18.  In 2010, FCA began equipping its vehicles with AHR systems in order to protect  against whiplash injuries in the event of a rear-end collision.  FCA installed these headrests in  millions of vehicles sold throughout the United States, including in this District and the rest of the  Commonwealth of Massachusetts.  Millions of these vehicles remain on the road.      19.  Grammer designed and manufactured the AHR Systems that FCA installed in its  vehicles, and which are at issue in this action, and supplied them to FCA with the intent and  knowledge that the headrests would be installed in FCA vehicles that would be sold in the United  States and in this District.     21.  In promotional materials and advertising, FCA repeatedly touts its dedication to  safety, with respect to the design and manufacture of its Vehicles.  For instance, in the brochures  advertising its Jeep vehicles, FCA proclaims that the vehicles have “over 70 available safety and  security features” and that “beneath the surface of the Jeep Grand Cherokee lies a work of safety .  . . systems that give you confidence behind the wheel and help protect you and your passengers.”   In advertising the Chrysler 300, FCA asserts that these Vehicles “have 80+ standard and available  safety features” and are “Equipped to Protect.”  The brochure advertising the Town and Country  states that FCA’s “care for future generations meet[s] your safety standards.”     22.  The AHR Systems installed in the Subject Vehicles constitute one of the critical  safety features promoted by FCA.  As explained above, these headrests were designed to prevent  or reduce injuries to the Vehicle driver and passengers in the event of a rear-end collision.  When  functioning properly in the manner described above, the headrests’ forward deployment protects  the passenger from suffering whiplash injuries when the car has been hit from behind.     24.  A reasonable consumer would consider the existence of this defect in the subject  Vehicles material in deciding whether to purchase or lease a Vehicle.  Had Plaintiff Mario Soares  and other Class Members known about the defective AHR System, they would not have purchased  or leased their FCA Vehicles, and/or they would have paid less for them.  As a result of Plaintiff  Mario Soares and Class Members’ reliance on FCA’s material misrepresentations and/or  omissions, Plaintiff Mario Soares and the Class have suffered ascertainable loss of money and/or  property and/or loss of value in their vehicle.     25.  Reasonable consumers, like Plaintiff Mario Soares and Class Members, expect and  assume that a vehicle’s headrest will not suddenly and unexpectedly deploy and strike them in the  head while driving on the highway, or under any other normal driving conditions.  Plaintiff Mario  Soares and the Class would also be reasonable in assuming that Grammer would not provide FCA  with known safety defects, and that FCA would not sell or lease vehicles with known safety  defects.  Further, reasonable consumers like Plaintiff Mario Soares and Class Members would  expect that Defendants would disclose to consumers any defects upon learning of those defects.   Plaintiff Mario Soares and Class Members would also be reasonable in assuming that Defendants  would not fail to disclose any defects, would not persistently deny the existence of defects, and  would not charge consumers hundreds of dollars to address those defects.     36.  Plaintiff Mario Soares owns a 2015 Jeep Grand Cherokee.  In April of 2015, Mr.  Soares purchased the Vehicle from Stateline Chrysler Jeep Dodge Ram in Somerset,  Massachusetts for personal, non-commercial purposes.  At the time of purchase, the Vehicle was  new.     37.  One factor that influenced Mr. Soares’ decision to buy the Jeep, rather than another  vehicle, was their understanding that that the Jeep was one of the safest SUV’s available.  In  coming to this understanding and making this choice, they relied in part on FCA’s assurances that  the Vehicle was safe, along with FCA’s advertisements and the materials available on FCA’s  website concerning the Vehicle’s safety features.     38.  If, at the time that he purchased his Jeep, Mr. Soares had been aware of the fact that  the 2015 Jeep was outfitted with a defective AHR System, which was composed of weak materials  that made the Jeep unsafe to drive, he would not have purchased the Jeep or would have paid  significantly less for it.    40.  After the headrest deployed, Mr. Soares and Ms. Costa conducted research to  determine if the defendants would cover the cost of replacing both the driver and passenger side  headrests.  This research revealed that the defendants have a policy of not covering the cost of  replacing either headrest under its warranty.  They also discovered that the cost to them to replace  the headrest would likely exceed $1,400.  Because Mr. Soares does not have sufficient funds to  cover the costs of replacing the two headrests, he continues to drive the vehicle with a deployed  headrest on one side and a defective, non-deployed, headrest on the other that could explode at  any moment.      Plaintiff Maria Costa   41.  On or about February 17, 2020, Ms. Costa was driving the 2015 Jeep Grand  Cherokee owned by her husband, Mario Soares.  While Ms. Costa was driving, and without  experiencing any collision or other rear-end impact, the AHR System in the Jeep unexpectedly  deployed, creating a loud sound.  The headrest hit Ms. Costa in the back of the head and startled  her, and caused her to be distracted from the road.   42.  As a result of the deployment, Ms. Costa has suffered chronic migrane headaches  and neck pain that continue to this day.   48.  Pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, Plaintiff Mario Soares brings this action against Defendants individually and on behalf  of a proposed Class comprised of:  All persons in Massachusetts who currently own or lease, or who have owned or leased,  any of the Subject Vehicles manufactured by FCA or any of its subsidiaries or affiliates  that is equipped with an ARH system.     49.  Specifically excluded from the Class are Defendants; Defendants’ employees,  affiliates, officers, and directors, including franchised dealers; any claims for physical injuries  related to the defect at issue in this litigation; and the judicial officer(s) to whom this case is  assigned, and the judicial officer(s)’ immediate family and legal staff.     50.  Plaintiff Mario Soares reserves the right, subject to additional information obtained  through further investigation and discovery, to amend, expand, or narrow the foregoing definition  of the Class.   51.  Certification of Plaintiff’s claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate because  Plaintiff can prove the elements of his claims on a class-wide basis using the same evidence as  would be used to prove those elements in individual actions alleging the same claims, and because  Plaintiff otherwise meets the requirements of Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23, as alleged below.   Numerosity – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(1)   53.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Classes and  predominate over questions affecting only individual members of the Classes.  Such common  questions of law or fact include, but are not limited to, the following:  a.  Whether the design and/or materials used in AHR Systems are defective;  b.  Whether the Subject Vehicles’ owners’ manuals, written care and  maintenance materials, and product labeling sufficiently warn customers  about the dangers associated with the Subject Vehicles;  c.  Whether the AHR system defect constitutes a safety risk;  d.  Whether Defendants knowingly failed to disclose to and warn consumers of  the ARH defect with the intent that consumers rely upon such concealment,  suppression, or omission;  e.  Whether Defendants had a duty to disclose to consumers material facts  concerning the serious problems that would inevitably result from the  Subject Vehicles’ defect;  f.  Whether Defendants’ conduct as alleged herein constitutes a violation of  Mass. G. L. Ch. 93A § 2;  g.  Whether FCA’s refusal to repair Vehicles that experienced an AHR failure  constitutes a breach of express warranty; and  h.  Whether FCA’s sale of the defective Subject Vehicles constitutes a breach  of the implied warranty of merchantability.   54.  Defendants engaged in a common course of conduct giving rise to the legal rights  Plaintiff Mario Soares seek to enforce on behalf of himself and the other Class Members.  Similar  or identical statutory and common law violations, business practices, and injuries are involved.  These common questions, and the common answers they will generate, predominate in both quality  and quantity over any individual issues that may exist.  Typicality – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(a)(3)   56.  Plaintiff Mario Soares is an adequate representative of the Class because his  interests do not conflict with the interests of the Class members he seeks to represent.  Plaintiff  Mario Soares has retained counsel highly experienced in the prosecution of complex class action  litigation, and Plaintiff Mario Soares intends to prosecute this action vigorously.  Plaintiff  Soares  and his counsel will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all members of the proposed  Class.    Declaratory and Injunctive Relief – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(2)   57.  Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to Plaintiff  and the other Class Members, thereby making appropriate final injunctive relief and declaratory  relief, as requested in the Prayer for Relief below, with respect to the members of the Class as a  whole.    Superiority – Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(b)(3)   59.  Furthermore, this Class may be certified because, first, the prosecution of separate  actions by individual Class members would create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications  with respect to individual members of the proposed Class that would establish incompatible  standards of conduct for Defendant; and, second, the prosecution of separate actions by individual  Class members would create a risk of adjudications with respect to them which would, as a  practical matter be dispositive of the interests of other Class Members not parties to the  adjudications, or substantially impair or impede their ability to protect their interests.    ANOTHER CAR BUT I LOOKED AROUND AND THERE WAS NO CARS  AROUND. I PULLED OVER AND LOOKED AT MY HEADREST AND IT  EXPLODED AND HIT ME IN THE HEAD. I CALLED AND BROUGHT MY  APPROX 6" IF THIS WOULD HAVE BEEN THE DRIVERS SEAT IT WOULD  ALMOST CERTAINLY CAUSED THE DRIVER TO LO[ ]SE CONTROL OF  THE JEEP.  AT OWNERS EXPENSE. I SAW THAT MULTIPLE OTHER OWNERS OF  THE 2013 TOWN AND COUNTRY ALSO HAD THIS PROBLEM. PLEASE  INVESTIGATE THIS PROBLEM, I BOUGHT THIS VEHICLE BRAND NEW  I.  BACKGROUND   MILEAGE WAS 74,519.  • 2/5/17 - WHILE DRIVING IN THE CITY GOING 45MPH THE PASSENGERS  HEADREST RESTRAINT SYSTEM RANDOMLY EXPLODED/ACTIVATED,  NUMBER. THEY ARE BASICALLY SAYING IT IS OUT OF THEIR HANDS  AND IN THE DEALERSHIPS. WE THEN CONTACTED THE DEALERSHIP  WHERE WE PURCHASED AND SERVICE OUR JEEP. THEY TOLD US TO  Plaintiff Mario Soares    THE VEHICLE WITH ONLY 10 MILES ON IT AND SINCE THE VEHICLE  NOW HAS 43,000 MILES ON IT THE MANUFACTURERS WARRANTY IS  EXPIRED. THIS ISSUE IS TRULY OF GREAT CONCERN AS IT COULD  THE MANUFACTURER SENT AN INSPECTOR TO INSPECT THE VEHICLE.  THE FAILURE MILEAGE WAS 99,000.  • 6/8/15 - THE CONTACT OWNS A 2011 JEEP COMPASS. WHILE DRIVING  UNUSABLE UNLESS YOU ABSOLVE US OF LIABILITY THE VEHICLE  WAS ONLY TRAVELING LESS THAN 2 MILES AN HOUR PULLING INTO  OUR DRIVEWAY IT WAS A DRIVER'S SIDE HEADREST RESTRAINT AT  WAS AT 80000 MILES AT THE TIME SO NO LONGER UNDER FULL  WARRANTY, BUT THE MANUFACTURER SHOULD HAVE TO REPLACE  FAULTY SAFETY EQUIPMENT REGARDLESS. 