In a fiery legal rebuttal, Mazda Motor of America Inc. has accused the lead plaintiff in a dismissed class action of resurrecting debunked claims and engaging in “vexatious behavior,” signaling its intent to seek sanctions if the filings aren't withdrawn.

The clash stems from a proposed class action lawsuit led by Francis J. Farina, who alleged that certain Mazda vehicles suffer from oil burning defects that violated both consumer protection and federal emissions laws. But now, with the case dismissed and an attempted revival underway, Mazda says Farina is crossing a legal red line.

Mazda Says "Enough Is Enough"

In a blistering brief filed Friday in North Carolina federal court, Mazda said Farina’s motion to reopen the case is riddled with falsehoods, deliberate misstatements of fact, and a willful disregard for judicial rulings.

“If Farina wants oral argument, he’s the one with explaining to do — not us,” the automaker said, characterizing his legal strategy as an abuse of court processes. Mazda described Farina’s actions as “inflammatory, improper and sanctionable.”

The Original Allegations

Farina filed suit in 2023, claiming that certain Mazda models suffered from a valve stem seal defect that allowed oil to leak into the combustion chamber — leading to engine damage and excessive oil consumption. He further alleged the vehicles were rigged to conceal emissions violations from drivers.

But in June, U.S. District Judge Max O. Cogburn Jr. dismissed the lawsuit, citing Farina’s failure to opt out of a California class settlement. That settlement — led by plaintiff Gary Guthrie — included free repairs, warranty extensions, and reimbursement for affected owners.

Undeterred, Farina moved to reopen the case, claiming Mazda had “gerrymandered” both the California and a separate Kentucky class settlement to silence his distinct legal claims.

Mazda Fires Back

Mazda accused Farina of misrepresenting court transcripts, especially in referencing the California case. The automaker said Farina is accusing its legal team of lying — all while ignoring the fact that he failed to properly exit the class settlement that would’ve barred further litigation.

Farina also cited Mazda financial statements referencing “provision related to environmental regulations” as proof of liability — an argument Mazda dismissed as “worn and tired.”

“Why Farina thinks his mischaracterizations support amending his claims is anyone’s guess,” Mazda stated. “Mazda already showed why he is wrong.”

Infotainment Confusion in Kentucky Case

In another bizarre twist, Farina linked his claims to an unrelated defect lawsuit in Kentucky, involving Mazda’s infotainment systems. He alleged his vehicle didn’t have a telematics control unit (TCU) or master connectivity unit (MCU), and that Mazda misclassified his car in that case.

Mazda countered that Farina’s own attorney admitted the vehicle includes an MCU, undermining his narrative. Worse, the company says Farina tried to mass opt-out of the Kentucky settlement on behalf of 6,000 Mazda owners, despite not representing them and in violation of a court order.

“Facts don’t matter, laws and procedure don’t matter, and court orders don’t matter to Farina and his counsel,” Mazda wrote. “So, too, should the court’s patience be worn beyond thin.”

Sanctions on the Horizon

Mazda said it will file a formal motion for sanctions unless Farina withdraws his “offending filings.” The automaker slammed the ongoing litigation as a waste of judicial resources and a “second bite at the apple” that the court should not tolerate.

“[Mazda North American Operations’] tolerance for his nonsense is long expired,” the company stated, urging the court to draw the line on Farina’s legal tactics.

Legal Representation

• Plaintiff Francis J. Farina is represented by Joseph A. O'Keefe of J. O'Keefe Law PLLC and Raymond M. DiGuiseppe of The DiGuiseppe Law Firm PC.

• Mazda and dealership Keffer Mazda are represented by:

  • Robert L. Wise and Danielle Gibbons of Nelson Mullins Riley & Scarborough LLP, and

  • Jeremy A. Kosin and Kenneth B. Rotenstreich of Teague Rotenstreich Stanaland Fox & Holt PLLC.