The Eleventh Circuit will hear oral argument regarding Ford’s 23(f) appeal in the Shelby case on Friday, December 16, 2022. The hearing will take place in Atlanta, Georgia and will involve the lawyers making arguments regarding the appropriateness of the class certification order.
AFFECTED VEHICLES
- 2016 Shelby GT350 Mustang Base or Tech models
According to the firm's investigation, Ford has sold these Shelby GT350 vehicles as track cars built to reach and sustain high speeds, but Ford has failed to disclose that the absence of a transmission and differential coolers can greatly diminish the vehicle's reported track capabilities. Shelby owners are reporting that this defect causes the vehicle to overheat and go into limp mode, while in use, even when the car is not being tracked. If you own an affected Ford Mustang and have experienced limp mode, fill out the form to find out your consumer rights to compensation.
SHELBY LIMP MODE EXPLAINED
The affected Shelby GT models reportedly enter limp mode when tracked, failing to maintain desired speeds and have reportedly entered limp mode when in regular use. Owners have reported that despite Ford's promise that these vehicles are "capable of sustained high speeds and track day driving," Base and Tech models overheat. Limp mode is a safety system designed to protect the engine from being damaged during extremely hot temperatures. Once limp mode engages, the engine will only run at very low RPMs and will be barely able to move.
Owners have cited Ford's ads and incessant promotion of the 2016 Shelby GT Base and Tech models as great track cars, but consumers were never warned that their vehicles would quickly overheat when tracked or driven at sustained high speeds.
YOUR CONSUMER RIGHTS
Hagens Berman believes that consumers have the right to reimbursement for the premium price they paid for what they thought was a functional street-legal track car, capable of reaching and sustaining high speeds without failure. Nowhere does Ford divulge these vehicles' failure to maintain track speeds to consumers. According to the firm's investigation, Ford knew about the limp mode defect present in 2016 Shelby GT Base and Tech models and continued to market these vehicles extensively as fully functional track cars, charging consumers high prices for vehicles that in no way uphold its core promises.
TOP AUTO LITIGATION FIRM
Hagens Berman is one of the most successful auto litigation law firms in the U.S. and is presently leading nationwide cases against Volkswagen, GM, Mercedes and Fiat Chrysler for use of diesel emissions-cheating software. Our firm’s independent research outpaces even government agencies, and we are the only firm dedicating its own resources to uncovering new instances of fraud. Hagens Berman has also taken on other automakers on behalf of consumers throughout the United States for safety defects and negligence, and your claim will be handled by attorneys experienced in automotive consumer law.
The parties have spent the last few months conducting expert discovery and responding to motions relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Ford’s motion for summary judgment. Final briefs relating to these motions were filed with the Court on January 30, 2020. The parties anticipate another 1-2 months of expert discovery and then counsel for Plaintiffs will begin working on pretrial preparations as we await Judge Moreno’s decisions on these two motions.
We will be providing further updates as soon as we receive a decision from Judge Moreno the class certification and summary judgment motions.
You can access the briefing related to these motions here.
- Class Certification Motion
- Summary Judgment Motion
The trial date for this case is currently set for October 13, 2020.
Pursuant to Judge Moreno’s June 17, 2019 Scheduling Order the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is now July 30, 2019. We also anticipate that Ford will also file a motion for summary judgment on that date.
Judge Moreno has also scheduled several months for expert discovery and motion practice. The new trial date is now set for March 2, 2020. We will be providing further updates in early August, once the class certification and summary judgment motions have been filed with the Court.
After the resounding defeat of Ford’s motion to dismiss, the 2016 Shelby GT350 class action lawsuit is actively moving through the discovery phase. Counsel for Plaintiffs are currently reviewing tens of thousands of Ford documents and are preparing to take depositions of key Ford employees. Plaintiffs will move for class certification in the next few months and a trial is currently scheduled for late 2019. Check back here for updates on the case schedule.
In his July 12, 2018, order responding to Ford’s motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit filed regarding the Mustang Shelby limp mode defect, Judge Federico A. Moreno upheld the vast majority of plaintiffs’ claims against Ford.
The judge divided the lawsuit’s 59 claims into fraud claims and warranty claims. The fraud-based claims related to Ford’s omission and misrepresentation to Shelby buyers about their cars. Ford told them the cars were track ready, leaving out that the cars easily overheat. Judge Moreno upheld the fraud-based claims and denied Ford’s motion to dismiss them. Judge Moreno also upheld claims that Shelby owners paid premium prices due to Ford’s misrepresentation, violating state consumer protection laws.
Regarding warranty-based claims, the court is still reviewing each plaintiff’s individual claims of malfunction, but the court denied Ford’s motion to dismiss breach of warranty claims saying, “Indeed, this Court has ruled that it is premature to dismiss claims at the motion to dismiss stage because of a plaintiff's failure to encounter the alleged defect.” Judge Moreno did uphold Ford’s motion to dismiss Florida, Oregon, New York and Washington warranty claims, due to the fact that the vehicles were purchased from a Ford dealer, and not Ford directly.
Finally, Judge Moreno upheld plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims against Ford, stating that the lawsuit “includes all the elements of unjust enrichment by claiming that the vehicles have a diminished value, and thus Ford has reaped profits in excess of what should have been earned for the sale of its allegedly defective 2016 Shelby GT350 Base and Technology Packages.” Read the order »
On Feb. 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the Shelby lawsuit. The second amended complaint adds new plaintiffs and chronicles additional limp mode manifestations both on the track and on public roadways.
Plaintiffs are confident that the second amended complaint will survive any additional motion practice that Ford Motor Company may initiate, and we look forward to moving forward with the discovery stage of the litigation in the next few months. Review the second amended complaint here »
Plaintiffs and Defendant Ford Motor Company have spent the summer of 2017 undertaking motion practice. The motion at issue tests the legal sufficiency of the different claims being brought by Plaintiffs and is routinely used by large companies during this type of litigation. As of January 2, 2018 the motion and all related arguments are still under consideration by Judge Federico A. Moreno, who is presiding over this lawsuit. Judge Moreno ‘s Court is located in the Southern District of Florida. We are hopeful that Judge Moreno will rule on this motion in the near future and we will update you when we hear from the Court. In the interim, the Parties continue to discuss the status of discovery and anticipate moving forward with that stage of the litigation over the next few months.
On May 16, 2017 Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in this litigation. The Amended Complaint added more than a dozen new plaintiffs and requested a 50 state class for certification. The Amended Complaint also contains additional allegations to strengthen the already existing fraud and warranty claims being alleged by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs look forward to receiving Ford’s response to the Amended Complaint and moving forward with this litigation throughout the summer. Read the first amended complaint »
In spring of 2020, the parties completed the briefing relating to class certification and summary judgment motions. We are still awaiting the court’s decision on both of those motions. We will be in contact with you as soon as we learn the court’s rulings.
Please note that Judge Moreno has recently ordered that the trial date be moved from October 2020 to April 2021 in part due to the extremely limited ability of the court to conduct civil trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read Judge Moreno’s order moving the trial date here » If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
The parties submitted all briefing and evidence related to the pending motions for class certification and summary judgment in the spring of 2020 and an in-person hearing on those motions was held on April 23, 2021. We are currently awaiting Judge Moreno's decision on these motions. In the meantime the parties are preparing their pre-trial strategies and documents, and briefing evidentiary issues related to expert testimony.
The trial date for this case is currently scheduled for September 2021.
Recently, Judge Moreno ruled on most of the parties’ motions to exclude certain expert witness and will conduct an evidentiary hearing pertaining to a final expert later this fall. The parties are also finalizing their plans for trial while they await a decision on Ford’s petition to the Eleventh Circuit to appeal the class certification decision. The current trial date is set for November 22, 2021.
CASE TIMELINE
Recently, Judge Moreno ruled on most of the parties’ motions to exclude certain expert witness and will conduct an evidentiary hearing pertaining to a final expert later this fall. The parties are also finalizing their plans for trial while they await a decision on Ford’s petition to the Eleventh Circuit to appeal the class certification decision. The current trial date is set for November 22, 2021.
The parties submitted all briefing and evidence related to the pending motions for class certification and summary judgment in the spring of 2020 and an in-person hearing on those motions was held on April 23, 2021. We are currently awaiting Judge Moreno's decision on these motions. In the meantime the parties are preparing their pre-trial strategies and documents, and briefing evidentiary issues related to expert testimony.
The trial date for this case is currently scheduled for September 2021.
In spring of 2020, the parties completed the briefing relating to class certification and summary judgment motions. We are still awaiting the court’s decision on both of those motions. We will be in contact with you as soon as we learn the court’s rulings.
Please note that Judge Moreno has recently ordered that the trial date be moved from October 2020 to April 2021 in part due to the extremely limited ability of the court to conduct civil trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.
Read Judge Moreno’s order moving the trial date here » If you have any questions please do not hesitate to contact us.
The parties have spent the last few months conducting expert discovery and responding to motions relating to Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification and Ford’s motion for summary judgment. Final briefs relating to these motions were filed with the Court on January 30, 2020. The parties anticipate another 1-2 months of expert discovery and then counsel for Plaintiffs will begin working on pretrial preparations as we await Judge Moreno’s decisions on these two motions.
We will be providing further updates as soon as we receive a decision from Judge Moreno the class certification and summary judgment motions.
You can access the briefing related to these motions here.
- Class Certification Motion
- Summary Judgment Motion
The trial date for this case is currently set for October 13, 2020.
Pursuant to Judge Moreno’s June 17, 2019 Scheduling Order the deadline for Plaintiffs to file their motion for class certification is now July 30, 2019. We also anticipate that Ford will also file a motion for summary judgment on that date.
Judge Moreno has also scheduled several months for expert discovery and motion practice. The new trial date is now set for March 2, 2020. We will be providing further updates in early August, once the class certification and summary judgment motions have been filed with the Court.
After the resounding defeat of Ford’s motion to dismiss, the 2016 Shelby GT350 class action lawsuit is actively moving through the discovery phase. Counsel for Plaintiffs are currently reviewing tens of thousands of Ford documents and are preparing to take depositions of key Ford employees. Plaintiffs will move for class certification in the next few months and a trial is currently scheduled for late 2019. Check back here for updates on the case schedule.
In his July 12, 2018, order responding to Ford’s motion to dismiss the class-action lawsuit filed regarding the Mustang Shelby limp mode defect, Judge Federico A. Moreno upheld the vast majority of plaintiffs’ claims against Ford.
The judge divided the lawsuit’s 59 claims into fraud claims and warranty claims. The fraud-based claims related to Ford’s omission and misrepresentation to Shelby buyers about their cars. Ford told them the cars were track ready, leaving out that the cars easily overheat. Judge Moreno upheld the fraud-based claims and denied Ford’s motion to dismiss them. Judge Moreno also upheld claims that Shelby owners paid premium prices due to Ford’s misrepresentation, violating state consumer protection laws.
Regarding warranty-based claims, the court is still reviewing each plaintiff’s individual claims of malfunction, but the court denied Ford’s motion to dismiss breach of warranty claims saying, “Indeed, this Court has ruled that it is premature to dismiss claims at the motion to dismiss stage because of a plaintiff's failure to encounter the alleged defect.” Judge Moreno did uphold Ford’s motion to dismiss Florida, Oregon, New York and Washington warranty claims, due to the fact that the vehicles were purchased from a Ford dealer, and not Ford directly.
Finally, Judge Moreno upheld plaintiffs’ unjust enrichment claims against Ford, stating that the lawsuit “includes all the elements of unjust enrichment by claiming that the vehicles have a diminished value, and thus Ford has reaped profits in excess of what should have been earned for the sale of its allegedly defective 2016 Shelby GT350 Base and Technology Packages.” Read the order »
On Feb. 20, 2018, plaintiffs filed a second amended complaint in the Shelby lawsuit. The second amended complaint adds new plaintiffs and chronicles additional limp mode manifestations both on the track and on public roadways.
Plaintiffs are confident that the second amended complaint will survive any additional motion practice that Ford Motor Company may initiate, and we look forward to moving forward with the discovery stage of the litigation in the next few months. Review the second amended complaint here »
Plaintiffs and Defendant Ford Motor Company have spent the summer of 2017 undertaking motion practice. The motion at issue tests the legal sufficiency of the different claims being brought by Plaintiffs and is routinely used by large companies during this type of litigation. As of January 2, 2018 the motion and all related arguments are still under consideration by Judge Federico A. Moreno, who is presiding over this lawsuit. Judge Moreno ‘s Court is located in the Southern District of Florida. We are hopeful that Judge Moreno will rule on this motion in the near future and we will update you when we hear from the Court. In the interim, the Parties continue to discuss the status of discovery and anticipate moving forward with that stage of the litigation over the next few months.
On May 16, 2017 Plaintiffs filed an Amended Complaint in this litigation. The Amended Complaint added more than a dozen new plaintiffs and requested a 50 state class for certification. The Amended Complaint also contains additional allegations to strengthen the already existing fraud and warranty claims being alleged by Plaintiffs. Plaintiffs look forward to receiving Ford’s response to the Amended Complaint and moving forward with this litigation throughout the summer. Read the first amended complaint »
