Sharma et al v. BMW of North America LLC

Filing 49

ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS' CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF; AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT; CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT CONFERENCE. Plaintiffs' claim for injunctive relief is dismissed. Plaintiffs are affo rded leave to file, no later than February 28, 2014, a Second Amended Complaint to allege any additional facts to establish their standing to seek injunctive relief and/or to add additional parties who can establish their standing to seek injunctive relief. The Case Management Conference is continued from March 7, 2014 to April 25, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management Statement shall be filed no later than April 18, 2014.Signed by Judge Maxine M. Chesney on February 12, 2014. (mmclc1, COURT STAFF) (Filed on 2/12/2014)

1
2
3
4
5
6
7

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

8

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

9
For the Northern District of California

United States District Court

10
11

MONITA SHARMA and ERIC ANDERSON,
on behalf of themselves and all others
similarly situated,

12
13
14
15

No. C-13-2274 MMC
ORDER DISMISSING PLAINTIFFS’
CLAIM FOR INJUNCTIVE RELIEF;
AFFORDING PLAINTIFFS LEAVE TO
FILE SECOND AMENDED COMPLAINT;
CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT
CONFERENCE

Plaintiffs,
v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,,
Defendant.

/

16
17
18
19

Before the Court is “Plaintiffs’ Response to Order to Show Cause,” filed February 7,
2014. Having read and considered plaintiffs’ response, the Court rules as follows.
As set forth in the Court’s order of January 15, 2014, plaintiffs, who seek to proceed

20

on behalf of a class of persons who own or owned specified vehicles manufactured by

21

defendant, allege that their respective vehicles contain a design defect and that defendant

22

breached the terms of the warranties applicable to the vehicles by not covering the costs of

23

repairs incurred by plaintiffs. Plaintiffs also allege that defendant has made false and

24

misleading statements about its warranties and vehicles in violation of certain statutes,

25

including § 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code. In addition to seeking

26

monetary relief, plaintiffs seek injunctive relief in the form of an order requiring defendant to

27

notify vehicle owners about the alleged defect and to offer to repair the vehicles at no cost

28

to the owners. Because plaintiffs allege that their vehicles were repaired, however, the

1

Court directed plaintiffs to show cause why their claim for injunctive relief should not be

2

dismissed for lack of standing.

3

In their response, plaintiffs contend they have standing because, under California

4

law, a plaintiff alleging a § 17200 claim may seek injunctive relief “to protect the public.”

5

See Kraus v. Trinity Management Services, Inc., 23 Cal. 4th 116, 126 (2000) (holding

6

plaintiff may seek “injunctive relief against unfair or unlawful practices in order to protect the

7

public”). Even assuming, arguendo, a plaintiff bringing a § 17200 claim in state court may

8

seek injunctive relief in the absence of a showing he faces a threat of future injury from the

9

defendant, plaintiffs filed the instant action in federal court, and, consequently, are subject

10

to Article III’s requirement that they “demonstrate a real or immediate threat of an

11

irreparable injury” in order to seek injunctive relief. See Hangarter v. Provident Life and

12

Accident Ins. Co., 373 F.3d 998, 1021-22 (9th Cir. 2004) (holding plaintiff lacked standing

13

to seek injunctive relief under § 17200, where plaintiff failed to show he was “personally

14

threatened by [defendants’] conduct”); see also, e.g., Nelsen v. King County, 895 F.2d

15

1248, 1249-50, 1254 (9th Cir. 1990) (holding plaintiffs could proceed with claims for

16

damages based on injuries assertedly occurring at rehabilitation center, but lacked standing

17

to seek injunctive relief on behalf of themselves or class; finding plaintiffs failed to show

18

“credible threat” of future harm where plaintiffs made no showing they were likely to return

19

to rehabilitation center).1

20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28

1

In their opposition, plaintiffs cite cases for the general proposition that federal
courts have broad discretionary power to award equitable relief where a defendant
continues to engage in unlawful practices. The cited cases are distinguishable, however,
because the courts therein expressly found the plaintiff had standing to seek injunctive
relief and then determined whether the form of relief granted was proper as a matter of
equity. See Hawkins v. Comparet-Cassani, 251 F.3d 1230, 1237, 1242 (9th Cir. 2001)
(holding plaintiff “demonstrated the likelihood of irreparable injury in the absence of
injunctive relief,” but finding form of injunctive relief granted “overbroad”); LaDuke v.
Nelson, 762 F.2d 1318, 1330-31 (9th Cir. 1985) (holding plaintiffs had standing to seek
injunctive relief because they “face[d] a likelihood of substantial and immediate injury” if
challenged practice continued, and finding form of injunctive relief awarded not overbroad);
see also Lemon v. Kurtzman, 411 U.S. 192, 194 (1973) (holding plaintiffs who were
granted injunctive relief failed to show form of injunction was too narrow); Lemon v.
Kurtzman, 403 U.S. 602, 611 (1971) (observing district court had found plaintiffs had
standing to seek injunctive relief).
2

1

Plaintiffs fail to point to any allegations in the First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) that

2

could support a finding that either plaintiff faces a “real or immediate threat of irreparable

3

injury” from defendant. See id. In the absence of any such allegations, plaintiffs have

4

failed to establish their standing to seek injunctive relief. See Carrico v. City and County of

5

San Francisco, 656 F.3d 1002, 1006-08 (9th Cir. 2011) (holding, court must “accept as

6

true” plaintiff’s factual allegations for purposes of determining whether plaintiff has

7

“establish[ed] standing”; affirming dismissal of complaint seeking injunctive relief, where

8

plaintiffs’ allegations were “insufficient to confer standing”).

9
10

Accordingly, plaintiffs’ claim for injunctive relief is hereby DISMISSED.
In their response, plaintiffs also rely on factual assertions not pleaded in the FAC,

11

specifically, that the repairs made to plaintiff Monita Sharma’s vehicle “have not eliminated

12

the defect” (see Pls.’ Response at 2:16-17), and that repairs made to vehicles owned by

13

two persons who are not named plaintiffs likewise did not eliminate the defect in their

14

vehicles (see Pls.’ Response Exs. B, C). Because it is not clear that it would be futile to

15

allow plaintiffs to amend to add additional allegations regarding the nature of the repairs

16

made, or not made, to Sharma’s vehicle and/or to vehicles of other persons whom plaintiffs

17

might seek to add as named parties, the Court will afford plaintiff leave to amend. See

18

Carrico, 656 F.3d at 1008 (holding, where complaint is dismissed for failure to adequately

19

allege standing, leave to amend should be afforded, unless “amendment would be futile”).2

20

According, plaintiffs are afforded leave to file, no later than February 28, 2014, a

21

Second Amended Complaint to allege any additional facts to establish their standing to

22

seek injunctive relief and/or to add additional parties who can establish their standing to

23

seek injunctive relief. Additionally, if plaintiffs file a Second Amended Complaint to add

24

such allegations and/or parties, plaintiffs may, but are not required to, otherwise amend

25

their existing claims.

26
2

27
28

In its January 15, 2014 order, the Court afforded plaintiffs leave to amend if
plaintiffs were of the view that they could allege additional facts to establish standing.
Although plaintiffs, without explanation, failed to avail themselves of said opportunity, the
Court nonetheless will again afford plaintiffs such leave. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2).
3

1
2
3

If plaintiffs do not file a Second Amended Complaint by February 28, 2014, the
instant action will proceed on the remaining claims in the FAC.
Finally, in light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby

4

CONTINUED from March 7, 2014 to April 25, 2014, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case

5

Management Statement shall be filed no later than April 18, 2014.

6

IT IS SO ORDERED.

7
8

Dated: February 12, 2014
MAXINE M. CHESNEY
United States District Judge

9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
4