19.  Excluded from the Class are all claims for wrongful death, survivorship  and/or personal injury by Class members.  Also excluded from the Class is Mercedes  Benz, any entity in which Mercedes Benz has a controlling interest, and its legal  representatives, heirs, and successors.  28.  Mercedes Benz designed and manufactured the Rims installed on the  Vehicles as original manufacturer’s equipment.    29.  As demonstrated below, Mercedes Benz spent millions of dollars on print  advertisements, television commercials, and website graphics and videos extolling the  virtues and strength of its Vehicles, and specifically the Rims.  These advertisements  explicitly and implicitly endorsed and represented that the Rims were of a quality and  strength to operate under normal driving conditions, and even under off-road conditions.   30.  Mercedes Benz’s promotional literature and advertisements are replete  with still graphics, illustrations and video footage depicting Mercedes Benz Vehicles  equipped with the Rims operating not only under normal driving conditions, but  traversing treacherous off-road terrain, including desert and mountain landscapes.   Moreover, these depictions are not limited to sport utility vehicles, but include Mercedes  Benz cars as well.   32.  Mercedes Benz’s 2006 Accessory and Wheel catalog makes the following  claim regarding all Mercedes Benz wheels, including the Rims:  In technical terms, every Genuine Mercedes-Benz and AMG wheel is  state-of-the-art.  Each is crafted of a proprietary aluminum alloy formula  that meets our exceedingly high original equipment requirements for  strength and durability with minimal weight.  That’s crucial, because  wheels are a significant part of your vehicle’s unsprung mass, where every  pound saved con-tributes directly to more dynamic and comfortable  performance.  After all, it’s the wheels of your vehicle that transfer power  to the road; mile after mile, bend after bend.   Besides the material used to manufacture the wheel, and its weight,  dimensions such as rim diameter, rim width, offset, backspacing and bolt  circle are critical factors that must be considered when matching any  custom wheel to your vehicle.  We have developed each and every one of  our wheels to preserve or to optimize the driving characteristics of a  specific Mercedes-Benz model.  Further, our wheels are subjected to load  tests which exceed statutory requirements.  Considering the importance  and complexity of wheels, it’s no wonder that Mercedes-Benz engineers  devote so much attention and scrutiny to them.  A wheel only earns the name Genuine Mercedes-Benz when we are  convinced that it will meet our high standards for safety, dependability and  performance – not to mention aesthetics – and make your vehicle even  more special.  In short, Genuine means premium quality.   33.  Contrary to the representations made by Mercedes Benz, the Rims bend,  deform, dent, warp or fracture in ordinary driving conditions, in the complete absence of  driving-related trauma, or when traversing even extraordinarily slight road irregularities.     34.  The Rim failures result from the defective design and/or manufacture of  the Rims alone, and/or a defect resulting from combining the Rims with other  components of the Vehicles.     36.  These defects alone, or when combined with other factors, cause the Rims  to fail under normal driving conditions and render the Rims, and therefore the Vehicles,  unsafe and unfit for their intended use.   37.  Despite these defects, and resulting Rim failures, Mercedes Benz has  refused to repair or replace the Rims under its Warranty.   38.  Mercedes Benz Vehicles are warranted by a 48 month/50,000 mile  Warranty.  The Warranty provides as follows:  Mercedes-Benz USA, LLC (MBUSA) warrants to the original and each  subsequent owner of a new Mercedes-Benz passenger car that any  authorized Mercedes-Benz Center will make any repairs or replacements  necessary, to correct defects in material or workmanship arising during the  warranty period.   39.  The Warranty documentation specifically states that Mercedes Benz’s  “intention is to repair under warranty, without charge to you, anything that goes wrong  with your car during the warranty period which is our fault.”   40.  Notably, the Warranty does not disclaim defects in the material or  workmanship of the Rims.   41.  Because the defective Rims require repairs before the expiration of four  years and 50,000 miles, the Warranty obligates Mercedes Benz to repair or replace them.   43.  Mercedes Benz’s refusal to honor the Warranty harms Plaintiffs and the  Class by forcing them to expend time and incur out-of-pocket costs to repair or replace  the defective Rims although they should be covered by the Warranty.   44.  Based on information it had, should have had, or of which it was aware or  should have been aware, Mercedes Benz knew the Rims were designed and/or  manufactured so that they could not withstand normal driving conditions and, as a result,  the Rims would fail under normal driving conditions and were accordingly defective.   45.  The federal government’s National Highway Transportation Safety  Administration (“NHTSA”) complaint database reveals that the Rims easily fail under  normal driving conditions and that Mercedes Benz will not replace the failed Rims under  its Warranty program.  Specifically, the NHTSA database illustrates the type of bending,  warping, cracking and fracturing to which the Rims are prone, and shows Mercedes  Benz’s blatant disregard for the Warranty and potential safety hazards presented by the  defective Rims.   49.  The complaints are illustrative of the type of complaints common between  Plaintiffs and other Class members.  Regardless of the Vehicle’s make or model, the  complaints are strikingly similar, each demonstrating that the Rims fail regularly, under  normal driving conditions, and that Plaintiffs and the Class have incurred, will incur, or  will continue to incur, out-of-pocket costs associated with repairing or replacing the  defective Rims on each of their Vehicles.  The complaints also demonstrate that although  Mercedes Benz was made aware of the defect, it continues to deny Warranty coverage for  the Rim failures.    51.  By contrast, the defect present in the Rims was not known or reasonably  discoverable by Plaintiffs and the Class prior to purchase of the Vehicles.  Plaintiffs and  the Class had to experience the defect first-hand, thereby exposing them to an  unreasonable safety risk.   52.  Because the Rims often fail within the time period and mileage covered by  the Warranty, Mercedes Benz is required to provide replacement parts or repairs  necessary to correct the defective parts.   53.  Rather than provide the remedy prescribed by the Warranty, however,  Mercedes Benz has actively concealed the defect present in the Rims from consumers.   Mercedes Benz has also engaged in a campaign of piecemeal correction, refunding all or  a portion of the cost of replacement Rims only where convenient or where customer  relationships perceived by Mercedes Benz to be essential so demand, in an attempt to  further cover up the fact that the Rims are defective.     54.  Notwithstanding Mercedes Benz’s knowledge of numerous Rim failures  and the defective material and design of the Rims, Mercedes Benz failed and continues to  fail to advise potential and/or current owners or lessees of Vehicles of the defective  nature of the Rims – that they are known to bend, warp or even break under normal  driving conditions – and instead has engaged in a calculated pattern and practice to hide  the true nature of the Rim failures.     56.  Mercedes Benz knew that potential car buyers and lessees would deem the  defect in the Rims to be material such that reasonable consumers who knew of the defect  either would have paid less for the Vehicles or would not have purchased or leased them  at all.   57.  Had Plaintiffs and the Class been advised of the defects present in the  Rims, or the fact that Mercedes Benz would refuse to honor its Warranty, Plaintiffs and  the Class would not have purchased Vehicles or would have paid substantially less for  them.   58.  To make matters worse, the Mercedes Benz Operators Manual specifically  warns of the detrimental effects and dangers associated with use of tires and Rims that  are not “Mercedes Benz Original equipment.”  Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class  cannot substitute the Rims in order to alleviate the problems or potential dangers posed  by their defects.     66.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as  if fully set forth herein.   67.  Plaintiffs, and all others similarly situated, relied in good faith upon  Mercedes Benz’s written representations and warranties in making their determination to  purchase or lease their Mercedes Benz vehicles.   68.  With the purchase or lease of each vehicle, Mercedes Benz specifically  and uniformly warranted in writing that any part of the subject vehicle that proved to be  defective would be replaced by Mercedes Benz at no cost to Plaintiffs or members of the  Class.   69.  Mercedes Benz has breached its express warranties to Plaintiffs and the  Class members in that the Rims do not perform as represented by Mercedes Benz.   70.  Mercedes Benz has also breached its express warranties to Plaintiffs and  Class members in that Mercedes Benz failed and continues to fail to replace and/or repair  the Rims that proved defective under normal driving conditions.   72.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as  if fully set forth herein.   73.  Plaintiffs and the other Class members are “consumers” within the  meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   74.  Mercedes Benz is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of  Sections 2301(4)-(5).   75.  The Vehicles are “consumer products” within the meaning of Section  2301(1).   76.  Mercedes Benz’s express warranty is a “written warranty” within the  meaning of Section 2301(6).   78.  Mercedes Benz’s breach of the express warranty has deprived the  Plaintiffs and the other Class members of the benefit of their bargain.   79.  The amount in controversy of the Plaintiffs’ individual claims meets or  exceeds the sum or value of $25.  In addition, the amount in controversy meets or  exceeds the sum or value of $50,000 (exclusive of interests and costs) computed on the  basis of all claims to be determined in this suit.   80.  Mercedes Benz has been afforded a reasonable opportunity to cure its  breach of written warranty, including when Plaintiffs and other Class members brought  their vehicles in for replacement of the defective Rims.   81.  As a direct and proximate result of Mercedes Benz’s breach of its express  written warranties, Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered damages and other  losses in an amount to be determined at trial.  Accordingly, Plaintiffs and the Class are  entitled are entitled to recover damages, consequential damages, specific performance,  diminution in value, costs, attorneys’ fees, rescission, and/or other relief as appropriate.  82.  Plaintiffs repeat and reallege each and every allegation contained above as  if fully set forth herein.   84.  Mercedes Benz used, by means of an affirmative act, an unconscionable  commercial practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise or misrepresentation,  in connection with the advertisement or sale of its Rims and Vehicles with the capacity  and/or intent to mislead or deceive Plaintiffs and the Class in violation of N.J.S.A. 56:8- 1, et seq. (the “New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act”).     85.  In addition, Mercedes Benz knowingly concealed, suppressed, omitted,  left out, or did not mention important or significant facts purposely or with the intent that  Plaintiffs and the Class would rely on that concealment, suppression and/or omission in  connection with the sale or advertisement of its Rims or Vehicles in violation of the New  Jersey Consumer Fraud Act.  Plaintiffs and the Class relied upon the facts as  communicated to them without having the opportunity to also consider the facts which  were concealed, suppressed, or omitted when they purchased or leased their Mercedes  Benz Rims and Vehicles.   86.  As a direct and proximate result of Mercedes Benz’s unlawful conduct,  Plaintiffs and the Class members have suffered or will suffer damages, which include,  without limitation, the diminution in value of Plaintiffs’ and the Class members’ vehicles,  costs to inspect, repair, and/or replace the Rims, and reimbursement of the costs and  expenses already expended by Plaintiffs and the Class members as a result of the failed  Rims in an amount to be determined at trial.   BREACH OF WRITTEN WARRANTY PURSUANT TO  THE MAGNUSON-MOSS WARRANTY ACT   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTIES   VIOLATION OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT  