BMW Makes New Attempt to Dismiss Soft Close Door Defect Class Action

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.

In another attempt to toss a class action lawsuit over its vehicles soft close automatic doors, BMW has filed a motion to dismiss on grounds the plaintiffs claim still fails to show BMW is culpable for their injuries.

The luxury auto maker brought the motion to dismiss before U.S. District Judge Beth Labson Freeman, telling the court that the plaintiffs’ second amended complaint does not allege any new facts, but only attempts to second-guess BMW’s design of the soft close automatic door feature.

“There is no actionable defect here in consumer fraud or warranty for not installing a safety feature that was not promised,” BMW said. “Nor is there a duty to ‘disclose that the product lacked all other safer alternative design features.’”

BMW further argues that the owners lack standing and fail to allege facts to show BMW actively concealed the alleged soft close automatic door defect.

As such, BMW says the injuries alleged do not stem from the SCA feature but from the plaintiffs’ normal use of the door.

The automaker also says the plaintiffs claim that BMW should have made the SCA feature foolproof in the event of misuse is moot because the soft close automatic door is “fully-functional” and that BMW never promised or advertised a safety feature.

Plaintiff Avi Azoulai initially filed the proposed class action lawsuit against BMW last December over injuries he allegedly sustained because of the faulty nature of the soft close automatic door mechanism.

According to Azoulai, his finger was injured when the soft close door feature closed firmly regardless of the fact that his finger was in the way.

He believes that if the technology was not present, the door would have still closed on his finger but would not have latched firmly. Azoulai reportedly had to go to the hospital because of this issue.

The BMW soft close automatic door lawsuit also alleges that BMW knew about this since the testing phases in 2002 but did not do anything to fix the issue.

In fact, Azoulai says the company has received complaints about this issue. But BMW did not inform the customers about this complaint or the defects. It continued to sell the car as is without fixing the issue.

In February, BMW had the case removed to federal court. Then in April, the auto maker asked Judge Freeman to toss the case because Azoulai’s own negligence caused his injury and that the SCA feature works. The case was subsequently dismissed in August with leave for the plaintiffs to amend.

Azoulai submitted his amended complaint shortly after, adding two more named plaintiffs to the lawsuit. Both Kamil Cirak and Reem Haidary claim they were deceived by BMW in their vehicle purchases because the soft close automatic feature in their cars do not have sensor which can lead to injuries.

Specifically, Haidary says her husband injured his hand when his right thumb jammed in the driver’s side door. Texas plaintiff Cirak alleges a similar injury to his right thumb as a result of the SCA design.

The amended complaint also brings the same claims from the initial case including breach of implied and express warranty and violations of California consumer protection laws.

But BMW says the owners still fail to demonstrate they were misled by BMW’s statements regarding the soft close automatic door and fail to show a breach of warranty.

The auto maker contends that there was never an omission of facts because BMW never had a duty to disclose the lack of an unpromised safety feature and properly instructed how to use the doors in the owner’s manuals.

Azoulai is represented by Hovanes Margarian of The Margarian Law Firm.

The BMW “Soft Close” Automatic Door Defect Class Action Lawsuit is Azoulai, et al. v. BMW of North America LLC, Case No. 5:16-cv-00589, in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California.

UPDATE: On Nov. 21, 2016, the plaintiffs countered that they clearly pled facts establishing their standing. Regardless of whether or not any proposed Class Member got their fingers caught in a BMW soft close door, they say each owner of such a car was economically harmed because they were given a product that was not as safe, and therefore not as valuable as what they paid for.