Petition for Writ of Certiorari — Lorenzo M. Wilson, et ux., Petitioners v. Ford Motor Company, et al.

23-7484

No.

FILED

FEB 1 2 2024

^pi?em°FcTour?LnrK

In The

SUPREME COURT OF THE UNITED STATES

Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson

Petitioners

V.

Ford Motor Company and Hanania Automotive Group

Respondents

ON PETITION FOR WRIT OF CERTIORARI TO THE

ALABAMA SUPREME COURT

BRIEF OF PETITIONERS

LORENZO M. WILSON AND

JACQUELYN H. WILSON

Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson

3014 Veterans Mem. Pkwy,

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35404

205-219-6628

lwgroup@netzero. net

QUESTION PRESENTED

DOES THE UNITED STATES CONSTITUTION REQUIRE THE TRIAL

COURT TO MAKE A FINDING OF FACT AND LAW IN THE

GRANTING OR DENYING A MOTION TO COMPEL ARBITRATION. ?

1

LIST OF PARTIES

Petitioners Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson are the PlaintiffsAppellants in the proceedings below.

Ford Motor Co. is a Multi-National Automobile Manufacturer located in

Dearborn Michigan.

Hanania Automotive Group is a Multi-State automobile dealer and a Ford

Franchisee located in Jacksonville Florida.

11

TABLE OF CONTENTS

PAGE

QUESTION PRESENTED

1

PARTIES TO PROCEEDING.

ii

TABLE OF CONTENTS

iii

INDEX OF APPENDICES

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

,..v

OPINIONS BELOW.

1

STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION.

1

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS AND STATUTORY

AUTHORITY.

2

STATEMENT OF CASE

2

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION.

3

INTRODUCTION.

4

CONCLUSION.

7

in

INDEX TO APPENDICES

Decision of Jefferson County Circuit Court

App. 1

Decision of Alabama Supreme Court

.App. 2

Extension Granted by Hon. Clarence Thomas,

App. 3

Extension Granted by Clerk’s office......

App. 4

2nd Extension Granted by Clerk’s office,

App. 5

IV

TABLE OF AUTHORITIES

PAGE

Cases:

Doctor's Assoc. Inc. v. Casarotto 517 U.S. 681, 687

(1996)....................................... ...................................

7

Perry v. Thomas 482 U.S. 483 (1993)

7

Prima Paint Corp. v. Flood & Conkling Mfg. Co.

388 U.S. 395 (1967)

6

Southland Corp. v. Keating 465 U.S. 1 (1984)

7

Federal Statute

Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.SC. 2

1,6,7

U.S. CONSTITUTION:

1st Amendment.

,,.2,4.5

5th Amendment.

,,,..2,5,6

14th Amendment.

.2,4,,5

V

OPINIONS BELOW

The Circuit Court of Jefferson County, Alabama entered an order to compel

arbitration without making any finding of fact or law concerning fraudulent

inducement, public safety, defective product, or any issues or evidence before

the trial court on

The trial court denied all post trial

Sept. 12, 2022.

motions by simple denial.

The trial court's order was affirmed by 4 Justice of Alabama Supreme Court

with no opinion on Oct. 13,2023.

JURISDICTION

This Court has Jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. 1257, Alabama Supreme Court

Filing no opinion on Oct. 13, 2023 and 9 U.S.C. 9 FAA and its grant of

extension by Justice Clarence Thomas on Jan, 2, 2024 for 10 Feb. 2024. The

Petitioners files this brief pursuant to Rule 29(2) of this Court’s Rule.

The

Clerk of this Court granted the Petitioners a 60 day extension on Feb. 16,

2024 to correct the defect in their filing.

CONSTITUTIONAL AMENDMENTS

The First Amendment of U.S. Constitution provides for the right to petition

the government to seek redress of grievance.

The Fifth Amendment of U.S. Constitution provides for due process of law.

1

The Fourteenth Amendment of U.S. Constitution provides for equal

protection of the law and due process of law.

These Constitutional provisions should apply equally to all citizens equally

and all coporations alike.

STATEMENT OF THE CASE

This case involves a motion to compel arbitration filed by the Respondents,

Ford Motor Co. and Hanania Automotive the true owners of Iron City Ford of

Birmingham, ( now defunct and bankrupt). Iron City Ford was where the

actual purchase of a 2020 Ford F-150 Truck took place on March 27, 2021.

The Petitioners Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson opposed the

motion to compel arbitration on the grounds that "Agreement to Arbitrate"

was a stand alone one page document that was negotiated prior to the

purchase. The Petitioners further asserts that the signing of the "Agreement

to Arbitrate" was induced by fraud, in that the (now defunct and bankrupt

Iron City Ford) represented the vehicle to be new and collision free, with a

value of $57, 000.00.

The Petitioners asserted that the Sales person who

negotiated the Arbitration Contract presented them with a false car fax that

stated the vehicle was damaged free (when damaged vehicles are not

reported to the insurance carriers they won't show up on car fax.)

The Petitioners further provide evidence that the damage to the vehicle

2

was latent and not visible to the naked eye and the damaged was material, in

excess of $1,650.00.

Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson further

provided evidence that prior to the signing of the Arbitration Contract the

Sales person(s) over rode the safety warning system at the time of the test

drive by either manually or by manipulation of the circuit board. These

actions further show the extreme deprivation that some Corporations will

resort to when feeing closure and or bankruptcy (unbeknownst to us at the

time). In particular the simplest thing would have been to repair the vehicle

prior to selling it and we would not have been the wiser. But the pressures of

monthly P&L (profit & loss) and quarterly balance sheets

as well as

Corporate pressures can negatively effect people’s judgment.

Neither Ford Motor Co. or Hanania Automotive denied the factual

allegation of fraudulent inducement but rather argued that the issue of

fraudulent inducement in the signing of the Arbitration agreement should be

decided by the Arbitrator and not the Court.

REASON FOR GRANTING THE PETITION

This Petition should be granted because of the question of whether those

seeking redress under the First Amendment U.S Const, due process of law

under the Fifth Amendment U.S. Const, and due process of law and equal

protection of the law under the Fourteenth Amendment U.S. Const, are

3

State of Alabama set an additional premium of $100 above the regular filing

fee, on the request for a jury. As such it should not be too much to ask for a

finding of fact and law when money is collected and there is a denial of a

Constitutional Right(s). Futher the Petitioner argue that trial courts should

not and are not afforded the same discretion as appeal courts.

The Petitioners Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson

futher argues that "...nor be deprived of life, liberty or property, without due

process of law clause

of the 5th Amendment of the U. S. Constitution

mandates that the trial Court make a finding of fact and law since the Court

collected over $700.00 in fees. In this case the actions or the lack thereof is

essentially telling people after they pay their filing fees to go suck some wind.

If anyone thinks that these are insignificant amounts, I would refer them to

any given auto worker at a Ford Motor plant, who went on strike for a lot less

recently.

The Petitioners Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson further assert

that Section 1 of 14th Amendment, the right to due process of law and equal

protection of the law requires a legal and factual finding, when a trial Court

is presented with a meaningful and material challenge to the validity of a

contract that involves the waiver of a Constitutional

Right(s).

These

Petitioners are not requesting a finding in their favor, nor are they entitled

to a favorable finding.

These Petitioners are asking that the law be upheld

5

equally for the average Citizens and the Multinational Conglomerate.

Nothingfullessness should not be a option—the U. S. Constitution and its

Amendments are mandatory not discretionary.

Under the Federal Arbitration Act. 9 U.S.C 2 the validity of arbitration

contract can be challenged on the same grounds as any other contract, such

as fraudulent inducement.

In Prima Paint v. Flood & Conklin Mfg Co. 388

U.S. 395 (1967) this Court stated that fraudulent inducement in the signing

of a arbitration agreement is grounds to invalidate such a contract.

The Petitioners Lorenzo M. Wilson and Jacquelyn H. Wilson also

presented undisputed evidence that the practices and overall operation of

Iron City Ford not only violated State Contract Law but was more akin to

some sort of flimflam used car operation rather than a new car Ford

Dealership.

These facts were borne out to be true by its closure and

bankruptcy shortly after the filing of the lawsuit brought by these Petitioner

as well as public backlash.

State law is applicable if that law arose to govern issues concerning the

validity,

revocability and the enforceability of a contract generally

Southland Corp. v. Keating 465 U.S. 1 (1984) and Perry v. Thomas 483

(1983).

The Federal Arbitration Act 9 U.S.C -2 places arbitration agreements on

an equal footing with other contracts and therefore the Trial Court must

6

first determine its validity before it can be enforced.

See. Doctor's

Associates, Inc v. Casarotto 517 U. S. 681, 687(1996).

CONCLUSION

Because this case involves whether a finding of law and fact concerning

arbitration agreements are discretionary or mandatory in the State of

Alabama and Nationally, this Court should grant this petition for certiorari.

^6\WTY>nVr\.

LORENZO-m"WILSON

I

/JACQUELYN H. WILSON

3014 Veterans Mem. Pkwy

Tuscaloosa, Alabama 35404

(205) 219-6628

7