Littel

Littel v. Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.

Good Law

259 F. Supp. 2d 1016·2003 WL 1889286·2002 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 26519

United States District Court, Central District of CaliforniaJanuary 8, 2003CV-02-08836 CASCalifornia5,849 words

Opinion

Snyder, J.

ORDER REMANDING ACTION TO SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF RIVERSIDE

I. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL HISTORY

The instant action arises out of the alleged manufacture and sale of defectively designed automobile tires. On August 12, 2002, plaintiffs Roger Littel and Louann Pleasant, both California residents, commenced this action in Riverside County Superior Court against defendants Bridge-stone/Firestone, Inc., Bridgestone Corporation, Inc., and Does 1 through 100 (collectively “defendants”). Plaintiffs allege that the Steeltex R4S, R4SII and A/T brands of automobile tires (“Steelex tires”) sold by defendants suffer from a variety of defects that may lead to failure of the tires during operation. See Complaint (“Compl.”) (attached as Exhibit A to Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc.’s Notice of Removal) ¶ 7. Plaintiffs have filed a putative class action on behalf of all persons residing in the United States who own tires manufactured by Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc., from 1990 through the present. Id. ¶¶ 17-21.

Plaintiffs allege the following claims for relief arising out of the design, manufacture, and sale of the Steelex tires: (1) fraudulent concealment; (2)…

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.