IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No.

Similar documents
IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No.

Case 3:17-cv SB Document 7 Filed 05/01/17 Page 1 of 16

Case 6:18-cv MC Document 1 Filed 01/04/18 Page 1 of 12

Case 3:17-cv AC Document 1 Filed 11/09/17 Page 1 of 15

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No.

Case 3:18-cv SB Document 1 Filed 07/13/18 Page 1 of 20

Case 3:17-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:18-cv AC Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 17

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Case No:

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No. COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No. COMPLAINT. Negligence

Case 6:16-cv AA Document 1 Filed 10/13/16 Page 1 of 6

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No.

Case 3:18-cv SI Document 1 Filed 08/13/18 Page 1 of 20

Case 3:17-cv YY Document 1 Filed 08/26/17 Page 1 of 18

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA MIAMI DIVISION. CASE NO: 1:15-cv RNS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF JACKSON COUNTY, MISSOURI AT INDEPENDENCE

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH Case No. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CLASS ACTION

Case 7:18-cv Document 1 Filed 01/12/18 Page 1 of 15 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF ST. LOUIS COUNTY STATE OF MISSOURI. Div. CLASS ACTION PETITION

1/1/2019 4:52 PM 19CV00011 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No. COMPLAINT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Case 2:13-cv KOB Document 1 Filed 02/05/13 Page 1 of 14 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF ALABAMA SOUTHERN DIVISION

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 03/08/17 Page 1 of 14 PageID #:1

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

UNITED STATES BANKRUPTCY COURT DISTRICT OF OREGON COMPLAINT

2/13/ :36 PM 19CV07131 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No. COMPLAINT. Negligence FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

12/4/ :33 PM 17CV52549 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No. COMPLAINT

Case 3:13-cv GPM-PMF Document 5 Filed 02/14/13 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #24 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS

Case 5:15-cv BLF Document 1 Filed 11/05/15 Page 1 of 18

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS GALVESTON DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI WESTERN DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SACRAMENTO DIVISION

Courthouse News Service

Case 3:17-cv MO Document 1 Filed 09/27/17 Page 1 of 10

Case 3:18-cv AC Document 1 Filed 10/26/18 Page 1 of 17

Case 5:16-cv Document 1 Filed 09/12/16 Page 1 of 16 Page ID #:1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Case 0:17-cv XXXX Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/13/2017 Page 1 of 12

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendant.

Case3:15-cv Document1 Filed07/10/15 Page1 of 12

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 07/09/17 Page 1 of 18 PageID #:1

Case 1:13-cv GAO Document 1 Filed 06/10/13 Page 1 of 16 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 8:16-cv JDW-JSS Document 1 Filed 09/22/16 Page 1 of 20 PageID 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

Case 8:18-cv JVS-DFM Document 1-5 Filed 06/22/18 Page 1 of 29 Page ID #:41

Superior Court of California

Case: 1:17-cv Document #: 4 Filed: 03/08/17 Page 1 of 17 PageID #:24

Case 3:13-cv JE Document 1 Filed 12/20/13 Page 1 of 13 Page ID#: 1

Case 3:18-cv MEJ Document 1 Filed 01/31/18 Page 1 of 14

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF TENNESSEE NASHVILLE DIVISION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

4/2/2018 2:16 PM 18CV12858 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY. Case No. COMPLAINT FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

Courthouse News Service

DAVID F. SUGERMAN ATTORNEY, PC 707 5\'1;1 Washington St., Suite Portland, Oregon (503)

Case: 1:16-cv WOB Doc #: 4 Filed: 06/03/16 Page: 1 of 12 PAGEID #: 15

Case 3:17-cv Document 1 Filed 12/21/17 Page 1 of 17

THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH. Case No.

Case 1:15-cv MLW Document 4 Filed 01/14/16 Page 1 of 38 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 09/08/ :05 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 3 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 09/08/2016

Case 2:15-cv JLL-JAD Document 1 Filed 10/07/15 Page 1 of 18 PageID: 1

JUDGE KARAS. "defendants") included calling plaintiff and other consumers (hereinafter "plaintiff', "class", "class. Plaintiff, 1.

CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS COUNTY DEPARTMENT, CHANCERY DIVISION

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 03/21/ :25 PM INDEX NO /2016 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 13 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 03/21/2017 EXHIBIT E

1/29/2019 8:49 AM 19CV04626

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA. Defendant.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF NEW YORK. Case No. INTRODUCTION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF NORTH CAROLINA

Case 1:14-cv RGS Document 1 Filed 08/01/14 Page 1 of 16

Case 1:13-cv JBS-JS Document 1 Filed 12/16/13 Page 1 of 16 PageID: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA CASE NO:

Case 2:14-cv MJP Document 1 Filed 03/24/14 Page 1 of 13

1:15-cv JMC Date Filed 04/06/15 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF WAYNE

Case 4:08-cv Document 1 Filed 01/04/2008 Page 1 of 7 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MARION COUNTY

purchased either: immediately cease and desist engaging in the sale of adulterated and mislabeled herbal dietary

Case 9:16-cv KLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 01/19/2016 Page 1 of 32

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 02/01/17 Page 1 of 23. Plaintiff,

Case3:15-cv Document1 Filed01/09/15 Page1 of 16

Case 1:17-cv FDS Document 1 Filed 02/23/17 Page 1 of 10 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS

Case 1:13-cv PAB-KMT Document 1 Filed 12/02/13 USDC Colorado Page 1 of 13 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO

Case 1:08-cv JHR -KMW Document 37 Filed 05/04/09 Page 1 of 13 PageID: 222 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION. Plaintiffs, Defendant.

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE SIXTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PINELLAS COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL ACTION

Case 1:18-cv ARR-RML Document 1 Filed 07/20/18 Page 1 of 18 PageID #: 1

Case 5:18-cv Document 1 Filed 10/19/18 Page 1 of 55 Page ID #:1

Superior Court of California

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF CASS COUNTY, MISSOURI CLASS ACTION PETITION

Case 5:18-cv Document 1 Filed 07/31/18 Page 1 of 26

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Class UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA SAN JOSE DIVISION 9

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Attorneys for Plaintiffs MICHELLE RENEE MCGRATH and VERONICA O BOY, on behalf of themselves, and all others similarly situated

Case 1:17-cv Document 1 Filed 08/31/17 Page 1 of 14

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Case 3:13-cv BTM-NLS Document 1-1 Filed 10/16/13 Page 1 of 28 EXHIBIT A

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

10/24/2017 4:33:20 PM 17CV46621 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

Transcription:

// :0: PM CV 1 IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE STATE OF OREGON FOR MULTNOMAH COUNTY Terri Doran, individually and on behalf of all others similarly situated, Plaintiff, vs. LLR Inc. dba LuLaRoe, a foreign corporation, Defendant. Case No. UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Not Subject to Mandatory Arbitration Filing Fee Authority: ORS. 1. Terri Doran is a self-employed, single mom from Keizer, Oregon, who cares for her -year-old mother. Spending $ on leggings is a big splurge for her. Terri Doran bought leggings from LuLaRoe in December and January. Soon after the first time she wore LuLaRoe s leggings, Terri Doran was shocked to see fading and holes developing in the rear: UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page 1 of

. LuLaRoe s corporate policy prohibits refunds after its leggings are worn. Undeterred, Terri Doran tried but was unable to repair LuLaRoe s defective leggings herself. Terri Doran s $ splurge on LuLaRoe leggings turned out to be a complete rip-off. After doing some research, Terri Doran discovered that she wasn t alone. As of the date of this complaint, a Facebook group dedicated to LuLaRoe legging complaints has almost,000 members: UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

. Complaints to the Better Business Bureau about LuLaRoe s defective leggings from consumers across the country continue to pour in: UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

. THE PARTIES Terri Doran is an individual consumer residing in Keizer, Oregon. Having no other choice to make things right, Terri Doran is standing her ground. Rather than sue for money, Terri Doran files this complaint to pull LuLaRoe s defective leggings off the market across the entire State of Oregon. To paraphrase Judge Posner, only a lunatic or a fanatic goes to court over a single pair of defective leggings. So Terri Doran brings her complaint as a class action on behalf of everyone else in Oregon who was ripped off by LuLaRoe s defective leggings in the past year.. LLR Inc. dba LuLaRoe is a billion-dollar foreign corporation incorporated in Wyoming. LuLaRoe s principal office is located at Double Eagle Ranch Road, Thayne, Wyoming, 1, and its registered mailing address is Sampson Avenue, Corona, California,. As of the date of this complaint, the standing of LuLaRoe s registered agent in Wyoming is delinquent. Terri Doran reserves her right to name LuLaRoe s principals and agents and other bad actors, including its founder Mark Stidham, as co-defendants in an amended complaint. LuLaRoe is responsible for the manufacturing, advertising, and selling of its defective leggings in Oregon through its multi-level marketing scheme. UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

. JURISDICTION AND VENUE This Court has jurisdiction to resolve this legal dispute arising under Oregon law. In the regular course of LuLaRoe s business, LuLaRoe manufactured, marketed, advertised, and sold thousands of units of its defective leggings through its multilevel marketing scheme in Oregon last year. The bulk of sales of LuLaRoe s defective leggings in Oregon took place in Multnomah County.. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO THE CLASS LuLaRoe markets and advertises its leggings to Oregon consumers as fit for ordinary use, and additionally, as fit for athletic use. Leggings fit for ordinary use will not fade or develop holes before, during, or soon after their first use by a consumer. But LuLaRoe s leggings have a materially defective quality and design that causes them to develop holes, tears, rips, and fading before, during, and soon after their first use by a consumer. LuLaRoe expects its leggings to reach Oregon consumers through participants in LuLaRoe s multi-level marketing scheme without substantial change in the condition in which they are manufactured and sold. LuLaRoe leggings do in fact reach Oregon consumers without substantial change in the condition in which they are manufactured and sold.. LuLaRoe is highly aware that its leggings are defective, and recklessly continues to manufacture, market, and sell them to Oregon consumers anyway. UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

LuLaRoe has received thousands of complaints about its defective leggings, leading LuLaRoe to develop canned responses. For instance, when Terri Doran complained, LuLaRoe told her that its brushing process intended to make its leggings soft actually weakened the fabric. LuLaRoe marketed and advertised its leggings to Terri Doran as fit for ordinary use. Prior to purchase, LuLaRoe provided Terri Doran no warning that its leggings may not be fit for ordinary use, and the leggings LuLaRoe sold Terri Doran had no merchantability disclaimer nor any disclaimer that its leggings were not fit for ordinary use. LuLaRoe failed to give Terri Doran any disclosure that its leggings were materially defective concurrent with the delivery of its leggings. Had Terri Doran known LuLaRoe s leggings were defective, she would never have purchased them.. As a corporate policy and practice, LuLaRoe does not offer refunds or matching replacement exchanges to Oregon consumers. While LuLaRoe may occasionally offer a purchase price credit, the credit is worthless because it can only be used to purchase another pair of defective leggings.. CLASS ALLEGATIONS The class consists of all Oregon consumers who, within one year before the date of the filing of this complaint, bought at least one pair of LuLaRoe s defective leggings. The quantity of LuLaRoe s defective legging sales in Oregon can be determined based on LuLaRoe s sales records, and based on claims forms and UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

receipts from Oregon consumers. Excluded from the class are all attorneys for the class, officers and directors of LuLaRoe, including officers and directors of any entity with an ownership interest in LuLaRoe, any judge who sits on the case, and all jurors and alternate jurors who sit on the case.. LuLaRoe charged Oregon consumers the purchase price of leggings fit for ordinary use. But Oregon consumers who purchased LuLaRoe s leggings received a defective product worth much less than leggings fit for ordinary use. Oregon consumers who purchased LuLaRoe s materially defective leggings suffered an actual ascertainable loss of the purchase price, and loss of the difference between the value of the leggings they received that were materially defective and the increased value that leggings of the same price without material defects would have had.. The class is so numerous that joinder is impracticable. The size of the Oregon class is in the thousands, and will be determined based on sales records and other customer data from LuLaRoe, and from claims forms and receipts from Oregon consumers.. Common questions of fact and law predominate over any questions affecting only individual class members. Common questions include whether LuLaRoe may lawfully continue to sell its materially defective leggings in Oregon, whether under these facts, Terri Doran and the class must prove reliance, if so, whether reliance UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

may be proved on a class-wide basis, whether Terri Doran and class members are entitled to equitable and injunctive relief, whether an injunction to prevent future harm is appropriate, and whether LuLaRoe acted willfully, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally.. Terri Doran s claim is typical of the claims of the class because each received the same defective leggings, the injuries suffered by Terri Doran and the class members differ only in the number of transactions per class member, and Terri Doran s claims for relief are based upon the same legal theories as are the claims of the class members.. Terri Doran will fairly and adequately protect and represent the interests of the class because her claims are typical of the claims of the class, she is represented by nationally known and locally respected attorneys who have experience handling class action litigation and consumer protection cases who are qualified and competent, and who will vigorously prosecute this litigation, and their interests are not antagonistic or in conflict with the interests of the class.. A class action is superior to other available methods for fair and efficient adjudication of this case because commons questions of law and fact predominate over other factors affecting only individual members, as far as Terri Doran knows, no class action that purports to include Oregon consumers suffering the same injury UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

has been commenced, individual class members have little interest in controlling the litigation, due to the high cost of individual actions, the relatively small amounts of damages suffered, and because Terri Doran and her attorneys will vigorously pursue the claims. The forum is desirable because the bulk of sales of LuLaRoe defective leggings in Oregon took place in Multnomah County. A class action will be an efficient method of adjudicating the claims of the class members who have suffered relatively small monetary damages, as a result of the same conduct by LuLaRoe. In the aggregate, class members have claims for relief that are significant in scope relative to the expense of litigation. Injunctive relief will prevent further ongoing harm to Oregon consumers, and the availability of LuLaRoe s sales records and customer data will facilitate proof of class claims, processing class claims, and distributions of any recoveries. To the extent Oregonians who purchased LuLaRoe s defective leggings cannot be located, their monies may be distributed through a cy pres process. UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

. FIRST CLAIM FOR RELIEF VIOLATION OF ORS.0 Terri Doran incorporates the factual allegations above. LuLaRoe willfully, recklessly, knowingly, or intentionally violated ORS.0(1)(t) as alleged above, causing Terri Doran and the class ascertainable losses. LuLaRoe effectively ignored Terri Doran s attempts to resolve this dispute outside of court, and LuLaRoe continues to manufacture, market, and sell its materially defective leggings throughout Oregon to this very day. Terri Doran seeks an injunction under ORS. to stop LuLaRoe s ongoing unlawful trade practices. Terri Doran and the class are also entitled to equitable relief in the form of an accounting, restitution, and unless agreed upon by LuLaRoe, an order to preserve sales records and customer data that relate to this claim under ORS.. Terri Doran and the class are entitled to recover litigation expenses under ORS.. LuLaRoe can avoid paying any damages in this case by immediately pulling its defective leggings off the market across the entire State of Oregon, complying with ORCP I, giving refunds to Oregon consumers, and covering Terri Doran s litigation expenses to date. If LuLaRoe refuses to do the right thing, Terri Doran will have no choice but to amend her complaint to add claims for actual and statutory and punitive damages. UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

. SECOND CLAIM FOR RELIEF BREACH OF WARRANTY Terri Doran incorporates the factual allegations above. Through its advertising and marketing and sales, LuLaRoe expressly and impliedly warranted to Oregon consumers that its leggings were merchantable and fit for ordinary use. LuLaRoe s leggings in fact were not fit for ordinary use, and began fading and developing holes before, during, and soon after their first use by consumers. LuLaRoe knew its leggings were defective and failed to warn consumers. If LuLaRoe refuses to do the right thing, Terri Doran and the Oregon class are entitled to compensation based on LuLaRoe s breach of warranty as alleged in this complaint.. THIRD CLAIM FOR RELIEF UNJUST ENRICHMENT Terri Doran incorporates the factual allegations above. LuLaRoe has been unjustly enriched by knowingly selling defective leggings to Oregon consumers. As a matter of justice and equity, LuLaRoe should not be allowed to retain the profits it made from its defective legging sales in Oregon. If LuLaRoe refuses to do the right thing, Terri Doran and the Oregon class are entitled to restitution based on LuLaRoe s unjust enrichment as alleged in this complaint. UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

. PRAYER FOR RELIEF A. An injunction pulling LuLaRoe s defective leggings off the market across the entire State of Oregon, B. An order directing LuLaRoe to preserve all sales records and other customer data pertaining to this case, certifying this matter as a class action under ORCP, requiring an accounting and reimbursement of litigation expenses, and C. Other relief the court deems necessary. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Terri Doran demands trial by jury as to each issue to which she and the class are entitled to a jury trial. April, /s/ Michael Fuller Michael Fuller, OSB No. 0 Lead Trial Attorney for Terri Doran Rex Daines, OSB No. Of Attorneys for Terri Doran Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 1 SW th Ave., Suite 0 Portland, Oregon michael@underdoglawyer.com Direct 0-1-0 UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of

PROOF OF MAILING Under ORS.(), I declare and certify that on the date below I caused a copy of this complaint to be mailed to the Oregon Attorney General at the following address: Ellen Rosenblum Oregon Attorney General Oregon Department of Justice Court Street NE Salem, Oregon 01-0 April, /s/ Michael Fuller Michael Fuller, OSB No. 0 Lead Trial Attorney for Terri Doran Olsen Daines PC US Bancorp Tower 1 SW th Ave., Suite 0 Portland, Oregon michael@underdoglawyer.com Direct 0-1-0 UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES COMPLAINT Page of