 (FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION)   (Unjust Enrichment)   (Violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,   Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq.)   11.  As a result, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were deceived into  purchasing furniture from Ashley with upholstery that, contrary to their reasonable beliefs and  expectations, in fact did not consist of leather or was not of similar quality, strength, or durability  as leather, instead being of such inferior quality, strength, or durability as to not hold up to  normal wear and tear and begin to peel or disintegrate within a short period of time.  15.  Plaintiff purchased the Furniture based on Defendant’s representations that the  DuraBlend® upholstery was made of a “synthetic leather” designed to make the upholstery  durable.  Indeed, Defendant represented to Plaintiff that the Furniture was “as durable as  leather.” However, Defendant sold the Furniture to Plaintiff without disclosing to her the  percentage of leather scraps or fibers, if any, or the percentage of non-leather substances  contained in it.  Further, when Plaintiff purchased the furniture, she did not see, nor was she  presented with, any hang tags or disclosures regarding the DuraBlend upholstery. Additionally,  Defendant did not disclose to Plaintiff that the Furniture was of such nature and quality that it  would not hold up to normal wear and tear and that it would begin to peel or disintegrate within a  short period of time.   16.  Plaintiff has continuously owned the Furniture since she bought it and has  continuously kept it in her living room for her and her family’s normal course of use.  In or about  early 2016, Plaintiff discovered that the DuraBlend® upholstery on the Furniture was bubbling  and peeling, causing pieces and particles of the top “leather”-like layer of all of the sofa cushions  and arm rests and the recliner arm rests to come off and exposing the underlying material, which  was coarse in texture and off-white in color.  The pictures attached hereto as Exhibit A show the  Furniture in this state.   18.  Plaintiff paid a premium for the Furniture over the price of other similar products  because she believed it was a product that was as durable as leather.      19.  Had she known that DuraBlend® upholstery would not hold up to normal wear  and tear and that it would begin to peel or disintegrate within a short period of time, she would  not have purchased it or she would only have been willing to pay a significantly lower purchase  price.    20.  Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated, as  members of the proposed Class, under Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  The  requirements of Rule 23(a) and (b)(3) are each met with respect to the Class defined below.   21.  Plaintiff seeks to represent the following Class:  All persons who purchased furniture with DuraBlend® upholstery from  Defendant in the State of Florida.     22.  The Class excludes: (1) Defendant, any entity in which Defendant has a  controlling interest, and of its legal representatives, officers, directors, employees, assigns, and  successors; (2) the Judge to whom this case is assigned and any member of the Judge’s staff or  immediate family; (3) any juror assigned to this action; (4) Class Counsel; (5) any persons who  purchased furniture with DuraBlend® upholstery for resale or distribution as opposed to use and  consumption; and (6) claims for personal injury, wrongful death, and/or emotional distress.   24.  Existence of Common Questions of Law and Fact.  Common questions of law  and fact exist as to all members of the Class and the Sub-Class.  These common legal and factual  questions include:  a. Whether Defendant misrepresented or omitted material facts in connection  with the promotion, marketing, advertising, and sale of furniture with  DuraBlend® upholstery;   b. Whether Defendant’s acts and practices in connection with the promotion,  marketing, advertising, and sale of furniture with DuraBlend® upholstery  would deceive or mislead an objective, reasonable person;   c. Whether Defendant breached its implied warranties;   d. Whether Defendant has been unjustly enriched from the sale of furniture with  DuraBlend® upholstery; and  e. Whether Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages as a result of the  conduct alleged herein, and if so, the measure of such damages, and whether  any other relief should be provided.   25.  Typicality.  Plaintiff’s claims are typical of the claims of the Class, because  Plaintiff and all members of the Class purchased furniture with DuraBlend® upholstery based on  the same false, deceptive or misleading claims or omissions.  Plaintiff and all members of the  Class therefore paid more for furniture with DuraBlend® upholstery or purchased furniture with  DuraBlend® upholstery that they otherwise would not have.    27.  Rule 23(b)(3) Predominance and Superiority.  Questions of law and fact  common to the members of the Class predominate over any questions affecting only individual  members, and a class action is superior to all other available means for fairly and efficiently  adjudicating the controversy.  In this regard, the Class members’ interests in individually  controlling the prosecution of separate actions is low given the magnitude, burden, and expense  of individual prosecutions against a corporation as large as Defendant compared to the amount of  individual damages.  Individualized litigation also presents a potential for inconsistent or  contradictory judgments and increases the delay and expense to all parties and the court system  presented by the legal and factual issues of this case.  By contrast, the class action procedure here  will have no management difficulties.       28.  Rule 23(b)(2) Certification.  Certification is also appropriate under Rule  23(b)(2), because Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds that apply generally to the  Class, so that final injunctive relief or corresponding declaratory relief is appropriate respecting  the Class as a whole.  Ashley knowingly, affirmatively, and actively concealed the true nature,  quality, or durability of the DuraBlend® upholstery from Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class.    30.  Defendant’s business acts and practices alleged herein constitute unfair and/or  deceptive methods, acts, or practices under Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act,  Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq. (“FDUTPA”).   31.  At all relevant times, Plaintiff (and members of the Class) were “consumers”  within the meaning of the FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.203(7).    32.    Defendant’s conduct occurred in the conduct of “trade and commerce” within  the meaning of the FDUTPA, Fla. Stat. § 501.203(8).   34.  An objective, reasonable person would have been deceived by Defendant’s  representations about DuraBlend® upholstery.   35.  Defendant’s acts, omissions, and practices proximately caused Plaintiff and other  members of the Class to suffer actual damages in the form of monetary loss because they paid a  premium for a purportedly durable, blended leather product that is less valuable or entirely  valueless as a result of its true characteristics.  As a result, they are entitled to recover actual  damages and attorney’s fees and costs of the suit, as well any other appropriate relief.   36.  Additionally, injunctive and declaratory relief, including an order that Defendant  immediately cease and desist its unfair and deceptive acts and practices, is available and  appropriate under Florida Statutes § 501.211.  37.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1  through 28 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   38.  Defendant marketed the DuraBlend® upholstery as a durable blended or bonded  leather product.   39.  Defendant knew at all material times the true nature of the DuraBlend® upholstery  in the Class Furniture and that it in fact did not consist of leather and was not of similar quality,  strength, and durability as leather, instead being of such inferior quality, strength, and durability  as to not hold up to normal wear and tear and begin to peel or disintegrate within a short period  of time.   41.  Defendant knowingly and intentionally marketed and sold the DuraBlend®  upholstery, which to a reasonable consumer had the appearance of leather and therefore led  him/her to reasonably believe it consisted of leather and was of similar quality, strength, and  durability as leather.  Defendant further marketed the DuraBlend® upholstery as “blended  leather,” using various monikers such as “Durable”, as well as the word “LEATHER” in its own  right, further supporting the reasonableness of the reasonable consumer’s belief that the  DuraBlend® upholstery consisted of leather and was of similar quality, strength, and durability as  leather, when in fact it was not, which was known to Defendants.   42.  As a result, Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class were deceived into  purchasing furniture from Ashley with upholstery that, contrary to their reasonable, justifiable  beliefs and expectations, in fact did not consist of leather or was not of similar quality, strength,  and durability as leather, instead being of such inferior quality, strength, and durability as to not  hold up to normal wear and tear and begin to peel or disintegrate within a short period of time.   43.  Defendant had a duty to disclose the above known material facts because  Defendant knew that these material facts were unknown to Plaintiff and Class members, because  Defendant was in a superior position of knowledge with regard to the Class Furniture and the  true nature, quality, or durability of the DuraBlend® upholstery, and because Defendant chose to  make certain representations (including suggesting that the upholstery was indeed composed of  “leather” and was “durable”) that presented only a part of the true story and misled Plaintiff and  Class members about the Class Furniture.   45.  Defendant intended consumers, including Plaintiff and Class members to  purchase Class Furniture based on Defendant’s misrepresentations.   46.  Defendant’s misrepresentations as alleged and described herein have caused  damage to Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class in an amount to be shown at trial.   47.  Defendant acted maliciously, wantonly, oppressively, deliberately, and with the  intent to defraud Plaintiff and Class members.  Defendant acted with reckless disregard of the  rights of Plaintiff and Class members.  Therefore, Defendant’s conduct rises to a level that  warrants the award of punitive damages in an amount sufficient to deter such conduct in the  future.  48.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference the allegations set forth in paragraphs 1  through 28 of the Complaint as if fully set forth herein.   49.  Plaintiff and Class members conferred a benefit on Defendant by paying more for  Class Furniture or purchasing Class Furniture that they otherwise would not have absent  Defendant’s misrepresentations about DuraBlend® upholstery, and Defendant was aware of the  benefit conferred and voluntarily accepted and retained that benefit.   51.  As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions,  Plaintiff and Class members have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial.  8.  In or about April of 2008, Ashley began incorporating an upholstery product into  some of its furniture, including sofas, loveseats, sectionals, and ottomans, which it marketed as  “blended leather upholstery” under the trade name DuraBlend®.     9.  “Blended leather” is synonymous with “bonded leather,” a man-made material  that incorporates leather scraps and fiber and mimics the appearance of leather.  According to  ConsumerAffairs.com,   Bonded leather -- sometimes called "reconstituted" leather or just plain "vinyl" --  is not the whole skin of an animal, but left-over pieces of hide blended together to  form a seamless piece of leather material.  Genuine leather is made from entire pieces of animal hide and costs much more  than items made with the bonded material. It's hard to tell the difference between  the two, as once an item is made with bonded leather the appearance and smell are  nearly identical.  However, genuine leather typically feels a bit harder to the touch, and if used  for sofas, its cushions tend to have a little less give than a bonded leather cushion.  Manufacturers will also use many types of coats and permanent polishes to make  bonded leather appear to be the real deal.  *  *  *  Many are sadly surprised when they realize the true difference between bonded  and genuine leather is its durability, and plenty of retailers leave this important  detail out just to close the sale.  Bonded Leather Sofas vs. Genuine Leatther – What’s the Difference?, Consumer Affairs (Aug.  15, 2012), https://www.consumeraffairs.com/news04/2012/08/bonded-leather-sofas-vs-genuine- leather-whats-the-difference.html (last visited August 1, 2016).   