(Breach of Contract)   (Conversion)   (Fraud)   (Violation of New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act,   N.J.S.A. 56:8-2.2 et seq. ("NJCFA"))   12. In or about May 2017, Plaintiff received from  Henkel check numbered 26263, drawn on the Alliance Bank of  Arizona, in the amount of $5.49 to his address in Monmouth  County, New Jersey, where the check was deposited at a  Wells Fargo branch.  The check was returned "unpaid" with  the "Reason" noted that the check had been drawn on a  "Closed Account."   13. Wells Fargo then imposed a $12.00 "returned  deposit item fee" pursuant to prevailing banking practices  and the terms of Wells Fargo's account agreements.   15. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of himself  and all persons similarly situated pursuant to Rule 23 of  the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.  This action  satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality,  adequacy, predominance and superiority requirements of each  of those provisions.  The Class is defined as follows:  All individuals who, commencing six years from the  filing of this action, received a rebate check from  Henkel that was returned "unpaid" by the bank in  which it was deposited.  Excluded from the Class  are: (1) employees of the Defendants, including  their officers or directors; (2) Defendants'  affiliates, subsidiaries, or co-conspirators; and  (3) the Court to which this case is assigned.   17. Plaintiff's claims are typical of, and not  antagonistic to, the claims of the other Class members  because Plaintiff was injured by Defendants' practices and  by asserting his claims, Plaintiff will also advance the  claims of all members of the Class who were damaged by the  same wrongful conduct of Defendants and their co- conspirators as alleged herein, and the relief sought is  common to the Class.   19.  These common questions and others predominate  over questions, if any, that affect only individual members  of the Class.   20.  The claims of the representative Plaintiff are  typical of the claims of the Class.  There are no material  conflicts with any other member of the Class that would  make class certification inappropriate.  Plaintiff and  counsel will fairly and adequately represent the interests  of the Class.   21.  A class action is superior to other available  methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this  controversy because individual litigation of the claims of  all Class members is impracticable.  Even if every Class  member could afford individual litigation, the court system  could not.  It would be unduly burdensome on the courts if  individual litigation of numerous cases would proceed.  By  contrast, the conduct of this action as a class action,  with respect to some or all of the issues presented in this  Complaint, presents fewer management difficulties,  conserves the resources of the parties and of the court  system, and protects the rights of each Class member.   23.  Injunctive relief is appropriate as to the Class  as a whole because Defendants have acted or refused to act  on grounds generally applicable to the Class.   24.  Whatever difficulties may exist in the management  of the class action will be greatly outweighed by the  benefits of the class action procedure, including, but not  limited to, providing Class members with a method for the  redress of claims that may otherwise not warrant individual  litigation:  Individual consumers typically lack the  resources, ability, and knowledge to legally pursue their  respective remedy after Henkel's wrongdoing and the  relatively small amounts at issue would not warrant an  attorney's involvement on an isolated claim.  Accordingly,  if a class were not certified, the alternative to a class  action would be not be multiple individual actions, but  rather no actions and Company would thereby have succeeded  in committing——and continuing to commit——its wrongdoing  with legal impunity.  26.  Defendants deliberately and knowingly  wrongfully issued checks that Defendants intended would  be "unpaid" due to Defendants' closing of the account  upon which the checks were drawn.     27.  Defendants thereby obtained money of  Plaintiff to which they are not legally entitled.   28.  As a direct and proximate result of  Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and Class members have  been damaged.   29.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and  every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth  herein.   30.  Defendants knowingly falsely stated that  Plaintiff would receive a monetary rebate if the subject  product were purchased while Defendants intended that  checks would be "unpaid" due to Defendants' closing of  the account upon which the checks were drawn.     31.  Plaintiff relied on Defendants' stated  inducement of a monetary rebate by purchasing the  subject product.   32.  Defendants deliberately and knowingly  wrongfully closed the account on which the check had  been drawn.   33.  Defendants thereby obtained money of  Plaintiff to which they are not legally entitled.   35.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and  every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth  herein.   36.  Defendants stated in the subject rebate  campaign that a monetary rebate would be provided for  purchase of the subject product.   37.  Although Plaintiff purchased the subject  product, Defendants deliberately closed the account on  which the rebate check had been drawn.   38.  Defendants thereby obtained money of  Plaintiff to which they are not legally entitled.   39.  As a direct and proximate result of  Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff and Class members have  been damaged.   40.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges each and  every allegation set forth above as if fully set forth  herein.   42.  Plaintiff relied on Defendants' stated  inducement of a monetary rebate by purchasing the  subject product.   43.  Defendants deliberately and knowingly  wrongfully closed the account on which the check had  been drawn.   44.  Defendants thereby obtained money of  Plaintiff to which they are not legally entitled.   45.  As a direct and proximate result of  Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff has been damaged.   46.  NJCFA provides for, inter alia, treble  damages, attorneys' fees, penalties of $10,000.00 for  the first violation and $20,000.00 for the second and  every subsequent violation, and enhanced damages for  violations perpetrated against Senior Citizens and/or  persons suffering from a disability including a  $30,000.00 for a scheme perpetrated against such  vulnerable consumers.   47.  Plaintiff is a Senior Citizen who suffered a  cerebral vascular accident and has been receiving  medical treatment for his "stroke" prior to the product  purchase.  