BMW Seeks Dismissal of Leaky Trunk Class Action Lawsuit

Top Class Actions’s website and social media posts use affiliate links. If you make a purchase using such links, we may receive a commission, but it will not result in any additional charges to you. Please review our Affiliate Link Disclosure for more information.

The plaintiffs in a BMW class action lawsuit are fighting the car maker’s simultaneous efforts to dismiss their claims and to win judgment against them.

BMW argues that plaintiffs Eric Anderson and Monita Sharma do not have standing to bring the claims they are attempting to bring. The company is also asking the court to render judgment in BMW’s favor, on the grounds that the company was under no duty to disclose the defects alleged by the plaintiffs.

Sharma and Anderson began this BMW class action lawsuit in May 2013, alleging the company had purposely concealed design defects in its X5, X3 and 5 car models from the previous 10 years. The alleged defects caused water leaks that could damage electronic components inside the cars’ trunks, they said.

In challenging the plaintiffs’ standing, BMW says that Anderson’s car has only one of three electronics modules named in the class action lawsuit, and that Sharma’s car has two of the three modules, but not at the lowest point. Since neither plaintiff is at risk for damage to all three of the named modules, BMW reasons, neither plaintiff has standing to bring claims about all those modules.

The plaintiffs counter that their pleadings left open the question of exactly which electronics modules could be at issue. They point out that their pleadings alleged danger to “other modules and control units” in addition to the three named modules, and that throughout the pleadings the plaintiffs refer generally to “vulnerable” electronics.

BMW is also asking the court to end the class action lawsuit immediately with a judgment in BMW’s favor. The company contends that under California law it is under no duty to disclose defects unless those defects pose an unreasonable risk of physical injury or safety. Since the plaintiffs have alleged only economic injury, the company says it did not have to disclose them.

Sharma and Anderson counter that BMW gets the law wrong here. They say that under California’s Unfair Competition Law and Consumer Legal Remedies Act, they only need to show the defendant was under a duty to disclose a material fact and that it breached that duty. Safety defects are not the only type of defects at issue, they argue.

In January 2015, the plaintiffs survived a challenge to their ability to establish their claim as a class action lawsuit. BMW had argued that Sharma and Anderson could not possibly establish that issues common to the whole proposed Class predominated over issues that were germane only to Sharma and Anderson’s individual cases. U.S. District Judge Maxine M. Chesney said that BMW failed to support that argument.

Earlier this year, Judge Chesney restored the plaintiffs’ implied warranty claims under California’s Song-Beverly Act. Judge Chesney had dismissed those claims in January 2015, holding that the implied warranty lasted only for three months after the date of purchase. But in a contrary ruling in another lawsuit, the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals determined that latent defects do not need to be discovered within that three month period.

The plaintiffs are represented by William A. Kershaw, Stuart C. Talley, and Ian J. Barlow of Kershaw, Cook & Talley PC, Edward A. Wallace and Amy E. Keller of Wexler Wallace LLP, Robert L. Starr, Stephen M. Harris, and Joseph R. Santoli.

The BMW Water Damage Class Action Lawsuit is Monita Sharma, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, Case No. 3:13-cv-02274, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: The BMW Electronic Component Water Damage Class Action Settlement is now open! Click here to file a claim.