Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 1 of 32

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF

CASE NO.: 9:15-cv-81139-COHN/SELTZER

Benjamin Hankinson, James Guerra, and Jeanette Gandolfo, Lisa Palmer, Donald CLASS ACTION Anderson, Catherine Long, and Lisa Prihoda, individually and on behalf of others similarly situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

R.T.G. Furniture Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG America, LLC, The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust, RTG Furniture Corp. of , d/b/a Rooms to Go, Rooms to Go Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Furniture of , L.P., d/b/a Rooms to Go, RTG Texas Holdings, Inc., and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. of Texas,

Defendants.

SECOND AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs Benjamin Hankinson, James Guerra, Jeanette Gandolfo, Lisa Palmer, Donald

Anderson, Catherine Long, and Lisa Prihoda, individually, and on behalf of all others similarly

situated, hereby file suit against the Defendants listed below and allege the following:

INTRODUCTION

1. Plaintiffs purchased furniture from Defendants, eight affiliated corporate entities

who sell furniture using the trade name Rooms to Go. Combining all companies that sell

furniture under the Rooms to Go trade name, Rooms to Go is the fourth largest furniture retailer

in the United States.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 2 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 2

2. Defendants offer optional add-on purchases along with their leather and fabric

furniture supposedly to protect the furniture from food or beverage stains. Although these add-

on purchases are referred to by a number of names, their contracts refer to them as the

“ForceField Fabric Protection Plan” and the “ForceField Leather Protection Plan” (“ForceField

Protection Plans”). Pursuant to the terms of the ForceField Protection Plan contracts, Defendants

promise that, “Your furniture will be professionally treated before delivery to resist all food and

beverage spills that occur in most households.” See, e.g., Exhibit A. The Protection Plan contract

is described as “ForceField EXCLUSIVE FABRIC PROTECTION 3-YEAR LIMITED

WARRANTY CERTIFICATE.” Id.

3. On information and belief, Defendants pressure their sales staff to sell ForceField

Protection Plans. Defendants’ sales staff are given quotas to attach 90% of eligible furniture to

sales of ForceField Protection Plans or “bond.” To meet this quota, sales staff, with the

awareness of management, will mislead customers about the attributes of the fabric and leather

protectants, omit material information, or even simply add the cost of the fabric protection to the

customer’s bill without telling them—a tactic known as slamming. Plaintiffs Lisa Palmer and

Catherine Long were victims of this deceptive practice.

4. Meanwhile, Defendants do not actually professionally treat customers’ furniture

with ForceField fabric or leather protectant. Testing conducted by Plaintiffs shows no presence

of any fabric or leather protectant on their furniture at all. Furthermore, during the class period,

Defendants did not purchase enough ForceField fabric or leather protectant to professionally

treat every ForceField Protection Plan customers’ furniture.

5. Plaintiffs seek four statewide classes on behalf of purchasers of Rooms To Go

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 3 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 3

ForceField Protection Plans in Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas.

6. Because of Defendants’ deceptive conduct and failure to honor their contractual

obligations, Plaintiffs and putative class members spent millions on ForceField Protection Plans.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

7. Plaintiff Benjamin Hankinson is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of

eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and ForceField Protection Plans at a Rooms to Go

store in West Palm Beach, Florida.

8. Plaintiff James Guerra is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of eighteen

years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and ForceField Protection Plans at a Rooms to Go store in

West Palm Beach, Florida.

9. Plaintiff Jeanette Gandolfo is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of

eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and ForceField Protection Plans at Rooms to Go

stores in Wellington, Florida and Plantation, Florida.

10. Plaintiff Lisa Palmer is a citizen and resident of Florida, over the age of eighteen

years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and a ForceField Protection Plan at a Rooms to Go store in

Pensacola, Florida.

11. Plaintiff Donald Anderson is a citizen and resident of Georgia, over the age of

eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and ForceField Protection Plans at a Rooms to Go

store in Alpharetta, Georgia.

12. Plaintiff Catherine Long is a citizen and resident of North Carolina, over the age

of eighteen years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and ForceField Protection Plans at a Rooms to Go

store in Raleigh, North Carolina.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 4 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 4

13. Plaintiff Lisa Prihoda is a citizen and resident of Texas, over the age of eighteen

years. Plaintiff purchased furniture and ForceField Protection Plans at a Rooms to Go store in

Brookshire, Texas.

14. Defendant RTG America, LLC, through its subsidiaries R.T.G. Furniture Corp.,

RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia, Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp., and RTG Furniture of

Texas, L.P., sells furniture under the trade name “Rooms to Go” and ForceField Protection

Plans. RTG America, LLC is incorporated in Nevada. In its Nevada business registration, RTG

America, LLC lists corporate officers at two addresses: 400 Perimeter Center Terrace, Atlanta,

GA 30346 and 11540 US Highway 92 East, Seffner, FL 33584.

15. The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust through its subsidiaries R.T.G. Furniture

Corp., RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia, Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp., and RTG Furniture

of Texas, L.P., sells furniture under the trade name “Rooms to Go” and ForceField Protection

Plans.

16. Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go sells furniture and

ForceField Protection Plans. R.T.G. Furniture Corp. is incorporated in Florida. In its filing with

the Florida Secretary of State, R.T.G. Furniture Corp. lists its principal address as 11540

Highway 92 East, Seffner, FL 33584.

17. Defendant RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia, d/b/a Rooms to Go sells furniture and

ForceField Protection Plans. RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia is incorporated in Florida. In its

filing with the Florida Secretary of State, RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia lists its principal

address as 11540 Highway 92 East, Seffner, FL 33584.

18. Defendant Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp., d/b/a Rooms to Go sells furniture

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 5 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 5

and ForceField Protection Plans. Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp. is incorporated in Florida.

In its filing with the Florida Secretary of State, Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp. lists its

principal address as 11540 Highway 92 East, Seffner, FL 33584.

19. Defendant RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P., d/b/a Rooms to Go sells furniture and

ForceField Protection Plans. RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P. is incorporated in Delaware. In its

filing with Texas Office of the Comptroller, RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P. lists its mailing

address as 11540 E. US Highway 92, Seffner, FL 33584.

20. Defendant R.T.G. Texas Holdings, Inc. is a subsidiary of R.T.G. America, LLC

and The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust. Defendant is also a parent corporation of R.T.G.

Furniture of Texas, L.P. In its filing with Texas Office of the Comptroller, Defendant R.T.G.

Texas Holdings, Inc. its mailing address as 11540 E. US Highway 92, Seffner, FL 33584.

21. Defendant R.T.G. Furniture Corp. of Texas is a subsidiary of R.T.G. America,

LLC and The Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust. Defendant is also a parent corporation of

R.T.G. Furniture of Texas, L.P. In its filing with Texas Office of the Comptroller, Defendant

R.T.G. Furniture Corp. of Texas lists its mailing address as 11540 E. US Highway 92, Seffner,

FL 33584.

22. This Court has jurisdiction for this case pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(d), as it is a

class action for damages that exceed $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs. Because named

Plaintiffs are residents of four different states (Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas),

many members of the classes are from states different from defendants, who are all incorporated

and/or headquartered in Florida.

23. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because they are all

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 6 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 6

headquartered and/or incorporated in Florida.

24. Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because a substantial

part of the events or omissions giving rise to these claims occurred in this district.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Defendants Sell ForceField Protection Contracts Through a Common Scheme

25. Defendants are affiliated corporate entities. Defendants RTG America, LLC and

the Jeffrey Seaman 2009 Annuity Trust own Defendants R.T.G. Furniture Corp., RTG Furniture

Corp. of Georgia, Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp., R.T.G. Texas Holdings, Inc., and R.T.G.

Furniture Corp. of Texas. Defendants R.T.G. Texas Holdings, Inc. and R.T.G. Furniture Corp. of

Texas own Defendant RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P.

26. Defendants all share a common nerve center in Seffner, Florida. At their Seffner,

Florida headquarters, corporate executives devise common policies and procedures to sell

furniture under the Rooms to Go trade name (“Rooms to Go furniture”).

27. Rooms to Go furniture is sold at over 200 stores, and over the internet at

roomstogo.com. Upon information and belief, R.T.G. Furniture Corp. sells Rooms to Go

furniture at stores in Florida; RTG Furniture Corp. of Georgia sells Rooms to Go furniture at

stores in Georgia; Rooms to Go North Carolina Corp. sells Rooms to Go furniture at stores in

North Carolina; and RTG Furniture of Texas, L.P. sells Rooms to Go furniture at stores in Texas.

28. At stores where Rooms to Go furniture is sold (and at roomstogo.com),

Defendants sell ForceField Exclusive Fabric Protection Plans and ForceField Exclusive Leather

Protection Plans.

29. Defendants control seven distribution centers around the country where the

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 7 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 7

furniture is supposed to be treated with the fabric or leather protectants if purchased. These are in

Dunn, North Carolina (formerly Charlotte), Pearl River, , Lakeland, Florida, Seffner,

Florida, Katy, Texas, Arlington, Texas, Suwanee, Georgia.

30. At all times relevant to this litigation, Defendants entered in to identical

ForceField Protection Plan contracts with their customers. On information and belief, Defendants

instruct their sales staff to provide customers with the contracts after customers have purchased

ForceField Protection Plans. Plaintiff Benjamin Hankinson’s contract with Defendants is

attached as Exhibit A.

31. Defendants’ ForceField Fabric Protection Plan contracts describe “ForceFIELD

EXCLUSIVE” leather or fabric protection. See Exhibit A and B. In both plans, Defendants

promise that the customer’s “furniture will be professionally treated before delivery to resist all

food and beverage spills that occur in most households.” Id. If the customer’s furniture is stained,

Defendants offer to clean the customer’s stained furniture, re-treat the furniture with ForceField

fabric protectant, reupholster stained areas, or provide a replacement piece of furniture for

stained furniture. Id.. The contracts place many limitations upon these post-delivery services. For

example, the fabric contract states that all of these post-delivery services are at Rooms to Go’s

discretion. See Exhibit A. Furthermore, these services are only provided when a customer’s

furniture is stained by “normal food and beverage spills.” Id..

32. Defendants all purchase the same fabric and leather protectants for the ForceField

Protection Plans. The products come from Shield Industries. Shield Industries sells dozens of

“ForceField” products, which are intended to protect or clean furniture, carpets, and other

household surfaces. Purchases of the protectants go to cost centers located in Seffner.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 8 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 8

33. Defendants also share a customer care center with one common number for

ForceField Protection Plan customers to call: 1-800-766-6786.1

34. Upon information and belief, the distribution centers all report to one senior

executive, David Bennett, who is located Suwanee, Georgia. Mr. Bennett gives directives that

apply to all of the distribution centers, including the application of the ForceField protectants.

35. Upon information and belief, Mr. Bennett reports to Stephen Buckley, who is the

President of Rooms to Go, located in Seffner, Florida.

B. Defendants Sell ForceField Protection Contracts Through Deceptive Practices

36. Defendants share a coordinated aggressive sales strategy in order to maximize

ForceField Protection Plan sales. Defendants’ sales strategy relies heavily upon deceptive

practices.

37. Upon information and belief, Defendants push their sales staff to sell ForceField

Protection Warranties. Internal reports, called Bond or ForceField Reports, track a salesperson’s

ForceField sales. Management considers it unacceptable for a salesperson to allow fabric

protection sales to drop below 90% of his or her furniture sales. If this occurs, the salesperson is

sent to additional training on how to persuade customers to buy the ForceField plans. Where the

salesperson cannot close a ForceField sale, members, a store manager often make the sales

pitches themselves. Defendants are so determined to sell Forcefield Protection Plans that

salespersons will sometimes refuse to sell furniture to customers who do not wish to buy

ForceField Protection Plans.

38. As one former Rooms to Go employee explained:

1 See, e.g., http://www.roomstogo.com/content/Customer-Service/Customer-Support.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 9 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 9

Having worked for ROOMS TO GO for 7 years, I want to make people aware of just one of the many back-handed things this company does. Their salespeople are basically forced into saying almost anything to persuade the customer into paying for fabric/leather protection. They expect almost a 90% penetration of this. I can personally say, anything less is cause for being written up and being threatened with dismissal. I began in early 2000. We had a black vinyl set on the floor which was untreatable.

However, because of the sales contest going on, we were told by management to sell the “bond” on this in order to “spike” the Numbers, in which everyone did. 59.99 for a sofa, 49.99 for the loveseat I think 39.99 for the matching chaise. We sold a ton of these. That’s just 1 store. Of course, from these type of practices, they went on to win the “presidents cup” and pocket $1400 per salesperson. 2

39. Defendants’ sales staff uses two types of deceptive sales practices to sell

ForceField Protection Plan. First, Defendants’ sales staff misrepresent or omit material

information about ForceField Protection Plans. Second, if not successful in persuading the

customer to buy the Protection Plan, Defendants’ sales staff places ForceField Protection Plans

on customers’ bills without notifying the customers.

40. Consistent with the contracts, Defendants’ sales staff represent to customers that

Defendant will have their furniture professionally treated before delivery. This does not occur.

Defendants often fail to treat customer’s furniture with ForceField protectant, or apply the

product in a manner that will not cover all appropriate surfaces, and that is not consistent with

the product’s instructions.

41. Defendants also omit material information. During the class period, Defendants

do not disclose to customers information that Defendants would skip some products if “too

2 http://mythreecents.com/reviews/rooms-to-go#post-16215, as accessed on April 26, 2016.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 10 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 10

busy”’ that if treated, warehouse staff would not treat all sides of the furniture; that the protectant

application was done often haphazardly, in a few minutes, without allowing proper time for the

protectant to cure; that the leather protectant would be wiped on with a filthy rag; that the

protectants had not been tested by the Defendants; that the protectants required annual

reapplication; and that entire bottles of the ForceField protectants could be purchased by the

customer for far less than what Defendants’ charged for a single application (10% of the

furniture’s purchase price as opposed to $14.95 per bottle).3

42. Defendants also made misrepresentations about the protectants, including that it

protects from fading due to sunlight exposure. Upon information and belief, the ForceField

protectants used by Defendant do not possess any such qualities.

43. Defendants also accept and encourage a practice known as slamming – where

their sales staff add ForceField Protection Plans on customers’ bills without notifying customers.

Plaintiffs Catherine Long and Lisa Palmer allege that they were charged for ForceField

Protection Warranties without their knowledge.

44. ForceField Protection Plan customers have repeatedly complained about

Defendants’ deceptive practices:

The quality of RTG furniture sucks And their so-called “Force Field” treatment is a total scam!!!! Purchased one Cindy Crawford Sidney Road sofa, one loveseat and one ottoman from RTG’s supercenter in Katy. The sales person persuaded me into buying their so-called “Force Field” protection plan and I ended up paying about USD200 for the plan. She even gave me two tiny bottles of “Force Field” branded cleaning solutions, suggested me that I can use them to clean the sofa if it is stained, making me believe that

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 11 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 11

the sofa will be carefully treated. When I asked how the “Force Field” works, she explained that's something like “scotchgard.”

The sofa set arrived a week later, the delivery guys moved all pieces in and left within less than five minutes. All the three pieces were covered by thinnest plastic wrap and they removed the plastic and took it away. Again, all was done within 5 minutes before I can realize anything. And I haven’t found any trace on the sofa, the love seat or the ottoman, indicating that they had been treated to resist liquid or soil. Not even a tiny tag says they were “Force Field” treated. Then I drop a tiny amount of water, as I will usually do to test the scotchgarded furnitures, the water didn't bead up at all and the water just darken the fabric, as you can see in one of the photos I uploaded. So that’s what you called “Force Field” treated? the $6 scotchgard works better than the expensive $200 “Force Field” treatment, if there is really such treatment.4

Another Rooms to Go furniture customer wrote:

I too purchased the “BOND” when I purchased my 3 piece living room set. Upon delivery I asked the delivery folks if the bond had been applied because I noticed the factory plastic was still on the furniture as well as the moving blankets and shrink wrap. They said if its on the ticket then it should have been applied. After about 8 months the first accidental spill finally happened. Guess what it soaked right through, no beading as it should have done if applied correctly. I contacted customer service “WHAT A JOKE” It should be 1-800 we are not going to help you or stand behind our product or services. After speaking with them twice they sent a tech out to verify if the “bond” had been applied or not. The tech could not find a “sticker” on any of the three pieces and he said it should be a sticker applied once the furniture is treated. After that they wanted to come and apply the bond to the furniture. I told them I wanted new furniture with the bond applied prior to delivery like I had paid for to begin with. They flat out refused. The customer service manager as she claimed to be even told me that the spills on my sofa were between me and my sofa and I should not spill things on it. After arguing with them several times I finally filed a claim with the BBB. RTG finally agreed to replace the furniture but refused to apply the bond and issued a full refund

4 See, e.g., review #478180 from Mar. 5, 2014, Katy, Texas. http://rooms-to-go.pissedconsumer.com/rooms-to-go-is- a-total-scam-especially-for-its-force-field-project-20140305478180.html. Last accessed on April 26, 2016.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 12 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 12

for the price I had paid for the bond to begin with. Of course that was after several messages through the BBB.

I also contacted the CEO of Forcefield protectant and he is very nice and actually responds personally to emails and phone calls. RTG is mis representing this bond quite a bit. You are better off to buy the furniture then buy the Forcefield protectant and cleaner directly from Forcefield. Its just $15 per spray bottle from them and the cleaner is $20 if I remember correctly. Even if it takes 1 bottle per piece that is only $45 to protect all three pieces vs $180 that RTG charges and never even applies it as they should.

I am not sure I will ever shop with RTG again after the experience that i have had. RTG is the issue with the Bond not the Forcefield product. If they applied it as they should it would work wonderfully.5

45. In 2015-2016, Plaintiffs, through counsel, had their purchases from R.T.G.

Furniture Corp. tested for the presence of stain-resistant chemicals. The furniture aged between

three years and six months from date of delivery. All of the furniture had been sold with

ForceField Protection Plans. The testing showed no evidence that either the ForceField product,

or any other stain-resistant treatment, had been applied to the furniture.

C. Plaintiffs’ Experiences

a. Benjamin Hankinson

46. On September 15, 2012, Plaintiff Benjamin Hankinson purchased a sofa, a chaise,

and an armless two-seater at a West Palm Beach, Florida Rooms to Go store. Before finalizing

his purchase, a Rooms to Go sales representative suggested that Benjamin Hankinson buy

ForceField Fabric Protection Plan for his furniture. The sales representative represented that,

5 August 1, 2015 entry for “Jacob” at http://roomstogo-complaints.blogspot.com/2009/01/dont-buy-bond- fabricleather-protection.html. Last accessed on April 26, 2016.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 13 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 13

under the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan, Rooms to Go would professionally treat Mr.

Hankinon’s furniture to protect against stains. Based upon these representations, Mr. Hankinson

purchased a ForceField Fabric Protection Plan for his sofa (paying $59.99), for his chaise

(paying $44.99), and for his two-seater (paying $39.99).

47. Based upon Defendants representations, Mr. Hankinson expected that the

Defendants would professionally apply the ForceField protectant to his furniture prior to

delivering the furniture to his home.

48. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not treat Mr. Hankinson’s

furniture with ForceField protectant; if it did, it applied the ForceField protectant in such an

unprofessional manner that it failed to appear in subsequent testing of his furniture.

49. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

50. In addition, Defendants did not disclose material information to Mr. Hankinson.

This includes that Defendants would skip some products if too busy; that if treated, warehouse

staff would not treat all sides of the furniture; that the protectant application was done often

haphazardly, in a few minutes, without allowing proper time for the protectant to cure; that the

protectants had not been tested by the Defendants; that the protectants required annual

reapplication; and that entire bottles of the ForceField protectants could be purchased by the

customer for far less than what Defendants’ charged for a single application (10% of the

furniture’s purchase price as opposed to $14.95 per bottle).

51. Had Plaintiff known these facts he would not have purchased the ForceField

Protection Plan.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 14 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 14

52. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

b. James Guerra

53. On March 16, 2015, Plaintiff James Guerra purchased two accent chairs from a

West Palm Beach, Florida Rooms to Go store. As he went to pay for the chairs, he learned that

the sales agent had added $99.98 for ForceField Fabric Protection Plan. He asked about the

ForceField Fabric Protection Plan, and the sales representative represented to him that under the

plan, Rooms to Go would professionally treat Mr. Guerra’s furniture to protect against stains,

and that the ForceField helped protect against fading. Based upon these representations, Mr.

Guerra agreed to buy the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan.

54. Based upon Defendants representations, Mr. Guerra expected that the Defendants

would professionally apply the ForceField protectant to his furniture prior to delivering the

furniture to his home.

55. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not treat Mr. Guerra’s

furniture with ForceField protectant; if it did, it applied the ForceField protectant in such an

unprofessional manner that it failed to appear in subsequent testing of his furniture.

56. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

57. In addition, Defendants did not disclose material information to Mr. Guerra. This

includes that Defendants would skip some products if too busy; that if treated, warehouse staff

would not treat all sides of the furniture; that the protectant application was done often

haphazardly, in a few minutes, without allowing proper time for the protectant to cure; that the

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 15 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 15

protectants had not been tested by the Defendants; that the protectants required annual

reapplication; and that entire bottles of the ForceField protectants could be purchased by the

customer for far less than what Defendants’ charged for a single application (10% of the

furniture’s purchase price as opposed to $14.95 per bottle).

58. Had Plaintiff known these facts he would not have purchased the ForceField

Protection Plan.

59. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

c. Jeanette Gandolfo

60. On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Jeanette Gandolfo purchased a sofa and a loveseat

from a Wellington, Florida Rooms to Go store. The sales representative represented that, under

the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan, Rooms to Go would treat Ms. Gandolfo’s furniture before

delivery to protect the furniture from stains and fading. Based upon these representations, Ms.

Gandolfo purchased a ForceField Fabric Protection Plan for her sofa (paying $69.99), and for her

loveseat (paying $59.99). On January 20, 2012, Plaintiff Jeanette Gandolfo purchased a sofa and

loveseat from a Wellington, Florida Rooms to Go store. Ms. Gandolfo purchased a ForceField

Fabric Protection Plan for her sofa (paying $59.99), and for her loveseat (paying $49.99). On

August 8, 2011, Ms. Gandolfo purchased four side chairs from a Plantation, Florida Rooms to

Go store. Ms. Gandolfo purchased four ForceField Fabric Protection Warranties for the four side

chairs, paying $40.00.

61. Based upon the Defendants’ representations, Ms. Gandolfo expected the

Defendants to professionally apply the ForceField fabric and leather protectants to her furniture

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 16 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 16

before delivery to her home for each of her purchases.

62. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not treat Ms. Gandolfo’s

furniture with ForceField protectant; if it did, it applied the ForceField protectant in such an

unprofessional manner that it failed to appear in subsequent testing of her furniture.

63. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

64. In addition, Defendants did not disclose material information to Ms. Gandolfo.

This includes that Defendants would skip some products if too busy; that if treated, warehouse

staff would not treat all sides of the furniture; that the protectant application was done often

haphazardly, in a few minutes, without allowing proper time for the protectant to cure; that the

protectants had not been tested by the Defendants; that the protectants required annual

reapplication; and that entire bottles of the ForceField protectants could be purchased by the

customer for far less than what Defendants’ charged for a single application (10% of the

furniture’s purchase price as opposed to $14.95 per bottle).

65. Had Plaintiff known these facts he would not have purchased the ForceField

Protection Plan.

66. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

d. Lisa Palmer

67. Approximately 10 years ago, Lisa Palmer purchased Rooms to Go furniture and a

ForceField Protection Plan in Louisiana. After Ms. Palmer’s furniture was stained, she attempted

to receive post-delivery cleaning services (provided for under ForceField Protection Plan

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 17 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 17

contract), but Rooms to Go furniture refused to provide any service.

68. On March 18, 2015, Plaintiff Lisa Palmer purchased a reclining sofa at a Rooms

to Go store in Pensacola, Florida. A Rooms to Go sales representative suggested that Lisa Palmer

buy a ForceField Leather Protection Plan for the reclining sofa. Because of Ms. Palmer’s

previous negative experience with ForceField Protection Plan, she rejected the sales

representative’s suggestion and refused to listen to her “pitch.” The sales representative assured

Ms. Palmer that she could purchase the reclining sofa without purchasing a ForceField Leather

Protection Plan.

69. Unbeknownst to Ms. Palmer, a ForceField Leather Protection Plan was placed on

her bill. When Ms. Palmer went to pay her bill, there was a black box for her signature, but she

was unable to see what she had purchased. Ms. Palmer unknowingly paid $69.99 for a

ForceField Leather Protection Plan.

70. In 2016, Ms. Palmer reviewed her receipt and found out that she had purchased a

ForceField Leather Protection Plan. Had Ms. Palmer known, at the time of purchase, that the

ForceField Leather Protection Plan was on her bill, she would not have purchased it.

71. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not in fact treat Ms. Palmer’s

furniture with ForceField protectant; if it did, it applied the ForceField protectant in such an

unprofessional manner that it failed to appear in subsequent testing of her furniture.

72. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

73. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 18 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 18

e. Donald Anderson

74. On January 4, 2015, Plaintiff Donald Anderson purchased a loveseat, a chaise,

two accent chairs, and a cocktail ottoman at a Rooms to Go store in in Alpharetta, Georgia. A

Rooms to Go sales representative suggested that he buy the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan.

The sales representative explained that, under the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan, Rooms to

Go would professionally treat Mr. Anderson’s furniture to protect against stains. Based upon

these representations, Mr. Anderson purchased a ForceField Fabric Protection Plan for his

loveseat (paying $59.99), his chaise (paying $54.99), his two accent chairs (paying $99.98), and

his cocktail ottoman (paying $19.99).

75. Based upon Defendants representations, Mr. Anderson expected that the

Defendants would professionally apply the ForceField protectant to his furniture prior to

delivering the furniture to his home.

76. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not treat Mr. Anderson’s

furniture with ForceField protectant. Within 30 days after his purchase, Mr. Anderson’s couch

and ottoman were both stained. Mr. Anderson realized that his couch and ottoman were not

professionally treated, as promised by Defendants. When water fell on Mr. Anderson’s couch,

the water stained the couch and did not bead on the surface of the couch. Mr. Anderson

attempted to clean his couch and ottoman with the ForceField spot fabric cleaner, but was unable

to do so. In addition, subsequent testing on his furniture showed no evidence a fabric protectant

had been applied.

77. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 19 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 19

78. In addition, Defendants did not disclose material information to Mr. Anderson.

This includes that Defendants would skip some products if too busy; that if treated, warehouse

staff would not treat all sides of the furniture; that the protectant application was done often

haphazardly, in a few minutes, without allowing proper time for the protectant to cure; that the

protectants had not been tested by the Defendants; that the protectants required annual

reapplication; and that entire bottles of the ForceField protectants could be purchased by the

customer for far less than what Defendants’ charged for a single application (10% of the

furniture’s purchase price as opposed to $14.95 per bottle).

79. Had Plaintiff known these facts he would not have purchased the ForceField

Protection Plan.

80. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

f. Catherine Long

81. On April 2, 2013, Plaintiff Catherine Long purchased an accent chair and a sofa at

a Rooms to Go store in Raleigh, North Carolina. Ms. Long never told the Rooms to Go sales

representative that she wished to purchase a ForceField Protection Plan.

82. Unbeknownst to Ms. Long, a ForceField Fabric Protection Plan was placed on her

bill. When Ms. Long went to pay her bill, she signed an iPad, but she did not see that she was

purchasing ForceField Fabric Protection Warranties. Ms. Long unknowingly purchased a

ForceField Fabric Protection Warranties for her accent chair (paying $39.99) and for her sofa

(paying $59.99).

83. Later in 2013, Ms. Long looked at her receipt and noticed that she had been

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 20 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 20

charged for ForceField Fabric Protection Warranties. Ms. Long called the Raleigh store and

asked for a refund on the ForceField Fabric Protection Warranties. Ms. Long was transferred to a

corporate customer service call center. Ms. Long once again asked for a refund because she had

not intended to purchase the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan. The call center representative

told Ms. Long: “You signed for it so you bought it.”

84. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

85. Subsequently, Ms. Long’s furniture was stained. Ms. Long asked a corporate

customer service call center representative to send a technician to clean the stain, as promised

under her ForceField Fabric Protection Plan. The corporate customer service call center

representative informed Ms. Long that she would have to pay $50 for a technician to come to her

house. Ms. Long declined to pay the $50, and no technician visited Ms. Long’s house.

86. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not treat Ms. Long’s furniture

with ForceField protectant; if it did, it applied the ForceField protectant in such an

unprofessional manner that it stained, and also subsequent testing showed no trace of a fabric

protectant.

87. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

g. Lisa Prihoda

88. On April 10, 2015, Plaintiff Lisa Prihoda purchased a sofa, a loveseat, and

recliner from a Rooms to Go store in Brookshire, Texas. Before finalizing her purchase, a

Rooms to Go sales representative suggested that Ms. Prihoda purchase ForceField Fabric

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 21 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 21

Protection Plan, but Ms. Prihoda rejected the sales representative’s suggestion. A store manager

approached Ms. Prihoda and further pushed Ms. Prihoda to purchase the plan. The sales

representative stated that, under the ForceField Fabric Protection Plan, Rooms to Go would

professionally treat Ms. Prihoda’s furniture to protect against stains. Based upon these

representations, Ms. Prihoda purchased a ForceField Fabric Protection Plan for her sofa (paying

$69.99), for her loveseat (paying $59.99), and for her recliner (paying $39.99).

89. Based upon Defendants representations, Ms. Prihoda expected that the

Defendants would professionally apply the ForceField protectant to her furniture prior to

delivering the furniture to her home.

90. Based upon information and belief, Defendants did not treat Ms. Prihoda’s

furniture with ForceField protectant, or applied it in such an unprofessional manner that it was

not detected in subsequent testing.

91. By not professionally applying the Force Field protectant to Plaintiffs’ furniture

as promised, Defendants breached the contract contained in the fabric protection plan.

92. In addition, Defendants did not disclose material information to Ms. Prihoda. This

includes that Defendants would skip some products if too busy; that if treated, warehouse staff

would not treat all sides of the furniture; that the protectant application was done often

haphazardly, in a few minutes, without allowing proper time for the protectant to cure; that the

protectants had not been tested by the Defendants; that the protectants required annual

reapplication; and that entire bottles of the ForceField protectants could be purchased by the

customer for far less than what Defendants’ charged for a single application (10% of the

furniture’s purchase price as opposed to $14.95 per bottle).

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 22 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 22

93. Had Plaintiff known these facts she would not have purchased the ForceField

Protection Plan.

94. As a result of Defendants’ deceptive conduct, Plaintiff suffered an ascertainable

loss.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

95. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all of the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

96. Pursuant to the Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) and (c)(4) Plaintiffs assert claims on

behalf of the following four statewide classes, defined as follows:

a) Florida Class: All residents of Florida who purchased ForceField Fabric or Leather

Protection Plans from Defendants.

i. Florida “Slamming” Subclass: All residents of Florida who purchased

ForceField Fabric or Leather Protection Plans from Defendants, whose

ForceField Protection Plans were added to their bills without their knowledge.

b) Georgia Class: All residents of Georgia who purchased ForceField Fabric or Leather

Protection Plans from Defendants.

c) North Carolina Class: All residents of North Carolina who purchased ForceField

Fabric or Leather Protection Plans from Defendants.

i. North Carolina “Slamming” Subclass: All residents of North Carolina who

purchased ForceField Fabric or Leather Protection Plans from Defendants, whose

ForceField Protection Plans were added to their bills without their knowledge.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 23 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 23

d) Texas Class: All residents of Texas who purchased ForceField Fabric or Leather

Protection Plans from Defendants.

97. Excluded from the Class are Defendants, any entity in which Defendants have a

controlling interest, and Defendants’ officers, directors, legal representatives, successors,

subsidiaries, and assigns. Also excluded from the Classes is any judge, justice, or judicial officer

presiding over this matter and the members of their immediate families and judicial staff.

98. This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action as

it satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, and superiority requirements.

Plaintiffs seek to represent an ascertainable Class, as determining inclusion in the class can be

done through the Defendant’s own records, as the ForceField Protection Plan contracts are

numbered and tied to Sales Order numbers.

99. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend the Class definition if discovery and further

investigation reveal that the Class should be expanded, divided into subclasses, or modified in

any other way.

100. Although the precise number of Class members is unknown and can only be

determined through appropriate discovery, Plaintiffs believe, and on that basis allege, that the

proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members would be impracticable as RTG sells

thousands of pieces in furniture yearly, and the ForceField protection is sold with a large portion

of those sales.

101. Questions of law and fact common to the Plaintiff Class exist that predominate

over questions affecting only individual members, including inter alia:

a. Whether Defendants professionally treat ForceField Protection Plan customers’

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 24 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 24

furniture with ForceField, as they represented they would;

b. Whether Defendants had a policy or practice of not treating all surfaces of the

furniture, contrary to the ForceField Protection Plan;

c. Whether Defendants provided proper drying time for the ForceField products to

properly cure on the Class Members’ furniture;

d. Whether Defendants’ omitted material facts about the ForceField Protection Plans,

including, inter alia, how the product was ordinarily applied, the absence of any

tests of the protectants by the Defendants, and the need for reapplication;

e. Whether Defendants made material misrepresentations about the ForceField

protectants, including its abilities to protect against color fading;

f. Whether Defendants’ practices are deceptive, unlawful, or unfair in any respect

thereby violating Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (FDUPTA),

Fla. Stat. § 501.201, et seq., or the North Carolina’s Unfair Trade Practices Act,

N.C. Gen. Stat. Ann. § 75-1.1, et seq.

g. Whether Defendants breached their ForceField Protection Plan contracts; and

h. Whether, if no contract is found to have occurred, if Defendants’ conduct

constitutes unjust enrichment.

102. Plaintiffs are members of the putative Class. The claims asserted by the Plaintiffs

in this action are typical of the claims of the members of the putative Class, as the claims arise

from the same course of conduct by the Defendant and the relief sought is common.

103. Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately represent and protect the interests of the

members of the putative Class, as their interests are coincident with, not antagonistic to, the other

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 25 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 25

Class members. Plaintiffs have retained counsel competent and experienced in both consumer

protection and class action litigation.

104. Certification of the Class is appropriate pursuant to Fed. R. C. P. 23(b)(3)

because questions of law or fact common to the respective members of the Class predominate

over questions of law or fact affecting only individual members. This predominance makes class

litigation superior to any other method available for the fair and efficient adjudication of these

claims including consistency of adjudications. Absent a class action it would be highly unlikely

that the members of the Class would be able to protect their own interests because the cost of

litigation through individual lawsuits might exceed the expected recovery.

105. A class action is a superior method for the adjudication of the controversy in that

it will permit a large number of claims to be resolved in a single forum simultaneously,

efficiently, and without the unnecessary hardship that would result from the prosecution of

numerous individual actions and the duplication of discovery, effort, expense, and the burden of

the courts that individual actions would create.

106. The benefits of proceeding as a class action, including providing a method for

obtaining redress for claims that would not be practical to pursue individually, outweigh any

difficulties that might be argued with regard to the management of the class action.

107. In the alternative, Plaintiffs seek class certification as to particular issues as

permitted under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23(c)(4). Plaintiffs seek certification as to the

questions of liability identified in Paragraph 101(a) through (h). Class certification as to these

issues is a superior to any alternative means of adjudication, and eliminates the possibility of

duplicative, inefficient litigation of identical issues.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 26 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 26

CAUSES OF ACTION

COUNT I – BREACH OF CONTRACT

(Brought by Florida, Georgia, North Carolina, and Texas Classes)

108. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all of the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

109. Plaintiffs and Class Members who purchased ForceField Fabric Protection Plans

entered into identical binding and enforceable contracts with Defendants. An example of that

contracts is attached at Exhibit A.

110. The contracts between Plaintiffs and Class Members and Defendants were

supported by consideration. Plaintiffs and Class Members paid money to Defendants while

Defendants agreed to perform under the contract, including Defendants’ promise that the

Plaintiffs and Class Members furniture will be professionally treated before delivery to resist all

food and beverage spills that occur in most households.”

111. Defendants materially breached the terms of their contracts with Plaintiffs and

Class Members by violating their commitment to professionally treat Plaintiffs and Class

Members’ furniture before delivery to resist all food and beverage spills that occur in most

households.

112. Defendants did not apply the fabric protectants consistent with the product’s

instructions, if at all. As a result, none of the Plaintiffs have any trace of the fabric protectant on

their furniture.

113. As a result of Defendants’ breach of contract, Plaintiffs and Class Members did

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 27 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 27

not receive the benefit of their bargain, and are entitled to damages.

COUNT II - Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (Brought by Florida Class)

114. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all of the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

115. In Florida, unconscionable acts or practices, and unfair or deceptive acts or

practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce are unlawful.

116. Plaintiffs, individually, and the members of the putative Class are “consumers”

within the meaning of Florida Statute § 501.203.

117. Defendants’ practice of misrepresenting the qualities of its ForceField Protection

Plans constitutes unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable trade practices in violation of Florida’s

Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) as provided by §§ 501.201-.213, Florida

Statutes.

118. Defendants’ practice of not disclosing material information to its customers at the

point of sale constitutes unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable trade practices in violation of

Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) as provided by §§ 501.201-

.213, Florida Statutes.

119. Defendants’ practice of charging customers for ForceField Protection Plans

without customers’ knowledge constitutes an unfair, deceptive, or unconscionable trade practice

in violation of Florida’s Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”) as provided by

§§ 501.201-.213, Florida Statutes.

120. Defendants’ practices are unconscionable and constitute unfair and deceptive

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 28 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 28

methods of competition.

121. As a result of these unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs individually,

and the members of the putative Class, have suffered actual damages in that they would not have

not purchased ForceField Protection Plans, if Defendants had not engaged in their

misrepresentations and omissions.

122. In addition, as a result of these unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs

individually, and the members of the putative Class, have suffered actual damages in that they

paid more for ForceField Protection Plans because of Defendants’ misrepresentations and

omissions.

123. Plaintiffs are entitled to recover compensatory damages, costs, and reasonable

attorneys’ fees.

COUNT III – North Carolina Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (Brought by North Carolina Class)

124. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all of the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

125. In North Carolina, “unfair methods of competition in or affecting commerce, and

unfair or deceptive acts or practices in or affecting commerce, are declared unlawful.” N.C. Gen

Stat. § 75-1.1(a).

126. Defendants’ sale of ForceField Protection Plans was “in or affecting commerce”

under N.C. Gen Stat. § 75-1.1(a) because Defendants were engaged in a business activity.

127. Defendants’ practice of misrepresenting the qualities of its ForceField Protection

Plans constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of North Carolina’s

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 29 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 29

(“UDTPA”) as provided by N.C. Gen Stat. § 75-1.1(a).

128. Defendants’ practice of not disclosing material information to its customers at the

point of sale constitutes an unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of North Carolina’s

(“UDTPA”) as provided by N.C. Gen Stat. § 75-1.1(a).

129. Defendants’ practice of charging customers for ForceField Protection Plans

without customers’ knowledge constitutes unfair and deceptive trade practice in violation of

North Carolina’s (“UDTPA”) as provided by N.C. Gen Stat. § 75-1.1(a).

130. As a result of these unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs individually,

and the members of the putative Class, have suffered actual injury in that they would not have

not purchased ForceField Protection Plans, if Defendants had not engaged in their

misrepresentations and omissions.

131. In addition, as a result of these unfair and deceptive trade practices, Plaintiffs

individually, and the members of the putative Class, have suffered actual injury in that they paid

more for ForceField Protection Plans because of Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions.

132. Pursuant to N.C. Gen. Stat. § 75-16 and 75-16.1, Plaintiffs are entitled to

compensatory damages, treble damages, attorney’s fees, and costs.

COUNT IV – UNJUST ENRICHMENT

(Brought, in the Alternative, By All Classes)

133. Plaintiffs re-allege and incorporate by reference herein all of the allegations

contained in paragraphs 1 through 94.

134. Plaintiffs purchased Defendant’s ForceField plans as a direct result of

Defendant’s misrepresentations and omissions, including whether the products were actually

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 30 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 30

applied, and omitting that the products could be purchased directly from the seller of ForceField

fabric protection products at a fraction of the cost.

135. Defendants generated profits from its misconduct.

136. Defendants have knowingly and unjustly enriched themselves at the expense and

to the determinant of the Plaintiffs and each member of the Class by collecting money to which it

is not entitled.

137. Under the respective state law of each Class, Defendants have been unjustly

enriched.

138. It would be morally wrong to permit the Defendant to enrich itself at the expense

of the Plaintiffs and the Class. Defendant should be required to disgorge this unjust enrichment.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs request judgment against the Defendants for themselves and

the members of the class as follows:

A. Certification of the Class pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3) or 23(c)(4);

B. Restitution of all charges paid by Plaintiffs and the Class;

C. Disgorgement to Plaintiffs and the Class of all monies wrongfully

obtained and retained by Defendant;

D. Compensatory and actual damages in an amount according to proof at

trial;

E. Statutory damages, penalties, treble damages, as provided by law;

F. Prejudgment interest commencing on the date of payment of the charges

and continuing through the date of entry of judgment in this action;

G. Costs and fees incurred in connection with this action, including attorney’s

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 31 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 31

fees, expert witness fees, and other cots as provided by law;

H. Punitive damages;

I. Equitable Relief; and

J. Granting such other relief as the Court deems proper.

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 32 of 32 Hankinson, et al v. R.T.G Furniture, Corp., et al Complaint Page 32

JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs hereby request a jury trial for all issues so triable.

DATED this 10th day of June, 2016.

Respectfully submitted,

s/Theodore J. Leopold Theodore J. Leopold (FL Bar No. 705608) Leslie M. Kroeger (FL Bar No. 989762) Diana L. Martin (FL Bar No. 624489) COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200 Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile: (561) 515-1401

Douglas J. McNamara (pro hac vice) Eric A. Kafka (pro hac vice) COHEN MILSTEIN SELLERS & TOLL PLLC 1100 New York Ave. NW East Tower, 5th Floor Washington, DC 20005 Telephone: (202) 408-4600 Facsimile: (202) 408-4699

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

Cohen Milstein Sellers & Toll, PLLC 2925 PGA Boulevard, Suite 200, Palm Beach Gardens, FL 33410 Telephone: (561) 515-1400 Facsimile (561) 515-1401

Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86-1 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT A Case 9:15-cv-81139-JIC Document 86-2 Entered on FLSD Docket 06/10/2016 Page 1 of 1

EXHIBIT B