Dunk

Dunk v. Ford Motor Co.

Good Law
1996 Cal. App. LEXIS 831·48 Cal. App. 4th 1794·56 Cal. Rptr. 2d 483·96 Daily Journal DAR 10799·96 Cal. Daily Op. Serv. 6628
Court of Appeal of CaliforniaAugust 30, 1996G017975California5,718 words

Opinion

Opinion

Wallin, J.

William Geer, John Loving, Bonnie Peterson, Robert Peterson, and David Whitworth appeal the judgment approving the settlement of a class action against Ford Motor Company relating to alleged defects in certain Ford Mustang convertibles, contending: (1) the trial court erred by finding the settlement was fair and reasonable; (2) notice to class members was not adequate; (3) the trial court erroneously certified a nationwide class for settlement; and (4) the trial court erroneously calculated attorney fees and failed to make factual findings. We affirm in part and reverse in part.

Deidre Dale and Matthew Dunk filed a class action suit against Ford Motor Company in mid-1991, alleging causes of action for negligence, breach of express and implied warranty, strict liability, concealment, false representation, conversion, and breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. All of the causes of action related to an alleged defect in the door construction on 1983 through 1986 Mustang convertibles.

Early in the proceedings, Ford removed the case to federal court, but Dunk successfully had the matter remanded to state court with an order for Ford to pay attorney…

Sign in to read the full opinion

Create a free account to read the complete opinion text, citation history, and good-law status for this case.