Anthony M. Frazier v. Castle Ford, Ltd., f/k/a ... - Maryland Courts

far as this court can see to put forward, and to indicate that he is
acting on behalf of a class.
I also agree with the defendant’s position that the, there’s
not a uniformity in regards to what the individual claimants
would have to put forward. I don’t think at all, having reviewed
Rule 2-231, having reviewed the case law, and having reviewed
this individual case, that a class action certification would be
appropriate.
I really don’t see that Anthony Frazier is a class plaintiff.
And as I said earlier, I do think that he has been made whole.
So I don’t think that he is, has really any interest in common
with the other yet to be identified prospective claimants.
As to the motion for summary judgment, the court said:
Now, in regards to the motion for summary judgment,
and as an alternative, I believe that the defendants were arguing
that the claim was moot. And certainly, I think I would agree
with the fact that the claim is somewhat moot, because what was
being asked for really pertains to the class motion. And it says,
“Demand judgment for the class plaintiffs, members of his
class,” and then it goes on, the prayers for relief say
“compensatory damages in an amount equal to the cost of all of
the Ford extended service plans.” Well that’s been worked out
already. That has been provided to this individual plaintiff.
“Appropriate injunction to declaratory relief to protect
this class.” That’s really not appropriate because I’ve denied the
motion – actually, I granted the motion to deny the class
certification.
“Punitive damages,” that’s clearly not appropriate.
On September 3, 2008, a hearing was held as to the appropriate award for attorney’s
fees before another judge of the Circuit Court. At this hearing, the court was informed that
Crystal Ford had contacted other customers who had purchased warranties to ensure that the
5