evidence, whether the amount-in-controversy requirement has been satisfied.” Ibarra, 775 F.3d at 1195. At that time, “it may be appropriate to allow discovery relevant to [the] jurisdictional amount prior to remanding.” Abrego, 443 F.3d at 691 (internal citation omitted). 12. Ford disputes that it is liable for any damages whatsoever to Plaintiff. Nevertheless, Ford can demonstrate that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000 under the “preponderance of the evidence” standard. See Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 2007). The standard requires only that the removing party present evidence that “it is more likely than not” that the amount in controversy is satisfied. Id. 13. In the case at bar, the Plaintiff seeks both monetary and injunctive relief. This is a products liability case. Plaintiff alleges breach of express and implied warranties under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (Cal. Civ. Code § 1790 et seq.), and fraudulent inducement. (Compl. ¶¶ 107-156). 14. Plaintiff alleges that on December 27, 2014, she purchased a new 2014 Ford Focus, and that the Powershift transmission is defective because it “consistently slips, bucks, kicks, jerks, harshly engages,” among other alleged problems. (Compl. ¶¶ 9, 22). Plaintiff alleges she took her Focus in for transmission-related repairs on Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL three (3) occasions and further alleges the “Powershift Transmission could not be repaired.” (Compl. ¶¶ 73-75, 83). 15. The purchase price of the Plaintiff’s Ford Focus was $16,045.70, plus a $1,500 deferred down payment, plus a manufacturing rebate and finance charges. 1 (See Exhibit A, attached to the Paulus Decl.) 16. Plaintiff alleges she is entitled to relief under the Song-Beverly Act including: attorney’s fees, restitution, reimbursement of the price paid for the vehicle, costs, expenses, all incidental, consequential, and general damages, as well as a civil penalty of up to two times the amount of actual damages. (Compl. ¶ 118-121). Plaintiff also seek “rescission of the [purchase] contract” and “cover” damages under the Song-Beverly Act and the California Commercial Code section 2711 (Id. ¶¶ 131- 133). Furthermore, Plaintiff seeks punitive damages. (Id. Prayer for Relief, p. 28:2, at “g.”). 17. The amount in controversy calculation includes punitive damages. Gibson v. Chrysler Corp., 261 F.3d 927, 945 (9th Cir. 2001). Civil penalties under the Song-Beverly Act are also properly included in the calculation. Brady v. Mercedes-Benz USA, Inc., 243 F. Supp. 2d 1004, 1009 (N.D. Cal. 2002). The amount in controversy also includes reasonable estimates of attorney’s fees. Id. at 1011; Guglielmino v. McKee Foods Corp., 506 F.3d 696, 700 (9 th Cir. 2007); Galt G/S v. JSS Scandinavia, 142 F.3d 1150, 1156 (9 th Cir. 1998). 18. The Song-Beverly Act allows for the recovery of attorney’s fees, which regularly exceed $100,000. (Declaration of Spencer Hugret (“Hugret Decl.”), ¶¶ 5-6, filed concurrently herewith). 19. If Plaintiff was to prevail on her Song-Beverly claims, she could be awarded damages of $75,000.00 or more if awarded statutory civil penalties and attorneys fees. Even before taking punitive damages into account, the purchase price 1 The calculation of vehicle price is made by adding the deferred “Down Payment” and “Amount Financed,” as represented in the Plaintiff’s Sale Contract. (See Mrowka Decl.) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL of $17,545.70 (purchase price plus deferred down payment) plus $35,091.40 as a 2X civil penalty pursuant to the Song-Beverly Act, totals $52,637.10. (Hugret Decl. ¶¶ 5-6, filed concurrently herewith; Mrowka Decl. ¶ 7.) Adding these awards to reasonable attorney fees which a party is entitled to under the Song-Beverly Act, which can be reasonably considered to be at least $25,000.00, it is more likely than not that the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000. (Hugret Decl., ¶¶ 5-6, filed concurrently herewith). 20. Thus, the total amount in controversy therefore exceeds $75,000.00. The amount in controversy is satisfied. (Hugret Decl., ¶¶ 5-6; Cal. Civ. Code § 1793.2(d)(2)(B)-(C); § 1794(c)). IV. DIVERSITY OF CITIZENSHIP EXISTS 21. Plaintiff is, and was at the time of filing of the Complaint, a citizen and resident of California. (Compl. ¶ 2). 22. Ford is, and was at the time Plaintiff commenced this action, a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Delaware with its principal place of business in Michigan. This Court can take judicial notice of these facts. See Excerpt from Ford’s 2017 Form 10-K filing, Exhibit A to Mrowka Decl.; see also Fed. R. Evid. 201(b)(2) (courts may judicially notice facts that “can be accurately and readily determined from sources whose accuracy cannot reasonably be questioned.”). A. Defendant Ford Store Morgan Hill and Fraudulent Joinder 23. As indicated, Defendant Ford Store Morgan Hill is a California LLC. Defendant Ford contends that Plaintiff fraudulently joined Ford Store Morgan Hill in this products liability and fraud case for no reason other than to defeat diversity jurisdiction and prevent removal of the action to federal court. See In re Briscoe, 448 F. 3d 201, 217 (3d Cir. 2006) (“[fraudulent joinder exists where] there is no reasonable basis in fact or colorable ground supporting the claim against the joined defendant, or no real intention in good faith to prosecute the action against the defendants or seek a joint judgment.”). Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL 24. Here, although two of the five causes of action are labelled “Against All Defendants” there is not a single cause of action which contains allegations specifically directed to Ford Store Morgan Hill. The content of each and every cause of action appears to be directed to Defendant Ford. (Compl. ¶¶ 107-156.) Ford believes Plaintiff has no intention of prosecuting any claim against Ford Store Morgan Hill, and Ford Store Morgan Hill was only added as a party to defeat the claim of diversity and removal to Federal Court, due to the fact that Ford has sought, and been granted, an MDL within the federal court system. (MDL No. 2814.) (Hugret Decl. at ¶7). Indeed, Ford’s counsel’s vast litigation experience in opposing automotive product liability cases (and in particular matters filed by Mr. Mikhov’s firm), has been that individual Ford dealerships have not been regularly sued. (Id.) Because Plaintiff’s joinder of Ford Store Morgan Hill is fraudulent, this Court has the jurisdiction to accept this matter, as absent Ford Store Morgan Hill, complete diversity exists for purposes of 28 U.S.C. §1332 jurisdiction. B. Ford Store Morgan Hill is a dispensable party pursuant to FRCP Rule 21 and may be severed from the action 25. Alternatively, as Ford Store Morgan Hill is a nondiverse dispensable party pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure (“FRCP”) Rule 21, this Court may sever the claims against Ford Store Morgan Hill, allowing the remainder of the case to properly remain in federal court. Pursuant to FRCP Rule 21, a court “may at any time, on just terms, add or drop a party. The court may also sever any claim against a party,” in order to preserve federal jurisdiction. See Newman-Green, Inc. v. Alfonzo- Larrain 490 U.S. 826, 832 (1989) (“it is well settled that Rule 21 invests district courts with authority to allow a dispensable nondiverse party to be dropped at any time, even after judgment has been rendered.”) Here, we have a products liability action and complaint against Ford, and no specific allegations directed to a Ford dealership. Assuming arguendo the Plaintiff was to add a negligence claim, the products liability, warranty, and fraud claims against Ford have very different legal Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL elements than the “negligent repair” claim, and rely on an entirely distinct factual basis. Similar to these facts is that of a plaintiff suing a manufacturer of a medical device or product under products liability theories, while also suing the physicians and healthcare professionals who used the product during the plaintiff’s surgery for medical malpractice, in order to defeat diversity. This was in fact the scenario in Mayfield v. London Women’s Care, PLLC 2015 WL 3440492 (E.D. Ky. May 28, 2015), where the federal court severed the medical malpractice claim, holding the Plaintiff would be able to obtain relief in state court: “Just as no one from Ethicon was involved with Mayfield’s surgery, Dr. Mechas has nothing to do with the design, manufacture or sale of a single pelvic mesh implant… if [the healthcare defendants] are severed from this case, they will be equally capable of protecting their interests in state court…[and]..will not expose Ethicon to double or inconsistent obligations in federal court.,” citing to the U.S. Supreme Court Case of Temple v. Synthes Corp. 498 U.S. 5,7 (1990) (finding the doctor who performed an implant surgery was not a necessary party in a products liability action against the manufacturer of the implanted medical device.) 26. Similarly here, the service technicians at Ford Store Morgan Hill who came in contact with Plaintiff’s Ford Focus, if any, have nothing to do with the design of the vehicle or its counterparts, nor the manufacture or sale of the vehicle or its counterparts. Furthermore, Plaintiff will be able to protect her interests as related to Ford Store Morgan Hill in state court, and not expose Ford to double or inconsistent obligations. Simply stated, the claims against Ford are too distinct from the simple negligence action, if there was one, against Ford Store Morgan Hill to not sever the dealership from the federal action. 27. For the reasons stated above, there is diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff, a California citizen, and Ford, a citizen of Michigan and Delaware. While Defendant Ford Store Morgan Hill is a California citizen, the Court should have subject matter jurisdiction over this dispute under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, as Ford Store Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 9 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Morgan Hill was fraudulently joined by Plaintiff. Alternatively, the court may sever defendant Ford Store Morgan Hill and any claim against it, as a dispensable and nondiverse party pursuant to FRCP 21. V. CONCLUSION 28. Consequently, the State Action may be removed to this Court by Ford in accordance with the provisions of 28 U.S.C. § 1441 because: (i) this action is a civil action pending within the jurisdiction of the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, (ii) the action is between citizens of different states, and (iii) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs. Dated: June 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Spencer P. Hugret SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) Email: shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) Email: mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Email: abondarchuk@grsm.com Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 9 EXHIBIT A Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 J 'p SUMMONS (CITACION JUDICIAL) NOTICE TO DEFENDANT: (AV1SO AL DEMANDADO): FORD MOTOR COMPANY, B Delaviare Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES I through 10, inclusive YOU ARE BEING SUED By PLAINTIFF: (1.0 ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANIE): LINDA A. MCGILL 5711$ 6;3P"- FUR CO&RT USE ONLY IWO PA RA USOCEIA CCRI5 E-Fl LED 4/30/2018 12:00 AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV327384 Reviewed By: A. Hwang Envelope: 1464167 below. You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy served on the plaIntiff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. You: written response must be In proper legal fonn II you want the court to hear your case. There may bee court feint that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more Information at the California Courts Online SeliHaIp Center (wiwiwudirt ca.go vlsalmaZo). your county law library, or the courthouse neared you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, asic the court dart for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may be taken wfthout fiartherwarnirig from the court There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney rIght away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to can an attorney referral serutco. If you cannot alford an attorney, you may be eligible for has legal sentces frorTi a nonprofit legal servicos program. You can locate these nonprofit groups at the California Legal SeMces Web site (www.laiwrefrahibmltoig). the CalifornIa Courts Online SelfHetp Center (v.rwwcousfThfta.go%tolThelp), or by contactIng your local court or caLmly bar assodatlon. NOTE The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and costs on any settlement or arbitration award 0910,000 or more in a civil case. The court's Can mug be paid before the court will dismiss the case. 1AVISO1 La ban denrandodo. Sino responds doiffio do 30 dla% Ia cotta puedo deddiren art come sin oscuctrarsu ve'sldn. Lea Is kilannaddn a canilnuadon. Wane 30 OMS CE CALENDARIO despuds do qua to entreguen sofa dwddn ypapeies legates porn presenter uris rnspuesta poreswlla en eata caste y trace qua so enbegue una oopb &demandanto. (Ma cotta a one Uarnada teledinlca no laprelegen. So respuestapwesito (tone quo ester an MiriaM legal corTedo eldest. quo procesen sit case on to wife. Es posibia quo hays un ftnnuta#o quo usledpueda ow pare su rospueste. Puede en contrar eatvs (one uledos data cotta yrndsln(wrnaddn one! Centre do Aida do las Cwfesde Catibirie frdww.sucorteagov). on Is bibtioteca deleyea do sir condoS a an to cotta quo to quede anfl wita. Sino misdo pager Ia wale do presonta pwe at sacrntaifo data caste quo to do Un formuloflo do exencidn do pago do cutlet Sino presents so ,espuesla a 110nw4 puedapeiuere!cesOportflcrinrpltfflenlo yta cane to podrd qullarsusueidn dlneroyblenas sin flOe advestenda Hay obvs sequis'tos tegatot Es socomon dablo quo llama a un abogado lnmadiatamento. Sine callow OW? oboge* puada briar. un swvlo'o do ,emls'dn a abogadoa & nopuedopagsre on abogaS esposible quo cunpia ca' toe requisites pars ebtenorsant'os W,as grebhltos do on pregiema do ses'.tlas legales ski fines do lua'o. PoSe eneonfrarestos gnwos afti fines do luau at&t web do CalifornIa Legal SeMca Avww.lawhelpcalifomla.ornJ, an at ConDo do A3vda do tea Codes do California, &eww.s000rta.ca.gov) opanidn dose an centado eon to wile o at coleglo do abogados loculn A Visa' Pot 1ey, Is wife None doruclro a redarnarlas aitlas yEas costosexenbsparlmpcnetun gravanren sabre aialquterrearperacidn do $10,000 6 mOe do valonedblda medlanle on ecueato 0 UflO ccncasldn do WWD* on un case do do,udio dtt Bane quo pager at gravemen do to carlo ontos do quo Is caste puoda desachatel coso The name and address of the court is A5EMJMER ffll nwnbseytcci6,dacoflees): wow 18CV327384 191 North FiSt Street San Jose, CA 95113 The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiffs attorney, or plaIntiff without an attorney. S (El 11oq7bm. to diieccidn yet nOmero S toldfono dat abcgado del damandante, ado! demandento quo no tiara abogado, Os): Knrgnt Law Group, LbP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90067 (310] 552-2250 DATE: 4/30/2018 12:00AM Clerk of Court Clerk, by A. Hwang Deputy we or into summona, use rroor or oervice or bummons rozm ru-uru).j ontiega do eats citation useel formulaflo Proof of Sei'viw of Summons, (P05410 NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served C as an individual defendant. C as the person sued under the fictitious name of (spedOO: CC on behalf of (sped4): FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation under EEJ CCP 416.10 (corporation) C CCP 416.60 (minor) C CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation) C CCP 416.70 (canservatee) C COP 416.40 (association or partnership) C COP 416.90 (authorized person) C other (speciiW: 4 C by personal delivery on (date): SUMMONS 00113 clOO PtecS.ro{I 41220,40111 vn,worwM,bor IAilwrcanLegafletmc I Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 EXHIBIT B Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 38 2 3 4 LV AN KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) E-mail: stevemknight1aw.com Amy Morse (SBN 290502) E-mail: axnym®knightlaw.com 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 E-FILED 4/30/2018 12:00AM Clerk of Court Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara 18CV327384 Reviewed By: A. Hwang 7 ! 8 9 10 11 Attorneys for Plaintiff, LINDA A. MCGILL SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUIMTY OF SANTA CLARA 12 F LINDA A. MCGILL, 13 II II 14 Plaintiff; 15 II vs. 16 Ii 17 FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC. a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No.: 18CV327384 Unlimited Jurisdiction COMPLAINT FOR: BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY - VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY - VIOLATION OF SONG-BEVERLY ACT FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT - CONCEALMENT FRAUDULENT INDUCEMENT - INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION S. FRADULENT INDUCEMENT - NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Assignedfor All Purposes to the Honorable Department McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 38 I Plaintiff, LINDA A. MCGILL, alleges as follows against Defendants, FORD MOTOR 2 COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation (hereinafter 'ToM"); THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, 3 INC. a California Corporation dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL (hereinafter "MORGAN 4 HILL"); and DOBS 1 through 10 inclusive, on information and belief, formed after an inquiry 5 reasonable under the circumstances: 6 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 7 I. Plaintiff, LINDA A. MCGILL, hereby demands trial by jury in this action. 8 9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 10 2. Plaintiff LINDA A. MCGILL is an individual residing in the City of San Jose, County 11 of Santa Clara, and State of California. 12 3. Defendant Ford Motor Company is and was a Delaware Corporation registered to do 13 business in the State of California with its registered office in the City of Los Angeles, County of 14 Los Angeles, and State of California. 15 Defendant MORGAN HILL is and at all relevant times was a California Corporation 16 registered to do business in the State of California, with its principal place of business in the City 17 of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, and State of California, and its registered agent for service 18 of process in the City of Morgan Hill, County of Santa Clara, and State of California. 19 5. This cause of action arises out of the warranty obligations of Ford Motor Company for 20 a vehicle purchased by Plaintiff and for which Ford Motor Company issued a written warranty. 21 Plaintiff also alleges that Ford concealed a known defect from Plaintiff. The defective component 22 is called the DPS6 PowerShift Transmission (hereinafter "PowerShift Transmission"). The 23 PowerShift Transmission is an "automated manual" transmission used by Ford in their 2011-2013 24 Ford Fiesta vehicles and 2012-2014 Ford Focus vehicles. Ford also misrepresented to Plaintiff the •25 type of transmission the PowerShift transmission is/was. 26 6. Plaintiff does not know the true names and capacities, whether corporate, partnership, 27 associate, individual or otherwise of Defendant issued herein as Does I through 10, inclusive, 28 under the provisions of section 474 of the California Code of Civil Procedure. Defendant Does 1 McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 38 J I through 10, inclusive, are in some manner responsible for the acts, occurrences and transactions set 2 forth herein, and are legally liable to Plaintiff. Plaintiff will seek leave to amend this Complaint to 3 set forth the true names and capacities of the fictitiously named Defendant, together with 4 appropriate charging allegations, when ascertained. S 7. All acts of corporate employees as alleged were authorized or ratified by an officer, 6 director or managing agent of the corporate employer. 7 8. Each Defendant whether actually or fictitiously named herein, was the principal, agent 8 (actual or ostensible), or employee of each other Defendant and in acting as such principal or 9 within the course and scope of such employment or agency, took some part in the acts and 10 omissions hereinafter set forth by reason of which each Defendant is liable to Plaintiff for the relief 11 prayed for herein. 12 9. On December 27, 2014, Plaintiff purchased a new 2014 Ford Focus, VIN: 13 lFADP3F25EL454246, (hereinafter "the Vehicle" or "Subject Vehicle"), and express warranties 14 accompanied the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff by which Ford Motor Company undertook to 15 preserve or maintain the utility or pertbzmance of Plaintiff's vehicle or provide compensation if 16 there was a failure in such utility or performance. The owner's manual is attached and incorporated 17 by itsreference as Exhibit I. 18 10. The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to I 19 warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not 20 limited to, transmission issues. 21 11. Plaintiff hereby revokes acceptance of the sales contract. 22 12. Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury in this action. 23 The DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Defect 24 13. The Vehicle was manufactured by Ford and delivered to Plaintiff with a PowerShift 25 ismission. Ford offered the PowerShift Transmission as the sole "automatic transmission" 26 option in the Subject Vehicle. 27 14. The PowerShift Transmission is neither a traditional manual transmission, nor a typical 28 automatic transmission, but is a computerized "automated manual" transmission. -3- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 38 1 15. Traditional manual transmissions use a driver-controlled clutch. By pressing and 2 releasing a foot pedal, the driver causes the clutch to mechanically engage and disengage the 3 engine from the transmission, allowing the vehicle to travel continuously while the driver 4 manually changes gears. Because a clutch allows for transfer of virtually all of the engine's power 5 to the transmission, a properly designed and operating manual transmission is highly efficient. 6 However, operation of a manual transmission can be difficult for less experienced drivers, and can 7 result in the vehicle jerking or shuddering during improper operation, manual transmissions are 8 disfavored by some consumers. 9 16. In contrast, typical automatic transmissions free the driver from operating the clutch 10 through the use of a fluid-filled device called a torque converter. The torque converter substitutes 11 for the manual transmission's clutch, transmitting power from the engine to the transmission 12 through a fluid medium. 13 17. While automatic transmissions offer increased comibrt and convenienc; they are 14 generally less fuel efficient and slower-shifting than manual transmissions because the torque 15 converter transfers power through fluid lçs efficiently than a mechanical clutch. 16 18. Ford marketed and sold its PowerShift Transmission as an automatic transmission that 17 offered the "best of both worlds" combining a manual transmission's fuel economy with an 18 automatic transmission's ease of operation and shift quality. 19 19. Ford's PowerShift Transmission, while sometimes referred to as an automatic, is 20 actually a set of computerized manual transmissions. It lacks a torque converter, instead using two 21 clutches to mechanically engage and disengage the engine and transmission. Whereas similar 22 "automated manual" transmissions on the market use "wet" clutches bathed in oil, Ford's 23 PowerShift Transmission clutches lack the oil pumps and other components of a wet clutch 24 system, and instead operate "dry." 25 20. Ford designed the PowerShift Transmission in an eflbrt to meet heightened 26 I governmental and consumer expectations for fuel economy, performance, convenience, and 27 efficiency. Ford designed and marketed its PowerShift Transmission as a more advanced and fuel 28 efficient automatic transmission. According to Ford's press release dated March 10, 2010, McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 38 1 "PowerShift with dry-clutch facings and new energy-saving electromechanical actuation for 2 clutches and gear shifts saves weight, improves efficiency, increases smoothness, adds durability 3 and is sealed with low-friction gear lubricant fbr the lift of the vehicle. The transmission requires 4 no regular maintenance." I 5 21. In theory, a computer-controlled, automated manual transmission may provide the 6 convenience of an automatic transmission without sacrificing the fuel efficiency and shift Speed of 7 a manual transmission. in practice, however, Ford's PowerShift Transmission is plagued by 8 numerous problems and safbty concerns. 9 22. Plaintiff is infonned and believe, and based thereon allege, that the PowerShift 10 Transmission is defective in its design and/or manufacture in that, among other problems, the 11 transmission consistently slips, bucks, kicks, jets, harshly engages, has premature internal wear, 12 sudden acceleration, delay in downshifts, delayed acceleration, difficulty stopping the vehicle, and, 13 eventually, premature transmission failure (the "Transmission Defect"). 14 23. The Transmission Defect causes unsafe conditions in vehicles equipped with the 15 PowerShift Transmission, including, but not limited to suddenly lurching forward, delayed 16 acceleration, and sudden loss of forward propulsion. These conditions present a safety hazard 17 because they severely affect the driver's ability to control the car's speed, acceleration, and 18 deceleration. For example,, these conditions make it difficult to safely merge into traffic. Even 19 more troubling, the Transmission Defect can cause the vehicle to fail to downshift and decelerate, 20 but instead continue to transfer power to the transmission and even surge the engine's RPMs, when 21 the brakes are depressed. As a result, drivers of vehicles equipped with the PowerShift 22 Transmission have reported their vehicles lurching forward into intersections at red lights due to 23 the failure of their braking efforts to stop the car. 24 24. On infbrmation and be1ie1 the Transmission Defect also causes premature wear to the 25 PowerShift Transmission's clutch plates and other components, which results in premature 26 transmission failure and requires expensive repairs, including premature transmission replacement. 27 25. As early as 2010, Ford knew or should have known that the PowerShift Transmission 28 I contained one or more design and/or manufacturing defects that negatively affect drivability and -5- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 38 1 cause saibty hazards. 2 26. Plaintiff is informed and believe, and based thereon allege, that prior to sale of the 3 Vehicle, Ford knew, or should have known, about the Transmission Defect through its exclusive 4 knowledge of non-public, internal data about the Transmission Defect, including pre-releasing 5 testing data; early consumer complaints about the Transmission Defect to Ford's dealers who are 6 Ford's agents for vehicle repairs; dealership repair orders; testing conducted in response to those 7 complaints; technical service bulletins CTSBs") developed by Ford and communicated to its 8 dealers and authorized repair facilities; the existence of substantially identical defects in 9 substantially identical European and Australian model vehicles released prior to Ford's marketing 10 and sale of the PowerShift Transmission domestically; and other internal sources of information II possessed exclusively by Ford and its agents. Nevertheless, Ford and its agents have actively: 12 concealed the Transmission Defect, and failed to disclose this defect to Plaintiff at the time of 13 of the Vehicle or thereafter. 14 27. Before offering vehicles equipped with the PowerShift Transmission (which Ford 15 internally refers to as the "DPS6 automatic transmission') in the United States, Ford offered 16 substantially identical vehicles, equipped with a similar dual-clutch transmission, in Europe and 17 Australia. Although the domestic version of the transmission utilizes dry clutches as opposed to 18 the European and Australian version's wet clutches, Ford acknowledges that the transmission 19 offered for sale in the United States is "derivative" of the design from the European and Australian 20 models. European and Australian versions of the dual-clutch transmission suffered from similar 21 defects known to Ford as alleged herein. 22 28. In addition to obthining years of feedback and testing from its European and Australian 23 dual-clutch transmission, according to Ford, its team: 24 "logged approximately three years or 6,000 man-hours of computer aided mathematical modeling, simulation and analysis of engine 25 speeds, torque and clutch capacity in only 24 months real time to 26 prove the TIfF concept was production ready." 27 29. In addition, Ford boasted about its extensive testing of the vehicle in its marketing 28 brochures that were publicly distributed: McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 38 1 "Obsessive was the starting point You'll enjoy every drive because Focus engineers obsessed over every last detail. Focus was 2 thoroughly tested in an assortment of harsh environments and 3 situations to make sure you get I car beyond your wildest imagination." 4 5 30. The PowerShift Transmission uses a program called Torque Hole Filling ("THF"), 6 which is a combination of computer algorithms and computer aided tools to fill the torque hole, or 7 what is more commonly perceived as a hesitation, while shifting. Ford claimed its TifF 8 technology would create a smoother driving experience for the customer to promote sales. 9 31. Despite these claims, consumers have not experienced a smoother driving experience 10 from THF or any other technology incorporated in the PowerShift Transmission. Multiple reviews 11 in automotive journals and customer complaints have documented and confirmed that the 12 PowerShift transmission has continuously exhibited the defects, malfunctions, maladjustments, 13 and nonconfbrmities that the Plaintiff now complains of. 14 32. In a 2011 New York Thnes review of the Ford Focus, the reviewer stated that "Ford 15 programmed the PowerShift Dual-clutch transmission to change gears in odd and infuriating 16 ways" and that "[t]he transmission is often in the wrong gear at the wrong time, resulting in jerks, 17 and lethargic acceleration." 18 33. In response to these criticisms, Greg Burgess, an engineer at Ford, conceded in the 19 same New York Times article that "[i]t is quite a challenge to deliver something that is very, very 20 fuel efficient and yet feels like a conventional automati; and there are some balances and some 21 trade-oft that we make." 22 34. In response to complaints about the Transmission Defect, in 2010 and 2011, Ford 23 issued several Technical Service Bulletins flSBs") to its dealers and authorized repair facilities 24 acknowledging defects in the PowerShift Transmission. Ford's TSB from September 2010, 25 covering the 2011 Ford Fiesta, informed dealers and service personnel of "concerns such as no 26 engagement or intermittent no engagement in Drive or Reverse when shifting from Park to Drive 27 or Reverse, grinding noise during engagement, and/or check engine light with transmission control 28 module (CM) diagnostic trouble code..." McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 38 I 35. Similarly, Ford's TSB released on January 1,2011, covering the 2011 Ford Fiesta with 2 the PowerShift Transmission, informs dealers and service personnel of problems with the 3 PowerShift Transmission causing "a loss of power, hesitation, surge, or lack of throttle response, 4 while driving." 5 36. Ford's TSB from March 31, 2011 also covering the 2011 Ford Fiesta, informs dealers 6 of problems where the PowerShift Transmission "exhibit[s] a rattlelgrind noise in reverse only." 7 37. Ford issued two separate TSBs in May 2011, both covering the Ford Fiesta. These 8 TSBs addressed problems with the PowerShift Transmission including "concerns in Drive or 9 Reverse when shifting from Park to Drive or reverse, no engagement, delayed engagement, 10 intermittent engagement, noise during engagement..." 11 38. Aiiother Ford TSB released in September 2011 advised dealers to reprogram the 12 transmission computer if 2011 Ford Fiesta owners complained about 'hesita6on when accelerating 13 from a low speed after coast down, harsh or late 1-2 upshift, harsh shifting during low-speed tip-in 14 or lip-out maneuvers and/or engine r.p.m. flare when coasting to a stop." 15 39. The 2012 Ford Focus was the subject of a September 2011 Ford TSB, which informed 16 dealers and service personnel of transmission problems including "RPM flare on deceleration 17 coming to a stop, rough idle on deceleration coming to a stop, intermittent engine idle fluctuations 18 at a stop, intermittent vehicle speed control inoperative, intermittent harsh engagement/shift..." 19 40. In May of 2012, Ford issued a "Customer Satisfaction Program: Program Number 20 12B37." In a letter sent to 2012 Ford Focus drivers, Ford indicated that drivers "may experience 21 rough or jerky automatic transmission shifts. In addition, the vehicle may experience roll back 22 when the driver is transitioning from the brake pedal to the accelerator pedal while on a slight 23 incline." Significantly, Ford did not issue a recall and did not warn drivers of the safety risks 24 associated with these known problems. 25 41. Because Ford will not notify the public that the transmission is defective, Plaintiff (as 26 well as members of the general public) is subjected to dangerous driving conditions that often 27 occur without warning. 28 III v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 38 I 42. Ford knew about, and concealed, the Transmission Defect present in the Vehicle, along 2 with the Transmission Defect's attendant dangerous safety and drivability problems, from Plaintiff 3 at the time of sale, repair, and thereafter. In fact, instead of repairing the defects in the PowerShift 4 Transmission, Ford either reibsed to acknowledge their existence, or performed superficial and 5 ineffectual software upgrades that simply masked the symptoms of the Transmission Defect. 6 43. If Plaintiff knew about these defects at the time of sale, Plaintiff would not have 7 I purchased the Vehicle or would have paid substantially less for it. 8 44. As a result of Plaintiff's reliance on Ford and its agent's omissions and/or 9 misrepresentations, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable loss of money, property, and value to the 10 Vehicle. Additionally, as a result of the Transmission Defect, Plaintiff were harmed and suffered 11 actual damages in that the Vehicle's transmission is substantially certain to fail before its expected 12 life has run. 13 Ford US Exclusive Knowledge of the Transmission Defect 14 45. Ford had superior and exclusive knowledge of the Transmission Defect, and knew or 15 should have known that the Transmission Defect was not known or reasonably discoverable by 16 Plaintig before Plaintiff purchased the Vehicle.. 17 46. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that before Plaintiff I 18 purchased the Vehicle, and since at least 2010, Ford knew about the Transmission Defect through 19 sources not available to consumers, including pre-release testing data, early consumer complaints 20 about the transmission defects to Ford and its dealers, testing conducted in response to those 21 complaints, high failure rates and replacement part sales data, aggregate data from Ford dealers, 22 among other internal sources of aggregate information about the problem including, but not limited 23 to, similar defects in the substantially identical European and Australian models. 24 47. Before the Vehicle was available for sale in the United States, Ford offered the same 25 vehicles, equipped with a similar dual-clutch transmission, in Europe and Australia. Although the 26 United States version utilizes dry-clutches as opposed to the European and Australian version's 27 wet-clutches, Ford acknowledged in its own press release that the transmission offered for sale in 28 the United States is a "derivative" of the design of the European and Australian models. European McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 38 1 and Australian versions of the dual-clutch transmission suffered from similar defects as alleged 2 Iherein. 3 48. In addition to having access to years of analysis and feedback concerning the prior 4 dull-clutch design, Ford also acknowledged in its own press releases the extensive pre-release 5 testing and computer sided modeling, simulation, and analysis it conducted before bringing the 6 I PowerShift Transmission to the United States market 7 49. Ford was also aware of the Transmission Defect through the numerous complaints it 8 received, both from consumers and from automotive journalists, who roundly criticized the 9 of the PowerShift Transmission. Indeed, a July 15, 2011 New York Times review of 10 Ford Focus criticized the PowerShift transmission's 'jerks, pauses and lethargic acceleration." 11 that same article, Greg Burgess, a Ford engineer, admitted that Ford made "tradeoffs" in terms 12 of drivability in other to "deliver something that is very, very focI efficient." 13 50. The review went on to state: "the logical explanation is that they [the Ford Engineers] 14 were given a fizel economy target and no option but to meet it. One might wonder why a top 15 executive didn't step in to keep the transmission from reaching market." 16 51. The existence of the Transmission Defect is a material fact that areasonable consumer 17 would consider when deciding whether to purchase or lease a vehicle equipped with a PowerShift 18 Transmission. Had Plaintiff known that the Vehicle was equipped with a defective transmission, 19 they would not have purchased the Vehicle equipped with the PowerShift Transmission or would 20 have paid substantially less for it. 21 52. Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff, reasonably expect that a vehicle's transmission is 22 safe, will function in a manner that will not pose a safety hazard, and is free from defects. Plaintiff 23 further reasonably expect that Ford will not sell or lease vehicles with known safety defects, such 24 as the Transmission Defect, and will disclose any such defects to its consumers when it learns of 25 them. They did not expect Ford to fail to disclose the Transmission Defect to them and to 26 continually deny the defect. 27 28 -10- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 11 of 38 I Ford's Failure to Disclose the PowerShift Transmission Defect 2 53. Ford has never disclosed the PowerShift Transmission defect to Plaintiff prior to the 3 purchase of the Subject Vehicle or at any point during ownership of the Subject Vehicle, and Ford 4 has never instnicted its dealerships to disclose the PowerShift Transmission defect to drivers or 5 potential purchasers or lessees of vehicles equipped with the PowerShift Transmission. 6 54. The PowerShift Transmission defect was not known or reasonably discoverable by the 7 Plaintiff beibre purchase or lease, or without experiencing the defect first hand and exposing 8 themselves to an unreasonable safety risk. 9 55. Ford has remained silent even as it issued service bulletins, conducted internal 10 investigations, and witnessed the failure of the transmission in earlier models of their vehicles 11 distributed in Europe and Australia. 12 56. Ford's refusal to publically acknowledge the defect has created widespread confbsion. 13 Ford's failure to notify consumers, dealerships, or auto-technicians prevents the PowerShift 14 Transmission problem from being efficiently diagnosed. Drivers are led to believe that the 15 problems they are experiencing with the .transmission in their vehicle are actually "normal 16 characteristics" of the transmission. Likewise, the lack of information makes it less likely that 17 dealerships and auto-technicians will be able to diagnose and fix the PowerShift Transmission 18 defect, or advise Plaintiff about the dangers of driving the Subject Vehicle. 19 57. Ma result of Ford's inaction and silence, Plaintiff was entirely unaware that Plaintiff 20 purchased, and continues to drive, an unsafe and unreliable vehicle. As Ford knows, a reasonable 21 person would consider the PowerShift Transmission defect important and would not purchase or 22 lease a vehicle equipped with the PowerShift Transmission defect were the defect disclosed in 23 advance, or would pay substantially less for the vehicle. 24 Ford Has Actively Concealed the Transmission Defect 25 58. While Ford has been fblly aware of the Transmission Defect affecting the Vehicle, Ford 26 and its agents actively concealed the existence and nature of the Transmission Defect from 27 Plaintiff at the time of purchase, repair, and thereafter. Specifically, Ford failed to disclose or 28 actively concealed, at and after the time of purchase or repair: LI McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 12 of 38 1 a. any and all known material defects or material nonconformity of the Vehicle, 2 including the defects relating to the PowerShift Transmission; 3 b. that the Subject Vehicles, including their PowerShift Transmission, were not in 4 good working order, were defectiv; and were not fit for the intended purposes; and 5 c. that Subject Vehicles and their PowerShift Transmission were deftctive, despite the 6 fact that Ford learned of such defects through alarming failure ntes customer 7 complaints, as well as through other internal sources, as early th 2010. 8 59. As a result of the Transmission Defect; Ford was inundated with complaints regarding 9 the PowerShift Transmission. In July 2011, Ford implemented a communications strategy 10 intended to enlighten consumers about some of the behavior characteristics of the PowerShift 11 Transmission in order to "improve customer expectations." In a memo with instructions sent to 12 Ford dealers and service personnel, which Ford intended its dealers and service personnel to 13 communicate to consumers, Ford noted that some of the common and normal characteristics of the 14 PowerShift Transmission include double clicking metal sounds, coast down whin; low speed 15 grinding, and reverse gear whine. 16 60. However, despite Ford's public insistence that these behavioral characteristics of the 17 PowerShift Transmission were normal, in 2010 and 2011, Ford issued several TSBs to its dealers 18 in the United States acknowledging defects in the PowerShift Transmission. Ford's TSB from 19 September 2010, covering the 2011 Ford Fiesta, informs dealers how to address and attempt to 20 repair the PowerShift Transmission in response to "concerns such as no engagement or intermittent 21 no engagement in Drive or Reverse when shifting from Park to Drive or Reverse grinding noise 22 during engagement, and/or a check engine light with transmission control module (TCM) 23 diagnostic trouble code..." 24 61. Ford's TSB released on January 1,2011, covering the 2011 Fiesta with the PowerShift 25 Transmission, informs dealers of problems with the PowerShift Transmission causing "a loss of 26 power, hesitation, surge, or lack of throttle response while driving." 27 62. Ford's TSB from March 31, 2011, also covering the 2011 Ford Fiesta, informs dealers 28 of problems where the PowerShift Transmission "exhibit(s] a rattlelgrind noise in reverse only." McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 13 of 38 1 63. Ford issued two separate TSBs in May 2011, both covering the Ford Fiesta. new 2 'NBa addressed problems with the PowerShift Transmission including "concerns in Drive or 3 Reverse when shifting from Park to Drive or reverse, no engagement, delayed engagement, 4 intermittent engagement, noise during engagement..." 5 64. On information and belief, another Ford TSB released in September 2011 advised 6 dealers to reprogram the transmission computer if 2011 Fiesta owners complained about 7 "hesitation when accelerating from a low speed after coast down, harsh or late 1-2 upshift harsh 8 shifting during low-speed lip-in or tip-out maneuvers and/or engine r.p.m. flare when coasting to a 9 stop." 10 65. The 2012 Ford Focus was the subject of a Ford TSB in September 2011, which 11 informed dealers of transmission problems including: "RPM flare on deceleration coming to a 12 stop, rough idle on deceleration coming to a stop, intermittent engine idle fluctuations at a stop, 13 intermittent vehicle speed control inoperativ; intermittent harsh engagement/shift.. 14 66. In December of 2011, Motor Thend magazine called these eftbrts by Ford a "stealth 15 upgrade" and noted that while "[t]here's no official recall or service campaign... anybody who 16 complains or requests an upgrade at the dealership can have theft powertrain control computer re- 17 flashed." 18 67. On information and belief; the software upgrades recommended and encouraged by the 19 various TSBs issued by Ford were completely ineffective at addressing the Transmission Defect. 20 68. When consumers present vehicles equipped with the PowerShift Transmission to an 21 authorized Ford dealer for repair to the transmission, rather than inform consumers of the 22 Transmission Defect or conclusively repair the problem under warranty, Ford's dealers and 23 authorized repair facilities either inform consumers that their vehicles are functioning properly, or 24 perform superficial and ineffectual software updates that.delay or mask the manifestation of the 25 Transmission Defect in an attempt to avoid more comprehensive and expensive repairs or 26 replacements under the warranty. 27 69. To this thy, Ford still has not notified Plaintiff that the Vehicle suffers from a systemic 28 defect that causes the transmission to malfunction. McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 14 of 38 I PLAINTIFF'S EXPERIENCES 2 70. The Vehicle was equipped with a DPS6 Ford PowerShift Transmission. 3 71. On or about December 27, 2014, Plaintiff visited MORGAN HILL in Morgan Hill, 4 California in hopes of purchasing a new Ford Focus vehicle. Plaintiff walked the dealership in 5 search of a vehicle to meet Plaintiff's needs, assisted by a salesperson. Plaintiff was specifically 6 searching for a Ford Focus vehicle with an automatic transmission for a smoother and more 7 effortless drive. In searching the car inventory on the car lot Plaintiff reviewed the window S stickers of multiple Ford Focus vehicles that caught her eye. The window stickers on these 9 vehicles identified them as having an automatic transmission. Plaintiff identified a 2014 Ford 10 Focus she was interested in purchasing. Plaintiff's conversations with the salesperson, the window 11 sticker on the vehicle, and a test drive of the vehicle all reinforced Plaintiff's belief that the 12 Vehicle was in fact equipped with an automatic transmission. The salesperson never disclosed to 13 Plaintiff that the vehicle was not actually equipped with an automatic transmission. Plaintiff relied 14 on the statements on the window sticker and marketing materials they had received about the Ford 15 Focus. 16 72. Prior to purchasing the Vehicle, Plaintiff reviewed marketing brochures, viewed 17 television commercials and/or heard radio commercials about the qualities of the Ford Focus. IS Plaintiff also relied on Ford's reputation as an established and experienced auto manufacturer. 19 relied on the statements made during the sales process by Ford's agents and within 20 11 the marketing brochures provided by Ford. However, Ford and its authorized agents did not • 21 publicly or privately disclose to Plaintiff any infbrmation about the Transmission Defect. These 22 omissions were material to Plaintiff's decision to purchase the Vehicle. Had Ford and/or its 23 authorized agents publicly or privately disclosed the Transmission Defect before Plaintiff 24 purchased the Vehicle, Plaintiff would have been aware of such disclosures, and would not have 25 purchased the Vehicle. 26 73. On or around June 25, 2015, Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to MORGAN HILL, an 27 authorized Ford repair facility for repair. Plaintiff complained that the Vehicle shudders when 28 accelerating and when the foot is lifted off the brake. The repair facility technicians updated the -14- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 15 of 38 I transmission control module ("TCM") and powerirain control module ('PCMI"), and reset the 2 TCM. The Vehicle was returned to Plaintiff and the service technician represented to Plaintiff that 3 the Vehicle had been repaired and was safe to drive. Plaintiff reasonably relied on this 4 representation by the service technician at the authorized Ford repair facility. All repairs were 5 covered under Ford's written warranty. 6 74. On or around January 4, 2016, Plaintiff again delivered the Vehicle to an authorized 7 Ford repair facility for repair with complaints of shuddering on acceleration. The repair facility 8 technicians updated the PCM and TCM, and replaced the clutch. The Vehicle was returned to 9 Plaintiff and the service technician represented to Plaintiff that the Vehicle had been repaired and 10 was safe to drive. Plaintiff reasonably relied on this representation by the service technician at the 11 authorized Ford repair facility. All repairs were covered under Ford's written warranty. 12 75. On or around March 21, 2016, Plaintiff delivered the Vehicle to an authorized Ford 13 repair facility for repair. Plaintiff again complained about the transmission shuddering while taking 14 off from a stop, and also complained about both a fluid leak and a coolant leak coming from under 15 the engine area The repair facility technicians replaced the clutch, transmission and brackets, and 16 reset the TCM initialization. The repair facility technicians also removed the valve covez, front 17 cover, oil pan and water pump, then resealed and torqued them. The Vehicle was then returned to 18 Plaintiff, and the service technician represented to Plaintiff that the Vehicle had been repaired and 19 was safe to drive. Plaintiff reasonably relied on this representation by the service technician at the 20 authorized Ford repair facility. All repairs were covered under Ford's written warranty. 21 22 23 76. Ford misrepresented the qualifies of the transmission in the Vehicle to Plaintiff. at the 24 time of the sale of the vehicle. Ford also concealed the fact that the transmission was defective. 25 77. Ford continued to misrepresent its ability to repair the vehicle in conformity with the 26 warranty throughout the warranty period. 27 78. At all relevant times, Ford was aware of the defects in the Powershift transmission. 28 McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 16 of 38 1 79. As described in more detail above, as early as 2010, Ford began issuing significant 2 technical service bulletins to its authorized dealers explaining the widespread issues with the 3 Powershift transmission. At no point prior to the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff or during 4 Plaintiff's ownership of the Vehicle did Ford or an authorized dealer ever inform Plaintiff of the 5 ongoing defect or the fact that Plaintiff's Vehicle was not actually equipped with an automatic 6 transmission. 7 80. Ford had a duty to disclose the concealed facts alleged above because Ford knew that 8 Lntiff did not know a material fact and farther knew that such facts were not readily accessible 9 to the Plaintiff because Ford actively concealed those facts. 10 81. Ford had a duty to disclose the concealed facts alleged above because Ford made 11 misrepresentations in its marketing materials and window stickers and through its authorized sales 12 representatives about the quality, characteristics, and safety of the Powershift transmission. 13 82. Ford had a duty to disclose the concealed facts alleged above because Ford actively 14 concealed material facts in order to induce a false belief. 15 83. Ford intended for Plaintiff to rely on those misrepresentations to conceal the fact that 16 the defective Powershift Transmission could not be repaired. 17 84. Prior to the sale of the Vehicle, and at all times thereafter, Defendant therefore failed to 18 disclose the existence of the vehicle's inherent defects to Plaintiff, and Defendant failed to disclose 19 its inability to repair these inherent defects, which prevented the Vehicle from conforming to its 20 applicable warranties, In effect, after the sale of the Vehicle, Defendant fraudulently concealed 21 from purchasers, including Plaintiff, the fact that the dealers were not properly repairing the 22 defects to the Powershift transmission, and knew that the limited work that Ford had authorized its 23 dealerships to perform on those vehicles would not properly repair them. Ford also continued to 24 conceal the fact that Plaintiff's vehicle was not in fact equipped with an automatic transmission as 25 advertised. 26 85. On July 7, 2017, Defendant mAiled Plaintiff class notice as a putative class member in 27 the class action, Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of 28 California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx). Plaintiff received this notice shortly thereafter. -16- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 17 of 38 1 This date was the earliest date that Plaintiff could have had any sort of notice of the facts which 2 give rise to Plaintiff's fraud causes of action. Ford did not disclose any of this information prior to 3 the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff or at any earlier date during ownership. Accordingly, Plaintiff 4 could not have discovered her claims prior to July 7, 2017. Plaintiff could not, despite reasonable 5 and diligent investigation, have discovered such on an earlier date because of Ford's fraudulent 6 misrepresentations and concealment of the defects in the PowerShift transmission in Plaintiff's 7 vehicle, as previously alleged above. Additionally, the repeated false assurances of Ford and iS 8 service dealership agents made to Plaintiff, on which Plaintiff reasonably relied, that Ford had and 9 repair any problems with the transmission in Plaintiff's vehicle that occurred during the 10 express warranty period and that said problems would not be repealing further delayed Plaintiff's 11 discovery of her claims. The statute of limitations for each of Plaintiff's claims against Ford was 12 therefore tolled under the delayed discovery rule and the doctrine of fraudulent concealment until 13 Plaintiff could have first discovered on or around July 7, 2017, that Ford had misrepresented the 14 characteristics of the transmission and concealed the known defbcts during the ownership of the 15 Vehicle. là 86. Because Ford failed to disclose these foregoing facts to Plaintiff, all statute of I 17 limitations periods with respect to sale of the Vehicle were tolled by the doctrines of fraudulent 18 concealment, the discovery rule, and/or equitable tolling. As alleged herein, Ford wrongfully 19 concealed the fact (1) that the Vehicle was equipped with a manual transmission (the PowerShift 20 transmission), and (2) that its dealerships were making inadequate repairs that were incapable of 21 addressing the root cause of the Vehicle's malfunctions. 22 87. Plaintiff did not discover the operative facts that are the basis of the claims alleged 23 herein because the facts were concealed in confidential and privileged documents, which a 24 consumer would not know about and could not obtain. 25 88. No amount of diligence by Plaintiff could have led to the discovery of these facts 26 because they were kept secret by Ford and, therefore, Plaintiff was not at fault for failing to 27 discover these facts. 28 I/I -17- aiIfl(a.I.)IJ F,,' ifl Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 18 of 38 Plaintiff did not have actual knowledge of facts sufficient to put them on notice. Plaintiff did not know, nor could have known, about Ford's inability to repair the defects in its PowerShift transmission because, as alleged above, Ford kept this information highly confidential, and its dealership assured Plaintiff that its repairs were effective. All Statute of Limitations Periods are Tolled by the Tolling Doctrine Established in American PIDe & Construction Co. v. Utah (1974)414 U.S. 538 As a Result of the Class Action Vartas v. Ford Motor Comoanv Plaintiff gave timely notice of Plaintiff's claims against Ford in the present action as putative class members in a class action, Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx), which was filed on September 28,2012. That action was filed within three years of the date of Plaintiff's discovery of her claims against Ford in the present action, as previously described in detail above. There is no prejudice to Ford in gathering evidence to defend against Plaintiff's individual claims because the class definition in the class action complaint within which Plaintiff were putative class members and the allegations in the class action lawsuit, Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv08388 ABC (FFMx), put Ford on notice of the facts that give rise to Plaintiff's individual action, the witnesses necessary for Ford to defend Plaintiff's individual action, and the causes of action against Ford asserted in Plaintiff's individual action. Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx) alleged the material facts on behalf of Plaintiff as putative class members as are being alleged by Plaintiff in the present individual action. The facts alleged in Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx) are substantially similar, if I not identical to the facts alleged herein. The allegations in Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx) are based on the same subject matter and similar evidence as the instant complaint. Those allegations concern the some evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter in the instant complaint 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 19 of 38 I 95. The Vargas class action certainly protected the efficiency and economy of litigation 2 because that class action is pmtecting the rights of thousands of consumers nationwide through a 3 single action. Consumer class actions regarding defective vehicles brought against manufacturers 4 are regularly certified, making a class action lawsuit an efficient means of pursuing such claims. 5 96. The tolling of Plaintiff's individual statute of limitations encourages the protection of 6 efficiency and economy in litigation as promoted by the class action devise, so that putative class 7 would not find it necessary to seek to intervene or to join individually because of fear the 8 class might never be certified or putative class members may subsequently seek to request 9 exclusion. 10 97. The running of all statute of limitations on each of Plaintifi's claims asserted against 11 Ford in the present action were therefore tolled by American-Pipe tolling during the entire 12 pendency of the Vargas class action (i.e., from the date on which the Vargas class action was filed 13 on September 28, 2012 to the date on which Plaintiff opted out of the Vargas class action 14 litigation, on or around August 30, 2017). 15 All Statute of Limitations Periods are Tolled Under California Law by the Doctrine of Equitable 16 Tolling As a Result of the Class Action Var2as v. Ford Motor Company 17 98. Plaintiff gave timely notice of PlaintifFs claims against Ford in the present action as 18 putative class members in a class action, Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District 19 Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx), which was filed on 20 September 28,2012. That action was filed within three years of the date of Plaintiff's discovery of 21 her claims against Ford in the present action, as previously described in detail above. 22 99. There is no prejudice to Ford in gathering evidence to. defend against Plaintiff's 23 individual claims because the class definition in the class action complaint within which Plaintiff 24 were putative class members and the allegations in the class action lawsuit, Vargas v. Ford Motor 25 Company, United States District Court, Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 26 ABC (FFMx), put Ford on notice of the ftcts that give rise to Plaintiff's individual action, the 27 witnesses necessary for Ford to defend Plaintiff's individual action, and the causes of action 28 against Ford asserted in Plaintiff's individual action. McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 20 of 38 I 100. Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, Central District of 2 California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx) alleged the material facts on behalf of Plaintiff 3 as putative class members as are being alleged by Plaintiff in the present individual action. 4 101. The facts alleged in Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, 5 Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx) are substantially similar, if 6 not identical to the facts alleged herein. 7 102. The allegations in Vargas v. Ford Motor Company, United States District Court, 8 Central District of California, Case No. 2:12-cv-08388 ABC (FFMx) are based on the same subject 9 matter and similar evidence as the instant complaint. Those allegations concern the same 10 evidence, memories, and witnesses as the subject matter in the instant complaint. 11 103. The Vargas class action certainly protected the efficiency and economy of litigation 12 because that class action is protecting the rights of thousands of consumers nationwide through a 13 single action. Consumer class actions regarding defective vehicles brought against manufacturers 14 are regularly certified, making a class action lawsuit an efficient means of pursuing such claims. 15 104. Plaintiff acted reasonably and in good faith in filing the instant action. Shortly after 16 discovering Ford's fraudulent behavior, Plaintiff filed the instant action to pursue her individual 17 tts without delay. 18 105. The tolling of Plaintiffs individual statute of limitations encourages the protection of 19 efficiency and economy in litigation as promoted by the class action devise, so that putative class 20 members would not find it necessary to seek to intervene or to join individually because of fear the 21 class might never be certified or putative class members may subsequently seek to request 22 exclusion. 23 106. The running of all statute of limitations on each of Plaintiffs claims asserted against 24 Ford in the present action were therefore tolled by American-Pipe tolling during the entire 25 pendency of the Vargas class action (i.e., from the date on which the Vargas class action was filed 26 on September 28, 2012 to the date on which Plaintiff opted out of the Vargas class action 27 litigation, on or around August 30, 2017). 28 I/I McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 21 of 38 1 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Violation of the Song-Beverly Act - Breach of Express Warranty 3 (Against All Defendants) 4 107. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every illegation contained in the 5 preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein folly restated and re-alleged. 6 108. Express warranties accompanied the sale of the vehicle to Plaintiff by which Ford 7 undertook to preserve or maintain the utility or performance of Plaintiff's vehicle or provide 8 compensation if there was a failure in such utility or performance. 9 109. The vehicle was delivered to Plaintiff with serious defects and nonconformities to 10 warranty and developed other serious defects and nonconformities to warranty including, but not 11 limited to a transmission. 12 110. Pursuant to the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (herein after the "Act") Civil 13 Code sections 1790 et seq. the vehicle constitutes "consumer goods" used primarily for family or 14 household purposes, and Plaintiff have used the vehicle primarily for those purposes. 15 111. Plaintiff is a "buyer" of consumer goods under the Act. 16 112. Defendant Ford is a "manufacturer" and/or "distributor" under the Act. 17 113. The foregoing defects and nonconformities to warranty manifested themselves within 18 the applicable express warranty period. The nonconformities substantially impair the use, value 19 and/or safety of the vehicle. 20 114. Plaintiff delivered the vehicle to an authorized Ford repair facility for repair of the 21 nonconformities. 22 115. Defendant was unable to confbnn Plaintiff's vehicle to the applicable express warranty 23 after a reasonable number of repair attempts. 24 116. Notwithstanding Plaintiff's entitlement, Defendant Ford has failed to either promptly 25 replace the new motor vehicle or promptly make restitution in accordance with the Song-Beverly 26 Act. 27 117. By failure of Defendant to remedy the defects as alleged above, or to issue a refund or 28 replacement, Defendant is in breach of its obligations under the Song-Beverly Act. -21- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 22 of 38 1 118. Under the Act, Plaintiff is entitled to reimbursement of the price paid for the vehicle 2 less that amount directly attributable to use by the Plaintiff prior to discovery of the 3 nonconformities. 4 119. Plaintiff is entitled to all incidental, consequential, and general damages resulting from 5 Defendant's failure to comply with their obligations under the Song-Beverly Act. 6 120. Plaintiff is entitled under the Song-Beverly Act to recover as part of the judgment a 7 sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and expenses, including attornels fees, reasonably 8 incurred in connection with the commencement and prosecution of this action. 9 121. Plaintiff is entitled in addition to the amounts recovered, a civil penalty of up to two 10 times the amount of actual damages in that Ford, has willfully failed to comply with its 11 responsibilities under the Act. 12 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION 13 Violation of the Song-Beverly Act - Breach of Implied Warranty 14 (Against All Defendants) 15 122. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the 16 preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fhlly restated and re-alleged. 17 123. Ford and its authorized dealership at which Plaintiff purchased the Subject Vehicle bad 18 reason to know the purpose of the Subject Vehicle at the time of sale of the Subject Vehicle. The 19 sale of the Subject Vehicle was accompanied by an implied warranty of fitness. 20 124. The sale of the Subject Vehicle was accompanied by an implied warranty that the 21 Subject Vehicle was merchantable pursuant to Civil Code section 1792. 22 125. The Subject Vehicle was not of the same quality as those generally acceptable in the 23 trade because it was equipped with a defective transmission. 24 126. The Subject Vehicle was not fit for the ordinary purpose for which such goods are used 25 because it was equipped with a defective transmission. 26 127. The Subject Vehicle did not measure up to the promises or facts stated on the container 27 or label because it was equipped with a defective transmission. 28 III -22- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 23 of 38 1 128. The Subject Vehicle did not measure up to the promises or facts stated on the container 2 or label because it was equipped with an automated manual transmission rather than the automatic 3 flmin1ission as labeled. 4 129. Plaintiff is entitled to justifiably revoke acceptance of the Subject Vehicle under Civil 5 Code section 1794, et seq; Plaintiff hereby revoke acceptance of the Subject Vehicle. 6 130. Plaintiff is entitled to replacement or reimbursement pursuant to Civil Code section 7 1794, etseq. 8 131. Plaintiff is entitled to rescission of the contract pursuant to Civil Code section 1794, et 9 seq. and Commercial Code section 2711 10 132. Plaintiff is entitled to recover any "cover" damages under Commercial Code sections 11 2711,2712, and Civil Code section 1794, et seq. 12 133. Plaintiff is entitled to recover all incidental and consequential damages pursuant to 13 1794 et seq and Commercial Code sections 2711,2712, and 2713 et seq. 14 THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION 15 Fraudulent Inducement - Concealment 16 (Against Defendant Ford Only) 17 134. Plaintiff incorpolates herein by reibrence each and every allegation contained in the 18 preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fully restated and re-alleged. 19 135. Ford and its agents intentionally concealed and failed to disclose facts relating to the 20 Transmission Defects as explained in detail in paragraphs 13-69. 21 136. Defendant was the only party with knowledge of the Transmission Defects because that 22 knowledge came from internal reports such as pro-release testing data, customer complaints made 23 directly to Defendant, and technical service bulletins. None of this information was available to 24 the public, nor did Defendant publicly or privately disclose any of the information to Plaintiff. 25 Ford had exclusive knowledge of the defect as described in detail in paragraphs 45-52. 26 137. Ford actively concealed information from the public, preventing Plaintiff from 27 discovering any of the concealed facts as described in detail in paragraphs 53-69. 28 /1/ -23- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 24 of 38 I 138. Prior to the date of sale, on the date of sale, and on the date of each of the repair 2 attempts, Defendant had an opportunity to disclose to Plaintiff; but instead concealed from and 3 failed to disclose to Plaintiff, any of the known irreparable issues with the Vehicle. 4 139. Ford intended to deceive Plaintiff by concealing the known issues with the PowerShift 5 including the Transmission Defect, in an effort to sell the Vehicle at a maximum 6 price. .7 140. Ford knew of the specific transmission issues affecting the Vehicle, including the S Transmission Defect, prior to the sale of the Vehicle For example, in 2010, Ford released a TSB 9 after months of research relating to "concerns such as no engage or intermittent no engage in Drive 10 or Reverse when shifting from Park to Drive or Reverse" for certain vehicles equipped with the 11 PowerShifi Transmission. Plaintiff's vehicle was sold after Ford acknowledged these problems in 12 a TSB without any sort of disclosure being made to the Plaintiff. When Plaintiff experienced 13 repeated problems with the shifting of the transmission in the Vehicle, and at each time Plaintiff 14 brought the Vehicle to Ford's authorized repair facility for evaluation and repair, Ford and its 15 agents continued to conceal the known Transmission Defect and repeatedly represented to Plaintiff 16 that it was able to fix the issue. 17 141. Plaintiff did not know about the Transmission Defects at the time of sale. Plaintiff also 18 did not know of the irreparable nature of the problems at the time of any of the repair attempts 19 because Ford and its agents repeatedly represented that it was able to fix the vehicle upon return of 20 the Vehicle to Plaintiff. 21 142. Had Ford and/or its agents publicly or privately disclosed the Transmission Defect to 22 Plaintiff at or prior to the sale, Plaintiff would not have purchased the Vehicle. 23 143. Plaintiff was harmed by Defendant's concealment of the Transmission Defect because 24 Plaintiff was induced to enter into the sale of a vehicle that Plaintiff would not have otherwise 25 purchased. 26 144. Defendant's concealment of the defects was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff's 27 I T. 28 -24- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 25 of 38 1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACtION 2 Fraudulent Inducement - Intentional Misrepresentation 3 (Against Defendant Ford Only) 4 145. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the 5 preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fully restated and re-alleged. 6 146. Ford drafted, produced, and distributed marketing brochures to the public containing 7 factual representations about the PowerShift Transmission. Ford's marketing brochure for the 8 Vehicle represented the PowerShift Transmission had the following qualities: 9 a. "On Titanium, a standard PowerShift 6-speed automatic delivers torque to the drive 10 wheels 100% of the time during shifts, supplying quick response and acceleration." 11 147. Unfortunately, the Vehicle as delivered to Plaintiff had extremely poor handling on all 12 roads, as Plaintiffs drive was repeatedly interrupted by jerlcy shifts and hesitation. Plaintiffs 13 Vehicle was also not equipped with an "automatic" transmission, contrary to Ford's suggestion 14 that the transmission is a traditional "automatic." Plaintiffs Vehicle in ftct contained an unproven 15 automated dual clutch manual transmission. Plaintiffs Vehicle did not have seamless gear 16 changes - it expeiienced jerky gear changes and hesitation between shifts, which necessitated 17 several repairs and repeated reprogramming of the transmission control module - none of which 18 were sufficient to resolve the Transmission Defect. 19 148. Ford made such representations regarding PowerShift Transmission in the 2014 Ford 20 Focus despite its extensive internal knowledge of the Transmission Defect and other problems. 21 Ford's knowledge of the Transmission Defect is laid out in detail in paragraphs 45-52. 22 149. Ford informed its dealers and authorized service fbcilities and personnel, about 23 common behavior characteristics of the PowerShift Transmission in July 2011. In a memo with 24 instructions sent to Ford dealers and authorized service personnel, Ford noted that some of the 25 common characteristics of the PowerShift Transmission include double clicking metal sounds, 26 coast down whine, low speed grinding, and reverse gear whine. Despite this admission by Ford to 27 its dealers, repair facilities, and agcnts, Ford continued to represent to the public that the 28 PowerShift Transmission offered "great handling on all roads," and "the perfbrmance of a McGill v. Ford - OMPLA1NT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 26 of 38 1 manual," and seamless gear changes for amazing responsiveness," a wildly different picture from 2 the reality. Ford made the statements in its marketing brochures recldessly and without regard for 3 I their truth. 4 150. In addition, Ford misrepresented the type of transmission equipped in the Vehicle. 5 Throughout its marketing brochure, Ford states that the vehicle is equipped with a 6-speed 6 automatic transmission. That representation is false. The vehicle is actually equipped with the 7 Ford PowerShift Transmission, which is in fact a dual clutch transmission, which operates using 8 direct mechanical engagement and disengagement similar to a manual transmission. This 9 information is material for a consumer to know in maldng a purchasing decision, because unlike a 10 traditional automatic transmission, Ford's PowerShift dual clutch transmission powers the drive 11 wheels through a clutch, rather than a torque converter. The use of a clutch can result in a 12 substantially jerkier ride than that produced using a torque converter, particularly in an unproven 13 design. Plaintiff would not have purchased the Vehicle had Plaintiff known the vehicle's 14 transmission technology would cause the drive to be jerky, unreliable, and dangerous as a result of 15 the unproven dual-clutch (rather than automatic) system. 16 151. Defendants intended that Plaintiff rely on the representations made in the marketing 17 brochure related to the transmission in inducing Plaintiff to purchase the Vehicle. 18 152. Plaintiff reasonably relied on Defendant's representations related to the transmission 19 being "automatic" and providing a smooth ride, because Ford was the manufacturer of the vehicle 20 and claimed to have performed and relied upon extensive pre-release testing of the PowerShift 21 Transmission. Ford was in a superior position of knowledge 22 153. Plaintiff was banned by purchasing a vehicle that Plaintiff would not have purchased 23 had they known the true facts about the transmission, and the Transmission Defects, affecting it. 24 154. Plaintiff's reliance on Defendants' representations about the transmission qualities was 25 a substantial factor in Plaintiff's harm, as Ford and its agents were the exclusive source of• 26 information about the qualities of the transmission. 27 'II 28 I/I -26- McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 27 of 38 1 PIKER CAUSE OF ACTION 2 Fraudulent Inducement - Negligent Misrepresentation 3 (Against Defendant Ford Only) 4 155. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference each and every allegation contained in the 5 preceding and succeeding paragraphs as though herein fitUy restated and re-alleged. 6 156. At the time Ford made the misrepresentations identified in paragraph 13-69 above, they 7 had no reasonable grounds for believing the representations to be true, because Ford was 8 simultaneously issuing internal memoranda to its agents and dealerships about the characteristics 9 of the PowerShift Transmission causing "a loss of power, hesitation, surge, or lack of throttle 10 response while driving." None of those characteristics can be reasonably construed to provide 11 "great handling on all roads," "seamless gear changes," or "amazing responsiveness," as the 12 PowerShift Transmission was described to the Plaintiff in marketing materials. Ford's knowledge 13 of the Transmission Defect is outlined in more detail in paragraphs 45-52. 14 15 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 16 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Ford, as follows: 17 a. For general, special and actual damages according to proof at trial; 18 b. For rescission of the purchase contract and restitution of all monies expended; 19 c. For diminution in value; 20 d. For incidental and consequential damages according to proof at trial; 21 e. For civil penalty in the amount of two times Plaintiff's actual damages; 22 I/Il 23 24 25 26 27 11/ 28 III v. Ford - COMPLAINT Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 28 of 38 I 1. For prejudgment interest at the legal rate; 2 g. For punitive damages pursuant to Civil Code section 3294; LI h. For.reasonablc attorney fees and costs of suit; and Is i. For such other relief as the Court deems just and proper under the circumstances. 5 6 7 8 9 10 Dated: '-I17-7/1% GROUP, LLP 11 12 Amy Morse (SBN 290502) Attorneys for Plaintiff, LINDA MCGILL LINDA MCGILL, hereby demands trial by jury in this action. McGill v. Ford - COMPLAINT 13 14 15 16 pa 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 29 of 38 Exhlebit 1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 30 of 38 xhibit fo,dovnnr.ccm 4! 4. I UI cl r I iordca j*Ii4':bt •1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 31 of 38 snaos 7102 i Q 3 ‘33 ‘ 'I ' ww manual“ i mm: | nmmmm | mm |m| umhun. - Table of Contents Introduction 9 Child Safety 17 Child seat positioning ................................... 19 Booster seats ......................................... 21 InstaIllng child seats .................................... 24 Child safety locks ...................................... 33 Safety Belts 34 Fastening the safety belts ............................... .36 Safety belt height adjustment ............................. 39 Safety belt warning light and Indicator chime .................. 39 Safety belt-rninder ..................................... 40 Child restraint and safety belt maintenance ................... 42 Personal Safety System 43 Supplementary Restraints System 44 Driver and passenger airbags ............................. 46 Side airbags ......................................... .52 Side curtain airbags .................................... 53 Crash sensors and airbag Indicator ......................... 55 Mrbag disposal ........................................ 56 Keys and Remote ContrOl 57 General Information on ndio frequencies ..................... 57 Remote control ....................................... 58 Keys............................................... 58 Replacing a lost key or remote control ....................... 65 2014 Focus (bc) Owners Guide gl 1st PrintIng, October2012 USA ((us) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 32 of 38 2 Table of Contents MyKey 66 Settings, MyKey ....................................... 66 creatint............................................ 67 clearing.............................................. 68 System status ......................................... 68 Remote start, MyKey ................................... 68 ftoubleshooting, MyKey ................................. 71 Locke 73 Locking and unlocking .................................. 73 Think release ......................................... 79 Interior luggage compartment release ....................... 80 SecurIty 81 SecuriLock® passive anti-theft system ....................... 81 Steering Wheel 84 Adjusting the steering wheel .............................. 84 Steering wheel controls ................................. 85 Wipers and Washers 87 Windshield wipers ..................................... 87 Windshield washers .................................... 88 Rear-window wiper and washer ............................ 88 Ughting 90 Lighting control ....................................... 90 Autolamps ........................................... 91 Itument lighting dimmer ............................... 91 Headlamp exit delay .................. . ................. 92 Daytime running lamps .................................. 92 Front fog lamps ....................................... 93 Direction Indicators .................................... 93 Interior lamps ........................................ 93 Ambient lighting ....................................... 95 2014 Focus (foc) Cwners Guide 91 1st PrInting, October2012 USA ((us) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 33 of 38 Table of Contents 3 Windows and Mirrors 98 Power windows .......................................96 Exterior mirrors .......................................98 Interior mirrors ......................................100 Swi visors ..........................................100 Moonroof...........................................101 Instrument Cluster 103 Gauges.............................................103 Warning lamps and Indicators ............................104 Audible warnings and Indicators ..........................108 InformatIon Displays 109 Controls............................................109 Thpcomputer .......................................112 Information messages ..................................113 Climate Control 122 Manual heating and air ccmditionlng ........................ 122 Dual automatic temperature control........................124 Rear window defroster .................................129 seats 132 Sitting in the correct position ............................132 Head restraints.......................................133 Manual seats ........................................136 Power seats .........................................138 Heated seats ........................................139 Rearseats ..........................................140 2014 Focus (tot) Owners Guide g1 itt PrInting, October 2012 USA (ft:s) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 34 of 38 488 Index Messa8e center .109 wanting messages .113 Mirrors .................................98,100 foldaway ...................................98 side view mirrors (power) .......98 Moon roof ..................................101 Motorcraft® parts .............253,293 MyFord 7buchm system ..........371 MyKey..........................................66 !sJ Navigation features ...................436 Navigation voice commands ....445 Notifications ..............................417 0 Octane rating ............................153 P Pairing other phones ........329,404 Pairing your phone ...................403 Pairing your phone for the first time ............................328, 403 Parental MyKey programming ....66 Park Assist ................................179 Parking brake ............................172 Parts (see Motorcraft® parts) 293 Phone Bluetooth menu options (adding, connecting, deleting, turning on/off) ..........................340 Phone redlal ..............................334 Phone settings ..................407,428 Phone voice commands ............409 Playing music (by artist, album, genre, playlist, tracks, similar) ...................................... 359 P01 categories ...........................438 Point of Interest (P01) .............438 Power distribution box (see Fuses) ...............................222 Power door locks ........................ 73 Power mirrors .............................98 PowerpoInt ................................142 Power steering .......................... 191 fluid, checking and adding ....239 fluid, refill capacity ................ 290 fluid, specifications ................. 290 Power Windows ........................... 96 Privacy information .......... 325,37? Push button start system .........145 Putting acall on/off hold .........332 L9 Quick touch buttons .................444 It Radio .................. 303,305, 307, 309 AM/FM .....................................383 Single CD ........303,305,307,309 Radio reception .........................301 Radio voice commands .............384 Rear view camera display 184,424 Rear window defroster .....122, 124 Receiving a text message .............................336, 407 2014 Focus (ftc) Owners Guide gf, 1st PrInting, October2012 USA (fus) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 35 of 38 Index EM Recommendations for attaching safety restraints for children .24 Relays .221-222 Remote entry system illuminated entiy .78 Iockingfunlocldng doors .73-74 opening the trunk .74 replacing the batteries ............. 60 Roadside assistance .................. 208 Route preferences .................... 440 S Safety Belt Maintenance ............ 42 Safety belts (see Safety restraints) ......... 38,39 Safety defects, reporting ..........220 Safety Information ............ 324,375 Safety restraints ..............36-37,39 Belt-Minder® ............................39 extension assembly ..................38 for adults ............................. 36-37 for children ............................... 24 safety belt maintenance ...........42 seat belt maintenance .............. 42 warning light and chime ..........39 Safety restraints - LATCH anchors ........................................28 Safety seats for children ............ 24 Safety Compliance Certification label ....................295 Satellite Radio ........................... 389 Scheduled Maintenance Guide Normal Scheduled Maintenance and Log ............. 472 SD card ...................... 322,896,436 Seat belts (see Safety restraints) ...............36 seats child safety seats ......................24 heated ...................................... 139 SecuriLock passive anti-theft system..........................................81 selectin$ your media source (USB, Line in, ST audio) .........356 Sending new text messages ..... 406 Setting a destination ................ 436 Setting a destination by voice.......................................... 436 Settings...................................... 422 Setting the clock ...................303, 305,307,422 Side air curtain ...........................53 Side-curtain airbags system .......53 SIRIUS® satellite radio ............389 SIRIUS satellite radio voice commands .................................391 SIRIUS Travel Link ...................414 SIRIUS Travel Link voice commands .................................415 Snowplowlng ...............................15 SOS Post Crash Alert .................45 Spark plugs, specifications ....... 293 Special notice ambulance conversions ............ 15 Specification chart, lubricants ...................................290 Stability system -------------------------175 Starting your vehicle ................146 Jump starting ..........................210 push button start system .......145 2014 Focus (foc) Owners Guide g1 1st Printing, October2012 USA ((us) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 36 of 38 490 Index Steering .84 controls .85 tilting .84 Supplemental Restraint System (SRS) (see alrbags) .46 Supported media file types .390 Supported player, media Connate and inetadata Information .........399 SYNC® AppLln1cTM ...................351 SYNC® customer support ..............................324, 375 SYNC® Services ................348,410 system settings .........................425 T Temperature control (see Climate control) ........122, 124,433 Text messaging ................. 336,406 Text messaging (sending, downloading, deleting) .....336, 338 Tht steering wheel ......................84 'lires ...........................263-264,283 allgzunent ................................277 care..........................................263 changing ......................... .283,285 checking the pressure ............273 Inflating ...................................271 label.........................................270 replacing ..................................275 rotating....................................277 safety practices .......................276 sidewall information ...............266 snow tires and chains ............278 spare tire .................................283 terminology .............................265 tire grades ...............................264 treadwear ........................264,273 ¶buchscreen features (climate) ....................................433 ¶bwlng ....................................... 200 recrp5jmJ towing .................201 trailer towing ..........................200 wrecker....................................200 flctIon control ........................173 afflc, Directions and Infonnatlon ................................348 'flaffic preferences ................... 440 Tansmlssion brake-shift interlock (BSI) .... 185 fluid, checking and adding (automatic) .............................238 fluid, checking and adding () ................................238 fluid, refill capacities ..............290 lubricant specifications ...........290 Thmk..................................... 79-80 remote release ..........................74 Thm signal .................................. 93 L'i USB port .................... 321-322, 396 Using privacy mode ..................332 V Vehicle health report ........346,420 Vehicle Identification Number (YIN) ...........................294 Velñcleloading ..........................194 Ventilating your vehicle ...........149 Voice commands In media mode..........................................354 2014 Focus (foc) Owners Guide g1 1st PrintIng, October2012 USA (Am) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 37 of 38 Index 491 Voice commands In phone mode .330 Voice recognition .377 w Warning lights (see Ughts) .....104 Washer fluid ......................229-240 Water, Driving through .............205 Windows power.........................................96 rear wiper/washer .....................88 Windshield washer fluid and wipers checking and adding fluid ..................................239-240 replacing wiper blades ...........242 Wrecker towing .........................200 2014 Focus (foc) Owners Guide gf, 1st PrintIng, October2012 USA (ft,$) Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 38 of 38 EXHIBIT C Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 18CV327384 Santa Clara - Civil .I1wang Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 413012018 12:00 AM Reviewed By: A. Hwang Case #18CV327384 Envelope: 1464167 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP Steve Mikhov (SBN 224676) E-mail: stevemknightlaw.com Amy Morse (SBN 290502) E-mail: amym®knightlaw.com 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Telephone: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorneys for PlaintifI, LINDA A. MCGILL LINDA A. MCGILL, Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC. a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES I through 10, Inclusive, Defendants. 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 Department SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CaseNo.: 18CV327384 Unlimited Jurisdiction DEMAI'JI) FOR JURY TRIAL Assignedfor All Purposes to the Honorable -1- DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 1 2 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL 3 Plaintiff, LINDA A. MCGILL, hereby demands trial by jury in this action. 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 Dated: (4/fl hi GROUP, LLP SWVE MIKHOV (SBN 224676) Amy Morse (SBN 290502) Attorneys for Plaintiff, LINDA A. MCGILL 25 26 27 28 DEMAND JURY TRIAL Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT D Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 Knight Law Group. LLP 1801 Century Park Had Suite 2300, Los Angeles, CA 90067 itLaPICIE No.: (310) 532-2250 (310) 552-7973 smErAaEss: WI NOtfl rust bU'CCI UAILING *ons& Same as above awniozircoot San Jose, CA 95113 Downtown Superior Court ctronically Filed Superior Court of CA, unty of Santa Clara, 413012018 12:00 AM viewed By: A. Hwang se #18CV327384 veloDe: 1464167 CASE NAME: LINDA A. MCGILL v. I CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET I Complex Case Designation I 18CV327384 I Unlimited LImited I IJ Counter C JoInder I I I (Amount (Amount I I demanded demanded is I Filed with first appearance by defendant i exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) I (Cal. Rules of Court. rule 3.402) I own Check one box below for the case type that Auto Tort S Uninsuied motorIst (46) Other PIIPDIWD (Personal lnju,ylPropeity oamagelWrongful Death) Tort CI Asbestos (04) . ci Product liabIlity (24) C] Medical rnaipradlce(45) Other PI/PD/WD (23) Non-PVPDIWD (Other) Tort C] Business tortAinfalr business practIce (07) C] c Freud (18) ED Intellectual property(19) C] Professional neglIgence (25) C Other non.P I/PDIWD tort (35) Wrongful tenWnatn (36) Other employment (15) )est describes this case: Cannot EM Breath of centradMrarranty (08) C Rule 3.740 collectIons (06) C] Other collectIons (09) II lnaurancecovezaga(18) U Other contract (37) Real Property Eminent domalnflnvarse condemnation (14) IU ongM eviction (33) Other real property (28) Unlawful Datalnor ci C D Orugs(36) Judicial Review El Asset forfeiture (05) c:i C tt of mandate (02) Provisionally Complex Clvii Utigatlen (Cal. Rules of Corn?, rules 3.400-3403) C AntlbustlTrade regulatIon (03) IJ Construction defect (10) C Mass tort(40) II Securtuas fltigallon (28) C Envlronmontatifoxlc tort (30) C] Insurance coverage claims arising from the above listed provlslonaUy complex case types (41) Enfercomont of Judgment C Enforcementofjudgment(20) Miscellaneous Civil ComplaInt CO(27) C Other complaInt (not s,podflsd above) (42) MIscellaneous CMI Petition C Partneiels and corporate governance (21) C Other petition (not wedDed above) (43) 2. ThIs case C] is [XI Is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court If the case Is complex, marli the factors requIrIng exceptional Judicial management C] Large number of Separately represented pasties d.0 Large number of witnesses C Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. C Coordination with related actions pending In one or more courts Issues that will be time-consumIng to resolve in other counties, states, or countrIes, or In a federal court C Substantial amount of doarmentary evidence I. D Substantial po$Judgment Judicial supeMsion 3. Remedies sought (diode all that epp: a.[19 monetary b.c nonmoneta do ratory or Injunctive relief C. Cpunitive 4. Number of causes of action (apeclf~: 5 5. This case C Is Is not a class action suit. 6. If there are a known related cases, file and serve a notice of related cas m form CM.015) Datert4(V771% • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed fri the action & proceeding (except smell claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result In sanctions. o FIle this cover sheet In addItion to any cover sheet required by local court rule. • If this case Is complex under rule 3A00 at seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other pates to the action or proceeding. o Unless this Is a collections case under rule 3140 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistIcal purposes onr. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SKEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) in a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile slatistica about the types and numbers of cases filed. You must complete items I through 6 on the sheet. In Item 1, you must check onebox for the case type that bestdescsibes the case. lf the case fltsbothageneral and a more specifictypeofcaselistedlniteml, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you In completing the sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type In item I ate provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your Initial paper. Failure to file a cover sheet with the first paper filed In a civil case may subject a party. Its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties In Rule 3.140 Collections Cases. A "collections case' under nate 3340 Is defined as an action for recovery of money owed In a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25.000. exclusive of Interest and attoniejs fees, arising from a transaction In which property. services, or money was acquired on credit A collections case does not Include an action seeking the followIng: (1) tort damages, (2) punitIve damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment wrIt of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.140 collections case on this form means that It will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A nate 3340 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment In rule 3.740. To Parties In Complex Cases, In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case Is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case Is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be Indicatad by completing the appropriate boxes In items I and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file end serve no later than the time of Its first appearance a joinder In the plaintiffs designation, a counter-designation that the case Is not complex, or. If the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case Is complex. Provisionally Complex civil Litigation (Cal. Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) MtltrustlTrade Regulation (03) Construction Defect (10) Claims InvoMng Mass Tort (40) Securities LitIgation (28) Envtmrmental/Tordc Tort (30) Insurance Coverage Claims (arising from proWsIonaLy complex case Øpe listed ebove) (41) Enforcement at Judgment Enforcement of Judgment (20) Abstract of Judgment (Out of ConfessIon of Judgment (non- domestic lesions) Sister State Judgment Administrative Agency Award (not - taxes) PatfiloniCedificoton of Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Otherorten1wit of Judgment CAM Mlsceiianeous Clvii Complaint RICO (27) Other aMa) nt -- Dsdaratcry Relief Only Injunctive RelIef Only (non- hwassrnenQ Mechardos Lien Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-campS Other CM Complaint -4 Miscellaneous CMI Petition Partnership and Corporate' Governance (21) Other Petition (not specified above) (43) Civil Harassment Workplace Violence Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Election Contest Petition for Name Change Petition for Relief From Late Claim OtherCivli Petition AutoTort Auto (22)-Personal IrijuryIPropesty, DarnageaWrongful Death Uninsured MotorIst (48) (ff the case Involves en wrinswed molodsf dale, sub/ia to arbItratIon, thorn this lien, IAstead olAuto) Other PIIPt)IWD (23) PremIses Uabiiity (e.g., slip and IWI) intentional Bodily InJuiy/PDD (e.g.. asaault, vandalIsm) intentional infliction of Emotional Distress Negilgent Infliction of Emotional DIstress Other PIIPDIWD Nen'PIIPDIWD (Other) Tort Business TortlUnbir Business Practice (01) Civil Rights (e.g., disatminatlon, false onset) (not dvii hamssnmnQ (08) Temdrtallon CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Contrect Breath of ContractlWarranty (08) Bread, of Rental/Lease Contact (not urns wild detalnor or wrongMevfdlon) ContractlWarranty Breech-Sailer Plaintiff (not flvudornogligence) Negligent Breadi of Contract? Warranty Other Brcath of ConuectMananty Collections (e.g., money owed, open book aaarunts) (09) Collection Case-Seller Piabiliff Other Promissory Note/Collections Case Insurance Coverage (not p,oWsM,arn, conwisio (18) Auto Subrogation Other Coverage Other Contract (37) Contractual Fraud Other Contract Oisputs Real Property Eminent DomalnfInverse Corideninatlon (14) Wrongful EvictIon (33) Oilier Real Property (e.g., quIet tile) (28) WIlt of Possession of Real Property Mortgage Foreclosure Quiet liVe Other Real Property (not emlnenf domain, bindlotdulen ant, or 'we- Unlawful Detainer Commercial (31) Residential (32) Drugs (38) (if the case Thwltea Illegal &ug% theck this lien,,' otherwise, report as Commercial or RasldentW Judicial Review Asset ForfeIture (05) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Writ of Mandate (02) Writ-AdmInIstrative Mandamus Writ-Mandamus on LimIted Court Case Mattsr Wit-Other Umlied Court Case Review Other Judicial Review (39) RevIew of Health Offmar Cider CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT E Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 POS-01 0 FOR COURT USE ONLVATTORNEY 0R PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Stale Bornumbw. and addmss): lectronically FiledSteve Mikhov, 224676 E Knight Law Group LLP - 1301 Century Park East, Suite 2300 2y sutpenfosr CiuréIOf CA’ Los Angeles. CA 90067 °"n y ° a" a a'a’ TELEPHONE no; (31 0552-2250 O n 5/7/201 8 10:1 1 AM Reviewed By: K Ross C E ArroRNEY FOR (Nam).- Plaintiff SUPERIOR coum' or cALIFORNIA, comm! 0F ase #1 BCV327384 nvelope: 148971 2Superior Court of California. Santa Clara Countv 191 N. First Street San Jose, CA 951 1 3-1 090 PLAINTIFFIPETITIONER: LINDA A. MCGILL case NUMBER: DEFENDANTIRESPONDENT: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, e: a1. 180V327384 RALNo. otHa No‘: PROOF 0F SERVICE 0F SUMMONS MchI Linda v_ FMC 1. At the time of service I was a citizen of the United States. a! least 18 years of age and no! a party to this action. BY FRx- 2- lserved COPies of: Summons, Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial. Civil Case Cover Sheet 3. a. Party served: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, a Delaware Corporation bA Person Served: Albert Demonte/CT Corporation System - Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process 4. Address where me party was sewed: 81 8 West Seventh Street, Suite 930 5 I Los Angeles, CA 90017 . served the party a. by personal service. l personally delivered the documents listed in item 2 to the party or person authorized to receive service of process for the party (1) on (date): 05/01/2018 (2) at (time): 3:00PM 6. The “Notice to the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: d. on behalf of: FORD MOTOR COMPANY. a Delaware Corporation under: CCP 41 6. 1 0 (corporation) 7. Person who sewed papers a. Name: Jimmy Lizama b. Address: One Legal - 194-Marin 504 Redwood Blvd #223 Novato. CA 94947 c. Telephone number. 415-491~0606 d. The fee for service was: $ 40.00 e | am: (3) registered California process sewer. (i) Employee or independent contractor. (ll) Registration No.:4553 (iii) County: Los Angeles 8. I declare under penalty o! perjury under the laws of the United States of America and the Slat'e’of California that the foregoing ls true and correct. Date: 05/02/201 8 Jimm Lizama (NAME 0F Psa‘s’ou wuo SERVED PAPERS) / / (SIGNATURE) . a/ “Form gouge v‘cérlrgsflalgyoma ’Cnde ol CM! Proudm. s 417.10 61an un ' n a S-mo (Rw.4m1.2oon PROOF 0F SERVIC OF ONS om 11935679 EXHIBIT F Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 POS-01 0 ATTORNEY 0R PARTY W‘TNOUT ATTORNEY (Nam. W0 Barnum Jud ms): FDR COURT USE ONLY Steve Mikhov, 224576 _ Knight Law Group LLP EleCtronK'Ially filed 1am century park East. suite zaoo by Supenor Court of CA, Los 4§2§§LESE 3’5 ?30987552 2250 County of Santa Clara, Arrows] Fog (um); plainfiff 0n 5./1 6/201 8 10.49 AM sUPERIon count or CALIFORNIA. county or ReVIewed By:K Ross Superior Court of California, Santa Clara County case #1 SCV327384 Env #1 5231 25191 N. First Street San Jose. CA 951 1 3-1 090 PLAINTIFF/PETITIONER: LINDA A, MCGILL usswuaen: DEFENDANT/RESPONDENT; FORD MOTOR COMPANY. et al. 18CV327384 Rel, No. N FII. Na; PROOF 0F SERVICE OF SUMMONS McGill' Linda v. FMC 1. Ak the time of service l was a citizen of the United Slates. at least 1B years of age and not a pany to this acflonBY FK)‘ 2. I served copies or: Summons, Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial, CM! Case Cover Sheet 3- av Party served: THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation. dba FORD STORE MORGAN Hn I b. Person Served: Sandra Ruthi - Person Authorized to Accept Service of Process 4. Address where the party was served: 17045 Condit Rd. Morgan Hill, CA 95037 5. I sewed the party I b. by substituted service. On (date): 05,02,201 3 8‘ ("meh 1 :13AM l left lhe documents listed in item 2 with m l" “18 Presence 0f? Joanne Ferrcira - Person In Charge OfOfflce (1) (business) a person at least 18 years of age apparently in charge at the office or usuai place of business of the person to be sewed. I informed him or her o! the general nature ofthe papers. (4) A declaradon of mailing is anached. 6. The “Notice lo the Person Served" (on the summons) was completed as follows: d. on behalf of: ‘ _ _ _ THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC.. a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL Under: CCP 4 1 6.1 0 (corporation) 7. Person who served papers 3- Name: Thomas J. Bowman, Jr b. Address: One Legal - 194-Marin 504 Redwood Blvd #223 Novato. CA 94947 c. Telephone number. 41 5491-0606 d. The fee for service was: $ 100.50 e. I am: (3) registered California process sewer. (i) Employee or independent contractor. (ii) Registration No.225 (iii) County SANTA CLARA B. l declare under penalty of perjury underthe laws of the United Slates of America and the Stale arm he toregoing is lrue and correct. Dam: 05/04/201 8 Thomas J. Bowman. Jr ,W Fm Adopted lo! Mandatory Use’mmwmm”m PROOF 0F SERVICE 0F summo smnv. Jm i. 20m] Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY {Nm Mdddauss): TELEH'IONE N0; FOR COURT USE ONLY S‘eve Mikhov. 224676 (310)552_2250 Knight Law Group LLP 1801 Century Park East Los Angeles, CA 90067 Rut.ue.wraa Nu Anomvsonmmo): Plaintiff McGi", Linda V. FMC hmmmadummwddalfislfldarbmnmmmmmw Santa Clara - First Street 191 N. First Street San Jose. CA 951 13-1090 MNTIFF: LINDA A. MCGILL DEFENDANT: FORD MOTOR COMPANY, et al. CASE NUMBER: PROOF OF SERVICE BY MAIL 1 BCV327384 BY FAX I am a cifizen of the United States, over the age of 18 and not a pany to the wixhin action. My business address is 504 Redwood Blvd.. Suite 223 Novalo. CA 94947. On 05ID4I2018, after substituted service under section CCP 415.20(a) or 415.20(b) or FRCP 4(e)(2)(B)'or FRCP 4(h)(1 )(B) was made (if applicable). l mailed copies of the: Summons, Complaint, Demand for Jury Trial. Civil Case Cover Sheet to the person to be served at the place where the copies were left by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope. with First Class postage thereon fully prepaid. in the United States Mail at Los Angeles. California. addressed as follows: THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, |NC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL Sandra Ruthi 17045 Condit Rd. Morgan Hill,'CA 95037 | am readily familiar with the firm's practice for collection and processing of documents for mailing. Under that practice. it would be deposited wlthln the United Slates Postal Selviuu. un lhal same day. with postage thereon fully prepaid, in Ihe ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party sewed. service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one (1) day afler date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. Fee for Service: $ 100.50 I declare under penalty ofperjury under the laws of the United S(ates ofAmerica and lhe Slate of California that the foregoing is true and correct and that this declaration was executed on 05/04/2018 at Los Angeles, California. ”-57 One Legal - 194-Marin J,../'") , " ’ 504 Redwood Blvd #223 /:_.. - C I ?f Novato, CA 94947 Gissel Garcia OL# 1 1935680 EXHIBIT G Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 18CV327384 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Complaint Filed: April 30, 2018 LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY ("Ford"), for itself alone and for no other parties, hereby answers Plaintiff LINDA A. MCGILL (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows: Under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Ford denies, generally and specifically, each, every and all of the allegations contained therein, and denies that Plaintiff has or will sustain damages in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or at all. Further answering the Complaint, and the whole thereof, including each and every cause of action contained therein, Ford denies that Plaintiff has or will sustain any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason of any act or omission, fault or negligence on the part of Ford, their agents, Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/30/2018 9:10 AM Reviewed By: A. Hwang Case #18CV327384 Envelope: 1568329 18CV327384 Santa Clara - Civil A. Hwang Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 servants and employees, or any of them. SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For further and separate answer to the Complaint and by way of affirmative defense, Ford alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Cause of Action) 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Ford and Ford denies that Plaintiff was damaged in any sum or sums, or at all. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 2. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some or all of Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the statute of limitations, including but not limited to limitations contained within Commercial Code section 2725, Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340, and Civil Code section 1783. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 3. Plaintiff is estopped from obtaining the relief sought, or pursing any of the claims raised or causes of actions contained in the Complaint, by virtue of her acts, failures to act, conduct, representations, admissions, and the like. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 4. Plaintiff has waived her rights to the claims, causes of action and relief sought in this Complaint against Ford, by virtue of her acts, failures to act, conduct, representations, admissions, and the like. FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 5. Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed the commencement of this action to the Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 prejudice of Ford. Therefore the Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Economic Loss Rule) 6. Plaintiff’s causes of action have not accrued because Plaintiff cannot establish that they suffered injury directly from the subject vehicle or products, and therefore Plaintiff’s contention that the subject vehicle or products failed to adequately perform their functions are barred by the economic loss rule. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Vehicle Fit for Intended Purpose) 7. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the subject vehicle was fit for providing transportation at all relevant times hereto. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. American Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Duration of Implied Warranty) 8. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some or all of the alleged defects did not arise until more than three months had elapsed since the subject vehicle was sold to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for such concerns under the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code section 1795.5. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Maintenance and Other Exclusions) 9. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff and/or others may have improperly cared for and maintained the subject vehicle, and that some of Plaintiff’s concerns may have been proximately caused by such lack of maintenance of the subject vehicle or products. Ford reserves the right to identify additional exclusions which may be applicable. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unreasonable or Unauthorized Use of Vehicle) 10. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some of Plaintiff’s concerns may be barred by Plaintiff’s unreasonable or unauthorized use of the vehicle. Civil Code section 1794.3. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Timely Revocation of Acceptance) 11. Plaintiff has no restitution remedy under breach of implied warranty because there was no timely revocation of acceptance before a substantial change in the condition of the goods. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Reasonable Number of Attempts to Repair Afforded) 12. The Complaint and, each and every cause of action therein, does not state facts sufficient to meet the statutory presumption of a reasonable number of repair attempts under the terms of the Civil Code section 1793.22(b). THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption) 13. The Complaint and, each and every cause of action therein, in whole, or in part, are preempted by the Federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pursuant to 49 U.S.C. sections 30118 et seq. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Performance) 14. Prior to the commencement of this action, Ford fully performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations it may have owed to Plaintiff arising out of any and all agreements, representations or contracts made by it or on its behalf and this action is therefore barred by the provisions of Civil Code section 1473. FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Abide by Terms of Warranty) 15. Claims by Plaintiff of breach of warranty are barred because of Plaintiff’s failure Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 to give timely and appropriate notice of any claim of breach of warranty. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Use Third-Party Dispute Resolution) 16. Ford makes available a qualified third-party dispute resolution process, and therefore, it is entitled to relief under certain provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Accord and Satisfaction) 17. Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, on the ground that they are subject to the defense of accord and satisfaction. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith Evaluation) 18. At all times, Ford's evaluation of Plaintiff’s repurchase request has been in good faith, consequently, Plaintiff has no claim for civil penalty for any alleged willful violation. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Doctrine of Equitable Abstention) 19. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are barred by the doctrine of equitable abstention. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Notify) 20. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has failed to provide timely notice, within a reasonable period of time after discovery of their claims and alleged defects. As a result, Ford has been damaged and prejudiced. Therefore the Complaint and each cause of action therein, are barred as a matter of law. TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Complete Performance) 21. Ford has appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in the Complaint. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance with Laws) 22. Ford has complied with all laws and regulations with regard to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and is therefore not liable to Plaintiff for any damages they may have sustained, if any. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) 23. At all times relevant and material to this action, Ford acted reasonably and in good faith. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Independent Causes) 24. The alleged injuries, damages or loss, if any, for which Plaintiff seeks recovery, were the result of causes independent of any purported acts or omissions on the part of Ford, or any of their agents, representatives or employees, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of Ford. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Inspect) 25. Ford alleges that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, may have been caused by the failure of third parties, unrelated to Ford, to properly inspect the subject vehicle or products, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of Ford. TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Maintain) 26. Ford alleges that any and all conditions in the subject vehicle or products described in the Complaint, if any there were, were solely a result of the failure to properly maintain and service the subject vehicle or products, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of Ford. / / / / / / Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Breach) 27. Ford alleges that it did not breach any duties to Plaintiff, thereby barring and/or precluding Plaintiff from recovery. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Affirmative Conduct) 28. Ford alleges that there was no affirmative conduct on the part of Ford, which allegedly caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and therefore Plaintiff has no cause of action against Ford. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Substantial Factor) 29. Ford alleges that the negligence and other legal fault alleged in the Complaint as against Ford, if any, was not a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and, therefore, was not a contributing cause. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excessive/Speculative Damages) 30. Ford alleges that the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were excessive, exaggerated, unreasonable, speculative, inflated or otherwise unnecessary and/or unrelated to the alleged incident. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 31. If Plaintiff has suffered any loss, damage or injury, it was directly or proximately caused by and is the result of Plaintiff’s conduct and/or her potential failure to mitigate any such loss, damage or injury. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Disclaimer of Incidental and Consequential Damages) 32. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that by the terms of the limited warranty for the subject vehicle at issue, Ford is not liable for incidental or consequential Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 damages. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Civil Penalty) 33. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff is barred from the recovery of a civil penalty by reason of Plaintiff’s failure to serve written notice pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(e)(3). THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Constitutionality of Punitive Damages) 34. The claims of Plaintiff is in contravention of Ford’s rights under applicable clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, including without limitation the following provisions: (a) said claims constitute an impermissible burden on interstate commerce in contravention of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; (b) said claims contravene the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (c) said claims violate Ford’s right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (d) said claims contravene the constitutional prohibition against vague and overbroad laws; and (e) said claims contravene the Due Process Clause of the California Constitution. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Improperly Pled/Not Recoverable) 35. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has not properly pled a claim for punitive damages and these damages are not recoverable based on the facts contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or are otherwise barred by the provisions of California Civil Code sections 3294, 3295, and 3296, or such conduct was adopted, ratified or authorized by Ford under California Civil Code section 3294(b). THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Impermissible For Extra-Territorial Conduct) 36. Any award of punitive damages based on anything other than Ford’s conduct in connection with the design, manufacture, and sale of the subject vehicle or products that are the Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 subject of this lawsuit would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because any other judgment for punitive damages in this case cannot protect Ford against impermissible multiple punishment for the same wrong and against punishment for extra-territorial conduct. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Unconstitutional) 37. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that an award of punitive or exemplary damages to Plaintiff would violate Ford’s constitutional rights under the provisions of the United States and California Constitutions, including but not limited to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution because, among other things, (1) any award of punitive or exemplary damages would be grossly out of proportion to the alleged wrongful conduct and purported injury at issue here; (2) there is no legitimate state interest in punishing the alleged wrongful conduct at issue here, or in deterring its possible repetition; (3) the alleged wrongful conduct at issue here is lawful in other jurisdictions; (4) the alleged wrongful conduct at issue here is not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant the imposition of any punitive or exemplary damages; and (5) the criteria for the imposition of punitive or exemplary damage are unconstitutionally vague and uncertain and fail to provide fair notice of what conduct will result in the imposition of such damages. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages -- If Any -- Must Be Limited) 38. Ford specifically incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth herein, any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damages awards as set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell (2003) 123 S.Ct. 1513, and BMW of North America v. Gore (1996) 116 S. Ct. 1589. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Set Off) 39. Ford alleges that if it is established that Ford is in any manner legally responsible Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 for any of the damages claimed by Plaintiff, which is denied, Ford is entitled to a set off of these damages, if any, that resulted from the wrongful acts of Plaintiff and/or others. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Spoliation of Evidence) 40. The subject vehicle or products identified in the Complaint that were allegedly designed, manufactured and distributed by Ford are missing, have been modified or altered and/or are no longer available for Ford’s possession, which impacts Ford’s defense in this case. Ford is therefore entitled to relief from this spoliation, including appropriate jury instructions, admonitions and any other relief afforded by the Court. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fees and Costs) 41. Ford is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Complaint was brought without reasonable cause and without a good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts or the law which warranted the filing of the Complaint against Ford. Plaintiff should therefore be responsible for all of Ford’s necessary and reasonable attorney’s fees and defense costs as permitted by California law. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Affirmative Defenses) 42. Ford reserves its rights to raise and plead additional defenses and/or affirmative defenses which might become known during the course of discovery, as well as to dismiss any defenses which, as a result of discovery, are determined to be unsupported by good faith reliance upon either the facts or the law, or a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Arbitration Agreement) 43. Ford is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that this dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff such that this matter is properly brought before a qualified arbitrator rather than in the instant court. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 11 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 PRAYER WHEREFORE, Ford prays for the following relief: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Complaint, and that this action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Ford, on all causes of action; 3. That Ford recover its costs of suit incurred herein as well as attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by law; and 4. That Ford be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: May 30, 2018 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP By: Spencer P. Hugret Molly J. Mrowka Anastasia Bondarchuk Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 12 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE McGill v. Ford Motor Company, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV327384 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within documents: DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT  by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.  by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.  by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco, addressed as set forth below.  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov, Esq. KNIGHT LAW GROUP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2325 Telephone: (323) 936-2274 Facsimile:(323) 939-7973 Attorneys for the Plaintiff I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 30, 2018, at San Francisco, California Erica Ramirez 1157010/38498882v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 13 of 13 EXHIBIT H Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA CASE NO. 18CV327384 DEFENDANT THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., DBA FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT Complaint Filed: April 30, 2018 LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, a California Corporation; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) Defendant THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL ("Ford Store Morgan Hill"), for itself alone and for no other parties, hereby answers Plaintiff LINDA A. MCGILL (“Plaintiff”) Complaint (“Complaint”) as follows: Under the provisions of Code of Civil Procedure section 431.30, Ford Store Morgan Hill denies, generally and specifically, each, every and all of the allegations contained therein, and denies that Plaintiff has or will sustain damages in the sum or sums alleged, or in any other sum or sums, or at all. Electronically Filed by Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara, on 5/30/2018 9:10 AM Reviewed By: A. Hwang Case #18CV327384 Envelope: 1568329 18CV327384 Santa Clara - Civil A. Hwang Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 Further answering the Complaint, and the whole thereof, including each and every cause of action contained therein, Ford Store Morgan Hill denies that Plaintiff has or will sustain any injury, damage or loss, if any, by reason of any act or omission, fault or negligence on the part of Ford Store Morgan Hill, their agents, servants and employees, or any of them. SEPARATE AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES For further and separate answer to the Complaint and by way of affirmative defense, Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges as follows: FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to State Cause of Action) 1. Plaintiff’s Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein, fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against Ford Store Morgan Hill and Ford Store Morgan Hill denies that Plaintiff was damaged in any sum or sums, or at all. SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Statute of Limitations) 2. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some or all of Plaintiff’s claims may be barred by the statute of limitations, including but not limited to limitations contained within Commercial Code section 2725, Code of Civil Procedure sections 338 and 340, and Civil Code section 1783. THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Estoppel) 3. Plaintiff is estopped from obtaining the relief sought, or pursing any of the claims raised or causes of actions contained in the Complaint, by virtue of her acts, failures to act, conduct, representations, admissions, and the like. FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Waiver) 4. Plaintiff has waived her rights to the claims, causes of action and relief sought in this Complaint against Ford Store Morgan Hill, by virtue of her acts, failures to act, conduct, representations, admissions, and the like. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Laches) 5. Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed the commencement of this action to the prejudice of Ford Store Morgan Hill. Therefore the Complaint, and each and every cause of action alleged therein is barred, in whole or in part, by the doctrine of laches. SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Economic Loss Rule) 6. Plaintiff’s causes of action have not accrued because Plaintiff cannot establish that they suffered injury directly from the subject vehicle or products, and therefore Plaintiff’s contention that the subject vehicle or products failed to adequately perform their functions are barred by the economic loss rule. SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Vehicle Fit for Intended Purpose) 7. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the subject vehicle was fit for providing transportation at all relevant times hereto. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. American Suzuki Motor Corporation v. Superior Court (1995) 37 Cal.App.4th 1291. EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Duration of Implied Warranty) 8. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some or all of the alleged defects did not arise until more than three months had elapsed since the subject vehicle was sold to Plaintiff. Accordingly, Plaintiff is not entitled to relief for such concerns under the breach of the implied warranty of merchantability. Civil Code section 1795.5. NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Lack of Maintenance and Other Exclusions) 9. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff and/or others may have improperly cared for and maintained the subject vehicle, and Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 that some of Plaintiff’s concerns may have been proximately caused by such lack of maintenance of the subject vehicle or products. Ford Store Morgan Hill reserves the right to identify additional exclusions which may be applicable. TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Unreasonable or Unauthorized Use of Vehicle) 10. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that some of Plaintiff’s concerns may be barred by Plaintiff’s unreasonable or unauthorized use of the vehicle. Civil Code section 1794.3. ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Timely Revocation of Acceptance) 11. Plaintiff has no restitution remedy under breach of implied warranty because there was no timely revocation of acceptance before a substantial change in the condition of the goods. TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Reasonable Number of Attempts to Repair Afforded) 12. The Complaint and, each and every cause of action therein, does not state facts sufficient to meet the statutory presumption of a reasonable number of repair attempts under the terms of the Civil Code section 1793.22(b). THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Preemption) 13. The Complaint and, each and every cause of action therein, in whole, or in part, are preempted by the Federal National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act pursuant to 49 U.S.C. sections 30118 et seq. FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Performance) 14. Prior to the commencement of this action, Ford Store Morgan Hill fully performed, satisfied and discharged all duties and obligations it may have owed to Plaintiff arising out of any and all agreements, representations or contracts made by it or on its behalf and this action is therefore barred by the provisions of Civil Code section 1473. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Abide by Terms of Warranty) 15. Claims by Plaintiff of breach of warranty are barred because of Plaintiff’s failure to give timely and appropriate notice of any claim of breach of warranty. SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Use Third-Party Dispute Resolution) 16. Ford Store Morgan Hill makes available a qualified third-party dispute resolution process, and therefore, it is entitled to relief under certain provisions of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act. SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Accord and Satisfaction) 17. Plaintiff is barred from recovery, in whole or in part, on the ground that they are subject to the defense of accord and satisfaction. EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith Evaluation) 18. At all times, Ford Store Morgan Hill's evaluation of Plaintiff’s repurchase request has been in good faith, consequently, Plaintiff has no claim for civil penalty for any alleged willful violation. NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Doctrine of Equitable Abstention) 19. Plaintiff’s claims for injunctive relief are barred by the doctrine of equitable abstention. TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Notify) 20. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has failed to provide timely notice, within a reasonable period of time after discovery of her claims and alleged defects. As a result, Ford has been damaged and prejudiced. Therefore the Complaint and each cause of action therein, are barred as a matter of law. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 6 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Complete Performance) 21. Ford Store Morgan Hill has appropriately, completely and fully performed and discharged any and all obligations and legal duties arising out of the matters alleged in the Complaint. TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Compliance with Laws) 22. Ford Store Morgan Hill has complied with all laws and regulations with regard to the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint, and is therefore not liable to Plaintiff for any damages they may have sustained, if any. TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Good Faith) 23. At all times relevant and material to this action, Ford Store Morgan Hill acted reasonably and in good faith. TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Independent Causes) 24. The alleged injuries, damages or loss, if any, for which Plaintiff seeks recovery, were the result of causes independent of any purported acts or omissions on the part of Ford Store Morgan Hill, or any of their agents, representatives or employees, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of Ford Store Morgan Hill. TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Inspect) 25. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that Plaintiff’s damages, if any, may have been caused by the failure of third parties, unrelated to Ford Store Morgan Hill, to properly inspect the subject vehicle or products, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of Ford Store Morgan Hill. / / / / / / Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 7 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Maintain) 26. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that any and all conditions in the subject vehicle or products described in the Complaint, if any there were, were solely a result of the failure to properly maintain and service the subject vehicle or products, thereby eliminating or reducing the alleged liability of Ford Store Morgan Hill. TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Breach) 27. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that it did not breach any duties to Plaintiff, thereby barring and/or precluding Plaintiff from recovery. TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Affirmative Conduct) 28. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that there was no affirmative conduct on the part of Ford Store Morgan Hill, which allegedly caused or contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and therefore Plaintiff has no cause of action against Ford Store Morgan Hill. TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Substantial Factor) 29. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that the negligence and other legal fault alleged in the Complaint as against Ford Store Morgan Hill, if any, was not a substantial factor in bringing about Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and, therefore, was not a contributing cause. THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Excessive/Speculative Damages) 30. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that the damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff, if any, were excessive, exaggerated, unreasonable, speculative, inflated or otherwise unnecessary and/or unrelated to the alleged incident. THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Failure to Mitigate) 31. If Plaintiff has suffered any loss, damage or injury, it was directly or proximately Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 8 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 caused by and is the result of Plaintiff’s conduct and/or her potential failure to mitigate any such loss, damage or injury. THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Disclaimer of Incidental and Consequential Damages) 32. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that by the terms of the limited warranty for the subject vehicle at issue, Ford Store Morgan Hill is not liable for incidental or consequential damages. THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (No Civil Penalty) 33. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff is barred from the recovery of a civil penalty by reason of Plaintiff’s failure to serve written notice pursuant to Civil Code section 1794(e)(3). THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Constitutionality of Punitive Damages) 34. The claims of Plaintiff is in contravention of Ford Store Morgan Hill’s rights under applicable clauses of the United States and California Constitutions, including without limitation the following provisions: (a) said claims constitute an impermissible burden on interstate commerce in contravention of Article I, Section 8 of the United States Constitution; (b) said claims contravene the Excessive Fines Clause of the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (c) said claims violate Ford Store Morgan Hill’s right to Due Process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution; (d) said claims contravene the constitutional prohibition against vague and overbroad laws; and (e) said claims contravene the Due Process Clause of the California Constitution. THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Improperly Pled/Not Recoverable) 35. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that Plaintiff has not properly pled a claim for punitive damages and these damages are not recoverable based on the facts contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint, or are otherwise barred by the Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 provisions of California Civil Code sections 3294, 3295, and 3296, or such conduct was adopted, ratified or authorized by Ford Store Morgan Hill under California Civil Code section 3294(b). THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Impermissible For Extra-Territorial Conduct) 36. Any award of punitive damages based on anything other than Ford Store Morgan Hill’s conduct in connection with the design, manufacture, and sale of the subject vehicle or products that are the subject of this lawsuit would violate the due process clause of the Fourteenth Amendment to the United States Constitution because any other judgment for punitive damages in this case cannot protect Ford Store Morgan Hill against impermissible multiple punishment for the same wrong and against punishment for extra-territorial conduct. THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages Unconstitutional) 37. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that an award of punitive or exemplary damages to Plaintiff would violate Ford Store Morgan Hill’s constitutional rights under the provisions of the United States and California Constitutions, including but not limited to the Due Process Clause of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States Constitution and Article I, Section 7 of the California Constitution because, among other things, (1) any award of punitive or exemplary damages would be grossly out of proportion to the alleged wrongful conduct and purported injury at issue here; (2) there is no legitimate state interest in punishing the alleged wrongful conduct at issue here, or in deterring its possible repetition; (3) the alleged wrongful conduct at issue here is lawful in other jurisdictions; (4) the alleged wrongful conduct at issue here is not sufficiently reprehensible to warrant the imposition of any punitive or exemplary damages; and (5) the criteria for the imposition of punitive or exemplary damage are unconstitutionally vague and uncertain and fail to provide fair notice of what conduct will result in the imposition of such damages. THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Punitive Damages -- If Any -- Must Be Limited) 38. Ford Store Morgan Hill specifically incorporates by reference, as if fully set forth Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 10 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 herein, any and all standards or limitations regarding the determination and enforceability of punitive damages awards as set forth in State Farm Mutual Automobile Insurance Company v. Campbell (2003) 123 S.Ct. 1513, and BMW of North America v. Gore (1996) 116 S. Ct. 1589. THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Set Off) 39. Ford Store Morgan Hill alleges that if it is established that Ford Store Morgan Hill is in any manner legally responsible for any of the damages claimed by Plaintiff, which is denied, Ford Store Morgan Hill is entitled to a set off of these damages, if any, that resulted from the wrongful acts of Plaintiff and/or others. FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Spoliation of Evidence) 40. The subject vehicle or products identified in the Complaint that were allegedly designed, manufactured and distributed by Ford Store Morgan Hill are missing, have been modified or altered and/or are no longer available for Ford Store Morgan Hill’s possession, which impacts Ford Store Morgan Hill’s defense in this case. Ford Store Morgan Hill is therefore entitled to relief from this spoliation, including appropriate jury instructions, admonitions and any other relief afforded by the Court. FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Fees and Costs) 41. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes, and on that basis alleges, that the Complaint was brought without reasonable cause and without a good faith belief that there was a justifiable controversy under the facts or the law which warranted the filing of the Complaint against Ford Store Morgan Hill. Plaintiff should therefore be responsible for all of Ford Store Morgan Hill’s necessary and reasonable attorney’s fees and defense costs as permitted by California law. FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Additional Affirmative Defenses) 42. Ford Store Morgan Hill reserves its rights to raise and plead additional defenses Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 11 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 11 DEFENDANT FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 and/or affirmative defenses which might become known during the course of discovery, as well as to dismiss any defenses which, as a result of discovery, are determined to be unsupported by good faith reliance upon either the facts or the law, or a nonfrivolous argument for the extension, modification, or reversal of existing law or the establishment of new law. FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE (Arbitration Agreement) 43. Ford Store Morgan Hill is informed and believes and on such information and belief alleges that this dispute is subject to an arbitration agreement with Plaintiff such that this matter is properly brought before a qualified arbitrator rather than in the instant court. PRAYER WHEREFORE, Ford Store Morgan Hill prays for the following relief: 1. That Plaintiff take nothing by reason of her Complaint, and that this action be dismissed in its entirety with prejudice; 2. That judgment be entered in favor of Ford Store Morgan Hill, on all causes of action; 3. That Ford Store Morgan Hill recover its costs of suit incurred herein as well as attorneys’ fees to the extent permitted by law; and 4. That Ford Store Morgan Hill be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper. Dated: May 30, 2018 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI LLP By: Spencer P. Hugret Molly J. Mrowka Anastasia Bondarchuk Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY and THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 12 of 13 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF OF SERVICE G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 PROOF OF SERVICE McGill v. Ford Motor Company, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV327384 I am a resident of the State of California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the below-mentioned date, I served the within documents: DEFENDANT THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., DBA FORD STORE MORGAN HILL’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFF’S COMPLAINT  by transmitting via facsimile the document(s) listed above to the fax number(s) set forth below on this date before 5:00 p.m.  by personally delivering the document(s) listed above to the person(s) at the address(es) set forth below.  by placing the document(s) listed above in a sealed envelope with postage thereon fully prepaid, in United States mail in the State of California at San Francisco, addressed as set forth below.  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov, Esq. KNIGHT LAW GROUP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2325 Telephone: (323) 936-2274 Facsimile: (323) 939-7973 Attorneys for the Plaintiff I am readily familiar with the firm’s practice of collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited with the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course of business. I am aware that on motion of the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date or postage meter date is more than one day after the date of deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on May 30, 2018, at San Francisco, California Erica Ramirez 1157010/38499028v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-8 Filed 06/13/18 Page 13 of 13 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-9 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 4 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu%ret%?2%rsm..ComM L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowkagggrsmfiom ANA TA B NDARCHUK(SBN 309091) abondarchuk§%%rsm.com RD N & E LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 1 1 Telephone: g 15) 986-5900 Facs1mile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; CASE NO. Plaintiff, DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. vs. HUGRET IN SUPPORT 0F FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE FORD MOTOR COMPANY A 0F REMOVAL OF ACTION Delaware Corporation; THE FORD PURSUANT TO 28 U. S.C. § § 1332, STORE MORGAN HILL, INC ,a 1441, 1446 California Co oration, dba FORD STORE MOR AN HILL; and DOES 1 I . _ through 10, inclusive, Complalnt Flled: Aprll 30, 201 8‘ Defendants. DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. HUGRET I, Spencer P. Hugret, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State 0f California and the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, and am a partner with Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, attorney for Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Defendant”). I am a member in good standing with the State Bar 0f California. Ihave personal knowledge of the 1 DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. HUGRET 1N SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. HUGRET IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 following facts, except for those based on information and belief, which I believe to be true, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to their truth and accuracy. 2. This declaration is submitted in support of Ford Motor Company’s Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1441 and 1446. 3. In executing this declaration, I do not intend, and Ford has not authorized me, to waive any protections or privileges Ford may have as to proprietary, trade secret, and/or confidential information, or to waive Ford’s attorney-client privilege as to any of its communications or to waive the work product immunity developed in anticipation of or in response to litigation. I intend only to describe certain factual matters that are pertinent to this declaration. 4. I have extensive experience litigating consumer, class action, and/or product liability lawsuits throughout California in both state and federal courts. Towards that end, I am lead trial counsel on a significant number of litigation- related matters on behalf of Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), Hyundai Motors America (“HMA”) and Kia Motors America (“KMA”). I have also represented Ford, HMA and KMA in cases involving claimed violations of the Song-Beverly Act, the Magnusson-Moss Act and including allegations of fraud, violation of the Consumer Legal Remedy Act and punitive damages. Specifically, I have represented Ford in over one-thousand (1,000) of such lawsuits (i.e. for violations of the Song-Beverly Act, Magnusson-Moss Act, fraud, CLRA and punitive damages, either in whole or in part of such claims). 5. The Song-Beverly Act and Magnusson-Moss Act allow for the recovery of attorney’s fees and costs to the prevailing party pursuant to California Civil Code section 1794(d). In my vast experience litigating such cases, it is not uncommon, and in fact quite regular, for attorney’s fee and cost awards (or Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-9 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. HUGRET IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 resolutions through informal discussions with opposing counsel) to exceed $100,000. In fact, in one instance, I represented Ford at a trial in Sacramento County, and after the trial, opposing counsel filed a Motion for Attorney’s Fees and Costs that exceeded $1,000,000. 1 In sum, the attorney fee and cost payments tendered (or for judgments entered) to the consumer’s counsel routinely adds significant financial exposure to an automotive manufacturer and is a recoverable element of damages in lawsuits involving the Song-Beverly Act and Magnusson Moss Act. 6. I have opposed Plaintiff’s counsel in this matter, Steve Mikhov, Esq., in numerous of these cases. In each of these cases where Mr. Mikhov has perceived a right to recover attorney’s fees and costs pursuant to CA Civil Code section 1794(d), and sought fees by motion, he has indicated a billing rate of $450 to $500 per hour. Mr. Mikhov also typically seeks to recover the fees of associates in his firm or associated counsel representing the plaintiffs the lawsuits with associates billed out at less per hour and trial counsel often at considerably more - up to $650 per hour. The total amount of fees requested in matters handled by Mr. Mikhov regularly exceeds $100,000. 7. Furthermore, my extensive experience in opposing these automotive product liability cases (and in particular matters filed by Mr. Mikhov’s firm), has been that individual Ford dealerships have not sued as a matter of course. However, because Ford has recently sought to remove certain matters to federal court, and has also sought, and been granted, consolidation in Multidistrict Litigation (“MDL”) (see MDL No. 2814), it is my sincere belief that the instant Plaintiff only sued the Defendant THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., FORD STORE MORGAN HILL (“Ford Store Morgan Hill”) dealership in Santa Clara County, in an attempt to defeat diversity and to prevent the matter from 1 In this particular proceeding, the Court awarded opposing counsel over $300,000 in fees and costs after briefing and oral argument on the motion. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-9 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. HUGRET IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 AND 1446 being removed to federal court. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and if called as a witness I could and would so testify. This Declaration is dated this 13 th day of June, 2018. /s/Spencer P. Hugret Spencer P. Hugret Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-9 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 4 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-10 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm.com . KA (SBN 190133) mmrowka rsm.com ANASTA BONDARCHUK (SBN 30909 1) abondarchukg%%rsm.com GORDON & ES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 1 1 Telephone: g 15) 986-5900 Facs1mile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; CASE NO. Plaintiff, DECLARATION 0F MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF vs. REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U. S.C. §§ 1332, 1441 1446 FORD MOTOR COMPANY A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC. ,a , ‘ California Co oration dba FORD Sup Ct. Complamt: Apr11 30, 2018 STORE MQR AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, Incluswe, Defendants DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA I, Molly J. Mrowka, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed t0 practice law before all courts of the State 0f California and the United States District Court for the Northern District 0f California, and am an attorney for Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, attorney for Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). I am a member in good standing with 1 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § § 1332, 1441 AND 1446 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § § 1332, 1441 AND 1446 the State Bar of California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, except for those based on information and belief, which I believe to be true, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to their truth and accuracy. 2. This declaration is submitted in support of Ford’s Notice of Removal to the United States District Court for the Northern District of California under 28 U.S.C. § 1332, 1441 and 1446. 3. In executing this declaration, I do not intend, and Ford has not authorized me, to waive any protections or privileges Ford may have as to proprietary, trade secret, and/or confidential information, or to waive Ford’s attorney- client privilege as to any of its communications or to waive the work product immunity developed in anticipation of or in response to litigation. I intend only to describe certain factual matters that are pertinent to this declaration. 4. On May17, 2018, I received a copy of the Retail Installment Sales Contract (“Sales Contract”) in this matter from Ford Store Morgan Hill, attached as Exhibit A to the Declaration of Tim Paulus in support of Ford Motor Company’s Notice of Removal of Action. 5. On May 17, 2018, upon receipt of the Sales Contract, I was able to ascertain the amount in controversy and first learned that this case is removable. 6. I performed the calculations to determine the potential damages to be awarded to Plaintiff if she prevails on his Song-Beverly Act claims. 7. Pursuant to the statutory method of calculation above, I calculated Plaintiff’s potential damages on her Song-Beverly claims using figures presented in Plaintiff’s Sales Contract. 8. The “actual price” was calculated by adding the figures labeled as “Deferred Down Payment”, and “Amount Financed” in Plaintiff’s Sales Contract, as follows:  $1,500.00 (Deferred Down Payment) + $16,045.70 (Amount Financed) = $17,545.70 “actual price” Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-10 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. § § 1332, 1441 AND 1446 (Finance charges paid were not included in calculating the “actual price,” as required by California law, because of the difficulty of calculating the finance charges paid based on incomplete information. However, if finance charges paid were included the effect would be to increase the “actual price” and increase the amount in controversy.) 9. Attached as Exhibit A is a true and correct copy of an excerpt from Ford’s 10-K filing for the fiscal year ending December 31, 2017, which was downloaded on August 31, 2017 from the 2017 Annual Report posted on Ford’s website, http://shareholder.ford.com/reports-and-filings/annual-reports. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and if called as a witness I could and would so testify. Executed this 13th day of June, 2018, in San Francisco, California. /s/ Molly J. Mrowka Molly J. Mrowka Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-10 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 UNITED STATES SECURITIES AND EXCHANGE COMMISSION Washington, DC 20549 FORM 10-K (Mark One) I Annual report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) ofthe Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the fiscal year ended December 31, 2017 or I Transition report pursuant to Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 For the transition period from to Commission file number 1-3950 Ford Motor Company (Exact name of Registrant as specified in its charter) Delaware 38-05491 90 (State of incorporation) (I.R.S. Employer Identification No.) One American Road, Dearborn, Michigan 48126 (Address ofprincipa/ executive offices) (Zip Code) 313-322-3000 (Registrant's telephone number, including area code) Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(b) of the Act: Title of each class Name of each exchange on which registered Common Stock, par value $.01 per share New York Stock Exchange Securities registered pursuant to Section 12(9) of the Act: None. Indicate by check mark if the registrant is a welI-known seasoned issuer, as defined in Rule 405 of the Securities Act. Yes I No- lndicate by check mark if the registrant is not required to file reports pursuant to Section 13 or Section 15(d) of the Act. Yes I No- Indicate by check mark if the registrant (1) has filed all reports required to be filed by Section 13 or 15(d) of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to file such reports), and (2) has been subject to such filing requirements for the past 90 days. Yes I No I Indicate by check mark whether the registrant has submitted electronically and posted 0n its corporate Web site, if any, every Interactive Data File required to be submitted and posted pursuant to Rule 405 0f Regulation S-T (§ 232.405 of this chapter) during the preceding 12 months (or for such shorter period that the registrant was required to submit and post such files). Yes I No I Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-11 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 Indicate by check mark if disclosure of delinquent filers pursuant to Item 405 of Regulation S-K (§ 229.405 of this chapter) is not contained herein, and will not be contained, to the best of registrant‘s knowledge, in definitive proxy or information statements incorporated by reference in Part ||| of this Form 10-K or any amendment to this Form 10-K. I Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a large accelerated filer, an accelerated filer, a non-accelerated filer, a smaller reporting company, or emerging growth company. See the definitions of “large accelerated filer,“ “accelerated filer," “smaller reporting company," and “emerging growth company" in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Exchange Act. Large accelerated filer. Accelerated filer I Non-accelerated filer -Sma||er reporting company - Emerging growth company I If an emerging growth company, indicate by check mark if the registrant has elected not to use the extended transition period for complying with any new or revised financial accounting standards provided pursuant to Section 13(3) of the Exchange Act. I Indicate by check mark whether the registrant is a shell company (as defined in Rule 12b-2 ofthe Act). Yes I No I As of June 30, 2017, Ford had outstanding 3,900,795,510 shares of Common Stock and 70,852,076 shares of Class B Stock. Based on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transaction closing price ofthe Common Stock on that date ($11 .19 per share), the aggregate market value of such Common Stock was $43,649,901 ,757. Although there is no quoted market for our Class B Stock, shares of Class B Stock may be converted at any time into an equal number of shares of Common Stock for the purpose of effecting the sale or other disposition of such shares of Common Stock. The shares of Common Stock and Class B Stock outstanding at June 30, 2017 included shares owned by persons who may be deemed to be “affiliates" of Ford. We do not believe, however, that any such person should be considered to be an affiliate. For information concerning ownership of outstanding Common Stock and Class B Stock, see the Proxy Statement for Ford's Annual Meeting of Stockholders currently scheduled to be held on May 10, 2018 (our ”Proxy Statement”), which is incorporated by reference under various Items ofthis Report as indicated below. As of January 31, 2018, Ford had outstanding 3,902,499,580 shares of Common Stock and 70,852,076 shares of Class B Stock. Based on the New York Stock Exchange Composite Transaction closing price of the Common Stock on that date ($10.97 per share), the aggregate market value of such Common Stock was $42,810,420,393. DOCUMENTS INCORPORATED BY REFERENCE Document Where Incorporated Proxy Statement* Part ||| (Items 10, 11, 12, 13, and 14) * As stated under various Items of this Report, only certain specified portions of such document are incorporated by reference in this Report. Exhibit Index begins on page 99 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-12 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 Gordan & Rees LLP 27S Baitcry Street, Suite 2mm San Francisco, CA 9411] W‘flmLh-bmm 10 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu rct r5m.comW‘fimWK'A (SEN 190133) mmrowkafl rsm.c0m KNEE l Eglfi BEjNijARCI-[UK (SBN 309091) abondarchukfl’DOLEmfiom613 Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Telephone: 4 1 S) 986-5900 Facmmile: ( 15) 986-8054 AttorneRI/Is for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY; and THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC.DBA FORD STORE MORGAN HILL UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE. DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; ) Case No. Plaintiff, i DECLARATION 0F TIM PAULUS vs. FORD MOTOR CQMPANY, A Delaware Corporatlon; THE FORD STORE MORGANHILL, INC, a California Cor oration, dba FORD STORE MOREAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, incluswe, Defe ndants. v'uvv'xu’vvxdvvvvww I, Tim Paulus, declare as follows: 1. I am the President ofThe Ford Store Morgan Hill, Ina, dba Ford Store Morgan Hill (“Ford Store Mnrgan Hill”). I have persona] knowledge ofthe following facts and, if called as a witness, could and would competently testify to the matters stated herein. 2. Ford Store Morgan I-[ill is a dealership specializing in the sale 0f .1. DECLARATION OFTmmmCOMPANY’S NOTICE OF RFélg’IOlBYgdlegglAEflIIéON PURSUANT TD 28 U.S.C. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-12 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 20M] San Francisco. CA 94111 Ford vehicles. Iam familiar with the custom and practice ofFord Store Morgan Hill as t0 the manner 0f how sales transactions are made, and how sales documents are kept in the regular course ofbusiness. 3. Entering into Retail Installment Sales Contracts With customers Who are purchasing vehicles from the Ford Store Morgan Hill is a regularly conducted business activity nf‘the Ford Store Morgan Hill. 4. Pursuant to the custom and practice 0f Ford Store Morgan Hill, all sales documents related to sales transactions are maintained in the regular course of business in a sales file. 5. I reviewed the sales file regarding Ms. McGill’s purchase transaction Ufa 2014 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number 1FADP3F25BL454246, from the Ford Store Morgan Hill. 6. A true and correct cupy 0f the Retail Installment Sales Contract between Ms. McGill and the Ferd Store Morgan Hill for Ms. McGill’s purchase of the 2014 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number 1FADP3F2SBL454246, is attached hereto as Exhibit A. 7. The Retail Installment Sales Contract utilized t0 memorialize the transaction between Ms. MCGIH and the Ford Store Morgan Hill for Ms. McGill’s purchase of the 2014 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number 1FADP3F2SBL4S4246, is the standard Retail Installment Sales Contract used by the Ford Store Morgan Hill in its sales transactions with customers who are purchasing vehicles. 8. Pursuant to its terms, 0n December, 24, 2017, Plaintiff Linda McGiII and Ford Store Morgan Hill entered into a Retail Installment Sales Contract, which memorialized Ms. McGill’s purchase 0f a new 20E 4 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number 1FADP3F2SBL454246, from the Ford Store Morgan Hill dealership. -2-_ DECI IAWTWW FUEMUTURCOMPANY’S NOTICE OF REéPé/IOlggéngglAgglgN PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-12 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 Gordon 5; Rees LLP 275 Batlcry Slruul, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 9411] 10 ll 13 M- JG l7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 9. It was in the regular course 0f business to make the Retail Installment Sales Contract between Ms. McGil] and the Ford Store Morgan Hill for Ms. McGill’s purchase of the 2014 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number 1FADP3F2SBL4S4246. ID. The Retail Installment Sales Contract with Ms. McGill memorializing Ms. McGill’s purchase 0f the 20 14 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number 1FADP3FESBL454246, was made when she purchased the vehicle on December 24, 2017, in the regular course 0f business. ll. The Sales Contract between Ms. McGill and Ford Store Morgan Hill fur Ms. McGill‘s purchase of the 2014 Ford Focus, Vehicle Identification Number IFADPBFZSBL454246, was kept in the regular course of business in a sales file. I declare under penalty ofperjury under the IaWS 0f the United States 0F America that the foregoing is true and correct. Executed this fith day 0f June 2018, in fix?” W‘- #fl/ California. //" Tfm Paulusf‘ q VJ-WON UF HM PEUI USSUPPUKT-OF FUKUM'OTUR'COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 EXHIBIT A Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-13 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 4 RETAIL INS IALLMfcN I SALE UUN I HAL I - SIIVIKLE hlNANOt unAMbC (WITH ARBITRATION PROVISION) Dealer' Number Contract Number R.O.S. Number Stock Number Buyer Name and Address (Including County and Zip Code) Co-Buyer Name and Address (Including County and Zip Code) Seller-Creditor (Name and Address) You, the Buyer (and Co-Buyer, if any), may buy the vehicle below for cash or on credit. By signing this contract, you choose to buy the vehicle on credit under me agreements on the front and back of this contract. You agree to pay the Seller - Creditor (sometimes “we” or “us” in this contract) the Amount Financed and Finance Charge in U.S. funds according to the payment schedule below. We will figure your finance charge on a daily basis. The Truth-In-Lending Disclosures below are part of this contract. | New Used Year Make and Model Odometer Vehicle Identification Number Primary Use For Which Purchased Personal, family or household unless otherwise indicated below. □ business or commercial ANNUAL FINANCE Amount Total of Total Sale PERCENTAGE CHARGE Financed Payments Price RATE The dollar The amount of The amount you The total cost of The cost of amount the credit provided will have paid after your purchase on your credit as credit will to you or you have made all credit, including a yearly rate. cost you. on your behalf. payments as scheduled. your down payment of $ is $ (e)% $ (e) $ $ (e) FEDERAL TRUTH-IN-LENDING DISCLOSURES (e) means an estimate YOUR PAYMENT SCHEDULE WILL BE: Number of Payments: One Payment of One Payment of One Payment of One final payment Amount of Payments: When Payments Are Due: Monthly beginning Late Charge. If payment is not received in full within 10 days after it is due, you will pay a late charge of 5% of the part of the payment that is late. Prepayment. If you pay off all your debt early, you may be charged a minimum finance charge. Security Interest. You are giving a security interest in the vehicle being purchased. Additional Information: See this contract for more information including information about nonpayment, default, any required repayment in full before the scheduled date, minimum linance charges, and security interest. ITEMIZATION OF THE AMOUNT FINANCED (Seller may keep part of the amounts paid to others.) 1. Total Cash Price A. Cash Price of Motor Vehicle and Accessories $--------------- 1. Cash Price Vehicle $----------------------------- 2. Cash Price Accessories $----------------------------- 3. Other (Nontaxable) Describe ___---------------------------------- *----------------------------------------------- $------------------------------- Describe : .....................................................................................$-------------------- (A) B. Document Processing Charge (not a governmental fee) C. Emissions Testing Charge (not a governmental fee) D. (Optional) Theft Deterrent Device (to whom paid)----------- E. (Optional) Theft Deterrent Device (to whom paid)______ F. (Optional) Theft Deterrent Device (to whom paid) J--------- G. (Optional) Surface Protection Product (to whom paid)---------- H. (Optional) Surface Protection Product (to whom paid)---------- I. EV Charging Station (to whom paid)--------------------------------- J. Sales Tax (on taxable items in A through I) -(B) .(C) .(D) (E) -(F) .(G) .(H) JO JJ) -* D^rticTro+ii- nr- TrnnoW Chorny STATEMENT OF INSURANCE NOTICE. No person is required as a condition of ‘inane . the purchase of a motor vehicle to purchase or negotiate any insurance through a particular insurance company, agent or broker. You are not required to buy any other insurance to obtain credit. Your decision to buy or not buy other insurance will not be a factor in the credit approval process. Vehicle Insurance Term Premium S . Ded.Coim. Fire& Theft Mos $ Ded. Collision ____ Mos Bodily Injury $ Limits ____ Mos Property Damage $ Limits Mos Medical i". Mos Mos Total Vehicle Insurance Premiums UNLESS A CHARGE IS INCLUDED IN THIS AGREEMENT FOR PUBLIC LIABILITY OR PROPERTY DAMAGE INSURANCE, PAYMENT FOR SUCH COVERAGE IS NOT PROVIDED BY THIS AGREEMENT ■■. You may buy the physical damage insurance this contract requires (see back) from anyone you choose who is acceptable to us.'Yw are not required to buy any other insurance to obtain credit Buyer X____ Co-Buyer Seller A____ If any insurance is checked below, policies or certificates from- th •: named insurance companies will describe the terms and condition:: Application for Optional Credit Insurance □ Credit Life: □ Buyer □ Co-Buyer □ Both □ Credit Disability (Buyer Only) Term Exp. Premium :• „ Credit Life _____ Mos_______$_____ =_________ Credit Disability . •; - Mos. ____ S -__________L Total Credit Insurance Premiums $. Insurance Company Name_________ js: Home Office Address. Credit life insurance and credit disability insurance are un- required to obtain credit. Your decision to buy or not buy cretin life and credit disability insurance will not be a factor in tfe credit approval process. They will not be provided unless -L sign and agree to pay the extra cost. Credit life insurance is based on your original payment schedule. This insurance may not pay all you owe on this contract if you make late payments.' Credit disability insurance does not cover any increase in yq . payment or in the number of payments. Coverage for credit!:!s. insurance and credit disability insurance ends on the origin;# due date for the last payment unless a different term for •the insurance is shown above. You are applying for the credit insurance marke-T above. Your sicinature below means that vou afe- Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-13 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 4 L. (Optional) Service Contract (to whom paid)____ M. (Optional) Service Contract (to whom paid)____ N. (Optional) Service Contract (to whom paid)____ O. (Optional) Service Contract (to whom paid)____ P. (Optional) Service Contract (to whom paid)____ Q. Prior Credit or Lease Balance paid by Seller to (!)$_ (L) (M) (N) JO) JP) JQ) (see downpayment and trade-in calculation) R. (Optional) Gap Contract (to whom paid) $ (FI) S. (Optional) Used Vehicle Contract Cancellation Option Agreement T. Other (to whom paid) $ (S) (T)For ... $ Total Cash Price (A through T) $. d) 2. Amounts Paid to Public Officials A. Vehicle License Fees $ (A) B. Registration/Transfer/Titling Fees $ (B) C. California Tire Fees $ (C) D. Other $ (D) Total Official Fees (A through D) $. (2) 3, Amount Paid to Insurance Companies (Total premiums from Statement of Insurance column a + b) $. (3) 4. □ State Emissions Certification Fee or □ State Emissions Exemption Fee $. (4) 5. Subtotal (1 through 4) $. (5) 6. Total Downpayment A. Agreed Trade-in Value Yr Make $ (A) Model Orlnm VIN B, Less Prior Credit or Lease'Balance (e) $ (B) C. Net Trade-In (A less B) (indicate if a negative number) $ (C) D. Deferred Downpayment $ (D) E. Manufacturer's Rebate $ (E) F. Other $ (F) G. Cash $ (G) Total Downpayment (C through G) $- (6) (If negative, enter zero on line 6 and enter the amount less than zero as a positive number on line 1Q above) 7. Amount Financed (5 less 6) $. (7) SELLER ASSISTED LOAN BUYER HAY BE REQUIRED TO PLEDGE SECURITY FOR THE LOAN. AND WILL BE OBLIGATED FOR THE INSTALLMENT PAYMENTS ON BOTH THIS RETAIL INSTALLMENT SALE CONTRACT AND THE LOAN. Proceeds of Loan From: ________________ Amount $____________Finance Charge $ Total $ ________________ Payable in _____ installments of $ from this Loan is shown in item 6D. AUTO BROKER FEE DISCLOSURE If this contract reflects the retail sale of a new motor vehicle, the sale is not subject to a fee received by an autobroker from us unless the following box is checked: □ Name of autobroker receiving fee, if applicable: Date Buyer Signature Age X Date Co-Buyer Signature Age disability insurance only if you are working for wages or profit 30 hours a week or more on the Effective Date. (3) Only the Primary Buyer is eligible for disability insurance. DISABILITY INSURANCE MAY NOT COVER CONDITIONS FOR WHICH YOU HAVE' SEEN A DOCTOR OR CHIROPRACTOR IN THE LAST 6 MONTHS (Refer to “Total Disabilities-Net Covered” in your policy for details). You want to buy the credit insurance. OPTIONAL GAP CONTRACT A gap contract (debt can'd', tion contract) is not required to obtain credit and will not provided unless you sign below and agree to pay the e- charge. If you choose to buy a gap contract, the charge is sh in item 1R of the Itemization of Amount Financed. See your- ■ contract for details on the terms and conditions it provides i; a part of this contract. Term . . Mos. Name of Gap Contract. I want to buy a gap contract. Buyer Signs X_________________________________... OPTIONAL SERVICE CONTRACT(S) You want ... purchase the service contract(s) written with the follow!: ■ company(ies) for the term(s) shown below for the charge'; ■ shown in item 1 L,1 M, 1N, 10, and/or 1P. 1L Company. Term_______ . Mos. or. MT 1M Company. Term_______ 1N Company. Term_______ . Mos. or. tv _ Mos. or. . m 10 Company. Term_______ . Mos. or. . M-ic 1P Company. Term_______ Buyer X . Mos. or. . Mtfe HOW THIS CONTRACT CAN BE CHANGED. contract contains the entire agreement between and us relating to this contract. Any change to : contract must be in writing and both you arid - must sign it. No oral changes are binding. Buyer Signs X___________________________________ ,, Co-Buyer Signs X______________________________ , SELLER'S RIGHT TO CANCEL If Buyer and Co-Buyer sign here, the provisions ol the Seller's Right to Cancel section on the back giving the Seller the right to cancel if Seiler is unafc . assign this contract to a financial institution will apply. X__________________________________________________________________________________ X__________________________________________________________________________________ 1 Buyer Co-Buyer Agreement to Arbitrate: By signing below, you agree that, pursuant to the Arbitration Provision on the reverse side of this contract, you or we may elect to resolve any dispute by 'need binding arbitration and not by a court action. See the Arbitration Provision for additional information concerning the agreement to arbitrate. Buyer Signs X____________________________ ____________________________________________ Co-Buyer Signs X--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- - jl asjy auuaiuos c; ;. oj un ssjinoau .v>e;- aqj sseju.r r.u'xp; abc! ijim 8M ‘(snidins) Lj.ai.si, Aeuotii Aue j| -sasuadxa paMO||B osjb 9jb sjiauad mb| am sjsoo ynoo pue saaj Aaujojjy 'I! 5ui||as pue ‘9jes joj }j Buuedajd ';i Guipioij ‘epiqaA at.:; 6ui>|ej jo ijnsaj pauip e se Aed aM sasuadxa oje sasuedxa paMouv bmo noA junouje eqi oj ‘sasuadxa peMop ssei ‘9|bs syj lucuj Aauoiu auj Afdde ijiM a/y apiqaA eifj Guiyas ajojaq a|Bs jo aoijou-uajjiYM ? noA puas him a/v\ 'apiqaA eijj jjas him aM ‘oiaapej aM japjo aub ui pbjjuoo siqj japurt smo noA sjunotue jBqjo ;;; oj pue paouBuy junouuy aqj jo ped piadun eqj oj ‘aGjBtjo aouBuy apj jo ped piBdun pue pauuea aqj oj juautABd i)OB0 Aidde Ablu sm "sjuauiAed Ajdds ijim aw moh 'd ' ■ oSjeijQ aouBuij eyj jo jued eAiaoaj Ablu uojipejo •laps 'peoueuy junoiuy bljj jo jued predun aqj uo ajBy aSBjuaojay |Bnuuy aqj jb sjseq App b uo abjBqo aoueuy__- - J aqj ajnbij him a/y\ abjeijo aouEyy ajnBij him aM moh ‘By jou op noA j| '>jOBq p jab jou op noA j; apiqaA aqj pas ii|M -j SIN3WAVd QNV 3DHVH0 30NVNI3 S1N3SAI33HDV INVIHOdiAil H3! Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-13 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 4 teds of Loan From: ..,unt $ Finance Charge $ I •$ ■ Payable in to a fee received by an autobroker from us unless the following box is checked: □ Name of autobroker receiving fee, if applicable: UUI III CAL/l IIIUOl L/C 111 VVIIUII^ UMM J--------------- must sign it. No oral changes are binding. Buyer Signs X Co-Buyer Signs X ............................. Aments of $ . $ h this Doan is shown in item 6D. tER’S RIGHT TO CANCEL If Buyer and Co-Buyer sign here, the provisions of the Seller's Right to Cancel section on the back giving the Seller the right to cancel if Seller is unable to gn this contract to a financial institution will apply. X er Co-Buyer cement to Arbitrate: By signing below, you agree that, pursuant to the Arbitration Provision on the revere side of this contract, you or we may elect to resolve any dispute by neutral, j.nding arbitration and not by a court action. See the Arbitration Provision for additional information concerning the agreement to arbitrate. Signs X_____________________ =______________________________________________ ____ Co-Buyer Signs X ' ... - ION: □ You pay no finance charge if the Amount Financed, item 7, is paid in full on or before . , Year. .. SELLER'S INITIALS. ,N ACCIC .-..THE MINIMUM PUBLIC LIABILITY INSURANCE LIMITS PROVIDED IN LAW MUST BE MET BY EVERY 'TYOUR CURRENT INSURANCE POLICY WILL COVER YOUR NEWLY ACQUIRED VEHICLE IN THE EVENT ' WARNING: YOUR PRESENT POLICY MAY NOT COVER COLLISION DAMAGE OR MAY NOT PROVIDE FOR FULL REPLACEMENT ( VT HAVE FULL COVERAGE, SUPPLEMENTAL COVERAGE FOR COLLISION DAMAGE MAY BE AVAILABLE TO YOU THROU : A1ER. HOWEVER, UNLESS OTHERWISE SPECIFIED. THE COVERAGE YOU OBTAIN THROUGH THE DEALER PROTECT UNPAID BALANCE REMAINING AFTER THE VEHICLE HAS BEEN REPOSSESSED AND SOLD. /’THE BUYER SHALL SIGN TO ACKNOWLEDGE THAT HE/SHE UNDERSTANDS THE : LIABIL ) CONI 1CHASES A VEHIC)LE. IF YOU ARE UNSURE WHETHER OR OU SHOULD CONTACT YOUR INSURANCE AGENT. OSTS FOR THE VEHICLE BEING PURCHASED. IF YOU DO 3H YOUR iNSORAISICE AGENT OR THROUGH THE SELLING 5 ONLY THE DEA!LER, USUALLY UP TO THE AMOUNT OF SHOULD CONTAC 'IONS. TYOUR INSURANCE AGENT. c&=ln Payoff Agreement: Seller relied on information from you and/or the lienholder or lessor of your trade-in vehicle to arrive at the payoff amount shown in item 6B of the Itemization of Amount Financed : .the “Prior Credit or Lease Balance." You understand that the amount quoted is an estimate. lor agrees to pay the payoff amount shown in 6B to the lienholder or lessor of the trade-in vehicle, or its designee. If the actual payoff amount is more than the amount shown in 6B. you must pay the Seller ‘ -excess on demand. If the actual payoff amount is less than the amount shown in 6B, Seller will refund to you any overage Seller receives from your prior lienholder or lessor. Except as stated in the “NOTICE" foe back of this contract, any assignee of this contract will not be obligated to pay the Prior Credit or Lease Balance shown in 6B or any refund. iyer Signature X. Co-Buyer Signature X. jiice to buyer: (1) Do not sign this agreement before you read it or if it contains any blank spaces to be filled in, (2) You are entitled to a completely filled copy of this agreement. (3) You can prepay the full amount due under this agreement at any time, (4) If you default in the performance of your obligations ider this agreement, the vehicle may be repossessed and you may be subject to suit and liability for the unpaid indebtedness evidenced by this agreement. you have a complaint concerning this sale, you should try to resolve it with the seller. . .. pmpiaints concerning unfair or deceptive practices or methods by the seller may be referred to the city attorney, the district attorney, or an investigator for the Department Motor Vehicles, or an.> combination thereof. tar this contract is signed, the seller may not change the financing or payment terms unless you agree in writing to the change. You do not have to agree to any change, it is an unfair or deceptive practice for the seller to make a unilateral change. jyer Signature X Co-Buyer Signature X. v T€ Annual Percentage Rate may be negotiable with the Seller. The Seller may assign this contract id retain its right to receive a part of the Finance Charge. HERE IS NO COOLING-OFF PERIOD UNLESS YOU OBTAIN A CONTRACT CANCELLATION OPTION California law does not provide for a “cooling-off’ or other cancellation period for vehicle sales. Therefore, you cannot later cancel this contract simply because you change your mind, decide the vehicle costs too much, or wish you had acquired a different vehicle. After you sign below, /cu may only cancel this contract with the agreement of the seller or for legal cause, such as fraud. However, California law does require a | seller to offer a two-day contract cancellation option on used vehicles with a purchase price of less than forty thousand dollars ($40,000), subject c certain statutory conditions. This contract cancellation option requirement does not apply to the sale of a recreational vehicle, a motorcycle, or an off-highway motor vehicle subject to identification under California law, See the vehicle contract cancellation option agreement for details. ’flyer Signature X. . Date. Co-Buyer Signature X. YOU AGREE TO THE TERMS OF THIS CONTRACT. YOU CONFIRM THAT BEFORE YOU SIGNED THIS CONTRACT, WE GAVE IT TO YOU, AND YOU WERE FREE TO TAKE IT AND REVIEW IT. YOU ACKNOWLEDGE THAT YOU HAVE READ BOTH SIDES OF THIS CONTRACT, INCLUDING THE ARBITRATION PROVISION ON THE REVERSE SIDE, BEFORE SIGNING BELOW. YOU CONFIRM THAT YOU RECEIVED A COMPLETELY F1LLED-IN COPY WHEN YOU SIGNED IT. _________________Date_____________ 'c-Buyers and Other Owners - A co-buyer is a person who is responsible for paying the entire debt. An other owner is a person whose name is on the title to the vehicle but . oes not have to pay the debt. The other owner agrees to the security interest in the vehicle given to us in this contract. Other Owner Signature X. Address. GUARANTY: To induce us to sell the vehicle to Buyer, each person who signs as a Guarantor individually guarantees the payment of this contract. If Buyer fails to pay any money owing on this contract, each Guarantor must pay it when asked. Each Guarantor will be liable for the total amount owing even if other persons also sign as Guarantor, and even if Buyer has a complete defense to Guarantor’s demand for reimbursement. Each Guarantor agrees to be liable even if we do one or more of the following: (1) give the Buyer more time to pay one or more i ’ bayments; (2) give a full or partial release to any other Guarantor; (3) release any security; (4) accept less from the Buyer than the total amount owing; or (5) otherwise reach a settlement relating to this contract or extend the contract. Each Guarantor acknowledges receipt of a completed copy of this contract and guaranty at the time of signing. Guarantor waives notice of acceptance of this Guaranty, notice of the Buyer's non-payment, non-performance, and default; and notices of the amount owing at any time, and of any demands upon the Buyer. Guarantor X _ : Address____ Date. Guarantor X. Address____ Date „ ; -/‘ Seller Signs _ Date. By X. Title. : AW FORM NO. 553-CA-ARB (REV. 7/13) U.S. PATENT NO. D460.782 ©2013 The Reynolds and Reynolds Company TO ORDER: wrtw.reysource.com; 1-800-344-0996; fax 1-800-531-9055 THE PRINTER MAKES NO WARRANTY, EXPRESS OR IMPLIED, AS TO CONTENT OR FITNESS FOR PURPOSE OFTHIS FORM. CONSULT YOUR OWN LEGAL COUNSEL. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-13 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 4 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-14 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2.Is-CAND 44(Rev. 06,17) CIVIL COVER SHEET The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replace nor supplement the filing and service ofpleadings or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules ofcourt, This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference 0fthe United States in September 1974‘ is required for the Clerk 0f Court t0 initiate [he Civil docket Sheet. (SEE INSTRUCTIONS ON NEXT PAGE 0F THIS FORM.) I'IS?%15%WF§H (b) County 0f Residence of First Listed Plaintiff Santa Clara (EXCEPT IN U.S. PLAINTIFF CASES) Fgfimw§npany and The Ford Store Morgan Hill, Inc. dba Ford Store Morgan Hill Count 0f Residence of First Listed Defendant (IN U. V PLAINTIFF CASES ONLY) NOTE: IN LAND CONDEMNATION CASES, USE THE LOCATION OF THE TRACT OF LAND INVOLVED. K(fg)“ mtqflmpés ({ip‘m Namv. Address, am] Telephone Number) Gm. gfi‘fizfgfigfi-gfigfifgukhmi LLP Steve Mikhuv‘ Esq. Spencer PV Hugrct 1801 Century Park EasL Suite 2300. Los Angclcs‘ CA 90067 275 Battery Strccl‘ Suite 2000‘ San Franciscm CA 94l 1 l Phone: (310) 55272250 Phone: (415) 98675900 Delaware II. BASIS OF JURISDICTION (Place an “X" in One Box Only) III. CITIZENSHIP OF PRINCIPAL PARTIES (Place an “X" in One Boxfor PIaimi/f (For Divz’m‘ily Casav Only) and 01w Boxfnr DLfl’ndam) PTF DEF PTF DEF l UIS~ Governmem Plaimiff 3 Federal Ques‘i‘m Citizen ofThis State x l l Incorporated or Principal Place 4 4(US. Govel'nmcm N0! a Pam) ' ‘ . . of Busmess In This Slate 2 U S G D f d ‘ x 4 D_ _t Citizen ofAnother State 2 2 Incorporated and Principal Place 5 x 5 , , uvemmem e en an Iyers: y> I . ‘ > fB ‘i, ,‘InA, [her Slate11» :Cmgh Pm, 1x) III ,. . 0 5‘5””. ‘0(m Wm ’ I (m W 0f m Y m Lm ) Cnlzen or Subject ufa 3 3 Foreign Nation 6 6 Foreign Country IV. NATURE 0F SUIT (Place an “Y” in One Box 0111)) CONTRACT TORTS FORFEITURE/PENALTY BANKRUPTCY OTHER STATUTES 110 Insurance PERSONAL INJURY FERSONAL INJURY 625 Drug Related Seizure of 422 Appeal 28 USC § [SR 375 False Claims Act 120 Marine 3.0 Airplane 365 persona] Injury, Producl Prepeny 21 USC § 38' 423 Withdrawal 28 usc 376 Qui Tam (3| USC 130 Miller Acl I40 Negotiable Instrument 150 Recovery of Overpayment Of Veteran‘s Benefits 151 Medicare Act 152 Recovery 0f Defaulted Student Luans (Excludes Veterans) 153 Recovery of Overpayment of Veteran‘s Benefits 160 Stockholders” Suits 190 Other Contract X I95 Contract Product Liability 196 Franchise REAL PROPERTY 2 | 0 Land Condemnation 220 Foreclosure 230 Rent Lease & Ejectment 240 Tons to Land 245 Ton Product Liability 290 All Other Real Property 3l5 Airplane Product Liability 320 Assault, Libel & Slander 330 Federal Employers' Liability 340 Marine 345 Marine Product Liability 350 Motor Vehicle 355 Motor Vehicle Product Liability 360 Other Persona] Injury 362 Personal Injury -Medical Malpractice Liability 367 Health Care/ Pharmaceutical Personal Injury Product Liability 368 Asbestos Persona] Injury Product Liability PERSONAL PROPERTY 370 Other Fraud 371 Truth in Lending 380 Other Personal Property Damage 385 Property Damage Pruduct 690 Other §157 Relations 740 Railway Labor Act 751 Family and Medical Leave Act 790 Other Labor Litigation 791 Employee Retirement Income Security Act LABOR PROPERTY RIGHTS 7l0 Fair Labor Standards Act 820 Copyrights 720 Labnrr’Management 830 Patent 835 Patem-Abhreviated New Drug Application 840 Trademark SOCIAL SECURITY Liability IMMIGRATION CIVIL RIGHTS PRISONER PETITIONS 462 Na‘ufia"z.““‘"‘ . . . Appllcalmn 440 Other CIVI] Rights HABEAS CORPUS 465 Other Immigration 441 Vming 463 Alien Detainee Actions 442 Employment 443 Housing,’ Accommodations 445 Amer. w/Disabilitier Employment 446 Amer. w,’DisabilitieskOther 448 Educatinn 510 Motions lo Vacate Senlence 530 General 535 Death Penalty OTHER 540 Mandamus & Other 550 Civil Rights 555 Prison Condition 560 Civil Detainew Conditions of Confinement 8M HIA(I395ft) 862 Black Lung (923) 863 DIWCrDIWW (405(g)) 864 SSID Title XVI 865 RSI (405(g)) FEDERAL TAX SUITS 870 Taxes (U‘S. Plaintiffor Defendant) 87l IksiThird Party 26 USC § 7609 § 3729(3)) 400 State Reapportionment 4 l 0 Antitrust 430 Banks and Banking 450 Commerce 460 Deponatinn 470 Racketeer Influenced & Corrupt Organizations 480 Consumer Credit 490 Cable/Sat TV 850 Securilies/Commodities/ Exchange 890 Other Statutury Actions 891 Agricultural Acts 893 Environmental Matters 895 Freedom oflnformation Act 896 Arbitration 899 Administrative Procedure Act/Review or Appeal 0f Agency Decision 950 Constitutionality of Stale Statutes V. ORIGIN (Plaw (m “X" in One Box Only) l Original X 2 Removed from 3 Remanded from 4 Reinstated or 5 Transferred from 6 Multidisrrict 8 Mulridistrict Proceeding Stale Court Appellate Coun Reopened Another District (.sywvi/jz) Litigatioanransfer LitigationiDirect File VL CAUSE 0F Cite the U.S‘ Civil Statute under which you are filing (Du not cite iurivdictianal statutes unlexs diverxitv): 28 U.S.C, 1332, 1441 and 1446ACTION , , ‘ Bnef descrmtlon ofcause: Product L1ab111ty, Fraud, Breach of Contract VII. REQUESTED IN CHECK IF THIS 1s A CLAss ACTION DEMAND s CHECK YES only ifdemanded in complaint: COMPLAINT: UNDER RULE 23, Fed. R. Civ. P. JURY DEMAND: x Yes N0 VIII. RELATED CASE(S), JUDGE ‘ IF ANY (Sew instruvtiuns'): JUdge Andre Bertte’ Jr' DOCKET NUMBER MDL N0. 2814-AB-FFMX (C.D. Cal.) 1X. DIVISIONAL ASSIGNMENT (Civil Local Rule 3-2) (Place an “X” in One Box Only) SAN FRANCISCO/OAKLAND I SAN JOSE I EUREKA-MCKINLEYVILLE 05/30/2018DATE SIGNATURE OF ATTORNEY OF RECL.-., JS-CAND 44 (rev. 07/16) INSTRUCTIONS FOR ATTORNEYS COMPLETING CIVIL COVER SHEET FORM JS-CAND 44 Authority For Civil Cover Sheet. The JS-CAND 44 civil cover sheet and the information contained herein neither replaces nor supplements the filings and service of pleading or other papers as required by law, except as provided by local rules of court. This form, approved in its original form by the Judicial Conference of the United States in September 1974, is required for the Clerk of Court to initiate the civil docket sheet. Consequently, a civil cover sheet is submitted to the Clerk of Court for each civil complaint filed. The attorney filing a case should complete the form as follows: I. a) Plaintiffs-Defendants. Enter names (last, first, middle initial) of plaintiff and defendant. If the plaintiff or defendant is a government agency, use only the full name or standard abbreviations. If the plaintiff or defendant is an official within a government agency, identify first the agency and then the official, giving both name and title. b) County of Residence. For each civil case filed, except U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county where the first listed plaintiff resides at the time of filing. In U.S. plaintiff cases, enter the name of the county in which the first listed defendant resides at the time of filing. (NOTE: In land condemnation cases, the county of residence of the “defendant” is the location of the tract of land involved.) c) Attorneys. Enter the firm name, address, telephone number, and attorney of record. If there are several attorneys, list them on an attachment, noting in this section “(see attachment).” II. Jurisdiction. The basis of jurisdiction is set forth under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 8(a), which requires that jurisdictions be shown in pleadings. Place an “X” in one of the boxes. If there is more than one basis of jurisdiction, precedence is given in the order shown below. (1) United States plaintiff. Jurisdiction based on 28 USC §§ 1345 and 1348. Suits by agencies and officers of the United States are included here. (2) United States defendant. When the plaintiff is suing the United States, its officers or agencies, place an “X” in this box. (3) Federal question. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1331, where jurisdiction arises under the Constitution of the United States, an amendment to the Constitution, an act of Congress or a treaty of the United States. In cases where the U.S. is a party, the U.S. plaintiff or defendant code takes precedence, and box 1 or 2 should be marked. (4) Diversity of citizenship. This refers to suits under 28 USC § 1332, where parties are citizens of different states. When Box 4 is checked, the citizenship of the different parties must be checked. (See Section III below; NOTE: federal question actions take precedence over diversity cases.) III. Residence (citizenship) of Principal Parties. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is to be completed if diversity of citizenship was indicated above. Mark this section for each principal party. IV. Nature of Suit. Place an “X” in the appropriate box. If the nature of suit cannot be determined, be sure the cause of action, in Section VI below, is sufficient to enable the deputy clerk or the statistical clerk(s) in the Administrative Office to determine the nature of suit. If the cause fits more than one nature of suit, select the most definitive. V. Origin. Place an “X” in one of the six boxes. (1) Original Proceedings. Cases originating in the United States district courts. (2) Removed from State Court. Proceedings initiated in state courts may be removed to the district courts under Title 28 USC § 1441. When the petition for removal is granted, check this box. (3) Remanded from Appellate Court. Check this box for cases remanded to the district court for further action. Use the date of remand as the filing date. (4) Reinstated or Reopened. Check this box for cases reinstated or reopened in the district court. Use the reopening date as the filing date. (5) Transferred from Another District. For cases transferred under Title 28 USC § 1404(a). Do not use this for within district transfers or multidistrict litigation transfers. (6) Multidistrict Litigation Transfer. Check this box when a multidistrict case is transferred into the district under authority of Title 28 USC § 1407. When this box is checked, do not check (5) above. (8) Multidistrict Litigation Direct File. Check this box when a multidistrict litigation case is filed in the same district as the Master MDL docket. Please note that there is no Origin Code 7. Origin Code 7 was used for historical records and is no longer relevant due to changes in statute. VI. Cause of Action. Report the civil statute directly related to the cause of action and give a brief description of the cause. Do not cite jurisdictional statutes unless diversity. Example: U.S. Civil Statute: 47 USC § 553. Brief Description: Unauthorized reception of cable service. VII. Requested in Complaint. Class Action. Place an “X” in this box if you are filing a class action under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23. Demand. In this space enter the actual dollar amount being demanded or indicate other demand, such as a preliminary injunction. Jury Demand. Check the appropriate box to indicate whether or not a jury is being demanded. VIII. Related Cases. This section of the JS-CAND 44 is used to identify related pending cases, if any. If there are related pending cases, insert the docket numbers and the corresponding judge names for such cases. IX. Divisional Assignment. If the Nature of Suit is under Property Rights or Prisoner Petitions or the matter is a Securities Class Action, leave this section blank. For all other cases, identify the divisional venue according to Civil Local Rule 3-2: “the county in which a substantial part of the events or omissions which give rise to the claim occurred or in which a substantial part of the property that is the subject of the action is situated.” Date and Attorney Signature. Date and sign the civil cover sheet. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-14 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CASE NO. DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS [Local Rule 3-15(a)]] Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-15 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 10569396 68899061] Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-15 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 The undersigned, counsel of record for DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY, certifies that the following listed party (or parties) may have a direct, pecuniary interest in the outcome 0f this case. These representations are made t0 enable the Court t0 evaluate possible disqualification 0r recusal. PARTY CONNECTION/INTEREST State Street C0 oration ( parent of Statq Entity has reported t0 the U.S. Street Bank an Trust Companyz wh_1ch ls the Secuntms and Exchan e trustee 0f the Ford defined contrlbutlon plans) Commlssgon that as 0 ecember 31, 2016 1t holds 5% 0r more of Ford's common stock Evercore Trust Company, _N.A. (fiduciary 0f Same as above the Ford defined contrlbutlon plans Black Rock, Inc. and certain affiliates Same as above The Vanguard Group and certain affiliates Same as above Dated: June 13, 2018 /s/ Spencer P. Hugret SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) Email: shu ret rsm.com MOLLY J. MR BN 190133) Email: mmrowka§%%rsm.com ANAST I B R HUK (SBN 309091) Email: abondarchuk§%%rsm.com GORD N REE LY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franc1sco, CA 941 11 Telephone: 415) 986-5900 Fac51mile: ( 15) 986-8054 Attorne s br Defendant FORD TOR COMPANY l DEFENDANT Ff 3RD MI 3Ti 3R z Ti iMPANY’S (TERTIFK TATK 3N UF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE I am employed in the County of San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party to the within action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco, CA 94111. On the date set forth below, I served on the party listed below the foregoing document(s) described as: 1. DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-16 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE 2. DECLARATION OF SPENCER P. HUGRET IN SUPPORT OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 3. DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S NOTICE OF REMOVAL OF ACTION PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §§ 1332, 1441, 1446 4. DECLARATION OF TIM PAULUS 5. CIVIL COVER SHEET 6. DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY’S CERTIFICATION OF INTERESTED ENTITIES OR PERSONS by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FEDEX as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP described below, addressed as follows: (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Steve Mikhov, Esq. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2325 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. MCGILL Executed on June 13, 2018, at San Francisco, California. Erica Ramirez 1106265/32649163v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 1-16 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm.com M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka rsm.com N T B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk rsm.com RD N E LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Sulte 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: g4 15) 986-5900 Facsunile: ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case No. 5:1 8-cv-03533 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California C0 oration, dba FORD STORE MOR. AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, 1nc1u31ve, Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Case N0. 3: 1 8-CV-03 1 79 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 NOTICE 0F APPEARANCE Now comes Attorney Spencer P. Hugret of the law firm Gordon & Rees LLP, and hereby gives notice t0 this Court and to all parties that he enters his appearance as counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company. Please direct copies of all future pleadings, correspondence, and papers t0 all of undersigned counsel. Dated: June 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Sgencer P. Hugret SPENCER P HUGRET (SBN 240424) Email: shu ret rsm com MOLLY J MR KA BN 190133) Email: mmrowka§%%rsm.com ANASTA I B R HUK (SBN 309091) Email: abondarchuk§%%rsm.com GORD NREE LY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franc1sc0 CA 94111 Telephone. 15) 986-5900 Facmmile: ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s 0r Defendant FORD TOR COMPANY -1- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE. Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 GOOQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 2-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm.com M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowkaggrsmfiom ANA TA B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchukgfirsmcom RD N R ULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 11 Telephone: g 15) 875-3193 Facs1mile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case N0. 5: 18-cv-03533 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC ,a California Co oration dba FORD STORE MQR AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, Incluswe, Defendants. I am employed in the County 0f San Francisco, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco CA 941 l 1. On the date set forth below, I served on the party listed below the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 1 ERTIFI TE F ERVI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLC 1801 Century Park East., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorney for Plaintiff  (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 13, 2018, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Erica Ramirez___ Erica Ramirez 1157010/38507239v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 2-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm. corn M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka rsm.com N TA B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk rsm.com RD N E LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco CA 94111 Telephone: a 15) 986-5900 Facsnnile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case No. 5:1 8-cv-03533 Plaintiff, vs. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California C0 oration, dba FORD STORE MOR. AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, 1nc1u31ve, Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 NOTICE 0F APPEARANCE Now comes Attorney Molly J. Mrowka 0f the law firm Gordon & Rees LLP, and hereby gives notice to this Court and to all parties that she enters her appearance as counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company. Please direct copies of all future pleadings, correspondence, and papers to all ofundersigned counsel. Dated: June 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Molly J. Mrowka SPENCER P HUGRET (SBN 240424) Email: shu ret rsm com MOLLY J MR KA BN 190133) Email: mmrowka§%%rsm.com ANASTA I B R HUK (SBN 309091) Email: abondarchuk§%%rsm.com GORD NREE LY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franc1sc0 CA 94111 Telephone. 15) 986-5900 Facmmile: ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s 0r Defendant FORD TOR COMPANY -1- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 GOOQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 3-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm.com M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowkaggrsmfiom ANA TA B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchukgfirsmcom RD N R ULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 11 Telephone: g 15) 875-3193 Facs1mile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case N0. 5: 18-cv-03533 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC ,a California Co oration dba FORD STORE MQR AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, Incluswe, Defendants. I am employed in the County 0f San Francisco, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco CA 941 l 1. On the date set forth below, I served on the party listed below the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 1 ERTIFI TE F ERVI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLC 1801 Century Park East., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorney for Plaintiff  (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 13, 2018, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Erica Ramirez___ Erica Ramirez 1157010/38507239v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 3-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm. corn M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka rsm.com N TA B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk rsm.com RD N E LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco CA 94111 Telephone: a 15) 986-5900 Facsnnile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case No. 5:1 8-cv-03533 Plaintiff, NOTICE OF APPEARANCE vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California C0 oration, dba FORD STORE MOR. AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, 1nc1u31ve, Defendants. NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 NOTICE 0F APPEARANCE Now comes Attorney Anastasia Bondarchuk of the law firm Gordon & Rees LLP, and hereby gives notice t0 this Court and to all parties that she enters her appearance as counsel for Defendant Ford Motor Company. Please direct copies of all future pleadings, correspondence, and papers t0 all of undersigned counsel. Dated: June 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Anastasia Bondarchuk SPENCER P HUGRET (SBN 240424) Email: shu ret rsm com MOLLY J MR KA BN 190133) Email: mmrowka§%%rsm.com ANASTA I B AR HUK (SBN 309091) Email: abondarchuk§%%rsm.com GORD NREE LY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battely Street Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 94111 Telephone: 15) 986-5900 Facs1mile: ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s 0r Defendant FORD TOR COMPANY -1- NOTICE OF APPEARANCE Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 GOOQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 4-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm.com M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowkaggrsmfiom ANA TA B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchukgfirsmcom RD N R ULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 11 Telephone: g 15) 875-3193 Facs1mile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case N0. 5: 18-cv-03533 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC ,a California Co oration dba FORD STORE MQR AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, Incluswe, Defendants. I am employed in the County 0f San Francisco, State 0f California. I am over the age 0f 18 and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco CA 941 l 1. On the date set forth below, I served on the party listed below the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE 1 ERTIFI TE F ERVI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows: Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLC 1801 Century Park East., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 Attorney for Plaintiff  (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 13, 2018, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Erica Ramirez___ Erica Ramirez 1157010/38507239v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 4-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 4 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shufiretgfrsm cornM L .MR WKA(SBN190133) mmrowkaggrsmcom ANA TA B NDARCHUK(SBN 309091) abondarchuk(%%rsm.com RD N E LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Sulte 2000 San Francisco CA 941 11 Telephone: S4 15) 986-5900 Facs1mile: ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case N0. 5. 18---cv-03533 Plaintiff, ) vs. 3 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF ) OTHER ACTION OR FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware PROCEEDING Co oration; THE FORD STORE 3MO GAN HILL, INC. a California [Per L.R. 3-13] Ooration dba ’FORD’ STORE ) _ .GAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 3 Sup Ct. Complamt: Aprll 30, 2018 ) 10,Oinclusive, Defendants.‘ Pursuant to Northern District of California - Local Rule 3-13, Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), hereby provides notice that the above-captioned action involves all or a material part 0f the same subject matter at issue in In re; Ford Motor C0. DPS6 Powershift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, MDL N0. 2814-AB (FFMX), and the civil actions contained therein, currently pending in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 before the Honorable Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. This action is a potential Tag Along action, and therefore, this civil action will be included in a Notice of Tag Along Actions filed with the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (“JPML”), pursuant to JPML Local Rule 7.1. A. DESCRIPTION OF THE OTHER ACTION/PROCEEDING. On October 27, 2017, Defendant Ford moved the JPML to transfer and coordinate over 100 actions involving the same or similar claims regarding the DPS6 PowerShift transmission to Judge Birotte in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1407. (MDL No. 2814, Docs. 1, 1-1). On February 2, 2018, the JPML granted Ford’s Motion for Transfer and Consolidation of Related Actions in the United States District Court for the Central District of California, Western Division. A copy of the Order is attached as Exhibit A. Since the MDL No. 2814 was established, hundreds of cases have been added. To date, there are over 600 civil actions in MDL No. 2814. A copy of the list of Member Cases from the MDL 2814 docket (C.D. Cal. 2:18-cv-2814-AB- FFM), is attached as Exhibit B. B. TITLE AND LOCATION OF COURT WHERE THE OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING IS PENDING MDL No. 2814-AB (FFMx) was transferred by the Judicial Panel on Multi- District Litigation to the Central District of California, before the Honorable Judge Andre Birotte, Jr. See Exhibit A C. RELATIONSHIP OF OTHER PROCEEDING TO THE ACTION PENDING IN THIS DISTRICT The civil actions included in MDL No. 2814, to date, are set forth on the list of Member Cases, attached as Exhibit B. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 4 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING G o rd o n & R ee s L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 These actions involve the same party “Ford Motor Company” and are based on “the same or similar claims.” Specifically, all of the cases which are part of MDL No. 2814 make the same or similar allegations as Plaintiff in this case, i.e., that the DPS6 PowerShift transmissions installed in 2011-2016 Ford Fiesta and 2012-2016 Ford Focus vehicles were allegedly defective, and that Ford allegedly fraudulently mispresented and/or concealed alleged defects in the DPS6 PowerShift transmissions installed in 2011-2016 Ford Fiesta and 2012-2016 Ford Focus vehicles. D. WHETHER TRANSFER SHOULD BE EFFECTED PURSUANT TO 28 U.S.C. §1407, OR WHETHER COORDINATION MIGHT AVOID CONFLICTS, CONSERVE RESOURCES, AND PROMOTE AN EFFICIENT DETERMINATION OF THE ACTION Pursuant to JPML Local Rule 7.1, this case should be related to MDL No. 2814 and assigned to Judge Birotte, because this case involves common questions of fact and law with the other cases within MDL No. 2814, and coordination before one judge, Judge Birotte, will promote judicial economy and eliminate the potential for conflicting pretrial rulings by different district courts. As detailed in the Order granting Ford’s Motion to Transfer, considerations of judicial economy and the swift administration of justice weigh strongly in factor of relating these DPS6 PowerShift cases. Given that these cases involve the same defendant, challenge the same or similar activities, rely on the same or similar evidence, and require analysis under the same statutes and other legal authorities, there would be a significant duplication of labor if they were heard by different judges. To this end, a Notice of Tag Along will be filed for this civil action with the JPML, pursuant to JPML Local Rule 7.1. /// /// Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 4 Gordon & Rees LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 1151277/37010489v‘1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 5 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 4 Dated: June 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Spencer P. Hugret SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) Email: shu ret rsm.com MOLLY J. MR BN 190133) Email: mmrowka§%%rsm.com ANASTA I B AR HUK (SBN 309091) Email: abondarchukg%%rsm.com GORD N REE LY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battety Street, Sulte 2000 San FranCISco, CA 941 11 Telephone: 415) 986-5900 Facs1rnlle: ( 15) 986-8054 Counsel for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING EXHIBIT A Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 8 UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL on MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2814 TRANSFER ORDER Before the Panel: Defendant Ford Motor Company moves under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 to* centralize this litigation in the Central District of California. This litigation currently consists of 110 actions pending in seven districts, as listed on Schedule A. Since the filing of the motion, the Panel1 has been notified of 57 related federal actions.2 Plaintiffs in 60 actions on the motion and 32 potential tag-along actions, represented by two law firms, oppose centralization. At oral argument, opposing plaintiffs in all but one of those actions stated that the Central District of California would be an acceptable choice to plaintiffs. Plaintiffs in the remaining 50 actions on the motion have not responded and thus are deemed to have acquiesced in the motion under Panel Rule 6.1(c). The plaintiffs opposing centralization do not dispute that all actions present factual questions concerning the allegedly defective DPS6 PowerShift transmission in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles. Instead, they argue that centralization is not appropriate because the actions also involve individualized questions of fact regarding the problems experienced by each plaintiff’s vehicle, the nature and number of repairs, the efficacy of the repairs, and the extent to which the alleged defect impaired each plaintiff’s use of the vehicle. They further identify a handful of cases alleging additional problems unrelated to the transmission. But the central question in all actions is whether the DPS6 PowerShift transmission is defective and, as a result, caused operational problems relating to the transmission that affect the drivability, safety, and value of the vehicles. Product liability litigation typically involves some plaintiff-specific factual issues, but centralization still may be warranted where the actions allege a common defect involving similar products manufactured by the same company. See In re: MI Window and Doors, Inc., Prods. Liab. Litig., 857 Certain Panel members who could be members of the putative classes in this litigation* have renounced their participation in the classes and have participated in this decision. The motion for centralization lists 111 actions. One action (Rerich) recently was1 terminated without prejudice pursuant to a joint stipulation of the parties. These and any other related actions are potential tag-along actions. See Panel Rules 1.1(h),2 7.1 and 7.2. Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 1 of 7 2/6/18 CS FILED CLERK, U.S. DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA BY: ___________________ DEPUTY Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/ 6 18 Page 1 of 7 Page ID #:8Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 8 -2- F. Supp. 2d 1374, 1375 (J.P.M.L. 2012). Transfer under Section 1407 does not require a complete identity of factual issues when the actions arise from a common factual core. See In re: Kugel Mesh Hernia Patch Prods. Liab. Litig., 493 F. Supp. 2d 1371, 1372 (J.P.M.L. 2007). Plaintiffs further argue that centralization would be unjust on the ground that Ford improperly removed the vast majority of cases to avoid adverse state court rulings, and many plaintiffs have remand motions pending. It is well-established that jurisdictional objections, including objections to removal, are not relevant to transfer. This is so even where, as here, plaintiffs assert that the removals were patently improper. “Section 1407 does not empower the MDL Panel to decide questions going to the jurisdiction or the merits of a case, including issues relating to a motion to remand.” In re Ivy, 901 F.2d 7, 9 (2d Cir. 1990). Plaintiffs alternatively request a delay or stay of the decision on centralization until their motions for remand to state court are decided, but there is no persuasive basis to do so. The Panel’s longstanding practice is to decide motions to transfer even though remand motions are pending, as plaintiffs can present those motions to the transferee court. See, e.g., In re: Prudential Ins. Co. of Am. Sales Practices Litig., 170 F. Supp. 2d 1346, 1347-48 (J.P.M.L. 2001). Additionally, plaintiff in Hibdon argues that Ford intends to use the MDL to delay resolution of the cases and coerce plaintiffs into undesirable settlements. But plaintiff’s concerns about litigation delays and the future of settlement discussions are highly speculative. Moreover, these essentially are case management issues. As we have observed ,“[i]t is incumbent upon the parties to bring their concerns to the attention of the transferee court and to propose ways to resolve them.” See In re: Walgreen’s Herbal Supplements Mktg. and Sales Practices Litig., 109 F. Supp. 3d 1373, 1376 (J.P.M.L. 2015). On the basis of the papers filed and the hearing session held, we find that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. The actions share complex factual questions arising out of allegations that the DPS6 PowerShift Transmission installed in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles is defective and negatively affects the drivability, safety,3 and useful life of the vehicles. The actions allege that plaintiffs’ vehicles suffer from similar transmission-related problems, including slipping, bucking, jerking, sudden acceleration, delayed acceleration and downshifting, and premature wear that requires repair or replacement. Common factual questions include (1) whether the design or manufacturing of the PowerShift transmission is defective; (2) defendant’s knowledge of, and conduct in response, to the alleged defect; and (3) whether vehicle owners and lessees have suffered a diminution in vehicle value or other economic damages. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary. The allegations involve Ford Fiesta model years 2011 to 2016 and Ford Focus model years3 2012 to 2016. Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 2 of 7Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/ 6 18 Page 2 of 7 Page ID #:9Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 8 -3- We conclude that the Central District of California is an appropriate transferee district for this litigation. The vast majority of the actions are pending in California, including 35 actions in the Central District. Centralization in this district also will facilitate coordination with California state court litigation involving the same alleged defect. Judge André Birotte, Jr., managed a related nationwide class action settlement involving the same Ford vehicles and alleged transmission defect, and thus is familiar with the factual and legal issues in this litigation. He presides over the4 actions pending in this district, and is an experienced transferee judge. We are confident he will steer this litigation on a prudent course. IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the actions listed on Schedule A and pending outside the Central District of California are transferred to the Central District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable André Birotte, Jr., for coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings. PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION Sarah S. Vance Chair Marjorie O. Rendell Charles R. Breyer Lewis A. Kaplan Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor Catherine D. Perry See Vargas v. Ford Motor Co., C.A. No. 12-8388 (C.D. Cal).4 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 3 of 7Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 3 of 7 Page ID #:10Case 5: 8 cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 8 IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2814 SCHEDULE A Central District of California HIBDON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-06355 ALONSO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-06622 FORT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-06631 BAGWELL v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-06632 BARRALES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-06638 GIBSON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-06644 HERMOSILLO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-06651 MAGANA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-06653 MEJIA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-06654 PEDANTE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-06656 RULE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07204 PADILLA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07236 HOGGE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07256 GOMEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-07262 CRESPO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07297 HIATT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-07321 TRUJILLO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-07322 ALTAMIRANO-TORRES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07338 ALTIKRITI, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07369 DOBIAS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07370 CASTANEDA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07416 SULLIVAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07497 EMHARDT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07533 MOBLEY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 2:17-07554 WRIGHT, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-01982 PAPAMICHAEL v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-01986 RODRIGUEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02007 PADILLA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02015 WEST v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02018 BERRY, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02034 HENRY, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02036 PEREZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02042 KEATING v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02044 HERNANDEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02045 MCGINNIS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 5:17-02047 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 4 of 7Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 4 of 7 Page ID #:11Case 5: 8 cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 8 - A2 - Eastern District of California ZIMMERSCHIED, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:17-01317 SORENSON, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-01987 WILLIAMS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02006 MALAGON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02051 VILLALOVOS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02053 BARRACK v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02078 LOVEST v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02079 CAMARGO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02092 MARQUEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02140 GLASSFORD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02145 DOLAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02148 REYES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02151 NACUA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02153 MARTIN, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 2:17-02158 Northern District of California BRIGGS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 3:17-05762 HYDE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05613 SERVANTES, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05615 THOMAS, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05619 MENDEZ, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05620 MARLOWE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05621 THEADE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05643 SCHATZMAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05669 TORRES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05694 ACEVES v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05695 FORRESTER v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05698 TORRES, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05699 RODRIGUEZ-DIAZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05701 RODGERS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05703 HERNANDEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05704 SIMMONS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05705 INDIVERI v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05706 GARCIA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05711 CONNAUGHTON, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05712 KLEIN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05722 MAGAN, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05730 KANE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05745 MARTINEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05746 PADILLA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05747 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 5 of 7Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 5 of 7 Page ID #:12Case 5: 8 cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 8 - A3 - PAYSENO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05749 RAVEN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05750 RIVERA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05751 BECKER, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05765 GONZALEZ v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05885 REINPRECHT v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05900 TAVITIAN v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05915 ARCHIBALD, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05922 DILLARD, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05924 ESTRADA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05925 AGUILAR v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05927 ALLIANO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05978 HESS v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-05996 ROMERO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 5:17-06022 Southern District of California MILES, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-01993 ROJAS, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02005 RALEIGH v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02035 CARDOSO v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02037 ROSE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02038 MINKE, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02039 KENNEDY v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02040 STANTON v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02043 MODROW v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02044 ROCHE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02045 REECE v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02046 MENDOZA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02047 SALGADO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02048 OMARK v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02049 MUHAMMAD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02050 SMITHFIELD, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02109 PORTER, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02111 FUKASAWA, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02116 BILLIARD v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02121 ESQUIBEL v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 3:17-02157 District of Hawaii HEMZA v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, ET AL., C.A. No. 1:17-00296 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 6 of 7Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 6 of 7 Page ID #:13Case 5: 8 cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 8 - A4 - Southern District of Ohio MARTIN, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 1:16-00855 Eastern District of Texas ASCENSIO, ET AL. v. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:17-00074 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 40 Filed 02/02/18 Page 7 of 7Case 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM Document 1 Filed 02/06/18 Page 7 of 7 Page ID #:14Case 5: 8 cv-03533-NC Document 6 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 8 EXHIBIT B Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 61 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 0f 61 Page 1 0f 60 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM ln Re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 Powershift Transmission Products Liability Litigation Andre Birotte Jr, presiding Frederick F. Mumm, referral Date filed: 02/06/2018 Date 0f last filing: 06/12/2018 Associated Cases Lead Case Member Case Start Date End Date 2: 1 8-m1-02814- 2: 18-cv-00997-AB-FFM Paul Williams V. Ford Motor AB-FFM Company 02/07/201 8W Jean Mejla Malagon v. Ford Motor 02/07/201 8 CompanyWW Fellx V111alovos V. Ford Motor 02/07/201 8 Company DaVld Mark Barrack V. Ford Motor 02/07/201 8 CompanyW Jane Nacua et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/08/2018 Company Mlchelle Martln et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/08/2018 CompanyW Amanda Marquez v. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 Company Bruce Glassford V. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 CompanyW John Zlmmerschled, et a1. v. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company Jacob Bernard Russell Sorenson, et 02/08/2018 al. V. Ford Motor CompanyW Megan Dolan V. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 Company Angela M. Lovest V. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 Company |l2: 18-cv-01002-AB-FFM Camargo v. Ford Motor Company ”02/08/201 8H IW Nancy L. Brlggs V. Ford Motor 02/09/2018 Company Susana Rlvera V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 CompanyW Jenmfer Hyde et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 Company H || || https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 61 Page 2 of 60W Ramiro Servantes et a1 V. Ford 02/09/201 8 Motor Company Steven Thomas et al v. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 CompanyW Joel Mendez et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 Company Joan Marlowe V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 CompanyW Candace Reyes v. Ford Motor 02/09/2018 Company Dyanna Becker et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Jose Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Evelyn Reinprecht v. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 CompanyW Aida Tavitian v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company David Archibald, et al v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Treva Dillard et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Julius Estrada V‘ Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Lilian Aguilar V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Phillip Alliano V-Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company ||2: 18-cv-00955-AB-FFM Julie Hess v. Ford Motor Company ”02/12/2018” lW Marvin Romero et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Chambra Miles et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Rojas et a1 V. Ford Motor Company 02/12/2018 et a1 Ryan Raleigh v. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company et a1W Gonzalo Cardoso V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1WW Rose et a1 V. Ford Motor Company 02/12/2018 August Mlnke et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 61 Page 3 of 60W Daniel P. Kennedy V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 Mlchael E. Theade V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Beth E. Schatzman V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Marla Torres V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Mark Hemza V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1 Tabatha Martm et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Benjamm Ascens1o et a1 V. Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company M1chael Modrow Jr. v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Sherry Roche V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1MW Albert Reece V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Kevm Salgado et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company et a1 Amlka Omark V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Zlyadah Muhammad V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 Marllou Smlthfield et a1 V. Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company et a1W En Fukasawa et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 Thomas B1111ard v. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1W Ernest Esqulbel V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 Estela Aceves v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Tlmothy Forrester V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company Jose Torres et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 CompanyW Esmeralda Rodrlguez-Dlaz V. Ford 02/1 2/201 8 Motor Company 02/12/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 0f 61 Page 4 0f 60W Willard M. Rodgers v. Ford Motor Company Frank Hernandez V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Ronald JOSCPh Simmons V- Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company Jean Stanton V. Ford Motor company et a1 02/12/201 8W Mark Indlverl V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company Antonio Garcia v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Judith Connaughton et a1 v. Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company Jordan Klein v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Mark Magan et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Valerie M. Kane et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Juan Carlos Martinez V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company 2: 18-cv-01050-AB-FFM Ana Padilla V. Ford Motor Company |02/12/201 8W Samantha Payseno V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company Desiree Raven v. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 CompanyW Christopher Hibdon V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Andrea L. Alonso v. Ford Motor company 02/06/201 8“W Sharon Fort V. Ford Motor CompanyIIOZ/06/201 8” IW Robert Dean Bagwell v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company Aristeo Barrales V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 CompanyW Robert S Gibson V. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company, et a1 George O. Hermosillo v. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 CompanyW Christopher Magana et a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company, et a1 02/06/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 of 61 Page 5 0f 60W Rodolfo Mejia v. Ford Motor Company, ct a1 Mark Pedante V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Susanne Marle Rule v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Ana R. Padllla V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Jose L Gomez V. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company Della Crespo V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 |2: 17-cv-07321-AB-FFM Jean Hiatt v. Ford Motor Company ”02/06/201 8|| lW Gulllermo Trujlllo et a1 v. Ford 02/06/2018 Motor Company, Lorenzo Altamlrano-Torres V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Mohammed Alt1kr1t1 et a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company et a1WM Wayne Doblas v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Herman Castaneda v. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company et a1W Deborah Sulhvan V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Alana Emhardt V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Dcnmc Moblcy V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Kenneth L Wright ct a1 V~ Ford 02/06/2018 Motor Company et a1W George Papamlchael V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company, et a1 Fernando Rangel Rodrlguez et a1 V. 02/06/2018 Ford Motor Company et a1W Sllvestre Padllla et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 N1ch01as West v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Echson T. Berry et a1 v- Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Kenneth Henry et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company ct a1 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 6 of 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 61W Veronica Ballesteros Perez et a1 V. 02/06/201 8 Ford Motor Company et a1 Steve s. Keatmg v- Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Jose M. Hernandez et a1 V. Ford 02/06/2018 Motor Company et a1 Leonard C. McGlnnls V. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company et a1W Todd Porter et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/1 5/2018 Company et a1 Clarene Banks et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/1 6/2018 CompanyW Ruben Estudlllo V. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1 Fellx Rodrlguez V. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1W Justln Cheney et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1 Marla Ibarra v. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1W Trevor Felchmann et a1 V. Ford 02/20/201 8 Motor Company W1111am Kramer V‘ Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company ||2:18-cv-013 12-AB-FFM Liz Gill v. Ford Motor Company ||02/20/201 8|| |W Flhberto Olazabal et a1 V. Ford 02/21/2018 Motor Company Angehca Perez et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Eduardo Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Charles Johnson et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Mane Meyer V. Ford Motor 02/21/2018 Company Savannah Plasch et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company et a1W Sherlene Turner v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Sherry L. Bloat V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Rlchard Flck et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company I || II H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 8 of 61 Page 7 of 60W John Reynolds et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Amanda Pelloth V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Robert Hlllard et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Mlchelle Gutlerrez et a1 V. Ford 02/21/201 8 Motor CompanyW Sonya Green et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/2018 Company Danlel Connelll v. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 CompanyW Andrew Glmlett et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Vallachlra Narayanan et a1 v. Ford 02/2 1 /201 8 Motor CompanyW Jeannette Kerr V. Ford Motor 02/2 1/201 8 Company Gabrlelle Satter V. Ford Motor 02/2 1/201 8 Company et a1W Jean Woodall V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Tyesha Volcy V. Ford Motor 02/2 1/201 8 CompanyW Deanna Verrecchla V. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 Company“W Obadi Hadi V. Ford Motor Company ”02/21/201 8” IW Came Klrksey v. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 Company Fotunaomanala Leaea V. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 CompanyW Jennlfer Huntress V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company et a1 Ana L. Mendoza v. Ford Motor 02/23/2018 Company et a1W Cheryl Hunter V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 Jose PantOJa V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1W Rosa Perez et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 V1rg1n1a Ramlrez V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 8 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 9 0f 61 2: 1 8-cv-01378-AB-FFM Suzanne Fornario et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/23/2018 Company et a1 2: I 8-cv-01379-AB-FFM Susan Addona V. Ford Motor company Ct a1 02/23/201 8W Donald Tatum V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 V1ncent et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/02/201 8 CompanyW Angle L. Ford et a1 v. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company Mlchelle Duke V. Ford Motor 03/05/2018 Company et a1 2: 18-cv-01748-AB-FFM Philip Henderson et a1 v. Ford Motor Company 2: 1 8-cv-01750-AB-FFM Charles Martin et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/05/2018 03/05/201 8 Company et a1W Mlchael D. Bell v. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company et a1 Dw1ght Johnson v. Ford Motor 03/14/201 8 Company et a1W Charles Ohanlan et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/1 4/201 8 Company et a1 Frank Hughes V. Ford Motor 03/14/201 8 Company et a1W Emlha L. Meza et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/14/2018 Company et a1 John A Sllva V. Ford Motor 03/28/2018 Company et a1W Benay Maureen Bowles V. Ford 03/28/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Mlguel Vmces Bustamante v. Ford 03/28/2018 Motor Company et a1W Waleed N. Jwealnat v. Ford Motor 03/28/2018 Company et a1 Shawna Marle NarduCCI v. Ford 03/28/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Vlctorla Reglna Braum v. Ford 04/02/201 8 Motor Company et a1 2:18-cv-02596-AB-FFM James H. Stevens et a1 v. Ford Motor Company, et a1 2: l8-cv-02594-AB-FFM Curtis T. Joe v. Ford Motor Company et a1 “2: 1 8-CV-02599-AB-FFM Needy V. Ford Motor Company et a1 ”04/03/201 8“ I I II II II 04/02/201 8 04/03/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 10 of 61 Page 9 0f 60 2: 1 8-cv-02473-AB-FFM Christopher J Vanni V. Ford Motor 04/03/2018 Company et a1 2: l 8-cv-02595-AB-FFM Lee Hayden et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/03/201 8 Company et a1 2: 18-cv-02598-AB-FFM Allan B. Rogers V. Ford Motor 04/03/201 8 Company et a1 ||2: 1 s-cv-02600-AB-FFM Mercer v. Ford Motor Company et a1||04/03/2018|| | |l2; 18-cv-02591-AB-FFM Sotello v. Ford Motor Company et a1||04/04/201 8|| lW Jeronlmo A1nav1sca et a1 V. Ford 04/04/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Susan M. Leutkenhoelter et a1 V. 04/04/201 8 Ford Motor Company et a1W Joan L Wyatt v. Ford Motor 04/06/201 8 Company et a1 Klmberlee Baronl v. Ford Motor 04/26/2018 CompanyW Jeffrey Calhoun v. Ford Motor 04/26/201 8 Company l2: 1 8-cv-03477-AB-FFM Devin Coe V. Ford Motor Company |04/26/201 8” IW Charles Dletz V. Ford Motor 04/26/201 8 Company Randllee Frymlre V- Ford MOW 04/27/2018 Company et a1W JeSSICa Adams V. Ford Motor 04/27/2018 Company Kevm Cooper v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 CompanyW Salvador Domlnguez V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company Llnda Frazho et a1 v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 CompanyW M1chael Cerf V. Ford Motor 04/27/2018 Company W1111am Asklns et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 CompanyW James Craven et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 Ellen Eggers et al V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1W DaV1d Abbott et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company Bruce Boulanger V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 10 0f 60 Company et a1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 11 0f 61W William Askins et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 Oscar Garc1a V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 CompanyW Donald Bachman V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company Chrlstlne Berger v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1W Ruben Canonlzado v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 Bradford Hogge v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Donald Mendoca v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jordan Gospodlnov V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Bryan Lunstrum V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Steve Fernandez et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Nlcholas Saldana V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 2: 17-cv-08182-AB-FFM Ernesto Gonzalez et al V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Mlguel A. Padllla V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Rebekah Rolas V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company 5: 18-cv-00103-AB-FFM Mark Aluia v. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/2018 2: 1 8-cv-01070-AB-FFM Teresa Rios-Flores v. Ford Motor company et a1 05/07/2018W Aaron K Duerksen v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Sarah Kllcker V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1W Jasmlne Lopez V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Darlce A. erth et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Dav1d Ortlz et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 12 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-00205-AB-FFM Jacklyn Chen et a1 v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Page 11 of 60 2: l 8-cv-01 880-AB-FFM Marina Zelaya v. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Kamlsha R. Warren V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jeff K. Hobart V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Justln Brlars v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Morgan Franklln et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Deetle C. leotzmskl et a1 V. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company, et a1 FraHCISca Aguero V- Ford MOW 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Stephen D. Gray v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Sonja Smlth v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Llceth Reyes V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Rlcardo D. Arcega V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Robert Inglese V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 2:18-cv-02378-AB-FFM James Robertson, et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Let1t1a N. Austln V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Carlos Zea et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Wllfred Mallard v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Margaret Schlller V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jonathan McDowell a1 V. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company, et a1 l2: 1 8-cv-02588-AB-FFM Lester V. Ford Motor Company et a1 ”05/07/201 8“ IW Rlchards Koontz et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Wesley Wllson V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 12 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 13 0f 61W Mercedes Mayers v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Raquel Hernandez v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Paul Walters V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Candelarla Nelson V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Scott Vanldestme et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1 Andrew Mlcklos V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Pamela Qulntana V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Samuel Adams V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Florentlna Blrch V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Marcus Brown v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Ashley M. Yanez V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Amanda Benjamln Ct 31 V- Ford ()5/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Roberta Llsc1andr0 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1WW John Carll V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 John Crews et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Cynthla D1az V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Susan Eades v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Klrk Farr et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Cynthla Flores v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jason Frank et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Mlchael Galvan v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 13 of 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 14 of 61W Sandra I. Fernandez v. Ford Motor Company, et a1 Jennifer Perry V- Ford MOW 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Cody Stamps et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Logan Wlllls et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Courtney Gomes V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1WW Hahn Shln v. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 Gladys Wlsener v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Crystal Tatum-Corso v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jeffery Scalla et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Dav1d Parsons v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 George Malarkey V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Glorla Rodrlguez V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Jose Buelna et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1WM Brlan Baca V. Ford Motor Company, 05/07/201 8 Mark De lee V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Illana Gar01a et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1 Antonlo Alvarado V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Jesse Flores V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Hector Garlbay V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Andrel Vamey V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company “2: l 8-cv-02702-AB-FFM Kevin Hunt v. Ford Motor Company ”05/07/201 8“ IW Dav1d Wleseler V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 I || II H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 15 of 61 Page 14 of 60W Richard Jensen V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Javier Rivera V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company '2: 18-cv-02732-AB-FFM Brian Baca V. Ford Motor Company ”05/07/201 8“ IW Myia Hardy v. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/2018 David McKnight V. Ford Motor company et a1 05/07/201 8W Mikel Gardner v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Maria Garza et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Candace Porter v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Janai Stanbel’ry V- Ford MOW ()5/07/201 8 Company et a1W Estelle Mathis et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Daniel McGlocklin V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Candice Russell V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Erica Potter V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 et a1W Alfredo Casas V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Rosa Cromwell V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Margaret Craft V. Ford Motor company et a1 05/07/201 8 Dane Norem et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Curtis Mitchell V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1 Brian Baca V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 et a1W Rona Keating V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jon Osawa et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Larry Sugarman V- Ford Mom 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 15 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 16 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-02858-AB-FFM Kenneth Anzules, et a1 v. Ford 05/07/2018 Motor Company et a1 2: I 8-cv-02865-AB-FFM Victor Valencia et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Horacw Rodrlguez 6t a1 V. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1WM Jlm Way V- Ford MOW company et 05/07/201 8 Lopez Rodrlguez et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Bryon Wood v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company Alexander Se1de v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1Wleolas Tejeda V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Chrls Luczkow v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Davon Framer v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Klm Mac1as v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 2: 18-cv-02895-AB-FFM Leroy Staes V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 et a1WW Paul Comer V. Ford Motor Company 05/10/201 8 Robert Marchand V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Nlcole Henderson V. Ford Motor 06/13/201 8 Company et a1 Jessm Brlght v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 CompanyW Tealra Beckett v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 John Elnbund v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Kern Berntsen et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Denlse Bosch v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Max Cunnlngham V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 “2: 1 8-CV-02910-AB-FFM Jcss Linarcs V. Ford Motor CompanyIIOS/07/201 8“ I I II II II https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 17 of 61 Page 16 of 60W Shad Williams v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Shad Wllllams V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 '2: 18-cv-02917-AB-FFM Aaron Lupo V. Ford Motor CompaHYIIO5/07/201 8“ IW Margaret Schlller V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Gage Puckett v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Crystal Vasquez v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Johnathon Bonilla et a1 V. Ford 05/07/2018 Motor Company et a1W Hieu Ngo V. Ford Motor Company et 05/07/201 8 a1 Darrell Barclay v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jorge Montes V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jason Andrew Cooper et a1 V. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Darren Prewitt v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Jordan Emfield V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Shad Williams et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Tracey Voeltner V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Austin Bonnin et a1 V. Ford Motor company et a1 05/15/201 8 Alejandro Castro v. Ford Motor 05/1 5/201 8 Company et a1W Mellssa Bonneau v. Ford Motor 05/15/2018 Company et a1 Gina Couch V. Ford Motor Company 05/1 5/201 8 et a1W Mlchael Alba et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/17/201 8 Company et a1 Franklln Bleda V. Ford Motor 05/1 8/201 8 Company et a1W Caroline Dillon V. Ford Motor 05/18/201 8 Company, et a1 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 17 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 18 0f 61W Michael Erwin V. Ford Motor 05/18/201 8 Company, et a1 Brlan Downlng et al v. Ford Motor 05/1 8/201 8 Company, et a1W Mlke Adamlk V. Ford Motor 05/21/201 8 Company, et a1 Mellssa Babcock et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/22/2018 Company et a1W Amanda Bowen V. Ford Motor 05/22/2018 Company et a1 Chet Adrlano v. Ford Motor 05/22/201 8 Company et a1W Barbara Burton V. Ford Motor 05/22/201 8 Company et a1 Debra Duncan et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/22/201 8 Company, et a1W Mary Antomette Egan v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1 RICardo Ellas v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1W Jerad Etheredge et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1 Monlca Farmer V. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company, et a1W Edgar Foster v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1 Mlchael D. Eatontaylor V. Ford 05/25/2018 Motor CompanyW Darryl Eatontaylor v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Kenneth Dlebold v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1W Tom Flelden v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company Douglas DeThomas V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1WW Laura Dean v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 Robert Folkerts V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 CompanyW Isalah Franco et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 05/25/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 18 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 19 of 61W Donald Fritz V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Ewun1k1 Butler v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Raymond Cerenka V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company, et a1 Arthur Gent et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 CompanyW Joanna Acevedo et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 Jacquellne Garc1a et a1 V. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Rafael Gar01a V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Chrlstl Brown v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Carohne Cabrera v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company, et a1 Sara Garc1a-Romero et a1 v. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor CompanyW Tram Brlggs V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Sydm Fox et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company, et a1W Susan Cameron V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Cec111a Carrlllo V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1WW Er1k Brldge v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 Dav1d Bernler v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1W Mlchelle Beauregard v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Wayne Blalr V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1WW Pans Blerk V. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 Gavm Barnett v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Joanna Cosme et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 05/25/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 20 of 61 Page 19 of 60W Sonja Alvarez v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Samuel Alexander V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Joanna Ambrlz V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Carlos AVIlez V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Joanna Cosme et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 Ellse Chandler v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Arthur Schultz V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company M1chelle Alatorre V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Wllfrldo Cervantes v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Dame] Godlnez V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Gabrlel Colunga v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1WW Ron Aland V. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 Shlrley Burcks et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Oscar Perez et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Perla Valenzuela V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 CompanyW Chrlstlna Cancmo et a1 v. Ford 05/25/2018 Motor Company et a1W Tracy Carr v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 Shannon Lund V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Chrlstopher Jones v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Norma Luna V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Charles Relnbolz v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company 05/25/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 21 of 61 Page 20 0f 60W Quinn Taylor et a1 V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Dav1d Schuerger et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Dana Van Leuven et a1 V. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Benjamln Parker V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Jav1er Yretta v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Jlmmle McKee et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1W Jake chks et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 Kendra Holmstedt V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Patr1c1a Lopez V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company Bret Watklns et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W N1kk1 Reese V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Franco Mellone V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Katle Carroll V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Larry Pattlson et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Edgar Castlllo V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Roger Wllhs v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 CompanyW Mark Taylor v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 Gabrlel Lerma V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1ww Jessw Shaw V. Ford Motor Company 05/29/201 8W Dlane Gomez v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Kathleen Neal V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 05/29/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 22 of 61 Page 21 of 60W Cindy Post et al v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Nlcole Thompson V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W J111 Whltcomb V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Robert Wolf et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1WW Kyle Atklns v. Ford Motor Company 05/29/2018 Chrlstopher Brown v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Anthony Dahms v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Barbara Dav1es et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Llnda Cameron V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Lmdsey Carpenter v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Pamela Alcantar v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Theresa Mlller V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 CompanyW Frank Lemus V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Martha Kocan V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Chrls Jones et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1 Chelsea Hllbrandt V. Ford Motor 05/3 “2018 Company et a1W Franc1sco Plneda v. Ford Motor 05/3 1 /201 8 Company, et a1 Sara Qulnt et al V. Ford Motor 05/3 U201 8 Company, et a1W Alyson Savoy et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1 Jose Serrano V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Jennlfer Spatz v. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1 05/3 1/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 22 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 23 of 61W Jesus Valle v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Larry Wolters et al V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Barbara Johnson V. Ford Motor 05/3 U201 8 Company et a1 Marla Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Fernando Martlnez v. Ford Motor 05/3 1/2018 Company et a1 Roxana Lopez V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Sade Mascorro et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/3 “201 8 Company et a1 Vanessa Meadows et a1 v. Ford 05/3 1/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Robert Brown et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1 Jacob Mlller V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Dlane Smelser v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Tern Pedroza et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W Katherlne Hoffman V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Irma Martlnez V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Dorothy Gray V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Kyle Peterson et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Robert Youssef v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1 Matthew Costello v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Wanda Vlllalobos V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 Sean Monahan V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Alllson Flschler v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 06/01/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 24 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-04506-AB-FFM Greg Lamas v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Page 23 0f 60 2: l 8-cv-04507-AB-FFM Alejandro Jimenez V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1W Danny Tackett et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1 Suzanne Moreno V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Cec111a lesen v. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1 Audrey Rlchards V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Danlel Contreas et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Angela Hampton v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W V1rg1n1a Helmback v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Frlda Eynon v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W John Johnston et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Jason Frederlcks et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Bradley Youel V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 2:18-cv-04523-AB-FFM Diane Janine Fountain V. Ford Motor company ct a1 06/01/201 8W Luls Estrada V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Lonnle Clark et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Robert Crocker v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Jenn Beemng V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Sulynn Means V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company Brlan Meyer V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 CompanyW Lourdes Robledo v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 06/01/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 25 of 61 Page 24 of 60W Sarah Johnson V. Ford Motor Company et a1 John Kuntz et al v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Katlynne Young et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1 Sandy Oroumleh V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Erlc Vald1v1a V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1 Ellzabeth Deneeve v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Evan Ortlz, et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1 Isaac Ortega V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Deborah E1115 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Kent Rlcotta V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Darrell Barclay v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 V1ctor1a Rodgers V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W Carly Duykaerts et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Jason Maurer et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Jeffrey Fountaln V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Trevor Warren V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1Wngoberto Sumano v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Jerl Self et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 CompanyW Sharon Dezuttl V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Da Jon Watklns et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Chrlstopher Martlnlco v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 06/01/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 25 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 26 of 61W Cuahutle et a1 V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Debra Sulllvan V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Juan Guzman V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1 Danlelle Kantor V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W Plnky Meredlth V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Carlos F Guerrero et a1 V. Ford 06/01/2018 Motor Company et a1W Patrlck Mowrer et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Peter Gruesen v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Chla-En Chen et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 H0111 Snyder v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Kevm Mlhalko V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1WM Mlchael Vogenthaler V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Aley Hudgens V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Carlos Moreno et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company Lyanna Jauregul v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Jessma Relmer et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Marlssa Phllllps V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1W Octav1ous Thomas et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Emma 011v1a Knox et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor CompanyW Andrew Herrold V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Cary Hollowell v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 06/04/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 26 of 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 27 of 61W Tiffany Jones et a1 v. Ford Motor Company Morgan Mancuso V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Chrls Mengel et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company Andrew Oman et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Leroy Pellonarl V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Mlchael Vogenthaler V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Kelly Wesselmann V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Corey Peralta V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1ww Connle H111 v. Ford Motor Company 06/04/201 8W Stella Yocom v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Margaret Kalbaugh V- Ford MOW 06/04/201 8 Comany et a1W Markos Lomeh V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Danlella Ramlrez V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Kerry Wllson V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Llsa Tabuyo V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 CompanyW Jamlson ONelll et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Chrlstme P1sark1ew1cz et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Kathleen Toomey v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Alanah Pad111a v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Chrlstlne P1sark1€w1cz et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company, et a1WW Trent Straw V- Ford MOW Company 06/04/201 8 06/04/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 28 of 61 Page 27 0f 60W Kimberly Luevano et al v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Jose Olvera et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Dalton Ramey V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Andrew Leland V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 CompanyW Deborah Smlth et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Karl Norton v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company, et a1W Krlsta Schroeder V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Marco Arellano V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Abraham Av1la V. Ford Motor 06/05/201 8 Company et a1 Brandl L. Stlff V. Ford Motor 06/05/201 8 Company et a1W Eduardo Sohs et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1WM Gladys Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1 Nadlne Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1W Danlel Thompson V. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1WW Alda Rlvas V. Ford Motor Company 06/06/201 8 Mark Mlodovskl V. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1W Tlffany Curtlss v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1 Andrew J McCaffrey V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Marta Connor et al v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company, et a1 Rlck Mroczek V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Wendy Urlas Becerra et a1 V. Ford 06/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 06/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 29 of 61 Page 28 0f 60W Marlene Mason v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Steve Coulter V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Ernesto Porras V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1 John Coddlngton v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W James West et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1 Marle DeThomas v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Alhson Flschler V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Slnakllea Uhamaka et a1 v. Ford 06/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Brlttney Haddlck v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Anthony Holmes et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Danlel Young V- Ford MOW 06/07/201 8 Company et a1WM Marta Connor et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Mary Cannon V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Anthony Case et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jose L. Menchaca v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Norma Rublo et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company, et a1 Catherme Sanchez v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1WM Jason Dunn V. Ford Motor Company 06/07/201 8 Kwamlcha A1 quah v. Ford Motor 06/07/20 1 8 Company et a1W Jasmln Baldwm et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jonathan Dav1d erght v. Ford 06/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 06/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3O 0f 61 Page 29 0f 60W Luis Cervantes Tobon v. Ford Motor Company Lauren J McCabe v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1W Erlc Flores et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company Juan P. Beltran et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1W Aurora Haro v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1 Brendan M Flynn v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Arthur Hernandez Garndo V. Ford 06/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Brlttney Lawley V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1W Nlcole Llchtensteln V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1 K6111 Loomls et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company et a1W Marlene Mendoza V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1WM Fred Olson et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company, et a1 Terrance Grant et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company, et a1W Mary Grasso V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company, et a1 Jacob Holllster et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 CompanyWW Kory Llston v. Ford Motor Company 06/08/2018 Isarel Patlno et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company et a1W Enrlque Rlos V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company, et a1WW Edgar Rulz v. Ford Motor Company 06/08/2018 Danlel Schwab V‘ Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company et a1W Kelly St. Clalr et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company 06/08/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 30 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 31 of 61W Ryan Walsh et al v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Kristi Herrera et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1W Stephanie Nicole Young-Lozano V. 06/1 “201 8 Ford Motor Company et a1 Klt Walters et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1W Stewart Blalsdell V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/2018 Company et a1 Brandl Butryn V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1W Jackson R. Almaden V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1 Janlne Gav1n V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 CompanyW Dennls Dav1s et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1 Natalle Davenport et a1 v. Ford 06/1 1/201 8 Motor CompanyW Chelsea Craddock V. Ford Motor 06/1 1 001 8 Company et a1 2: 1 8-m1-02814- 2: 18-cv-00997-AB-FFM Paul Williams V. Ford Motor AB-FFM Company 02/07/201 8W Jean Mejla Malagon V. Ford Motor 02/07/201 8 Company Fellx V111alovos V. Ford Motor 02/07/201 8 CompanyW Dav1d Mark Barrack V. Ford Motor 02/07/201 8 Company Jane Nacua et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/08/2018 CompanyW Mlchelle Martln et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/08/2018 Company Amanda Marquez v. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 CompanyW Bruce Glassford V. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 Company John Zlmmerschled, ct a1. v. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor CompanyW Jacob Bernard Russell Sorenson, et 02/08/201 8 al. V. Ford Motor Company 02/08/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 32 of 61 Page 31 0f 60W Megan Dolan V. Ford Motor Company Angela M. Lovest V. Ford Motor 02/08/201 8 Company IZ: 18-cv-01002-AB-FFM Camargo V. Ford Motor Company “02/08/201 8“ IW Nancy L. Briggs v. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 Company Susana Rivera V. Ford Motor Company 02/09/201 8W Jennifer Hyde et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 Company Ramiro Servantes et a1 V. Ford 02/09/2018 Motor CompanyW Steven Thomas et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 Company Joel Mendez et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 CompanyW Joan Marlowe v. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 Company Candace Reyes V. Ford Motor 02/09/201 8 CompanyW Dyanna Becker et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company Jose Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 CompanyW Evelyn Reinprecht V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company Aida Tavitian V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW David Archibald, et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Treva Dillard et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Julius Estrada v. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company Lilian Aguilar v. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 CompanyW Phillip Alliano v-Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company |2: 1 8-cv-00955-AB-FFM Julie Hess v. Ford Motor Company ||02/12/201 8|| |W Marvin Romero et a1 V‘ Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company 02/12/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 32 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 33 of 61W Chambra Miles et a1 v. Ford Motor Company ct a1WM Rojas et a1 V. Ford Motor Company 02/12/201 8 Ryan Ralelgh V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Gonzalo Cardoso V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company et a1WM Rose et a1 v. Ford Motor Company 02/12/201 8 August Mlnke et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1W Danlel P~ Kennedy V~ Ford MOW 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 Mlchael E. Theade V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Beth E. Schatzman v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Marla Torres V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Mark Hemza V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company et a1WM Tabatha Martln et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Benjamln Ascensw et a1 V. Ford 02/12/2018 Motor CompanyW Mlchael Modrow Jr. V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1 Sherry Roche V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1W Albert Reece V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1 Kevm Salgado et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company et a1W Amlka Omark V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1 Zlyadah Muhammad v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Marllou Smlthfield et a1 v. Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company et a1 En Fukasawa et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company et a1 02/12/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 34 0f 61 Page 33 of 60W Thomas Billiard V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Ernest Esqulbel V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Estela Aceves V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Tlmothy Forrester V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 CompanyW Jose Torres et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 Company Esmeralda Rodrlguez-Dlaz V. Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor CompanyW W111ard M. Rodgers v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Frank Hernandez V. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 CompanyW Ronald Joseph Slmmons v. Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company Jean Stanton V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company et a1W Mark Indlverl V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Antonlo Carola V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Judlth Connaughton ct a1 V- Ford 02/12/201 8 Motor Company Jordan Kleln V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Mark Magan et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company Valene M. Kane et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/12/2018 CompanyW Juan Carlos Martmez V. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 Company ||2: 1 8-cv-01 oso-AB-FFM Ana Pad111a v. Ford Motor Company ||02/12/201 8|| |W Samantha Payseno v. Ford Motor 02/1 2/201 8 Company De51ree Raven v. Ford Motor 02/12/201 8 CompanyW Chrlstopher Hlbdon V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Andrea L. Alonso V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page ||2: 1 7-cv-0663 1 -AB-FFM Sharon Fen v. Ford Motor Company ||o2/06/201 8|| | Page 34 0f 60 35 0f 61 2: 1 7-cv-06632-AB-FFM Robert Dean Bagwell V. Ford Motor Company, et a1 02/06/201 8 CompanyW Arlsteo Barrales V. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company Robert S Glbson V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 2: l7-cv-0665 l-AB-FFM George O. Hermosillo v. Ford Motor Company et a1 02/06/201 8 CompanyW Chrlstopher Magana et a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company, et a1 Rodolfo Mejla v. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company, et a1W Mark Pedante V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Susanne Mane Rule v. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company et a1W Ana R. Pad111a V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Jose L Gomez V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 CompanyW Della Crespo v. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 |2; 1 7-cv-0732 1-AB-FFM Jean Hiatt v. Ford Motor Company |02/06/201 8|| lW Gulllermo Trujlllo et a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company, Lorenzo Altamlrano-Torres v. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company ct a1W Mohammad Altlkrltl et a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Wayne Doblas v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Herman Castaneda v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Deborah Sulhvan V. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company et a1W Alana Emhardt V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Denme Mobley V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Kenneth L erght et a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 Motor Company et a1 02/06/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - Califomi a Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 35 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 36 0f 61 5: 1 7-cv-01 986-AB-FFM George Papamichael v. Ford Motor Company, ct a1 5: I 7-cv-02007-AB-FFM Fernando Rangel Rodriguez et a1 V. Motor Company et a1 Ford Motor Company et a1 02/06/201 8W Sllvestre Pad111a et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1 Nlcholas West v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W EdlSOII T. Berry Ct a1 V- Ford MOW 02/06/2018 Company et a1 Kenneth Henry et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/06/201 8 Company et a1W Veromca Ballesteros Perez et a1 V. 02/06/201 8 Ford Motor Company et a] Steve S- Keatlng V- Ford Mom 02/06/2018 Company et a1W Jose M. Hernandez ct a1 V. Ford 02/06/201 8 5: 1 7-CV-02047-AB-FFM Leonard C. McGinnis v. Ford Motor 02/06/2018 Company et a1W Todd Porter et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/15/201 8 Company et a1 Clarene Banks et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/16/2018 CompanyW Ruben Estudlllo V. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1 Fellx Rodrlguez V. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1W Justln Cheney et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company et a1 Marla Ibarra V. Ford Motor 02/20/2018 Company et a1W Trevor Felchmann et a1 v. Ford 02/20/2018 Motor Company Wllllam Kramer V. Ford Motor 02/20/201 8 Company |l2; 18-cv-013 12-AB-FFM Liz G111 v. Ford Motor Company ||02/20/2018ll |W F111berto Olazabal et a1 v. Ford 02/21/201 8 Motor Company Angellca Perez et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Eduardo Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company | || H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 37 0f 61 Page 36 of 60W Charles Johnson et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Marle Meyer V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Savannah Plasch et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company et a1 Sherlene Turner v. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 CompanyW Sherry L. Bloat v. Ford Motor 02/21/2018 Company Rlchard Flck et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW John Reynolds et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Amanda Pelloth V. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 CompanyW Robert Hlllard et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 Company Mlchelle Gutlerrez et a1 v. Ford 02/21/201 8 Motor CompanyW Sonya Green et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Danlel Connelll V. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 CompanyW Andrew Glmlett et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Vallachlra Narayanan et a1 V. Ford 02/21/201 8 Motor CompanyW Jeannette Kerr V. Ford Motor 02/2 1/201 8 Company Gabrlelle Satter V. Ford Motor 02/21/2018 Company et a1W Jean Woodall V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Tyesha Volcy V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 CompanyW Deanna Verrecchla v. Ford Motor 02/2 1 /201 8 Company |2: 1 8-cv-01 348-AB-FFM Obadi Hadi v. Ford Motor Company ||02/21/201 8|| |W Carrle Klrksey V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company Fotunaomanala Leaea V. Ford Motor 02/2 1/201 8 Company II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 38 of 61 Page 37 0f 60W Jennifer Huntress V. Ford Motor 02/21/201 8 Company et a1 Ana L. Mendoza V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1W Cheryl Hunter V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 Jose PantOJa V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1W Rosa Perez et a1 v. Ford Motor 02/23/2018 Company et a1 V1rg1n1a Ramlrez v. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1W Suzanne Fornarlo et a1 V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 Susan Addona V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1W Donald Tatum V. Ford Motor 02/23/201 8 Company et a1 V1ncent et a1 v. Ford Motor 03/02/201 8 CompanyW Angle L. Ford et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company M1chelle Duke V. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company et a1W Phlllp Henderson et a1 v. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company Charles Martln et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company et a1W Mlchael D. Bell V. Ford Motor 03/05/201 8 Company et a1 DW1ght Johnson v. Ford Motor 03/1 4/2018 Company et a1W Charles Ohanlan et a1 V. Ford Motor 03/1 4/201 8 Company et a1 Frank Hughes v. Ford Motor 03/1 4/201 8 Company et a1W Em111a L. Meza et a1 v. Ford Motor 03/1 4/201 8 Company et a1 John A Sllva V. Ford Motor 03/28/201 8 Company et a1W Benay Maureen Bowles v. Ford 03/28/201 8 Motor Company et a1 03/28/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2: 1 8-cv-02476-AB-FFM Miguel Vinces Bustamante v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Page 38 0f 60 39 of 61 2: l 8-cv-02477-AB-FFM Waleed N. Jweainat V. Ford Motor Motor Company et a1 03/28/201 8 Company et a1W Shawna Marle Narducc1 V. Ford 03/28/201 8 Motor Company et a1 V1ctor1a Reglna Braum V. Ford 04/02/201 8 2:18-cv-02596-AB-FFM James H. Stevens et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/02/2018 Company, et a1 2: 1 8-cv-02594-AB-FFM Curtis T. Joe v. Ford Motor 04/03/2018 Company et a1 |2: 18-cv-02599-AB-FFM Needy v. Ford Motor Company et a1 ||04/03/201 8|| | 2:18-cv-02473-AB-FFM Christopher J Vanni V. Ford Motor 04/03/2018 Company et a1 2: 1 8-cv-02595-AB-FFM Lee Hayden et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/03/201 8 Company et a1 2:18-cv-02598-AB-FFM Allan B. Rogers V. Ford Motor 04/03/2018 Company et a1 2: 18-CV-02600-AB-FFM Mercer V. Ford Motor Company et a1 04/03/2018 ||2: 1 8-cv-02591-AB-FFM smello v. Ford Motor Company et a1 ||04/04/201 8|| | 2: 1 8-cv-02592-AB-FFM Jeronimo Amavisca et a1 V. Ford 04/04/2018 Motor Company et a1 2: 18-cv-02593-AB-FFM Susan M. Leutkenhoelter et a1 V. Ford Motor Company et a1 04/04/2018 2: 18-cv-02848-AB-FFM Joan L Wyatt v. Ford Motor Company et a1 04/06/201 8 2: 18-cv-03475-AB-FFM Kimberlee Baroni v. Ford Motor Company 04/26/201 8 2: 1 8-cv-03476-AB-FFM Jeffrey Calhoun v. Ford Motor 04/26/201 8 Company ||2; 18-cv-03477-AB-FFM Devin Coe v. Ford Motor Company ||04/26/2018|| | 2: 1 8-cv-03481-AB-FFM Charles Dietz V. Ford Motor 04/26/201 8 Company 2: l 8-cv-03482-AB-FFM Randilee Frymire v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 2: 1 8-cv-03484-AB-FFM Jessica Adams V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company 2: 18-CV-03485-AB-FFM Kevin Cooper V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company 2: 1 8-cv-03486-AB-FFM Salvador Dominguez V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company || ||04/27/201 8|| | https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 40 of 61 Page 39 0f 60W Linda Frazho et al V. Ford Motor Company Mlchael Cerf V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 CompanyW Wllllam Askms et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/27/2018 Company James Craven et a1 V. Ford Motor 04/27/2018 Company et a1W Ellen Eggers et a1 v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 Dav1d Abbott et a1 v. Ford Motor 04/27/2018 CompanyW Bruce Boulanger V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 W1111am Askms et al V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1W Oscar Garc1a V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company Donald Bachman v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 CompanyW Chrlstlne Berger v. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1WM Ruben Canonlzado V. Ford Motor 04/27/201 8 Company et a1 Bradford Hogge V. Ford MOtor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Donald Mendoca v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jordan Gospodlnov V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Bryan Lunstrum V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Steve Fernandez et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Nlcholas Saldana V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Ernesto Gonzalez et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 CompanyW Mlguel A. Pad111a v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Rebekah ROJas V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 41 of 61 Page 4O of 60W Mark Aluia V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Teresa Rlos-Flores V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Aaron K Duerksen V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Sarah Kllcker V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Jasmlne Lopez v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Dance A. erth et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Dav1d Ortlz et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Jacklyn Chen et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Marlna Zelaya v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Kamlsha R. Warren v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jeff K. Hobart V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Justm Brlars V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Morgan Franklln et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Deetle C. leotzmskl et a1 V. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company, et a1W Franmsca Aguero V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Stephen D. Gray v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Sonja Smlth v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Llceth Reyes V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Rlcardo D. Arcega V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Robert Inglese v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W James Robertson, et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 42 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-02385-AB-FFM Letitia N. Austin V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Page 41 of 60 2: l 8-cv-01 831-AB-FFM Carlos Zea et a1 V. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Wllfred Mallard V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Margaret Schlller V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jonathan McDowell a1 v. Ford 05/07/2018 Motor Company, et a1 |l2218-cv-02588-AB-FFM Lester v. Ford Motor Company et a1 ||05/07/2018|| IW Rlchards Koontz et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Wesley Wllson v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Mercedes Mayers v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Raquel Hernandez v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Paul Walters V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Candelarla Nelson v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 2: 1 8-cv-0261 8-AB-FFM Scott Vanidestine et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Andrew Mlcklos V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Pamela Qulntana v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Samuel Adams V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Florentlna Blrch V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Marcus Brown V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1 Ashley M. Yanez v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Amanda Benjamln et a1 v. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Roberta Llsc1andro V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1:Ww John Carll v. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 II H H I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 43 0f 61 Page 42 of 60W John Crews et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Cynthla D1az V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Susan Eades V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Klrk Farr et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Cynthla Flores v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Jason Frank et al V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Mlchael Galvan v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Sandra I. Fernandez V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Jennlfer Perry V- Ford MOW 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Cody Stamps et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Logan Wlllls et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Courtney Gomes V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Hahrl Shln V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 Gladys Wlsener V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Crystal Tatum-Corso v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jeffery Scalla et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Dav1d Parsons V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 George Malarkey V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Glorla Rodrlguez V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Jose Buelna et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1WW Brlan Baca V. Ford Motor Company, 05/07/201 8 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 44 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-02720-AB-FFM Mark De Nike v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Page 43 0f 60 2: I 8-cv-02727-AB-FFM Iliana Garcia ct a1 v. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Antonlo Alvarado V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Jesse Flores V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company, et a1W Hector Garlbay v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Andrel Vamey V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 |2: 18-cv-02702-AB-FFM Kevin Hunt v. Ford Motor Company |05/07/201 8” IW Dav1d Wleseler V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Rlchard Jensen V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jav1er Rlvera V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Brian Baca V. Ford Motor Company '05/07/201 8 2: 1 8-cv-02739-AB-FFM Myia Hardy v. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/201 8 2: 1 8-cv-02743-AB-FFM David McKnight V. Ford Motor Company et a1 company 6t a1 05/07/201 8W M1ke1 Gardner V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Marla Garza et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Candace Porter v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Janal Stanbel’l‘y V- Ford MOW 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Estelle Mathls et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Danlel McGlocklln V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Candlce Russell v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 2: 1 8-cv-02798-AB-FFM Erica Potter V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 et a1 2:18-cv-02804-AB-FFM Alfredo Casas V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 45 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-02807-AB-FFM Rosa Cromwell V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Page 44 0f 60 2: I 8-cv-028l4-AB-FFM Margaret Craft V. Ford Motor company Ct a1 05/07/201 8W Dane Norem et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Cums Mltchell V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1WW Brlan Baca V. Ford Motor Company 05/07/201 8 Rona Keatlng v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Jon Osawa et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Larry Sugarman V- Ford MOW 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Kenneth Anzules, et a1 v. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Vlctor Valenc1a et a] v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Horaclo Rodrlguez 6t a1 V- Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1WM Jlm Way V» Ford MOW company et 05/07/201 8 a1 2:18-cv-02868-AB-FFM Lopez Rodriguez et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Bryon Wood V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Alexander Selde v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1Wleolas Tejeda v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1 Chrls Luczkow v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company et a1W Davon Framer V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Klm Mac1as v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 2: 1 8-cv-02895-AB-FFM Leroy Staes V. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/201 8 2: l8-cv-02912-AB-FFM Paul Comer v. Ford Motor Company 05/ 1 0/201 8 et a1 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 46 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-02896-AB-FFM Robert Marchand v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Page 45 0f 60 2: l 8-cv-04920-AB-FFM Nicole Henderson V. Ford Motor Company et a1 company 6t a1 06/13/201 8W JeSSIe Brlght V. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company Tealra Beckett V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W John Elnbund v. Ford Motor 05/07/2018 Company Kern Berntsen et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Denlse Bosch V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Max Cunnlngham V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 l2: 1 8-cv-02910-AB-FFM Jess Linares V. Ford Motor Company |05/07/201 8| 2: 1 8-cv-02914-AB-FFM Shad Williams V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Shad Wllllams V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1“W Aaron Lupo v. Ford Motor Company |05/07/201 8” IW Margaret Schlller V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company Gage Puckett V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Crystal Vasquez V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Johnathon Bonllla et a1 v. Ford 05/07/2018 Motor Company et a1 2: 1 8-cv-02824-AB-FFM Hieu Ngo v. Ford Motor Company et a1 05/07/201 8W Darrell Barclay V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jorge Montes V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jason Andrew Cooper ct a1 v. Ford 05/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Darren Prew1tt v. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 CompanyW Jordan Emfield V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company, et a1 05/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 47 of 61 Page 46 of 60W Shad Williams et a1 v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Tracey Voeltner V. Ford Motor 05/07/201 8 Company et a1W Austln Bonnm et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/1 5/201 8 Company et a1 Alejandro Castro v. Ford Motor 05/1 5/201 8 Company et a1W Mellssa Bonneau v. Ford Motor 05/1 5/2018 Company et a1WW Gma Couch V. Ford Motor Company 05/1 5/201 8 Mlchael Alba et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/17/201 8 Company et a1W Frankhn Bleda V. Ford Motor 05/1 8/201 8 Company et a1 Carohne D1110n V. Ford Motor 05/1 8/201 8 Company, et a1W Mlchael Erwm v. Ford Motor 05/18/201 8 Company, et a1 Brlan Downmg et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/1 8/201 8 Company, et a1W Mlke Adamlk V. Ford Motor 05/2 1 /201 8 Company, et a1 Mellssa Babcock et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/22/2018 Company et a1W Amanda Bowen V. Ford Motor 05/22/201 8 Company et a1 Chet Adrlano v. Ford Motor 05/22/201 8 Company et a1W Barbara Burton v. Ford Motor 05/22/2018 Company et a1 Debra Duncan et al v. Ford Motor 05/22/201 8 Company, et a1W Mary Antomette Egan v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1 Rlcardo Ellas v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1W Jerad Etheredge et al v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company et a1 Momca Farmer v. Ford Motor 05/24/201 8 Company, et a1 05/24/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 48 of 61 Page 47 0f 60W Edgar Foster v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Mlchael D. Eatontaylor v. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor CompanyW Darryl Eatontaylor V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Kenneth Dlebold V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Tom Flelden v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company Douglas DeThomas V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1WW Laura Dean v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 Robert Folkerts V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 CompanyW Isalah Franco et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Donald Frltz V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Ewun1k1 Butler v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Raymond Cerenka V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company, et a1W Arthur Gent et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company Joanna Acevedo et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Jacquellne Garma et a1 V. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Rafael Gar01a V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 _2_;l8_.gv._041_90_.A_B;F_F_M Chrlstl Brown v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Carohne Cabrera V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company, et a1 Sara Garc1a-Romero et a1 V. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor CompanyW Trac1 Brlggs V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Sydnl Fox et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company, et a1 05/25/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 49 of 61 Page 48 of 60W Susan Cameron V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Cecilia Carrillo V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Erik Bridge V. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 et a1 David Bernier V. Ford Motor company et a1 05/25/201 8W Michelle Beauregard v. Ford Motor company et a1 05/25/2018 Wayne Blair V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Paris Bierk v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 et a1 Gavm Barnett v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Joanna Cosme et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Sonja Alvarez v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Samuel Alexander v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Joanna Ambrlz V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Carlos AVIlez V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Joanna Cosme et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Ellse Chandler V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Arthur Schultz v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 CompanyW Mlchelle Alatorre v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Wllfrldo Cervantes v. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1W Daniel Godinez V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Gabrlel Colunga v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1WW Ron Aland v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/201 8 05/25/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 49 of 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 50 of 61W Shirley Burcks et a1 V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Oscar Perez et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Perla Valenzuela V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company Chrlstlna Cancmo et a1 V. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor Company et a1ww Tracy Carr v. Ford Motor Company 05/25/2018W Shannon Lund v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Chrlstopher Jones v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Norma Luna V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Charles Rembolz v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 CompanyW Qulnn Taylor et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Dav1d Schuerger et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Dana Van Leuven et a1 V. Ford 05/25/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Benjamln Parker V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W JaVIer Yretta V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 J1mmle McKee et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Jake chks et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 Kendra Holmstedt v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Patr1c1a Lopez V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company Bret Watklns et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W N1kk1 Reese V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Franco Mellone V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 05/25/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 51 of 61 2: 1 8-cv-04338-AB-FFM Katie Carroll V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Page 50 0f 60 2: I 8-cv-04343-AB-FFM Larry Pattison et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1W Edgar Castlllo V. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Roger Wllhs V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 CompanyW Mark Taylor v. Ford Motor 05/25/201 8 Company et a1 Gabrlel Lerma V. Ford Motor 05/25/2018 Company et a1 :tljcvoémw Jess1e Shaw V- Ford Motor Company 05/29/201 sW Dlane Gomez V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Kathleen Neal V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Cmdy Post et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Nlcole Thompson V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1WM J111 Whltcomb v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Robert Wolf et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 2: 1 8-cv-04383-AB-FFM Kyle Atkins v. Ford Motor Company 05/29/201 8 et a1W Chrlstopher Brown V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Anthony Dahms V. Ford Motor 05/29/2018 Company et a1W Barbara Dav1es et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/29/2018 Company et a1 Llnda Cameron V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Llndsey Carpenter v. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1 Patr1c1a Alcantar V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Theresa Mlller V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company 05/29/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 51 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 52 of 61W Frank Lemus V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Martha Kocan V. Ford Motor 05/29/201 8 Company et a1W Chns Jones et a1 V‘ Ford Motor os/s 1/201 8 Company et a1 Chelsea Hllbrandt V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Franc1sco Plneda v. Ford Motor 05/3 “2018 Company, et a1 Sara Qulnt et al V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company, et a1W Alyson Savoy et a1 V. Ford Motor 05/3 “201 8 Company et a1 Jose Serrano V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Jenmfer Spatz v. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1WM Jesus Valle v. Ford Motor Company 05/3 1/201 8 Larry Wolters et a1 V. Ford Motor 05B 1/201 8 Company et a1W Barbara Johnson V. Ford Motor 05/3 1 /201 8 Company et a1 Marla Gonzalez V. Ford Motor 05/3 U201 8 Company et a1W Fernando Martlnez V. Ford Motor 05/3 U201 8 Company et a1 Roxana Lopez V. Ford Motor 05/3 1/201 8 Company et a1W Sade Mascorro et a1 v. Ford Motor 0531/2018 Company et a1 Vanessa Meadows et a1 v. Ford 05/3 “201 8 Motor Company et a1W Robert Brown et a1 v. Ford Motor 05/3 U201 8 Company et a1 Jacob Mlller V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Dlane Smelser v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Tern Pedroza et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 06/01/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 52 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 53 of 61W Katherine Hoffman v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Irma Martmez V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Dorothy Gray V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Kyle Peterson et al V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W Robert Youssef V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1 Matthew Costello v. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Wanda Vlllalobos V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Sean Monahan V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Alllson Flschler v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Greg Lamas v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Alejandro J1menez v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company, et a1 2;_18_cv-0450-8-AB-.FFM Danny Tackett et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1W Suzanne Moreno V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 CeCIha lesen V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Audrey Rlchards V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Danlel Contreas et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Angela Hampton V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1 V1rg1n1a Helmback V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Frlda Eynon v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 John Johnston et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W Jason Frederlcks et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 06/01/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 54 of 61 Page 53 0f 60W Bradley Youel v. Ford Motor Company ct a1 Dlane Janlne Fountaln V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Luls Estrada V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Lonme Clark et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1W Robert Crocker v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Jenn Beemng V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Sulynn Means V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company Brlan Meyer V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 CompanyW Lourdes Robledo v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Sarah Johnson V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W John Kuntz et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1WM Katlynne Young er a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 s Company, et a1 Sandy Oroumleh V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Erlc Vald1v1a V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Ehzabeth Deneeve v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Evan Ortlz, et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company, et a1 Isaac Ortega v. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Deborah Ellls V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1 Kent Rlcotta V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Darrell Barclay v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 Vlctorla Rodgers V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 06/01/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 55 of 61 Page 54 of 60W Carly Duykaerts et al v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Jason Maurer et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Jeffrey Fountaln V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Trevor Warren v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1Wngoberto Sumano V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1 Jerl Self et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 CompanyW Sharon Dezuttl V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Da Jon Watklns et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Chrlstopher Martlnlco v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Cuahutle et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Debra Sulllvan V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1MW Juan Guzman V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company, et a1W Danlelle Kantor V. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 Pmky Meredlth V. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W Carlos F Guerrero et a1 V. Ford 06/01/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Patrlck Mowrer et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/01/2018 Company et a1W Peter Gruesen v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1 Chla-En Chen et al v. Ford Motor 06/01/201 8 Company et a1W H0111 Snyder v. Ford Motor 06/01 /201 8 Company et a1 Kevm Mlhalko V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Mlchael Vogenthaler V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 06/04/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 56 of 61 Page 55 0f 60W Aley Hudgens V. Ford Motor Company et a1 Carlos Moreno et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 CompanyW Lyanna Jauregul V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Jesswa Relmer et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Marlssa Phllllps V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Octav10us Thomas et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Emma 011v1a Knox et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company Andrew Herrold V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Cary Hollowell V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Tlffany Jones et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 CompanyW Morgan Mancuso V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Chrls Mengel et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 CompanyW Andrew Oman et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Leroy Pellonarl V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Mlchael Vogenthaler v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Kelly Wesselmann V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1W Corey Peralta V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company ct a1WW Connle H111 v. Ford Motor Company 06/04/201 8 Stella Yocom v. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1W Margaret Kalbaugh V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Comany et a1 Markos Lomeh v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 06/04/2018 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 56 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 57 of 61W Daniella Ramirez v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Kerry Wllson V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Llsa Tabuyo V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company Jamlson ONelll et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1W Chrlstlne Plsarklew1cz et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Kathleen Toomey v. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1W Alanah Pad111a v. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Chrlstlne Plsarklew1cz et a1 V. Ford 06/04/201 8 Motor Company, et a1ww Trent Straw V. Ford Motor Company 06/04/201 8W Klmberly Luevano et al v. Ford 06/04/2018 Motor Company et a1 Jose Olvera et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1W Dalton Ramey V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company et a1 Andrew Leland V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 CompanyW Deborah Smlth et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Karl Notion V. Ford Motor 06/04/201 8 Company, et a1W Krlsta Schroeder V. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1 Marco Arellano v. Ford Motor 06/04/2018 Company et a1W Abraham Av1la v. Ford Motor 06/05/201 8 Company et a1 Brandl L. Stlff V. Ford Motor 06/05/201 8 Company et a1W Eduardo Solls et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1 Gladys Gonzalez v. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1 06/06/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 58 of 61 Page 57 0f 60W Nadine Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Company et a1 Danlel Thompson V. Ford Motor 06/06/201 8 Company et a1WW Alda Rlvas V. Ford Motor Company 06/06/201 8 Mark Mlodovskl V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Tlffany Curtlss v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Andrew J McCaffrey V. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1W Marta Connor et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1 Rlck Mroczek v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Wendy Ur1as Becerra et a1 V. Ford 06/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1 Marlene Mason V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Steve Coulter V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Ernesto Ponas V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1W John Coddlngton V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 James West et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Marle DeThomas V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Alllson Flschler v. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1W Slnakllea Uhamaka et al v. Ford 06/07/2018 Motor Company et a1 Brlttney Haddlck v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Anthony Holmes et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Danlel Young v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Marta Connor et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1 06/07/201 8 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 59 of 61 Page 58 0f 60W Mary Cannon V. Ford Motor Company, et a1 Anthony Case et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jose L. Menchaca V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Norma Rublo et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company, et a1W Catherme Sanchez V. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1WW Jason Dunn v. Ford Motor Company 06/07/201 8 Kwamlcha Al quah V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Jasmln Baldwm et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Jonathan Dav1danht V. Ford 06/07/201 8 Motor Company et a1W Luls Cervantes Tobon v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company Lauren J McCabe v. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Erlc Flores et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company Juan P. Beltran et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/07/2018 Company et a1W Aurora Haro V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1 Brendan M Flynn V. Ford Motor 06/07/201 8 Company et a1W Arthur Hernandez Gamdo v. Ford 06/07/2018 Motor Company et a1 Bnttney Lawley v. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company ct a1W Nlcole Llchtensteln v. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1 Kelh Loomls et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1W Marlene Mendoza V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1 Fred Olson et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company, et a1 06/08/2018 https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/ 1 3/20 1 8 CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases Page 59 0f 60 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 60 0f 61W Terrance Grant et a1 v. Ford Motor Company, ct a1 Mary Grasso v. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company, et a1W Jacob Holllster et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 CompanyWW Kory Llston V. Ford Motor Company 06/08/201 8 Isarel Patlno et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1W Enrlque R105 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company, et a1WW Edgar Rulz V. Ford Motor Company 06/08/201 8 Danlel Schwab V. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1W Kelly St. Clalr et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company Ryan Walsh et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/08/2018 Company et a1W Knstl Herrera et a1 v. Ford Motor 06/08/201 8 Company et a1WM Stephanle Nlc°1e Young'Lozano V' 06/1 1/2018 Ford Motor Company et a1 Klt Walters et al V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1W Stewart Blalsdell V‘ Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1 Brandl Butryn V. Ford Motor 06/1 “2018 Company et a1W Jackson R. Almaden V. Ford Motor 06/1 “2018 Company et a1 Janlne Gavm V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 CompanyW Dennls DaV1s et a1 V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1 Natahe Davenport 6t 31 v. Ford 06/1 1/2018 Motor CompanyW Chelsea Craddock V. Ford Motor 06/1 1/201 8 Company et a1 l Related Cases ”Start DatellEnd Datel 5: l 8-cv-01203-AB-FFM Tuan Nguyen V. Ford Motor Company et alll06/07/201 8“ I https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 6/13/2018 Other Court Information Court Name Case Number Start Date End Date MDL Panel 2814 02/06/2018 PACER Service Center Transaction Receipt 06/13/2018 08:54:58 PACER Login: mmrowka1:3557234:0 Client Code: ford Description: Associated Cases Search Criteria: 2:18-ml-02814- AB-FFM Billable Pages: 30 Cost: 3.00 Page 60 of 60CM/ECF - California Central District-Query Associated Cases 6/13/2018https://ecf.cacd.uscourts.gov/cgi-bin/qryAscCases.pl?700699 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 6-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 61 of 61 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 OOOQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 5-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shufiretgggrsm comM L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowkaggrsmfiom ANA TA B NDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchukg%%rsm.com RD N E LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 11 Telephone: g4? 15) 986-5900 Facs1mile. ( 15) 986- 8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; CASE NO. 5: 1 8-CV-03533 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC ,a California Co oration, dba FORD STORE MQR AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, 1nc1u31ve, Defendants. I am employed in the County 0f San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco CA 941 1 1. On the date set forth below, I served 0n the party listed below the foregoing document(s) described as: NOTICE OF PENDENCY OF OTHER ACTION OR PROCEEDING 1 ERTIFI TE F ERVI E 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows:  Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLC 1801 Century Park East., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973  (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 13, 2018, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Erica Ramirez___ Erica Ramirez 1157010/38545627v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 5-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:18-cv-03533 EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) Sup Ct. Complaint: April 30, 2018 Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) hereby applies ex parte, pursuant to Local Rules 6-3, and 7-10, for an order staying all proceedings and deadlines in this case, until the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) determines whether to include this case in In re: Ford Motor Co. DPS6 Powershift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2814, U.S.D.C. Central District of California, 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM, (“MDL 2814”), currently pending before the Honorable Andre Birotte. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 I. Reasons Supporting Ford’s ExParte Application for a Stay This application is made on the grounds that hearing a Motion to Stay on a regular briefing schedule will cause Ford substantial harm. The instant matter is a potential Tag Along matter to MDL 2814, and a Notice of Tag Along for this action will be filed shortly with the JPML. The Plaintiff in this case, and the plaintiffs in MDL 2814, allege breach of warranty obligations by Ford Motor Company regarding a dual-dry clutch PowerShift synchronized 6-speed (DPS6) automatic transmission installed in a Ford Focus or Ford Fiesta-and each alleges a claim of fraud in some manner regarding the DPS6 transmission and seeks punitive damages. Ford denies these allegations. Over 600 cases have been removed to federal district courts in California and thereafter included in MDL 2814. In establishing MDL 2814, the JPML found “that these actions involve common questions of fact, and that centralization will serve the convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. Centralization will eliminate duplicative discovery; prevent inconsistent pretrial rulings; and conserve the resources of the parties, their counsel, and the judiciary.” In re: Ford Motor Co. DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2814 (JPML Feb. 2, 2018) at 2. Common issues include:  jurisdictional issues, such as whether a California dealership has been improperly joined, whether a plaintiff’s own allegation of residence in California is insufficient evidence of citizenship in California (despite no denial of California citizenship-and despite a claim under California law for auto warranty services “within this state”), and arguments involving the calculation of the amount in controversy  initial disclosures, discovery planning, and other case management meet-and-confer; and other early-stage proceedings. The JPML also noted that jurisdictional issues can be presented to the Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 transferee court. Id. Deferring all proceedings-including consideration of jurisdictional issues and any motion to remand-so they these issues can be referred to the MDL judge promotes “the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.” Cooper v. Sam Siddighi, M.D. et al., 2013 WL 12140988, *3 (C.D. Cal. May 8, 2013) (internal quotation marks omitted; citing Couture v. Hoffman-La Roche. Inc., 2012 WL 3042994, *2 (N.D. Cal. July 25, 2012)). Proceeding with any decisions in this case in the interim, whether sua sponte or otherwise, would undermine that purpose. In Freitas v. McKesson Corp., 2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 6992, 2012 WL 161211 (N.D. Cal. Jan. 10, 2012), a potential "tag along" case was stayed pending the decision of the MDL Panel to transfer the case to a designated MDL court because interests of judicial economy favored a stay and plaintiffs would not have suffered undue hardship or prejudice if the case was stayed. Granting a stay prevented the court from needlessly duplicating work that will be done by the MDL court, and also eliminated the possibility of the court issuing a ruling inconsistent with a ruling issued by the MDL. Id. at *5; see also Hawes v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:18-cv-00674 (E.D. Ca., April 27, 2018) [order granting ex parte application of Ford Motor Company to stay proceedings pending a decision by the JPML whether to transfer the case for inclusion in the MDL No. 2814].) II. Substantial Harm or Prejudice Will Occur Without a Stay. A stay will further the purpose of the MDL by enabling a single court to decide issues common to the actions, avoiding inconsistent rulings and preserving judicial resources. In the unlikely event this case is not included in the MDL, a short stay pending that decision would not adversely impact any further proceedings in this Court. A district court’s “power to stay proceedings is incidental to the power inherent in every court to control the disposition of the causes on its docket with economy of time and effort for itself, for counsel, and for litigants.” Landis v. N. Am. Co., 299 U.S. 248, 254 (1936). Using this power, a Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 4 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 case may be stayed pending resolution of other judicial proceedings that bear upon the case. Leyva v. Certified Grocers, 593 F.2d 857, 863-64 (9th Cir. 1997). Even where an MDL has not already been established, “it appears that a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are conserved.” Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1358, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997) (emphasis added). 1 Further, “Of particular relevance to this case, ‘[w]here a motion to remand and motion to stay are pending, courts have held that “deference to the MDL court for resolution of a motion to remand often provides the opportunity for the uniformity, consistency, and predictability in litigation that underlies the MDL system.”’ [Citations.]” Quarg, 2016 WL 8668900 at *2 (emphasis added). More generally, courts consider (1) potential prejudice to the non-moving party; (2) hardship and inequity to the moving party if the action is not stayed; and (3) judicial resources to be saved by avoiding duplicative litigation if the cases are consolidated. See San Diego Unified Port District, 2016 WL 4496826 at *1. These factors favor a stay here. Staying DPS6 transmission cases in the Northern District of California while the motion for an MDL was pending, the court found “a stay would cause little prejudice to Plaintiffs.” Gonzalez v. Ford Motor Co., No. 17-CV-05885-LHK (N.D. Cal. Nov. 16, 2017) at 3:11. But, defendant could face significant prejudice, including “the risk of unnecessary proceedings and inconsistent rulings on recurring questions of law and fact.” See, 1 Quarg v. McKesson Corporation, No. 16-CV-2711-AJB-DHB, 2016 WL 8668900 at *2 (S.D. Cal. Dec. 16, 2016) (citing Rivers); accord San Diego Unified Port District v. Monsanto Co., No. 15-cv-00578-WQH-JLB, 2016 WL 4496826 at *1-*2 (S.D. Cal. Feb. 1, 2016); see also, e.g., Goode v. Prudential Ins. Co. of Am., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 809 (C.D. Cal. 1998) (“Courts frequently grant stays pending a decision by the MDL Panel regarding whether to transfer a case.”); Miller v. Time Warner Cable, Inc., No. 8:16-cv-00329-CAS, 2016 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 103586, at *2-*3 (C.D. Cal. Aug. 5, 2016) (“Moreover, courts routinely stay cases pending the resolution of a motion before the JPML.”); Giampaoli v. Anheuser-Busch Cos., LLC, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 58215, at *2 (N.D. Cal. Apr. 23, 2013); Alvarez v. Gerber Prods. Co., 2012 WL 4051130, *1- *3 (N.D. Cal. Sept. 12, 2012). Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 5 EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 e.g., Acosta-Smith v. Equifax Inc., 2018 WL 1155981, at *4 (C.D. Cal. Mar. 5, 2018) (granting the defendant’s motion to stay and denying the plaintiff’s motion to remand as moot). A stay would conserve judicial resources that would otherwise be wasted by duplicative litigation. “[I]n light of the likelihood of similar motions in other cases that may be consolidated in the MDL court, granting the stay will contribute to uniformity and consistency and thereby conserve judicial resources.” Acosta-Smith, 2018 WL 1155981, at *4 (citing Pierce v. Frink, 2017 WL 4923508, at *5 (E.D. Cal. Oct. 31, 2017)). III. Efforts Regarding Stipulation, Previous Time Modifications, and Effect on Schedule.  Plaintiff has refused to stipulate to a stay in this case pending a determination by the JPML regarding inclusion of this case and transfer to the MDL No. 2814. (See Mrowka Decl.)  There have been no time modifications previously requested.  The requested stay will have no effect on the schedule for the case because the case was just removed and no dates have been scheduled in this matter. IV. Conclusion Ford respectfully requests that this Court grant its ex parte application and enter an order staying all proceedings and deadlines pending a decision by the JPML on whether to include this case in MDL No. 2814. Dated: June 13, 2018 Respectfully submitted, /s/ Spencer P. Hugret SPENCER P. HUGRET Email: shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA Email: mmrowka@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 of 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 1 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:18-cv-03533 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) Sup Ct. Complaint: April 30, 2018 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA I, Molly J. Mrowka, declare as follows: 1. I am an attorney duly licensed to practice law before all courts of the State of California and the United States District Court for the Northern District of California, and am an attorney for Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP, attorney for Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”). I am a member in good standing Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 with the State Bar of California. I have personal knowledge of the following facts, except for those based on information and belief, which I believe to be true, and if called upon to testify, I could and would competently testify to their truth and accuracy. 2. This declaration is submitted in support of Ford’s Ex Parte Application to Stay All Proceedings Pending the Judicial Panel on Multi-District Litigation (“JPML”) Determination of Inclusion of Case in In re: Ford Motor Co. DPS6 Powershift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2814, U.S.D.C. Central District of California, 2:18-ml-02814-AB-FFM, (“MDL 2814”), pursuant to Local Rules 6-3 and 7-10. 3. The instant matter is a potential Tag Along matter to MDL 2814, and a Notice of Tag Along for this action will be filed shortly with the JPML. The Plaintiff in this case, and the plaintiffs in MDL 2814, allege breach of warranty obligations by Ford Motor Company regarding a dual-dry clutch PowerShift synchronized 6-speed (DPS6) automatic transmission installed in a Ford Focus or Ford Fiesta-and each alleges a claim of fraud in some manner regarding the DPS6 transmission and seeks punitive damages. Ford denies these allegations. Over 200 cases have been removed to federal district courts in California and thereafter included in MDL 2814. 4. On June 6, 2018, I wrote to Plaintiff’s counsel, Russel W. Higgins, regarding Defendant’s plan to remove this matter and add it to MDL 2814. I requested that counsel for Plaintiff stipulate to a stay of all proceedings and deadlines in the McGill v. Ford Motor Co., et al. action pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of whether this action should be transferred and consolidated in In re: Ford DPS6 Powershift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 2814, and attached a proposed stipulation and order to my Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 3 DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 email. Attached as Exhibit “A” is a true and correct copy of my correspondence to counsel and attached stipulation and order. 5. It is the position of Plaintiff’s counsel’s firm to decline to stipulate to a stay in these matters, and to oppose ex parte applications for the same. See Exhibit A. 6. There have been no time modifications previously requested. 7. The requested stay will have no effect on the schedule for the case because this ex parte application is being filed contemporaneously with the Notice of Removal, and no dates have been scheduled in this matter. I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the United States of America that the foregoing is true and correct and if called as a witness I could and would so testify. Executed this 13th day of June, 2018, in San Francisco, California. /s/ Molly J. Mrowka Molly J. Mrowka 8010110/38495337v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-1 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 EXHIBIT A Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 7 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 7 From: Molly Mrowka Sent: Wednesday, June 06, 2018 4:19 PM To: Russell W. Higgins (russel|h@knightlaw.com) Cc: Spencer Hugret,‘ Anastasia Bondarchuk; Christine Nusser Subject: McGill v FMC - Proposed Stip. 8L Orderto Stay Pending Determination in MDL No. 2814 Attachments: McGill - Proposed Stip 8L Order to Stay Proceedings and Deadlinespdf Dear Mr. Higgins, We will be removing the McGiI/ v. Ford Motor Co., et al. case involving the DPS6 transmission to the USDC for the Northern District of California, and filing a Notice of Potential Tag Along with the JPML. Per Local Rules requirements,l am writing to request your agreement to a stay of the proceedings and deadlines in this action pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of whether this action should be transferred and consolidated in In re: Ford DPS6 Powershift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 2814. | understand that (as stated your email below), your firm declines to stipulate to a stay in these cases and will oppose any ex parte applications for the same. If your firm has changed its position and is willing to agree to a stay, a proposed stipulation and order is attached for your consideration. Thank you very much. Best regards, Molly Mrowka From: Russell Higgins [mailto:RussellH@knightlaw.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 2:24 PM To: Molly Mrowka; Amy Morse; Kateryna Mukhina Cc: Spencer Hugret; Anastasia Bondarchuk; Christine Nusser Subject: RE: Cross v. FMC, Violante v. FMC, Fernandez v. FMC, Hohm v. FMC - Proposed Stips. to Stay Pending Determination in MDL No. 2814 Molly, Thanks for your emails about the above-listed cases. We’ve discussed this situation in other cases and our answer here is the same. We cannot stipulate to stay an active case pending some action that defense counsel says it intends to do at some point in the future. Nor can or would we stipulate to removal. Cases are stayed by operation of law once a case is included in an MDL or coordinated in State court, and that process is fairly quick once it begins. So it stands t0 reason that if a defendant is moving with an ounce of urgency, a ”stipulated” stay is unnecessary. Further, as a matter of policy, we do not consider ”statements 0f intent” from defense counsel about future possible removals and MDL and JCCP proceedings to be any basis for stipulating to a stay of any active case. So, until a case is actually joined to an MDL or JCCP and stayed by operation of law, our position is that every case remains active. That said, we can and do stipulate to include cases in the pending JCCP proceedings, pursuant to the procedures set forth in the applicable CMO’s. Even now I’m reviewing a list of cases proposed for inclusion into JCCP 4856. Should you wish to coordinate these cases in the California proceedings, so that all your hard work in setting up the two JCCP’s doesn’t go to waste, by all means notify Shook Hardy and they’ll begin the process. Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 7 Otherwise, and to sum up, we decline to stipulate to stay these cases and will oppose any ex parte applications for the same, as we have done in other cases. We wi|| oppose removal where appropriate. Thanks again, and take care. Russell W. Higgins KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 T: 310.552.2250 l F: 310.552.7973 russel|h@knightlaw.com | www.knightlawgroup.com Note: This email contains information from Knight Law Group, LLP that may be proprietary, confidential, or protected under the attorney-client privilege or work-product doctrine. This email is intended only for the use of the named recipient. If you are not the intended recipient named above, you are strictly prohibited from reading, disclosing, copying, or distributing this email or its contents, and from taking any action in reliance on the contents of this email. If you received this email in error, please delete this message and respond immediately by email to the author or call 310-552-2250. From: Molly Mrowka [mailto:mmrowka@grsm.com] Sent: Tuesday, May 22, 2018 1:30 PM To: Russell Higgins Cc: Spencer Hugret ; Anastasia Bondarchuk ; Christine Nusser Subject: Cross v. FMC, et al. - Proposed Stip. & Order Re Stay Pending JPML Determination of Inclusion of Case in MDL No. 2814 Dear Mr. Higgins, We will be removing the Jeannie Cross v. Ford Motor Co., et al. case involving the DP56 transmission to the USDC for the Eastern District of California, and filing a Notice of Potential Tag Along with the JPML. | am writing to determine if you will stipulate to a stay of all proceedings and deadlines in the Jeannie Cross v. Ford Motor Co., et al. action pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of whether this action should be transferred and consolidated in In re: Ford DP56 Powershift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 2814. A proposed stipulation and order is attached for your consideration. Please let us know if you are amenable to stipulating to a stay in this matter by May 25th. If you are not amenable to stipulating to a stay, please let us know whether you intend to oppose an ex parte application for a stay. Thank you for your prompt attention to this matter. Best regards, Molly Mrowka MOLLY J. MROWKA | Senior Counsel GORDON & REES SCULLV MANSUKHANI 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 D: 415-875-4141 | P: 415-986-5900 | F: 415-986-8054 mmrowka@grsm.com vCard Alabama \ Arizona \ Callforma | Colorado | Connectlcut | De‘aware | Honda Georgial Illinois | Kentuckyl Maryland \ Massachusens | chhlgan \ stsoun Montanal Nebraska | Nevada \ NewJersey| New York \ North Carolina [ Ohio Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC DeCument 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 4 of 7 Oklahoma | Oregon | Pennsylvania | Rhode Island | South Carolina | South Dakota Texas | Utah | Virginia | Washington | Washington, D.C. | West Virginia | Wisconsin WWW,gI"Sm.COm Alabama * Arizona * California * Colorado * Connecticut * Florida * Georgia * Illinois * Maryland * Massachusetts ‘ Missouri * Nebraska * Nevada * New Jersey * New York * North Carolina * Ohio * Oregon * Pennsylvania * South Carolina * South Dakota * Texas * Virginia * Washington * Washington. DC * West Virginia This email communication may contain CONFIDENTIAL INFORMATION WHICH ALSO MAY BE LEGALLY PRIVILEGED and is intended only forthe use ofthe intended recipients identified above. If you are not the intended recipient of this communication. you are hereby notified that any unauthorized review, use, dissemination, distribution, downloading, or copying of this communication is strictly prohibited. If you are not the intended recipient and have received this communication in error, please immediately notify us by reply email, delete the communication and destroy all copies. GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP hggzllwwwgrgmxom Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 5 0f 7 STEVE MIKHOV ES KNIGHT LAW GROU LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los An eles, CA 90067 -2325 Tel. (3 0)552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973 stevem@knighlaw. com Attorneys for Plaintiff LINDA A. MCGILL SPENCER P. HUGRET SBN 240424) MOLLY J MROWKA( BN: 190133 ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK SBN 0909 1iGORDON REES SCULLY MA SUKHANI LP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Telephone: g4 15) 875-3193 Facsnnile. ( 15) 986- 8054 shu ret rsm corn mmrow a rsm.com a 0n arc u rsm.com Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Case No. Plaintiff, STIPULATION AND{PROPOSED} ORDER STAYING A L vs. PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A OF INCLUSION IN Delaware Corporation; THE FORD MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION STORE MORGAN HILL, INC ,a (MDL NO. 2814) California Co oration dba FORD STORE MOR. AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, mcluswe, Defendants. STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PEN lNG JPML ETERMINATION OF INCLUSION 1N MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 6 0f 7 The parties hereby stipulate t0 the Court’s entry of an order staying all proceedings and deadlines in this action pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of whether this action should be transferred and consolidated in In re: Ford DPS6 Powershift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 28 14. Respectfully submitted, Dated: June _, 201 8 KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP By: Steve Mikhov KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2325 stevemngnighlawcom Attorneys for PLAINTIFF LINDA A. MCGILL Dated: June 6, 2018 GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP By: SPENCER P. HUGRET shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 941 11 Attorneysfor Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY -1- STIPULATION AND PROPOSED ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PEN lNG JPML ETERMINATION OF INCLUSION 1N MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- STIPULATION AND [PROPOSED] ORDER STAYING PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 ORDER Good cause appearing, all proceedings and deadlines in this action are STAYED pending determination by the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation of transfer and consolidation of this action in In re: Ford DPS6 Powershift Transmission Litigation, MDL No. 2814. All scheduled hearings in this action are VACATED. IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8010110/38470485v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-2 Filed 06/13/18 Page 7 of 7 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shugret@grsm.com MOLLY J. MROWKA (SBN 190133) mmrowka@grsm.com ANASTASIA BONDARCHUK (SBN 309091) abondarchuk@grsm.com GORDON & REES LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 Telephone: (415) 986-5900 Facsimile: (415) 986-8054 Attorneys for Defendant FORD MOTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; Plaintiff, vs. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC., a California Corporation, dba FORD STORE MORGAN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, Defendants. Case No. 5:18-cv-03533 [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) Sup Ct. Complaint: April 30, 2018 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -1- PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 Before the Court is the ex parte application of Defendant Ford Motor Company to stay proceedings until the Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation (JPML) decides whether to transfer this action to the Central District of California for inclusion in In re: Ford Motor Co. DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2814, U.S.D.C. Central District of California, 2:18- ml-02814-AB-FFM, (“MDL”), currently pending before the Honorable Andre Birotte. The power to stay proceedings in a case is a matter within the Court’s discretion. Goode v. Prudential Ins. Co., 5 F. Supp. 2d 804, 806 (N.D. Cal. 1998). Stays are frequently granted when a decision is pending before the MDL Panel. (Id. at 809.) Indeed, “a majority of courts have concluded that it is often appropriate to stay preliminary pretrial proceedings while a motion to transfer and consolidate is pending with the MDL Panel because of the judicial resources that are conserved. Rivers v. Walt Disney Co., 980 F. Supp. 1360, 1362 (C.D. Cal. 1997); see also Hawes v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 2:18-cv-00674 (E.D. Ca., April 27, 2018) [order granting ex parte application of Ford Motor Company to stay proceedings pending a decision by the JPML whether to transfer the case for inclusion in the MDL No. 2814].) Good cause appearing, considerations of judicial economy and the potential for conflicting decisions warrant a stay of these proceedings pending a determination by the MDL Panel regarding transfer to and consolidation of this case into MDL No. 2814. Therefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant Ford Motor Company’s ex parte application. This case is STAYED pending a decision by the JPML whether to transfer this potential case to MDL No. 2814. All filing deadlines and hearing dates are VACATED. /// /// Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 -2- PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION OF CASE IN MDL NO. 2814 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 IT IS SO ORDERED. Dated: ________________ ______________________________ UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE 8010110/38495342v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-3 Filed 06/13/18 Page 3 of 3 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 San Francisco, CA 94111 GOOQ 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 Case 5:18-cv-O3533-NC Document 7-4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 1 of 2 SPENCER P. HUGRET (SBN 240424) shu ret rsm.com M L .MR WKA (SBN 190133) mmrowkaggordonreescom ANA TA B NDAR HUK (SBN 309091) abondarchukgfirsmcom RD N R ULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP Embarcadero Center West 275 Battery Street, Sulte 2000 San Franmsco CA 941 1 1 Telephgne: 3415) 986-5900 Facsumle: ( 15) 986-8054 Attorne s for Defendant FORD OTOR COMPANY UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA - SAN JOSE DIVISION LINDA A. MCGILL, an individual; CASE NO. 5: 1 8-CV-03533 Plaintiff, CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE VS. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, A Delaware Corporation; THE FORD STORE MORGAN HILL, INC, a California Co oration, dba FORD STORE MQR AN HILL; and DOES 1 through 10, 1nc1u31ve, Defendants. I am employed in the County 0f San Francisco, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not a party t0 the within action. My business address is 275 Battery Street, 20th Floor, San Francisco CA 941 1 1. On the date _set forth below, I served 0n the party listed below the foregoing document(s) descrlbed as: 1. EXPARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) 1 CERTIFICKTE (5F SERVICE 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 2 CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 G o rd o n R e es S cu ll y M a n su k h a n i, L L P 2 7 5 B a tt er y S tr ee t, S u it e 2 0 0 0 S a n F ra n ci sc o , C A 9 4 1 1 1 2. DECLARATION OF MOLLY J. MROWKA IN SUPPORT OF EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR AN ORDER STAYING ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814) 3. [PROPOSED] ORDER RE EX PARTE APPLICATION TO STAY ALL PROCEEDINGS AND DEADLINES PENDING JPML DETERMINATION OF INCLUSION IN MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION (MDL NO. 2814)  by placing a true copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight delivery by FedEx as part of the ordinary business practices of Gordon & Rees LLP described below, addressed as follows:  Steve Mikhov, Esq. Attorneys for Plaintiff KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLC 1801 Century Park East., Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (310) 552-7973  (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this court at whose direction the service was made. Executed on June 13, 2018, at San Francisco, California. /s/ Erica Ramirez___ Erica Ramirez 1157010/38496028v.1 Case 5:18-cv-03533-NC Document 7-4 Filed 06/13/18 Page 2 of 2 San Francisco, CA 94111 Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000 1106265326491 63w} 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 PROOF 0F SERVICE McGill v. Ford Motor Company, et al. Santa Clara County Superior Court, Case No. 18CV3273 84 I am a resident of the State 0f California, over the age of eighteen years, and not a party to the within action. My business address is: Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP 275 Battery Street, Suite 2000, San Francisco, CA 941 1 1. I served the Within documents: NOTICE TO STATE COURT AND ADVERSE PARTY OF REMOVAL 0F ACTION T0 FEDERAL COURT E by placing a truc copy thcrcof enclosed in a scaled envelope, at a station designated for collection and processing of envelopes and packages for overnight dclivcry by FEDEX as part of thc ordinary business practices of Gordon Rccs Scully Mansukhani, LLP described below, addressed as follows:. Steve Mikhov, Esq. KNIGHT LAW GROUP, LLP 1801 Century Park East, Suite 2300 Los Angeles, CA 90067-2325 Tel: (310) 552-2250 Fax: (3 10) 552-7973 Email: stevem@knightlaw.com Attorneys for Plaintiffs l am readily familiar with the firm’s practice 0f collection and processing correspondence for mailing. Under that practice it would be deposited With the U.S. Postal Service on that same day with postage thereon fully prepaid in the ordinary course 0f business. l am aware that 0n motion 0f the party served, service is presumed invalid if postal cancellation date 0r postage meter date is more than one day after the date 0f deposit for mailing in affidavit. I declare under penalty 0f perjury under the laws of the State of California that the above is true and correct. Executed on June l4, 2018 at San Francisco, California. z = .'«('r~ e"..<)x'«-"r) Erica Ramirez 1 PROOF OF SERVICE