Richard Smith v. Ford Motor Company

Good Law
462 F. App'x 660
United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth CircuitDecember 19, 201110-17321California1,749 words

Opinion

Opinion

MEMORANDUM

Plaintiffs Richard Smith and Rebecca Klein appeal the district court’s grant of summary judgment to defendant Ford Motor Company. We affirm.

I. CLRA Claims

Plaintiffs’ claim under the Consumers Legal Remedies Act is based on the failure of Ford to disclose the risk that ignition locks in its Focus vehicles from model years 2000 through 2006 would fail after the warranty expired. A manufacturer cannot be found liable under the CLRA for failure to disclose a defect that manifests itself after expiration of the warranty period unless such omission (1) is “contrary to a representation actually made by the defendant” or (2) pertains to a “fact the defendant was obligated to disclose.” Daugherty v. Am. Honda Motor Co., Inc., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 , 51 Cal.Rptr.3d 118, 126 (Cal.Ct.App.2006). As plaintiffs do not allege that Ford made affirmative representations concerning the ignition locks, the parties agree that plaintiffs cannot prevail absent a duty to disclose by Ford.

Under California’s general law of fraud, a duty to disclose may arise, inter alia, when the defendant had exclusive knowledge of material facts not known to the plaintiff or when the defendant actively…

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.