Legal Opinion · Concurring in part, dissenting in part
In re Myford Touch Consumer Litigation
District Court, N.D. California
Decided May 30, 2014No. C-13-3072 EMCPublishedCited by 65 opinions
1Concurring in part, dissenting in part
*946ORDER GRANTING IN PART AND DENYING IN PART DEFENDANT’S MOTION TO DISMISS
(Docket No. 56)
EDWARD M. CHEN, United States District Judge
Plaintiffs are twenty-three persons and one organization residing in fifteen different states. They have filed a class action against Defendant Ford Motor Company, asserting, in essence, that an “infotainment system” — known as MyFord Touch (“MFT”) — used in certain of its vehicles (Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury) is defective and that Ford knew the system was defective at the time it sold the vehicles to Plaintiffs and other putative class members. Plaintiffs have…
2Cases cited80 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Parks School of Business, Inc., Dba Parks College, a New Mexico Corporation v. Fife Symington Roy A. Nicholson Sally HeinCourt of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 1995
- Kwikset Corp. v. Superior CourtCalifornia Supreme Court · 2011
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co.Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2012
75 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by65 opinions
- Estate of Adriano Roman, Jr. v. City of NewarkCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2019
- In re Carrier IQ, Inc.District Court, N.D. California · 2015
- Catalano v. BMW of North America, LLCDistrict Court, S.D. New York · 2016
- In re Nexus 6P Prods. Liab. Litig.District Court, N.D. California · 2018
- Frenzel v. AliphcomDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
60 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.