(Violation of Business & Professions Code § 17533.7 Against All Defendants)   (Violation of Business & Prof. Code Section 17200 Et Seq. Against All  Defendants)   (Violation of California Consumers Legal Remedies Act Against All  Defendants)   13. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the  allegations contained in Paragaphs1 through 12, inclusive, of this complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   14.  Defendants manufacture, market, and/or sell AGAG apparel products  that have printed on the product itself and the product packaging that the products  are “Made in U.S.A.”    15.  Contrary to the representation, the AGAG apparel products are  substantially and/or partially made, manufactured or produced with component  parts that are manufactured outside of the United States.  Based upon information  and belief, the foreign component parts included in THE PROTÉGÉ jeans (and  presumably all other offending AGAG apparel products) are the fabric, thread,  buttons, rivets, and/or certain subcomponents of the zipper assembly.  For other  models of jeans, Plaintiff is informed and believes that the fabric, thread, buttons,  rivets, and/or certain subcomponents of the zipper assembly are made outside of  the United States as well.   4  25.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the  allegations contained in Paragaphs1 through 24, inclusive, of this complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   26.  Plaintiff brings this action, as set forth below, against Defendants,  pursuant to Rules 23(a), 23(b)(1), 23(b)(2), and 23(b)(3) of the Federal Rules of  Civil Procedure (“Fed. R. Civ. P.”), individually and on behalf of a class  consisting of all persons in the United States who purchased one or more of  Defendants’ AGAG apparel products during the relevant four-year statutory time  period that bore a “Made in U.S.A.” country of origin designation but that  contained foreign-made component parts (the “Class”).  Excluded from the Class  are the Court and its employees; Defendants; any parent, subsidiary, or affiliate of  Defendants; and all employees and directors who are or have been employed by  Defendants during the relevant time period.   Definition of the Subclass   27.  Subclass members are all of Defendants’ California customers who  purchased AGAG apparel products that were labeled as “MADE IN U.S.A. OF  IMPORTED FABRIC” that contained foreign-made component parts beyond the  7  36. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the  allegations contained in Paragaphs1 through 35, inclusive, of this complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   37. California Civil Code Section 1750 et seq. (entitled the Consumers  Legal Remedies Act) provides a list of “unfair or deceptive” practices in a  “transaction” relating to the sale of “goods” or “services” to a “consumer.”  The  Legislature’s intent in promulgating the Consumers Legal Remedies Act is  expressed in Civil Code Section 1760, which provides, inter alia, that its terms are  to be:  [C]onstrued liberally and applied to promote its underlying  purposes, which are to protect consumers against unfair and  deceptive business practices and to provide efficient and  economical procedures to secure such protection.   38.  Defendant’s AGAG apparel products constituted “goods” as defined  in Civil Code Section 1761(a).  10  47.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the  allegations contained in Paragaphs1 through 46, inclusive, of this complaint as  though fully set forth herein.   48.  Business & Professions Code section 17200 et seq. provides that  unfair competition means and includes “any unlawful, unfair or fraudulent  business act or practice and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading marketing.”     49.  By and through their conduct, including the conduct detailed above,  Defendants engaged in activities which constitute unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent  business practices prohibited by Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et  seq.  Beginning at an exact date unknown as yet and continuing up through the  present, Defendants committed acts of unfair competition, including those  described above, by engaging in a pattern of “unlawful” business practices, within  the meaning of Business & Professions Code Section 17200 et seq., by  manufacturing, distributing, marketing AGAG apparel products with a false  country of origin designation and violating Section 17533.7 by falsely claiming  that the products referenced herein are “Made in U.S.A.” when they actually  contain component parts manufactured outside of the United States.     50.  Beginning at an exact date unknown as yet and continuing up through  the present, Defendants committed acts of unfair competition that are prohibited  12  61.  Plaintiff realleges and incorporates herein by reference all of the  allegations contained in Paragaphs1 through 60, inclusive, of this complaint as  though fully set forth herein.    62.  Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7 provides:  It is unlawful for any person, firm, corporation or  association to sell or offer for sale in this State any  merchandise on which merchandise or on its container  there appears the words "Made in U.S.A." "Made in  America," "U.S.A.," or similar words when the  merchandise or any article, unit, or part thereof, has  been entirely or substantially made, manufactured, or  produced outside of the United States.  (emphasis  added).   63.  Defendants (both AGAG and Nordstrom) Business & Professions  Code Section 17533.7 by selling and offering to sell merchandise in the State of  California with the “Made in U.S.A.” country of origin designation as fully set  forth herein.  The merchandise at issue in this case actually contains component  parts that are manufactured outside of the United States in violation of California  and federal law.   64.  It is alleged on information and belief that Defendants’ violations of  Business & Professions Code Section 17533.7 were done with awareness of the  fact that the conduct alleged was wrongful and were motivated solely for  increased profit.  It is also alleged on information and belief that Defendants did  15 