Ford loses again in lawsuit claiming plaintiffs’ lawyers ran overbilling scheme

By Mike Scarcella

WASHINGTON, March 11 (Reuters) - A federal judge for the second time has dismissed a lawsuit by Ford Motor F.N that accused a group of plaintiffs’ lawyers of fraudulently extracting more than $100 million in unearned legal fees from the company and other automakers under a California consumer protection law for vehicle purchases.

U.S. District Judge Michelle Williams Court in Los Angeles ruled on Tuesday that the three plaintiffs’ lawyers targeted in Ford’s lawsuit cannot be held liable for taking the automaker to court under the state’s Lemon Law and then collecting legal fees from the company when they prevailed.

Court said the lawyers were immune under a legal doctrine known as Noerr-Pennington stemming from the U.S. Constitution’s First Amendment protection of the right to petition the government.

The judge had previously dismissed the lawsuit on similar grounds in November but allowed Ford to revise it. This time, she barred Ford from filing an amended complaint. Ford said it will appeal.

Daniel Saunders, a lawyer for Ford, said in a statement that “it cannot possibly be that the First Amendment protects lawyers and only lawyers … to be uniquely cloaked by the courts with absolute civil immunity and a license to lie, cheat and steal, when they submit fake, fraudulent and made-up bills totaling tens of millions of dollars, based on sworn but perjured declarations to the courts.”

Attorney Neal Katyal of law firm Milbank and other lawyers representing the defendants did not immediately respond to requests for comment. Defendants Amy Morse and Roger Kirnos also did not immediately respond to requests for comment. The defendants have denied any wrongdoing.

California’s Lemon Law, the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act, protects consumers who buy or lease new vehicles that turn out to have serious defects. It allows attorneys to recover fees for time reasonably spent representing vehicle owners.

Ford alleged in its lawsuit that the lawyers oversaw a “Fee Motion Department” that created fraudulent time entries for work never performed and sometimes recorded physically impossible hours, including multiple 24‑hour days and one 57.5‑hour “workday.”

Ford argued its lawsuit targeted a scheme to defraud the company, not protected efforts to petition for redress under the California law.

The plaintiffs' lawyers countered that Ford wanted "to chill and punish its litigation adversaries — law firms, lawyers, and staff who represent consumers harmed by Ford's defective vehicles and fraudulent conduct."

The case is Ford Motor Company v. Mikhov et al., U.S. District Court, Central District of California, No. 2:25-cv-04550-MWC-PVC.

For plaintiff: Daniel Saunders, Matthew Manacek, Edward McNally and Daniel Fetterman of Kasowitz

For defendants: Neal Katyal of Milbank; Dane Butswinkas of Williams & Connolly; and Aaron Dyer of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman

Read more:

Ford takes fresh aim at lawyers in lawsuit claiming overbilling scheme

Ford accuses law firms of fraudulent overbilling, including a 57-1/2 hour workday