Scheidt v. Ford Motor Company

1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
SAN JOSE DIVISION
HANNAH SCHEIDT,
Plaintiff,
v.
FORD MOTOR COMPANY,
Defendant.
Case No. 25-cv-02805-BLF
ORDER DENYING DEFENDANT’S
MOTION FOR PARTIAL SUMMARY
JUDGMENT
[Re: ECF No. 28]
Before the Court is Defendant Ford Motor Company’s (“Ford”) Motion for Partial
Summary Judgment as to Plaintiff’s Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement-
Concealment. ECF No. 28-11 (“MSJ”) at 1. In opposition, Plaintiff Hannah Scheidt argues that
the Court should deny Ford’s motion pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 56(d). ECF No.
29 (“MSJ Opp.”) at 2. For the reasons set forth below, the Court DENIES Ford’s motion for
summary judgment.
I. BACKGROUND
On September 20, 2022, Scheidt purchased a 2022 Ford Mustang (the “Subject Vehicle”),
which was equipped with a 10R80 automatic transmission. ECF No. 1-2 at ¶¶ 10, 26–29. Scheidt
maintains that during the warranty period, the Subject Vehicle began manifesting defects,
including signs of a defective transmission. Id. at ¶ 15. Scheidt filed this lawsuit on December
12, 2024, alleging, in part, a cause of action for fraudulent inducement-concealment. Id. at ¶ 59.
In support of this cause of action, Scheidt claims that Ford knew that the 10R80 transmission was
defective, but “concealed and failed to disclose” this defect at the time of sale. Id. at ¶¶ 60–63.
In its motion for partial summary judgment, Ford contends that “Plaintiff has no evidence
that Ford had prior knowledge of any purported [transmission] defect, or that it intentionally
Case 5:25-cv-02805-BLF Document 36 Filed 10/15/26 Page 1 of 3

2
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
concealed a defect from Plaintiff.” MSJ at 8. In opposition, Scheidt contends that Ford’s “motion
is premature” because its “discovery responses are deficient.” MSJ Opp. at 2, 14. In support of
her claim, Scheidt references numerous, recently unsealed, exhibits from Avila v. Ford Motor Co.
No. 22-cv-00542, 2026 WL 508364 (N.D. Cal. Feb. 24, 2026) (denying Ford’s motion for
summary judgment on a fraudulent concealment claim due to genuine issues of material fact
regarding Ford’s pre-sale knowledge of 10R80 transmission defects). Scheidt claims that these
exhibits “firmly establish[]” that Ford knew the 10R80 transmission was defective before she
purchased the Subject Vehicle. MSJ Opp. at 2–7. Scheidt also provides a declaration noting that
she propounded discovery on 10R80 transmission defects, but Ford did not produce the relevant
documents filed in Avila. ECF No. 29-1 at 2–4. Given this outstanding discovery, Scheidt argues
that the Court should deny Ford’s motion pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). MSJ Opp. at 2.
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“A party is entitled to summary judgment if the ‘movant shows that there is no genuine
dispute as to any material fact and the movant is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.’” City of
Pomona v. SQM N. Am. Corp., 750 F.3d 1036, 1049 (9th Cir. 2014) (quoting Fed. R. Civ.
P. 56(a)). When deciding a motion for summary judgment, “[t]he court must view the evidence in
the light most favorable to the nonmovant and draw all reasonable inferences in the nonmovant’s
favor.” Id.
Under Rule 56(d), if the “nonmovant shows by affidavit or declaration that, for specified
reasons, it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition, the court may: (1) defer
considering the motion or deny it; (2) allow time to obtain affidavits or declarations or to take
discovery; or (3) issue any other appropriate order.” Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d)(1)–(3). A party seeking
relief under Rule 56(d) must show that “(1) it has set forth in affidavit form the specific facts it
hopes to elicit from further discovery; (2) the facts sought exist; and (3) the sought-after facts are
essential to oppose summary judgment.” Family Home & Fin. Ctr., Inc. v. Fed. Home Loan
Mortg. Corp., 525 F.3d 822, 827 (9th Cir. 2008).
Case 5:25-cv-02805-BLF Document 36 Filed 10/15/26 Page 2 of 3

3
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
United States District Court
Northern District of California
III. DISCUSSION
The Court finds that Scheidt has satisfied the requirements of Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d).
Scheidt included a declaration identifying documents from Avila that could corroborate her
position that Ford knew the 10R80 transmissions were defective. ECF No. 29-1 at 2–3. Scheidt
argues that if Ford had produced these documents during discovery, they would have raised a
genuine dispute of material fact as to Ford’s pre-sale knowledge. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(a). When
viewed in the light most favorable to Scheidt, this evidence would have been “essential to justify
[her] opposition.” See Fed. R. Civ. P. 56(d). Where the nonmovant has shown by declaration that
“it cannot present facts essential to justify its opposition” due to deficient or outstanding
discovery, the Court may “defer considering the [summary judgment] motion or deny it.” Id.
Because Ford failed to produce relevant documents during discovery, the Court hereby DENIES
its motion for summary judgment.
IV. ORDER
For the foregoing reasons, Defendant Ford’s Motion for Partial Summary Judgment as to
Plaintiff Scheidt’s Fifth Cause of Action for Fraudulent Inducement-Concealment is DENIED.
IT IS SO ORDERED.
Dated: October 15, 2026
______________________________________
BETH LABSON FREEMAN
United States District Judge
Case 5:25-cv-02805-BLF Document 36 Filed 10/15/26 Page 3 of 3