Product Liability
Ford DPS6 PowerShift Litigation: MDL 2814 Status and Rulings
Ford DPS6 transmission claims are consolidated as MDL 2814. The record shows warranty rulings, no transmission recall, and a trial set for December 2026.
On this page
Something in this article wrong, out of date, or missing its source? Send the editorial desk a note.
The Ford DPS6 PowerShift litigation is a federal multidistrict proceeding about a transmission installed in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus cars. The cases are consolidated as MDL No. 2814 in the Central District of California before Judge Andre Birotte Jr. The Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation counted 135 actions pending as of October 1, 2026, against 1,313 filed in total. A jury trial in the Knight Law Group cases is set for December 7, 2026. No court has found that the transmission is defective, and no entry in the federal recall records reviewed describes a recall of the DPS6.
Which vehicles the litigation covers
The Panel’s transfer order, filed February 2, 2018, describes the actions as arising from “allegations that the DPS6 PowerShift Transmission installed in certain Ford Fiesta and Ford Focus vehicles is defective and negatively affects the drivability, safety, and useful life of the vehicles” (transfer order).
The order identifies the vehicles as the Ford Fiesta for model years 2011 through 2016 and the Ford Focus for model years 2012 through 2016. It does not describe the transmission’s internal design. Ford’s most recent annual report describes the company as “a defendant in a significant number of litigation matters relating to the performance of vehicles, including those equipped with DPS6 transmissions” (Ford Form 10-K, 2025).
What the lawsuits allege
The transfer order summarizes the shared claims. Owners and lessees assert that their vehicles “suffer from similar transmission-related problems, including slipping, bucking, jerking, sudden acceleration, delayed acceleration and downshifting, and premature wear that requires repair or replacement.”
The order frames the common questions as whether the transmission’s design or manufacture is defective, what Ford knew and how it responded, and whether owners and lessees suffered “a diminution in vehicle value or other economic damages.”
Those are allegations in complaints. No document reviewed here records a court finding that the transmission was defective or that any plaintiff’s vehicle lost a specific amount of value.
What the court has actually ruled
The docket records rulings in individual cases rather than one ruling for the whole proceeding. Three set the current shape of the litigation.
On August 30, 2023, Judge Birotte granted in part and denied in part Ford’s summary judgment motions in Joe, Martin and Mendieta (docket, entry 1517). The court denied the motions as to the express warranty claims in Joe and Martin and granted them as to Mendieta. It denied the motion as to the implied warranty claim in Joe and granted it as to Martin and Mendieta. It granted summary judgment on all fraud claims brought by those plaintiffs. On damages, it denied the motions as to claims for “so much of the price as has been paid” and granted them as to incidental and consequential damages.
On April 4, 2025, the court approved a stipulation dismissing all fraud claims, allowing amended pleadings in specified cases and continuing trial and pretrial schedules (entry 1810). On December 2, 2025, it granted in part and denied in part Ford’s motions to dismiss in Holmes and Malagon (entry 2006). It dismissed with prejudice claims and remedies premised on the plaintiffs’ used vehicles qualifying as “new motor vehicles” or “new products,” and denied the motions as to claims under Civil Code section 1795.5, which the order identifies as the Song-Beverly Act’s used goods provision.
The docket also records individual settlements. On August 15, 2025, the court granted in part a plaintiffs’ application to enforce a settlement agreement and ordered Ford to tender the required payments by August 20, 2025 (entry 1934).
What is established vs. what is alleged
Established by the documents reviewed: the Panel centralized the federal actions as MDL No. 2814 before Judge Birotte; the October 1, 2026 report counts 135 actions pending and 1,313 filed in total; the court issued the rulings described above; and it set a jury trial for December 7, 2026 (entry 2039).
Alleged and not decided: that the DPS6 has a design or manufacturing defect; that a defect caused the symptoms in the complaints; that Ford failed to warn or concealed information; and the amount of any economic loss.
A summary judgment ruling decides whether a claim in a particular case can proceed on the record presented. It is not a finding that a product is defective. The MDL versus class action guide explains how this pretrial structure differs from a class proceeding, and how mass tort litigation works describes the stages that follow.
The regulatory record
The National Highway Traffic Safety Administration publishes recall data by vehicle. The records retrieved for the 2012 through 2016 Focus and the 2011 through 2015 Fiesta list recalls for components including door latches, fuel-system parts, wiring and lighting (2013 Focus, 2013 Fiesta). None of the entries retrieved describes a recall of the DPS6 transmission.
That is a statement about the records retrieved, not a finding that the transmission is safe. A recall is a regulatory action, and its absence does not decide any claim.
Where the federal litigation stands
The Panel’s October 1, 2026 report lists 135 actions pending against 1,313 filed, so most actions have been dismissed or resolved since 2018. The remaining cases are organized into trial groups, and the docket shows repeated continuances to allow mediation. On June 17, 2026, the court referred five cases to Magistrate Judge Castillo for mediation (entry 2049).
On August 10, 2026, Ford filed summary judgment motions in five cases, Cordaro, Harvey, Holmes, McGinnis and Smith, with a hearing set for September 11, 2026 (entries 2055 through 2059). The entries for that hearing and the filings after it carry no public description in the records reviewed, so this article does not state their outcome.
The last entry reviewed is dated October 15, 2026. The trial date can move again, as earlier dates in this proceeding did. The Onewheel litigation is another consolidated product case tracked here, and more coverage is in the product liability section.
Key dates
- February 2, 2018: the Panel files the transfer order creating MDL No. 2814 in the Central District of California, covering 110 actions from seven districts (transfer order).
- August 30, 2023: the court grants in part and denies in part Ford’s summary judgment motions in Joe, Martin and Mendieta, and grants summary judgment on the fraud claims in those cases (docket, entry 1517).
- December 2, 2025: the court dismisses with prejudice claims premised on used vehicles qualifying as new motor vehicles, and denies dismissal of the Song-Beverly used goods claims (docket, entry 2006).
- May 14, 2026: the court sets a jury trial for December 7, 2026 and a final pretrial conference for November 5, 2026 (docket, entry 2039).
- October 1, 2026: the Panel’s report counts 135 actions pending and 1,313 filed in total (JPML report).
What this does not establish
Nothing in the reviewed record establishes that the DPS6 transmission is defective as a matter of law, that it caused any individual’s injury or loss, or that Ford is liable to anyone. The court’s summary judgment orders resolved specific claims in specific cases, and its settlement order enforced an agreement between parties.
The record reviewed does not show a class certified in this MDL, a class-wide settlement with a claims process, or an appellate ruling on the merits.
Frequently asked questions
Is there a settlement in the Ford DPS6 litigation?
Individual cases have settled. The docket records an August 15, 2025 order requiring Ford to tender settlement payments in the cases covered by one enforcement application, and the Panel’s count shows most filed actions are no longer pending. No class-wide settlement appears in the entries reviewed.
Was the DPS6 transmission recalled?
No recall of the DPS6 appears in the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration records retrieved for these vehicles. Those records list recalls for other components, including door latches and fuel-system parts. A recall search is not a defect determination.
Which Ford vehicles does MDL 2814 cover?
The transfer order identifies the Ford Fiesta for model years 2011 through 2016 and the Ford Focus for model years 2012 through 2016. Later transfer orders added individual actions, so the Panel’s pending count is the current measure of the docket.
What happens next?
A jury trial in the Knight Law Group cases is set for December 7, 2026. Ford’s August 2026 summary judgment motions in five cases were set for a September 11, 2026 hearing, and later entries carry no public description in the records reviewed. Check the docket for the current schedule.
Sources
- United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “MDL Statistics Report - Distribution of Pending MDL Dockets by Actions Pending” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
- United States Judicial Panel on Multidistrict Litigation: “Transfer Order, In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, MDL No. 2814” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
- United States District Court for the Central District of California (CourtListener RECAP): “Docket, In re Ford Motor Co. DPS6 PowerShift Transmission Products Liability Litigation, No. 2:18-ml-02814” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
- Ford Motor Company: “Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2025” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: “Recalls by vehicle: 2013 Ford Focus” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
- National Highway Traffic Safety Administration: “Recalls by vehicle: 2013 Ford Fiesta” (link, accessed 2026-10-22)
Collective Claim publishes general legal information. This article is not legal advice and does not create an attorney–client relationship. Court records and agency actions change; verify current status with the court or agency before relying on it.