(Asserted On Behalf Of Nationwide Class)  VIOLATIONS OF MAGNASSON-MOSS ACT – EXPRESS WARRANTY  (15 U.S.C. §§ 2301-2312)   21.  This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure on behalf of Plaintiff and all other persons similarly situated, pursuant to Rule  23(B)(2)-(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.1    22.  The Class (“Class”) that Plaintiff seeks to represent is defined as follows:  NATIONWIDE CLASS – During the fullest period allowed by law,  all persons and entities nationwide that purchased an Oven, to wit:  an LG 6.3 cu. ft. Capacity Electric Single Oven Range, further  known as LRE3083ST, LRE3083SW, or LRE3083SB  1 Both species of relief, i.e. damage and injunctive, are primary in this case. Damages are necessary if  class members are to purchase a conforming oven, and injunctive relief is necessary to rectify class  members’ misconduct under Jewish law and advise class members of their peril.  7   23.  The Class excludes:  (1) LG, any entity in which LG has a controlling interest,  and its legal representatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns, and successors;  (2) the  Judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff or immediate family;   (3) Class Counsel; and (4) claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.   24.  Plaintiffs also bring this action on behalf of the following Sub-Class, as more fully  set forth below, and, to the extent appropriate, in the alternative to the claims asserted on behalf of  the Nationwide Class:  OHIO SUB-CLASS – During the fullest period allowed by law, all  persons and entities in the State of Ohio that purchased an Oven, to  wit: an LG 6.3 cu. ft. Capacity Electric Single Oven Range, further  known as LRE3083ST, LRE3083SW, or LRE3083SB  The Ohio Sub-Class excludes:  (1) LG, any entity in which LG has  a controlling interest, and its legal representatives, officers,  directors, employees, assigns, and successors;  (2) the Judge to  whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff or  immediate family;  (3) Class Counsel; and (4) claims for personal  injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.   25.  Representative Plaintiff reserves the right to amend and modify his class  definitions, or create additional sub classes, as this case evolves.    26.  Numerosity/Impracticability of Joinder:  The members of the Class are so  numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable.  The proposed Class includes, at a  minimum, thousands of members.   27.  Commonality and Predominance:  There are common questions of law and fact  present here.  These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to the  following:     a. whether LG engaged in a pattern of fraudulent, deceptive and misleading  conduct targeting the public through the marketing, advertising, promotion  and/or sale of Product as Sabbath compliant;  8  b. whether LG’s acts and omissions violated CSPA;  c. whether LG made material misrepresentations of fact or omitted    material  facts to Plaintiff and the Class in the course of the marketing, promotion,  advertising and sale of Ovens, which material misrepresentations or omissions  operated as deceit upon Plaintiff and the Class;   d. whether, as a result of LG’s misconduct, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to  equitable relief under CSPA and, if so, the nature of such relief; and  e. whether, as a result of LG’s misconduct, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to  damage relief under CSPA and, if so, the nature of such relief;   28.  Typicality:  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the members of the  Class he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff and all Class members have been or may be injured by the  same wrongful practices in which Defendant has engaged.  Plaintiff’s claims arise from the same  practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of the Class members, and are based  on the same legal theories.   29.  Adequacy:  Plaintiff is a representative who will fully and adequately assert and  protect the interests of the Class, and has retained Class counsel who are experienced and  qualified in prosecuting class actions.  Neither Plaintiff nor his attorneys have any interests that  are contrary to or conflicting with the Class.  Plaintiff suffered helplessness in contending with  LG prior to being alerted to the availability of class action relief; and he is anxious to see justice  done.   30.  Injunction:  LG has acted on grounds generally applicable to the Class and, as  such, preliminary and final injunctive relief with regard to the members of the Class as a whole is  appropriate.    9   31.  R.C. 1345.09(D) as interpreted by the Supreme Court of Ohio specifically permits  any consumer to obtain an injunction upon a showing of an ongoing CSPA violation, as is present  here.  32.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.   33.  The Ovens are “consumer products” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. §  2301(1).   34.  Plaintiffs, Class, and Sub-Class members are “consumers” as that term is defined  by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).    35.   Defendant is a “supplier” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4).   36.  Defendant is a “warrantor” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(5).   37.  Defendant provided Plaintiffs, Class and Sub-Class members with “written  warranties” as that term is defined by 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6).   38.  Section 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) provides that a consumer who is damaged by the  failure of the supplier, warrantor, or service contractor to comply with any obligation under this  title, or a written warranty, implied warranty, or service contract, may bring suit for damages and  other legal and equitable relief in any court of competent jurisdiction in any state.   39.  When Plaintiff and the members of the Class purchased their Ovens, Defendant  expressly warranted under its Warranty that it would “repair or replace your product, at LG’s  option, if it proves to be defective in material or workmanship.”  Exhibit 3.  10   40.  Defendant breached these express warranties (and continues to breach these  express warranties) because it did not (and does not) repair or replace, or cover the expenses  associated with affording class members the benefit of, a “Sabbath Mode.” LG further breached  these express warranties because the Sabbath Mode in the Ovens was defective at the time of  sale, LG knew that the defect was present and that Plaintiff and class members could not detect  its presence, and LG did not disclose the defective or repair the defect prior to each or any sale.       41.  In its capacity as a supplier and/or warrantor, and by the conduct described herein,  any attempt by Defendant to limit its express warranties in a manner that would exclude or limit  coverage for the defective Sabbath Mode that was present as of the time of sale is  unconscionable, and any such effort to disclaim or otherwise limit liability or warranty coverage  for the defects at issue is null and void.   42.  All jurisdictional prerequisites have been satisfied.   43.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class members suffered damages caused by  Defendant’s breach of the express warranties and are entitled to recover damages, including but  not limited to repair, replacement or diminution of value, equitable relief, and attorneys fees and  costs pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2310.  44.   Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.  11   45.  The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. § 1345.02, prohibits unfair or  deceptive acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction.  For example, the Act  prohibits suppliers from representing that goods have characteristics, uses or benefits they do not  have; that their products or goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade they are not; that  the products or goods have been supplied in accordance with a previous representation, if it has  not; that the supplier has a sponsorship, approval, or affiliation that the supplier does not have;  and that the transaction involves a warranty, rights, remedies, or obligations if that representation  is false.  Defendant’s actions as described throughout this Complaint violate each of these  provisions.     46.  The Ohio Consumer Sales Practices Act, O.R.C. § 1345.03, also prohibits  unconscionable acts or practices in connection with a consumer transaction, which includes the  circumstances at issue here, where Defendant has knowingly taken advantage of the inability of  consumers reasonably to protect their interests because of the consumers’ ignorance of the latent  Sabbath Mode defect in particular.     47.  Defendant is a “supplier” as that term is defined in O.R.C. § 1345.01(C).   48.  Plaintiff and all others in the Ohio Sub-Class are “consumers” as that term is  defined in O.R.C. § 1345.01(D).   49.  Defendant’s conduct alleged above constitutes unfair, deceptive, and  unconscionable acts and practices in connection with a consumer transaction in violation of  O.R.C. § 1345.02 and § 1345.03.  The unfair, deceptive, and unconscionable acts and practices  occurred before, during, and after the transactions.   50.  Defendant’s conduct as alleged above constitutes an act or practice previously  declared by Ohio courts to violate Ohio’s Consumer Sales Practices Act and was committed after  12  the decisions containing these determinations were made available for public inspection under  division (A)(3) of O.R.C. § 1345.05.  The applicable rule and Ohio court opinions include those  cited and referenced in Nessle v. Whirlpool Corp., 2008 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 56940 (N.D. Ohio  July 25, 2008) (Held: “[p]laintiff does cite to several Ohio cases . . . Plaintiff's claim for OCSPA  violations is able to withstand Defendant's Motion to Dismiss.”).   51.  Defendant’s conduct caused damages to Plaintiff and the consumers in the Ohio  Sub-Class as alleged.    52.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the consumers in the Ohio Sub-Class are entitled to  recover damages and attorneys fees pursuant to O.R.C. § 1345.09.   53.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class are entitled to injunctive relief. See  the first sentence of R.C. 1345.09 (“For a violation of Chapter 1345 of the Revised Code, a  consumer has a cause of action and is entitled to relief as follows . . .”), coupled with subsections  (B) and (D) thereof (“Any consumer may seek a declaratory judgment, an injunction, or other  appropriate relief against an act or practice that violates this chapter.”)    54.  Plaintiff Brian Thomas Foley re-alleges and incorporates by reference all  paragraphs as though fully set forth herein.   55.  As an express warrantor and manufacturer, LG had certain obligations under the  O.R.C. 1302.26, U.C.C. § 2-313, to conform the Ovens to the express warranties.   56.  When Ohio Plaintiff and the members of the Sub-Class purchased their Ovens  Defendant expressly warranted under its Warranty that it would “repair or replace your product,  at LG’s option, if it proves to be defective in material or workmanship.”  13   57.  The defects at issue in this litigation were present at the time of sale to Plaintiff  and members of the Ohio Sub-Class.   58.  Defendant breached these express warranties (and continues to breach these  express warranties) because it did not (and does not) repair or replace, or cover the expenses  associated with affording class embers the benefit of, a “Sabbath Mode.” LG further breached  these express warranties because the Sabbath Mode in the Ovens was defective at the time of  sale, LG knew that the defect was present and that Plaintiff and class members could not detect  its presence, and LG did not disclose the defect or repair the defect prior to each or any sale.       59.  Pursuant to the express warranties, LG was obligated to pay for or reimburse  Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class members for costs incurred or to be incurred in ameliorating the  defect at issue.   60.  Pursuant to the express warranties, LG also was obligated to repair the defects.   61.  LG has failed and refused to conform the Ovens to the express warranties and  LG’s conduct, as discussed throughout this Complaint, has voided any attempt on its part to  disclaim liability for its actions.   62.  Plaintiff and Ohio Sub-Class members have performed each and every duty  required of them under the terms of the warranties, except as may have been excused or  prevented by the conduct of LG or by operation of law in light of LG’s unconscionable conduct  described throughout this Complaint.   63.  LG received timely notice of breach from Star-K, which represents Plaintiff and  class members as to Sabbath Mode (indeed LG knew or was grossly negligent in not knowing of  the defects prior to offering the Ovens for sale) and, notwithstanding such notice, LG has failed  and refused to offer an effective remedy.  14   64.  In its capacity as a supplier and/or warrantor, and by the conduct described herein,  any attempt by Defendant to limit its express warranties in a manner that would exclude or limit  coverage for the defective Sabbath Mode that was present as of the time of sale is  unconscionable and any such effort to disclaim or otherwise limit liability or warranty coverage  for the defects at issue is null and void.   65.       Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class members suffered damages caused by  Defendant’s breach of the express warranties and are entitled to recover damages, including but  not limited to repair, replacement or diminution of value, and equitable relief.   66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.   67.  LG impliedly represented and warranted that the LG Ovens were free of defects,  merchantable, and fit for their intended purpose.  LG breached these representations and implied  warranties.  Ovens were unfit for their intended use and were not of merchantable quality as  warranted by LG.   68.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Class members suffered damages caused by  Defendant’s tortious breach implied warranty and they are therefore entitled to recover damages,  including but not limited to repair, replacement or diminution of value, and equitable relief.   69.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all paragraphs as though fully  set forth herein.  15   70.  Defendant owed Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class a non-delegable duty to  exercise ordinary and reasonable care to properly design, engineer, and manufacture the Sabbath  Mode against foreseeable hazards and malfunctions and to design, engineer and manufacture  said feature so that it would prevent the Oven from heating up upon cooling while Sabbath Mode  was engaged..   71.   Defendant also owes a continuing duty to notify Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class  of the problem at issue and to repair the defects or replace the unit.    72.   The foreseeable hazards and malfunctions include, but are not limited to, the  difficulty and extra expense of replacing the Sabbath Mode or replacing the unit in its entirely if  necessary.   73.  Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class were not and could not reasonably have been  aware of the defects described above and their latent shortcomings.   74.  There existed at all relevant times alternative Sabbath Modes which were both  technically and economically feasible for LG to employ and institute.    75.  Defendant did not design, engineer, or manufacture the Ovens with reasonable  care.    76.  As to Defendant’s manufacture of the Ovens, the defective Sabbath Mode differed  in a material way from Defendant’s obligatory design specifications as promulgated by Star-K,  accepted by LG, and represented by LG (to the Star K and the Class) to be satisfied.    77.  The Ovens were defective as herein alleged at the time they left Defendant’s  factories.   78.  Defendant breached its duty owed to Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class to design,  manufacture, and engineer the Ovens against such foreseeable hazards and malfunctions.  16   79.  As a direct and proximate result of this breach, Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-Class  have suffered damages.   80.  Accordingly, Plaintiff and the Ohio Sub-class are entitled to recover damages,  including but not limited to repair, replacement or diminution of value and equitable relief.  AND  LG ELECTRONICS ALABAMA, INC  201 JAMES RECORD RD SW  BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY IN TORT  (Tortious Breach of Warranty)    BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY (O.R.C. § 2-313)   COUNT 2 (Ohio Sub-Class)  VIOLATION OF OHIO CONSUMER SALES PRACTICES ACT (O.R.C. §  1345.01)   NEGLIGENT DESIGN/ENGINEERING/MANUFACTURING   individually and on behalf of all  others similarly situated  Plaintiffs  v. 