Explorer suit considered by circuit court

INDIANAPOLIS -- Hoping to bring millions of Americans into a class-action lawsuit against Ford Motor Co. and Bridgestone/Firestone Inc., attorneys asked the full 7th Circuit Court of Appeals on Wednesday to consider their case.\nA three-judge panel from the appeals court in Chicago last week rejected a lower court's decision that would have let plaintiffs across the country join a single lawsuit against the two companies. That lawsuit involves loss of value and violations of consumer protection laws in the wake of the tire maker's massive recall and problems with Explorer rollovers.\nIn their brief, plaintiffs' attorneys say the panel "made clear legal errors" in its decision and applied the wrong standards in deciding on class certification.\n"We're hopeful that the entire 7th Circuit will see the error in this opinion," plaintiffs' attorney Irwin Levin said Wednesday. "This decision is in conflict with existing 7th Circuit law and it's something the entire 7th Circuit should be interested in reviewing."\nU.S. District Judge Sarah Evans Barker in Indianapolis had granted class certification in the case, meaning millions of Americans who once owned or still own 1991 to 2001 Ford Explorers or certain brands of Firestone truck tires could have been part of the class action.\nIn its ruling last week, the three-judge panel said a single, nationwide class would not be manageable.\nThe claims involved in the class action are separate from hundreds of wrongful death and personal-injury lawsuits against Ford and Firestone.\nOver the past two years, Firestone has recalled about 10 million tires amid lawsuits and government investigations of allegations that failure of the tires led to crashes across the country.\nOfficials from both companies said they did not expect the appeals court to alter its decision.\n"We believe the decision is a sound one and it will stand," Ford spokeswoman Kathleen Vokes said.\nPlaintiffs' attorneys argue in their brief that the three-judge panel gave no deference to Barker's decision. They say there is a legal precedent that an appeals court should defer to the judge most familiar with the case.\n"Indeed, the panel simply adopts wholesale defendants' view of the facts, ignoring the voluminous factual record upon which Judge Barker based her findings," the plaintiffs' attorneys wrote.\nThey also argue that without the class action, people with small claims will not have a chance to seek restitution, and the two companies will never face "liability proportionate to the economic harm they have caused."\nPlaintiffs' attorney Tab Turner, based in Little Rock, Ark., said he believes the panel's decision is contrary to the law. He also acknowledged that it will be difficult to persuade the full appeals court to hear the case.\n"Probably the next step is the U.S. Supreme Court," Turner said. "It's going to delay things even further"