COUNT VII - NEW YORK UDAP LAW CLAIM
315. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, their ancestors and all other descendants who are similarly situated, re-allege as if fully set forth, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs.
Binning at an exact date unknown to plaintiffs, but at all times relevant herein, defendants have engaged in the practices described above as “Continued Intentional Misrepresentations” in New York.
316. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations violate New York's UDAP Law, N.Y. GEN. BUS. LAW §§ 349 and 350.
317. Deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in New York are unlawful. New York UDAP § 349.
318. False advertising in the conduct of any business, trade or commerce or in the furnishing of any service in New York is also unlawful. New York UDAP § 350.
320. Any person who has been injured by reason of any violation of the New York UDAP may bring an action in his own name to enjoin such unlawful act or practice, an action to recover his actual damages or $50.00, whichever is greater, or both. The court may award enhanced damages to an amount not to exceed three times the actual damages up to $1,000.00, if the court finds the defendant willfully or knowingly violated this section. The court may award reasonable attorneys' fees to a prevailing plaintiff. New York UDAP § 349(h) and § 350-e(3).
321. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were a direct, foreseeable, producing, and proximate cause of monetary and other economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in amounts yet to be determined and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause such damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
322. Plaintiffs seek all actual damages, all enhanced damages and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT IX - TEXAS UDAP LAW CLAIM
323. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, their ancestors and all other descendants who are similarly situated, re-allege as if fully set forth, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs.
324. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiffs, but at all times relevant herein, defendants have engaged in the practices described above as “Continued Intentional Misrepresentations” in Texas.
325. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations violate Texas' UDAP, TEX. BUS. AND COM. CODE § 17.41 et seq.
326. Plaintiffs and each member of the Class are consumers within the meaning of Texas UDAP § 17.45.
327. Defendants have engaged in trade or commerce in Texas, both in general and by making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations.
328. Texas's UDAP declares that “false, misleading, or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful.” Texas UDAP § 17.46.
329. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were likely to and did mislead and deceive reasonable consumers in material ways and respects.
330. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were an “unconscionable actions and/or courses of action” within the meaning of the Texas UDAP because they, to consumers' detriment, took advantage of the lack of knowledge, ability, experience, or capacity of consumers to a grossly unfair degree.
331. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were a direct, foreseeable, producing, and proximate cause of monetary and other economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in amounts yet to be determined and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause such damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
332. Plaintiffs seek to have the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations enjoined and declared unlawful and also seek an order of the Court restoring to all class members any money or property that Defendants may have acquired in violation of the Texas UDAP by making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees, and costs.
COUNT X - CALIFORNIA UDAP LAW CLAIM
333. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, their ancestors and all other descendants who are similarly situated, re-allege as if fully set forth, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs.
334. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiffs, but at all times relevant herein, defendants have engaged in the practices described above as “Continued Intentional Misrepresentations” in California.
335. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations are acts of unfair competition and thus violate California's UDAP law, CAL. BUS & PROF. CODE § 17200 et seq.
336. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations are “unlawful.” The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations are “unfair” because the gravity of the harm to the victims of defendants' practices outweighs the utility of the defendants' conduct. Moreover, each of the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations offends an established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous or substantially injurious to consumers.
337. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations are “fraudulent” because members of the public are likely to be deceived by them.
338. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations present a continuing threat to members of the public in that defendants persist and continue to engage in Continued Intentional Misrepresentations, and will not cease doing so unless and until forced to do so by this Court.
339. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were a direct, foreseeable, producing, and proximate cause of monetary and other economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in amounts yet to be determined and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause such damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
340. As a result of the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations, defendants have received and continue to wrongfully collect and to hold revenues from their wrongful business practices. Such revenues were obtained by defendants through the use of unlawful, unfair or fraudulent practices and defendant should be ordered to identify and locate all victims of its practices and make restitution to them to the full extent permitted under law. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees, and costs.
COUNT XI - ILLINOIS UDAP LAW CLAIM
341. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, their ancestors and all other descendants who are similarly situated, re-allege as if fully set forth, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs.
340. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiffs, but at all times relevant herein, defendants have engaged in the practices described above as “Continued Intentional Misrepresentations” in Illinois.
341. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations violate Illinois' UDAP law.
342. Specifically, the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations violate Consumer Fraud Act, 815 ILCA Sec 505/1 et seq., which prohibits unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or employment of any deception fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact, or the use or employment of any practice described in Section 2 of the Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act. The Illinois Uniform Deceptive Trade Practices Act, 815 ILCA § 510/1 et seq., prohibits a variety of deceptive trade practices, including the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations, which create a likelihood of confusion or misunderstanding.
343. Plaintiffs and each member of the Class are consumers within the meaning of Illinois UDAP § 505/1.
345. Defendants have engaged in trade or commerce in Illinois, within the meaning of Illinois UDAP § 505/1, both in general and by making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations.
346. Illegal practices in the conduct of trade or commerce are prohibited by the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act regardless whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged. Illinois UDAP § 505/2.
347. Any person who suffers actual damage as a result of a violation of the Illinois Consumer Fraud Act committed by any other person may bring an action against such person. The court may award actual economic damages or any other relief which the court deems proper, including injunctive relief and reasonable attorney's fees and costs. Illinois UDAP § 505/10a. A plaintiff need not prove competition between the parties or actual confusion or misunderstanding. Illinois UDAP § 510/2.
348. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were a direct, foreseeable, producing, and proximate cause of monetary and other economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in amounts yet to be determined and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause such damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
349. Pursuant to the provisions of Illinois UDAP Law, Plaintiffs seek all actual economic damages and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT XII - LOUISIANA UDAP LAW CLAIM
350. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, their ancestors and all other descendants who are similarly situated, re-allege as if fully set forth, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs.
351. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiffs, but at all times relevant herein, defendants have engaged in the practices described above as “Continued Intentional Misrepresentations” in Louisiana.
352. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations violate Louisiana's UDAP Law, LA. R.S. 51:1401 et seq.
353. Unfair methods of competition and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful. Louisiana UDAP Law § 51-1405.
354. Plaintiffs and each member of the Class are consumers within the meaning of Louisiana UDAP Law § 51-1402.
355. Defendants have engaged in trade or commerce in Louisiana, both in general and by making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations.
356. A person who suffers any ascertainable loss of money or movable property may bring an action for damages. Louisiana UDAP Law § 51-1409.
357. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were a direct, foreseeable, producing, and proximate cause of monetary and other economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in amounts yet to be determined and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause such damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
358. Plaintiffs seek all actual economic damages and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
COUNT XIII - NEW JERSEY UDAP LAW CLAIM
359. Plaintiffs on behalf of themselves, their ancestors and all other descendants who are similarly situated, re-allege as if fully set forth, each and every allegation contained in the preceding paragraphs.
360. Beginning at an exact date unknown to plaintiffs, but at all times relevant herein, defendants have engaged in the practices described above as “Continued Intentional in New Jersey.
361. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations violate New Jersey's UDAP Law. N.J.S.A. § 56:8-1 et seq.
362. The act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise or real estate is an unlawful practice. New Jersey UDAP Law § 56:8-2.
363. The New Jersey UDAP applies whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged by a violation. New Jersey UDAP Law § 56:8-2.
364. Any person violating the provisions of the New Jersey UDAP Law is liable for a refund of all moneys acquired by means of any practice declared herein to be unlawful. New Jersey UDAP Law § 56:8-2.11. This refund may be recovered in a private action. New Jersey UDAP Law § 56:8-2.12.
365. The Continued Intentional Misrepresentations were a direct, foreseeable, producing, and proximate cause of monetary and other economic damages to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in amounts yet to be determined and, unless enjoined, will continue to cause such damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class.
366. Plaintiffs seek all actual economic damages and an injunction prohibiting Defendants from making the Continued Intentional Misrepresentations. Plaintiffs also seek an award of attorneys' fees and costs.
