Kearns v. Ford Motor Company

United States Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit · 2009 · Civil Procedure

Updated July 29, 2026

Civil ProcedurePleadingRule 9(b)Consumer ProtectionparticularityfraudCLRAUCL

Facts

Kearns alleged that Ford and its dealerships misrepresented the safety, reliability, and road-worthiness of Ford Certified Pre-Owned vehicles and sold them at a premium. He claimed Ford's marketing materials, dealership sales materials, and sales personnel led him to believe CPO vehicles were rigorously inspected by specially trained technicians and were safer than ordinary used vehicles. He also alleged Ford failed to disclose its limited oversight of the certification process and misrepresented the quality of repair and accident-history reports, technician training, and inspection rigor. Kearns alleged he relied on these representations in purchasing a CPO vehicle.

Issue

Whether Kearns's CLRA and UCL claims were subject to Rule 9(b)'s heightened pleading standard in federal court, and if so, whether his Third Amended Complaint pleaded the alleged fraud with sufficient particularity. The court also considered whether his nondisclosure and unfairness-prong theories avoided Rule 9(b).

Rule

In federal court, Rule 9(b) applies to state-law CLRA and UCL claims when the plaintiff alleges a unified course of fraudulent conduct and relies entirely on that conduct as the basis of the claims. Fraud must be pleaded with particularity by alleging the who, what, when, where, and how of the misconduct, and under California law nondisclosure is a form of misrepresentation within fraud and therefore also must satisfy Rule 9(b).

🔒

See the holding & full analysis

Create a free KwikCourt account to unlock the rest of this brief — and practice the case.

The court's holding and reasoning
Doctrine tests, pitfalls & exam hypotheticals
10 practice questions + 4 AI-graded essays on this case

Free sample · practice this case

Test yourself

One of 10 multiple-choice questions for this case. Pick an answer to see why.

Leah Moreno filed a diversity action in federal court in San Diego against Redwood Home Systems, a fictional appliance maker. She alleged violations of California's CLRA and UCL, claiming the company used deceptive advertising to induce consumers to buy premium water filters.

Redwood argues that the complaint must satisfy Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 9(b). Leah responds that California courts do not impose that federal particularity standard on these state-law claims. How should the federal court rule?

Explanation. The majority held that federal pleading rules apply in federal court regardless of the source of substantive law. Thus CLRA and UCL claims brought in federal court are subject to Rule 9(b) when they sound in fraud. Leah cannot avoid the federal particularity requirement by invoking California pleading practice. (Derived from Kearns v. Ford Motor Company (n.d.).)