1.  All store managers were instructed to cover up and conceal the  Vendor Code "BBLF 3425" and the words "California 93120  Compliant for Formaldehyde Phase 2" on all product labels affixed to  store inventory of the Formaldehyde Flooring, by affixing new labels  that did not contain the identification of the mill or contain the CARB  compliance language;    2.  Managers were told FND would ship new labels to each of its stores  throughout the United States, which were to be placed directly over  the original labels concealing the vendor code and the CARB  compliance language on the Formaldehyde Flooring;   21.  On or about March 1, 2015, the CBS News television show "60  Minutes" aired an investigative report exposing that Lumber Liquidators had sold  Chinese-made laminate to customers in the United States which contained  formaldehyde levels which violated the CARB Regulations.     22.  FND knew that its Formaldehyde Flooring was manufactured by the  same mills in China exposed in the "60 Minutes" story as having manufactured and  labeled laminate flooring for Lumber Liquidators as CARB compliant, when in  fact such flooring contained dangerous levels of formaldehyde in excess of the  CARB Regulations.     23.  FND had sold Formaldehyde Flooring which violated the CARB  Regulations for years, and FND feared its actions would be exposed if consumers  learned the identity of the Chinese mills which manufactured its Formaldehyde  Flooring.    25.  As a result, FND devised a scheme to conceal the identity of the  Chinese mills which manufactured its Formaldehyde Flooring and to quickly  remove all product labels claiming its Formaldehyde Flooring was "California  CARB Complaint."    26.  Within days of the airing of the "60 Minutes" episode, FND  management held a telephonic conference call with all of its store managers across  the country and announced the following plan of action, which in fact was  implemented:     27.  This plan was carried out by FND to conceal the defective nature of  its flooring from potential customers and prevent the customers who had  previously purchased the flooring from discovering that it was made at the same  factories used by Lumber Liquidators, as exposed in the "60 Minutes" television  show.    28.  Despite the fact that the Formaldehyde Flooring fails to meet CARB  requirements for formaldehyde emissions, Defendant has made representations to  the contrary on the product packaging for the Formaldehyde Flooring.   29.  At all times relevant to this action, Defendant has knowingly  misrepresented its laminate wood flooring products as CARB compliant and  knowingly concealed, omitted or failed to disclose to Plaintiffs, Class Members  and consumers the unlawful levels of formaldehyde emissions from its  Formaldehyde Flooring.    3. Store managers were authorized to approve overtime for sales  associates to re-label the Formaldehyde Flooring inventory in the  stores after-hours;    32.  This action may properly be maintained as a class action pursuant to  Federal Rules of Civil Procedure Rule 23.     33.  Class Definition: Plaintiffs seek to represent a class composed of all  persons in the United States who purchased Formaldehyde Flooring from the time  of its introduction in the marketplace through and including the date of class notice  (the “national class”).  The national class asserts claims under the common law and  the Magnuson-Moss Act.  Alternatively, if the national class is not certified,  Plaintiffs request that classes asserting these claims be certified in California,  Georgia, Nevada, Texas, and Tennessee (“the alternative state classes”).      34.  In addition to the national and alternative state classes described in the  preceding paragraph, Plaintiffs assert claims under state statutes on behalf of  subclasses in California, Georgia, Nevada, Texas and Tennessee (the “state  statutory subclasses”).  The proposed national class, alternative state classes, and  the state statutory subclasses are collectively referred to in this complaint as the  “Class.”    36.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definitions if discovery  and further investigation reveal that any of the classes should be expanded, limited,  or otherwise modified.   37.  The proposed classes meets all of the requirements to be certified  under Rule 23, including the four criteria of Rule 23(a) and the criteria of Rule  23(b)(3).  Rule 23(a)   38.  Numerosity:  The Class is so numerous that the individual joinder of  all members of the Class is impractical under the circumstances of this case.  While  the exact number of members of the Class is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time,  Plaintiffs are informed and believe the national class has tens of thousands of  members and each of the state classes and subclasses have thousands of members.       42.  Predominance:  The common issues of law and fact predominate over  any individual issues.     44.  There are no unusual management difficulties posed by this litigation  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.  To the contrary,  concentrating all of the claims in a single forum would provide substantial  efficiencies and economies of scale.  45.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,  adopt and incorporate by reference all foregoing allegations as though fully set  forth herein.   46.  FND warranted that its flooring was free of defects when it sold those  products to Plaintiffs and the members of the Class as described in this Complaint.   48.  These representations became the basis of the bargain when Plaintiffs  and the Class Members purchased the Formaldehyde Flooring.    49.  Plaintiffs and Class Members relied on FND’s express warranties and  representations and would not have purchased the Formaldehyde Flooring (or the  homes in which they were installed) if it had been disclosed that the Formaldehyde  Flooring did not conform to FND’s express representations and warranties.    5. Commencing on or about March 25, 2015, FND began adding the  words "May not meet California air STNDs" in small print at the  bottom of the store receipt of each customer who purchased the  Formaldehyde Flooring with the new labels.   50.  FND breached their warranties by:  a. Manufacturing, selling and/or distributing flooring that exceeds  the CARB formaldehyde standards;  b. Manufacturing, importing, selling and/or distributing flooring  that fails to comply with all applicable laws and regulations; and  c. Refusing to honor the express warranty by refusing to properly  repair or replace the defective flooring.   51.  Plaintiffs and Class Members have complied with all conditions  precedent and provided FND with adequate notice.   52.  FND was also on notice regarding the excessively high levels of  formaldehyde in its flooring from the complaints and requests for refund it  received from Class Members, Internet message boards and from published  product reviews.   54.  As a direct and proximate result of FND’s misconduct, Plaintiffs and  the other Class Members have suffered damages and continue to suffer damages,  including economic damages at the point of sale. Additionally, Plaintiffs and the  other Class Members have either incurred or will incur economic damages at the  point of repair in the form of the cost of repair and/or the cost of purchasing non- defective flooring to replace the FND flooring.  55.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,  adopt and incorporate by reference all foregoing allegations as though fully set  forth herein.   56.  By placing its Formaldehyde Flooring in the stream of commerce,  Defendant impliedly warranted that its Formaldehyde Flooring was reasonably safe  for its intended use, i.e., to provide flooring without exposing consumers to excess  levels of formaldehyde gas.   58.  Defendant’s Formaldehyde Flooring was not reasonably safe for its  intended use when it left Defendant’s control and entered the market.   59.  The Formaldehyde Flooring defects were not open or obvious to  consumers.   60.  Privity of contract exists between FND and Plaintiffs and the Class.   61.  Specifically, Plaintiffs and Class Members have had sufficient direct  dealings with FND and/or its authorized dealers, franchisees, representatives, and  agents to establish privity of contract.   62.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are also intended third-party  beneficiaries of contracts, including express warranties, between FND and its  dealers, franchisees, representatives, and agents.   63.  Furthermore, FND’s advertisements were directed at Plaintiffs and  Class Members, and FND’s warranties were expressly written for the benefit of  Plaintiffs and Class Members as end users. FND’s authorized dealers, franchisees,  representatives, and agents, on the other hand, were not intended to be the ultimate  consumers, and have no rights under the warranty agreements provided by FND.   65.  FND manufactured and sold its Formaldehyde Flooring to Plaintiffs  and the Class Members, and, in so doing, impliedly warranted to them that the  product was of merchantable quality and fit for its intended use.   66.  FND’s Formaldehyde Flooring was not of merchantable quality and  not fit for intended use when it left the factory due to the defects in the flooring  described in this Complaint.     67.  FND’s Formaldehyde Flooring would not pass without objection in  the trade under FND’s product description.    68.  The numerous and serious defects described in this Complaint make  the Formaldehyde Flooring unfit and inappropriate for its intended use.    69.  As a result, FND breached its implied warranties to Plaintiffs and  Class Members by producing, manufacturing, distributing and selling to them a  defective product that was unfit for its intended use and for a particular purpose.    70.  As a direct and proximate result of FND’s breach of its implied  warranties, Plaintiffs and Class Members have suffered actual and consequential  damages.  72.  Defendant advertised and/or marketed its Formaldehyde Flooring to  be safe and of good quality free from defects.  Defendant also represented that the  Formaldehyde Flooring would perform in its reasonably expected operation use for  its full life and was CARB compliant.    73.  In order to cut costs, Defendant did not ensure that the Formaldehyde  Flooring was CARB compliant.   74.  FND failed to disclose that its Formaldehyde Flooring was not CARB  compliant and defective, as described above, and that the Design Defect posed a  serious risk of personal injury.    75.  These facts were not known or reasonably knowable to Plaintiffs and  the Class.   76.  Defendant knew of the Design Defect from its performance of  standard testing prior to placing the Formaldehyde Flooring into the stream of  commerce.   78.  Defendant knew or should have known that Plaintiffs and the Class  relied upon Defendant to sell laminate wood flooring that was not defective and  did not pose an unreasonable risk of harm.     79.  Defendant’s knowledge that its Formaldehyde Flooring was defective  combined with Defendant’s knowledge that Plaintiffs and the Class relied or rely  upon Defendant to communicate the true state of facts relating to its Formaldehyde  Flooring creates a legal obligation on Defendant to disclose to Plaintiffs and the  Class these facts.    80.  Defendant is in a superior position to know the truth about, and the  nature of, the Formaldehyde Flooring.   81.  Defendant intended and intends to deceive Plaintiffs and the Class by  failing to disclose that the Formaldehyde Flooring is defective and poses an  unreasonable risk of harm to consumers.   83.  Plaintiffs and the Class were harmed. As a proximate result of  Defendant’s conduct, Plaintiffs and the Class will now be required to remedy the  Design Defect, described above, so as to avoid the distinct likelihood that they may  suffer personal injury.   In addition, Plaintiffs and the Class Members have suffered  damages, which include, but are not limited to, the cost to repair the Design  Defect.   84.  FND’s concealment was a substantial factor in causing that harm.   85.  The wrongful conduct of Defendant was willful, oppressive, immoral,  unethical, unscrupulous, substantially injurious, malicious, and/or in conscious  disregard for the wellbeing of Plaintiffs and the Class along with other members of  the public who may be personally injured by the excessive levels of formaldehyde  gas emitted from the Formaldehyde Flooring.     86.  Defendant caused injury to the Plaintiffs and the Class, placing profits  over safety. In so doing, Defendant acted willfully and in conscious disregard of  the rights or safety of others and subjected, and continues to subject, Plaintiffs and  the Class to cruel and unjust hardship.  88.  FND made representations about the Formaldehyde Flooring to  Plaintiffs, Class Members, and their agents or predecessors, as set forth in this  Complaint.   89.  Those representations were false.   90.  When FND made the representations, it knew or should have known  the representations were untrue or it had a disregard for whether the  representations were true.   91.  FND knew that Plaintiffs, Class Members, and their agents or  predecessors, were relying on the representations.   92.  In reliance upon the representations, Plaintiffs and Class Members  purchased the Formaldehyde Flooring and installed it in their homes.   93.  As  a  direct  and  proximate  result  of  FND’s  negligent  misrepresentations, Plaintiffs and Class Members have been damaged as set forth  in this Complaint.   95.  Plaintiffs, on behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated,  adopt and incorporate by reference all foregoing allegations as though fully set  forth herein.   96.  FND owed a duty to Plaintiffs and Class Members to use reasonable  care to ensure that its products did not pose an unreasonable risk of personal injury  and, in particular, to ensure that its laminated flooring did not contain excessive  levels of formaldehyde.  FND’s duty arose under the common law and by virtue of  regulations restricting the levels of formaldehyde in its laminated flooring.   97.  FND breached its duty of care by distributing, marketing, and selling  the Formaldehyde Flooring to Plaintiffs and Class Members without ensuring that  the flooring did not contain excessive levels of formaldehyde and thus was  negligent.  FND’s negligent acts and omissions include, but are not limited to,  failing to adequately test the flooring before its sale; failing to determine that the  flooring coming from China was CARB compliant; and failing to adequately and  appropriately supervise and monitor the manufacture of the flooring.     BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES  (Brought by the National and Alternative State Classes)   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (Brought by the National and Alternative State Classes)   FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT  (Brought by the National and Alternative State Classes)   NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION  (Brought by the National and Alternative State Law Classes)   NEGLIGENCE  (Brought by the National and Alternative State Classes)   UNJUST ENRICHMENT  (Pleading in the Alternative)  (Brought by the National and Alternative State Law Classes)  