17.  Defendant LG Electronics USA, Inc. holds itself out to the public as a  manufacturer of safe, cutting-edge, and easy-to-use home appliances, including  washing machines.  Defendant is in the business of manufacturing, producing,  distributing, and/or selling washing machines throughout the United States.   19.  Defendant manufactures thousands of washing machines each year, a  substantial portion of which are sold or offered for sale in New Jersey. Upon  information and belief, Defendant has sold, either directly or indirectly, thousands  of its Defective Washing Machines nationwide and in the State of New Jersey.    20.  Defendant makes numerous express warranties about the quality of its  washing machines.  For example, the Defendant claims that its Digital Appliance  Division (of which front load washing machines are key products) “creates  innovative products that improve people’s daily lives in countries around the globe.”  Defendant also advertises that it’s front load washing machines are superior for  their “clean and convenient washing at the touch of a button,” and that customers  get the “benefit of good washing performance with minimal damage to your wash.”  Defendant also makes statements in the front load washing machine owner’s  manuals such as:  a) “Washing ball enhances the wash performance  and reduces damage to the clothing. The jets  spray and help tumble clothes to enhance  washing performance while maintaining fabric  care.”  b) “This front load washer requires longer cycle  time and gets clothes much cleaner, yet is more  gentle on the fabrics, than top load washers.”   22.  Upon information and belief, Defendant manufactured and distributed  the Defective Washing Machines intending that consumers would purchase them,  regardless of the place of purchase or the location in which customers would use  them. The Defective Washing Machines were placed into the stream of commerce  and were distributed, offered for sale and sold to Plaintiffs, Class members, and  other purchasers in New Jersey and elsewhere in the United States.   23.  Defendant intended for customers to believe its statements and  representations about its Washing Machines and to trust that its high-end washing  machines were and are of first-rate quality.    26.  Defendant LG Electronics USA manufactured, marketed, advertised,  warranted and sold, either directly or through their authorized distribution  channels, the Defective Washing Machines suffering from the Mold and Mildew  Problems alleged herein.  The Mold and Mildew Problems in   Plaintiffs’ Washing Machines   27.  On April 25, 2006, the Plaintiffs purchased the LG WM2277HS Model  Front Loading Washing Machine from a Home Depot store in Florida.   Plaintiffs  quickly noticed that the washing machine emitted an odorous foul smell and was  producing mold and mildew.    29.  Plaintiffs have only used HE (high efficiency) detergent in their LG  washing machine.  According to the Owner’s Manual for Plaintiff’s washing  machine, “HE detergents are formulated specifically for front load washers and  contain suds reducing components.”  The Defective Washing Machines contain  compartments for detergent and liquid fabric softener.  Plaintiff’s Owner’s Manual  for their LG front load washer provides that “liquid or powdered detergent may be  used” in the washing machine.    30.  The Mold and Mildew Problems appear to be especially persistent  when using liquid HE (high efficiency) detergents (in comparison to the use of  powder HE detergent).  The repairperson with whom Ms. Harper spoke advised her  that she should discontinue using the liquid HE and should use only powder  HE instead.  The repairperson told her that the liquid HE detergent has a tendency  to "gum up" the parts in the washer.   31.  Plaintiffs have continued to experience the Mold and Mildew Problems  even after they switched to using powder HE detergents exclusively.   33.  Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action on behalf of themselves  and on behalf of all others similarly situated (“the Class”) pursuant to FED. R.  CIV. P. 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).  Subject to additional information  obtained through further investigation and/or discovery, the foregoing  definition of the Class may be expanded or narrowed by amendment or  amended complaint.  Plaintiffs seeks to represent the following Class:  All persons in the United States who purchased and/or who own  any of the Defective Washing Machines that are subject to the  Mold and Mildew Problems.   34.  In the alternative, and only in the event that the Court determines  that New Jersey law shall not be applied to the claims of all Class members  regardless of where they reside, Plaintiffs seek certification of the following sub- class:  All persons who purchased, in the State of Florida, any of the Defective  Washing Machines that are subject to the Mold and Mildew Problems.   36.  Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each proceeding and  succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.   37.  Plaintiffs and members of the Class are consumers who purchased one  or more Defective Washing Machines for personal, family or household use.   38.  New Jersey has enacted its Consumer Fraud Act, N.J.S.A. §§ 56:8-1 et  seq., to protect consumers against unfair, deceptive or fraudulent business  practices, unfair competition and false advertising. Other states have enacted  similar consumer protection provisions. New Jersey and other states throughout the  nation also provide consumers with a private right of action under these statutes.   40.  In violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act, Defendant has  affirmatively misrepresented and knowingly concealed, suppressed and failed to  disclose material facts with the intent that others rely upon such concealment and  deception in connection with its production, manufacture, and/or sale of the  Defective Washing Machines.   41.  The conduct of Defendant, as set forth above, constitutes unfair,  fraudulent and/or deceptive trade practices prohibited under the New Jersey  Consumer Fraud Act.   42.  As a result of Defendant’s unfair, fraudulent and/or deceptive trade  practices, Plaintiffs and members of the Class have suffered an ascertainable loss of  monies and/or property.  43.  Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each proceeding and  succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.   44.  Florida state law – specifically, FLA. STAT. § 501.201, et seq. – prohibits  deceptive and unfair trade practices.   46.  Plaintiffs and Class members have been aggrieved and have suffered  an injury as a result of Defendant’s deceptive practices.   47.  Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and incorporate by reference each and  every paragraph of this complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.   48.  Defendant expressly warranted that the Defective Washing Machines  would, inter alia, actually work to clean clothes.  Defendant also expressly  warranted that both liquid and powder HE detergents were suitable for use in its  Defective Washing Machines.    49.  Defendant breached these express warranties because, as a result of  the Mold and Mildew Problems, the Defective Washing Machines do not effectively  clean clothes, and are not suitable for the use of liquid HE detergents.   50.  Plaintiffs provided Defendant with notice of its breach of express  warranties within a reasonable time after discovering that breach. Specifically,  Plaintiffs called Defendant when they first became aware of the Mold and Mildew  Problem. In response, Defendant sent out a repairperson who was unable to  satisfactorily correct the problem. Plaintiffs then called Defendant a second time to  complain and left a voice-mail message expressing their dissatisfaction. To this  date, Plaintiffs have not yet received a response from Defendant.   52.  Plaintiffs and the Class repeat and incorporate by reference each and  every paragraph of this complaint as though fully set forth at length herein.   53.  As manufacturers and/or distributors of the Defective Washing  Machine Products, Defendants are “merchants,” within the meaning of the New  Jersey commercial code governing the implied warranty of merchantability.   54.  The Defective Washing Machines are “goods” as defined by the New  Jersey  commercial  code  provisions  governing  the  implied  warranty  of  merchantability.   55.  Implied in the sale of the Defective Washing Machines is a warranty of  merchantability that requires, inter alia, that the Washing Machines pass without  objection in the trade and are fit for the ordinary purposes for which Washing  Machines are used.   56.  Defendant impliedly represented and warranted that the Defective  Washing Machines were fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used,  i.e., cleaning clothes.   58.  Plaintiffs provided Defendant with notice of its breach of warranties  within a reasonable time after discovering that breach. Specifically, Plaintiffs called  Defendant when they first became aware of the Mold and Mildew Problem. In  response, Defendant sent out a repairperson that was unable to satisfactorily  correct the problem. Plaintiffs then called Defendant a second time to complain and  left a voice-mail message explaining their dissatisfaction. To this date, Plaintiffs  have not yet received a response from Defendant.   59.  All Defective Washing Machine Products were manufactured and  distributed with the same Mold and Mildew Problems and were, therefore, not of  merchantable quality at the time that they were distributed into the stream of  commerce by Defendant.    60.  As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranties,  Plaintiffs and Class members were injured and are therefore entitled to damages.  61.  Count V is being plead in the alternative to Counts I through IV.   62.  Defendant caused the Defective Washing Machines to be distributed in  the stream of commerce with knowledge that the Machines would be purchased by  consumers who possessed a reasonable expectation that the Washing Machines  would be free from material defects such as the Mold and Mildew Problems.   64.  Defendant has further benefited, directly or indirectly, by avoiding the  costs associated with correcting the Mold and Mildew Problems, making repairs,  and recalling the Defective Washing Machine Products.   65.  Defendant has and continues to retain that economic benefit at the  expense of Plaintiffs and Class members.   66.  Principles of equity and good conscience make it unjust for Defendant  to retain the benefit conferred on it by consumers of the Defective Washing  Machines, and Defendant should be required to pay Plaintiffs and Class members  for this benefit.  BREACH OF THE IMPLIED WARRANTY   OF MERCHANTABILITY   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY   Defendant LG Electronics USA and its Defective Washing Machines   UNJUST ENRICHMENT   VIOLATIONS OF THE NEW JERSEY   CONSUMER FRAUD ACT   VIOLATIONS OF THE FLORIDA DECEPTIVE AND  UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES ACT  