22 F. Supp. 3d 373
D.N.J.2014Background
- Plaintiffs Gray and George, California residents, allege a putative California class purchased 2004–2010 BMW E64 convertibles and were misled about a defective top.
- Defendants BMW North America (New Jersey) and BMW Aktiengesellschaft (Germany) allegedly knew of the defect and concealed it.
- Vehicles involved include a 2005 645Ci (George) and two 2005/2006 645Ci/650i convertibles (Gray) acquired from California dealers.
- All three cars originally carried express warranties; several other warranties extended but may not have covered the top defect.
- Plaintiffs incurred substantial repair costs and allegedly relied on dealer assurances that the cars would provide an “ultimate driving experience.”
- Court posture: BMW NA moves to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6) or strike class allegations; court grants in part and denies in part.
Issues
| Issue | Plaintiff's Argument | Defendant's Argument | Held |
|---|---|---|---|
| What law governs? | California law should apply. | New Jersey law should apply. | California law applies; NJCFA claim dismissed. |
| CLRA viability given warranties | CLRA claim remains viable despite expired warranty due to safety defect and concealment. | CLRA barred by absence of ongoing disclosure duties post-expiration. | CLRA claim survives; safety issue and concealment support liability. |
| California UCL viability | UCL premised on CLRA violations. | UCL should rise or fall with CLRA outcome. | UCL claim survives, tied to CLRA viability. |
| Song-Beverly Act bootstrap | Implied warranty extends via unexpired rust/emission warranties. | Bootstrapping not permitted; no extended implied warranty. | Song-Beverly Act claim is dismissed. |
| Unjust Enrichment and Good Faith | Unjust enrichment and breach of good faith exist independent of contract. | No contract giving rise to unjust enrichment or good faith claim. | Unjust enrichment and good faith claims dismissed. |
Key Cases Cited
- Falk v. General Motors Corp., 496 F. Supp. 2d 1088 (N.D. Cal. 2007) (exclusive knowledge and concealment support CLRA-like claims in omission cases)
- Daugherty v. American Honda Motor Co., 144 Cal.App.4th 824 (Cal. Ct. App. 2006) (defines CLRA acts and disclosures in consumer cases)
- LiMandri v. Judkins, 52 Cal.App.4th 326 (Cal. Ct. App. 1997) (duty to disclose when defendant has exclusive knowledge)
- Cooper v. Samsung Electronics America, Inc., 374 F. App’x 250 (3d Cir. 2010) (choice-of-law and related conflicts principles (Appellate level))
- Wilson v. Hewlett-Packard Co., 668 F.3d 1136 (9th Cir. 2012) (California warranty and disclosure concepts; safe harbor limitations clarified)
- Lazar v. Superior Court, 12 Cal.4th 631 (Cal. 1996) (fraud elements and justifiable reliance standard under California law)
- Klaxon Co. v. Stentor Elec. Mfg. Co., 313 U.S. 487 (U.S. 1941) (choice-of-law rule: apply forum state’s conflict rules)