37.  The Subaru Impreza is a compact family car that was first  manufactured in 1992 and is now in its fifth generation of manufacturing.    38.  Subaru also manufactures a “WRX” (short for world rally) version of  the Impreza which features increased performance over the standard Impreza.    39.  Subaru has and continues to market the WRX models as high- performance vehicles. For example, Subaru currently states “There’s never a dull  moment behind the wheel of the WRX and WRX STI. Forged in rally competition,  tempered on the racetrack, they’re built to inspire with control, and excite—any  day, any season, any road.” 6   40.  The 2013-2014 Subaru Impreza WRX and WRX Sti models at issue  in this litigation were manufactured with Subaru’s EJ “short block” engine. The EJ  is a four-stroke combustion engine manufactured by Subaru. The EJ is a dual  overhead camshaft 16-valve turbo engine.   46.  The defect inherent in the Class Vehicles causes an insufficient supply  of engine oil to coat the bearing surfaces, compromising the integrity of the oil  barrier between the bearings and the corresponding metal parts they are designed  to protect. When the Rotating Assembly Defect manifests, it results in excessive  and frequent contact between the connecting rods and connecting rod bearings.  This contact causes accelerated wear on the connecting rod bearing surfaces in the  Class Vehicles, ultimately causing them to disintegrate and fracture.    48.  Additionally, as the connecting rod bearings continue to fracture, the  acceptable tolerances between the connecting rod bearings, the connecting rods,  and the crankshaft begin to rapidly deteriorate. Eventually, the Class Vehicles  begin producing a “knocking” or “rattling” sound originating from the engine as a  result of the deteriorating connecting rod bearings. Additionally, the defective  connecting rod bearings may eventually cause the piston to break through the  engine block due to such deterioration. This space is referred to in the automobile  industry as “play.”    49.  The defective engines can fail during operation, so that vehicles  suddenly stall and shut down even when traveling at high speeds, risking the lives  of drivers, their passengers, and others on the road.   50.  Defendants knew or should have known about the defect and its  consequences since at least 2009, four years before the Class Vehicles were  manufactured.    52.  Subaru also receives data about how its vehicles are performing in the  days, weeks, and months after they are sold. Subaru collects information from both  drivers and dealerships, including through complaints, warranty claims, repair and  replacement parts data, and other aggregated data sources. Subaru has exclusive  access to this information too.   54.  Defendants’ National Warranty Department similarly reviews and  analyzes warranty data submitted by its dealerships and authorized technicians in  order to identify defect trends in its vehicles. Defendants dictate that when a repair  is made under warranty (or warranty coverage is requested), service centers must  provide Defendants with detailed documentation of the problem and the fix that  describes the complaint, cause, and correction, and also save the broken part in  case Defendants later determine to audit the dealership or otherwise verify the  warranty repair. For their part, service centers are meticulous about providing this  detailed information about in-warranty repairs to Defendants because they will not  pay the service centers for the repair if the complaint, cause, and correction are not  sufficiently described.    56.  In addition, since November of 1994, Subaru’s internal quality  management system has been in place to “to impress customers through the  establishment of quality policy in line with our customer first policy and a high  level of integration of safety, enjoyment and environmental performance.”8   57.  Specifically, Subaru’s Product Quality Management System identifies  four key metrics that Subaru has instituted:  • Establish Quality Management System (QMS) based on the Quality  Policy and ISO 9001 Standard and put it into practice for orderly and  effective operations.  • Clarify the quality targets acceptable to customers at the planning  stage.  • Realize the quality targets through quality assurance activities at each  stage from development to sales and service.  • Attend to complaints and requests from the market quickly and  appropriately to live up to the trust of customers.   59.  Subaru’s quality management cycle consists of three stages. In the  design and development stage, consideration is “given to preventing variability and  standardization of tasks from the blueprint creation stage through to production  processes.”   60.  The production stage entails “establishment of process management  aimed at preventing quality defects and variability as well as implementation of  strict quality inspection and testing.”    61.  The distribution and sales stage begins after vehicles are shipped and  collects after-sales information and quality improvements that can be made. Subaru  explicitly collects and analyzes “information on quality defects and requests sent to  dealerships and SUBARU Customer Center.”    62.  Subaru then takes the quality defect data and “prompt[ly” implements  in successive design and development stages.    64.  Subaru monitors drivers’ safety-related reports to the National  Highway Transportation Safety Administration (“NHTSA”), which can be viewed  on NHTSA’s website. Dating back to at least April of 2009, drivers of Subaru  vehicles with EJ model engines began contacting the NHTSA to complain about  their vehicles experiencing similar engine defects relating to the connecting rod  bearings.   65.  Subaru’s Customer Relations departments routinely monitor the  internet for customer complaints and have retained the services of third-parties to  do the same. Further, the Customer Relations division regularly receives and  responds to driver calls concerning vehicle problems.    72.  Plaintiff brings this action on his own behalf, and on behalf of the  nationwide class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).   Nationwide Class:  All persons or entities in the United States who bought or leased a Class  Vehicle (the “Nationwide Class”).     74.  Excluded from the Nationwide Class and California Class are  Defendants, their affiliates, employees, officers and directors, persons or entities  that purchased the Class Vehicles for resale, and the Judge(s) assigned to this case.  Plaintiff reserves the right to modify, change, or expand the Nationwide Class or  the California Class definitions based on discovery and further investigation.    75.  Numerosity: Upon information and belief, both of the Classes are so  numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number and  identities of individual members of the Classes are unknown at this time, such  information being in the sole possession of Defendants and obtainable by Plaintiff  only through the discovery process, Plaintiff believes, and on that basis alleges,  that hundreds of thousands of Class Vehicles have been sold and leased both  nationwide and in California.    78.  Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative because his interests  do not conflict with the interests of the Classes that he seeks to represent, he has  retained counsel competent and highly experienced in complex class action  litigation, and he intends to prosecute this action vigorously. The interests of the  Classes will be fairly and adequately protected by Plaintiff and his counsel.    80.  Defendants have acted, and refused to act, on grounds generally  applicable to the Classes, thereby making appropriate final equitable relief with  respect to the Classes as a whole.   81.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth and length herein.    82.  The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, N.J. Stat. Ann. §§ 56:8-1, et  seq. (“NJCFA”) protects consumers against “any unconscionable commercial  practice, deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the  knowing, concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with intent  that others rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection  with the sale or advertisement of any merchandise…” N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.   83.  Plaintiff and Class members are consumers who purchased and leased  Class Vehicles.   85.  Defendants have engaged in unfair and deceptive trade practices,  including representing that the Class Vehicles have characteristics, uses, benefits,  and qualities which they do not have; representing that the Class Vehicles are of a  particular standard and quality when they are not; advertising Class Vehicles with  the intent to not sell them as advertised; and otherwise engaging in conduct likely  to deceive. Further, Subaru’s acts and practices described herein offend established  public policy because of the harm they cause to consumers, motorists, and  pedestrians outweighs any benefit associated with such practices, and because  Subaru fraudulently concealed the defective nature of the Class Vehicles from  consumers.    86.  Subaru’s actions as set forth above occurred in the conduct of trade or  commerce.    88.  Plaintiff’s and other class members’ damages are the direct and  foreseeable result of Defendants’ unlawful conduct. Had the Rotating Assembly  Defect in the Class vehicles been disclosed, consumers would not have purchased  or would have paid less for the Class Vehicles and would have been spared the  subsequent expenses.   89.  Pursuant to N.J. Stat. Ann. § 56:8-20, Plaintiff will serve the New  Jersey Attorney General with a copy of this Complaint.   90.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth and length herein.    92.  Both of these warranties became part of the basis of the bargain.  Accordingly, Defendants’ warranties are express warranties under state law.    93.  The parts affected by the defect, including the connecting rod bearings  and engines, were manufactured and distributed by Defendants in the Class  Vehicles and are covered by the warranties Defendants provided all purchasers and  lessors of Class Vehicles.    94.  Defendants breached these warranties by selling and leasing Class  Vehicles with the defect, requiring repair or replacement within the applicable  warranty periods, and refusing to honor the warranties by providing free repairs or  replacements during the applicable warranty periods.    95.  Plaintiff notified Defendants of the breach within a reasonable time,  and/or was not required to do so because affording Defendants a reasonable  opportunity to cure its breach of written warranty would have been futile.  Defendants also knew of the defect and yet chose to conceal it and to fail to  comply with their warranty obligations.   97.  Defendants’ attempt to disclaim or limit these express warranties vis- à-vis consumers is unconscionable and unenforceable under the circumstances  here. Specifically, Defendants’ warranty limitation is unenforceable because they  knowingly sold a defective product without informing consumers about the defect.   98.  The time limits contained in Defendants’ warranty period were also  unconscionable and inadequate to protect Plaintiff and members of the Class.  Among other things, Plaintiff and Class members had no meaningful choice in  determining these time limitations the terms of which unreasonably favored  Defendants. A gross disparity in bargaining power existed between Subaru and the  Class members, and Subaru knew or should have known that the Class Vehicles  were defective at the time of sale and would fail well before their useful lives.   A. The Rotating Assembly Defect within the Class Vehicles.    BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or,   Alternatively, the California Class)   ENGINE, TO WHICH I HAVE TO DISAGREE WITH. I PURCHASED THIS  CAR NEW WITH NO RE-MANUFACTURED ON IT FROM THE FACTORY.  SO WHY CAN A CAR MAKER PLACE RE-MANUFACTURED PARTS IN A  EXTENDED WARRANTY. SUBARU NORTH AMERICA IS TRYING TO  AVOID FIXING UNDER WARRANTY (AGAIN, IT SEEMS A NOT  UNCOMMON PROBLEM). SUBARU CLAIMS OIL LEAKED OUT, BUT OIL  MILES. STARTER FAILURE AT 9600 MILES (2/2011). REPORTED TO SOA.  *TR  Date Complaint Filed: 09/01/2011  Date of Incident: 08/05/2010  Component(s): ENGINE AND ENGINE COOLING  NHTSA ID Number: 10423716  Consumer Location: CLIFTON PARK, NY  MONTHS OF PRODUCTION ARE EXPERIENCING. SUBARU OF AMERICA  HAS OFFERED NO EXPLANATION ABOUT WHY THIS HAPPENED OR  WHY IT IS HAPPENING TO MANY OTHERS WHO OWN THIS CAR.  MY WARRANTY IS SHOT FOR ANY FUTURE ENGINE WORK, THE  DEALERSHIP ITSELF TOLD ME. I REFUSED TO SIGN ANY OF THEIR  PAPERS, AND WILL BE AGGRESSIVELY PURSUING LITIGATION IF I DO  OCCUR WITHOUT WARNING ON A CAR THAT IS LESS THAN 6 YEARS  OLD WITH LESS THAN 100K MILES IS VERY CONCERNING TO ME. IF  THE OTHER DRIVERS ON THE INTERSTATE HAD NOT BEEN PAYING AS  OTHER 09 WRX THAT EXHIBIT THIS SAME DEFECT IN THE US.  SIMILARLY I HAVE BEEN MADE AWARE OF 09 WRX EXHIBITING THIS  SAME DEFECT IN BOTH CANADA AND AUSTRALIA, SOME LEGACY  ROTATING ASSEMBLYFAILURE" WHICH CAUSED CATASTROPHIC  ENGINE DAMAGE. SUBARU OF AMERICA DENIED THE REPAIR DUE TO  THE ECM BEING MODIFIED, STATING "OUR ENGINEERS REVIEWED  VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY CONSUMER FRAUD ACT  (N.J. STAT. ANN. § 56:8-1, et seq.)  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class)  