(Violation of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq., Injunctive  Relief)   (Violation of the "Fraudulent" Prong of the UCL, California Business & Professions Code  §17200, et seq.)   (Violation of the "Unfair" Prong of the UCL, California Business & Professions Code §17200, et  seq.)   (Violation of the California False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code  Sections 17500, et seq.)   (Violation of the "Unlawful" Prong of the UCL, California Business & Professions Code §  17200, et seq.)   22. On February 29, 2016, Plaintiff purchase a ring manufactured by Defendant KC Jewelry from  Modern Jewelry.  Below is a picture of the ring along with the applicable tags.   23. The ring was represented to contain 4.25 carats of diamonds.     24. Plaintiff had the ring disassembled to measure the total weight of the diamonds.  Once the ring was  disassembled in this way, the only value for the resultant is as scrap.   26. There is no indication on the label that the carat weight was approximated.   27. Defendants intentionally overstated the weight of the diamonds.   28. All defendants including KC, Youssian, Yosian, and Modern Jewelry, and the other Store  Defendants acted together and with full knowledge in representing that the diamond weights were  overstated.   29. All defendants knew that Plaintiff and other members of the class would rely upon the weights  indicated on the product label.   30. All defendants knew that Plaintiff and other members of the class would have no reasonable way to  detect that the diamond weights were overstated.  Doing so, as here, required disassembly of the  item rendering the item no longer jewelry.   31. All defendants knew that Plaintiffs would be relying upon the product label and intended that  Plaintiffs would rely upon the product label.  32.  Plaintiffs bring this action on their own behalf and on behalf of a proposed Class of all other  persons similarly situated. The Class Plaintiffs seek to represent is defined as:  a. All persons who, in the United States after September 1 2012 (the "Class Period"),  purchased from Defendants: (1) one or more pieces of jewelry where the weight of  diamonds indicated on the product label exceeded the actual weight of the diamonds  in the jewelry by more than 1/100 of a carat (1 point, 2mg).   34. Plaintiffs reserve the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this class definition, including the  addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with Plaintiffs' motion for class certification, or at  any other time, based upon, inter alia, changing circumstances and/or new facts obtained during  discovery.   35. Numerosity: The Class is composed of thousands of individuals, whose joinder in this action would  be impracticable. The disposition of their claims through this class action will benefit all Class  Members, the parties, and the courts.   37. Typicality: Plaintiff’s claims are typical of, and are not antagonistic to, the claims of all Class  Members. Plaintiff and the Class Plaintiffs have all been deceived (or were likely to be  deceived) by Defendants overstating of the diamond weight in the jewelry manufactured and/or  sold by Defendants.    38. Adequacy: Plaintiff is an adequate representative of the Class because Plaintiff is a member of the  Class and Plaintiff’s interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class Members Plaintiff  seeks to represent. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  Class because Plaintiff is not antagonistic to the Class. Plaintiff has retained counsel who is  competent and experienced in the prosecution of consumer fraud and class action litigation.   40. All Class Members, including Plaintiff, were exposed to one or more of Defendants’  misrepresentations or omissions of material fact including Defendants’ claims that the weight of  diamonds indicated on the jewelry product label was higher than the actual weight.  Due to the  scope and extent of Defendants’ consistent false advertising scheme, disseminated in a massive,  years-long campaign to consumers via the Internet, radio, TV and print media, it can reasonably  be inferred that such misrepresentations or omissions of material fact were uniformly made to  all Class Members. In addition, it can be reasonably presumed that all Class Members, including  Plaintiff, affirmatively acted in response to the representations contained in Defendants’ product  labeling when purchasing jewelry from Defendants.   41. Plaintiff is informed and believes that Defendants keep extensive computerized records of its  customers through, inter alia, customer loyalty programs, co-branded credit cards and general  marketing programs. Defendants have one or more databases through which a significant  majority of Class Members may be identified and ascertained, and it maintains contact  information, including email and home mailing addresses, through which notice of this action  could be disseminated in accordance with due process requirements.  42. Plaintiff re-alleges by reference as if fully set forth herein, all of the above paragraphs.   44. Defendants have violated the "unfair" prong of the UCL by overstating the carat weight of the  diamonds in jewelry manufactured and sold by Defendants.     45. These acts and practices were unfair because they caused Plaintiff, other members of the Class, and  were likely to cause consumers, to falsely believe that the weight of the diamonds in jewelry  manufactured and sold by Defendants was greater than actual.  As a result, purchasers, including  Plaintiff and other members of the Class, reasonably perceived that they were buying products which  contained more diamond weight than actual.  Thus, Plaintiff and other members of the Class paid  more for Defendants jewelry than they would have otherwise had the true weight been identified.   Furthermore, Plaintiff and other members of the Class were more likely to purchase a KC product  from a Store Defendant perceiving that such purchases were bargains as compared to other jewelry  stores.  This perception has induced reasonable purchasers, including Plaintiff and other members  of the Class, to buy such products, which they otherwise would not have purchased.    46. The gravity of the harm to members of the Class resulting from these unfair acts and practices  outweighed any conceivable reasons, justifications, and/or motives of Defendants for engaging in  such deceptive acts and practices. By committing the acts and practices alleged above, Defendants  engaged in unfair business practices within the meaning of California Business & Professions Code  §§ 17200, et seq.    48. Plaintiff re-alleges by reference as if fully set forth herein, all of the above paragraphs.    49. The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent" act or  practice, as well as any "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading" advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code  § 17200.    50. A business act or practice is "fraudulent" under the UCL if it is likely to deceive members of the  consuming public.    51. Defendants labelling and selling of jewelry overstating the weight of diamonds was "fraudulent"  within the meaning of the UCL because they deceived Plaintiff and other members of the Class, and  were likely to deceive members of the Class, into believing that jewelry manufactured and sold by  Defendants were of greater value than if the true diamond weight had been disclosed.  Plaintiff and  other members of the Class were also likely to be deceived that jewelry manufactured and sold by  Defendants was a better value than that offered by other manufacturers and retailers.  As a result,  purchasers, including Plaintiff, reasonably perceived that they were receiving products which  regularly sold in the retail marketplace at substantially higher prices (and were, therefore, worth  more) than what they paid. This perception induced reasonable purchasers, including Plaintiff, to  buy KC’s products from the Store Defendants, which they otherwise would not have purchased.    53. As a result of the conduct described above, Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense  of Plaintiff and members of the Class. Specifically, Defendants have been unjustly enriched by  obtaining revenues and profits that it would not otherwise have obtained absent its false, misleading  and deceptive conduct.    54. Through its unfair acts and practices, Defendants have improperly obtained money from Plaintiff  and the Class. As such, Plaintiff requests that this Court cause Defendants to restore this money to  Plaintiff and all Class Members, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the UCL as  discussed herein and/or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiff, the Class, and  members of the general public may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and complete  remedy if such an order is not granted.   55. Plaintiffs re-allege by reference as if fully set forth herein, all of the above paragraphs.    56. The UCL defines unfair business competition to include any "unlawful, unfair or fraudulent" act or  practice, as well as any "unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading" advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code  § 17200.    58. The FTCA prohibits "unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce" (15 U.S.C. §  45(a)(l)). The FTC has established guidelines that describe the accuracy with which diamond  weights must be stated under 16 C.F.R. §23.17.  At no time was any indication made on the product  label that diamond weights were approximate.     59. Misstating the weight of the diamonds is unfair and deceptive.   60. By overstating the weight of the diamonds on KC’s jewelry, KC violated the FTCA.   61. Each Store Defendant knew or should have known that KC was overstating the weight of diamonds  in KC’s jewelry.  By selling KC’s jewelry to consumers knowing that the weights were overstated,  the Store Defendants approved of and adopted KC’s untrue and misleading statements.  Thus, each  Store Defendant acted in concert with KC and all Defendants acted to violate the FTCA, Cal. Bus.  & Prof. Code §17200 and §17500, and California Civil Code §1770.    62. California Business & Professions Code§ 17500 prohibits a business from misrepresenting the  weight of goods.     63. California Civil Code §1770, subsection (a)(5) prohibits a business from representing that goods  have quantities that they do not have.  Representing that jewelry has a total carat weight greater than  actually present violates subsection a(5).     64. Defendants’ misrepresentation of diamond weights violated and continues to violate the FTCA, 15  U.S.C. § 45(a)(l), and 15 U.S.C. § 52(a), as well as 16 C.F.R. §23.17.  It also violated and continues  to violate Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17501, and Cal. Civ. Code§ 1770 (a)(5) by representing on  product labels that the quantity of the good contained is greater than actual.   66. Through its unfair acts and practices, Defendants have improperly obtained money from Plaintiff  and the Class. As such, Plaintiff requests that this Court cause Defendants to restore this money to  Plaintiffs and all Class Members, and to enjoin Defendants from continuing to violate the UCL,  and/or from violating the UCL in the future. Otherwise, Plaintiffs, the Class, and members of the  general public may be irreparably harmed and/or denied an effective and complete remedy if such  an order is not granted.   67. Plaintiffs re-allege by reference as if fully set forth herein, all of the above paragraphs.    68. The California False Advertising Law, California Business & Professions Code §17500, et seq.,  prohibits unfair, deceptive, untrue, or misleading advertising, including, but not limited to, false  statements as quality or quantity.  In relevant part, §17500 states:  It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or association, or any  employee thereof with intent directly or indirectly to dispose of real or  personal … to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated  before the public in this state, or to make or disseminate or cause to be made  or disseminated from this state before the public in any state … or in any  other manner or means whatever … any statement, concerning that real or  personal property … which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or  which by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or  misleading[.]   70. Defendant KC disseminated these untrue and misleading statements from California.   71. Each Store Defendant conducted business within the state of California by purchasing goods from  75. Plaintiff re-alleges by reference as if fully set forth herein, all of the above paragraphs.    76. This cause of action is brought pursuant to the CLRA.    78. Defendants' sale of consumer goods to Plaintiffs and members of the Class were "transactions"  within the meaning of California Civil Code§ 1761(e). The products purchased by Plaintiff and  members of the proposed Class are "goods" within the meaning of California Civil Code§ 176l(a).    79. As described herein, Defendants violated the CLRA by falsely representing the quantity of diamonds  contained within the jewelry by stating that the item contained more diamonds than actual.  Defendants inflated the purported weight of diamonds in violation of Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5).    80. Plaintiff and other members of the Class relied upon Defendants’ false representations in deciding  to purchase the jewelry from Defendants. Plaintiff would not have purchased such items at the price  paid absent Defendants’ unlawful conduct. As a result of these acts and practices, Plaintiff and other  members of the Class have suffered damage in that Plaintiff and other members of the Class have  spent money with Defendants that Plaintiff and other members of the Class would not have otherwise  spent absent Defendants’ unlawful and misleading acts and practices.    81. Pursuant to §1782(a) of the CLRA, on April 22, 2016, Plaintiffs' counsel, on behalf of Plaintiffs,  served Defendant KC by United States certified mail, return receipt requested, with notice of KC's  particular violations of the CLRA and requested that Defendant identify victims, notify victims and  remedy its illegal conduct within 30 days. Defendant KC did not rectify nor agree to remedy the  conduct complained of within 30 days of receipt of the complaint.  As a result, Plaintiff and members  of the Class are entitled to actual damages, restitution and punitive damages.  Furthermore, Plaintiff  and other members of the Class are entitled to recover attorneys’ fees, costs, expenses, and  disbursements pursuant to California Civil Code sections 1780 and 1781.   83. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.    84. Defendants acted together and individually in systematically misrepresenting the weights of  diamonds contained within KC’s jewelry and sold by the Store Defendants.  Each Defendant acted  with full knowledge that the weights of diamonds contained in KC’s products was overstated.  By  so acting, each Defendant approved of and adopted the misrepresentations in the weights of KC’s  products.   85. The weight of the diamonds in KC’s products is a material fact that would be reasonably relied upon  by all purchasers of KC’s products.   87. Plaintiff and the Class were actually misled and deceived and were induced by Defendant to purchase  Defendant KC’s products from the Store Defendants which they would not otherwise have  purchased, or would have paid substantially less for.    88. As a result of the conduct of Defendants, Plaintiffs and the Class members have been damaged in an  amount to be determined at trial.   89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all allegations of the preceding paragraphs as though fully set  forth herein.    90. Defendants had a duty to provide honest and accurate information to its customers so that customers  could make informed decisions on the substantial purchase of a jewelry.    91. Defendants specifically and expressly misrepresented material facts to Plaintiff and Class members,  as discussed above. Each Defendants was aware that the weights of diamonds stated in labels of KC’  products was systematically overstated.   92. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should have known, that the ordinary  and reasonable consumer would be misled by Defendants misleading and deceptive representations.   93. Each Defendant was aware that the weights stated on KC’s product’s labels was not accurate.    94. Plaintiff and the Class members justifiably relied on Defendant’s misrepresentations and have been  damaged thereby in an amount to be determined at trial.   96. Plaintiff and members of the Class conferred a benefit on Defendants by purchasing Defendant KC’s  products from the Store Defendants.    97. Defendants had knowledge that this benefit was conferred upon it.    98. Because of its wrongful acts and omissions, Defendants charged a higher price for KC’s products  than KC’s products true value and Defendants obtained money which rightfully belongs to Plaintiff  and the members of the Class.    99. Defendants have been unjustly enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and the Class and its retention of  this benefit under the circumstances would be inequitable.   100.  Plaintiff seeks an order requiring Defendant to make restitution to them and the other members  of the Class.  FRAUD   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION   UNJUST ENRICHMENT  