ROIMXI` IIOWARD, SUSAN VON KITTBR, No, 7637852
DOIJCiLhS CURRAN. KIRK MORGANSON,
and JERKY MACALA, on behalf ol'thcmselves
and all others similarly situated,
Pluintitk
VS.
I':OKD MOTOK COMPANY, and DOES I-100,
inclutiive.
Delkndants.
- Hon. Michael
This is an action brwght under the Unfair Competition Law (htrealkrr UCL)
Prokkons Code sectiotis 17200, et. seq.), Plaintiffs also seek relief, in
under lhe equitable provisions of Consumers J&gal Remedies Act (hcrcafier CT.Rh (Civil
sections 1750, et. seq., specifidy, civil code section 1780(a)(3),
ISaving heard all of the evidence hcrcin on the non-jury issues in a
having received cxtcnsive briet'ing from the partics (an Opening Trial Brier liom
rcspwsive Trial Brief from dalbndant~, a &ply Trial Brief from plaindfls, a Sumply
defb-kmt . 31 %wmhuttd Rrief from plain#fs). FISTIC with
I
significance of the California Supreme Court rulings in Kruus v. Triniry Managemenf
23 Cal. 4th 116 (2003 and Cort~z w Purolator Air Filtration Products, Co., 23 Cal 4th
SNIPPETS:
DOIJCiLhS CURRAN.
This is an action brwght under the Unfair Competition Law (htrealkrr UCL) (Business md
under lhe equitable provisions of Consumers J&gal Remedies Act (hcrcafier CT.Rh (Civil Code
significance of the California Supreme Court rulings in Kruus v. Triniry Managemenf Service,
Decision, and Ford's Objections to Proposed Statement of lkcision, the court now issues this
establish, by a prcponderancc of the evidence, proof or "ill gorten gains" in thu form of
appoint expert witnesses, as the Referee deems appropriate, address discovery disputes, and
The cost of any such Referee, including fees, administrative expenses, and any expefl witness
The original Dumspark technology called for rem& mounting at least in part because Ford knew
l'he argument by I'eaheny and his cnginccrs 10 place ignition electronics in lhc pa.%enger
Aflcr tie failure of lhc Duraspark technology, in the early 198Os, Ford decided to use "thick
Ford knew, from the very bqjnning of rhe shiA to electronic technolom, that the TFI module
Ford instilled TFI modules on the distributors of approximately 23 milli.oti vehicles ii
TX 139 at TSA 004030-3 I; TX 273 at TFI4 3852; TX 283 at TF14 4001; TX 308; TX 327; TX 385;
Ford's contention that there is TIO signiticant diflcrence in remote mounted TFI module
NHTSA served in those investigations, notwithstanding its own warranty expericncc and
Administrator for Safety Assurance) was that Ford should have included, in response to NIWA
It was no1 for Ford to decide what "safety" meant, or what levels of warranty returns
Ford never made my guch disclosure to either the govcmmcnt or tn any consumer.
|
