Walker v. Ford Motor Company
Plaintiff: Daniel Laroy Walker
Defendant: Ford Motor Company
Case Number: 3:2021cv00940
Filed: June 24, 2021
Court: US District Court for the District of Oregon
Presiding Judge: Marco A Hernandez
Nature of Suit: Other Statutory Actions
Cause of Action: 15 U.S.C. ยง 2301
Jury Demanded By: Plaintiff
Docket Report

This docket was last retrieved on August 10, 2021. A more recent docket listing may be available from PACER.

Date Filed Document Text
August 10, 2021 Filing 10 MINUTES of Proceedings: Rule 16 Telephone Conference held. The Court adopted the parties' proposed case schedule with the following exceptions: Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report and Pretrial Order are due by 6/6/2022, if no dispositive motions are filed, or 30 days after resolution of any dispositive motion. Oral Argument is set for 8/15/2022 at 10:00AM in Portland Courtroom 15A before Judge Marco A. Hernandez. A Pretrial Conference is set for 12/5/2022 at 01:30PM in Portland Courtroom 15A before Judge Marco A. Hernandez. A 2-day Jury Trial is set for 12/13/2022 at 09:00AM in Portland Courtroom 15A before Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Bonner Walsh present as counsel for plaintiff(s). Lauren Russell present as counsel for defendant(s). Court Reporter: Ryan White. Judge Marco A. Hernandez presiding. (jp)
July 21, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 9 Scheduling Order by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. A Rule 16 Telephone Conference is set for 8/10/2021 at 01:30PM before Judge Marco A. Hernandez. Counsel are required to confer prior to the conference. At the conference, counsel should be prepared to discuss the status of the case, relevant dates and deadlines, and any other significant issues. The Court directs the parties to submit a jointly proposed schedule to the courtroom deputy by email no later than three business days before the hearing (keeping in mind that Judge Hernandez expects civil cases to be tried within 18 months of the date of filing). The parties shall call into the Court's conference line (the phone number provided via separate email) five minutes prior to the scheduled conference time. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)
July 15, 2021 Filing 8 Corporate Disclosure Statement . Filed by Ford Motor Company. (Russell, Lauren)
July 15, 2021 Filing 7 Answer to #1 Complaint, Filer is subject to the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 7.1. Filed by Ford Motor Company. (Russell, Lauren)
June 28, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 6 ORDER: The standard for a temporary restraining order ("TRO") is "essentially identical" to the standard for a preliminary injunction. Chandler v. Williams, No. CV 08-962-ST, 2010 WL 3394675, at *1 (D. Or. Aug. 26, 2010) (citation omitted). A TRO is "an extraordinary remedy that may only be awarded upon a clear showing that the plaintiff is entitled to such relief." Winter v. Nat. Res. Def. Council, Inc., 555 U.S. 7, 24 (2008). A plaintiff seeking a TRO "must establish that he is likely to succeed on the merits, that he is likely to suffer irreparable harm in the absence of preliminary relief, that the balance of equities tips in his favor, and that an injunction is in the public interest." Am. Trucking Ass'ns Inc. v. City of L.A., 559 F.3d 1046, 1052 (9th Cir. 2009) (quoting Winter, 555 U.S. at 21). Plaintiff has not demonstrated a likelihood of irreparable harm absent a TRO. "Irreparable harm is traditionally defined as harm for which there is no adequate legal remedy, such as an award of damages." Arizona Dream Act Coal. v. Brewer, 757 F.3d 1053, 1068 (9th Cir. 2014). This case is about a pickup truck. Plaintiff alleges Defendant agreed to replace his defective truck under the lemon law but cannot lawfully charge him $4,689 in upgrade costs for the replacement truck he ordered from a dealership. Contrary to Plaintiff's assertion, however, there is nothing unique or irreplaceable about this particular truck to justify the extraordinary remedy of a TRO enjoining its sale. Plaintiff states he was able to procure the replacement truck by simply choosing his desired options and ordering it from a local dealership. There is no reason to believe that this process cannot be replicated if, for whatever reason, the replacement truck is sold to a third party. Defendant is, after all, in the business of making automobiles, including the replacement truck Plaintiff claims is so unique that its loss would be irreparable. And, by definition, a mass-produced vehicle with a manufacturer's suggested retail price is "reparable" through money damages. Accordingly, the Court DENIES Plaintiff's Motion for Temporary Restraining Order #2 . Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (jp)
June 25, 2021 Filing 5 Return of Service Executed as to Ford Motor Company served on 6/25/2021, answer due on 7/16/2021. (Walsh, Bonner)
June 24, 2021 Filing 4 Summons Issued Electronically as to Ford Motor Company. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. (joha)
June 24, 2021 Opinion or Order Filing 3 Notice of Case Assignment to Judge Marco A. Hernandez and Discovery and Pretrial Scheduling Order. NOTICE: Counsel shall print and serve the summonses and all documents issued by the Clerk at the time of filing upon all named parties in accordance with Local Rule 3-5. Discovery is to be completed by 10/22/2021. Joint Alternate Dispute Resolution Report is due by 11/22/2021. Pretrial Order is due by 11/22/2021. Ordered by Judge Marco A. Hernandez. (joha)
June 24, 2021 Filing 2 Motion for Temporary Restraining Order to Courtesy Ford Lincoln of Portland to Enjoin Vehicle Sale. Expedited Hearing requested. Filed by Daniel Laroy Walker. (Attachments: #1 Exhibit A Plaintiff's Original Complaint, #2 Exhibit B Declaration of Daniel Laroy Walker, #3 Proposed Order) (Walsh, Bonner)
June 24, 2021 Filing 1 Complaint. Filing fee in the amount of $402 collected. Agency Tracking ID: AORDC-8134308 Jury Trial Requested: Yes. Filed by Daniel Laroy Walker against Ford Motor Company (Attachments: #1 Civil Cover Sheet, #2 Proposed Summons). (Walsh, Bonner)

Access additional case information on PACER

Use the links below to access additional information about this case on the US Court's PACER system. A subscription to PACER is required.

Access this case on the Oregon District Court's Electronic Court Filings (ECF) System

Search for this case: Walker v. Ford Motor Company
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Defendant: Ford Motor Company
Represented By: Lauren J. Russell
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]
Plaintiff: Daniel Laroy Walker
Represented By: Bonner Charles Walsh
Search News [ Google News | Marketwatch | Wall Street Journal | Financial Times | New York Times ]
Search Finance [ Google Finance | Yahoo Finance | Hoovers | SEC Edgar Filings ]
Search Web [ Unicourt | Justia Dockets | Legal Web | Google | Bing | Yahoo | Ask ]

Disclaimer: Justia Dockets & Filings provides public litigation records from the federal appellate and district courts. These filings and docket sheets should not be considered findings of fact or liability, nor do they necessarily reflect the view of Justia.


Why Is My Information Online?