Court Dismisses Case Against BMW over Alleged Sunroof Defect

The case against BMW by owners alleging their vehicles suffered water damage after the drainage tubes installed to pull water away from the sunroofs did not properly work has been dismissed by judge Maxine Chesney; however, plaintiffs have until July 3, 2014 to file a third-amended complaint that corrects the claim “deficiencies” found by the court.

“Plaintiffs allege BMW breached the warranties by failing to cover the costs incurred by plaintiffs to repair the vehicles,” the judge writes in her decision for the U.S. Northern U.S. District Court of California. “BMW argues the language in the warranties forecloses plaintiffs’ claim.”

“[P]laintiffs argue resolution of whether the alleged defect they have identified is one of design or manufacturing should not be addressed at the pleading stage. The court disagrees. Although, as plaintiffs’ contend, it may be appropriate to defer such determination where, ‘at the pleading stage … sufficient facts are alleged to assert both’ a design defect and a manufacturing defect, see Alin v. American Honda Motor Co., 2010 … here, the second-amended complaint includes no factors to support a theory that, at the time plaintiffs’ respective vehicles were manufactured, BMW did not make them ‘in accordance with [BMW’s] intended specifications.’ … Accordingly, the seventh claim is subject to dismissal.”

The judge ruled that all other claims are also subject to dismissal, with exception of the claim for injunctive relief.

“[B]MW has failed to show [Monita] Sharma lacks standing to pursue her claim for injunctive relief,” the judge writes.

“[B]MW’s motion to dismiss is hereby granted and the second-amended complaint is hereby dismissed for failure to state a claim,” Chesney writes. “If plaintiffs wish to file a third-amended complaint for purposes of curing any or all of the deficiencies identified above with respect to the second, third, fourth, fifth and/or seventh claims for relief, any such third-amended complaint shall be filed no later than July 3, 2014. Plaintiffs may not, however, add new causes of action, new plaintiffs or new defendants without obtaining leave of court.”

Plaintiffs’ include Sharma and Eric Anderson who argued that their case should include California residents who have “owned or leased any BMW X5 series vehicles, X3 series vehicles and 5 series vehicles.”

This article is from glassBYTEs™, the free e-newsletter that covers the latest auto glass industry news. Click HERE to sign up—there is no charge. Interested in a deeper dive? Free subscriptions to Auto Glass Repair and Replacement (AGRR) magazine in print or digital format are available. Subscribe at no charge HERE.

This entry was posted in glassBYTEs Original Story and tagged , , , , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *