Nockold v. Ford Motor Company

Before the Court is the Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings, filed on 12/4/25 by Defendant Ford Motor Company (“Ford”) as to the First, Second, Third, Fourth, and Sixth Causes of Action (each a “COA”) asserted in the Complaint filed by Plaintiffs Thomas Nockold and Catherine Nockold (“Plaintiffs”) on 6/23/25.

The Motion is DENIED on COAs 1-4, but GRANTED with 15 days leave to amend on COA 6.

For COAs 1-4, Ford argues that the claims are barred because the Song-Beverly Act does not apply to vehicles purchased as used, citing Rodriguez v. FCA US LLC (2024) 17 Cal.5th 189, 196. But it is not clear from the Complaint that the vehicle at issue was necessarily purchased as “used” vehicle. The Motion is therefore DENIED as to COAs 1-4.

For COA 6, the Complaint makes only vague assertions about alleged defects in this vehicle. (Complaint, ¶¶ 12, 13, 24.) Generic claims of defects, without more, do not suffice to state the claim, as “[t]he very existence of a warranty presupposes that some defects may occur.” (Santana v. FCA US, LLC (2020) 56 Cal.App.5th 334, 345.) Plaintiffs also have not alleged where and how they acquired the vehicle, or the circumstances surrounding their purchase. Greater specificity is thus required to state the claim here.

But as Plaintiffs could potentially cure that defect, they are granted 15 days leave to amend for COA 6. However, Ford’s argument under the economic loss rule (the “ELR”) fails here. Under Dhital v. Nissan North America, Inc. (2022) 84 Cal.App.5th 828, 843, fraudulent inducement by concealment claims are not barred by the ELR. The MJOP, to the extent it is based on the ELR, is thus DENIED.

Ford is to give notice of this ruling.