In re Ford Motor Co. E-350 Can Products Liability Litigation (No. II)

2012 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 13887, *Page 368241, [WL] at *17-18, 33, 43-44, 56. These Plaintiffsresponded to the orders to show cause, and Chief JudgeBrown issued a third opinion that granted in part anddenied in part Ford's summary judgment motions as tothese claims. See In re Ford Motor Co. E-350 VanProds. Liab. Litig. (No. II), No. 03-4558, 2011 U.S. Dist.LEXIS 16504, 2011 WL 601279, at *11 (D.N.J. Feb. 16,2011) ("February 16 Opinion"). As a result of these threesummary judgment opinions, the following claims remain.________________________________________________________________________________State Plaintiff Express WarrantrantyImplied War-Consumer Fraud Unjust EnrichmentStatuteCA First United [x]Macedonia[x]Faith Tabernacle[x]NJ Social Clubhouse [x]Bethany Baptist[x]GA Allen Temple [x] [x] [x]Bethel [x] [x] (2001 van)PA Hickman Temple [x]Mt. Airy[x]Diaz[x]FL Mestre [x]MI Conant Avenue [x]NY Bishop Anderson [x] [x][x]TX St. Luke's (non-disclosuretheory)________________________________________________________________________________The [*7] omnibus July 9 Opinion denied Plaintiffs'initial motion for class certification, but granted Plaintiffsleave to re-file in light of the court's summary judgmentrulings. Following Chief Judge Brown's third andfinal summary judgment ruling, Plaintiffs renewed theirmotion for class certification. This matter was reassignedto the undersigned by Order of June 15, 2011.Plaintiffs' Proposed ClassesThe renewed motion for class certification proposesthe following claim-based classes ("claim classes"):All persons or entities residing in theStates of Georgia, Michigan, New Jersey,New York and Pennsylvania, who purchasedor otherwise acquired and currentlyown a Ford E-350 van, new orused, model years 1991-2005, and assertBREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTYclaims under their respective state lawsand all persons or entities residing in theState of Georgia who purchased the subjectvehicles and assert a BREACH OFEXPRESS WARRANTY claim.All [*8] persons or entities residingin the States of Florida, New York andTexas, who purchased or otherwise acquiredand currently own a Ford E-350van, new or used, model years 1991-2005,and assert VIOLATION OF CON-SUMER PROTECTION ACTS in theirrespective states.All persons or entities residing in theStates of California, Georgia and Pennsylvania,who purchased or otherwise acquiredand currently own a Ford E-350van, new or used, model years 1991-2005and assert UNJUST ENRICHMENT undertheir respective state laws.(Pls.' Br. at 11). In response to Ford's opposition argument,Plaintiffs have limited their proposed unjust enrichmentclass to "purchasers of new Ford E-350 vansprior to April 2004." (Pls.' Reply Br. at 35 & n.22) (emphasisadded). As an alternative to these three classes,Plaintiffs seek certification of eight, state-based classes("state classes") consisting of: