Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989/USCOURTS-cand-5_14-cv-02989-22/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 890
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15:2301 Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act

---

1

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLASS 

CERTIFICATION ORDER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RENEWED MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION WITH AN AMENDED DAMAGES MODEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SAN JOSE DIVISION

WILLIAM PHILIPS, et al.,

Plaintiffs,

v.

FORD MOTOR COMPANY,

Defendant.

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR 

LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR 

RECONSIDERATION OF CLASS 

CERTIFICATION ORDER, OR, IN THE 

ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE 

A RENEWED MOTION FOR CLASS 

CERTIFICATION WITH AN 

AMENDED DAMAGES MODEL

Re: Dkt. No. 226

Before the Court is Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Motion for Reconsideration of 

Class Certification Order, or, in the Alternative, for Leave to File a Renewed Motion for Class 

Certification with an Amended Damages Model. ECF No. 226 (“Mot.”). Having considered

Plaintiffs’ motion, the relevant law, and the record in this case, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ 

motion.

Civil Local Rule 7–9(b) provides that on a motion for leave to file a motion for 

reconsideration:

The moving party must specifically show:

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 230 Filed 01/16/17 Page 1 of 3
2

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLASS 

CERTIFICATION ORDER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RENEWED MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION WITH AN AMENDED DAMAGES MODEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

(1) That at the time of the motion for leave, a material difference in fact or law 

exists from that which was presented to the Court before entry of the interlocutory 

order for which reconsideration is sought. The party also must show that in the 

exercise of reasonable diligence the party applying for reconsideration did not 

know such fact or law at the time of the interlocutory order; or

(2) The emergence of new material facts or a change of law occurring after the 

time of such order; or

(3) A manifest failure by the Court to consider material facts or dispositive legal 

arguments which were presented to the Court before such interlocutory order.

Plaintiffs’ motion relies entirely on the third prong of Rule 7-9(b). Specifically, Plaintiffs argue 

that the Court “overlooked portions of Plaintiffs’ damage model, as presented by Dr. Arnold, and 

failed to consider other facts and dispositive legal arguments concerning the ability to demonstrate 

reliance and out-of-pocket damages on a classwide basis.” Mot. at 1.

However, Plaintiffs have identified no material facts or dispositive legal arguments that the 

Court manifestly failed to consider in its December 22, 2016 Order. Instead, Plaintiffs repeat the 

same arguments that Plaintiffs raised in their class certification briefing and that the Court 

carefully considered in deciding Plaintiffs’ motion for class certification. In doing so, Plaintiffs 

also make statements that are somewhat misleading. For example, Plaintiffs state that “Dr. Arnold 

. . . conservatively applied a $0 value to the EPAS system for purposes of calculating damages 

here.” Mot. at 3. However, as described more fully in the December 22, 2016 Order, Dr. Arnold’s 

report never stated that consumers would apply a $0 value to the Class Vehicles’ EPAS systems. 

Plaintiffs’ instant motion concedes as much. Mot. at 2 (“Dr. Arnold’s report does not explicitly 

state that ‘the true value of the EPAS systems to consumers was $0 . . . .”).

Similarly, Plaintiffs claim that Dr. Arnold ascribed a negative value to an EPAS system 

that fails in the field, but Plaintiffs omit the important fact that Plaintiffs’ damages theory is based 

on the value that consumers would apply to the EPAS systems at the time of purchase rather than 

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 230 Filed 01/16/17 Page 2 of 3
3

Case No. 14-CV-02989-LHK 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR LEAVE TO FILE MOTION FOR RECONSIDERATION OF CLASS 

CERTIFICATION ORDER, OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, FOR LEAVE TO FILE A RENEWED MOTION FOR 

CLASS CERTIFICATION WITH AN AMENDED DAMAGES MODEL

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the value that consumers would apply at the time that an EPAS system fails in the field.

Plaintiffs have not shown that the Court manifestly failed to consider material facts or 

dispositive legal arguments, nor have Plaintiffs identified any other reason that leave to file a 

motion for reconsideration should be granted. Thus, leave to file a motion for reconsideration is 

not warranted.

The Court also finds that leave to file a renewed motion for class certification with an 

amended damages model is not warranted. As described in the December 22, 2016 Order, the 

individual issues that will predominate in determining reliance alone justify denial of class 

certification. ECF No. 225, at 32. The Court cannot determine reliance on a classwide basis. Thus, 

even if Plaintiffs filed an amended damages report, a renewed motion for class certification would 

be futile.

For the foregoing reasons, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ Motion for Leave to File Motion 

for Reconsideration of Class Certification Order, or, in the Alternative, for Leave to File a 

Renewed Motion for Class Certification with an Amended Damages Model.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 16, 2017

______________________________________

LUCY H. KOH

United States District Judge

Case 5:14-cv-02989-LHK Document 230 Filed 01/16/17 Page 3 of 3