Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04043/USCOURTS-cand-4_19-cv-04043-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Motor Vehicle Product Liability

---

UNITED STATES JUDICIAL PANEL 

on 

MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2814

TRANSFER ORDER

Before the Panel: Plaintiff in the action listed on Schedule A (Grago) moves under Panel

Rule 7.1 to vacate our order conditionally transferring his action to MDL No. 2814. Defendant Ford

Motor Company opposes the motion to vacate and supports transfer.

After considering the parties’ arguments, we find that this action shares questions of fact with

the actions transferred to MDL No. 2814, and that transfer under 28 U.S.C. § 1407 will serve the

convenience of the parties and witnesses and promote the just and efficient conduct of this litigation. 

The actions in MDL No. 2814 share factual questions arising out of allegations that the DPS6

PowerShift transmission installed in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles is defective and

negatively affects the drivability, safety, and useful life of the vehicles.1

 See In re Ford Motor Co.

DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Prods. Liab. Litig., 289 F. Supp.3d 1350 (J.P.M.L. 2018). The

Grago action alleges defects in the DPS6 PowerShift transmission in a 2015 Ford Focus, and plainly

involves the same questions. 

In opposition to transfer, plaintiff argues that his action presents unique and individualized

factual issues. He emphasizes those portions of his complaint alleging that Ford fraudulently

concealed the vehicle’s transmission repair history before he purchased the vehicle, and that Ford

wrongfully refused to buy back the vehicle. But significant common factual issues concerning the

allegedly defective DPS6 PowerShift transmission are obvious on the face of the complaint.2

 As

defendant points out, the allegation that the transmission is defective is central to plaintiff’s alleged

fraud and buyback claims. In any event, the presence of additional facts and legal theories is not

significant when, as here, the actions arise from a common factual core. See, e.g., In re Auto Body

Shop Antitrust Litig., 37 F. Supp. 3d 1388, 1390 (J.P.M.L. 2014). Grago will require the same

1

 The models at issue in MDL No. 2814 are Ford Fiesta model years 2011 to 2016 and Ford

Focus model years 2012 to 2016.

2

 See, e.g., Grago Compl. ¶ 9 (“No one disclosed to Grago, prior to his purchase of the

Subject Vehicle, that there was a problem with the DPS6 transmission generally, or that the Subject

Vehicle had any transmission problems. No one disclosed to Grago that . . . the Subject Vehicle’s

transmission was defective in design and . . . could never be conformed to [the express]

warranties.”). 

Case 4:19-cv-04043-PJH Document 16 Filed 12/19/19 Page 1 of 3 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 215 Filed 12/18/19 Page 1 of 3
-2-

discovery of Ford’s conduct as the actions in the MDL; that plaintiff's claims may require additional

case-specific discovery does not bar transfer.

Plaintiff also objects to transfer on the ground that MDL No. 2814 is at a mature stage and

informal coordination of any overlapping discovery therefore is preferable to transfer. These

arguments are unconvincing. Common pretrial proceedings are ongoing. Thus, transfer will

facilitate coordinated pretrial proceedings in all related actions, including Grago. Additionally,

informal coordination would be inefficient, given the extent of overlap in plaintiff’s action and the

actions in the MDL, especially in light of the complexity of the litigation.3

IT IS THEREFORE ORDERED that the action listed on Schedule A is transferred to the

Central District of California and, with the consent of that court, assigned to the Honorable André

Birotte, Jr., for inclusion in the coordinated or consolidated pretrial proceedings.

 PANEL ON MULTIDISTRICT LITIGATION

 

 Karen K. Caldwell

 Chair

Ellen Segal Huvelle R. David Proctor

Catherine D. Perry Nathaniel M. Gorton

Matthew F. Kennelly David C. Norton

3

 See In re Payment Card Interchange Fee and Merchant Discount Antitrust Litig., MDL

No. 1720, Transfer Order at 2-3, Doc. No. 386 (J.P.M.L. Oct. 3, 2016) (rejecting informal

coordination as an alternative to transfer, where there were over 90 actions pending in the MDL and

the factual and legal issues were complex).

Case 4:19-cv-04043-PJH Document 16 Filed 12/19/19 Page 2 of 3 Case MDL No. 2814 Document 215 Filed 12/18/19 Page 2 of 3
IN RE: FORD MOTOR CO. DPS6 POWERSHIFT TRANSMISSION

PRODUCTS LIABILITY LITIGATION MDL No. 2814

SCHEDULE A

Northern District of California

GRAGO V. FORD MOTOR COMPANY, C.A. No. 4:19-04043 

Case MDL No. 2814 Document 215 Filed 12/18/19 Page 3 of 3

CACD No.

2:19-cv-010725-AB(FFMx)

I hereby attest and certify on _________ 

that the foregoing document is full, true 

and correct copy of the original on file in 

my office, and in my legal custody. 

CLERK U.S. DISTRICT COURT 

CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 

DEPUTY CLERK

12/19/2019

Derek Davis

Case 4:19-cv-04043-PJH Document 16 Filed 12/19/19 Page 3 of 3