Certification Denied in Ford Focus Suspension Defect Class Action

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

Certification Denied in Ford Focus Suspension Defect Class Action

By Anne Bucher

A California federal judge declined to certify a class action lawsuit claiming Ford Motor Co. sold Focus sedans with a rear suspension defect that allegedly caused tires to wear out prematurely, creating a potentially hazardous condition.

U.S. District Judge William B. Shubb claimed that the putative class action lawsuit involved too many questions that were particular to individual plaintiffs to justify class certification.

One of the major variables considered by Judge Shubb was that the alleged premature tire wear did not occur at the same rate for all of the putative members of the class action lawsuit. Further, the tire wear did not uniformly occur because of the alleged rear suspension defect and the tire wear did not occur within the implied warranty period for all of the plaintiffs.

The Ford Focus suspension class action lawsuit was initially filed in November 2011. In the complaint, the plaintiff alleged that an alignment defect in the rear suspension of certain Ford Focus models leads to uneven tire wear, which can cause vehicles to drift in snowy or wet weather conditions. The affected models include those built between 2005 and 2011. The plaintiffs allege that the cost of replacing the tires prematurely costs owners and lessees hundreds or thousands of dollars.

Plaintiffs in the class action lawsuit include Margie Daniel, Robert McCabe, Mary Hauser, Donna Glass and Andrea Duarte. They cited dozens of complaints to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration as evidence that Ford should have been aware of the defect, yet the company failed to warn consumers about the situation or take steps to fix the defect until July 2010.

In their class action lawsuit, plaintiffs sued Ford for violation of the California Legal Remedies Act, violation of California’s Unfair Competition Act, breach of express warranty, violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act and breach of implied warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act.

In his decision to reject the Ford Focus class action lawsuit, Judge Shubb noted that Daniel alleged that she had to replace her Hankook-brand tires before she had driven 21,000 miles on them, far less than the estimated longevity of 60,000 miles for that brand. However, Judge Shubb noted that other potential plaintiffs may have purchased different types of tires that wore out at differing rates.

“Assuming that replacing, or being told to replace, a set of tires before their expected tire mileage is a manifestation of the alleged suspension defect . . . the alleged suspension defect became manifest in Daniel’s vehicle, and therefore her vehicle allegedly became unmerchantable, within the one-year implied warranty period,” Judge Shubb stated. “The same does not appear to be true, however, for all potential class members.”

Judge Shubb also noted that many factors contribute to premature tire wear, including an individual’s driving habits and the regularity of vehicle maintenance.

The Ford Focus Suspension Defect Class Action Lawsuit case is Daniel, et al. v. Ford Motor Co., Case No. 11-cv-02890 in the U.S. District Court for the Eastern District of California.

UPDATE: On Sept. 23, 2016, a California federal judge certified a proposed Class of Ford Focus owners whose vehicles allegedly suffered from a rear suspension defect that caused tires to wear down prematurely.

The plaintiffs are represented by John B. Thomas and Eric Grant of Hicks Thomas LLP and James Allen Carney of Carney Bates & Pulliam PLLC.

Updated June 29th, 2013

All class action and lawsuit news updates are listed in the Lawsuit News section of Top Class Actions