1.  The Defective Gas Range  A.  Surface Knob Defect   14.  The Defective Gas Range has four (4) surface knobs, located in the front of the  range, each of which can be turned to the “Lite” position.     15.  When a knob is turned to the “Lite” position, (and assuming the Defective Gas  Range is otherwise functioning properly), the burner associated with that knob will emit a flame.    16.  However, the surface knobs are prone to, and do, rotate as a result of minor,  inadvertent bumps or jostling.  As a result, the surface knobs can turn to the “Lite” position as a  result of slight, inadvertent contact with either the knobs or the Defective Gas Range itself.    B.  Ignition System Defect   17.  Turning a surface knob on the Defective Gas Range to the “Lite” position opens a  burner valve associated with that knob, and allows flammable gas to flow through a burner tube.   The gas is directed to a venturi, where it is combined with air to create the proper mixture  necessary for combustion.   18.   Turning a surface knob also causes a spark switch to close, which sends 120 volts  of alternating current to the spark module and, in turn, sends high voltage pulses to all of the  electrodes.  The pulses cause a spark to occur between the electrode and the grounded burner  cap.   That spark ignites the gas and air mixture at the burner head, producing a blue flame with  an occasional yellow tip.    20.  However, the ignition system on the Defective Gas Range does not operate  properly, often resulting in a failed ignition.  Moreover, the ignition system on the Defective Gas  Range does not contain a failsafe or redundancy that will stop the flow of gas in the event that  ignition fails, or in the event that the burner valve is opened as a result of inadvertent contact  with the surface knob on the Defective Gas Range.   21.  Absent ignition, gas continues to flow from the Defective Gas Range, causing an  excess of flammable gas to accumulate.  The accumulation of gas is noxious and unpleasant.  In  addition, the accumulation of flammable gas, when combined with oxygen-rich room air, creates  a highly combustible fuel mixture and dramatically increases the potential for explosion and/or  fire.   22.  Beginning in the early 1990s, Defendant had or should have had knowledge of the  reports and data demonstrating that gas ovens with “self-proving” systems were prone to  hazardous flare-ups and explosions. This propensity was investigated by the United States  Consumer Products Safety Commission (“CPSC”) and resulted in the publication of a report on  July 15, 2002 entitled Gas Range Delayed Ignitions.  The report concluded, inter alia, that  marketed “hot surface igniters” and gas valves create a system that “is not failsafe and the  presence of gas at the burner was not proved.” Moreover, such appliances “have no means to  detect and react to the release or accumulation of non-combusted gases.”    24.  The Defective Gas Range was not similarly recalled.  C.  Sale of Defective Gas Range   25.  GE manufactured, produced, and/or distributed the Defective Gas Ranges for sale  by GE’s network of authorized dealers in the United States, such as Best Buy, Sears, and other  large and medium-sized retail chains, as well as through independently-owned retailers, such as  Oberg & Lindquist.    26.  The Defective Gas Ranges are or were sold as GE products, branded with the  “General Electric” name and “GE” logo. GE markets the Defective Gas Ranges under names  such as “Free Standing” or “Profile.”   27.  The Defective Gas Range sell or were sold for a retail price of approximately  $875 to $1200.   28.  There are no differences among the Defective Gas Ranges that relate to, arise  from, or are relevant to the cause of the Defects.  The Defective Gas Range’s relevant design,  parts, pieces, operation and materials are the same.  Plaintiff is informed and believes that the gas  ranges are and were manufactured in the same facilities in Louisville, Kentucky and/or Leiser,  Mexico.   30.  GE has failed or refused to implement a solution that prevents the Defective Gas  Range’s surface knobs from rotating and releasing flammable gas as a result of minor,  inadvertent bumps or jostlings.     31.  GE has also failed or refused to repair the Defective Gas Range so that the self- proving ignition system properly and timely prompts the ignition spark in cases of inadvertent  surface knob turns.     32.  GE refuses to replace the Defective Gas Range with a comparable, non-defective  model.   33.  Defendants knew, or should have known, that there are several mechanisms that  Defendants could use to shut off gas flow when a flame is undetected.   35.  On or about January 30, 2013, Ms. Volin physically analyzed the GE-branded 30  inch Free-Standing Gas Range, model number JGB600EEDES on the showroom floor at Oberg  & Linquist of Westwood, New Jersey.     36.  On information and belief, the Oberg & Linquist salesperson, GE’s de facto  agent, provided Ms. Volin with the same representations and omissions that GE provided to  Oberg & Linquist, and which GE also stated in its advertising, marketing, labeling and  packaging, and owner’s manual regarding the Defective Gas Range.   37.  Based on GE’s standardized representations and omissions, Ms. Volin purchased  one of the Defective Gas Ranges.    39.  On some of these occasions, the ignition system failed to ignite the released gas,  resulting in a slow, continuous leak of noxious and flammable gas into Plaintiff’s home.  For  example, on or about September 2013, Plaintiff’s Defective Gas Range exhibited the Ignition  Switch Defect, at which time it malfunctioned due to the negligent and careless design of the  manufacturer. This resulted in a flow of gas from the Defective Gas Range and throughout her  home.   40.  On other occasions, the Defective Gas Range exhibited the Surface Knob Defect  wherein the ignition system did ignite the unintended released gas, resulting in an unintended  burst of flame.  For example, in early 2014, a guest in Plaintiff’s home inadvertently brushed  against one of the surface knobs, causing a high flame to burst up from the Defective Gas Range.   41.  Plaintiff’s Defective Gas Range has exhibited the Ignition Switch Defect and the  Surface Knob Defect fairly regularly from September 2013 to at least May 2014, when Plaintiff  purchased safety knob covers (see below).   42.  The Defective Gas Range purchased by Plaintiff does not contain a failsafe or  redundancy that will stop the flow of gas in the event the spark fails to ignite.  When the gas and  air mixture is not ignited by the spark, gas continues to flow, causing a noxious odor and an  excess to build up which – when combined with oxygen-rich room air – creates a highly  combustible fuel mixture and dramatically increases the potential for explosion and/or fire.  F.  Defendant’s Failure to Address Plaintiff’s Reported Concerns   44.  In particular, on or about September 4, 2013, Plaintiff called the GE Consumer  Relations phone number (800-386-1215), and selected Option 1, regarding safety issues.   Plaintiff spoke with “Jessica” at extension 5455, who opened case #12971295.  Plaintiff reported  the Defects and asked what GE could do to remedy the Defects.  Jessica suggested that a GE  service representative visit Plaintiff’s home and look at the Defective Gas Range.     45.  On or about September 12, 2013, a GE service representative visited Plaintiff’s  home and reviewed the Defective Gas Range.  The GE service representative indicated to  Plaintiff that nothing could be done to remedy the Defects or their symptoms.  The GE service  representative refused to provide Plaintiff with any accommodations and told her that there was  nothing further that GE would do.  Instead, GE advised Plaintiff not to lean on the surface knobs  of the Defective Gas Range.  Defendant or its authorized representatives did not thereafter  contact Plaintiff regarding the subject Defective Gas Range, her complaint, or her request to have  the Defects addressed.   47.  The safety knob covers are a “band-aid” fix, and a poor replacement for a  properly functioning gas range.  The safety knob covers are attached to each surface knob,  blocking access to the surface knobs and detracting from the aesthetics of the Defective Gas  Range.  In order to operate a surface knob, Plaintiff must unlatch the lid of the safety knob cover.   The lid then hangs from the safety knob cover until Plaintiff has finished using the surface knob,  at which point Plaintiff must reattach the lid of the safety knob cover.      48.  When the safety knob lid is unlatched and hanging, the oven door of the Defective  Gas Range is blocked.  Moreover, when the oven is operating, Plaintiff must keep vigil not to  allow the oven door to become ajar, otherwise the heat from the oven will cause the safety knob  covers to either become hot or possibly melt.   G.  Defendant Designed a Malfunctioning Gas Range   49.  Defendant, at all times relevant hereto, was in the business of designing,  manufacturing, assembling, inspecting, marketing, selling and/or distributing the Defective Gas  Range, including the appliance purchased by Plaintiff.    51.  As a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant and the  dangerous and the defective nature of the Defective Gas Range, reasonable consumers including  Plaintiff and the members of the Class routinely endured the Defective Gas Range’s  malfunctioning.    52.  As a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant and the  dangerous and defective nature of the Defective Gas Range, reasonable consumers, including  Plaintiff and the members of the Class, were routinely and repeatedly subjected to unpleasant  odors, unjustifiable inconvenience, expense and otherwise incurred damages in an attempt to use  and correct the defects the Defective Gas Range including purchasing safety knob covers.    53.  As a result of the negligence, carelessness and recklessness of Defendant, and of  the dangerous and defective nature of the Defective Gas Range, reasonable consumers, including  Plaintiff and the members of the Class, were subjected to the noxious and unpleasant gas leaks,  and the unjustifiable safety risk of gas leaks, explosions and/or fires due to the Surface Knob and  Ignition System Defects.    55.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant knew, and had reason to know, or should  have known, that the surface knobs and self-proving system on the Defective Gas Range were  negligently designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, marketed, advertised, promoted, sold,  and/or distributed in a dangerous and defective condition in that they caused the gas valve to  open in such a manner as to cause the oven to release flammable gas, but not ignite. Under  circumstances such as opening the oven door, the fuel-rich oven air mixes with the oxygen-rich  room air, and can trigger an explosion and/or fire. Defendant was fully capable of taking proper  remedial action, but failed and/or refused to do so.    56.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant knew, and had reason to know, or should  have known, that the Defective Gas Range was negligently designed, manufactured, assembled,  inspected, marketed, advertised, promoted, sold, and/or distributed in a dangerous and defective  condition in that it possessed hidden and/or concealed defects with respect to: (1) the surface  knobs being prone to rotate and, in fact, rotating and releasing flammable gas as a result of  minor, inadvertent bumps or jostling, and (2) the self-proving system not properly and timely  operating the “ignition” function in the event that the surface knobs inadvertently turn on to the  “Lite” position.  Each defect created the risk, tendency and propensity of the Defective Gas  Range to suddenly and without warning become ineffective for safe use, and/or explode and/or  cause fire at any given time.  These defects were not reasonably known or knowable to Plaintiff  and the members of the Class.    58.  Upon complaining to GE about the Defective Gas Range, consumers are denied a  good faith or effective repair.  GE fails to make repairs that it knows will cause the Defective  Gas Range to perform safely and with the quality it represents.  GE has not implemented a  solution that prevents the Defective Gas Range’s surface knobs from rotating and releasing  flammable gas as a result of minor, inadvertent bumps or jostlings; nor did GE develop a fix to  the Defective Gas Range’s self-proving system to properly and timely prompt the “ignition”  spark in cases of inadvertent surface knob turns.  GE has refused repairs or replacement.   59.  Defendant has known, or reasonably should have known, that the Defective Gas  Range is defective.   60.  Defendant has ignored and concealed the nature and severity of the Surface Knob  and Ignition System Defects from consumers, including Plaintiff and Class Members.   H.  Defendant’s Misrepresentations and Omissions   61.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant failed to warn of the dangers of the  Defective Gas Range, including that the Defective Gas Range routinely malfunctioned, rendering  them ineffective for safe use; and presented an unreasonable risk, tendency and propensity to  cause explosion and/or fire when properly used by consumers, in the manner in which they are  intended to be used, including by Plaintiff and the members of the Class.    63.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant fraudulently concealed from Plaintiff and  the members of the Class dangerous defects in the Defective Gas Range that caused it to  routinely malfunction, rendering them ineffective for safe use.     64.  At all times relevant hereto, Defendant knew about the hidden Defects and/or  concealed the Defects in the Defective Gas Range generally, and with respect to the igniter  mechanism specifically. The Defects are reflected in data and reports maintained by Defendant  and other reports, technical service bulletins, documents and memoranda within the possession  of Defendant. The Defects were not reasonably known or knowable by Plaintiff, and Defendant  never disclosed the Defects to Plaintiff or Class Members.    65.  Defendant designed, manufactured, assembled, inspected, marketed, advertised,  promoted, sold, and/or distributed the Defective Gas Range as safe, despite its exclusive  possession of knowledge of the defects in the Defective Gas Range generally, and with respect to  the igniter mechanism specifically.    66.  Prior to Plaintiff’s use of the Defective Gas Range, Defendant, in order to  promote and induce the purchase of their product, represented to the general public and to the  Plaintiff, through the internet, by advertisement literature, through sales representatives, owner’s  manual and other means that consumers could use the product for the purpose for which the  product was intended.    68.  Furthermore, the Defective Gas Range’s owner’s manual states, “When one  burner is turned to LITE, all the burners spark.”  GE fails to disclose to consumers, at the time of  purchase or otherwise, the material fact that the Defective Gas Range’s “self-proving system”  fails to properly and timely spark “ignition” function when the surface knob gets inadvertently  turned on, resulting in unsafe gas fumes being emitted from the Defective Gas Range.  The  omissions are misleading.   69.  GE was obliged to disclose the material facts that the surface knobs and “self- proving” system are defective, and that it had offered no solution to make the Defective Gas  Range perform as represented because: (a) Defendant had exclusive superior knowledge of the  material facts not known to Plaintiff and Class members, because only Defendant had access to  the aggregate data from its retailers, its own tests of knobs and self-proving systems, and  complaints from its customers; and (b) Defendant actively concealed and suppressed the material  facts from Plaintiff by not warning of the defects in the Defective Gas Range at the time of  purchase, and by performing warranty and/or repair work that it knew would not cure the  defects.   70.  GE had gone to significant efforts to promote its Defective Gas Range, and touted  the appliance and operation as a material characteristic, use and benefit.    72.  Plaintiff and members of the Class purchased or obtained the Defective Gas  Range in reliance on the represented/promised safety features in its manual and other marketing  materials (e.g., the surface knob needs to be turned in to avoid unintentional release of gas),  namely those that would mitigate the propensity to cause flare-ups, explosions and/or fire (as  well as the professed integrity of Defendant GE).    73.  The Defective Gas Range does not perform the function for which it was intended  and is not merchantable, and is not fit for its ordinary and intended purpose.  GE has not been  able to conform the Defective Gas Range to its express and implied warranties.   74.  The defects were the direct, proximate, and foreseeable cause of damages  incurred by Plaintiff and members of the Class.   75.  Had the Defective Gas Range been properly manufactured and/or free from  design defects, Plaintiff and the members of the Class would not have suffered the damages  complained of herein.  77.  Members of the Class are so numerous that joinder is impracticable. While the  exact number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff, it is believed that the Class is comprised  of hundreds of members geographically disbursed throughout the State of New Jersey. The  Class, however, is readily identifiable from information and records in the possession of GE.   79.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the members of the Class as all members of the  Class are similarly affected by Defendant’s actionable conduct.  Plaintiff and all members of the  Class purchased one or more Defective Gas Ranges. In addition, Defendant’s conduct that gave  rise to the claims of Plaintiff and members of the Class (i.e. designing and manufacturing the  Defective Gas Range, concealing the defect, and breaching warranties respecting the Defective  Gas Range) is the same for all members of the Class.   80.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the Class because  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the Class that Plaintiff seeks to  represent. Furthermore, Plaintiff has retained counsel experienced and competent in the  prosecution of complex class action litigation.   82.  Plaintiff knows of no difficulty to be encountered in the maintenance of this  action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.   83.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the class,  thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief with  respect to the Class as a whole.  88.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each and every factual allegation as if fully  written herein.   89.  Plaintiff and the members of the Class are “consumers” within the meaning of the  New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann., § 56:8-1 et seq. (“CFA”).   90.  The Defective Gas Ranges are “goods” within the meaning of the CFA.   91.  At all relevant times material hereto, GE conducted trade and commerce in New  Jersey and elsewhere within the meaning of the CFA.   92.  The CFA is, by its terms, a cumulative remedy, such that remedies under CFA’s  provisions can be awarded in addition to those remedies provided pursuant to other sources of  law.   94.  GE had exclusive knowledge of the Defects at the time of sale.  The Defects are  latent and not something that Plaintiff or members of the Class could have discovered, in the  exercise of reasonable diligence, independently prior to purchase.   95.  GE represented that its Defective Gas Ranges had characteristics, uses, or  benefits, that they did not have, and that its Defective Gas Ranges were of a particular standard,  quality or grade that they were not.   96.  In its marketing and sale of the Defective Gas Ranges, GE undertook active and  ongoing steps to conceal the Defects and has consciously withheld material facts from Plaintiff  and other members of the Class with respect to the Defects in the Defective Gas Ranges. Plaintiff  is aware of nothing in GE’s advertising, publicity, or marketing materials that discloses the truth  about the Defects, despite GE’s awareness, or reckless lack of awareness, of the problem.   97.  GE’s conduct was objectively deceptive and had the capacity to deceive  reasonable consumers under the circumstances. Defects exist in the Defective Gas Range in that  (1) the knobs are prone to, and do, rotate and release flammable gas as a result of minor,  inadvertent bumps or jostling, and (2) the self-proving ignition system does not properly and  timely ignite gas released by the inadvertent turning of the knobs.  The fact of these Defects is a  material fact to which a reasonable consumer would attach importance at the time of purchase.  The fact of these Defects would influence a reasonable consumer’s choice of action during the  purchase of an appliance such the Defective Gas Range.   99.  Had GE disclosed the material information regarding the Defects to Plaintiff and  the members of the Class, Plaintiff and the members of the Class would not have purchased the  Defective Gas Range, or they would have paid less for it.  100.  As a result of the foregoing acts, omissions, and practices, Plaintiff and the  members of the Class have suffered an ascertainable loss by purchasing defective gas ranges that  do not function properly and/or as intended, and that present a risk to the safety of Plaintiff and  the members of the Class.  101.  Plaintiff is entitled to recover such damages, together with appropriate penalties,  including treble damages, attorneys’ fees, and costs of suit.  102.  Application of the CFA to all Class members, regardless of their state of  residence, is appropriate as described herein and because, inter alia, the facts and circumstances  of this case reflect numerous contacts with the State of New Jersey so as to create a state interest  in applying the CFA to GE, thereby making application of New Jersey law to the entire Class  appropriate.  The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act  15 U.S.C. § 2301 et seq.  126.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each and every factual allegation as if fully  written herein.  127.  The Defective Gas Range is a “consumer product” within the meaning of 15  Unjust Enrichment  134.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates each and every factual allegation as if fully  written herein.   135.  Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred a benefit upon Defendant.  Namely,  Plaintiff and members of the Class paid money to Defendant for ownership of the Defective Gas  Range.  Defendant retained that benefit.  136.  Defendant, however, retained that benefit under circumstances that make it  inequitable for Defendant to retain such benefit without paying the value thereof. Specifically,  Defendant retained that benefit despite the fact that the Defective Gas Range was defective.  137.  Plaintiff, and the putative Class, are therefore entitled to disgorgement/restitution.  Violations of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act  N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1 et seq.  