CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 32

Transcription

1 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 1 of 32 'I ii STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) JEFFREY FELLMAN, individually ) Court File No.: and on behalf of a class of similarly ) situated individuals, ) ) SUMMONS Plaintiff, ) ) vs. ) ) TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota ) Corporation and TARGET STORES, INC., a ) Minnesota corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) Case Type: Civil STATE OF MINNESOTA to the above-named Defendants: You are hereby summoned and required to serve upon Plaintiffs attorneys an answer to the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within 20 days after service of this Summons upon you, exclusive of the day of service. If you fail to do so, judgment by default will be taken against you for the relief demanded in the Complaint. You are further notified that this case may be subject to Alternative Dispute Resolution pursuant to Minn. Stat and Rule of the General Rules of Practice for the District Courts

2 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 2 of CV Dated: May 30, 2017 LOCKRIDGE GRINDAL NAUEN P.L.L.P. By: s/ Robert K. She1guist Robert K. Shelquist, #2131 OX Rebecca A. Peterson, # Jacob M. Saufley, # South Washington Ave., Suite 2200 Minneapolis, MN Telephone: Facsimile: rkshelquist@locklaw.com rapeterson@locklaw.com jmsaufley@locklaw.com s

3 ... CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 3 of CV STATE OF MINNESOTA COUNTY OF HENNEPIN DISTRICT COURT -FOURTH JUDICIAL DISTRICT ) JEFFREY FELLMAN, individually ) Court File No.: and on behalf of a class of similarly ) situated individuals, ) ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT Plaintiff, ) ) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED vs. ) ) TARGET CORPORATION, a Minnesota ) Corporation and TARGET STORES, INC.,.a ) Minnesota corporation, ) ) Defendants. ) Case Type: Civil COMPLAINT Plaintiff Jeffrey Fellman ("Plaintiff') brings this class action against Defendants Target Corporation ("Target") and Target Stores, Inc. ("Target Stores, Inc.") (collectively, "Defendants") on his own behalf, and on behalf of a Class of similarly situated individuals who purchased imitation leather furniture ("Furniture"), marketed, distributed, and sold by Defendants from 2007 through the present. ~~aintiff alleges as follows upon personal knowledge as to himself or his own acts and experiences and, as to all other matters, upon infonnation and belief, including investigation conducted through counsel. I. INTRODUCTION 1. Defendants falsely advertised, marketed, and misrepresented the characteristics, qualities, attributes, and performance abilities of its pleather Furniture, namely the Mitchell tufted modular sectional chair, to induce Plaintiff and the Class into making misinformed, and ultimately detrimental, purchases; purchases they would not have made absent Defendants'

4 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 4 of 32 4' 27-CV :28:26 PM misconduct. Defendants intentionally and negligently misrepresented the type and quality of material used to construct the Furniture and engaged in an unlawful marketing and advertising campaign that was calculated to gain an unfair advantage over competitors conducting their businesses in a lawful manner. Defendants' improper and misleading statements ultimately led Plaintiff and the Class to purchase Furniture that failed to perform as promised. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class suffered injuries, including, inter alia, decreased value and lifespan of their Furniture as well as repair and replacement costs. 2. Plaintiff purchased the Furniture from Defendants with the intent to furnish his home with durable, long-lasting, and quality leather furniture. Plaintiff's decision to purchase the Furniture was based on Defendants' marketing, advertising, representations, conversations with employees, and affirmations with respect to the product's superior qualities a~d capabilities for use as leather furniture in a home, in addition to statements, advertisements, and representations that the Furniture was made from actuar leather. Those statements, advertisements, and representations, however, proved false. Instead, the Furniture was not as advertised and Plaintiff suffered damages as a result of purchasing the inferior and underperforming Furniture for use in his home. 3. Not only is Plaintiff's Furniture not made from leather as advertised, marketed, and represented by Defendants, it is constructed of extremely low-quality pleather material meant to imitate leather. As such, the Furniture failed to withstand the normal wear and tear associated with normal home use. The Furniture quickly deteriorated into unusable, aesthetically displeasing condition in need of expensive repairs or replacement. 4. Ultimately, Plaintiff and the Class are owners of Furniture that is not leather, which has resulted in significantly diminished value, durability, performance, and aesthetic s

5 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 5 of CV appeal. Plaintiff and the Class did not receive the respective benefits of their bargains and, but for Defendants' false and misleading statements about the Furniture, would instead have purchased actual and genuine leather furniture from one of Defendants' many competitors. II. PARTIES 5. Plaintiff Jeffrey Fellman is a citizen and resident of Sarasota, Florida. Mr. Fellman purchased ten pieces of modular Furniture- three comer pieces and seven center pieces for use and decorative effect in his home thinking them to be manufactured with long-lasting, genuine leather. 6. Defendant Target Corporation' is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with a principal, place of business at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN Target has appointed CT Corporate System, with a principal place of business at 1010 Dale Street North, St. Paul, MN , as its registered agent for service of process. 7. Defendant Target Stores, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of Minnesota, with a principal place of business at 1000 Nicollet Mall, Minneapolis, MN Target Stores, Inc. does not have a registered agent. III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE.. 8. This Court is the appropriate venue for this action under Minn. Stat and the Court may properly exercise jurisdiction over the parties and this controversy. Defendants are citizens of the State of Minnesota and maintain their respective principal places of business in Hennepin County. Defendants enjoy protection under the laws of Minnesota and transact business within this jurisdiction including, but not limited to, advertising, marketing, merchandising, distributing, and selling the Furniture purchased by Plaintiff

6 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 6 of /2017 3:28:26 PM IV. TOLLING OF STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS 9. Any applicable statute(s) of limitations has been tolled by Defendants' knowing and active concealment and denial of the facts alleged herein. Plaintiff and members of the Class could not have reasonably discovered the true nature of the non-leather furniture until shortly before this class action litigation was commenced. 10. Plaintiff had no reason to suspect that the Furniture was not leather because of Defendants' numerous representations that it was leather. Around 2014, the Furniture began to prematurely fail and Plaintiff became sus pi deus that the Furniture was constructed of a material that was not leather. 11. Upon discovering the deterioration and upon suspicion that the Furniture was not leather as Defendants' had represented on multiple occasions, Plaintiff complained to Defendants by telephone via the Target Customer Service Line ("Customer Service"), but could not obtain relief. Plaintiff made his first call in 2014 and he called on several occasions thereafter, but Defendants refused to provide information or assistance. Eventually, Plaintiff spoke with a Customer Service supervisor ("Supervisor") who had knowledge, and informed Plaintiff, of the fact that the Furniture was not leather, despite Defendants' multiple false and misleading representations. The Supervisor told Plaintiff that Defendants' were not responsible to correct the harm and directed him to bring claims against the manufacturer. 12. Defendants were and remain under a continuing duty to disclose to Plaintiff and members of the Class the true character, quality, and nature of the materials used to construct the Furniture. Defendants were in a superior position to know the facts about the Furniture and disseminated untruthful information about it. As a result of this active concealment by

7 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 7 of 32 Defendants, any and all applicable statutes of limitations otherwise applicable to the allegations herein have been tolled... V. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS A. Defendants advertise, market, distribute, and sell furniture. 13. Defendants operate an "upscale discount retailer that provides high-quality, ontrend merchandise at attractive prices in clean, spacious and guest-friendly stores" commonly known by the name Target ("Target Stores"). 1 Defendants operate 1,802 Target Stores and 38 distribution centers in the United States. In addition, Defendants maintain a significant online presence through a robust merchandise sales website. The website can be accessed, and goods shipped, throughout the United States. 14. Defendants opened their first Target Store in 1962 in Roseville, MN. Defendants found great success with Target Stores and earned a trusted reputation by selling high quality consumer merchandise at affordable prices. Over the ensuing decades, customers have trusted the accuracy and quality of products advertised, marketed, distributed, and sold in both physical and online Target Stores. 15. As Defendants increased the number of Target Stores nationwide, so too have they increased the breadth of merchandise marketed and advertised for sale. Consumers now expect to find thousands of furniture items that range from sofa and chairs, to beds and dining tables. In 2017, the Target Stores website now lists 1,777 different chairs, sofas, and sectionals offered for sale in the living room furniture category. 2 Of this furniture, 154 are currently labeled as "leather," "bonded leather," or "bicast leather." Accessed May 17, Accessed May 17, /d

8 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 8 of Defendants advertise, market, and merchandise their Furniture in a variety of ways that include, but are not limited to, pri~1t advertisements, direct mail, brochures, coupons, television advertisements, online product pages with photos and descriptions, in-store displays, and representations by employees ("Promotional Materials"). 17. Through their Promotional Materials, Defendants advertised, marketed, and misrepresented that the Furniture was leather in order to encourage and ultimately induce Plaintiff and members of the Class to purchase it despite the fact that the Furniture was not leather. B. Defendants misrepresented certain qualities and characteristics of the Furniture. 18. Defendants advertised the quaiities and characteristics of its Furniture through its Promotional Materials, which were widely disseminated to consumers throughout the United States. The Promotional Materials were intended to accurately inform consumers about Defendants' Furniture, which is indeed the expectation that Plaintiff and members of the Class had for those materials. 19. Defendants' claimed the Furniture was fit for home use and would function as durable, comfortable, long-lasting, aesthetically pleasing furniture made from high quality leather materials. 20. Through their Promotional Materials, Defendants mislead Plaintiff and members of the class into believing that the Furniture was constructed with leather when, in fact, it is not. 21. Plaintiff and members of the class were deceived by Defendants' false and misleading Promotional Materials and purchased the Furniture upon the belief that Defendants had accurately des.cribed the Furniture as leather and they have suffered as a result of Defendants' deception

9 .. CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 9 of In contravention of consumers' reasonable expectations, Defendants' Promotional Materials contained false and misleading statements concerning the qualities and characteristics of the Furniture. For instance, Defendants' Promotional Materials falsely proclaimed that the Furniture was leather when Defendants knew or should have known that to be untrue. 23. Similarly, Defendants' employees falsely represented to Plaintiff that the Furniture was leather through in-person conversations, in-store print displays, and online product descriptions. 24. Because Defendants' Target Stores are, in the Defendants' own words, "an upscale discount retailer that provides high-quality" home furnishings, Plaintiff and members of the Class could reasonably expect that the Furniture they purchased was high-quality, made of genuine leather, and sold at an attractive and affordable price as promised by Defendants Plaintiff and the Class reasonable believed they were purchasing leather furniture both because it was stated as such in Defendants Promotional Materials and because Defendants routinely sell genuine leather furniture products at attractive prices. 26. Through their Promotional Materials, Defendants' affirmative statements that the Furniture was of superior quality and possessed certain characteristics and capabilities were the exact representations Plaintiff and the Class members relied upon in purchasing their Furniturethat furniture advertised as leather by Defendants can be counted upon to, in fact, be leather. But Defendants misled Plaintiff and the Class concerning the Furniture's qualities, characteristics, durability, and therefore performance abilities, to their financial detriment. 4 Accessed May 17,

10 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 10 of 32 C. Plaintiff purchased his Furniture based on Defendants' misrepresentations in the Promotional Materials. 27. Plaintiff purchased a total of ten pieces of Furniture from Defendants on separate occasions, beginning in the Fall 2009, for use in his home. These purchases were made from Defendants' Target Store located in Saras~.ta, Florida, Defendants' Target Store located in Bradenton, Florida, and from Defendants' online Target Stores website. 28. Prior to purchasing the Furniture, Plaintiff reviewed print advertising, which described the Furniture as "leather." Plaintiff also reviewed the product description for the Furniture on Defendants' Target Stores website, which described the Furniture as "leather." Upon arriving at a physical Target Store in Sarasota, Florida, Plaintiff saw an in-store display that similarly represented that the Furniture was "leather." In addition, Plaintiff spoke with Trevor, a Department Manager in Defendants' Sarasota Target Store who represented to Plaintiff that the Furniture was, indeed, "leather" as indicated in the Promotional Materials reviewed by Plaintiff. Plaintiff and Trevor interacted on several occasions in order to locate the precise number of Furniture pieces Plaintiff needed, discuss their quality, and ensure the Furniture could be returned if necessary. 29. Plaintiff purchased a total of ten pieces of Furniture after hearing, reading, and ultimately relying upon Defendants multiple representations that the Furniture was "leather''. Unfortunately, Defendants' Promotional Materials and statements were false, misleading, and ultimately harmed the Plaintiff because the Furniture was not leather. 30. Plaintiff relied heavily on.. Defendants' false and misleading Promotional Materials when assessing the merits of purchasing Defendants' Furniture, rather than leather furniture from one of Defendants' many competitors. Specifically, Plaintiff first became aware of the existence of Defendants' Furniture through a print advertisement received by him. This

11 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 11 of CV advertisement represented that the Furniture was "leather" and available for a low sale price, which caused Plaintiff to disregard leather furniture offerings from competing retailers. 31. Plaintiff purchased the Furniture to replace older, genuine leather furniture. Plaintiff intended to replace his old leather furniture with genuine leather furniture and had no intention of purchasing furniture that was constructed from any other materials. Plaintiff therefore purchased the Furniture upon a mistaken belief, due to Defendants' false and misleading representations, that the new Furniture was leather. 32. A reasonable consumer would expect leather furniture to last for several decades of normal household use. 33. After only a few years, Plaintiff discovered that the Furniture failed to withstand the normal wear and tear of ordinary household use. The Furniture's outer covering cracked, peeled, and broke free in large chunks in a manner wholly inconsistent with genuine leather, resulting in severe damage

12 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 12 of 32 I IIGU Ill I \lui tUUIWICII IJI.;," IWI. V\ll 5/ :28:26 F Hennepin County, IV 34. Plaintiff contacted the Furniture manufacturer and was informed that the Furniture had been clearly invoiced and sold to Defendants as 100% Polyurethane, otherwise referred to as "PU" ("PU"). PU is a completely synthetic material used in artificial and imitation "leather" products and to call PU "leather" is patently false and misleading. Though it can appear highly similar to leather when new, PUis not, and does not contain, genuine leather, bonded leather, or bicast leather. Nothing in the synthetic chemical makeup ofpu is actually leather. 35. Defendants apparently sold the Furniture, constructed from PU, right alongside furniture items actually made from genuine leather. The juxtaposition of which significantly contributed to Plaintiffs reasonable belief, compounded by representations from Defendants' employees and Promotional Materials, that the Furniture was leather

13 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 13 of CV PU furniture is notoriously difficult, if not impossible, to repair as it either requires patching of the surface or a complete. reupholstering. Neither option is feasible as patches are mismatched in color, inconsistent in texture, unsightly in nature, and are no more durable than the original PU covering. Similarly unfeasible, PU re-upholstery is prohibitively expensive and often costs more than the original furniture. It is difficult to color match and no more durable than the original non-leather covering. 37. This deception is particularly problematic because, upon information and belief, customers may not have the opportunity to visually inspect the Furniture prior to purchase. This is because the sale may occur online or, if in a Target Store, the Furniture may be boxed and not physically be present for inspection. 38. Defendants' Supervisor admitted that Defendants were aware that the Furniture was constructed of PU, but marketed and :advertised the Furniture as "leather" within the Promotional Materials. Defendants did not immediately amend their Promotional Materials despite knowing the true nature of the Furniture, even after Plaintiff lodged several complaints and, as a result, thousands of customers have purchased the Furniture based on Defendants'. knowingly false and misleading Promotional Materials. 39. In addition, Defendants' Customer Service employees informed Plaintiff that the Furniture, which had cracked, peeled, and broken away was not.covered under Defendants' oneyear warranty. 40. Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered damages as a result of purchasing the Furniture from Defendants, including premature deterioration, decreased resale value, repair costs, aesthetic inferiority, and replacement costs

14 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 14 of /2017 3:28:26 PM VI. CLASS ALLEGATIONS 41. Plaintiff brings this action under the laws of Minnesota, and it may be properly maintained, as a nationwide class action pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and (b)(3) on behalf of a Class defined as follows: All persons or entities located or residing in the United States that purchased or owned pleather Furniture sold by Defendants from January 1, 2009 to the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in Defendants, Defendants' affiliates, officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, and successors, and the Judges or Justices assigned to this case. 42. Alternatively, or in addition to the nationwide Class claims, Plaintiff brings these claims under Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23 on behalf of themselve~ and on behalf of a.. class or subclass of individuals or entities 'residing in each of the states in which a named Plaintiff resides. Plaintiffs Florida Class is defined as: All persons or entities located or residing in Florida that purchased or owned pleather Furniture sold by Defendants from January 1, 2009 to the present. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have or had a controlling interest, or which has a controlling interest in Defendants, Defendants' affiliates, officers, directors, employees, legal representatives, and successors, and. the Judges or Justices assigned to this case. 43. Together, the National and Florida Classes are collectively referred to herein as the "Class." Plaintiff reserves the right to re-define the Class prior to class certification. '" 44. Members of the Class are, so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. While the exact number of Class members is currently unknown, Plaintiff believes that the total number of Class members can be ascertained through appropriate discovery. Plaintiff believes that there are thousands of members in the Proposed Class. The Class is defined in such a way so that the identities of the Class members are objectively ascertainable,

15 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 15 of CV and the identity of the Class members may be confirmed from records maintained by Defendant. Additionally, some Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail. 45. Plaintiffs claims are typical of the claims of the Class, as all members of the Class are similarly affected by Defendants' wrongful conduct in violation of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act, breaches of express and implied warranties, and other applicable laws. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the members of the Class. Plaintiff has no relevant conflicts of interest with other members of the Class, and has retained counsel competent and experienced in consumer protection class action litigation. 46. Common questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any questions solely affecting individual members. Questions of law and fact common to the Class include whether: i. Defendants advertised and marketed the Furniture as "leather" in their Promotional Materials; 11. the Furniture is "leather"; 111. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Furniture is not "leather"; 1v. the Defendants knowingly and/or negligently misrepresented the Furniture; v. Defendants engaged in :unfair and deceptive conduct; vi. the value of the Furniture is diminished as a result Defendants' misconduct; and v11. Defendants failed to take corrective action upon learning the true nature of the Furniture. 47. A class action is superior to all other available methods for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy, and Plaintiff knows of no unusual problems related to management and notice. While the aggregate damage to the Class is significant, the damages

16 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 16 of 32 Filed in Fourth Judicial District colrt suffered by individual Class members may' be relatively small. The expense and burden of individual litigation thus make it impossible for members of the Class to individually redress the wrongs done to them. There will be no difficulty in the management of this action as a class action. 48. Defendants have acted on grounds generally applicable to the entire Class with respect to the matters complained of herein, thereby making appropriate the relief sought herein with respect to the Class as a whole. VII. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION Violations of the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act (MINN. STAT. 325F.68, et seq.) 49. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph alleged above as though fully alleged herein. 50. Minnesota's Private Attorney General Statute (Minn. Stat. 8.31, subd. 3a) allows Plaintiff and the Class to bring a claim under Minn. Stat. 325F The Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act prohibits "[t]he act, use, or employment by any person of any fraud,.. false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, misleading statement or deceptive practice, with the intent that others rely thereon in connection with the sale of any merchandise, whether or not any person has in fact been misled, deceived, or damaged thereby..." Minn. Stat. 325F.69(1). Through their Promotional Materials, Defendants advertised and represented to Plaintiff and members of the Class that the Furniture possessed certain qualities and characteristics, including, but not limited to, that it was "leather''. 52. Defendants' Promotional Materials and representations with respect to the "leather'' Furniture were made in connection with the sale of the Furniture to Plaintiff and the

17 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 17 of CV Class and, upon information and belief, were drafted at, approved by, and disseminated from Defendants' headquarters and operational facilities in Minnesota. 53. Defendants intentionally and/or knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff and the Class members regarding the true materials used in the Furniture. 54. Defendants stated that the Furniture was "leather," indicating that the Furniture was durable and worth the purchase price. Defendants intended for Plaintiff and the Class to rely on, and accept as true, these advertisements and representations with respect to the leather in deciding whether to purchase Furniture from Defendants. 55. Defendants' unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to deceive reasonable consumers about the Furniture's true construction and, by extension, the true v~lue of the Furniture. Plaintiff and the Class relied on, and were in fact deceived by, Defendants' Promotional Materials and representations with respect to the "leather" used in the Furniture in deciding to purchase the Furniture over comp,~titors' leather furniture. 56. Plaintiff and member of the Class did in fact rely upon Defendants' false and misleading misrepresentations that the Furniture was leather and they would not have purchased. the Furniture if they had been aware of the truth. 57. Plaintiff and the Class were injured in fact and suffered actual damages as a result of their reliance on Defendants' Promotional Materials and representations with respect to the "leather" used in the Furniture. Defendants' wrongful conduct was the direct and proximate cause of the injuries to Plaintiff and the Class. Because of Defendants' fraudulent conduct, the value of the Furniture has been greatly diminished, as "leather" furniture made from PU is worth substantially less than otherwise comparable furniture made from genuine leather and markedly less durable

18 . CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 18 of Had Plaintiff and the Class been aware of this misrepresentation, Plaintiff and the Class would have either paid less for their Furniture or would not have purchased the Furniture from Defendants. Plaintiff and the Class did not receive the benefit of their bargain as a result of Defendants' misconduct. 59. Pursuant to Minn. Stat. 8.31, subd. 3a, Plaintiff and the Class seek actual damages, attorneys' fees, and any other just and proper relief available under the Minnesota Prevention of Consumer Fraud Act. SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Express Warranty (MINN. STAT A-210, et seq.) 60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph alleged above as though fully alleged herein. 61. Defendants marketed and sold 'the Furniture into the stream of commerce with the intent that the Furniture would be purchased by Plaintiff and the Class. 62. Defendants expressly warranted that the Furniture was "leather". Defendants' representations, through their written warranties (included in their Promotional Materials) regarding the quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture, created express warranties that formed the basis of the bargain Plaintiff and the Class entered into upon purchasing the Furniture from Defendants. 63. Defendants created and disseminated express warranties to Plaintiff and the Class members through print advertisements, onlirie advertisements, online product descriptions, instore product displays, statements by employees, and other promotional materials detailing the qualities- and characteristics of the Furniture including, but not limited to, being "leather"

19 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 19 of 32 ' 27-CV Defendants advertised and represented to Plaintiff and the Class that the Furniture possessed certain qualities and characteristics, including, but not limited to being "leather". 65. Defendants' advertisements and representations were affirmed by at least one of Defendants' Target Store employees. 66. Defendants' advertisements and representations with respect to being "leather" were made in connection with the sale ofthe Furniture to Plaintiff and members ofthe Class. 67. Defendants' advertisements and representations with respect to being "leather" constitute a basis of the bargain between.plaintiff and the Class in their purchases of the Furniture. 68. Plaintiff and members of the Class relied on Defendants' advertisements and representations with respect to the Furniture being "leather" in deciding whether to purchase the Furniture from Defendants. 69. Defendants' Furniture does not conform to the claims in Defendants' Promotional Materials. 70. Plaintiff and the Class were injured as a result of their reliance on Defendants' Promotional Materials and misrepresentations with respect to the Furniture not being "leather". Defendants' wrongful conduct was the direct and proximate cause of injuries to Plaintiff and the Class. THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION Breach of Implied Warranties of Merchantability and Fitness For A Particular Purpose (MINN. STAT A-13, et seq.) 71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph alleged above as though fully alleged herein

20 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 20 of 32 ' 72. At all times mentioned herein, and prior to the time said Furniture was purchased by Plaintiff, Defendants marketed, advertised, distributed, sold and impliedly warranted to Plaintiff and members of the Class that the Furniture was of merchantable quality and fit for the use for which it was intended. 73. Plaintiff relied on the Promotional Materials supplied, authorized, and/or published by Defendants and also the statements of Defendants' authorized agents. 74. The Furniture, when sold and at all times thereafter, was unfit for its intended use and was not of merchantable quality as warranted by Defendants. Specifically, the Furniture was not suited for use as leather furniture in a home or business office. The deficiencies in the quality of the material interferes with Plaintiffs and Class members' use of the Furniture to provide long-lasting, durable, high-quality, functionality in Plaintiff's home. 75. The Furniture was similarly unfit for its particular purpose. Defendants marketed, advertised, and sold the Furniture to consumers who would consider the durability of the exterior material when purchasing furniture. Defendants knew, or should have known, that the Furniture would be purchased by consumers, such as Plaintiff and the Class, who would utilize the Furniture in homes and businesses based on claims that it was "leather". 76. Plaintiff and the Class relied on Defendants' claims m their Promotional Materials, representations, and implied warranties that the Furniture was "leather" in deciding to purchase it from Defendants. 77. Defendants were provided notice of the issues alleged above after Plaintiff himself became aware of his damages as a result of the defective Furniture. Notice was duly given to Defendants or Defendants' agents with respect to the breach of implied warranties as a result of Plaintiff's numerous complaints to Customer Service

21 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 21 of Defendants failed to provide adequate remedy. 79. As a direct and proximate result of the breach of said warranties, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer loss as alleged herein in an amount to be determined at trial. FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unlawful Trade Practices (MINN. STAT. 32SD.13, et seq.) 80. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every paragraph alleged above as though fully alleged herein. 81. Defendants are marketers, advertisers, distributors, and sellers, ofthe Furniture. 82. Plaintiff is protected by these statutes as he purchased the Furniture in Florida for use in his Florida home from Defendants who are citizens of Minnesota. 83. Minnesota Statute 325D.l3 provides that, "no person shall, in connection with the sale of merchandise, knowingly misrepresent, directly or indirectly, the true quality, ingredients or origin of such merchandise." 84. By engaging in the conduct described herein, Defendants violated and continue to violate Minn. Stat. 325D.13 and the similar laws of other states. 85. Minnesota Statute 325D.44, subd. 1, provides in part: a person engages in a deceptive trade practice when, in the course of business, vocation, or occupation, the person: * * * "(5) represents that goods or services have... characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits,... that they do not have;" "(7) represents that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade,... ifthey are of another;" and

22 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 22 of CV /2017 3:28:26 PM "(13) engages in any other conduct which similarly creates a likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding." 86. Consumer protection laws of other states make similar conduct unlawful. 87. Where, as here, Plaintiffs claims inure to the public benefit, Minnesota's Private- Attorney General Statute, Minn. Stat. 8.31, subd. 3a, allows individuals who have been injured through a violation of these consumer-protection statutes to bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees. 88. Defendants used and employed unfair methods of competition and/or unfair or deceptive acts or practices including, but not limited to, the following: a. Representing that goods have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities that they do not have or that person has sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation or connection that he does not have; b. Representing that goods or services are of a particular standard, quality, or grade or that goods are of a particular style or model, if they are of another; c. Engaging in other fraudulent or deceptive conduct which created the likelihood of confusion or of misunderstanding; and d. Utilizing misrepresentations, knowing omissions, and other sharp business practices to mislead or create a misleading impression regarding the Furniture. 89. Defendants knew or should have known that: (1) the Furniture was defective insofar as it was not made from "leather" as stated in the Promotional Materials; (2) the Furniture was manufactured with inferior PU material that cracks, peels, and lacks the durability of leather; and (3) the Furniture was otherwise not as warranted and represented by Defendants. 90. Defendants' misrepresentations, concealment, omissions, and other deceptive conduct were likely to deceive or cause misunderstanding and did in fact deceive Plaintiff with respect to the suitability of the Furniture for use in his home and business office and for other uses common to furniture, including functionality as durable seating with an appealing aesthetic

23 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 23 of CV / :28:26 PM 91. Defendants intended that Plaintiff and the Class would rely on Defendants' misrepresentations, concealment, warranties, deceptions, and/or omissions regarding the suitability their misrepresented Furniture. 92. Defendants' conduct and omissions described herein occurred repeatedly in Defendants' trade or business and were capable of deceiving a substantial portion of the consuming public. 93. The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendants were material facts that Plaintiff and any reasonable consumer would have considered them in deciding whether to purchase the leather furniture. Plaintiff intended to purchase leather furniture and would not have purchased the Furniture from Defendants had he known that it was incapable of meeting the standards claimed by Defendants. Instead, he would have purchased different and actual leather furniture from Defendants or from one ofdef~ndants' many competitors. 94. Defendants intended that Plaintiff would rely on the deception and purchase the Furniture, unaware of the undisclosed material facts. This conduct constitutes consumer fraud. 95. On information and belief, Defendants' unlawful conduct is continuing, with no indication that Defendants intend to cease this fraudulent course of conduct. 96. Plaintiff is damaged and has suffered actual and ascertainable losses by virtue of having purchased the Furniture. 97. Defendants have similarly violated the Unlawful Trade Practices Acts of the various states including, but not limited t~, the State of Florida, and these states allow for statutory damages. 98. As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' violations of the applicable state Unfair Trade Practices and Consumer Protection laws as set forth above, Plaintiff seeks

24 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 24 of 32 injunctive or declaratory relief prohibiting Defendants from falsely advertising the qualities, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture and all other damages available by statute and law and to notify class members of the true n~ture of what was purchased. FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION False Advertising (MINN. STAT. 325F.67, et seq.) 99. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint Minnesota's False Statement in Advertising Act ("FSAA"), Minn. Stat.. 325F.67, provides a cause of action to "any person, firm, corporation, or association" who purchases goods or services through advertising which "contains any material assertion, representation, or statement of fact which is untrue, deceptive, or misleading." Consumer protection laws of other states make similar conduct unlawful Where, as here, Plaintiffs claims inure to the public benefit, Minnesota's Private- Attorney General Statute, Minn. Stat. 8.31, subd. 3a, allows individuals who have been injured through a violation of the FSAA to bring a civil action and recover damages, together with costs and disbursements, including reasonable attorney's fees By engaging in the conduct herein, Defendants violated and, upon information and belief, continue to violate Minn. Stat. 325F.67 and the similar laws of other states Defendants' misrepresentations, knowing omissions, and use of other sharp business practices include, by way of example:

25 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 25 of 32.. " a. Defendants' fraudulent, misleading, and deceptive statements relating to the true quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture; b. Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations by omission with respect to claims that the Furniture was leather, the improper design, quality, and characteristics of the Furniture, and Defendants' knowledge of the untruthfulness of those misrepresentations; c. Defendants' concealment of the true nature of the non-leather PU exterior ofthe Furniture; and d. Defendants' failure to disclose the Furniture's non-leather PU exterior Defendants, including their agents and distributors, also made untrue, deceptive, and misleading assertions and representations about the Furniture by making and repeating the various statements about the alleged quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture referenced herein As a result of Defendants' conduct, Plaintiff suffered actual damages in that he purchased Furniture that was inferior to that which was advertised and worth less than the price he paid. There is an association between Defendants' acts and omissions as alleged herein and the damages suffered by Plaintiff As a result of Defendants' untrue, deceptive, and misleading assertions and representations about the Furniture, Plaintiff has and will continue to suffer damages that include not only the full cost to replace the Furniture, but also include, without limitation, consequential and incidental damages Defendants have similarly violated the consumer-protection statutes ofthe various states including, but not limited to, the State of Florida. I 08. Plaintiff and the class have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial

26 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 26 of 32 SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION Negligence, including Negligent Misrepresentation 109. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint Defendants had a duty to Plaintiff to exercise reasonable and ordinary care in the marketing, advertising, and sale of the FurnitUre Defendants breached their duty to Plaintiff by marketing, advertising, and selling to Plaintiff a product that is inferior and does not meet the advertised quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture, and by failing to promptly remove the Furniture from the marketplace or to take other appropriate remedial action Defendant knew or should have known that the quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture were not suitable for the intended use as advertised and marketed, and was otherwise not as warranted and represented by Defendant. Specifically, Defendants knew or should have known that: (1) the Flimiture was inferior in that a consumer could not utilize the durability and retained value of leather where the Furniture material was actually PU; (2) the Furniture was manufactured with inferior PU that prematurely tears and peels; and (3) and the Furniture was otherwise not as warranted and represented by Defendants As a direct and proximate cause of Defendants' negligence, Plaintiff suffered actual damages in that he purchased the Furniture with diminished quality, characteristics, and capabilities than represented by Defendants. These misrepresentations caused damage to Plaintiff and to his business, including, but not limited to, it's good-will and reputation, and will continue to cause Plaintiff to incur expenses

27 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 27 of Plaintiff and the class demand judgment against Defendant for an amount to be determined at trial. SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION Unjust Enrichment 115. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained m the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint Substantial benefits have been conferred on Defendants by Plaintiff and members of the Class through the purchase of the fraudulently misrepresented Furniture. Defendants knowingly and willingly accepted and enjoyed these benefits Defendants either knew or should have known that the payments rendered by Plaintiff were given and received with the expectation that the Furniture was leather and would perform as represented and warranted by Defendants. As such, it would be inequitable for Defendants to retain the benefit of the payments under these circumstances Defendants' acceptance and retention of these benefits under the circumstances alleged herein make it inequitable for Defendant to retain the benefits without payment of the value to Plaintiff and the Class Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover from Defendants all amounts wrongfully collected and improperly retained by Defendants, plus interest thereon As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' wrongful conduct and unjust enrichment, Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to damages in excess of $5,000,000. EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION Fraud by Omission 121. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint

28 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 28 of 32 fl 27-CV Based on Defendants' matenal omissions, Plaintiff and the Class did not reasonably expect that the Furniture's quality, characteristics, and capabilities would be inferior to those stated in the Promotional Materials Defendants concealed from, and failed to disclose to, Plaintiff and the Ciass that: (1) the Furniture's exterior material was not genuine leather; and (2) the exterior material was in fact PU, which is a synthetic material and contains not a single trace of leather Defendants were under a duty to disclose to Plaintiff and members of the Class the true quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture because Defendants: (1) were in a superior position to know the true state of facts about the Furniture; (2) were in a superior position to know the actual material of the Furniture; and (3) knew that Piaintiff and the Class could not reasonably have been expected to learn or discover that the Furniture was fraudulently misrepresented in the Promotional Materials prior to purchasing the Furniture, and (4) knew that Plaintiff would, and in fact did, rely upon Defendants' omissions in purchasing the Furniture The facts concealed or not disclosed by Defendants to Plaintiff and the Class are material in that a reasonable consumer would have considered them to be important in deciding whether to purchase the Furniture Plaintiff and the Class justifiably relied on the omissions of Defendants to their detriment The detriment is evident from the true quality, characteristics, and capabilities of the Furniture, which is inferior than marketed, advertised, and represented by Defendants Defendants affirmatively represented on multiply occasions, and in several different ways, that the Furniture was leather

29 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 29 of ~cv As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' misconduct, Plaintiff and the Class have suffered and will continue to suffer actual damages. NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FL. STAT ) (On Behalf of the Florida Alternative Class) 130. Plaintiff incorporates by reference each of the allegations contained in the preceding paragraphs of this Complaint This is an action for relief under Section , et seq., Florida Statutes (The Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act) The purpose of the Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act ("FDUTPA") is "to protect the consuming public and legitimate business enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable, deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce." FLA. STAT (2) Section (7), Florida Statutes defines "Consumer" as "an individual; child, by and through its parent or legal guardian; firm; association; joint venture; partnership; estate; trust; business trust; syndicate; fiduciary; corporation; or any other group or combination." Plaintiff and Class members are "Consumers" within the meaning of (7), Florida Statutes Section (8), Florida Statutes defines "Trade or Commerce" as "[T]he advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distributing, whether by sale, rental, or otherwise, of any good or service, or any property, whether tangible or intangible, or any other article, commodity, or thing of value, wherever situated. 'Trade or commerce' shall include the conduct of any trade or commerce, however denominated, including any nonprofit or not-for-profit

30 CASE 0:17-cv MJD-DTS Document 1-1 Filed 06/26/17 Page 30 of CV person or activity." The advertising, soliciting, providing, offering, or distribution of Furniture by Defendants to Plaintiff and Class members is "Trade or Commerce" within the meaning of section (8), Florida Statutes Section (1) provides that ''unfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are hereby declared unlawful." 136. Defendants have engaged in u~tfair competition and unfair, unlawful or fraudulent business practices by the practice described above, and by knowingly and intentionally concealing from Plaintiff and Class members the fact that the Furniture was completely devoid of actual leather, which was not readily discoverable. Defendants should have disclosed this information because they were in a superior position to know the true facts related to the Furniture and Plaintiff and Class members could not reasonably be expected to learn or discover the true facts related to this defect until after manifestation of the defect The unconscionable, illegal, unfair and deceptive acts and practices of Defendants violate the provisions of the FDUTP A As a direct and proximate result of Defendants' acts and omissions, Plaintiff and Class members have suffered or will suffer damages for which they are entitled to relief pursuant to section (2), Florida Statutes, and which include, without limitation, the cost to repair and/or replace the Furniture, which constitutes cognizable damages under the FDUTPA Plaintiff and Class members are entitled to recover their reasonable attorneys' fees pursuant to section , Florida Statutes upon prevailing in this matter. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for jud~ent with respect to their Complaint as follows: