Plaintiffs File Motions Opposing BMW’s Request to Dismiss Sunroof Case

Plaintiffs’ Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson have filed court documents opposing BMW’s motions to dismiss and strike the class action status in an alleged sunroof defect lawsuit. “Despite well-settled case law disfavoring motions to strike class allegations at the pleading stage and discussing the premature nature of such motions, BMW of North America LLC has nevertheless again decided to bring its motion to entice the court into an unnecessary examination of class certification issues,” plaintiffs’ attorneys claim in court documents.

Plaintiffs’ Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson allege their vehicles suffered water damage after the drainage tubes installed to pull water away from the sunroofs did not properly work. The plaintiffs 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.” In an earlier ruling, the judge had ruled that their allegations are “sufficient” to represent a class action at the pleading stage of their case.

“[N]othing in BMW’s motion to strike remotely warrants preempting class discovery and a considered class certification analysis by this court under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23,” attorneys for the plaintiff claim.

The plaintiffs also oppose BMW’s motions to dismiss the lawsuit for lack of standing and failure to state a claim.

“This case involves a major and uniform safety defect present across a designated group of vehicles manufactured, designed, tested, inspected, marketed, distributed, sold and leased by BMW of North America LLC, which can cause the vehicles to catastrophically fail while being driven,” plaintiffs’ attorneys claim. “The defect is based on the location of critical and sensitive electronic components at the lowest point in the trunk or cargo compartment that is unprotected from water intrusion or accumulation.

“Under normal and expected reasonable use, water enters and can puddle in the compartment within which these vital electronic components and modules sit and cause severe and potentially catastrophic driving hazards. Water damage to these electronic systems can cause shorts, fires, malfunction, failure and result in an inability to control the vehicle or sudden loss of power to the vehicle,” plaintiffs’ attorneys argue.

“[B]MW’s motion to dismiss should be denied or, in the alternative, should the court find any of the allegations in plaintiffs’ second amended complaint deficient, plaintiffs respectfully request that leave to amend be granted,” plaintiffs’ attorneys write.

Plaintiffs also take issue with the fact BMW has submitted a copy of its certified pre-owned (CPO) warranty to support its case. Sharma and Anderson claim they did not receive a copy of the document when they purchased their vehicles.

“Plaintiffs Monita Sharma and Eric Anderson respectfully submit the following objection to the request for judicial notice [of the CPO warranty] filed by BMW of North America LLC in support of its motion to dismiss plaintiffs’ second amended complaint,” plaintiffs attorneys write.

“BMW contends that Exhibit C is a ‘[t]rue and correct copy of BMW NA’s Certified Pre-Owned Warranty as issued with plaintiff Sharma and Anderson’s purchases of used BMW vehicles.’ However, as stated in the declarations attached hereto (Exhibits 1 and 2), neither plaintiff Sharma nor plaintiff Anderson received the CPOW attached to BMW’s request with the purchase of their certified pre-owned vehicles,” attorneys for the plaintiffs claim.

BMW’s attorneys have not issued any new filings at press time and the judge has not issued any new decisions.

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 *