Joe Ruiz, Sr et al v. BMW of North America, LLC

Filing 33

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT PACIFIC BMWS MOTION TO DISMISS 27 . Plaintiffs complaint is hereby dismissed as to Pacific BMW without leave to amend by Judge Otis D. Wright, II . (lc). Modified on 1/18/2017 (lc).

O

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

United States District Court
Central District of California

8
9
10
11

Plaintiffs,

12

v.

13
14
15

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC;
PACIFIC BMW; and DOES 1-10,
inclusive,

17

I.

18

20
21
22
23
24

violations of the Song-Beverly Act, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, and
negligent repair. (ECF No. 17.) Only the third cause of action, negligent repair, is
alleged against Defendant Pacific BMW.

Pacific BMW now moves to dismiss

Plaintiffs’ complaint. For the reasons discussed below, the Court hereby GRANTS
Pacific BMW Motion.1 (ECF No. 27.)
II.

FACTUAL BACKGROUND

Plaintiffs allege that on May 27, 2014, they purchased a new BMW 428i. (FAC

26

28

INTRODUCTION

Plaintiffs’ First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) asserts three causes of action:

25

27

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT
PACIFIC BMW’S MOTION TO
DISMISS [27]

Defendants.

16

19

Case № 2:16-cv-01177-ODW (AGRx)

JOE RUIZ, SR.; JOE RUIZ, JR,

1

After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the Motion, the Court deems
the matter appropriate for decision without oral argument. Fed. R. Civ. P. 78(b); C.D. Cal. L.R. 715.

1

¶ 8.)

Thereafter, the vehicle exhibited engine defects among other defects and

2

nonconformities. (Id. ¶ 9.) Plaintiffs delivered the vehicle to Defendants BMW of

3

North America, LLC for maintenance and repairs on at least six occasions in

4

connection with these defects.

5

conducted by Pacific BMW, through BMW of North America’s authorized repair

6

facilities. (Id. ¶ 11.) Plaintiffs claim that despite multiple opportunities, Pacific

7

BMW failed to properly repair the vehicle. (Id. ¶ 13.)

(Id. ¶ 10.)

Three of those repair attempts were

8

Plaintiffs’ claims for violations of the Song-Beverly Act and the Magnuson-

9

Moss Act apply only to BMW of North America, while the claim for negligent repair

10
11

applies only to Pacific BMW. (See generally FAC.)
III.

LEGAL STANDARD

12

A court may dismiss a complaint under Rule 12(b)(6) for lack of a cognizable

13

legal theory or insufficient facts pleaded to support an otherwise cognizable legal

14

theory. Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep’t, 901 F.2d 696, 699 (9th Cir. 1990). To

15

survive a dismissal motion, a complaint need only satisfy the minimal notice pleading

16

requirements of Rule 8(a)(2)—a short and plain statement of the claim. Porter v.

17

Jones, 319 F.3d 483, 494 (9th Cir. 2003). The factual “allegations must be enough to

18

raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550

19

U.S. 544, 555 (2007). That is, the complaint must “contain sufficient factual matter,

20

accepted as true, to state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.” Ashcroft v.

21

Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009).

22

The determination whether a complaint satisfies the plausibility standard is a

23

“context-specific task that requires the reviewing court to draw on its judicial

24

experience and common sense.” Id. at 679. A court is generally limited to the

25

pleadings and must construe all “factual allegations set forth in the complaint . . . as

26

true and . . . in the light most favorable” to the plaintiff. Lee v. City of L.A., 250 F.3d

27

668, 688 (9th Cir. 2001). But a court need not blindly accept conclusory allegations,

28

unwarranted deductions of fact, and unreasonable inferences. Sprewell v. Golden

2

1

State Warriors, 266 F.3d 979, 988 (9th Cir. 2001).

2

As a general rule, a court should freely give leave to amend a complaint that has

3

been dismissed, even if not requested by the plaintiff. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a);

4

Lopez v. Smith, 203 F.3d 1122, 1130 (9th Cir. 2000) (en banc). However, a court may

5

deny leave to amend when it “determines that the allegation of other facts consistent

6

with the challenged pleading could not possibly cure the deficiency.” Schreiber

7

Distrib. Co. v. Serv-Well Furniture Co., 806 F.2d 1393, 1401 (9th Cir. 1986).

8

IV.

DISCUSSION

9

As a preliminary matter, Plaintiffs argue that Pacific BMW failed to meet and

10

confer prior to filing this motion, as required per Local Rule 7-3. (Id. at 2–4.) Pacific

11

BMW disagrees, stating that it discussed the fact that the claim was barred by the

12

economic loss doctrine during the parties’ Rule 26(f) conference. (Id. at 3.) Further,

13

Pacific BMW states that Plaintiffs failed to respond to its request to dismiss the

14

negligent repair claims. (Id.; Philipson Decl. ¶¶ 4–6.) In light of this, the Court

15

decides to reach the merits of the parties’ arguments rather than deciding the issue

16

based on a lack of compliance with the local rules.

17

Pacific BMW’s motion to dismiss is made on the basis that the economic loss

18

rule bars Plaintiffs’ cause of action for negligent repair. (Mot. 2.) The economic loss

19

rule precludes tort claims for purely economic damages. In re Mesa Bus. Equip., Inc.,

20

931 F.2d 60 (9th Cir. 1991). In order for a plaintiff to successfully bring a claim for

21

negligence, it must demonstrate that the negligence caused harm to person or property.

22

UMG Recordings, Inc. v. Global Eagle Entm’t, Inc., 117 F. Supp. 3d 1092, 1103

23

(C.D. Cal. 2015). Further, a plaintiff cannot recover in tort for damages to a defective

24

product itself—the defective product must cause damage to a person or other property

25

in order to give rise to a tort remedy. See Jimenez v. Superior Court, 29 Cal. 4th 473,

26

481–83 (2002).

27

Here, Plaintiffs’ FAC does not allege any personal injury, nor does it claim that

28

any of Plaintiffs’ property was harmed other than the defective vehicle itself. (See

3

1

generally FAC.)

Plaintiffs claim in their Opposition that “clearly, appropriate

2

damages have been alleged,” but they do not offer any support or legal authority to

3

counter Pacific BMW’s argument that the economic loss rule bars recovery here.

4

(See Opp’n 3, ECF No. 29.) As such, Plaintiffs have not stated a claim against Pacific

5

BMW on which relief can be granted.

6

Because Plaintiffs have already amended their complaint once and do not

7

dispute that no harm to person or other property occurred in connection with the facts

8

of this lawsuit, the Court declines to grant leave to amend. Gabrielson v. Montgomery

9

Ward & Co., 785 F.2d 762, 766 (9th Cir. 1986) (court may deny leave to amend

10

where amendment would be futile).

11

V.

CONCLUSION

12

For the reasons discussed above, the Court GRANTS Defendant Pacific

13

BMW’s motion to dismiss. Plaintiffs’ complaint is hereby dismissed as to Pacific

14

BMW without leave to amend.

15
16

IT IS SO ORDERED.

17

January 18, 2017

18
19
20
21

____________________________________
OTIS D. WRIGHT, II
UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

22
23
24
25
26
27
28

4