Searching over 5,500,000 cases.


searching
Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.

Baumann v. BMW of North America, LLC

United States District Court, C.D. California

April 26, 2017

KATALINA BAUMANN
v.
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC ET AL.

          Present: The Honorable BEVERLY REID O'CONNELL, United States District Judge.

          CIVIL MINUTES - GENERAL

         ORDER RE PLAINTIFF'S MOTION TO REMAND [10]

         I. INTRODUCTION

         Pending before the Court is Plaintiff Katalina Baumann's (“Plaintiff”) Motion to Remand and Request for Attorneys' Fees. (See Dkt. No. 10 (hereinafter, “Mot.”).) After considering the papers filed in support of and in opposition to the instant motion, the Court deems this matter appropriate for resolution without oral argument of counsel. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 78; C.D. Cal. L.R. 7-15. For the following reasons, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff's Motion but DENIES her request for attorneys' fees.

         II. FACTUAL AND PROCEDURAL BACKGROUND

         A. Factual Background

         Plaintiff resides in Los Angeles County, California. (See Dkt. No. 1, Ex. A (hereinafter, “Compl.”) ¶ 1.) Defendant BMW North America, LLC (“BMW NA”) is a corporation who manufactures and sells BMW motor vehicles. (Compl. ¶ 2.) Defendant New Century Alhambra Automobiles Corporation of California (“New Century”) is one of BMW's authorized agents that sells, services, and repairs BMW motor vehicles.[1](Compl. ¶ 3.)

         Plaintiff claims that BMW manufactured, distributed, and provided express and implied warranties for a new 2014 BMW 528i with the Vehicle Identification Number WBA5A5C56ED503942 (the “Subject Vehicle”). (Compl. ¶¶ 7-9.) On December 31, 2013, Plaintiff leased the Subject Vehicle from Valencia BMW in Valencia, California. (Compl. ¶ 10.) The Subject Vehicle had been driven twenty-five miles at the time Plaintiff took possession of it. (Compl. ¶ 13.) Plaintiff avers that approximately seven months later, the Subject Vehicle's defects began to manifest when it overheated and the “Low Coolant” and “Low Lights” came on. (Compl. ¶ 14.) Plaintiff took the Subject Vehicle to New Century for inspection. (Id.) New Century purported to repair the vehicle under warranty and returned it to Plaintiff. (Id.)

         On September 12, 2014, the Subject Vehicle lost power, “stuttered, ” and the “Service Engine Soon” light came on. (Compl. ¶ 15.) Plaintiff took it back to New Century and, after inspecting it, New Century replaced a faulty thermostat and cleared the fault codes from the vehicle's system. (Id.) On October 6, 2014, the Subject Vehicle's engine failed. (Compl. ¶ 16.) New Century indicated that it was “able to verify and duplicate all faults and engine malfunctions” and returned the car to Plaintiff. (Id.) On March 30, 2015, the Subject Vehicle again malfunctioned in various ways. (Compl. ¶ 17.) Again, New Century repaired the vehicle and returned it to Plaintiff. (Id.)

         Nonetheless, Plaintiff claims that the Subject Vehicle continued to malfunction. (Compl. ¶ 18.) On December 15, 2015, Plaintiff took the vehicle back to New Century, which kept it for approximately nine days and performed several warranty repairs. (Id.) On September 27, 2016, after further malfunctioning, Plaintiff took the vehicle to Bob Smith BMW for inspection. (Compl. ¶ 19.) The dealership kept the vehicle for sixteen days and performed additional repairs. (Id.) Two weeks later, the Subject Vehicle shut down in the middle of an intersection in Downtown Los Angeles. (Compl. ¶ 20.) BMW's roadside assistance towed the vehicle to Nick Alexander BMW, which concluded that the previous repairs had not been performed correctly. (Id.) Nick Alexander BMW kept the vehicle for four days to perform the necessary repairs. (Id.) On July 22, 2016, Plaintiff revoked the acceptance of her vehicle in writing and demanded that BMW repurchase it, which it refused. (Compl. ¶ 22.)

         B. Procedural Background

         Accordingly, on November 30, 2015, Plaintiff filed the instant action in the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles, bringing five claims against Defendants: (1) breach of express warranty under the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act (“Song-Beverly”); (2) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under Song-Beverly; (3) breach of written warranty under the Magnuson-Moss Warranty-Federal Trade Commission Improvement Act (“MMWA”); (4) breach of the implied warranty of merchantability under the MMWA; and, (5) negligent repair. (See Compl.) On March 2, 2017, Defendants removed the action to this Court. (See Dkt. No. 1.)

         On March 30, 2017, Plaintiff filed the instant Motion seeking to remand the action to the Superior Court. (See Mot.) Along with her Motion, Plaintiff filed a Request for Judicial Notice. (See Dkt. No. 9 (hereinafter, “RJN”).) On April 10, 2017, Defendants filed their Opposition to Plaintiffs Motion, (see Dkt No. 12 (hereinafter, “Opp'n”)), and an objection to Defendants' Request for Judicial Notice, (see Dkt. No. 11 (hereinafter, “RJN Obj.”)). Plaintiff replied on April 17, 2017. (See Dkt. No. 15.)

         III. REQUEST FOR ...


Buy This Entire Record For $7.95

Download the entire decision to receive the complete text, official citation,
docket number, dissents and concurrences, and footnotes for this case.

Learn more about what you receive with purchase of this case.