united states district court southern district of indiana

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURTSOUTHERN DISTRICT OF INDIANA

INDIANAPOLIS DIVISION

In re BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.TIRES PRODUCTS LIABILITYLITIGATION

THIS DOCUMENT RELATES TO CLASSACTIONS

GARY GUSTAFSON, MICHAEL DEVENING,WILLIAM WEHKING, KATHLEENWEHKING, LEROY EBERLY, RICHARDGLOVER, BARBARA JACKSON, WILLIAMG. MORAN, CLARK SCHAFFER, BETHSIMON, ALLAN SIMPSON, JOYCE WILSON,NEAL ZIMMERMAN, SAM MARTIN, JAMESPOWELL, DAWN WHORL, CHERYLSTUART, SUSAN P. GRAYSON, CAROLKUSTURRIS, KURT KELLERMAN,MARGARET CLARKE, JENNIFER HAKKER,DONITA QUALEY, DEANNA CONNELL,FLORENCE BRUEMMER, GREYSONKNAPP, JEANA WONNACOT, ALLISONSIMMONS, SUE PLEDGER, JAMES STONE,MARGARET NAYLOR, HEATHER GAUDET,JOHN DOVICH, THOMAS KERNER,MICHAEL HUBER, ROBERT RUDECK,DENNIS MICKUNAS, ESTHER SIEWERT-SITZMORE, MICHAEL LOURIDAS, ANDTHE PERSONS LISTED ON EXHIBIT AHERETO (COLLECTIVELY, THE “TIREPLAINTIFFS”) AND DIANA GRANT,ARLENE ROMANO AND JANE JILL(COLLECTIVELY, THE “EXPLORERDIMINUTION PLAINTIFFS”) on behalf ofthemselves and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

BRIDGESTONE/FIRESTONE, INC.;BRIDGESTONE CORPORATION; AND FORDMOTOR COMPANY,

Defendants.

Master File No. IP 00-9373-C-B/SMDL No. 1373(centralized before Hon. Sarah EvansBarker, Chief Judge)

ANSWER OF DEFENDANT FORD MOTOR COMPANY TOPLAINTIFFS’ 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.


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the August 9, 2000 recall have now been replaced by Firestone and Ford in subsequent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.

2

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.



information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of the allegations regarding Mr. Wehking’s

tread separation incident.

3


information sufficient to form a belief as to the truth of Ms. Wehking’s allegations regarding her

alleged tire incidents.


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



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.








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.


4








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.









of original equipment tires on Ms. Bruemmer’s Ranger.


information sufficient to form a belief as to where Mr. Knapp resides.

5



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


40. Ford admits the allegations in Paragraph 40, except Ford denies that Ms. Pledger’s

vehicle is a model year 1998 Explorer.




43. Ms. Gaudet does not state any claims against Ford.





46. Mr. Huber does not state any claims against Ford.



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


of original equipment tires.

6


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.


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.


55. The allegations in Paragraph 55 relate entirely to another defendant and do not

require a response.



require a response.


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.

7


require a response.


require a response.


require a response.

CIVIL CONSPIRACY/CONCERTED ACTION


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.



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.

8









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.


require a response.


require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that any statements by Robert Martin speak for

themselves.


require a response.

9

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.


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.


90. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 90, except that the contents of any internal

Ford memorandum dated September 15, 1999, speak for themselves.


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

10

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.



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.


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

11

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.


110. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 110, except that the contents of Ford’s

and Firestone’s owners’ manuals speak for themselves.


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.



115. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 115, except that the contents of any news

report on KHOU speak for themselves.

12


require a response. In any event, Ford alleges that the contents of any statements by Firestone

officials speak for themselves.













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.

13

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.









CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS




class and subclasses described in Paragraph 137 and its subparts.






14











153. The allegations of Paragraph 153 do not require a response because plaintiffs’

RICO claims have been dismissed.











15




166. The allegations in Paragraph 166 do not require a response because plaintiffs’



















16







182. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph 182
















17



TOLLING OF APPLICABLE STATUTES OF LIMITATION



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.







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.

18

THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(a),

asserted on behalf of the Explorer Diminution Class)



FOURTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),


270-279. Ford is not required to respond to plaintiffs’ allegations in Paragraphs 270


FIFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(c),




SIXTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of Civil RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d),




SEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of RICO, 18 U.S.C. § 1962(d),




19

EIGHTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Declaratory Judgment/Equitable and Injunctive Relief)



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.





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)



304. Ford denies the allegations in Paragraph.



TENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Violation of All States’ Consumer Protection Statutes)



20





312. Ford denies that plaintiffs are entitled to the relief sought in Paragraph 312.

ELEVENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Breach of Express Warranty)







TWELFTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Breach of Implied Warranty)



319. Paragraph 319 merely states a legal conclusion and does not require a response.





21


THIRTEENTH CLAIM FOR RELIEF(Negligence)



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.





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)


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

22

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.


whole or in part, from recovery because of the res judicata effect of prior judgments.


whole or in part, from recovery because of the collateral estoppel effect of prior judgments.


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.


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.


whole or in part, from recovery, by release as to those claims.

23


whole or in part, from recovery on the ground that Ford has discharged its obligations to such

claimants.


whole or in part, from recovery, on the ground that they are subject to the defense of accord and

satisfaction.


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.


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

24

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.


class conformed to the state of the art and are in compliance with the applicable government

regulations and standards.


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.

25

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.

26

Dated: January _____, 2002 Respectfully submitted,

Randall R. RiggsLOCKE REYNOLDS LLP1000 Capital Center South201 N. Illinois StreetIndianapolis, Indiana 46204(317) 237-3814

John H. BeisnerStephen J. HarburgO’MELVENY & MYERS LLP555 13th Street, N.W., Suite 500 WestWashington, D.C. 20004-1109(202) 383-5370

ATTORNEYS FOR DEFENDANT FORDMOTOR COMPANY

DC1:484433.1

27

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

united states district court southern district of indiana

Documents