Stratis v. BMW of N. Am., LLC

• Decision Date: 26 April 2023
• Docket Number: 2:22-cv-06929 (BRM) (JRA)
• Parties: DEMETRIOS K. STRATIS, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. Defendants.
• Court: U.S. District Court — District of New Jersey

1

DEMETRIOS K. STRATIS, Plaintiff, v. BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC., et al. Defendants.

No. 2:22-cv-06929 (BRM) (JRA)

United States District Court, D. New Jersey

April 26, 2023

NOT FOR PUBLICATION

OPINION

HON BRIAN R. MARTINOTTI UNITED STATES DISTRICT JUDGE

Before the Court is a Motion to Dismiss pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 12(b)(1) and 12(b)(6) filed by Defendant BMW of North America (“BMW America”). (ECF No. 4.) Plaintiff Demetrios K. Stratis (“Stratis”) filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 18.) BMW America filed a reply. (ECF No. 20.) Having reviewed the parties' submissions filed in connection with the Motion and having declined to hold oral argument pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 78(b), for the reasons set forth below and for good cause having been shown, BMW America's Motion to Dismiss is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

I. Background

For the purpose of the motion to dismiss, the Court accepts the factual allegations in the Complaint as true and draws all inferences in the light most favorable to Stratis. See Phillips v. Cnty. of Allegheny, 515 F.3d 224, 228 (3d Cir. 2008). The Court also considers any “document integral to or explicitly relied upon in the complaint.” In re Burlington Coat Factory Sec Litig., 114 F.3d 1410, 1426 (3d Cir. 1997) (quoting Shaw v. Digit. Equip. Corp., 82 F.3d 1194, 1220 (1st Cir. 1996)).

This claim arises from the destruction of Stratis's 2015 BMW X5's (the “Vehicle”) engine after an alleged timing chain failure. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 5.) Stratis filed this action against BMW America and Bayerische Motoren Werke Aktiengesellschaft (“BMW AG”) (collectively, “Defendants”) seeking to recover the cost of repair for the vehicle and other unspecified damages. (Id. ¶ 5; id. at 30.) BMW AG is a German corporation that designs, manufactures, and tests vehicle engines, including the primary and secondary chain assemblies incorporated into its vehicles. (Id. ¶ 13.) It is the parent company of BMW America. (Id.) BMW America is limited liability company with citizenship in Delaware and New Jersey.^[1](ECF No. 9.) BMW America manufactures, imports, distributes and sells BMW motor vehicles, and operates its national marketing, warranty, consumer relations and engineering offices from its New Jersey facility. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 14.) Stratis resides in and is a citizen of South Carolina, but purchased his Vehicle from Roxbury BMW, an authorized BMW dealership, in New Jersey. (Id. ¶ 12.)

The engine failure occurred on October 1, 2022, after the Vehicle had accrued approximately 140,000 miles. (Id. ¶¶ 5-6.) Stratis purchased the vehicle with an express warranty up to 100,000 miles, (Id. at 2 n.1; ECF No. 7 at 2.), and had the vehicle serviced exclusively by BMW authorized service providers and in accordance with all recommendations made by the BMW service providers. (ECF No. 1 ¶ 2.) Stratis alleges BMW service providers failed to recommend or suggest the timing chain be inspected or replaced despite having been aware of similar timing chain issues in their vehicles. (Id. ¶¶ 21-23.) On October 2, 2022, the vehicle was towed to a BMW authorized service center in Columbia, South Carolina where Stratis was informed that repair of the engine would cost $42,000.00. (Id. at 33.) On October 18, 2022, Stratis wrote to several BMW America executives requesting for some remedy to be provided. (Id. at 32.)

On December 1, 2022, Stratis filed this action bringing the following claims: breach of express warranty (Count I); breach of implied warranty of merchantability (Count II); violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”), 15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq. (Count III); violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (“NJCFA”), N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-2 et seq. (Count IV); negligent misrepresentation (Count V); unjust enrichment (Count VI); and injunctive and declaratory relief (Count VII). (ECF No. 1.) On January 12, 2023, BMW America filed a motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction and failure to state a claim (ECF No. 4), along with a brief in support of the motion. (ECF No. 7). On February 21, 2023, Stratis filed an opposition to the motion. (ECF No. 18.) On February 27, 2023, BMW America filed a reply. (ECF No. 20.)

II. Legal Standard

A. Rule 12(b)(1)

“When a motion under Rule 12 is based on more than one ground, the court should consider the 12(b)(1) challenge first because if it must dismiss the complaint for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, all other defenses and objections become moot.” Dickerson v. Bank of Am., N.A., Civ. A. No. 12-3922, 2013 WL 1163483, at *2 (D.N.J. Mar. 19, 2013) (quoting In re Corestates Trust Fee Litig., 837 F.Supp. 104, 105 (E.D. Pa. 1993), aff'd, 39 F.3d 61 (3d Cir. 1994)). In considering dismissal for lack of subject matter jurisdiction, a district court's focus is not on whether the factual allegations entitle a plaintiff to relief but rather on whether the court has jurisdiction to hear the claim and grant relief. Maertin v. Armstrong World Indus., Inc., 241 F.Supp.2d 434, 445 (D.N.J. 2002) (citing New Hope Books, Inc. v. Farmer, 82 F.Supp.2d 321, 324 (D.N.J. 2000)).

“A challenge to subject matter jurisdiction under Rule 12(b)(1) may be either a facial or a factual attack.” Davis v. Wells Fargo, 824 F.3d 333, 346 (3d Cir. 2016). A facial attack “challenges subject matter jurisdiction without disputing the facts alleged in the complaint, and it requires the court to ‘consider the allegations of the complaint as true.'” Id. (quoting Petruska v. Gannon Univ., 462 F.3d 294, 302 n.3 (3d Cir. 2006)). A factual attack, on the other hand, “attacks the factual allegations underlying the complaint's assertion of jurisdiction, either through the filing of an answer or ‘otherwise present[ing] competing facts.'” Id. (alteration in original) (quoting Constitution Party of Pa. v. Aichele, 757 F.3d 347, 358 (3d Cir. 2014)). A “factual challenge allows ‘a court [to] weigh and consider evidence outside the pleadings'” and “[n]o presumptive truthfulness attaches to [the] plaintiff's allegations.” Id. (first alteration in original) (quoting Mortensen v. First Fed. Sav. & Loan Ass'n, 549 F.2d 884, 891 (3d Cir. 1977)). Rather, “‘the plaintiff will have the burden of proof that jurisdiction does in fact exist,' and the court ‘is free to weigh the evidence and satisfy itself as to the existence of its power to hear the case.'” Id. (quoting Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891).

The Third Circuit has “repeatedly cautioned against allowing a Rule 12(b)(1) motion to dismiss for lack of subject matter jurisdiction to be turned into an attack on the merits.” Id. at 34849 (collecting cases). “[D]ismissal for lack of jurisdiction is not appropriate merely because the legal theory alleged is probably false, but only because the right claimed is ‘so insubstantial, implausible, foreclosed by prior decisions of this Court, or otherwise completely devoid of merit as not to involve a federal controversy.'” Id. at 350 (alteration in original) (quoting Kulick v. Pocono Downs Racing Ass'n, Inc., 816 F.2d 895, 899 (3d Cir. 1987)). “In this vein, when a case raises a disputed factual issue that goes both to the merits and jurisdiction, district courts must ‘demand less in the way of jurisdictional proof than would be appropriate at a trial stage.'” Id. (citing Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 892 (holding dismissal under Rule 12(b)(1) would be “unusual” when the facts necessary to succeed on the merits are at least in part the same as must be alleged or proven to withstand jurisdictional attacks)). These cases make clear “dismissal via a Rule 12(b)(1) factual challenge to standing should be granted sparingly.” Id.

Here, BMW America has presented the Court with a facial attack because the motion contends Stratis failed to adequately establish subject matter jurisdiction in his pleadings without disputing the facts alleged in the Complaint. (See ECF Nos. 4, 7, 17, 20.) Therefore, the Court considers the allegations in the light most favorable to Stratis. Gould Elecs., Inc. v. United States, 220 F.3d 169, 176 (3d Cir. 2000); Mortensen, 549 F.2d at 891.

B. Rule 12(b)(6)

In deciding a motion to dismiss pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 12(b)(6), a district court is “required to accept as true all factual allegations in the complaint and draw all inferences from the facts alleged in the light most favorable to [the non-moving party].” Phillips, 515 F.3d at 228. “[A] complaint attacked by a Rule 12(b)(6) motion to dismiss does not need detailed factual allegations.” Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 555 (2007) (citations omitted). However, “a plaintiff's obligation to provide the ‘grounds' of his ‘entitle[ment] to relief requires more than labels and conclusions, and a formulaic recitation of the elements of a cause of action will not do.” Id. at 555 (quoting Papasan v. Allain, 478 U.S. 265, 286 (1986)). A court is “not bound to accept as true a legal conclusion couched as a factual allegation.” Papasan, 478 U.S. at 286. Instead, assuming the factual allegations in the complaint are true, those “[f]actual allegations must be enough to raise a right to relief above the speculative level.” Twombly, 550 U.S. at 555.

“To survive a motion to dismiss, a complaint must contain sufficient factual matter, accepted as true, to ‘state a claim for relief that is plausible on its face.'” Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (quoting Twombly, 550 U.S. at 570). “A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for the misconduct alleged.” Id. at 678 (citing Twombly, 550 U.S. at 556). This “plausibility standard” requires the complaint to allege “more than a sheer...