Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03366/USCOURTS-cand-3_19-cv-03366-0/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 370
Nature of Suit: Other Fraud
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-(Citizenship)

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

GRETCHEN KEY,

Plaintiff,

v.

BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC,

Defendant.

Case No. 19-cv-03366-MMC 

ORDER GRANTING DEFENDANT'S 

MOTION TO DISMISS FIRST 

AMENDED COMPLAINT; AFFORDING 

PLAINTIFF LEAVE TO AMEND; 

CONTINUING CASE MANAGEMENT 

CONFERENCE

Before the Court is defendant BMW of North America, LLC's ("BMW") "Motion to 

Dismiss Plaintiff Gretchen Key's First Amended Class Action Complaint Pursuant to Fed. 

R. Civ. P. 12(B)(6)," filed October 14, 2019. Plaintiff Gretchen Key ("Key") has filed 

opposition, to which BMW has replied. Having read and considered the papers filed in 

support of and in opposition to the motion, the Court rules as follows.1

BACKGROUND

In the operative complaint, the First Amended Complaint ("FAC"), Key alleges the 

following, which, for purposes of the instant motion, the Court assumes true.

BWM vehicles are "equipped with onboard diagnostic and data gathering 

equipment" that "gathers data from numerous data points and sensors" in the vehicles. 

(See FAC ¶ 8.) BMW "distributes to its dealerships diagnostic software and vehicle 

interface equipment" that are used by dealerships to "extract data" from vehicles, which 

data dealerships use "primarily" to "diagnos[e] the root cause of vehicle malfunctions and 

vehicle defects." (See FAC ¶ 9.) Data extracted by dealerships is "forwarded" to BMW, 

 

1By order filed December 16, 2019, the Court took the matter under submission.

Case 3:19-cv-03366-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/13/20 Page 1 of 6
2

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

which data BMW "collects and archives." (See FAC ¶ 10.)

Key owns a 2008 BMW 750LI. (See FAC ¶ 35.) In December 2017, BMW 

published a "safety recall," in which it "offered to fix a problem with the electric door latch 

which could cause the latch to unexpectedly open while driving." (See FAC ¶ 36.) In 

July 2018, Key took her vehicle to Weatherford BMW for the "repairs set forth in the 

recall" and Weatherford BMW performed such repairs (see FAC ¶ 37); in so doing, 

Weatherford BMW "extracted diagnostic data" from the vehicle (see FAC ¶ 2).

After the recall work was performed, Key "experienced a series of additional 

problems with the vehicle" (see FAC ¶ 2), and, on four occasions, took her vehicle to 

Weatherford BMW "complaining" about such problems, which she identified on those 

occasions as, respectively, "problems with the airbag light and driver's side power 

window," "problems with the door brakes," "problems with the door locks," and "light 

switch and sensor faults and front and rear sides" (see FAC ¶¶ 38-41). On the first three 

such occasions, Key attributed the problems to Weatherford BMW's "recall" work (see

FAC ¶¶ 38-40) and, on the fourth such occasion, to either the recall work or repairs 

performed on the third such occasion (see FAC ¶ 41). On the first, second, and fourth 

such occasions, Weatherford BMW "extracted" data from Key's vehicle. (See FAC ¶¶ 38, 

39, 41.)

Although Key "notified" Weatherford BMW that it had "damaged" her vehicle, 

Weatherford BMW "denied having caused any damage" and "refused to pay for the 

repairs." (See FAC ¶ 43.)2 Thereafter, in March 2019, Key, through counsel, contacted 

 

2BMW has requested, and Key does not object, that the Court take judicial notice 

of "repair orders" prepared by Weatherford BMW on each of the four occasions 

referenced above. (See Def.'s Req. for Judicial Notice Exs. A-E.) Said documents 

appear to indicate Weatherford BMW, with one exception, performed the repairs 

requested by Key at no charge, the one exception being the fourth of the abovereferenced occasions, when Weatherford BMW determined Key's "light module" should 

be replaced, and the repair orders do not indicate such work was performed. (See id.) In 

light of such repair orders, as well as Key's allegation that Weatherford BMW and BMW 

"initially did pay for some of the repair work" (see FAC ¶ 2), the Court understands Key to 

be alleging Weatherford BMW refused to replace the light module at no cost to her.

Case 3:19-cv-03366-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/13/20 Page 2 of 6
3

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

BWM to request it provide her "the data that BMW [was] in possession of relating to 

[Key's] vehicle," but BMW "refused, stating that 'a demand for production or a subpoena 

for production may only be issued in connection with pending litigation.'" (See FAC ¶ 44.)

Key then took to the vehicle to an "independent repair facility," which was "unable 

to diagnose or repair the vehicle" because BMW did not "allow" it to "access all of the 

vehicle diagnostic data." (See FAC ¶ 45.) Key next took her vehicle to Concord BMW, 

which "identified a variety of electrical and other problems" and "performed repairs" for 

which it charged $1997.52, an amount Key paid. (See FAC ¶ 47.)

As of August 30, 2019, the date on which Key filed the FAC, her vehicle "continues 

to experience problems that [she] attributes to the original recall repair." (See FAC ¶ 56.)

Based on the above allegations, Key asserts against BMW two claims for relief, 

specifically, a claim under § 17200 of the California Business & Professions Code and a 

common law conversion claim. Both claims are based on BMW's alleged refusal in 

March 2019 to provide Key with the data Weatherford BMW had extracted from her 

vehicle. According to Key, such data "can reveal when the fault codes relating to the 

further damage were first detected," and that, "[i]f the fault codes were first detected while 

the vehicle was being serviced by Weatherford BMW, [Key] would be able to prove that 

Weatherford BMW caused the further damage while her BMW [v]ehicle was under 

warranty and [she] would be able to compel Weatherford BMW, if necessary by legal 

action, to pay for the expenses associated with repairing said further damage." (See

FAC ¶ 50.)3

LEGAL STANDARD

Dismissal under Rule 12(b)(6) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure "can be 

based on the lack of a cognizable legal theory or the absence of sufficient facts alleged 

under a cognizable legal theory." See Balistreri v. Pacifica Police Dep't, 901 F.2d 696, 

699 (9th Cir. 1990). Rule 8(a)(2), however, "requires only 'a short and plain statement of 

 

3Key does not allege the time period during which her vehicle was under warranty.

Case 3:19-cv-03366-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/13/20 Page 3 of 6
4

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief.'" See Bell Atlantic Corp. v. 

Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (quoting Fed. R. Civ. P. 8(a)(2)). Consequently, "a 

complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual 

allegations." See id. Nonetheless, "a plaintiff's obligation to provide the grounds of his 

entitlement to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation 

of the elements of a cause of action will not do." See id. (internal quotation, citation, and 

alteration omitted).

In analyzing a motion to dismiss, a district court must accept as true all material 

allegations in the complaint and construe them in the light most favorable to the 

nonmoving party. See NL Indus., Inc. v. Kaplan, 792 F.2d 896, 898 (9th Cir. 1986). "To 

survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual material, accepted 

as true, to 'state a claim to relief that is plausible on its face.'" Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 

662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). "Factual allegations must be 

enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level[.]" Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555. 

Courts "are not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual 

allegation." See Iqbal, 556 U.S. at 678 (internal quotation and citation omitted).

DISCUSSION

In her first claim, which, as noted, asserts a violation of § 17200, Key alleges 

BMW's failure to provide the data is "unfair" and "unlawful" (see FAC ¶¶ 75, 87) and that 

she has "lost money or property" as a result, specifically, the $1997.52 she paid Concord 

BMW for repairs (see FAC ¶ 54) and the data itself (see FAC ¶ 53). In her second claim, 

which, as noted, asserts a claim of conversion, Key alleges she owns the "data collected 

from [her vehicle]" (see FAC ¶ 105), which data BMW converted when it "refused to 

return [it] upon [Key's] demand" (see FAC ¶ 106).

BMW argues Key has failed to allege facts to support a finding that, for purposes 

of § 17200, she lost money or property as a result of BMW's failure to provide to her the 

data extracted from her vehicle, see Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17204 (limiting standing 

under § 17200 to persons who have "lost money or property as a result of the unfair 

Case 3:19-cv-03366-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/13/20 Page 4 of 6
5

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

competition") and that, for purposes of a conversion claim, she has failed to allege facts 

to support a finding that she has a property right in the extracted data, see Silvaco Data 

Systems v. Intel Corp., 184 Cal. App. 4th 210, 238 (2010) (holding "to state a claim for 

conversion, the plaintiff must identify some property in which [s]he had property rights 

with which the defendant could, and did, interfere").

First, with regard to Key's payment to Concord BMW, BMW argues Key has failed 

to allege facts to support a finding such loss of money was "caused by" BMW's failure to 

provide the data. See Kwikset Corp. v. Superior Court, 51 Cal. 4th 310, 326 (2011) 

(holding plaintiff asserting § 17200 claim must show loss was "caused by" conduct 

plaintiff alleges to be in violation of § 17200). In the FAC, Key states she paid Concord 

BMW to "fix the problems with her vehicle that she alleges were caused by Weatherford 

BMW." (See FAC ¶ 54.) The FAC, however, includes no facts to support a finding that 

BMW played any role in the allegedly faulty work performed by Weatherford BMW, i.e., 

no facts to show BMW caused the problems Key paid Concord BMW to fix. To the extent 

Key alleges a belief that the data will assist her in determining whether she has grounds 

to seek legal recourse against Weatherford BMW, such belief is speculative, and, in any 

event, even if the data could be used to support a claim against Weatherford BMW, Key 

cites no authority suggesting BMW can be said to have caused the claimed economic 

loss by reason of its having declined to assist Key in her efforts to determine if she has 

grounds to seek relief from Weatherford BMW. Accordingly, Key has failed to show she 

can base her § 17200 claim on her payment to Concord BMW.

Next, BMW argues the data extracted from Key's vehicle does not constitute 

property in which she has an ownership interest. Under California law, "information is not 

property unless some law makes it so." See Silvaco, 184 Cal. App. 4th at 239. In other 

words, if "information" is not "made property by some provision of positive law, [it] 

belongs to no one." See id. at 239 n.22. Consequently, it "cannot be converted or 

stolen," see id., or, by logical extension, "lost" for purposes of § 17204. Here, Key cites 

no authority to support a finding that data extracted from vehicles is deemed property, let 

Case 3:19-cv-03366-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/13/20 Page 5 of 6
6

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

United States District Court

Northern District of California

alone property of the vehicle owner, and, indeed, the only authority the Court has located 

would support a finding to the contrary. See, e.g., UCAR Technology (USA) Inc. v. Li, 

2018 WL 2555429, at *7 (N.D. Cal. June 4, 2018) (dismissing § 17200 claim where 

plaintiff alleged defendants had "erased" from plaintiff's computer "confidential and

proprietary information," as plaintiff failed to show such "information" was "made property 

by some provision of positive law").4 Accordingly, Key has not shown she can base 

either her conversion claim or § 17200 claim on the asserted loss of such data.

CONCLUSION

For the reasons stated above, BMW's motion to dismiss is hereby GRANTED, and 

the First Amended Complaint is hereby DISMISSED.

If Key wishes to file a Second Amended Complaint in an effort to cure the 

deficiencies identified above, she shall file such pleading no later than January 31, 2020.

In light of the above, the Case Management Conference is hereby CONTINUED 

from January 24, 2020, to April 10, 2020, at 10:30 a.m. A Joint Case Management 

Statement shall be filed no later than April 3, 2020.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: January 13, 2020

MAXINE M. CHESNEY

United States District Judge

 

4

In her opposition, Key cites a California statute and regulation that require 

automobile repair dealers to provide to a customer an invoice containing specified 

information and to retain a copy of the invoice. See Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 9884.8 

(providing invoice must, inter alia, "describe all service work done and parts supplied"); 

Cal. Code Regs. tit. 16, § CCR § 3356(c) (providing invoice must, inter alia, "describe . . . 

[a]ll services and repairs, including any diagnostic or warranty repairs"); see also Cal. 

Bus. & Prof. Code § 9884.11 (providing dealers must retain invoices for three years, 

during which time specified government officials have right to inspect them). The cited 

statute and regulation, however, do not address who, if anyone, owns data extracted 

from a vehicle.

Case 3:19-cv-03366-MMC Document 27 Filed 01/13/20 Page 6 of 6