Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 1 of 28 Page ID #:1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`BURSOR & FISHER, P.A.
`L. Timothy Fisher (State Bar No. 191626)
`Joel D. Smith (State Bar No. 244902)
`Blair E. Reed (State Bar No. 316791)
`1990 North California Boulevard, Suite 940
`Walnut Creek, CA 94596
`Telephone: (925) 300-4455
`Facsimile: (925) 407-2700
`E-Mail: ltfisher@bursor.com
` jsmith@bursor.com
` breed@bursor.com
`Counsel for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
` Case No.
`
`8:19-cv-1203
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
`
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`WILL KAUPELIS and FRANK
`ORTEGA, individually and on behalf of
`all others similarly situated,
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v.
`
`HARBOR FREIGHT TOOLS USA,
`INC.,
`
`Defendant.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 2 of 28 Page ID #:2
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`
`Plaintiffs Will Kaupelis and Frank Ortega (“Plaintiffs”) bring this action on
`behalf of themselves and all others similarly situated against Defendant Harbor
`Freight Tools USA, Inc. (“Harbor Freight” or “Defendant”) for the manufacture,
`marketing, and sale of Portland, One Stop Gardens, and Chicago Electric 14-inch
`Electric Chainsaw products identified below. Plaintiffs make the following
`allegations pursuant to the investigation of their counsel and based upon information
`and belief, except as to the allegations specifically pertaining to themselves, which
`are based on personal knowledge.
`NATURE OF ACTION
`1.
`This is a class action against Defendant Harbor Freight Tools USA, Inc.
`for the manufacture and sale of Portland, One Stop Gardens, and Chicago Electric
`14-inch Electric Chainsaws (collectively, the “Products”), all of which suffered from
`an identical defect in design. Specifically, the power switch was prone to
`malfunction, causing the chainsaw blade to continue operating after the operator
`moves the power switch to the “off” position. A chainsaw that takes on a life of its
`own by not turning off when necessary is extraordinarily dangerous. This defect
`rendered the Products unsuitable for their principal and intended purpose.
`2.
`Plaintiffs bring their claims against Defendant individually and on
`behalf of a class of all other similarly situated purchasers of the Products for (1)
`violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Civil Code §§
`1750, et. seq.; (2) violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law, Cal. Bus. &
`Prof. Code §§ 17200-17210; (3) fraud; (4) unjust enrichment; (5) breach of implied
`warranty; and (6) violations of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act.
`PARTIES
`3.
`Plaintiff Will Kaupelis is, and at all times relevant to this action has
`been, a resident of Placentia, California. In approximately the fall of 2016, Mr.
`Kaupelis purchased a Portland brand 14-inch Electronic Chainsaw from a Harbor
`Freight store located in San Bernardino, California. Mr. Kaupelis purchased the
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`1
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 3 of 28 Page ID #:3
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Product because he believed it was fit for use as a chainsaw. However, the Product
`Mr. Kaupelis purchased was not fit for use as a chainsaw due to the Product’s
`malfunctioning power switch. Mr. Kaupelis would not have purchased the Product
`had he known that the Product was unfit to perform its intended purpose, rendering
`the Product useless.
`4.
`The power switch on the Product that Mr. Kaupelis purchased
`malfunctioned shortly after he purchased it. Mr. Kaupelis threw the Product in the
`trash because he was afraid to use it. Mr. Kaupelis disposed of the Product long
`before he ever contemplated litigation.
`5. Mr. Kaupelis reviewed the Product’s packaging prior to purchase.
`Defendant disclosed on the packaging that the Products were chainsaws and
`described features typical of chainsaws but did not disclose the defect. Had there
`been a disclosure, Mr. Kaupelis would not have bought the Product because the
`defect would have been material to him, or at the very least, he would have
`purchased the product at a substantially reduced price. Mr. Kaupelis relied on the
`packaging in making his purchase decision.
`6.
`Plaintiff Frank Ortega is, and at all times relevant to this action has
`been, a resident of Reseda, California. In approximately the spring of 2017, Mr.
`Ortega purchased a Portland brand 14-inch Electronic Chainsaw from a Harbor
`Freight store located in Northridge, California. Mr. Ortega purchased the Product
`because he believed it was fit for use as a chainsaw. However, the Product Mr.
`Ortega purchased was not fit for use as a chainsaw due to the Product’s
`malfunctioning power switch. Mr. Ortega would not have purchased the Product had
`he known that the Product was unfit to perform its intended purpose, rendering the
`Product useless.
`7. Mr. Ortega reviewed the Product’s packaging prior to purchase.
`Defendant disclosed on the packaging that the Products were chainsaws and
`described features typical of chainsaws but did not disclose the defect. Had there
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 4 of 28 Page ID #:4
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`been a disclosure, Mr. Ortega would not have bought the Product because the safety
`defect would have been material to him, or at the very least, he would have
`purchased the product at a substantially reduced price. Mr. Ortega relied on the
`packaging in making his purchase decision.
`8.
`Defendant Harbor Freight Tools USA. Inc. is a Delaware corporation
`with its principal place of business at 26541 Agoura Rd., Calabasas, California.
`Defendant manufactures, markets, and distributes the Products throughout the United
`States. Defendant sells its products directly to consumers in Harbor Freight stores
`and on Harbor Freight’s website.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`9.
`This Court has subject matter jurisdiction over this action pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. § 1332(d) because there are more than 100 class members and the aggregate
`amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000, exclusive of interest, fees, and costs, and
`at least one Class member is a citizen of a state different from Defendant.
`10. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because Defendant
`conducts substantial business within California such that Defendant has significant,
`continuous, and pervasive contacts with the State of California.
`11. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391 because
`Defendant does substantial business in this District, a substantial part of the events
`giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims took place within this District because Plaintiffs
`purchased their Products in this District and reside in this District.
`COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`I.
`The Power Switch Defect
`12. Defendant Harbor Freight is a hardware store franchise that owns and
`operates over 900 hardware stores nationwide. Among the various tools sold by
`Defendant are Portland, One Stop Gardens, and Chicago Electric 14-inch Electric
`Chainsaws, which are the products at issue here (“the Products”). Except for the
`brand names, the Products are identical and share the same model number 62755.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 5 of 28 Page ID #:5
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13.
` The Products were made with defective power switches, causing the
`chainsaw blade to continue operating after the operator moves the power switch to
`the “off” position (hereinafter, the “Product Defect” or “power switch defect”). The
`Product Defect was substantially likely to materialize during the useful life of the
`Product.
`14. With over a million units sold at approximately $50 each, Harbor
`Freight profited enormously from its failure to disclose the Product Defect sooner.
`15. The power switch defect at issue here involves a critical safety-related
`component of the Products, and it was unsafe to operate the Products with the
`defective power switch. Defendant had exclusive knowledge of the defect, which
`was not known to Plaintiff or class members.
`16. Defendant made partial representations to Plaintiffs and class members,
`while suppressing the safety defect. Specifically, by displaying the Products and
`describing their features, the product packaging implied that the Products were
`suitable for use as a chainsaw, without disclosing that they had a critical safety-
`related defect that could result in harm to users of the Products. In fact, the product
`packaging specifically called-out the “Safety Lock-Out Switch,” conveying the
`impression that the product was specially designed to prevent it from unintended or
`undesired operation.
`II. Defendant’s Sham Recall
`17.
`In May of 2018, Harbor Freight issued a recall of the Products.
`18. The recall was due to a serious injury hazard associated with the
`Products. Specifically, Harbor Freight admitted that its Products had a defect in
`design and materials that caused the chainsaw to continue operating after the
`operator moves the power switch to the “off” position.
`19. Harbor Freight sold over 1,000,000 Products in the United States.
`20. As of August 31, 2018, barely 2% of the Products were returned as part
`of the recall, and Harbor Freight generally declined refund requests.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 6 of 28 Page ID #:6
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`21. The recall allowed Harbor Freight to say it was doing right by its
`customers, but in fact the recall protected Harbor Freight’s profits by suppressing
`returns:
`
`(a) The recall notice was only briefly publicized.
`(b) Defendant’s website contained a link to recall information, but
`the link was in small, inconspicuous text buried among a lengthy list of other links,
`and class members would not have a reason to follow the link if they did not already
`know about the recall in the first place.
`(c) Defendant only mailed notices to approximately 2% of
`purchasers.
`(d) Defendant did not email people who purchased Products online,
`despite the fact that email notice is a relatively low-cost and effective means of
`contacting consumers.
`(e) Harbor Freight only offered replacement units in connection with
`the recall. Harbor Freight did not offer cash refunds in lieu of a replacement, and
`customers’ requests for cash refunds were generally denied.
`(f)
`People who were willing to take a replacement unit had to pick
`up the replacement in-person at a Harbor Freight store, though in this day and age,
`replacements via mail are the norm for companies who sell products online. Even
`some consumers who complied with recall instructions came away empty-handed.
`Consumers reported difficulty attaining replacement units. For instance, one
`consumer wrote, “I went to the store with the notice I received telling me to stop
`using the chainsaws I purchased … and the store refused to exchange the product.”
`//
`//
`//
`//
`//
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 7 of 28 Page ID #:7
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`III. Harbor Freight’s Pre-Sale Knowledge Of The Defect
`A. Harbor Freight Received Complaints Directly From
`Customers And Through The CPSC
`22. Years before issuing the recall, Harbor Freight received reports of
`chainsaws continuing to operate after being turned off by the operator.
`23. The United States Consumer Products Safety Commission (“CPSC”)
`operates a website where consumers can post complaints about unsafe products and
`provide details about any incidents they experienced.
`24. Online safety reports to the CPSC show that Harbor Freight knew or
`should have known of the defect since at least 2014, yet it continued to sell the
`defective products anyway.
`25. Per federal regulations, all safety reports that are submitted online
`through the CPSC website are sent directly to the product’s manufacturer. As set
`forth in more detail below, the CPSC website indicates that all safety complaints
`referenced herein were sent to Defendant, including the dates on which they were
`sent. Defendant also monitors safety complaints from the CPSC, and thus Defendant
`would have independently become aware of each safety report referenced herein
`separate and apart from noticed received from the CPSC.
`26. On February 7, 2014, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Model No. 67255. The complaint stated: “Was using a Chicago 14” electric can
`saw – model 67255 – purchased from Harbor Freight in Green Bay, Wisconsin in
`February of 2013 . . . When I released the safety switch and trigger switch to shut the
`saw off it failed to shutdown.” The consumer further stated that it was “nearly
`impossible to remove the heavy glove from my left hand to disconnect the saw while
`holding the running saw safely in my right hand. I contacted Tech support at Harbor
`Freight and was told to have the saw repaired and that they no longer carried
`replacement switches …” The consumer stated that he independently contacted and
`6
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 8 of 28 Page ID #:8
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`alerted Harbor Freight about this defect. The CPSC also sent this complaint to
`Harbor Freight on March 10, 2014. Hence, Harbor Freight was alerted twice about
`this incident—once by the consumer directly and then again later by the CPSC.
`27. On April 8, 2014, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Item No. 67255. The complaint stated: “The consumer stated that when he turned
`on the saw, it initially worked normally. … The consumer stated that the chain saw
`would not turn off. The consumer stated that releasing the lock out switch did not
`turn off the chain saw either. The consumer stated that when he was able to get
`down safely from the ladder, he pulled the chain saw cord out from the extension
`cord. That allowed the chain saw to turn off. … The consumer stated that he has
`been put on hold with the manf and has gotten no where.” The CPSC sent this
`complaint to Harbor Freight on April 29, 2014. Hence, Harbor Freight was alerted
`twice about this incident—once by the consumer directly and then again later by the
`CPSC.
`28. On May 5, 2014, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC concerning
`Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified as Model
`No. 67255. The consumer stated: “The trigger switch to turn it on gets stuck in the
`on position ... I can't get it to turn off ... Obviously I can’t use it anymore.[] It’s
`going to get someone seriously injured or killed if action is not taken.” The
`consumer independently contacted and alerted Harbor Freight about this defect. The
`CPSC sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on May 13, 2014. Hence, Harbor
`Freight was alerted twice about this incident—once by the consumer directly and
`then again later by the CPSC.
`29. On June 22, 2015, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Model No. 67255. The consumer stated: “Cutting wood. When wood was cut I
`released both the trigger switch (should have turned off immediately) AND the
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 9 of 28 Page ID #:9
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`interlock switch. The chainsaw stayed ON and knocked wood scratching left shin.
`So I disconnected it from the power source. The chain saw is not turning off via the
`switch. When it is plugged back in … it will start again … I’m assuming on off
`switch is defective. Okay .. this is slightly really dangerous when a device requiring
`use of both hands does not turn off and requires user to disconnect from power
`source while holding device with one hand. Chain saws are pretty dangerous.” The
`CPSC sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on June 30, 2015.
`30. On December 23, 2015, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Model No. 67255. The complaint stated: “My 14” electric chainsaw made by
`Chicago electric power tools sold by Harbor Freight Tools Model # 67255 suddenly
`would not shut off when the trigger switch was released. This created a very
`dangerous situation in which I had stop the saw by stepping on the extension cord
`and pulling the saw loose at the electrical connection. I took the saw apart and saw
`that the trigger switch, a small micro switch, wasn’t releasing as it was supposed to.
`I am in the process of calling the company to obtain a new switch which certainly
`hope works more reliably.” The consumer independently contacted and alerted
`Harbor Freight about this defect. The CPSC sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on
`January 4, 2016. Hence, Harbor Freight was alerted twice about this incident—once
`by the consumer directly and then again later by the CPSC.
`31. On March 7, 2016, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Model No. 67255. The consumer stated that his or her chainsaw would not shut
`off despite the trigger being switched to the “off” position. Specifically, the
`complaint stated: “My chainsaw did the exact same thing as the above from report
`#[REDACTED] … LUCKY NOBODY WAS HURT.” The consumer
`independently contacted and alerted Harbor Freight about this defect. The CPSC
`sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on March 15, 2016. Hence, Harbor Freight
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 10 of 28 Page ID #:10
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`was alerted twice about this incident—once by the consumer directly and then again
`later by the CPSC.
`32. On May 1, 2017, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC concerning
`Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified as Model
`No. 67255. The complaint stated: “I WAS OPERATING AN ELECTRIC CHAIN
`SAW AND THE SAW CONTINUED TO RUN AFTER THE SAFETY SWITCH
`WAS RELEASED . I NEEDED TO PULL THE PLUG TO STOP THE TOOL.”
`The CPSC sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on May 9, 2017.
`33. On June 19, 2017, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Model No. 67255. The complaint stated: “I have a Chicago Electric brand
`electric chain saw item # 67255 purchased from Harbor Freight in Centereach NY a
`couple of years ago. I used only a few times to trim a branch or two and cut some
`wood for my fire pit. Just the other day while cutting some wood, the power trigger
`seemed to stick in the on position. It took many times pressing and releasing to get
`the saw to stop. I found this dangerous and disturbing should it be a manufacturer
`defect, effecting other units. I tried a few times after to see what it would do and it
`intermittently continued to stick with the power on and blade operating.” The
`consumer independently contacted and alerted Harbor Freight about this defect. The
`CPSC sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on June 27, 2017. Hence, Harbor
`Freight was alerted twice about this incident—once by the consumer directly and
`then again later by the CPSC.
`34. On August 5, 2017, a consumer submitted a report to the CPSC
`concerning Harbor Freight’s 14 in. electric chainsaw, which the consumer identified
`as Model No. 67255. The complaint stated: “I was cutting down some tree limbs
`using a Portland chainsaw (67255) purchased from Harbor Freight and it would not
`turn off upon releasing the trigger and safety switches. I had to disconnect from the
`power source. I was up a ladder and was lucky not injure myself.” The consumer
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 11 of 28 Page ID #:11
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`independently contacted and alerted Harbor Freight about this defect. The CPSC
`sent this complaint to Harbor Freight on August 14, 2017. Hence, Harbor Freight
`was alerted twice about this incident—once by the consumer directly and then again
`later by the CPSC.
`35. Every time the CPSC’s website describes a consumer complaint, the
`website also discloses the date when CPSC sent that complaint to the manufacturer.
`This is separate from the portion of the safety complaint where the consumer states
`whether he or she independently contacted the manufacturer. As alleged above, all
`of the above-referenced complaints were sent to Defendant by the CPSC shortly after
`being submitted to the CPSC.
`36. For each of the following reasons, Harbor Freight’s management knew
`or should have known about the complaints referenced above as soon as they began
`appearing on the CPSC website in 2014, and in any event no later than November
`2016:
`
`(a)
`First, as noted above, Harbor Freight was repeatedly contacted
`directly by consumers and by the CPSC about the same power switch problem.
`(b)
`Second, the CPSC website is a government-run repository for
`complaints about safety-related defects, and many of Harbor Freight’s products
`appear in the website. The CPSC website can provide businesses with early
`warnings of product defects, and monitoring reports is easy because users can search
`for reports by company names. Hence, since at least 2011, it required negligible
`effort for Harbor Freight’s management and other personnel to visit the CPSC
`website, type “Harbor Freight” in the search field, and view a list of reports of safety
`incidents related to Harbor Freight products, including reports about the Product
`Defect at issue here.
`(c) Third, Harbor Freight knows about the CPSC website because
`Harbor Freight states on its own website that information about its products is
`available on the CPSC website.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 12 of 28 Page ID #:12
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`(d)
`Fourth, on December 3, 2018, Harbor Freight publicly stated that
`had it “received customer complaints either through the CPSC or direct reports [from
`customers]” about the Product Defect.
`B. Harbor Freight Received Complaints From
`Customers On Its Own Website And Then Deleted
`Those Complaints
`37.
`In addition to receiving safety complaints from the CPSC, Defendant
`also knew or should have known about the defect through reviews posted on its own
`website. In 2016, multiple consumers posted product reviews about the Product’s
`defective trigger switch to Harbor Freight’s own website, www.harborfreight.com.
`38. On March 18, 2016, a consumer posted a review on the Product’s
`website page warning that the Chicago Electric 14 in. Electric Chainsaw’s “[s]witch
`can be tricky.” Specifically, the consumer explained that “[e]ventually, the switch
`became harder and hard [sic] to keep turned on. Then one day, it wouldn’t turn
`off!”:
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`39.
`40.
`
`
`
`
`41. On March 28, 2016, another consumer posted a review that his or her
`Chicago Electric 14 in. Electric Chainsaw’s “Switch wouldn’t cut off.” The
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`11
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 13 of 28 Page ID #:13
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`consumer’s review stated: “Danger. Switch release and saw won’t stop running.
`Danger!”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`42. On September 3, 2016, another consumer posted a review concerning
`the same power switch defect in his or her Chicago Electric 14 in. Electric Chainsaw.
`The review stated: “Used the saw for about 3 minutes. The throttle switch was stuck
`on. Was not able to turn the saw off. Had to unplug to turn off.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`//
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 14 of 28 Page ID #:14
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`43. On September 13, 2016, another consumer posted a review concerning
`the same power switch defect in his or her Chicago Electric 14 in. Electric Chainsaw.
`The review stated: “First time I actually used it in Aug., the trigger switch would
`jam ‘on’ making it dangerous, as I had to unplug it to stop it.” The consumer also
`stated that he “called HF support” to try and get a replacement switch, but that there
`were “none available.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`44. There are two reasons why Harbor Freight would have seen the above-
`described warnings on its own website. First, online reputation management
`(commonly called “ORM” for short), is now a standard business practice among
`most major companies and entails monitoring consumer forums, social media and
`other sources on the internet where consumers can review or comment on products.
`“Specifically, [online] reputation management involves the monitoring of the
`reputation of an individual or a brand on the internet, addressing content which is
`potentially damaging to it, and using customer feedback to try to solve problems
`before they damage the individual's or brand's reputation.”1 Many companies offer
`ORM consulting services for businesses.
`
`
`1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reputationmanagement#Online_reputation_
`management
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 15 of 28 Page ID #:15
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`45. Like most companies, Harbor Freight presumably cares about its
`reputation and regularly monitors on-line customer reviews because they provide
`valuable data regarding quality control issue, customer satisfaction and marketing
`analytics. One-star reviews like those copied above would be particularly attention-
`grabbing for Harbor Freight’s management because extreme reviews are sometimes
`the result of extreme problems, and—just like any other company—Harbor Freight
`presumably is sensitive to the reputational impact of negative on-line reviews.
`Hence, Harbor Freight’s management knew or should have known about the above-
`referenced consumer complaints shortly after each complaint was posted on Harbor
`Freight’s company website.
`46. Second, at a bare minimum, Harbor Freight knew about the Product
`Defect by November 2016, when it removed all of the above-quoted reviews about
`the products from its website.2 Harbor Freight removed the reviews even though
`consumers who are considering purchasing products often look at customer reviews
`prior to purchase. Harbor Freight sought to actively conceal information about the
`defect when it removed the adverse customer reviews describing the defect.
`C. Other Indicia Of Harbor Freight’s Pre-Sale
`Knowledge
`47. Harbor Freight’s management also knew or should have known about
`the defect because of the similarity of complaints to the CPSC and on Harbor
`Freight’s website. The fact that so many customers made similar complaints about
`the same product indicates that the complaints were not the result of user error or an
`anomalous incident, but instead a systemic problem with the Product. Here, the
`reports and complaints from consumers—whether made directly to Harbor Freight
`employees, posted on Harbor Freight’s website, or forwarded from the CPSC—were
`
`
`2 Screenshots from the above referenced consumer reviews were reviewed via the
`Internet Archive Wayback Machine, which captures images of websites as they
`appeared in the past.
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 16 of 28 Page ID #:16
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`similar enough to put Harbor Freight’s management on notice that the incidents
`described were the result of a defect, and that the Products were experiencing
`unusually high levels of complaints about a defective power switch.
`48. Harbor Freight also knew about the Product Defect because it could not
`always meet the demand for replacement power switches. Harbor Freight offers
`replacement parts for its products and maintains a customer service phone line and
`email dedicated to fielding requests for replacement parts. Customers who
`experienced the defect complained in 2014, and again later in 2016, that Harbor
`Freight had no available replacement power switches, and had to turn down requests
`for replacement parts. The frequent need for replacement parts, coupled with the fact
`that Harbor Freight was unable to meet the demand for replacement parts, put Harbor
`Freight on further notice of the Product Defect.
`49. Harbor Freight also would have had notice of the Product Defect as a
`result of product returns. Before accepting a return from a customer, Harbor
`Freight’s policy is to ask each customer for “a brief description of the reason(s) for
`the return,” and to keep track of the reasons given. Descriptions provided with
`returns of the Products therefore would have disclosed the defect.
`50.
`In short, by November 2016 at the latest, information from customer
`returns, complaints directly to Harbor Freight, negative reviews on Harbor Freight’s
`website, information obtained from the CPSC, and the inability to meet the demand
`for replacement power switches, whether alone or in the aggregate, would have put
`Harbor Freight on notice of the defect.
`CLASS REPRESENTATION ALLEGATIONS
`51. Plaintiffs seek to represent a class defined as all persons in the United
`States who purchased the Products (the “Class”). Excluded from the Class are
`persons who made such purchases for purpose of resale.
`
`CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT – JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`
`
`
`15
`
`

`

`Case 8:19-cv-01203-JVS-DFM Document 1 Filed 06/17/19 Page 17 of 28 Page ID #:17
`
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`52. Plaintiffs also seek to represent a subclass of all Class Members who
`purchased the Products in the State of California (the “California Subclass”).
`Excluded from the Class are persons who made such purchases for purpose of resale.
`53. Subject to additional information obtained through further investigation
`and discovery, the above-described Classes may be modified or narrowed as
`appropriate, including through the use of multi-state subclasses.
`54. At this time, Plaintiffs do not know the exact number of members of the
`aforementioned Class and Subclass (“Class Members” and “Subclass Members,”
`respectively); however, given the nature of the claims and the number of retail