10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  HARLEY SEEGERT, on behalf of  himself and all others similarly situated,  Plaintiff,  V.  LAMPS PLUS, INC., a California  corporation, and DOES 1-50, inclusive,  Defendant.  1  Case No.:  18.  Lamps Plus is the nation's largest lighting retailer. Lamps Plus is a privately  25  owned corporation, operating approximately 39 stores across the western United States,  26  including 27 locations in the State of California. Lamps Plus designs, manufacturers, and  27  sells a variety of lighting, furniture, and home decor, and provides in-home lighting  28  consultation and installation to its customers. The company directly markets its  6  23  The Fraudulent Sale Discounting Scheme  24   3 7.  Plaintiff brings this action pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure  Section 382 on behalf of himself and a class of similarly situated individuals ("Class")  12  defined as follows:  13  14  15  16  17  18  All persons who, within the State of California, from July 5, 2013 through  the present (the "Class Period"), purchased from Lamps Plus one or more  Lamps Plus branded and/or trademarked products at a discount from the  advertised "Compare At" price and who have not received a refund or credit  for their purchase(s).   38.  Excluded from the Class definition is Lamps Plus and its officers, directors,  19  employees, parents, subsidiaries, and affiliates; any Judge or Magistrate presiding over the  20  action and members of their families; and Plaintiffs and Defendant's Counsel. Plaintiff  21  reserves the right to expand, limit, modify, or amend this class definition, including the  22  addition of one or more subclasses, in connection with his motion for class certification, or  23  at any other time, based upon changing circumstances and/or new facts obtained during  24  discovery.  25   39.  The members of the Class are so numerous thatjoinder of all members of the  26  Class is impracticable. Plaintiff is informed and believes that the proposed Class contains  27  thousands of individuals who have been damaged by Lamps Pius's conduct as alleged  28  herein. The precise number of Class members is unknown to Plaintiff.  12  46.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in the paragraphs  above, as if fully set forth herein.  4 7.  The UCL defines "unfair business competition" to include any "unlawful,  unfair or fraudulent" act or practice, as well as any "unfair, deceptive, untrue or  9  misleading" advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17200.  10  11   48.  The UCL imposes strict liability. Plaintiff need not prove that Lamps Plus  intentionally or negligently engaged in unlawful, unfair, or fraudulent business practices- but only that such practices occurred.  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  "Unfair" Prong   49.  A business act or practice is "unfair" under the UCL if it offends an  established public policy or is immoral, unethical, oppressive, unscrupulous, or  substantially injurious to consumers, and that unfairness is determined by weighing the  reasons, justifications, and motives of the practice against the gravity of the harm to the  alleged victims.   50.  Lamps Plus's actions constitute "unfair" business practices because, as  alleged above, Lamps Plus engaged in misleading and deceptive price comparison  advertising that represented false "Compare At" prices and corresponding deeply  discounted prices. The discounted sale prices were nothing more than fabricated "regular"  prices leading to phantom markdowns. Lamps Plus's acts and practices offended an  established public policy of transparency in pricing, and engaged in immoral, unethical,  oppressive, and unscrupulous activities that are substantially injurious to consumers.   51.  The harm to Plaintiff and Class members outweighs the utility of Lamps  Pius's practices. There were reasonably available alternatives to further Lamps Plus's  15  63.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.   64.  Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code§ 17500 provides:  It is unlawful for any ... corporation ... with intent .. . to dispose of . ..  personal property ... to induce the public to enter into any obligation  relating thereto, to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated  ... from this state before the public in any state, in any newspaper or other  publication, or any advertising device, or by public outcry or proclamation,  or in any other manner or means whatever, including over the Internet, any  statement ... which is untrue or misleading, and which is known, or which  by the exercise of reasonable care should be known, to be untrue or  misleading . ..  18  70.  Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges the allegations contained in every preceding  4  paragraph as if fully set forth herein.  3  5   71.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the CLRA, Cal. Civ. Code§ 1750,  6  et seq. Plaintiff and each member of the proposed Class are "consumers" as defined by  7  Cal. Civ. Code § 17 61 ( d). Lamps Plus' s sale of their merchandise to Plaintiff and the Class  8  were "transactions" within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code § 1761(e). The products  9 purchased by Plaintiff and the Class are "goods" within the meaning of Cal. Civ. Code §  10  176l(a).  11   72.  Lamps Plus violated and continues to violate the CLRA by engaging in the  12  following practices proscribed by Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a) in transactions with Plaintiff  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  and the Class which were intended to result in, and did result in, the sale of Lamps Plus  products:  a.  b.  Advertising goods or services with intent not to sell them as advertised;  (a)(9);  Making false or misleading statements of fact concerning reasons for,  existence of, or amounts of price reductions; (a)(l3).   73.  Pursuant to Section 1782(a) of the CLRA, on July 5, 2017, Plaintiffs counsel  notified Lamps Plus in writing by certified mail of the particular violations of § 1770 of  the CLRA and demanded that it rectify the problems associated with the actions detailed  above and give notice to all affected consumers of Lamps Pius's intent to act.   74.  If Lamps Plus fails to respond to Plaintiffs letter, fails to agree to rectify the  problems associated with the actions detailed above, or fails to give notice to all affected  consumers within 30 days of the date of written notice, as proscribed by Section 1782,  Plaintiff will move to amend his Complaint to pursue claims for actual, punitive, and  20  Violation of California's Unfair Competition Law ("UCL")  California Business & Professions Code Section 17200, et seq.   Violation of California's False Advertising Law ("FAL")  California Business and Professions Code Section 17500, et seq.   Violation of California's Consumers Legal Remedies Act ("CLRA"),  California Civil Code Section 1750, et seq.  