Trinh My Green v. BMW of North America LLC, et al.

N.D. California

Trinh My Green v. BMW of North America LLC, et al.

District Court, N.D. California·Decided March 17, 2026·No. 3:25-cv-03489·Unknown

Opinion

3 4 TRINH MY GREEN, Case No. 25-cv-03489-SI

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 6 v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC. AND DENYING AS MOOT ARC’S MOTION 7 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, et al., TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 8 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 16 9

10 Defendant ARC Automotive, Inc. (“ARC”) moves to dismiss self-represented plaintiff Trinh 11 My Green’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 16 (Mot.). After limited discovery 12 from ARC and defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW NA”) (together with ARC, 13 “defendants”) as to whether ARC designed, manufactured, and supplied the vehicle airbags that 14 allegedly injured Green, the Court DISMISSES ARC WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DENIES AS 15 MOOT ARC’s jurisdictional motion. 16

17 BACKGROUND 18 Green filed this products liability action against BMW NA and ARC alleging, among other 19 things, that ARC designed, manufactured, and supplied the airbags in Green’s 2006 BMW 525xi 20 (the “Subject Vehicle”). Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 3. The Complaint alleges that Green was driving 21 the Subject Vehicle when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which caused the airbag to 22 deploy. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. The airbag “failed to deploy properly” and “sharp pieces of shrapnel or shards 23 from the rupture or other malfunction of the airbag inflator and assembly” “caus[ed] severe and deep 24 lacerations to Plaintiff’s face, exposing muscle and nerves.” Id. ¶ 9. 25 ARC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Mot. In support of her 26 opposition to the Motion, Green attached an email from ARC’s counsel to Green stating that “ARC 27 did not start supplying airbag inflators to BMW until 2013. As I understand it, your vehicle was a 1 2006 BMW and so would not have used an ARC airbag inflator and it was likely from a company 2 called Autoliv or possibly Takata.” Dkt. No. 35-1 at ECF p.8. In light of this email, the Court 3 deferred ruling on the Motion pending limited discovery from ARC as to whether ARC supplied the 4 airbag inflator in the Subject Vehicle and ordered BMW NA to identify the manufacturer of the 5 airbag inflator in the Subject Vehicle. Dkt. Nos. 48, 55. 6 In response, ARC produced the Declaration of Stephen C. Gold. Dkt. No. 50 at ECF pp.6– 7 8 (Gold Decl.). Gold, ARC’s Vice President of Product Integrity, explained that “ARC does not 8 have direct transactions with OEMs; rather, it transacts with Tier 1 suppliers who then, in turn, 9 provide inflators obtained from ARC to OEMs.” Id. ¶¶ 1, 6. Gold further declared that ARC 10 searched for the following documents: 11 • “all master contracts and/or award letters with Tier 1 suppliers in 2005 that document 12 supply of ARC inflators to said Tier 1 supplier for subsequent provision to an OEM”; 13 • “all master contracts and/or award letters with Tier 1 suppliers in 2006 that document 14 supply of ARC inflators to said Tier 1 supplier for subsequent provision to an OEM”; 15 and 16 • “any similar documents in the time period of 2005 and/or 2006 that established a 17 business relationship wherein ARC had an arrangement with a Tier 1 supplier to 18 provide inflator products with the understanding they would be used by a specific 19 OEM.” 20 Id. ¶¶ 1, 3. After “a good faith, reasonable search and diligent inquiry” and “[d]ue to the passage of 21 time and age of records being sought, which would have been created between 19 and 20 years ago, 22 only records relating to Hyundai were located.” Id. ¶ 4. Gold also identified financial forecast 23 analyses between 2005 and 2008, which listed vehicle manufacturers, which were identified “solely 24 based on information provided by [ARC’s] Tier 1 suppliers.” Id. ¶¶ 5–6. BMW is not listed as a 25 vehicle manufacturer. Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. B. The Hyundai contracts and financial forecasts were provided 26 to the Court and Green. Id., Exs. A & B. 27 BMW NA identified Autoliv, Inc. (“Autoliv”) as the original equipment manufacturer and 1 that the Autoliv airbag was installed in the Vehicle at the time of the accident. Dkt. Nos. 58, 60. 2 BMW NA also provided for in camera review a document from non-party BMW AG written in 3 German that purportedly showed that Autoliv manufactured the airbag module and inflator in the 4 Vehicle. Dkt. No. 65. 5 BMW NA did not provide an English translation of the document. Accordingly, at the 6 Court’s direction, BMW submitted a declaration from Eduardo Máximo Avilés, BMW NA’s 7 Department Head of Product Analysis. Dkt. No. 67 (Minute Entry); Dkt. No. 68 (Avilés Decl.). 8 Avilés declares that, based on his review of the document provided to the Court, “Autoliv was the 9 original equipment manufacturer . . . and supplier of the driver’s airbag module installed in the 10 subject 2006 BMW 525xi . . . at the time of manufacture and assembly.” Avilés Decl. ¶ 4. He 11 further declared, “I cannot confirm that the OEM driver’s airbag module was installed in the subject 12 vehicle at the time of the incident on March 16, 2023, because the subject vehicle was not preserved 13 by Plaintiff for inspection following the subject incident.” Id. ¶ 5. 14 Green contends that the Avilés Declaration stated only that “Autoliv made the airbag 15 module” but “did not answer who made the inflator and therefore does not clear ARC Automotive.” 16 Dkt. No. 69 ¶ 1. Green further requested that the Court “allow [her] to add Autoliv and BMW AG 17 (the manufacturer of the subject vehicle per BMW NA) as defendants[.]” Id. ¶ 3. BMW NA did 18 not respond to this request. 19 21 Considering the documents and declarations produced by ARC and BMW, it appears that 22 Autoliv, not ARC, was the OEM and supplier of the airbags in the Subject Vehicle. Although the 23 failure to preserve the Subject Vehicle means that neither Green nor defendants can confirm what 24 brand of airbag was installed at the time of the accident, Green does not allege or otherwise show 25 that the airbags in the Subject Vehicle were removed or replaced at any point prior to the accident. 26 The Complaint’s allegation that “the airbag . . . involved in this matter was designed, manufactured, 27 and supplied by ARC” (Compl. ¶ 3) thus lacks facial plausibility for purposes of Federal Rule of ] requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]’”); 2 || Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 3 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 4 || the misconduct alleged.”) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). 5 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES ARC as a defendant from this action. The dismissal is 6 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE; in the event subsequent discovery reveals that ARC did in fact design, 7 || manufacture, or supply the airbags in the Subject Vehicle at the time of the accident, Green may 8 seek leave to amend the operative complaint. 9 As to Green’s request that she be permitted to amend the Complaint to add BMW AG and 10 || Autoliv (Dkt. No. 69 § 3), the Court GRANTS leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The 11 court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”). Any amended complaint shall be filed 12 || no later than April 3, 2026.

CONCLUSION 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following: a 16 1. ARC is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICDE, and ARC’s Motion to Dismiss For 17 || Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED AS MOOT. Zz 18 2. Green’s request to amend the Complaint to add BMW AG and Autoliv as defendants 19 || is GRANTED. Green shall file her amended complaint by April 3, 2026. 20 3.

Free access — add to your briefcase to read the full text and ask questions with AI

3 4 TRINH MY GREEN, Case No. 25-cv-03489-SI

5 Plaintiff, ORDER DISMISSING DEFENDANT 6 v. ARC AUTOMOTIVE, INC. AND DENYING AS MOOT ARC’S MOTION 7 BMW OF NORTH AMERICA LLC, et al., TO DISMISS FOR LACK OF JURISDICTION 8 Defendants. Re: Dkt. No. 16 9

10 Defendant ARC Automotive, Inc. (“ARC”) moves to dismiss self-represented plaintiff Trinh 11 My Green’s complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction. Dkt. No. 16 (Mot.). After limited discovery 12 from ARC and defendant BMW of North America, LLC (“BMW NA”) (together with ARC, 13 “defendants”) as to whether ARC designed, manufactured, and supplied the vehicle airbags that 14 allegedly injured Green, the Court DISMISSES ARC WITHOUT PREJUDICE and DENIES AS 15 MOOT ARC’s jurisdictional motion. 16

17 BACKGROUND 18 Green filed this products liability action against BMW NA and ARC alleging, among other 19 things, that ARC designed, manufactured, and supplied the airbags in Green’s 2006 BMW 525xi 20 (the “Subject Vehicle”). Dkt. No. 1 (Compl.) ¶ 3. The Complaint alleges that Green was driving 21 the Subject Vehicle when she was involved in a motor vehicle accident, which caused the airbag to 22 deploy. Id. ¶¶ 8–9. The airbag “failed to deploy properly” and “sharp pieces of shrapnel or shards 23 from the rupture or other malfunction of the airbag inflator and assembly” “caus[ed] severe and deep 24 lacerations to Plaintiff’s face, exposing muscle and nerves.” Id. ¶ 9. 25 ARC moved to dismiss for lack of personal jurisdiction. See Mot. In support of her 26 opposition to the Motion, Green attached an email from ARC’s counsel to Green stating that “ARC 27 did not start supplying airbag inflators to BMW until 2013. As I understand it, your vehicle was a 1 2006 BMW and so would not have used an ARC airbag inflator and it was likely from a company 2 called Autoliv or possibly Takata.” Dkt. No. 35-1 at ECF p.8. In light of this email, the Court 3 deferred ruling on the Motion pending limited discovery from ARC as to whether ARC supplied the 4 airbag inflator in the Subject Vehicle and ordered BMW NA to identify the manufacturer of the 5 airbag inflator in the Subject Vehicle. Dkt. Nos. 48, 55. 6 In response, ARC produced the Declaration of Stephen C. Gold. Dkt. No. 50 at ECF pp.6– 7 8 (Gold Decl.). Gold, ARC’s Vice President of Product Integrity, explained that “ARC does not 8 have direct transactions with OEMs; rather, it transacts with Tier 1 suppliers who then, in turn, 9 provide inflators obtained from ARC to OEMs.” Id. ¶¶ 1, 6. Gold further declared that ARC 10 searched for the following documents: 11 • “all master contracts and/or award letters with Tier 1 suppliers in 2005 that document 12 supply of ARC inflators to said Tier 1 supplier for subsequent provision to an OEM”; 13 • “all master contracts and/or award letters with Tier 1 suppliers in 2006 that document 14 supply of ARC inflators to said Tier 1 supplier for subsequent provision to an OEM”; 15 and 16 • “any similar documents in the time period of 2005 and/or 2006 that established a 17 business relationship wherein ARC had an arrangement with a Tier 1 supplier to 18 provide inflator products with the understanding they would be used by a specific 19 OEM.” 20 Id. ¶¶ 1, 3. After “a good faith, reasonable search and diligent inquiry” and “[d]ue to the passage of 21 time and age of records being sought, which would have been created between 19 and 20 years ago, 22 only records relating to Hyundai were located.” Id. ¶ 4. Gold also identified financial forecast 23 analyses between 2005 and 2008, which listed vehicle manufacturers, which were identified “solely 24 based on information provided by [ARC’s] Tier 1 suppliers.” Id. ¶¶ 5–6. BMW is not listed as a 25 vehicle manufacturer. Id. ¶ 6 & Ex. B. The Hyundai contracts and financial forecasts were provided 26 to the Court and Green. Id., Exs. A & B. 27 BMW NA identified Autoliv, Inc. (“Autoliv”) as the original equipment manufacturer and 1 that the Autoliv airbag was installed in the Vehicle at the time of the accident. Dkt. Nos. 58, 60. 2 BMW NA also provided for in camera review a document from non-party BMW AG written in 3 German that purportedly showed that Autoliv manufactured the airbag module and inflator in the 4 Vehicle. Dkt. No. 65. 5 BMW NA did not provide an English translation of the document. Accordingly, at the 6 Court’s direction, BMW submitted a declaration from Eduardo Máximo Avilés, BMW NA’s 7 Department Head of Product Analysis. Dkt. No. 67 (Minute Entry); Dkt. No. 68 (Avilés Decl.). 8 Avilés declares that, based on his review of the document provided to the Court, “Autoliv was the 9 original equipment manufacturer . . . and supplier of the driver’s airbag module installed in the 10 subject 2006 BMW 525xi . . . at the time of manufacture and assembly.” Avilés Decl. ¶ 4. He 11 further declared, “I cannot confirm that the OEM driver’s airbag module was installed in the subject 12 vehicle at the time of the incident on March 16, 2023, because the subject vehicle was not preserved 13 by Plaintiff for inspection following the subject incident.” Id. ¶ 5. 14 Green contends that the Avilés Declaration stated only that “Autoliv made the airbag 15 module” but “did not answer who made the inflator and therefore does not clear ARC Automotive.” 16 Dkt. No. 69 ¶ 1. Green further requested that the Court “allow [her] to add Autoliv and BMW AG 17 (the manufacturer of the subject vehicle per BMW NA) as defendants[.]” Id. ¶ 3. BMW NA did 18 not respond to this request. 19 21 Considering the documents and declarations produced by ARC and BMW, it appears that 22 Autoliv, not ARC, was the OEM and supplier of the airbags in the Subject Vehicle. Although the 23 failure to preserve the Subject Vehicle means that neither Green nor defendants can confirm what 24 brand of airbag was installed at the time of the accident, Green does not allege or otherwise show 25 that the airbags in the Subject Vehicle were removed or replaced at any point prior to the accident. 26 The Complaint’s allegation that “the airbag . . . involved in this matter was designed, manufactured, 27 and supplied by ARC” (Compl. ¶ 3) thus lacks facial plausibility for purposes of Federal Rule of ] requires “a short and plain statement of the claim showing that the pleader is entitled to relief[.]’”); 2 || Ashcroft v. Iqbal, 556 U.S. 662, 678 (2009) (“A claim has facial plausibility when the plaintiff pleads 3 factual content that allows the court to draw the reasonable inference that the defendant is liable for 4 || the misconduct alleged.”) (citing Bell Atl. Corp. v. Twombly, 550 U.S. 544, 556 (2007)). 5 Accordingly, the Court DISMISSES ARC as a defendant from this action. The dismissal is 6 || WITHOUT PREJUDICE; in the event subsequent discovery reveals that ARC did in fact design, 7 || manufacture, or supply the airbags in the Subject Vehicle at the time of the accident, Green may 8 seek leave to amend the operative complaint. 9 As to Green’s request that she be permitted to amend the Complaint to add BMW AG and 10 || Autoliv (Dkt. No. 69 § 3), the Court GRANTS leave to amend. See Fed. R. Civ. P. 15(a)(2) (“The 11 court should freely give leave when justice so requires.”). Any amended complaint shall be filed 12 || no later than April 3, 2026.

CONCLUSION 3 15 For the foregoing reasons, the Court ORDERS the following: a 16 1. ARC is DISMISSED WITHOUT PREJUDICDE, and ARC’s Motion to Dismiss For 17 || Lack of Personal Jurisdiction is DENIED AS MOOT. Zz 18 2. Green’s request to amend the Complaint to add BMW AG and Autoliv as defendants 19 || is GRANTED. Green shall file her amended complaint by April 3, 2026. 20 3. A further case management conference shall be held on May 15, 2026 at 3:00 p.m. 21 This proceeding will be held via a Zoom webinar. The parties are to register for appearances by 22 || emailing sicrd@cand.uscourts.gov by May 8, 2026 at noon. All counsel, members of the public, 23 and media may access the webinar information at https://www.cand.uscourts.gov/si. 25 || Dated: March 17, 2026 Site WU te 26 SUSAN ILLSTON 27 United States District Judge 28

Trinh My Green v. BMW of North America LLC, et al., (N.D. Cal. 2026).

Pincite

Trinh My Green v. BMW of North America LLC, et al. (Trinh My Green v. BMW of North America LLC, et al.) — published by Counsel Stack Legal Research, free access to 12M+ legal documents.

Opinion

Related