Bae v. BMW of North America CA4/3
Filed 8/19/15 Bae v. BMW of North America CA4/3
NOT TO BE PUBLISHED IN OFFICIAL REPORTS California Rules of Court, rule 8.1115(a), prohibits courts and parties from citing or relying on opinions not certified for publication or ordered published, except as specified by rule 8.1115(b). This opinion has not been certified for publication or ordered published for purposes of rule 8.1115.
IN THE COURT OF APPEAL OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
FOURTH APPELLATE DISTRICT
DIVISION THREE
HEIJOO BAE,
Plaintiff and Appellant, G049547
v. (Super. Ct. No. 30-2013-00647057)
BMW OF NORTH AMERICA, LLC, OPINION et al.,
Defendants and Respondents.
Appeal from a judgment of the Superior Court of Orange County, Kim Garlin Dunning, Judge. Motion to dismiss granted. Law Offices of Robert B. Mobasseri, Robert B. Mobasseri and Amy L. Hajduk for Plaintiff and Appellant. Lewis Brisbois Bisgaard & Smith, Eric Y. Kizirian, Jeffry A. Miller, Michael K. Grimaldi and Brittany H. Bartold for Defendants and Respondents. * * *
Plaintiff Heijoo Bae appeals from a judgment dismissing her claims against defendants and respondents BMW of North America, LLC (BMW North America) and BMW Bank of North America (BMW Bank; collectively, BMW) after the trial court sustained BMW’s demurrer without leave to amend. While this action was pending, a federal district court in New Jersey approved a class action settlement involving BMW North America that was based on the same conduct Bae alleged in this action. Although the claims administrator sent Bae notice of the need to opt out of the settlement if she wished to maintain a separate action against BMW, Bae did not opt out of the settlement. Based on the settlement, BMW filed a motion to dismiss Bae’s appeal as moot because we cannot grant her any effective relief even if we conclude the trial court erred. According to BMW, the release included in the settlement bars Bae’s claims even if the trial court erred in sustaining BMW’s demurrer without leave to amend. Bae did not file any opposition to BMW’s motion. We agree the class action settlement bars Bae’s claims, and therefore we grant the motion to dismiss Bae’s appeal as moot.
More from California Court of Appeal
- People v. Hill (1998)
- In Re Autumn H. (1994)
- Nwosu v. Uba (2004)
- In Re Casey D. (1999)
- Santisas v. Goodin (1998)
- Cahill v. San Diego Gas & Electric Co. (2011)
- People v. Rivera (2015)
- People v. Barnett (1998)
- People v. Serrano (2012)
- Benach v. County of Los Angeles (2007)