UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
                            SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA
                                INDI...
ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO
                      PLAINTIFFS’ MASTER COMPLAINT

       Defendant Ford Motor ...
6. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 6, except that the contents of any statements

in the Automotive Lease Guide s...
15. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 15, except Ford is without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a bel...
26. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of

the allegations in Paragraph ...
38. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 38, except Ford is without sufficient

knowledge or information to form a bel...
50. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 50, except Ford is without knowledge or

information sufficient to form a bel...
59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 relate entirely to another defendant and do not

require a response.

       60. The a...
70. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 70.

       71. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 71.

       72. Ford...
84. In response to Paragraph 84, Ford admits that it received complaints from certain

Venezuelan agencies concerning Fire...
Venezuela. Ford further alleges that the contents of any notices issued by Ford regarding its

replacement programs speak ...
Consumer Advisory, have now been replaced by Firestone and Ford in subsequent replacement

programs.

       106.    In re...
116.    The allegations in Paragraph 116 relate entirely to another defendant and do not

require a response. In any event...
126.    In response to Paragraph 126, Ford alleges that the contents of any Ford

advertisements speak for themselves.

  ...
143.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 143.

       144.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 144.

       ...
163.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 163.

      164.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 164.

      16...
176.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 176.

177.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 177.

178.   Ford de...
198.     Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 198.

       199.     Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 199.


  ...
THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF
                         (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a),
                   asserted on be...
EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF
                  (Declaratory Judgment/Equitable and Injunctive Relief)

       298.    Ford inco...
308.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 308.

       309.   Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 309.

       ...
324.    Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 324.


                            THIR...
the Master Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Ford be awarded its costs and such

other relief as the Court de...
9. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in

whole or in part, from recovery on the ...
superseding, intervening acts and omissions of a third party or third parties for which Ford is

neither responsible nor l...
28. Ford reserves its right to dismiss the Master Complaint and seek further relief for

plaintiffs’ failure to provide it...
Dated: January _____, 2002    Respectfully submitted,



                              Randall R. Riggs
                  ...
CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE


           Service of the foregoing was made by hand delivery or by placing a copy of the same in...
Upcoming SlideShare
Loading in …5
×

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ...

786 views

Published on

0 Comments
0 Likes
Statistics
Notes
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Views
Total views
786
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
1
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
4
Comments
0
Likes
0
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA ...

  1. 1. UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION In re BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC. Master File No. IP 00-9373-C-B/S TIRES PRODUCTS LIABILITY MDL No. 1373 LITIGATION (centralized before Hon. Sarah Evans THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CLASS Barker, Chief Judge) ACTIONS GARY GUSTAFSON, MICHAEL DEVENING, WILLIAM WEHKING, KATHLEEN WEHKING, LEROY EBERLY, RICHARD GLOVER, BARBARA JACKSON, WILLIAM G. MORAN, CLARK SCHAFFER, BETH SIMON, ALLAN SIMPSON, JOYCE WILSON, NEAL ZIMMERMAN, SAM MARTIN, JAMES POWELL, DAWN WHORL, CHERYL STUART, SUSAN P. GRAYSON, CAROL KUSTURRIS, KURT KELLERMAN, MARGARET CLARKE, JENNIFER HAKKER, DONITA QUALEY, DEANNA CONNELL, FLORENCE BRUEMMER, GREYSON KNAPP, JEANA WONNACOT, ALLISON SIMMONS, SUE PLEDGER, JAMES STONE, MARGARET NAYLOR, HEATHER GAUDET, JOHN DOVICH, THOMAS KERNER, MICHAEL HUBER, ROBERT RUDECK, DENNIS MICKUNAS, ESTHER SIEWERT- SITZMORE, MICHAEL LOURIDAS, AND THE PERSONS LISTED ON EXHIBIT A HERETO (COLLECTIVELY, THE “TIRE PLAINTIFFS”) AND DIANA GRANT, ARLENE ROMANO AND JANE JILL (COLLECTIVELY, THE “EXPLORER DIMINUTION PLAINTIFFS”) on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated, Plaintiffs, v. BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.; BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; AND FORD MOTOR COMPANY, Defendants.
  2. 2. ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY TO PLAINTIFFS’ MASTER COMPLAINT Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”), by and through its attorneys, in response to the allegations in plaintiffs’ Master Complaint that relate to Ford, admits, denies and alleges as follows: INTRODUCTION 1. Ford admits that plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of the proposed class described in Paragraph 1 of the Master Complaint. 2. Ford admits that plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of the proposed class described in Paragraph 2. 3. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 3, except Ford admits that plaintiffs purport to bring this action against Bridgestone/Firestone, Inc. (“Firestone”), Bridgestone Corp. and Ford, that Ford assembles Ford Explorers from component parts which are, in whole or in part, manufactured by others, and that Ford distributes vehicles to independent authorized dealers, who in turn sell them to consumers nationwide. 4. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 4, except Ford admits that Firestone announced a recall of certain ATX, ATX II and Wilderness tires on August 9, 2000. Ford further alleges that a number of Firestone ATX, ATX II and Wilderness tires that were not covered by the August 9, 2000 recall have now been replaced by Firestone and Ford in subsequent replacement programs. 5. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 5.
  3. 3. 6. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 6, except that the contents of any statements in the Automotive Lease Guide speak for themselves. 7. To the extent that plaintiffs’ claims in Paragraph 7 have not been dismissed, Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to recovery under any of these claims. 8. To the extent that plaintiffs’ claims in Paragraph 8 have not been dismissed, Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to recovery under any of these claims. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 9. In response to Paragraph 9, Ford admits that this Court has federal question jurisdiction over plaintiffs’ claims. 10. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 10. 11. In response to Paragraph 11, Ford admits that this Court has venue over plaintiffs’ claims, but denies that venue is appropriate under § 1391(b) and further asserts that venue is not appropriate under 18 U.S.C. § 1964(c) because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. PARTIES 12. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 12, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning Mr. Gustafson’s alleged tread separation incident and purchase of replacement tires. 13. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 13. 14. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 14, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding Mr. Wehking’s tread separation incident. 2
  4. 4. 15. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 15, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Wehking’s allegations regarding her alleged tire incidents. 16. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 16, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of plaintiff Eberly’s allegations regarding his tire size and his alleged request for replacement tires 17. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 17. 18. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 18, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the size and model of Ms. Jackson’s tires. 19. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 19. 20. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 20. 21. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 21. 22. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 22. 23. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 23, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning where plaintiff Wilson’s tires were manufactured or the allegations concerning Ms. Wilson’s tire incident. 24. Mr. Zimmerman does not state any claims against Ford. 25. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 25. 3
  5. 5. 26. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 26. 27. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 27. 28. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 28. 29. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 29. 30. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 30, except Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the model of original equipment tires on Ms. Kusturris’s Mountaineer. 31. Mr. Kellerman does not state any claims against Ford. 32. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 32. 33. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 33. 34. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 34. 35. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 35. 36. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 36, except Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the model of original equipment tires on Ms. Bruemmer’s Ranger. 37. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 37, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to where Mr. Knapp resides. 4
  6. 6. 38. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 38, except Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the model of original equipment tires on Ms. Wonnacot’s Expedition. 39. Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 39. 40. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 40, except Ford denies that Ms. Pledger’s vehicle is a model year 1998 Explorer. 41. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 41. 42. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 42. 43. Ms. Gaudet does not state any claims against Ford. 44. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 44. 45. Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 45. 46. Mr. Huber does not state any claims against Ford. 47. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 47. 48. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 48. 49. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 49, except Ford denies that Ms. Siewert- Sitzmore’s vehicle is a model year 1999 Mercury Mountaineer, and Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the model of original equipment tires. 5
  7. 7. 50. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 50, except Ford is without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to whether Mr. Louridas owns or leases his vehicle. 51. Ford admits that Exhibit A purports to list the names and addresses of additional plaintiffs, but is otherwise without knowledge or information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations in Paragraph 51. 52. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 52 except Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding the model of Ms. Grant’s original equipment tires. 53. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 53, except Ford is without sufficient knowledge or information to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations concerning the place of purchase or Ms. Lill’s Explorer or the model of its original equipment tires, and denies that Ms. Lill traded in her Explorer in May 1999. 54. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 54. 55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 56. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 56. 57. The allegations in Paragraph 57 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 58. The allegations in Paragraph 58 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that any statements by Bridgestone Corp. on its website or in corporate disclosure statements speak for themselves. 6
  8. 8. 59. The allegations in Paragraph 59 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 60. The allegations in Paragraph 60 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 61. The allegations in Paragraph 61 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. CIVIL CONSPIRACY/CONCERTED ACTION 62. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 62. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS 63. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 63, except that the contents of any article in Consumer Reports speak for themselves. 64. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 64 except that the contents of any internal Ford Test Report dated November 25, 1988, speak for themselves. 65. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 65, except that the contents of any statements in an internal Ford memorandum dated June 15, 1989, speak for themselves. 66. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 66. 67. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 67. 68. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 68, except Ford admits that it asked Firestone to develop and supply a new tire for Ford Explorer vehicles. 69. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 69, except Ford admits that it asked Firestone to develop and supply a new tire for Ford Explorer vehicles. 7
  9. 9. 70. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 70. 71. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 71. 72. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 72. 73. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 73. 74. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 74. 75. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 75. 76. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 76. 77. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 77. 78. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 78. Ford further alleges that it conducted high-speed industry standard tests on a “mule” or “slave vehicle,” and that such vehicle, an F150 truck, was modified to represent the weight distribution of the Explorer. 79. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 79, except Ford admits that it has been sued in a number of cases involving Firestone tire tread separations. 80. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 80, except Ford admits that it has received complaints from certain state agencies in Arizona concerning Firestone tires. 81. The allegations in Paragraph 81 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 82. The allegations in Paragraph 82 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that any statements by Robert Martin speak for themselves. 83. The allegations in Paragraph 83 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 8
  10. 10. 84. In response to Paragraph 84, Ford admits that it received complaints from certain Venezuelan agencies concerning Firestone tires and further alleges that the contents of any Firestone memorandums speak for themselves. 85. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 85. 86. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 86, except that the contents of any memorandums from Ford dealers in the Middle East speak for themselves. 87. In response to Paragraph 87, Ford alleges that the contents of any memorandums sent from Ford’s National Service Director in the Middle East to Firestone speak for themselves. 88. In response to Paragraph 88, Ford alleges that the contents of any facsimile from the Arabian Car Marketing Company to Ford speak for themselves. 89. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 89. 90. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 90, except that the contents of any internal Ford memorandum dated September 15, 1999, speak for themselves. 91. The allegations in Paragraph 91 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. 92. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 92, except Ford admits that as a result of customer satisfaction concerns, it replaced Firestone tires in various locations, including the Middle East and Venezuela. Ford further alleges that the contents of any internal Ford memorandum related to such replacement programs speak for themselves. 93. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 93, except Ford admits that as a result of customer satisfaction concerns, it replaced Firestone tires in various locations, including 9
  11. 11. Venezuela. Ford further alleges that the contents of any notices issued by Ford regarding its replacement programs speak for themselves. 94. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 94, except that any actions taken by NHTSA are a matter of public record. 95. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 95 and further denies that it withheld any information it was required to report to federal regulators. 96. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 96, except that any actions taken by NHTSA are a matter of public record. 97. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 97 and its subparts, except Ford admits that it has been fined by the Environmental Protection Agency. 98. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 98, except that the contents of any article in The New York Times speak for themselves. 99. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 99. 100. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 100. 101. In response to Paragraph 101, Ford alleges that the contents of any September 22, 2000 letter from Carlos Mazzorin to Masatoshi Ono speak for themselves. 102. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 102. 103. In response to Paragraph 103, Ford alleges that the contents of NHTSA’s Consumer Advisory speak for themselves. 104. Ford admits the allegation in Paragraph 104. 105. Ford denies the allegation in Paragraph 105. Ford further alleges that a number of Firestone tires that were not covered by the August 9, 2000 recall, or listed in NHTSA’s 10
  12. 12. Consumer Advisory, have now been replaced by Firestone and Ford in subsequent replacement programs. 106. In response to Paragraph 106, Ford alleges that any statements by Ford or Firestone regarding the “root cause” of the elevated rate of tread separations incidents on certain Firestone tires speak for themselves. 107. In response to Paragraph 107, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Firestone engineers speak for themselves. 108. In response to Paragraph 108, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Robert Martin speak for themselves. 109. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 109. 110. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 110, except that the contents of Ford’s and Firestone’s owners’ manuals speak for themselves. 111. The allegations in Paragraph 111 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, the contents of Ford’s and Firestone’s owners’ manuals speak for themselves. 112. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 112 and its subparts. 113. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 113. 114. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 114. 115. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 115, except that the contents of any news report on KHOU speak for themselves. 11
  13. 13. 116. The allegations in Paragraph 116 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Firestone officials speak for themselves. 117. The allegations in Paragraph 117 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Firestone officials speak for themselves. 118. The allegations in Paragraph 118 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Firestone officials speak for themselves. 119. The allegations in Paragraph 119 relate entirely to another defendant and do not require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Firestone officials speak for themselves. 120. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 120. 121. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 121. 122. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 122. 123. In response to Paragraph 123, Ford alleges that the contents of any Ford or Firestone advertisements speak for themselves. 124. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 124 and its subparts, except that the contents of any Ford advertisements speak for themselves. 125. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 125, except that the contents of any Ford advertisements speak for themselves. 12
  14. 14. 126. In response to Paragraph 126, Ford alleges that the contents of any Ford advertisements speak for themselves. 127. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 127 and its subparts, and further alleges that the contents of any Firestone advertisements speak for themselves. 128. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 128. 129. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 129. 130. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 130. 131. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 131. 132. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 132. 133. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 133. 134. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 134. 135. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 135. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 136. Ford admits that plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of the proposed class described in Paragraph 136. 137. Ford admits that plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of the proposed class and subclasses described in Paragraph 137 and its subparts. 138. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 138. 139. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 139. 140. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 140. 141. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 141. 142. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 142. 13
  15. 15. 143. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 143. 144. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 144. 145. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 145. 146. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 146. 147. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 147. 148. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 148. 149. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 149. 150. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 150. 151. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 151. 152. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 152. 153. The allegations of Paragraph 153 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 154. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 154. 155. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 155. 156. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 156. 157. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 157. 158. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 158. 159. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 159. 160. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 160. 161. Ford admits that plaintiffs purported to bring this action on behalf of the proposed class described in Paragraph 161. 162. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 162. 14
  16. 16. 163. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 163. 164. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 164. 165. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 165. 166. The allegations in Paragraph 166 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 167. The allegations in Paragraph 167 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 168. The allegations in Paragraph 168 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 169. The allegations in Paragraph 169 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 170. The allegations in Paragraph 170 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 171. The allegations in Paragraph 171 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 172. The allegations in Paragraph 172 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 173. The allegations in Paragraph 173 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 174. The allegations in Paragraph 174 do not require a response because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 175. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 175. 15
  17. 17. 176. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 176. 177. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 177. 178. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 178. 179. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 179. 180. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 180. 181. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 181. 182. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 182 183. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 183. 184. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 184. 185. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 185. 186. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 186. 187. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 187. 188. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 188. 189. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 189. 190. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 190. 191. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 191. 192. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 192. 193. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 193. 194. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 194. 195. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 195. 196. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 196. 197. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 197. 16
  18. 18. 198. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 198. 199. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 199. TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATION 200. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 200. 201. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 201. FIRST CLAIM OF RELIEF (Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) 202. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 201, above. 203. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 203. 204. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 204. 205. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 205. 206. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 206. 207. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 207. 208. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 208. SECOND CLAIM OF RELIEF (Violation of Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), asserted on behalf of the Tire Class) 209-242. Ford is not required to respond to the allegations in Paragraphs 209 through 242 because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 17
  19. 19. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a), asserted on behalf of the Explorer Diminution Class) 243-269. Ford is not required to respond to the allegations in Paragraphs 243 through 269 because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), asserted on behalf of the Tire Class) 270-279. Ford is not required to respond to plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 270 through 279 because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c), asserted on behalf of the Explorer Diminution Class) 280-289. Ford is not required to respond to plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 280 through 289 because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), asserted on behalf of the Tire Class) 290-293. Ford is not required to respond to plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 290 through 293 because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d), asserted on behalf of the Explorer Diminution Class) 294-297. Ford is not required to respond to plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 294 through 297 because plaintiffs’ RICO claims have been dismissed. 18
  20. 20. EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Declaratory Judgment/Equitable and Injunctive Relief) 298. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 298, above. 299. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 299 to the extent that plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief have not been dismissed by the Court. 300. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 300 to the extent that plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief have not been dismissed by the Court. 301. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 301 to the extent that plaintiffs’ claims for declaratory judgment and injunctive relief have not been dismissed by the Court. 302. Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief set forth in Paragraph 302 to the extent that these claims have not been dismissed by the Court. NINTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Restitution/Disgorgement for Unjust Enrichment) 303. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 302, above. 304. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph. 305. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph. 306. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph. TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Violation of All States’ Consumer Protection Statutes) 307. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 306, above. 19
  21. 21. 308. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 308. 309. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 309. 310. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 310. 311. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 311. 312. Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 312. ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Express Warranty) 313. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 312, above. 314. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 314. 315. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 315. 316. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 316. 317. Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 317. TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Implied Warranty) 318. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 317, above. 319. Paragraph 319 merely states a legal conclusion and does not require a response. 320. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 320. 321. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 321. 322. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 322. 323. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 323. 20
  22. 22. 324. Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 324. THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Negligence) 325. Ford incorporates by reference herein its denials, admissions and allegations set forth in Paragraphs 1 through 324, above. 326. Paragraph 326 merely states a legal conclusion and does not require a response. 327. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 327 to the extent that plaintiffs’ negligence claims have not been dismissed by the Court. 328. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 328 to the extent that plaintiffs’ negligence claims have not been dismissed by the Court. 329. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 329 to the extent that plaintiffs’ negligence claims have not been dismissed by the Court. 330. Ford denies that the plaintiffs whose negligence claims have not yet been dismissed are entitled to the relief sought from Ford in Paragraph 330. FOURTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF (Breach of Warranty Against Redhibitory Defects Under Louisiana Law) 331-338. Ford is not required to respond to the allegations in Paragraphs 331 through 338 because plaintiffs’ redhibitory claims have been dismissed. PRAYER FOR RELIEF Ford denies each and every allegation in the Prayer For Relief and its subparts. Ford denies the allegations of the Master Complaint not heretofore specifically admitted, including each and every portion of the Master Complaint requesting any relief. Ford further requests that 21
  23. 23. the Master Complaint be dismissed with prejudice and that Ford be awarded its costs and such other relief as the Court deems proper. ADDITIONAL DEFENSES 1. The Master Complaint fails to state any claim against Ford upon which relief can be granted. 2. Plaintiffs may not maintain this action as described in the Master Complaint as a class action. 3. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery because they have made statements or taken actions that stop them from asserting their claims or constitute a waiver of their claims. 4. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery because of the res judicata effect of prior judgments. 5. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery because of the collateral estoppel effect of prior judgments. 6. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery because, in this or other courts, they have brought actions and have received judgments on parts of some or all claims asserted herein. 7. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery, on the ground that the claims asserted herein have been submitted to arbitration, and a binding decision has been rendered. 8. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery, by release as to those claims. 22
  24. 24. 9. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery on the ground that Ford has discharged its obligations to such claimants. 10. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery, on the ground that they are subject to the defense of accord and satisfaction. 11. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery by the doctrine of laches. 12. The claims of certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be time-barred, in whole or in part, under applicable statutes of limitations or statutes of repose. 13. Certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or in part, from recovery, due to spoliation of evidence. 14. The claims of certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or part, from recovery due to their assumption of the risk. 15. The claims of plaintiffs and others claimed to be members of the purported class may be barred, in whole or part, from recovery, due to their contributory and/or comparative negligence. 16. Any injury, loss, and/or damages that may have been sustained by certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class were the result of an independent, intervening agency or instrumentality over which Ford had no control or right of control. 17. Any injury, loss, and/or damages that may have been sustained by certain persons claimed to be members of the purported class were directly and proximately caused by the 23
  25. 25. superseding, intervening acts and omissions of a third party or third parties for which Ford is neither responsible nor liable. 18. The claims of plaintiffs and others claimed to be members of the purported class are barred in whole or in part by the governing state laws. 19. The vehicles owned by plaintiffs and others claimed to be members of the purported class were reasonably fit, suitable, and safe for their intended use. 20. The vehicles owned by plaintiffs and others claimed to be members of the purported class conformed to the state of the art and are in compliance with the applicable government regulations and standards. 21. The vehicles owned by plaintiffs and others claimed to be members of the purported class were not designed or manufactured or assembled in a defective manner. 22. The Master Complaint, to the extent it seeks to recover only economic loss in tort, is barred by the economic loss doctrine. 23. Any conduct allegedly causing liability on the part of Ford is not a substantial cause or factor of the subject incident, or any potential or actual injury or damage, if any. 24. Plaintiffs have failed to mitigate their damages. 25. Plaintiffs are not entitled to recover to the extent any alleged damages or injuries were caused by the misuse, abuse, or failure to properly maintain or care for the product. 26. Plaintiffs have not sustained any injury or damages compensable at law. 27. The Master Complaint should be stayed or dismissed in accordance with the doctrine of primary jurisdiction. 24
  26. 26. 28. Ford reserves its right to dismiss the Master Complaint and seek further relief for plaintiffs’ failure to provide it with due process of law. 29. Plaintiffs do not have standing to bring their claims against Ford. 30. If Ford manufactured, assembled, distributed, and/or sold the subject vehicles as alleged, such vehicles may have been substantially altered and changed after they left Ford’s possession, custody, and control. 31. Plaintiffs’ claims and the claims of putative class members are barred in whole or in part because an award of treble damages or punitive or exemplary damages against the defendants based on the conduct alleged in the Master Complaint would violate the due process clauses of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the Constitution of the United States, as well as the due process clause of the applicable state Constitutions. WHEREFORE, Defendant Ford prays that the Court determine and adjudge: a) that this suit cannot be maintained as a class action; b) that the Master Complaint be dismissed on the merits; c) that plaintiffs take nothing by the Master Complaint; d) that Ford be awarded its costs, disbursements, attorneys’ fees, and expenses incurred herein; and that Ford be awarded such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 25
  27. 27. Dated: January _____, 2002 Respectfully submitted, Randall R. Riggs LOCKE REYNOLDS LLP 1000 Capital Center South 201 N. Illinois Street Indianapolis, Indiana 46204 (317) 237-3814 John H. Beisner Stephen J. Harburg O’MELVENY & MYERS LLP 555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 500 West Washington, D.C. 20004-1109 (202) 383-5370 ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY DC1:484433.1 26
  28. 28. CERTIFICATE OF SERVICE Service of the foregoing was made by hand delivery or by placing a copy of the same into the United States Mail, first class postage prepaid, this _____ day of _______________, 2002, addressed to all counsel of record appearing on the Panel Attorney Service List, and others, as necessary. ____________________________________ 518721_1 27

×