Attorneys representing three lemon law firms urged a California federal judge Friday to dismiss a racketeering suit Ford Motor Co. brought against them alleging they engaged in fraudulent billing practices, with one saying the "chilling" litigation could open every lawsuit to similar claims.

During an afternoon hearing in front of U.S. District Judge Michelle Williams Court, lawyers representing Knight Law Group LLP, the Altman Law Group LLP and Wirtz Law APC and some of their attorneys petitioned the judge to toss the case, arguing the complaint falls far short of the requirements for successfully bringing a Racketeering Influenced and Corrupt Organizations lawsuit.

Neal K. Katyal of Milbank LLP, who represents Knight Law and some of its attorneys, told the judge his client has brought more than 1,800 cases against Ford under California's lemon law — the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act — and won around 90% of them. Ford should be blocked from suing under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, under which private parties may be immunized from antitrust liability related to litigation activity, he said.

Katyal quoted from the Northern District of California's 2022 ruling in Acres Bonusing v. Ramsey as holding that if litigation were the basis of a RICO claim, then "every unsuccessful lawsuit could spawn a retaliatory action, which would inundate the federal courts with procedurally complex RICO pleadings, engender wasteful satellite litigation, and spawn ad infinitum litigation with each party claiming that the opponent's previous action was malicious and meritless."

He added that Ford's suit tracks with Acres because it is "wasteful satellite litigation because Ford's claims have already been litigated in state court over the last decade." He also said the suit was aimed at punishing "tremendously successful litigants like Knight Law Group. This kind of chilling lawsuit needs to be nipped in the bud."

In its initial complaint filed in May, Ford accused the consumer firms and their attorneys of unlawfully working in tandem to inflate their billing in a coordinated effort to defraud the carmaker and other automotive manufacturers of at least $100 million.

Ford claimed that after it conducted a costly and time-consuming audit of several cases, it discovered the firms and their lawyers overbilled for their work, including at least one lawyer allegedly billing more than 24 hours per day of work and one supposedly claiming to have attended trials or depositions for separate matters simultaneously.

The firms first moved for dismissal in July, with Knight Law calling the action a "retaliatory lawsuit" and "an attempt to use the 'thermonuclear device' of the federal [racketeering] statute to chill its litigation adversaries — law firms, lawyers, and staff who represent consumers harmed by Ford's defective vehicles."

Ford filed an amended complaint, and the law firms and attorneys again moved for dismissal, reiterating arguments that the claims were retaliatory following years of successful lemon law litigation.

In their dismissal motions filed Friday, the defendants variously argued that Ford's suit is barred under the Noerr-Pennington doctrine, that the claims and issues are precluded because they were already litigated in the Song-Beverly cases, that the claims are protected by the First Amendment, and that the complaint fails to plausibly allege any RICO violations.

Friday's hearing lasted about 3.5 hours, as the firms' counsel were given an opportunity to make arguments along with Ford's and an attorney representing Knight Law Group attorney Amy Morse.

In its omnibus reply to the motions to dismiss, Ford argued there is an exception to the Noerr-Pennington doctrine if a lemon law complaint were a "sham." But Katyal pointed out that Knight won the great majority of its cases against Ford.

"A winning lawsuit by definition is not a sham," he said, adding that Ford would have to show "the entirety of the proceeding is a sham."

Daniel A. Saunders of Kasowitz LLP, who represents Ford, argued that submitting billing to a judge after winning a case is not activity protected by Noerr-Pennington. The fact that the Song-Beverly cases were successful is "not relevant," he said.

"So even if the underlying lemon law litigations were well-founded, our position is that the fee motions were not and the fact that those fee motions were ultimately successful .... doesn't mean that the fraud didn't render the proceedings a sham."

The judge said she didn't understand the distinction because the beneficiary of a motion for attorney fees is the client and not the attorneys themselves. Saunders said as a practical matter the issue is between the competing law firms, and the plaintiff plays no role in a fee motion. But Judge Court didn't appear to buy that argument.

"Right, but ordinarily in a fee application in a Song-Beverly Act case the request is for fees to be awarded to the plaintiff and made payable to the plaintiff's counsel, but I don't think I've ever seen an application that was not made on behalf of the client," she said.

The judge did not make any ruling on Friday and said she would take the motions under submission.

Ford is represented by Daniel A. Saunders, Matthew S. Manacek, Edward E. McNally and Daniel J. Fetterman of Kasowitz LLP.

Knight Law Group, Steve B. Mikhov, Roger Kirnos and Dorothy Becerra are represented by Neal K. Katyal and Matthew Laroche of Milbank LLP, Dane H. Butswinkas, Zachary K. Warren, Elizabeth R. Peled and Hallie Saunders of Williams & Connolly LLP, and Aaron S. Dyer, Ronald L. Cheng and Lisseth A. Ochoa-Chavarria of Pillsbury Winthrop Shaw Pittman LLP.

Morse is represented by Tam C. Wheat of Foley & Lardner LLP.

Altman Law Group and Bryan C. Altman are represented by Gregor A. Hensrude and Yumeng Jiang of Klinedinst PC.

Wirtz Law and Richard M. Wirtz are represented by Matthew J. Craig, John C. Quinn and Benjamin S. Spiegel of Hecker Fink LLP.

The case is Ford Motor Co. v. Knight Law Group LLP et al., case number 2:25-cv-04550, in the U.S. District Court for the Central District of California.