Suits & Settlements: The Car Pro Legal Roundup

• Ford Takes Lemon Law Billing Fight to Appeals Court
• Land Rover Renews Push to Arbitrate Brake Defect Lawsuit
• Judge Pauses Carvana Manager’s Safety Whistleblower Suit
• Tesla Seeks Dismissal of Full Self-Driving Fraud Suit

Ford Takes Lemon Law Billing Fight to Appeals Court. Ford Motor Co. is asking the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals to revive its racketeering lawsuit accusing three California attorneys affiliated with Knight Law Group of participating in a fraudulent billing scheme involving lemon law cases, according to Law360. Ford alleges the attorneys submitted inflated or fabricated billing records in litigation brought against the automaker under California’s Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, which allows successful consumers to recover reasonable attorney fees from manufacturers. The automaker previously alleged the broader billing operation cost it at least $100 million over several years. A federal district judge dismissed Ford’s claims, but the automaker now argues on appeal that legal protections associated with petitioning courts do not shield allegedly fraudulent underlying conduct. The three attorneys have denied Ford’s allegations and have characterized the litigation as an effort to intimidate lawyers who represent consumers in lemon law cases. Ford is asking the appeals court to allow its civil racketeering claims to proceed. The appellate court has not ruled on Ford’s request, and none of Ford’s fraud allegations has been proven. The case could have implications beyond Ford because California’s lemon law frequently requires automakers to reimburse successful plaintiffs for their legal expenses, making the accuracy and reasonableness of attorney billing a significant issue in high-volume warranty litigation.

Land Rover Renews Push to Arbitrate Brake Defect Lawsuit. Jaguar Land Rover is again asking a New Jersey federal judge to send a proposed class-action lawsuit involving allegedly premature Range Rover brake wear to arbitration rather than allowing the case to proceed in court, according to Law360. The lawsuit alleges braking systems in certain Range Rover and Range Rover Sport vehicles generate excessive heat that causes brake pads, rotors and related components to wear out prematurely, leaving owners with expensive repairs at relatively low mileage. Jaguar Land Rover denies the defect allegations and argues the drivers agreed to arbitration provisions that require their disputes to be resolved outside federal court. The automaker previously sought to compel arbitration, but the court declined to do so at that stage of the litigation. Jaguar Land Rover has now renewed its request, asking the judge either to end the proposed class action or stay the proceedings while the claims are arbitrated. The latest motion does not determine whether the brakes are actually defective; instead, it addresses where the owners’ claims may legally be heard. No class has been certified and no determination has been made that Jaguar Land Rover is liable. The dispute illustrates how arbitration agreements have become an increasingly important preliminary battleground in automotive class actions, sometimes determining whether consumers can pursue claims collectively in court at all.

Judge Pauses Carvana Manager’s Safety Whistleblower Suit. A Colorado federal judge has stayed a lawsuit brought by a former Carvana fleet maintenance manager who alleges the online used-car retailer fired him after he reported violations of motor vehicle safety regulations, according to Law360. Former manager Bryan Stock claims he raised concerns about safety-related practices while working for Carvana and subsequently lost his job, allegations Carvana disputes. U.S. Magistrate Judge Maritza Dominguez Braswell agreed to put the federal litigation on hold while the parties complete arbitration proceedings. The stay means the court is not deciding whether Stock’s safety allegations are true or whether Carvana unlawfully retaliated against him; instead, the underlying employment dispute will first proceed through the arbitration process. Stock’s lawsuit is particularly noteworthy for the auto industry because it combines employment-law protections for alleged whistleblowers with vehicle safety oversight at one of the country’s largest used-vehicle retailers. The eventual outcome could turn on whether Stock can establish that he engaged in legally protected reporting activity and that his termination was connected to those reports. For now, however, the federal case is paused, and the judge’s order should not be interpreted as a finding that either Stock or Carvana has prevailed on the merits of the allegations.

Tesla Seeks Dismissal of Full Self-Driving Fraud Suit. Tesla is asking a California federal court to dismiss a proposed class action brought by a Kentucky customer who alleges he was misled into believing Tesla vehicles could ultimately drive themselves, according to Law360. Tesla argues the customer waited too long to bring his claims and that the allegations substantially overlap with an existing consolidated consumer lawsuit involving the company’s marketing of its Autopilot and Full Self-Driving technology. The plaintiff alleges Tesla’s representations led customers to believe vehicles purchased with the technology would be capable of fully autonomous driving, while Tesla maintains the new claims are legally untimely and should not proceed as a separate class action. The broader consolidated litigation accuses Tesla of misleading consumers about the capabilities and future potential of its driver-assistance systems, allegations the company has contested. Tesla’s latest motion does not ask the court to determine whether Full Self-Driving actually delivers everything customers expected; instead, it argues this particular plaintiff cannot pursue his claims because of procedural and timing issues and because similar claims are already being litigated. The judge has not yet ruled on Tesla’s request. The dispute is another chapter in years of litigation surrounding how Tesla has described its driver-assistance technology and whether consumers reasonably understood what they were purchasing when they paid extra for Full Self-Driving capability.