(For Violation of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act)   (Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive   Business Practices Act 815 ILCS 505/1, et seq. and 720 ILCS 295/1a)  101.  Plaintiff DeLisle and Class Members re-allege and incorporate by reference each  allegation set forth above.  102.  Plaintiff DeLisle brings this count individually and on behalf of members of the  Illinois Subclass against Defendant.  103.  Defendant is a “person” as that term is defined in 815 ILCS 505/1(c).  104.  Plaintiff and the Illinois Class are “consumers” as that term is defined in 815  ILCS 505/1(e).  105.  The Illinois Consumer Fraud and Deceptive Business Practices Act (“Illinois  Act”) prohibits “unfair or deceptive acts or practices, including but not limited to the use or  employment of any deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation or the  concealment, suppression or omission of any material fact, with intent that others rely upon the  concealment, suppression or omission of such material fact … in the conduct of trade or  commerce … whether any person has in fact been misled, deceived or damaged thereby.” 815  (Unjust Enrichment)   (Violation of Missouri Merchandising Practices Act, Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.010, et seq.)   31.  The Sig family of companies designs and manufactures both military and civilian  firearms.  Currently Sig claims that about one-third of police forces in the United States use Sig’s  firearms.   32.  Until recently, Sig primarily designed and manufactured hammer-fired pistols.   Hammer-fired pistols rely upon the falling of an internal or external hammer to impact the firing  pin or transfer bar.     33.  In Sig’s hammer-fired pistols, a disconnector safety stops the pistol from being  able to fire out-of-battery.  Modern semi-automatic pistols include a single fixed firing chamber  that is integral to the rear of the barrel, as well as, a combination of parts that allow for the  firearm to lock prior to the cartridge being fired, and a feeding device (e.g., a magazine) that  allows for a new round to be placed in the chamber at the end of the firing cycle.     68.  Plaintiffs bring this class action on behalf of themselves and all others similarly  situated.  The proposed Class includes all individuals who purchased one or more Sig model  P320 Pistols in the United States (the “Class”) from 2014 until the present (the “Class Period”).   Excluded from the Class are assigned judges and members of their families within the first  degree of consanguinity, Defendant, and their subsidiaries, affiliates, officers, and directors.   80.  Plaintiffs and Class Members reallege and incorporate by reference each  allegation set forth above.   81.  Sig Pistols are consumer products as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).   82.  Plaintiffs and Class Members are consumers as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   83.  At all relevant times, Defendant were suppliers and warrantors as defined in 15  U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).   84.  The amount in controversy of each individual’s claim is more than the sum or  value of twenty-five ($25) dollars.   85.  In connection with the sale of Sig Pistols, Defendant issued written warranties as  defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6), which expressly warranted that Sig Pistols could safely be used  for the intended purpose.  In fact, Sig Pistols did not have a disconnect safety rendering them  susceptible to out-of-battery discharge events.   87.  Plaintiff Hartley re-alleges and incorporates by reference each allegation set forth  above.   88.  Plaintiff Harley brings this count individually, and on behalf of the National Class  and the Missouri Subclass.   89.  The Missouri Merchandising Practices Act broadly prohibits false, fraudulent or  deceptive merchandising practices. Mo. Rev. Stat. § 407.020.   90.  At all relevant times, Defendant’s sales or distribution of Sig Pistols was a “sale”  as defined by Section 407.010 because such sale or distribution constituted a sale, lease, offer for  sale or lease, or attempt to sell or lease merchandise for cash or on credit.   91.  At all relevant times, Defendant’s manufacturing, marketing, advertising, sales  and/or distribution of Sig Pistols was an “advertisement” as defined by Section 407.010 because  such manufacturing, marketing, advertising, sales or distribution constituted an attempt by  publication, dissemination, solicitation, circulation, or any other means to induce, directly or  indirectly, any person to enter into any obligation or acquire any title or interest in any  merchandise.   96.  Plaintiff Hartley and Class Members re-allege and incorporate by reference each  allegation set forth above.   97.  Plaintiff Hartley brings this count individually, and on behalf of the nationwide  Class and the Missouri Subclass under Missouri law.    98.  Plaintiff and Class Members conferred a benefit on Sig by purchasing Sig Pistols.   Defendant was aware of this benefit, and at the same time aware of the undisclosed defects the  Pistols.   A.  Sig’s Model P320 Pistols  