Plaintiff Irene Burgess has filed a lawsuit in opposition to Paparazzi in California.
Burgess proposed class-action was filed on June 2nd. Central to the lawsuit are alleged misrepresentations relating to poisonous metals in Paparazzi jewellery.
Paparazzi is the only real defendant in Burgess’ lawsuit.
As alleged by Burgess in her grievance;
Regardless of earlier representations and specific warranties stating that Defendant’s merchandise are “lead-free and nickel-free,” Defendant designed, sourced, and offered jewellery that allegedly contained detectable ranges of lead and nickel, amongst different heavy metals.
Between November 20, 2021, and January 9, 2022, Defendant eliminated the “lead-free and nickel-free” representations from its web site.
Unbeknownst to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Courses, and opposite to the representations on defendant’s web site, the Merchandise include lead and nickel, which, if disclosed to Plaintiff and members of the proposed Courses prior to buy, would have resulted in Plaintiff and members of the proposed Courses not buying or utilizing the Merchandise.
Because of this, the Merchandise’ labeling is misleading and deceptive. Plaintiff and the members of the proposed Courses, as outlined beneath, deliver associated claims below each the widespread regulation and related state and federal statutes.
Burgess seeks to symbolize different Paparazzi Consultants who have been additionally deceived, separated into nationwide and California particular lessons.
Throughout six counts, Burgess’ accuses Paparazzi of
- negligent misrepresentation;
- fraudulent misrepresentations;
- restitution (sought as a declare of aid);
- violating the California Client Authorized Cures Act;
- false promoting below the Californian False Promoting Legislation; and
- illegal, unfair or fraudulent enterprise practices below the California Unfair Competitors Legislation
Counts 4 to 6 can be restricted to the Californian subclass.
If approves, Burgess’ class-action seeks
- disgorgement by Paparazzi of “ill-gotten earnings they obtained from the sale of merchandise, or order to make full restitution
- an injunction prohibiting the alleged unlawful conduct; and
- a recall of Paparazzi merchandise.
BehindMLM is at the moment conscious of 4 comparable class-actions filed in opposition to Paparazzi prior to now few months:
- the Hollins Grievance (New York)
- the Johnson Grievance (initially filed in North Carolina, moved to Utah)
- the Teske Grievance (Utah) and
- the Gilbert Grievance (Michigan, BehindMLM protection pending)
Whereas it’s trying like the opposite 4 instances can be transferred to Utah after which consolidated, Burgess’ lawsuit accommodates particular Californian regulation allegations.
I’m unsure whether or not that’s sufficient to maintain the lawsuit in California and/or stop consolidation given widespread allegations between the complaints.
Keep tuned for updates as we proceed to watch the case docket.