Legal Opinion
Mickens v. Ford Motor Co.
District Court, D. New Jersey
Decided October 1, 2012No. Civ. No. 2:10-5842 (KM)PublishedCited by 48 opinions
1Opinion of the Court
OPINION
KEVIN McNULTY, District Judge.
Plaintiff William Miekens, a car purchaser, brings this action individually and on behalf of others similarly situated against Ford Motor Company. The Amended Class Action Complaint (the “Complaint,” cited as “AC”), contains three counts. It alleges violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (the “CFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2, in connection with an alleged galvanic corrosion defect in the hood panels of fourteen makes and models of vehicles designed and manufactured by Ford. This motion is decided without oral argument. See Fed.R.Civ.P. 78(b).
Ford…
2Cases cited38 opinions
- Ashcroft v. IqbalSupreme Court of the United States · 2009
- Bell Atlantic Corp. v. TwomblySupreme Court of the United States · 2007
- Erie Railroad v. TompkinsSupreme Court of the United States · 1938
- Phillips v. County of AlleghenyCourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2008
- Fowler v. UPMC SHADYSIDECourt of Appeals for the Third Circuit · 2009
33 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.
3Cited by48 opinions
- In re Myford Touch Consumer LitigationDistrict Court, N.D. California · 2014
- In re Gen. Motors LLCDistrict Court, S.D. Illinois · 2018
- Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc. v. Braintree Laboratories, Inc.District Court, D. Massachusetts · 2014
- In re Riddell Concussion Reduction LitigationDistrict Court, D. New Jersey · 2015
- Castro v. Sovran Self Storage, Inc.District Court, D. New Jersey · 2015
43 more not listed; retrieve them via the Exa API.