From our private database of 14,100+ case briefs...
Semmes Motors, Inc. v. Ford Motor Company
United States Court of Appeals for the Second Circuit
429 F.2d 1197 (1970)
Semmes Motors, Inc. (Semmes) (plaintiff) was a longtime dealer of Ford Motor Company (Ford) (defendant) vehicles in Scarsdale, New York. Semmes’s president, Williams Semmes, was an active participant in the Ford Dealers Alliance, Inc. (Alliance) (plaintiff), a New Jersey corporation dedicated to protecting Ford franchisees from abuse by the manufacturer. Concerned about fraud in the reporting of warranty repairs, Ford informed Semmes that it intended to audit the dealership’s warranty claims and records, inspect repaired vehicles, and potentially contact customers for whom warranty work was performed. William Semmes believed that the audit was retaliation for his involvement in the Alliance. Semmes and the Alliance filed an action against Ford in a New Jersey state court, seeking to enjoin the contacting of customers. Ford removed the matter to federal court, where the plaintiffs’ petition for a temporary restraining order was denied. Meanwhile, Ford proceeded with its audit, finding that 70 percent of the vehicles inspected had not been repaired as reported. The plaintiffs then filed a substantially identical action against Ford in the United States District Court for the Southern District of New York, again seeking a temporary restraining order. The next day, Ford: (1) counterclaimed against Semmes in the New Jersey action to recover false warranty refunds and (2) terminated Semmes’s dealership. The plaintiffs then amended their complaint in the Southern District to include a claim for wrongful termination of Semmes’s dealership under the Federal Dealer Act, 15 U.S.C. §§ 1221–25. A month later, the Southern District granted a temporary restraining order against Ford and denied Ford’s motion to stay the Southern District action while the New Jersey suit proceeded. The plaintiffs agreed to discontinue the New Jersey action with Ford’s consent. Ford appealed.
Rule of Law
Holding and Reasoning (Friendly, J.)
What to do next…
Unlock this case brief with a free (no-commitment) trial membership of Quimbee.
You’ll be in good company: Quimbee is one of the most widely used and trusted sites for law students, serving more than 97,000 law students since 2011. Some law schools—such as Yale, Vanderbilt, Berkeley, and the University of Illinois—even subscribe directly to Quimbee for all their law students. Read our student testimonials.
Learn more about Quimbee’s unique (and proven) approach to achieving great grades at law school.
Quimbee is a company hell-bent on one thing: helping you get an “A” in every course you take in law school, so you can graduate at the top of your class and get a high-paying law job. We’re not just a study aid for law students; we’re the study aid for law students. Read more about Quimbee.
Here's why 220,000 law students have relied on our case briefs:
- Written by law professors and practitioners, not other law students. 14,100 briefs, keyed to 189 casebooks. Top-notch customer support.
- The right amount of information, includes the facts, issues, rule of law, holding and reasoning, and any concurrences and dissents.
- Access in your classes, works on your mobile and tablet. Massive library of related video lessons and high quality multiple-choice questions.
- Easy to use, uniform format for every case brief. Written in plain English, not in legalese. Our briefs summarize and simplify; they don’t just repeat the court’s language.