Key v. BMW of North America, LLC

Background

Gretchen Key alleged that her 2008 BMW 750LI developed additional problems after a dealership performed repairs related to a safety recall. On several visits, the dealership extracted diagnostic data from the vehicle. Key later asked BMW to provide her with data relating to the vehicle, but BMW refused, stating that production or a subpoena could be required in pending litigation.

Key alleged that she paid $1,997.52 to another BMW dealership for repairs and that the requested data could show whether the earlier dealership caused the vehicle’s additional problems. She asserted two claims against BMW: a claim under section 17200 of the California Business and Professions Code, California’s unfair-competition law, and a common-law conversion claim, which concerns wrongful interference with property.

Reasoning

BMW moved to dismiss under Rule 12(b)(6), arguing that Key had not adequately alleged either a loss of money or property caused by BMW’s refusal to provide the data, or a property right in the data needed for conversion.

The court concluded that Key had not shown that BMW caused the repair expense. The First Amended Complaint did not allege facts showing that BMW played a role in the allegedly faulty work performed by the dealership. Key’s theory that the data might help her determine whether she had a claim against that dealership was speculative and did not establish that BMW’s refusal caused the repair payment.

The court also concluded that the extracted data was not property in which Key had an ownership interest. Under the California authority discussed by the court, information is not property unless a law makes it property. Because Key identified no law establishing that the vehicle data belonged to her, the data could not support her conversion claim or qualify as lost property for her unfair-competition claim. The court also noted that the statutes and regulation Key cited concerning repair invoices did not address ownership of data extracted from a vehicle.

Disposition

The court granted BMW’s motion to dismiss and dismissed the First Amended Complaint. The court gave Key permission to file a Second Amended Complaint by January 31, 2020, to attempt to correct the identified deficiencies. Judge Maxine M. Chesney continued the case-management conference from January 24, 2020, to April 10, 2020, and required a joint case-management statement by April 3, 2020.