Ford Explorer Exhaust Fumes Class Action Cert. ‘Premature,’ Judge Says

This week there were two developments in the Ford Explorer exhaust fumes class action lawsuit that accuses Ford Motor Company of failing to cure a defect in the 2011-2013 Explorer model that allegedly causes excess carbon monoxide to be released into the passenger cabin of the vehicle.

On Tuesday, U.S. District Judge William P. Dimitrouleas denied the plaintiff’s motion to certify a Class of  all persons who purchased or leased in Florida at least one of the following vehicles: Ford Explorer, 2012 Ford Explorer or 2013 Ford Explorer.

Lead plaintiff Angela Sanchez-Knutson filed the motion to certify the Ford Explorer class action lawsuit two weeks after she filed her initial complaint. “The Court acknowledges that Plaintiff is filing this Motion at the outset of the litigation, at least in part, to prevent Defendant from attempting a so-called ‘pick off’ to moot Plaintiffs’ claims” explained the judge, “[h]owever, the ‘early practicable time’ under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(1)(A) does not contemplate such a motion being filed at the outset of the litigation, where there is insufficient information in the record for the Court to make a proper determination of whether to certify the action as a class action.” 

“The court is denying the motion as premature on procedural grounds only,” concluded the judge in his July 8 Order, “it makes no conclusions regarding the substance of the motion.”

Judge Dimitrouleas also noted in his Order that, on Monday, Ford Motor Company filed a motion to dismiss the Ford Explorer exhaust fumes class action lawsuit. Ford argued in it’s motion to dismiss that the technical bulletin the plaintiff alleges proves that Ford knew about the defect “is not a disclosure of a safety hazard, nor is it an admission by Ford of any generalized defect in their automobiles or of any other wrongdoing. Instead, it is a recommended service procedure that Ford prepared and distributed to assist trained, professional technicians to address a particular customer complaint that may arise in a given Ford Explorer vehicle.”

Ford also argues that plaintiff Knutson’s claims for breach of warranty under state law and under the federal Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act should be dismissed because Knutson was not in relationship of privity with Ford, like a that of a manufacturer and dealership. Ford also argues that Knutson’s allegations that Ford violated Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) and the Transportation Recall Enhancement Accountability and Documentation Act (TREAT) by failing to disclose a serious safety issue affecting her vehicle because “there is no private right of action available for a violation of the TREAD Act or the National Traffic and Motor Vehicle Safety Act (the ‘Safety Act’), and no such right of action may be created through FDUTPA’s borrowing statute.”

The judge indicated that Ford would not be required to respond to the plaintiff’s motion to certify until Ford’s motion to dismiss had been fully debriefed and ruled on.

The plaintiff is represented by Michael A. Hersch, Jordan M. Lewis and John J. Uustal of Kelley Uustal PLC.

The Ford Explorer Exhaust Fumes Class Action Lawsuit is Sanchez-Knutson v. Ford Motor Company, Case No. 0:14-cv-61344, in the U.S. District Court for the Southern District of Florida.

UPDATE: A federal judge denied Ford’s motion to dismiss the Explorer exhaust defect class action lawsuit on Oct. 7, 2014.

UPDATE 2: On Aug. 5, 2016, three days before their scheduled trial, the parties in a Ford exhaust defect class action lawsuit notified the court that they reached a settlement.