Please E-mail suggested additions, comments and/or corrections to Kent@MoreLaw.Com.

Help support the publication of case reports on MoreLaw

Date: 05-20-2022

Case Style:

Christopher McLaughlin and Sara McLaughlin v. Ford Motor Company and FRN of Tulsa, LLC

Case Number: 21-CV-00096

Judge: Gregory K. Frizzell

Court: United States District Court for the Northern District of Oklahoma (Tulsa County)

Plaintiff's Attorney:

Click Here to Watch How To Find A Lawyer by Kent Morlan

Click Here For The Best Tulsa Personal Injury Lawyer Directory

Defendant's Attorney: Andrew Lee Richardson, Dru Aldric Prosser, Mary Quinn-Cooper

Description: Tulsa, Oklahoma personal injury lawyers represented Plaintiffs, who sued Defendants on product liability theories.

This is an automobile negligence case. Mr. McLaughlin alleges that, on April 4, 2019, he was driving a 2004 Ford F-150 southbound on Interstate 35 in Edmond, Oklahoma, when another vehicle attempted to make a sudden and unsafe lane change into his lane. Mr. McLaughlin asserts that he steered left to avoid being hit, lost control and, as a result, the vehicle rolled over. Mr. McLaughlin suffered permanent injuries in the incident.

The McLaughlins filed this case on January 27, 2021 in the District Court in and for Tulsa County against defendants Ford Motor Company and FRN of Tulsa, LLC. Ford removed the case to this court on March 3, 2021. In the Notice of Removal, Ford represented, “FRN has consented to the removal of this action.” [Doc. 2, p. 2, ¶ 4]. Additionally, Ford attached to the Notice an email from Troy McPherson, FRN's then-counsel, to Dru Prosser, Ford's counsel, in which Mr. McPherson states: “FRN of Tulsa, LLC consents to removal of this action to federal court.” [Doc. 2-2]. The case was originally assigned to then-Chief Judge John E. Dowdell, but was reassigned to current-Chief Judge John F. Heil on March 5, 2021.

Ford filed an Answer to plaintiffs' Complaint. On March 10, 2021, FRN filed a Motion to Dismiss Plaintiffs' Complaint, pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6). Therein, FRN raises no objection to the court's jurisdiction.

On March 30, 2021, the McLaughlins filed the Motion to Remand premised on the unanimity requirement of 28 U.S.C. § 1446(b)-specifically, FRN's failure to file a separate notice of its consent to removal of this action within thirty days. The next day, March 31, 2021, FRN filed a Notice of Consent to Removal. That same day, the McLaughlins filed the Motion to Strike Defendant's Notice of Consent to Removal.

Ford and FRN filed joint responses in opposition to both the motion to remand, and the motion to strike. The McLaughlins filed a reply in support of the motion to remand, as well as one in support of the motion to strike. Thus, both the motion to remand and motion to strike are ripe for determination.

Outcome: WHEREFORE, the Motion to Remand [Doc. 19] of plaintiffs Christopher McLaughlin and Sarah McLaughlin, individually, and as next parents and next friends of J.M., L.M., and F.M., is denied.

Plaintiff's Experts:

Defendant's Experts:


Find a Lawyer


Find a Case