Lawsuits involving <“https://www.yourlawyer.com/topics/overview/Ford-F250-F350-Excursion-6L-Power-Stroke-Diesel-Engine-Problems-Class-Action-Lawsuit”>Ford Navistar 6L Power Stroke Diesel Engines are moving forward. The Ford Navistar litigation had already been consolidated in a multidistrict litigation (MDL) and transferred to U.S. District Court for the Northern District of Illinois. Earlier this month, the Plaintiffs’ Steering Committee (PSC) in the litigation was announced.
The attorneys appointed to the Ford Navistar PSC include Peter Cambs, a lawyer with the national law firm of <“https://www.yourlawyer.com/”>Parker Waichman LLP.
The Ford Navistar PSC will coordinate the litigation and work together to represent all plaintiffs. It is the responsibility of PSC team members to, among other things, conduct all pretrial discovery, prepare and examine witnesses, act as a spokesperson for all plaintiffs at pretrial proceedings, and negotiate with defendants on the litigation.
In an Order dated May 19, U.S. District Judge Matthew F. Kennelly, who is overseeing the Ford Navistar litigation, also appointed Michael A. Caddell Plaintiffs’ Lead Counsel. James Latturner, Daniel Edelman and Francis R. Greene were named Plaintiffs Liaison Counsel.
Other members of the Ford Navistar PSC include:
• Richard J. Arsenault
• Daniel E. Becnel, Jr.
• Mitchell A. Toups
• Charles Schaffer
• Patrick W. Pendley
• Cynthia B. Chapman
• Mark P. Chalos
• John F. Nevares
• William E. Hopkins, Jr.
• John R. Climaco
• Richard Barrett
• Roy A. Katriel
• Robert K. Shelquist
The litigation involves Ford 6.0 L diesel engines made by Navistar that were installed in certain models of Ford heavy duty vehicles between 2003-2007. The Ford Navistar lawsuits claim that manufacturing and design defects render the Ford 6.0 L diesel engine, as well as the vehicles in which they were installed, unmerchantable and unsuitable for use. Plaintiffs also allege that the enormous costs associated with Ford 6.0 L diesel engine repairs, loss of use of their vehicles, and loss of resale value has caused them significant financial harm. Among other things, plaintiffs seek return of the purchase price of the vehicles, costs and expenses incurred in attempted repairs, and loss of use of the vehicles.
An MDL allows lawsuits associated with a particular product to be coordinated under one judge for pretrial litigation to avoid duplicative discovery, inconsistent rulings and to conserve the resources of the parties, witnesses and the court. It is hoped that the MDL process will result in resolution of all cases, but if it does not, the lawsuits will be remanded back to the court where they originated for trial.
