 |
|
 |
| "... Lawsuit Documents Continued. " |
| IX. CAUSES OF ACTION Violation of DTPA 9.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 9.2 The Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act because Defendants engaged in false, misleading, and deceptive acts or practices that Plaintiffs and all class members relied on to their detriment in violation of TEX.BUS. & COM. CODE §§ 17.46(B) and 1750(A)(1). Specifically Defendants: a. caused confusion or misunderstanding as to the source, sponsorship, approval, or certification of goods; b. represented that goods have sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses benefits or qualities that they do not have; c. falsely represented that goods are of a particular standard, quality or grade; and d. failed to disclose information concerning goods that was known at the time of the transaction and this failure to disclose the information was intended to induce consumers into transactions which consumers would not have entered into had the information been disclosed. 9.3 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants violated the Texas Deceptive Trade Practices Act because Defendants breached express and/or implied warranties concerning their products. 9.4 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants’ actions and behavior constitute an unconscionable course of action, as that term is defined in the DTPA. |
| X. Breach of Implied Warranties 10.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 10.2 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants breached implied warranties of fitness for a particular purpose and merchantability. Defendants knew the particular reason for which Plaintiffs purchased Defendants' products. Defendants' products were unfit for the ordinary purposes for which their products were used, and are objectionable. The breach or breaches of such implied warranties by Defendants were a producing cause, or in the alternative, a proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. |
| XI. Breach of Express Warranty 11.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 11.2 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants breached express warranties. In order to induce Plaintiffs and others similarly situated, Defendants stated, promised and affirmed through various marketing vehicles that their products were effective in killing lice and lice eggs, preventing reinfestation of lice, and/or removing lice eggs from hair. 11.3 Plaintiff will show that the statements and promises described above were a part of the basis of the bargain between Plaintiffs and Defendants, and that Plaintiffs relied on the truth of those statements and promises in purchasing the goods described above. 11.4 The lice treatment products were not of the quality or condition expressly warranted by the Defendants' affirmations but were defective, such that Plaintiffs' lice infestations were not cured, the lice and lice eggs were not killed, the lice eggs were not removed from the hair, and lice reinfestations did in fact reoccur. The failure of Defendants' products to comply with Defendants' own warranties was a producing cause, or in the alternative, a proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. |
| X11. Fraud 12.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 12.2 Plaintiffs further allege that Defendants made false representations of material fact concerning the efficacy of their products, intending for Plaintiffs to act upon said representations. Plaintiffs, believing Defendants' the representations to be true, acted to their detriment in reliance upon said representations. Defendants' fraudulent acts were a producing cause, or in the alternative, a proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. |
| XIII. Negligent Misrepresentation 13.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 13.2 In the alternative, Plaintiffs assert that the aforementioned conduct of Defendants constitutes negligent misrepresentation. Defendants represented to the public that their products possessed certain characteristics and benefits. Said representations involved material facts concerning the characteristics and benefits of Defendants' products, which Defendants knew or should have known to be inaccurate or untrue. Plaintiffs relied upon said representations. Defendants' misrepresentations were a producing cause, or in the alternative, a proximate cause of the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. |
| XIV. Damages 14.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 14.2 The conduct described in the preceding paragraphs was a producing and proximate cause of damages to Plaintiffs and to all members of the Class. The amount of the Class Plaintiffs' damages as a whole exceeds the minimum jurisdictional limits of the Court. 14.3 The actual damages incurred by Plaintiffs include the costs associated with repeatedly purchasing Defendants' products, the costs of cleaning, laundering and/or dry cleaning all of Plaintiffs' homes and personal belongings including, but not limited to clothes, mattresses and bedding. |
| XV. Attorney's Fees 15.1 The preceding factual statements and allegations are incorporated herein by reference. 15.2 Plaintiffs have been required to retain the undersigned counsel to institute and prosecute this action and any appeals that may flow from this litigation. Thirty days prior to trial of this suit, Plaintiffs would have presented their claim and demand to defendants for payment which will not have been paid. Plaintiffs are entitled to their reasonable and necessary attorney's fees and hereby sues for same. |
 |
| "Still more documents concerning the allegations charged in the over the counter head lice treatment companies lawsuit... " |