26.  Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on their own behalf and on  behalf of all other persons similarly situated as members of the proposed Class,  pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and/or (b)(2) and/or  (c)(4).  This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy,  predominance, and superiority requirements of those provisions.   27.  The proposed classes are defined as:  Nationwide Class  All persons or entities in the United States that purchased or acquired a  Power King Towmax STR trailer tire (“Class Tires”).  California Subclass  All persons or entities in California that purchased or acquired   a Power King Towmax STR trailer tire (“Class Tires”).  Arizona Subclass  All persons or entities in Arizona that purchased or acquired  a Power King Towmax STR trailer tire (“Class Tires”).   40. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Nationwide  Class.   41. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   42. Defendants engaged in both speaking and silent fraud, and in fraudulent  and deceptive conduct, throughout the Class Period.  As described above,  Defendants’ conduct defrauded Plaintiffs and Class Members, intending and leading  them to believe, through affirmative misrepresentations, omissions, suppression and  concealments of material fact, that the Class Tires, marketed by Defendants as safe  and suitable for use on trailers, possessed important characteristics that they in fact  did not possess—namely that they were safe and durable for trailer use, and would  perform in ordinary driving conditions—and inducing the purchase and acquisition of  the Class Tires.   53. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Nationwide  Class.   54. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   55. Defendants have been unjustly enriched in that they intentionally sold the  Class Tires knowing that they could not deliver the safety, durability and  performance promised to consumers.  Defendants enticed Plaintiffs and Class  Members to purchase or acquire the Class Tires through false and deceptive  advertising, promotional, marketing and warranty materials, and were unjustly  enriched as a result.   56. Plaintiffs and Class Members conferred a benefit on Defendants by  purchasing or acquiring the Class Tires.   57. When purchasing or acquiring the Class Tires, Plaintiffs and Class  Members reasonably believed that the Class Tires were safe, durable and would  perform as advertised, warranted and represented by Defendants.   58. Plaintiffs and Class Members received less than what they paid for in that  the Class Tires were not as advertised, warranted and represented by Defendants.   59. Defendants know of and appreciate the benefit conferred by Plaintiffs and  Class Members, and have retained that benefit notwithstanding their knowledge that  the benefit is unjust.   60. The above did not occur by accident or conditions not within Defendants’  control.  If fact, the Class Tires were dangerous and unsafe, and did not perform  safely under ordinary driving conditions.   62. Plaintiffs bring this claim on behalf of themselves and the Nationwide  Class.   63. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.   64. The Class Tires are “consumer products” within the meaning of the  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).   65. Plaintiffs and Class Members are “consumers” within the meaning of the  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3), because they are persons  entitled under applicable state law to enforce against the warrantor the obligations of  its express and implied warranties.   66. Each Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4)-(5).   67. Section 2310(d)(1) of Chapter 15 of the United States Code provides a  cause of action for any consumer who is damaged by the failure of a warrantor to  comply with a written or implied warranty.   68. In connection with the purchase of the Class Tires, Defendants provided  an express Limited Warranty Against Defects in Workmanship and Materials for the  life of the original tread, or five years from date of purchase (whichever comes first).   69. Plaintiffs and members of the Nationwide Class experienced defects  within the warranty period.  Despite the existence of the warranties, the Defendants  failed to inform Plaintiffs and Class members that the Class Tires were defective and  unsafe, and prone to failure and tread separation.   Common Law Fraud and Violations of  Cal. Civ. Code sections 1709, 1710, 1572 & 1573  (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class)   Numerosity and Ascertainability …………………………………………..  7  Typicality …………………………………………………………………..  7  Adequate Representation …………………………………………………..  7  Predominance of Common Issues ………………………………………….  8  Superiority …………………………………………………………………. 10  Quasi-Contract Unjust Enrichment  (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class)   Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301, et seq.  Breach of Express Warranty  (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class)  