// :: AM CV00 1 1 1 BRADLEY LILLIE, Plaintiff, v. ALL IN ENTERPRISES, INC., Defendant, IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH Case No. COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL CLASS ACTION CLAIMS NOT SUBJECT TO MANDATORY ARBITRATION FILING FEE: ORS.1()(a) (only equitable relief sought) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR FRAUD, BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY, NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION, UNJUST ENRICHMENT, AND VIOLATION OF THE OREGON UNLAWFUL TRADE PRACTICES ACT (ORS.0) Introduction 1. Defendant sells Guardian mite spay, a popular pest-control product. Defendant engages in false, unfair, deceptive, and practices in advertising, marketing and selling Guardian. In particular, Defendant falsely represents to purchasers that Guardian (i) is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients are only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the natural, plant derivative ingredients make up 0% of Guardian; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Given its supposed natural formula, consumers were amazed at how effective Guardian is in controlling mites and other insects. Page 1 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. However, the reason Guardian works so well is that it contains an ingredient that is not listed on the label, on Defendant s website, or on any other promotional and advertising material. Unknown to consumers, Guardian s active ingredient is an avermectin a conventional generaluse pesticide.. According to an article published in the Oregonian, 1 Defendant s fraud on consumers came to light in January, when a chemist with OG Analytical discovered the presence of abamectin (a type of avermectin) in cannabis samples submitted by growers who claimed they used organic growing methods. When one grower stated that he used only Guardian, the chemist tested Guardian and detected abamectin.. Subsequently, the Oregon Department of Agriculture removed Guardian from its list of chemicals that cannabis growers can use on their crops. The article in the Oregonian reports that a man identifying himself as the owner of Defendant stated that Guardian contains ivermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent that, like abamectin, belongs to the avermectin family. The man reportedly said We weren t trying to pull anything. We put it in there, and it wasn t on the label and that s our fault. The Parties. Plaintiff Bradley Lillie is an individual residing in Portland, Oregon. 1 See Noelle Crombie, Oregon flags potential problem with popular pesticide used on marijuana, the Orgeonian, January, (accessible at http://www.oregonlive.com/marijuana/index.ssf//01/oregon_flags_potential_problem.html) Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. Defendant All In Enterprises, Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of Illinois, with its principal place of business in Machesney Park, Illinois. Jurisdiction and Venue. This Court has jurisdiction over Defendant. Defendant purposefully availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities with Oregon. For example, and without limitation, Defendant (i) sold its product to retailers within Oregon; and (ii) provided on its website a list of Oregon retailers from whom consumers could purchase Guardian.. This action arises out of and relates to Defendant s activities in Oregon. Defendant s activities were continuous and systematic, and that activity gave rise to the facts in suit. Plaintiff s claim would not have arisen but for Defendant s activities in Oregon. In addition, this litigation in Oregon was reasonably foreseeable by Defendant, given Defendant s substantial activities in the state.. The exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant comports with fair play and substantial justice. Oregon has a substantial interest in obtaining convenient and effective relief for Plaintiff and similarly situated persons. Further, exercise of jurisdiction over Defendant would further the interstate judicial system s substantial interest in efficient resolution of this controversy, and in furthering fundamental social policies.. Venue is proper in this court because Defendant conducts business itself or through its agent(s) in this county. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 Facts Defendant s False and Deceptive Representations and Omissions to Plaintiff and Similarly Situate Persons. Defendant advertises, markets, and sells Guardian to purchasers through various retailers and through Defendant s own website, guardianmitespray.com (the Guardian Website ). As described in more detail below, in each instance, Defendant deceptively advertises, markets, and sells Guardian as being a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural ingredients. In addition, in each instance Defendant provides a list of the supposed ingredients of Guardian omitting the avermectin ingredient and falsely represents that those ingredients amount to 0% of the product. Further, Guardian falsely states that Guardian is an insect suffocant. 1. The label on the Guardian bottle states clearly that the product is an all natural cutting edge suffocant, and that the product is 0% NATURAL : Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 1. The label further lists the supposed Active Ingredients and Inert Ingredients of Guardian. This label omits Guardian s true active ingredient: an avermectin. Instead, the label lists only natural, plant derivative ingredients that any consumer would be familiar with: cinnamon oil, lemon grass oil, citric acid, yeast extract, sunflower lecithin, and water. Further, the label sets forth the percentage of the product that each ingredient supposedly makes up. The sum of the percentages is 0%, thereby falsely implying that there are no ingredients in the product other than the listed natural ingredients.. Defendant also displayed this label on the purchase page of the Guardian Website, where it appeared on various bottles of Guardian: Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 (retrieved from http://www.guardianmitespray.com/product//guardian-mite-spray.html). 1 An information sheet provided by Defendant states that THIS PRODUCT IS 0% 1 NATURAL, and that Guardian is an all natural cutting edge suffocant. The information sheet further lists the Active Ingredients and Inert Ingredients. Again, these ingredients are all natural, plant derivative ingredients cinnamon oil, citric acid, yeast extract, sunflower lecithin, and water. The label also lists the purported percentage of total contents that each of these natural ingredients comprises, and states that the total percentage of these natural ingredients is 0%, thereby indicating Guardian contains no ingredients other than the ones listed on the information sheet: /// /// /// /// /// Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. On the Guardian Website, Defendant prominently displayed a bottle of Guardian, containing the 0% NATURAL representation: Underneath the bottle, the Guardian Website stated that Guardian Mite Spray is the most effective natural mite and soft body insect curative on the market today, and that Guardian Mite Spray is a 0% natural pesticide made with essential oils. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
. Similar representations appeared on the Guardian Website s About Us page, where Defendant represented that Guardian is an all natural formula derived from essential oils and other all natural ingredients, and that This all natural formula with leave your plants looking lush and healthy as well as leaving them pest free. (retrieved from http://guardianmitespray.com/page//about-us.html). On the Frequently Asked Questions page of the Guardian Website, Defendant displayed the question Does Guardian Mite Spray have dangerous chemicals? The answer was no: 1 1 (retrieved from http://guardianmitespray.com/faq//does-guardian-mite-spray-have-dangerouschemicals.html). It is impossible to purchase Guardian whether at a store or using the Guardian Website without seeing Guardian s 0% NATURAL and all natural representations. It is also impossible to purchase Guardian without seeing Guardian s representation that the natural, plant derivative ingredients listed on the label add up to 0%. Finally, it is impossible to purchase Guardian without seeing Defendant s representation that Guardian is a suffocant. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 Defendant s Representations Regarding Guardian s Contents Are False.. Although Defendant never disclosed it to consumers, Guardian contains an avermectin. Avermectins are antiparasitic chemical agents that are used to treat many types of parasites, including head lice and scabies.. Contrary to Defendant s representations, Guardian is not a 0% Natural or all natural product containing only plant derivative ingredients and water. Instead, Guardian contains an avermectin.. Contrary to Defendant s representations, the active ingredient of Guardian is not cinnamon oil, lemon grass oil, or citric acid. Rather, the active ingredient is an avermectin.. Contrary to Defendant s representations, the sum of the ingredients listed on Guardian s label is not 0%, because Defendant omitted from the label the avermectin ingredient, along with its corresponding percentage of Guardian s volume.. Contrary to Defendant s representations, Guardian is not a suffocant (i.e., a product that kills insects by suffocating them). Rather, Guardian s active ingredient is an avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent that kills insects by activing on their nervous system and paralyzing them.. Defendant does not disclose to consumers that Guardian contains any ingredients other than natural plant-derivative ingredients and water. Instead, Defendant has taken every opportunity to Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 mislead consumers by omitting the avermectin from (i) Guardian s label; (ii) the Guardian Website; and (iii) Defendant s promotional and advertising material regarding Guardian. Defendant s False and Deceptive Representations Enable it to Charge a Premium for Guardian.. Defendant s false and deceptive representations that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only plant derivative ingredients and water enables Defendant to charge more for Guardian than it would be able to charge if it did not make those false representations.. One popular pesticide that includes abamectin as the active ingredient is Avid, manufactured by Syngenta AG. An eight-ounce bottle of Avid capable of making gallons of spray can be purchased for approximately $.. In stark contrast, a four ounce bottle of Guardian (capable of making only four gallons of spray) sold for approximately $... Independent studies show that price premiums are associated with products represented to be natural or all natural. One study of various labeling claims across a variety of food products found that consumers are willing to pay more for products labeled natural, with premiums ranging from 1% to over %. (See E. Gubisch, Do natural claims cut the mustard?, Leatherhead Food Research, 1.) Another study showed that products labeled all natural or natural enjoy price premiums similar to those labeled organic. See J. Anstine, Organic and All Natural: Do Consumers Know the Difference?, Journal of Applied Economics and Policy.1:- (0). Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 Plaintiff s Experience. In November or December of, Plaintiff was shopping for an all-natural mite control product at a garden store in Eugene. At the store, he saw a bottle of Guardian. He read the label on the bottle, and saw its representation that Guardian is 0% NATURAL. He also saw the list of ingredients on the bottle, which listed only natural, plant derivative ingredients. He saw that the purported Active Ingredients were natural plant derivative ingredients. He also saw Guardian s representation that its product was a suffocant. He further saw that the sum of the percentages appearing next to the natural ingredients was 0%. 0. Based on these representations, Plaintiff purchased the bottle, for approximately $.00 $0.00. Had Defendant disclosed that Guardian contained an avermectin, Plaintiff would not have purchased Guardian. Plaintiff did not want to expose himself to avermectin or any other antiparasitic chemical agent. Plaintiff also did not want to spray an avermectin or any other antiparasitic chemical agent on plants, especially because doing so meant that it would put himself and others at risk of ingesting the chemical agent. Rather, Plaintiff specifically wanted a completely safe and natural mite control product that contained only plant derivative ingredients that were familiar to him which is exactly what Defendant advertised Guardian to be. Had Plaintiff wanted to purchase a product containing an avermectin, he would have purchased a product like Avid at a much lower price. 1. At no time did Defendant disclose to Plaintiff that Guardian contained an avermectin, or any other non-natural ingredients. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 Class Allegations. Plaintiff brings this action against Defendant, on behalf of himself and all others similarly situated, as a class action. Plaintiff seeks to represent the following groups of similarly situated persons: all persons who purchased Guardian mite spray in the United States (the Class ); and all persons who purchased Guardian mite spray in Oregon (the Oregon Subclass ).. The classes defined in the previous paragraph are hereinafter referred to collectively as the Classes.. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained as a class action against Defendant because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and each proposed class is easily ascertainable.. Numerosity: Plaintiff does not know the exact size of the Classes, but it is estimated that they are each composed of more than 0 persons. The persons in the Classes are so numerous that the joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties and the courts.. Common Questions Predominate: This action involves common questions of law and fact to the potential Classes because each class member s claim derives from the same: deceptive, unlawful, unfair and/or false statements and omissions that led Defendant s customers to believe Page 1 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 that they were purchasing a 0% Natural and all natural product, with only natural plant derivative ingredients. The common questions of law and fact predominate over individual questions, as proof of a common or single set of facts will establish the right of each member of the Classes to recover. Among the questions of law and fact common to the Classes are: whether Defendant s representations that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product were false; whether Defendant falsely represented that the sum of the percentages of the natural, plant derivative ingredients in Guardian is 0%; whether Defendant s claim that the Active Ingredients in Guardian were natural plant derivative ingredients is false; whether Defendant s claim that Guardian is a suffocant is false; whether Defendant unlawfully and/or deceptively failed to include the avermectin ingredient in its description of ingredients, including on the Guardian product label; whether Defendant unlawfully and/or deceptively failed to inform class members that Guardian is not a 0% Natural or all natural product ; whether Defendant unlawfully and/or deceptively failed to inform class members that Guardian contains an avermectin; [RESERVED. See, infra.] [RESERVED. See, infra.]. Typicality: Plaintiff s claims are typical of the Class because Plaintiff purchased Guardian in the United States. Plaintiff s claims are typical of the Oregon Subclass because he purchased Guardian in Oregon. Thus, Plaintiff and members of the Classes sustained the same injuries arising out of Defendant s conduct in violation of the law. The injuries of each member of the Classes were caused directly by Defendant s wrongful conduct in violation of law as alleged. Page 1 - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. Adequacy: Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of all class members because it is in his best interests to prosecute the claims alleged herein to obtain full compensation due to him or her for the unfair and illegal conduct of which he or she complains. Plaintiff also has no interests that are in conflict with or antagonistic to the interests of class members. Plaintiff has retained highly competent and experienced class action attorneys to represent his interests and those of the Classes. By prevailing on their claims, Plaintiff will establish Defendant s liability to all class members. Plaintiff and his counsel have the necessary financial resources to adequately and vigorously litigate this class action, and Plaintiff and his counsel are aware of their fiduciary responsibilities to the class members and are determined to diligently discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the maximum possible recovery for class members.. Superiority: There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other than by maintenance of this class action. The prosecution of individual remedies by members of the Classes will tend to establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Defendant and result in the impairment of class members rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not parties. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions world require. Furthermore, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for individual members of the Classes to redress the wrongs done to them, while an important public interest will be served by addressing the matter as a class action. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 0. Nexus to Oregon. The State of Oregon has a special interest in regulating the affairs of corporations that do business here. Defendant has sold Guardian to members of the Classes through Oregon-based retailers, and encouraged Oregon residents on its website to purchase Guardian from these Oregon-based retailers. Accordingly, there is a substantial nexus between Defendant s unlawful behavior and Oregon such that courts located in Oregon should take cognizance of this action on behalf of classes of individuals who reside anywhere in the United States. 1. Plaintiff is unaware of any difficulties that are likely to be encountered in the management of this action that would preclude its maintenance as a class action.. Disclaimer of Damages and Reservation of Rights under ORCP J Notwithstanding any other statements in this Complaint, Plaintiff seeks only equitable relief in this Complaint and does not seek, and hereby disclaims, any right to damages in this Complaint. Plaintiff, however, reserves his right under ORCP J to subsequently amend this Complaint to include a request for damages. Count I: Fraud (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class). Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. Defendant made false representations to Plaintiff and those similarly situated. In particular, Defendant falsely represented (i) that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Defendant further failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that Guardian contains an avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent.. Each of these false representations and omissions was material to the agreement of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to obtain Guardian. Had Plaintiff and those similarly situated known that Guardian contains an avermectin, they would not have purchased Guardian.. Defendant knew that each of these representations was false at the time it made them. In particular, Defendant knew that Guardian contained an avermectin. Defendant knew the precise ingredients that are contained in Guardian, because Guardian was manufactured by Defendant or at its direction.. Defendant knowingly made these false representations and omissions to Plaintiff and those similarly situated for the purpose of inducing them to purchase Guardian.. Plaintiff and those similarly situated reasonably relied on Defendant s false representations and omissions, and acted upon them by purchasing or ordering Guardian. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
[RESERVED. See, supra.]. 1 1 Count II: Breach of Express Warranty (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 0. Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein. 1. Under Oregon law, any description of goods, affirmation of fact, or promise that becomes part of the basis of the bargain creates an express warranty that the goods shall conform to the description, affirmation, or promise.. Defendant s representations to Plaintiff, and those similarly situated that (i) Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) Guardian is a suffocant were descriptions of goods, affirmations of fact, and promises became part of the basis of the bargain between Defendant, and Plaintiff and those similarly situated, thereby creating express warranties. Defendant breached these express warranties because each of these descriptions, affirmations of fact, and promises were false. Guardian is not 0% Natural or all natural, nor are its active ingredients natural, plant-derivative ingredients. Further, the sum of the. percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients is not 0%. Finally, Guardian is Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 not a suffocant. All of these descriptions, affiramtions of fact, and promises are false because Guardian contains an avermictin an antiparasitic chemical agent. Defendant s false affirmations, promises, and descriptions of Guardian were made knowingly and intentionally. [RESERVED. See, supra.].. Count III: Negligent Misrepresentation (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class). Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiff and those similarly situated (i) that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Defendant further failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that Guardian contains an avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent.. The truth or falsity of each of these statements was material to the agreement of Plaintiff and those similarly situated to obtain Guardian. Had Plaintiff and those similarly situated known that any of these statements were false, and that Guardian contained an avermectin, they would not have purchased Guardian. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 Plaintiff and those similarly situated were unaware of the falsity of Defendant s representations, and justifiably relied on them in purchasing Guardian. [RESERVED. See, supra.]. 0. Count IV: Unjust Enrichment (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class) 1. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant unlawfully and deceptively represented to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons (i) that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Defendant further failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that Guardian contains an avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent.. As a result of these unlawful and deceptive representations and omissions, Defendant was enriched at the expense of Plaintiff and those similarly situated through their payment of monies to obtain Guardian. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. Under the circumstances, it would be contrary to equity and good conscience to permit Defendant to retain the ill-gotten benefits it received from Plaintiff and similarly situated persons. [RESERVED. See, supra.]. Count V: Violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act, ORS.0 (On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Oregon Subclass). Plaintiff realleges and incorporates the above paragraphs of this Complaint as if fully set forth herein.. Defendant used deceptive representations in connection with goods. In particular, Defendant deceptively represented to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that (i) that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Defendant further failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that Guardian contains an avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent. Defendant represented to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that goods have characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, quantities, and qualities that they do not have. In particular, Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons (i) that. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Defendant further failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that Guardian contains an avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent.. Defendant represented to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that goods are of a particular standard, quality, or grade, when the goods were of another standard, quality, or grade. In particular, Defendant falsely represented to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons (i) that Guardian is a 0% Natural and all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is a suffocant. Defendant further failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that Guardian contains avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent. 0. Defendant advertised goods to Plaintiff similarly situated persons with intent not to provide them as advertised. Because Guardian is manufactured by Defendant or at Defendant s direction, Defendant knows the precise ingredients of Guardian. Accordingly, Defendant knew that these representations were false, and that the product it was providing to purchasers contained avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1 1. Concurrent with the tender of goods, Defendant failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons known material nonconformities to purchasers. In particular, Defendant failed to disclose to Plaintiff and similarly situated persons the fact that Guardian contains avermectin an antiparasitic chemical agent. Defendant also failed to disclose (i) that Guardian is not a 0% Natural or all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were not only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was not 0%; and (iv) that Guardian is not a suffocant. The fact that Guardian contains an avermectin did not conform to these representations, nor did it conform to the expectations of Plaintiff and similarly situated persons that were reasonably based on Defendant s advertising and other representations.. Plaintiff and those similarly situated reasonably relied on Defendant s unlawful, unfair, and fraudulent business practices. Specifically, had Plaintiff and those similarly situated known that (i) that Guardian is not a 0% Natural or all natural product containing only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (ii) that Guardian s Active Ingredients were not only natural, plant derivative ingredients; (iii) that the sum of the percentage contents of the natural, plant derivative ingredients was not 0%; or (iv) that Guardian is not a suffocant, they would not have purchased Guardian.. [RESERVED. See, supra.]. [RESERVED. See, supra.] Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
1 1. [RESERVED. See, supra.]. Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and those similarly situated, a declaration that the above-described trade practices are fraudulent, unfair, and/or unlawful.. [RESERVED. See, supra.] Request for Relief Plaintiff seeks, on behalf of himself and the Classes, the following relief from Defendant: With respect to Count I (Fraud): a) equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and b) [RESERVED. See, supra.] With respect to Counts II, III, and IV (Breach of Express Warranty, Negligent Misrepresentation, and Unjust Enrichment): a) equitable relief as the Court may deem just and proper; and b) [RESERVED. See, supra.] With respect to Count V (Violation of the Oregon Unlawful Trade Practices Act): a) [RESERVED. See, supra.] b) attorneys fees; and c) an injunction against further violations. Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -
Plaintiff respectfully requests a trial by jury. Demand for Jury Trial 1 1 Dated: February, Respectfully submitted, s/ Andrew C. DeWeese Andrew C. DeWeese, OSB 1 1 SE Belmont Street, Suite Portland, Oregon P: (1) 0-01 F: (1) - andrew@andrewdeweese.com Attorneys for Plaintiff Page - CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT 1 SE Belmont S. #, Portland, OR P (1) 0-01 F (1) -