(Breach of Express Warranty)  [Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act; Cal. Civil Code §1790, et seq.)]   (Declaratory Relief)  16  116.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  17  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  18  117.  An actual controversy has arisen and exists between Plaintiff, individually  19 and on behalf of the class members on the one hand, and Defendant on the other hand  20  concerning their respective rights and duties with regard to the Leaking Sunroof defect and  21  the rights and duties under Defendant's express warranty as herein alleged.  22  118.  Defendant's express warranty constitutes a contract of adhesion, drafted by  23  Defendant and presented in its entirety to Plaintiff and the class members. Defendant is  24  one of the largest automobile manufacturing companies in the world and a large  25  international corporation.  Plaintiff and the members of the class by contrast are  26  individuals. Plaintiff and the class members do not possess anywhere near the economic  27  power Defendant possesses and there is no opportunity for Plaintiff or the class members  28  to negotiate the terms of Defendant's express warranty, or Defendant's refusal to honor  Gaines v. General Motors Company;  (Unlawful, Unfair and/or Fraudulent Business Practices)  [Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17200, et seq.]  Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  6 preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  7   (Unjust Enrichment)  24  112.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  25  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  26  113.  To the detriment of Plaintiff and the class members Defendant has been and  27  continues to be unjustly enriched as a result of its unlawful, unfair, wrongful acts and  28  breaches of express warranty as herein alleged. Defendant has been unjustly enriched by  Gaines v. General Motors Company;  (Violation of California's Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA")  [Cal. Civ. Code §1750, et seq.]  Plaintiff hereby incorporate by reference the allegations contained in the  6  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  7   48.  Plaintiff brings this lawsuit as a class action on behalf of herself and all others  7  similarly situated as members of the proposed class/ sub-classes pursuant to Federal Rules  8  of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) and/ or (b)(2). This action satisfies the numerosity,  9  commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of those  I 0 provisions.  11  A.  Numerosity & Ascertainability  12   49.  Although precise numbers are not available at the time of the filing of this  13  Class Action Complaint, Plaintiff alleges Defendant delivered and sold or leased  14 approximately 222,260 of the Cadillac SRX vehicles model years 2010-2013 ("Class  15  Vehicles"). While not all these vehicles were located in California and the other states  16  excluded specifically from Defendant's Document ID No. 4060832, entitled "#14225:  17  Customer Satisfaction - Sunroof Drain Hose Leaks (Jan. 14, 2015)" the subject of which is  18  "14225 - Sunroof Drain Hose Leaks; Models" 2010-2012 Cadillac SRX Equipped with  19 Sunroof (RPO C3U), based on the 222,260 total number of vehicles delivered Plaintiff  20 alleges there are thousands, tens of thousands, if not hundreds of thousands of Class  21  Vehicles. Therefore, the potential members of the class as defined are so numerous and are  22  dispersed throughout California and the United States such that joinder of all class  23  members is impracticable. Disposition of the claims of the class members in a single action  24  will provide substantial benefits to all parties and to the Court.  25   50.  Based on information presently available the proposed class and/ or sub- 26  classes is/ are currently defined as:  27  All current and former owners or lessees of 2010-2013 model year Cadillac  SRX vehicles located in California and who paid for repair/replacement of  28  their vehicles because of the Leaking Sunroof defect.  Gaines v. General Motors Company;  6   60.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in the  13  preceding paragraphs of this Complaint.  14   61.  According to Defendant's express warranty for the 2010-2013 Cadillac SRX  15  model year vehicles ("Class Vehicles") the vehicles are subject to a 48-month (4-year),  16  50,000 mile Bumper-to-Bumper Limited Warranty with no deductible. Plaintiff alleges the  17  "Bumper-to-Bumper Limited Warranty" covers vehicles registered in the U.S. and Canada  18  from the date the vehicle is first delivered until it reaches 4 years or 50,000 miles  19  (whichever occurs first). It covers the vehicle from bumper to bumper on any vehicle defect  20  related to materials or workmanship.  21  22   62.   63.  Defendant's stated warranty is an" express warranty" under California law.  Defendant provided all purchasers and/ or leasees of Class Vehicles with the  23  express warranty described herein which became a part of the basis of the bargain and a  24  part of the purchase or lease contract between the class members and Defendant.  25   64.  The seals, hoses and all other parts, components, materials, and/ or  26  workmanship associated with the manufacture, installation and/ or design of the Leaking  27  Sunroof defect were originally supplied by Defendant.  28  Gaines v. General Motors Campany;  75.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself individually and on  8  behalf of the proposed class members pursuant to Cal. Civil Code §1780 ("Any consumer  9  entitled to bring an action under Section 1780 may, if the unlawful method, act, or practice  1 O has caused damage to other consumers similarly situated, bring an action on behalf of  11  himself and such other consumers to recover damages or obtain other relief as provided  12  for in Section 1780.").  13   76.  Defendant is a "person" as defined by and within the meaning of the  14  California Consumer Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"), Cal. Civ. Code§ 1761(c).  15   77.  Plaintiff and class members are "consumers" as defined by and within the  16  meaning of the CLRA, Cal. Civ. Code§ 1761(d).  17   78.  The Class Vehicles are" goods" as defined by and within the meaning of the  18  CLRA, Cal. Civil Code §1761(a).  19   79.  Plaintiff purchased and/ or leased her 2010 Cadillax SRX vehicle primarily  20 for personal and/ or household use.  21   80.  Defendant's acts and practices, as alleged in this complaint, violated and  22  continue to violate the California CLRA in at least the following respects:  23  24  25  26  27  28  a.  b.  Representing the Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits, or  qualities which they do not have, to wit: the Class Vehicles have a sumoof  that will keep water out while allowing light in [Cal. Civil Code §1770(a)(5)];  Representing the Class Vehicles are of a particular standard, quality or grade  when they are of another, to wit: the Class Vehicles a sumoof that will keep  water out while allowing light in [Cal. Civil Code §1770(a)(7)]; and  Gaines v. General Motors Company;  88.  By engaging in the acts, conduct and business practices as alleged herein,  8 Defendant has violated California's Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code  9 §17200, et seq. More specifically, Defendant engaged in an unlawful, unfair and/ or  I 0 fraudulent business acts or practices by failing and/ or refusing to repair, correct or  11  otherwise remedy pursuant to Defendant's express warranty the Leaking Sunroof defect  12  on the Class Vehicles and by requiring Plaintiff and the class members to pay from their  13  own pockets the costs to repair, correct or otherwise remedy the Leaking Sunroof defect.  14   89.  Defendant engaged in an unlawful business practice by refusing to honor and  15  abide by, and expressly excluding the Class Vehicles from the benefits and privileges of  16  Defendant's express warranty in violation of the Song-Beverly Consumer Warranty Act  17  [Cal. Civil Code §1790, et seq.], as herein alleged.  18   90.  Defendant further engaged in a unlawful business practice by violating the  19  provisions of the California Consumer Legal Remedies Act [Cal. Civil Code §1750, et seq.],  20  as herein alleged.  21   91.  Defendant further engaged in a unlawful business practice by violating the  22  provisions of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §17500, et seq, as herein alleged.  23   92.  Defendant engaged in an unfair business practice by refusing to honor and  24  abide by its express warranty covering the Class Vehicles and by expressly excluding the  25  Class Vehicles from warranty coverage for the Leaking Sunroof defect as herein alleged  26  despite Defendant's actual and/ or constructive knowledge during the express warranty  27  period of the Leaking Sunroof defect.  28  Gaines v. General Motors Company; 