News Room

Goldenberg Schneider Appointed Interim Co-Lead Class Counsel in Ford Spark Plug Case

Goldenberg Schneider, as Co-Lead Counsel, is prosecuting a nationwide product liability class action against Ford Motor Company.  At issue are more than two million vehicles sold or leased nationwide by Ford with three-valve engines that contain defective spark plugs and related engine defects.  These vehicles include the following Ford, Lincoln, and Mercury brand models:  2005-2008 Ford Mustang; 2004-2008 Ford F-150; 2005-2008 Ford Expedition; 2005 Ford F-Super Duty; 2006-2008 Ford Explorer; F-53 Motorhome Chassis; 2007-2008 Ford Explorer Sport Trac; 2005-2008 Lincoln Navigator; 2006-2008 Lincoln Mark LT; and 2006-2008 Mercury Mountaineer.  The spark plugs of each of these vehicles have an unconventional multi-piece design that is susceptible to breakage during removal.  The longer the defective plugs remain in a vehicle — and Ford’s recommended maintenance schedule calls for spark plug replacement no sooner than 100,000 miles —the more difficult it becomes to remove the plugs.  As a result, when an owner or mechanic attempts to remove a defective spark plug, it will often break off leaving part of the plug in the cylinder.  Removal of the plug remnants imposes substantial additional costs (often exceeding several thousand dollars) on the vehicle owner.  Goldenberg Schneider’s action, along with several copycat “tag-a-long” actions that followed it, have been consolidated and are pending in the U.S. District Court for Northern District of Ohio.  Goldenberg Schneider serves as co-lead counsel in the consolidated action.

Case Update as of January 3, 2014:
Discovery remains ongoing in this case.  On October 22, 2012, Ford filed a motion asking the Court to grant summary judgment in its favor and dismiss most of Plaintiffs’ claims that pertain to six bellwether/exemplar states (Florida, Illinois, Michigan, Ohio, New Jersey, and Texas).  Plaintiffs filed their opposition to the motion on December 21, 2012, and Ford filed a Reply on February 12, 2013. The Court held oral argument on the motion on August 23, 2013. A decision on summary judgment is expected from the Court in the near future.  Further updates will be provided as this litigation progresses.

« Back to News Room