15.  Ford manufactures and sells trucks, including the Ford F-Series line of  trucks.     17.  Prior to purchase, Plaintiff viewed the Truck parked on the dealership’s  inventory lot.  As it sat on the lot prior to purchase, the Truck contained a pre-installed 6- inch lift kit and was fitted with tires that were larger in diameter than those on Stock Trucks.   18.  Specifically, the lift kit raised the Truck’s suspension by up to six inches  above that found on suspensions of Stock Trucks.  The rims and tires on the Truck were  increased in diameter as compared to those on Stock Trucks.   19.  Prior to purchase, the lift kit and larger tires were covered under a vehicle  service agreement Plaintiff purchased through Ford Motor Credit Company LLC, a  division of Ford Motor Company.   20.  However, the lift kit and larger tires, and the remainder of the vehicles to the  extent any work would have been performed under Ford’s manufacturer’s warranty, but  which repair might have been attributed to or necessitated by the lift kit or larger tires, were  apparently not covered by Ford’s manufacturer’s warranty and which apparently renders  Ford’s manufacturer’s warranty inapplicable when repairs might be sought at a dealership  or Ford facility other than the specific dealership at which the Lifted Truck was purchased,  a fact not routinely disclosed to consumers when purchasing or leasing Lifted Trucks off  dealership lots (“Warranty Voiding”).   22.  Unbeknownst to Plaintiff at the time of his purchase, the Stock Parts were  incompatible with his Truck.  The spare tire was too small to replace any of the Truck’s  larger-diameter rims/tires, and the jack did not extend sufficiently to raise the Truck to  enable someone to safely perform a tire change or other maintenance.   23.  None of the documentation that came with the Truck revealed that the Stock  Parts were incompatible with the Truck.   24.  Plaintiff reasonably expected that when he purchased his Truck, it would  come equipped with a compatible spare tire and jack.  By not receiving compatible versions  of these items, Plaintiff has been injured because he paid too much for his Truck.  25.  Plaintiff brings this class action on behalf of himself and all other similarly  situated pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure.   26.  Plaintiff seeks to represent a Class (the “Nationwide Class”) initially defined as:  All persons who purchased or leased Lifted Trucks (as defined herein)  in the United States, within the relevant statute(s) of limitations (the  “Nationwide Class Period”).   27.  Additionally, Plaintiff seeks to represent the following statewide class (the  “Oklahoma Class”) initially defined as:  All persons who purchased or leased Lifted Trucks (as defined herein)  in Oklahoma, within the relevant statute(s) of limitations (the  “Oklahoma Class Period”).   29.  The members of the Classes (collectively, the “Class members”) are so  numerous and geographically dispersed that individual joinder of all Class members is  impracticable.  While Plaintiff believes that there are not less than hundreds, if not  thousands, of Class members (and there will be many more if Ford’s practices are not  stopped), their precise number is unknown to Plaintiff, but may be ascertained from Ford’s  books and records and/or determined through discovery.  Class members may be notified  of the pendency of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination  methods, including by mail, email, and/or publication.   30.  Plaintiff’s respective claims are typical of the claims of the Class members,  as he purchased his Truck during the Class Periods and sustained damages as a result of  Ford’s conduct.     31.  Plaintiff will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the  other Class members.  Plaintiff has no interests antagonistic to those of other Class  members.  Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous prosecution of this action and has retained  counsel experienced in litigation of this nature.     33.   A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient  adjudication of this controversy.  Since the damages suffered by individual members of the  Classes may be relatively small, the expense and burden of individual litigation make it  virtually impossible for such members to seek redress for the wrongful conduct alleged.   Plaintiff knows of no difficulty that will be encountered in the management of this litigation  that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.   35.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as if fully set forth  herein.   36.  Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of the Oklahoma Class (“Class,” for  purposes of this Count).   37.  Ford’s conduct alleged herein constitutes an “unlawful” practice in violation  of the OCPA.  See OCPA § 753.  Such conduct includes, but is not limited to,  manufacturing and selling Lifted Trucks equipped with Stock Parts that were not  compatible with those vehicles (and not disclosing same to consumers), and/or by not  providing a working jack and spare tire with its Lifted Trucks, as consumers would have  reasonably expected (and not disclosing same to consumers), as well as Warranty Voiding.   38.  Specifically, Ford’s unlawful conduct constitutes, inter alia, a “deceptive  trade practice,” which is defined in the OCPA to include “a misrepresentation, omission or  other practice that has deceived or could reasonably be expected to deceive or mislead a  person to the detriment of that person.”  See OCPA §§ 752(13), 753(20).   39.  Ford’s unlawful conduct occurred, and continues to occur, in the conduct of  trade or commerce and in the course of Ford’s business.   41.  Ford is liable to Plaintiff and the Class for damages in amounts to be proven  at trial, including attorneys’ fees and costs.  See OCPA § 761.1.1  42.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as if fully set forth  herein.   43.  Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of the Oklahoma Class (“Class,” for  purposes of this Count).   44.  Lifted Trucks are “goods” within the meaning of 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2- 105.   45.  Plaintiff and the other Class members are “buyers” within the meaning of  12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-103.   46.  Ford (and its dealer-agents and other agents) is and was at all relevant times  a “merchant” within the meaning of 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-104 with respect to the Lifted  Trucks.   48.  Ford breached the implied warranty of merchantability because the Lifted  Trucks were not in merchantable condition and not fit for the ordinary purpose for which  such vehicles are used.  Specifically, the Lifted Trucks were equipped with Stock Parts that  were not compatible with those vehicles, i.e., a non-compatible spare tire and jack.  Upon  information and belief, this is a common issue that affects all Lifted Trucks equally.   49.   Plaintiff and the other Class members have had sufficient dealings with  either Ford or its dealership-agents (or other agents) to establish privity of contract between  Ford, on the one hand, and Plaintiff and the other Class members, on the other hand.   Notwithstanding, privity is not required in this case because Plaintiff and the other Class  members are intended third-party beneficiaries of contracts between Ford and its dealers;  the dealers were not intended to be the ultimate consumers of the Lifted Trucks.   Alternatively, even absent privity, Plaintiff and the other Class members may maintain a  direct action against Ford because they are in the chain of distribution of the Lifted Trucks.    50.  As a direct and proximate result of Ford’s breach of the implied warranty of  merchantability, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged in an amount  to be proven at trial.   51.  Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 and 42 through 50 as  if fully set forth herein.   53. Lifted Trucks are “goods” within the meaning of 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2- 105.   54. Plaintiff and the other Class members are “buyers” within the meaning of 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-103.   55. Ford (and its dealer-agents and other agents) is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” within the meaning of 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-104 with respect to the Lifted  Trucks.   56. Under 12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-315, a warranty that goods are fit for the particular purpose for which the goods are used is implied in a contract for their sale if the  seller is a merchant of goods of that kind and had reason to know at the time of contracting  of the particular purpose for which those goods would be used.   57. Ford breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because, at the time of sale, Ford (or its dealership-agents or other agents) had reason to  know that Plaintiff and the Class members would be purchasing or leasing a Lifted Truck  that was not a Stock Truck and therefore required a particular, compatible spare tire and  jack.  Plaintiff and the Class members relied on Ford’s judgment to provide a spare tire and  jack suitable for their Lifted Trucks.  Ford failed to do so.  Upon information and belief,  this is a common issue that affects all Lifted Trucks equally.   59. As a direct and proximate result of Ford’s breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged  in an amount to be proven at trial.  60. Plaintiff repeats and realleges paragraphs 1 through 34 as if fully set forth herein.   61. Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of the Nationwide Class (“Class,” for purposes of this Count).   62. Lifted Trucks are “goods” within the meaning of Mich. Comp. Laws 70. Plaintiff brings this Count on behalf of the Nationwide Class (“Class,” for purposes of this Count).   71. Lifted Trucks are “goods” within the meaning of MCL 440.2105(1).  72. Plaintiff and the other Class members are “buyers” within the meaning of MCL 440.2103(1)(a).   73. Ford (and its dealer-agents and other agents) is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” within the meaning of MCL 440.2104(1) with respect to the Lifted Trucks.   74. Under MCL 440.2315, a warranty that goods are fit for the particular purpose for which the goods are used is implied in a contract for their sale if the seller is a merchant  of goods of that kind and had reason to know at the time of contracting of the particular  purpose for which those goods would be used.   75. Ford breached the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose because, at the time of sale, Ford (or its dealership-agents or other agents) had reason to  know that Plaintiff and the Class members would be purchasing or leasing a Lifted Truck  that was not a Stock Truck and therefore required a particular, compatible spare tire and  jack.  Plaintiff and the Class members relied on Ford’s judgment to furnish a spare tire and  jack suitable for their Lifted Trucks.  Ford failed to do so.  Upon information and belief,  this is a common issue that affects all Lifted Trucks equally.   77. As a direct and proximate result of Ford’s breach of the implied warranty of fitness for a particular purpose, Plaintiff and the other Class members have been damaged  in an amount to be proven at trial.  UCC Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability  Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2314  (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class)   UCC Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability  12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-314  (Brought on Behalf of the Oklahoma Class)   UCC Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose  12A Okla. Stat. Ann. § 2-315  (Brought on Behalf of the Oklahoma Class)   UCC Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose  Mich. Comp. Laws § 440.2315  (Brought on Behalf of the Nationwide Class)   Violation of the Oklahoma Consumer Protection Act  Okla. Stat. tit. 15 § 751, et seq.  (Brought on Behalf of the Oklahoma Class)  