14.  On August 19, 2016, Samsung released to the market its highly  touted, high-end, flagship smartphone, the Galaxy Note7, which sells for  approximately $850.  Shortly after the smartphones’ highly anticipated release,  however, reports began to surface that the new smartphones were overheating and  “exploding” in the hands of consumers.   16.  On September 2, 2016, after 35 incidents of overheating smartphones  had been reported worldwide, Samsung suspended sales of the Note7 smartphone.   As a result, Samsung announced the U.S. Product Exchange Program for Note7  owners and stated that the new Galaxy Note7 would be “available next week.”    17.   This replacement program included an estimated 1 million phones in  the United States and 2.5 million worldwide.     18.  In its announcement, Samsung stated that it had conducted a thorough  investigation and had found a battery cell issue in the Note7 phones.  Samsung  stated that it was working with its supplier to identify possible affected batteries in  the field, but that because safety was an absolute priority, it had decided to stop  sales of the Note7.  For those customers already owning a Note7, Samsung  announced that it would voluntarily replace each device with a new device “over  the coming weeks.”   20.  On September 10, DJ Koh, President of Mobile Communications  Business at Samsung, further stated:    Our number one priority is the safety of our customers.   We are asking users to power down their Galaxy Note7s  and exchange them as soon as possible.  We are  expediting replacement devices so that they can be  provided through the exchange program as conveniently  as possible and in compliance with related regulations.    21.  Samsung directed consumers who had Note7 devices to contact their  place of purchase or call their designated local call center as soon as possible to  exchange their device for a new Galaxy Note7 (with an updated battery).   Alternatively, consumers could choose to exchange their Note7 for a Galaxy S7 or  Galaxy S7 Edge, both of which are less expensive and offer less advanced  technology than the Note7.    22.  Consumers quickly learned that although Samsung announced its  recall on September 2 and told consumers to immediately exchange their  smartphones on September 9, that replacement Note7s were not available.     23.  It was not until September 21 that Samsung announced that it would  begin the Note7 exchanges nationwide.  And even on that date, only an estimated  500,000 replacement devices had arrived in the United States.  In fact, as of  September 27, approximately 40 percent of the unsafe Note7s sold in South Korea  and the United States still had not been replaced with new devices.   25.  Plaintiff Waudby purchased a Note7 on August 21, 2016, and incurred  monthly device charges and monthly plan charges that have not been reimbursed  through the Samsung recall program or other third parties.     26.  Plaintiff Spuntak purchased a Note7 on August 26, 2016, and incurred  monthly device charges and monthly plan charges that have not been reimbursed  through the Samsung recall program or other third parties.    27.  Plaintiff Ibrahim purchased a Note7 on August 24, 2016, and incurred  monthly device charges and monthly plan charges that have not been reimbursed  through the Samsung recall program or other third parties.    29.  On October 14, the Department of Transportation (DOT) issued an  “emergency order to ban all Samsung Galaxy Note7 smartphone devices from air  transportation in the United States. Individuals who own or possess a Samsung  Galaxy Note7 device may not transport the device on their person, in carry-on  baggage, or in checked baggage on flights to, from, or within the United States.  This prohibition includes all Samsung Galaxy Note7 devices. The phones also  cannot be shipped as air cargo.”   30.  The DOT announcement further stated “[i]f passengers attempt to  travel by air with their Samsung Galaxy Note7 devices, the phones may be  confiscated and passengers may face fines.”  31.  Plaintiffs bring this suit as a class action on behalf of themselves and  on behalf of all others similarly situated pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil  Procedure, Rule 23(a), 23(b)(2), and/or 23(b)(3).  This action satisfies the  numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance and superiority  requirements of the provisions of Rule 23.   32.  Plaintiff seeks to represent the following “Nationwide Class”:  All persons and entities in the United States who  purchased or leased a Samsung Galaxy Note7.   34.  The Nationwide Class, Nevada Class, Pennsylvania Class and  California Class will be referred to collectively as the “Class” for purposes of  Plaintiffs’ claims.    35.  Excluded from all classes are the Judge(s) to whom this case is  assigned and any member of the Judge’s immediate family, along with  Defendant’s employees, officers, directors, agents, and representatives and their  immediate family members.  Also excluded are those persons who have suffered  personal injuries as a result of the facts alleged herein.     37.  Commonality: This action involves common questions of law and  fact, which predominate over any questions affecting individual Class members.  These common legal and factual questions include, but are not limited to, the  following;  a. Whether Samsung engaged in the conduct alleged herein;  b. Whether Samsung breached any warranties through its conduct as  alleged herein;  c. Whether Plaintiffs and other Class members are entitled to restitution  for monthly device and plan charges for phones they could not safely  use during the relevant period;   d. Whether Plaintiff and other Class members are entitled to recover  compensatory damages as a result of Samsung’s breach of warranty.   38.  Typicality: Plaintiffs’ claims are typical of those of the other Class  members because, inter alia, all members of the Class were injured through the  common misconduct described above and were subject to Samsung’s breach of  warranty.  Plaintiffs are advancing the same claims and legal theories on behalf of  themselves and all members of the Class.   40.  Superiority:  The class litigation is an appropriate method for fair and  efficient adjudication of the claims involved.  Class action treatment is superior to  all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of the controversy  alleged herein; it will permit a large number of Class members to prosecute their  common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  unnecessary duplication of evidence, effort and expense that hundreds of  individual actions would require.  Class action treatment will permit the  adjudication of relatively modest claims by certain Class members, who could not  individually afford to litigate a complex claim against large corporate defendants.  Further, even for those Class members who could afford to litigate such a claim, it  would still be economically impractical.   42.  Plaintiffs reserve the right to modify or amend the definition of the  proposed class and subclasses before the Court determines whether certification is  appropriate and as the parties engage in discovery.   43.  The class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair  and efficient adjudication of this controversy.  Because of the number and nature  of common questions of fact and law, multiple separate lawsuits would not serve  the interest of judicial economy.   45.  Notice of a certified class action and of any result or resolution of the  litigation can be provided to Class members by first-class mail, email, or  publication, or such other methods of notice as deemed appropriate by the Court.   47.  Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and  succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.   48.  Defendant expressly warranted to Plaintiffs and the Class members  that the Note7s were of high quality and, at a minimum, safe.   49.  Defendant breached this warranty by selling to Plaintiffs and the Class  members Note7s that were subject to a known and dangerous defect and known to  fail prematurely.   50.  As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have suffered economic  damages including but not limited to monthly charges and fees, loss of use of the  Note7, substantial loss in value and resale value of their Note7s, and other related  damage.   51.  Defendant’s attempt to disclaim or limit these express warranties is  unconscionable and unenforceable under the circumstances here.  Specifically,  Defendant’s warranty limitation is unenforceable because they knowingly sold a  defective product without informing consumers about the defect.   53.  Plaintiffs incorporate by reference each preceding and succeeding  paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.   54.  Defendant made material misstatements and omissions concerning the  availability of replacement Note7s.     55.  As a result, Plaintiffs and Class members were fraudulently induced to  continue incurring and paying monthly charges and fees for their Note7s, which  they could neither use nor replace.   56.  These misstatements and omissions were made by Defendant with  knowledge of their falsity, and with the intent that Plaintiffs and Class memebrs  rely upon them.   57.  Plaintiffs and Class members reasonably relied on these misstatements  and omissions, and suffered damages as a result.  58.  Plaintiffs and the Class incorporate by reference each preceding and  succeeding paragraph as though fully set forth at length herein.   60.  Defendant breached the covenant of good faith and fair dealing by  failing to notify Plaintiffs and Class members that replacement Note7s would not  be made available in a timely manner, or that the Note7 would be discontinued  entirely.    61.  Defendant acted in bad faith and/or with a malicious motive to deny  Plaintiffs and Class members some benefit of the bargain originally intended by  the parties, thereby causing them injuries in an amount to be determined at trial.  BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the Pennsylvania,  California and Nevada Classes)   BREACH OF THE DUTY OF GOOD FAITH  AND FAIR DEALING  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the Pennsylvania,  California and Nevada Classes)   COMMON LAW FRAUD  (On Behalf of the Nationwide Class or, Alternatively, the Pennsylvania,  California and Nevada Classes)  