`
`Robert J. Carlson, WSBA #18455
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`701 Pike Street, Ste. 1600
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Phone: (206) 315-4001
`carlson@leehayes.com
`
`Sarah E. Elsden, WSBA #51158
`Caleb Hatch, WSBA #51292
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Ave. Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`Telephone: (509) 324-9256
`sarah.elsden@leehayes.com
`caleb.hatch@leehayes.com
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`EASTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON
`
`CASE NO. 2:21-cv-00080
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`FOX’S SPOKANE DENTURE
`CLINIC, INC., a Washington
`corporation; MARICONDIA DENTAL,
`PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`d/b/a A.Q. DENTURE AND DENTAL
`IMPLANT CENTER, a Nevada
`professional corporation,
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`NOVEL TECHNOLOGIES, INC. d/b/a
`IVORY DIGITAL DENTURES, a
`Canadian corporation,
`
`Defendant.
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`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
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.2 Page 2 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`Plaintiffs Fox’s Spokane Denture Clinic, Inc. and Maricondia Dental, P.C.
`
`d/b/a A.Q. Denture and Implant Center (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), through their
`
`attorneys, bring this Complaint against Defendant Novel Technologies, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Ivory Digital Dentures (“Defendant”), and allege as follows:
`
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`
`1.
`
`This is an action for breach of contract under the Uniform Commercial
`
`Code; breach of the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing; unjust
`
`enrichment; fraudulent and negligent misrepresentation; violation of
`
`the
`
`Washington Consumer Protection Act, R.C.W.A. 19.86.020 et seq.; violation of the
`
`Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NRS 598.0903 et seq.; and breach of
`
`express warranty and implied warranties of merchantability and for a particular
`
`purpose related to the advertisement and sale of defective software related to
`
`fabrication of denture products.
`
`PARTIES
`
`2.
`
`Fox’s Spokane Denture Clinic, Inc. (“Fox’s Spokane”) is a Washington
`
`corporation in good standing with its principal place of business located in Spokane,
`
`17
`
`Washington.
`
`3. Maricondia Dental, Professional Corporation d/b/a A.Q. Denture and
`
`Implant Center (“A.Q. Denture”) is a Nevada professional corporation in good
`
`standing with its principal place of business located in Henderson, Nevada.
`
`4. On information and belief, Defendant Novel Technologies, Inc. d/b/a
`
`Ivory Digital Dentures (“Defendant”) is an Ontario business corporation with its
`
`COMPLAINT - 1
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.3 Page 3 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`principal place of business located at 11 Denmark Crescent, Toronto, Ontario,
`
`2
`
`Canada.
`
`3
`
`4
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`5.
`
`This Court has diversity jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because
`
`5
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendant are citizens of different states and foreign states and the
`
`6
`
`amount in controversy exceeds $75,000.
`
`7
`
`6.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendant because it
`
`8
`
`contracted with a business within this District and provided services related to that
`
`9
`
`contract in this District, which forms part of the basis of the claims at issue.
`
`10
`
`Defendant advertises and promotes its business in the United States through trade
`
`11
`
`shows and on its website. Defendant has traveled to the United States and marketed,
`
`12
`
`advertised, and sold products to United States consumers, provided professional
`
`13
`
`services in this District, and the effects of Defendant’s unlawful conduct are felt in
`
`14
`
`this District.
`
`15
`
`7.
`
`The Court also has personal jurisdiction over Defendant pursuant to
`
`16
`
`Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 4(k)(2) because Defendant is not subject to
`
`17
`
`jurisdiction in any state’s courts of general jurisdiction, and exercising jurisdiction
`
`18
`
`is consistent with the United States Constitution and laws.
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`8. Venue in this District is proper under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b).
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`9.
`
`Fox’s Spokane is a denture clinic located in Spokane, Washington.
`
`22
`
`Fox’s Spokane provides valuable and necessary custom denture products and
`
`23
`
`services to its clients in Washington.
`
`COMPLAINT - 2
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.4 Page 4 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`10.
`
`A.Q. Denture is a denture clinic located in Henderson, Nevada.
`
`2
`
`Similarly, A.Q. Denture provides valuable and necessary custom denture products
`
`3
`
`and services to its clients in Nevada.
`
`4
`
`11.
`
`In October 2018, representatives of Fox’s Spokane Denture Clinic and
`
`5
`
`A.Q. Denture and Implant Center separately attended a denture professional trade
`
`6
`
`show in Las Vegas, Nevada as guests.
`
`7
`
`12.
`
`Defendant, through its employee representatives and/or owners
`
`8
`
`Sholomo Sharer and Benjamin Sharer, attended the trade show as a vendor exhibitor
`
`9
`
`to market a 3D denture system Defendant referred to as the “Denture System in a
`
`10
`
`Box” (the “Accused Product”).
`
`11
`
`13.
`
`Defendant, both orally and in its marketing materials, represented to
`
`12
`
`Plaintiffs that the Accused Product, comprised of software, a 3D printer, resin, and
`
`13
`
`face mapping tool, among other components, could produce full, complete,
`
`14
`
`workable, and superior denture sets in three hours or less, and the entire denture
`
`15
`
`process, from initial visit to denture fitting, would take under a half day to complete.
`
`16
`
`14.
`
`Defendant, both orally and in its marketing materials, stated that the
`
`17
`
`resulting complete set of dentures would be completely safe and are as hard as
`
`18
`
`Lucitone 199 resin.
`
`19
`
`15.
`
`Defendant, both orally and in its marketing materials, stated that the
`
`20
`
`resin material included in the Accused Product was already approved by the FDA.
`
`21
`
`16.
`
`Based on those representations and other representations made in its
`
`22
`
`marketing materials, Defendant enticed Fox’s Spokane and A.Q. Denture to
`
`23
`
`purchase Defendant’s Accused Product at the trade show in Las Vegas, Nevada.
`
`COMPLAINT - 3
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.5 Page 5 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`17.
`
`On October 12, 2018, in reliance on Defendant’s representations,
`
`2
`
`warranties, statements, and promises – which turned out to be false – Fox’s Spokane
`
`3
`
`and A.Q. Denture each entered into separate contracts with Defendant to purchase
`
`4
`
`the Accused Product for $66,000 United States dollars.
`
`5
`
`18.
`
`Subsequent to the purchases of the Accused Product, Defendant’s
`
`6
`
`representatives, including Benjamin Sharer, Elias Barroeta, Jessica Mazzaferro,
`
`7
`
`and/or Erissa Sliwinski, traveled to Plaintiffs’ respective business locations in
`
`8
`
`Spokane, Washington and Henderson, Nevada to install the Accused Product and to
`
`9
`
`provide hands-on training.
`
`10
`
`19.
`
`Despite its promises and representations, Defendant did not produce a
`
`11
`
`full set of dentures at Fox’s Spokane or at A.Q. Denture during the on-site training
`
`12
`
`sessions.
`
`13
`
`20.
`
`Fox’s Spokane and A.Q. Denture have not been able to manufacture a
`
`14
`
`single complete set of properly fitted dentures fit for consumer use, rendering the
`
`15
`
`Accused Product worthless.
`
`16
`
`21.
`
`The Accused Product does not function as advertised and the virtual
`
`17
`
`try-on feature does not work.
`
`18
`
`22.
`
`The Accused Product does not create precise bases or correctly set teeth
`
`19
`
`and the face scan function does not match the face tracking function.
`
`20
`
`23.
`
`Defendant represented that printed denture bases would have a smooth
`
`21
`
`exterior finish and eliminate the need for a denture technician, but that
`
`22
`
`representation also turned out to be false. Instead, the denture bases require hand
`
`23
`
`finishing and an increase in overall denturist time and cost.
`
`COMPLAINT - 4
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.6 Page 6 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`24.
`
`The Accused Product does not function to create a finished denture set
`
`2
`
`that can be delivered to the patient in under one half day, contrary to the advertised
`
`3
`
`representations of Defendant, and cannot manufacture a complete set of properly
`
`4
`
`fitted dentures, let alone in under three hours, as Defendant claimed and advertised.
`
`5
`
`25.
`
`The Accused Product does not produce denture sets that equal the
`
`6
`
`strength of Lucitone 199. Instead, the produced material is prone to shattering such
`
`7
`
`that it endangers a user.
`
`8
`
`26.
`
`Despite Defendant’s express representation that the resin used with the
`
`9
`
`Accused Product was approved for use by the FDA in the United States, Plaintiffs
`
`10
`
`have since learned Defendant has not obtained a single FDA approval for the
`
`11
`
`Accused Product or “all included materials,” as advertised.
`
`12
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiffs have been unable to utilize the Accused Product due, in part,
`
`13
`
`to the defective material used to build the denture products, the grave safety
`
`14
`
`concerns, and the dysfunctionality of the Accused Product overall.
`
`15
`
`28.
`
`Defendant provided Plaintiffs with a defective product that cannot
`
`16
`
`perform or be operated as represented and presents a significant safety concern to
`
`17
`
`Washington and Nevada consumers.
`
`18
`
`19
`
`29.
`
`30.
`
`The Accused Product wholly fails to meet its essential purpose.
`
`Defendant provided advertising materials and other information that
`
`20
`
`contains, among other things, materially false and deceptive representations about
`
`21
`
`the efficacy of the Accused Product, the length of time necessary for the Accused
`
`22
`
`Product to be operational, safety guarantees, and FDA and other governmental
`
`23
`
`regulatory approval misrepresentations.
`
`COMPLAINT - 5
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.7 Page 7 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`31.
`
`The cost of the Accused Products, and the interest accrued to finance
`
`2
`
`the purchases, has resulted in a monetary damage to Fox’s Spokane in the amount
`
`3
`
`of not less than $77,000 and a monetary damage to A.Q. Denture in the amount of
`
`4
`
`not less than $79,444.20, plus lost profits and other damages.
`
`COUNT I
`
`Breach of Contract
`
`32.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1-
`
`31 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`33.
`
`Plaintiff Fox’s Spokane and Defendant entered into a valid, binding
`
`contract (the “Fox Agreement”) for the Accused Product.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff A.Q. Denture and Defendant entered into a valid, binding
`
`contract (the “A.Q. Agreement”) for the Accused Product.
`
`35.
`
`Defendant is legally obligated and contractually bound to provide the
`
`promised product and software as advertised to produce a full, complete, workable,
`
`and superior set of dentures for Plaintiffs’ respective clients in three hours or less
`
`along with all promised product capabilities.
`
`36.
`
`Defendant breached the contract by, among other things, failing to fully
`
`perform and provide software with the promised capabilities and services as
`
`required by the Agreement.
`
`37.
`
`Defendant warrantied, both orally and in its marketing materials, that
`
`the Accused Product would produce a full, complete, workable, and superior set of
`
`dentures in three hours or less; the resulting complete set of dentures would be
`
`COMPLAINT - 6
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.8 Page 8 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`completely safe and as hard as Lucitone 199; and that the Accused Product and
`
`2
`
`components thereof have been approved by the FDA.
`
`3
`
`38.
`
`Defendant knew at the time of contracting the particular purpose for
`
`4
`
`which the goods were required, and that Plaintiffs relied on Defendant’s skill or
`
`5
`
`judgment to select or furnish suitable goods.
`
`6
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs have each performed as required under the Agreements by
`
`7
`
`paying to Defendant the agreed upon purchase price.
`
`8
`
`40.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the
`
`9
`
`Agreements and warranties, Fox’s Spokane and A.Q. Dental have been damaged in
`
`10
`
`an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $77,000 and $79,444.20,
`
`11
`
`respectively.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
`
`COUNT II
`
`41.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`15
`
`through 40 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`42.
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs each entered into a contractual relationship with Defendant.
`
`Defendant owned a duty of good faith to each Plaintiff.
`
`Defendant breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing
`
`19
`
`by performing in a manner that was unfaithful to and in contravention of the purpose
`
`20
`
`of the Agreements.
`
`21
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiffs’ reasonable expectations under the Agreements, in reliance
`
`22
`
`on Defendant’s material misrepresentations, were not met as a result of Defendant’s
`
`23
`
`breach of good faith inherent in the Agreements.
`
`COMPLAINT - 7
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.9 Page 9 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`46.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s breach of the implied
`
`2
`
`covenant of good faith and failing dealing, Fox’s Spokane and A.Q. Dental have
`
`3
`
`been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but not less than $77,000 and
`
`4
`
`$79,444.20, respectively.
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`COUNT III
`
`Unjust Enrichment
`
`47.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`8
`
`through 46 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`9
`
`48.
`
`Defendant has been enriched by receiving the benefit of the money each
`
`10
`
`Plaintiff paid pursuant to the Agreement and by failing to perform as promised.
`
`11
`
`49.
`
`Defendant unjustly retained the money of each Plaintiff, contrary to
`
`12
`
`fundamental principles of justice or equity and good conscience.
`
`13
`
`14
`
`50.
`
`51.
`
`Defendant has therefore been unjustly enriched to Plaintiffs’ detriment.
`
`Defendant’s actions have directly and proximately caused Fox’s
`
`15
`
`Spokane and A.Q. Dental to be damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but
`
`16
`
`not less than $77,000 and $79,444.20, respectively.
`
`17
`
`52.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s actions, it has become necessary for
`
`18
`
`Plaintiffs to retain the services of counsel to prosecute these claims and they are
`
`19
`
`entitled to any and all costs incurred herein including, but not limited to, any and all
`
`20
`
`attorneys’ fees.
`
`21
`
`/ / /
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 8
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.10 Page 10 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Fraudulent Misrepresentation
`
`53.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`4
`
`through 52 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`5
`
`54.
`
`Defendant made fraudulent representations, both orally and in its
`
`6
`
`marketing materials, that the Accused Product would produce a full, complete,
`
`7
`
`workable, and superior set of dentures for Plaintiffs’ clients in three hours or less;
`
`8
`
`that the resulting complete set of dentures are completely safe and as hard as
`
`9
`
`Lucitone 199; and that the Accused Product and all components thereof have been
`
`10
`
`approved by the FDA.
`
`11
`
`55.
`
`Defendant’s statements and representations turned out to be false and
`
`12
`
`material. The Accused Product failed to function or perform as represented by
`
`13
`
`Defendant and Defendant failed to service the software as promised.
`
`14
`
`56.
`
`Defendant knew or should have known that its representations were
`
`15
`
`false at the time the statements were made, or Defendant failed to exercise
`
`16
`
`reasonable care or competence in communicating those statements to Plaintiffs.’
`
`17
`
`57.
`
`Defendant and its agents made those statements to Plaintiffs to guide
`
`18
`
`Plaintiffs in making their respective Agreements with Defendant and so that
`
`19
`
`Plaintiffs would rely and act on the materially false representations.
`
`20
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiffs had the right to and did justifiably rely on Defendant’s false
`
`21
`
`statements and representations to Plaintiffs’ detriment.
`
`22
`
`59.
`
`Defendant’s wrongful conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’
`
`23
`
`respective damages.
`
`COMPLAINT - 9
`
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.11 Page 11 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`60.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s fraudulent
`
`2
`
`misrepresentations, Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at
`
`3
`
`trial, but in any event not less than $77,000 and $79,444.20 respectively, plus
`
`4
`
`attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`
`61.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 60 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`62.
`
`Defendant misrepresented, both orally and in the marketing materials,
`
`that the Accused Product would produce a full, complete, workable, and superior
`
`set of dentures for their clients in three hours or less; that the resulting complete set
`
`of dentures are completely safe and are as hard as Lucitone 199; and that the
`
`Accused Product and all components thereof have been approved by the FDA.
`
`63.
`
`Defendant had a duty to avoid negligent misrepresentation when it
`
`made those false and material statements and representations to induce Plaintiffs to
`
`enter into the Agreements to purchase the defective Accused Products.
`
`64.
`
`Defendant acted negligently and with reckless disregard to the truth in
`
`its representations and statements of fact.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant intended Plaintiffs to rely and act upon the materially false
`
`representations and statements of fact.
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs had the right to and did justifiably rely on Defendant’s
`
`misrepresentations, and false assertions of fact to Plaintiffs’ detriment.
`
`COMPLAINT - 10
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.12 Page 12 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`67.
`
`Defendant’s wrongful conduct was the proximate cause of Plaintiffs’
`
`2
`
`respective damages.
`
`3
`
`68.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendant’s misrepresentations,
`
`4
`
`Plaintiffs have been damaged in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event
`
`5
`
`not less than $77,000 and $79,444.20 respectively, plus attorneys’ fees and costs.
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`COUNT VI
`
`Washington Consumer Protection Act (R.C.W.A. § 19.86.020 et seq.)
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 68 as if fully set forth herein
`
`70.
`
`Defendant has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices within the
`
`meaning of the Washington Consumer Protection Act, R.C.W. § 19.86.020 et seq.
`
`by falsely advertising, marketing, offering, representing, and selling the Accused
`
`13
`
`Product.
`
`71.
`
`Among other deceptive acts and practices, Defendant falsely promoted
`
`the Accused Product as being able to produce a full set of dentures in under three
`
`hours, misrepresented the safety of the Accused Product, misrepresented
`
`governmental approval related to the Accused Product, and misrepresented the use
`
`of the Accused Product at denture clinics in the United States, despite that the
`
`product is defective and unusable.
`
`72.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful actions occurred in trade or commerce, and affect
`
`the public interest because they have led members of the public to believe the
`
`Accused Product is safe, effective, approved by governmental agencies, and in use
`
`in the United States when these representations are patently false.
`
`COMPLAINT - 11
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.13 Page 13 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`73.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful actions also affect the public interest because by
`
`2
`
`using and promoting these false representations, Defendant is wrongfully enticing
`
`3
`
`consumers to attempt to use dangerous and ineffective products.
`
`4
`
`74.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful actions also affect the public interest by causing
`
`5
`
`a misunderstanding as to the use of the Accused Product in the United States and a
`
`6
`
`misunderstanding as to the affiliation, connection, or association of Defendant with
`
`7
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`8
`
`75.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct has caused and is likely to continue to
`
`9
`
`cause substantial injury to professional denture services, the public, the trade, and
`
`10
`
`to Plaintiffs. Defendant’s conduct was and is conducted in trade and commerce and
`
`11
`
`has the potential for repetition.
`
`12
`
`76.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct has irreparably damaged Plaintiffs in
`
`13
`
`their business and property and will continue to damage Plaintiffs and the public
`
`14
`
`unless restrained by this Court. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
`
`15
`
`77.
`
`Pursuant to R.C.W § 19.86.090, Plaintiffs are entitled to, among other
`
`16
`
`things, an order permanently enjoining and restraining Defendant from continuing
`
`17
`
`their advertising, manufacturing, promoting, and/or selling the Accused Product.
`
`18
`
`78.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct has directly and proximately caused
`
`19
`
`Plaintiffs to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event
`
`20
`
`not less than $77,000 and $79,444.20 respectively, plus attorneys’ fees and costs
`
`21
`
`pursuant to R.C.W. § 19.86.090.
`
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT - 12
`
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.14 Page 14 of 21
`
`
`
`COUNT VII
`
`Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act (NRS 598.0903 et seq.)
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 78 as if fully set forth herein
`
`80.
`
`Defendant has engaged in unfair and deceptive practices within the
`
`meaning of the Nevada Deceptive Trade Practices Act, NRS 598.0903 et seq. by
`
`falsely advertising, marketing, offering, representing, and selling the Accused
`
`Product.
`
`81.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has knowingly made false
`
`representations as to the approval or certification of the Accused Product by the
`
`FDA and other regulatory agencies in violation of NRS 598.0903(2).
`
`82.
`
`Defendant has made false representations as to the affiliation,
`
`connection, or association of Defendant with Plaintiffs and misrepresentations as to
`
`the use of the Accused Product at denture clinics in the United States in violation of
`
`NRS 598.0903(3) and (4).
`
`83.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant has made false representations
`
`regarding the efficacy of the Accused Product, the strength of the resulting dentures,
`
`and the quality and approval of the resin and Accused Product as a whole in violation
`
`of NRS 598.0903(5) and (7).
`
`84.
`
`Defendant’s false statements regarding the efficacy, safety, quality, and
`
`approval of the Accused Product and resulting products also violate NRS
`
`598.0903(9) and (15).
`
`COMPLAINT - 13
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.15 Page 15 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`85.
`
`Among other deceptive practices, Defendant falsely promoted the
`
`2
`
`Accused Product as being able to produce a full set of dentures in under three hours,
`
`3
`
`misrepresented the safety of the Accused Product, misrepresented governmental
`
`4
`
`approval related to the Accused Product, and misrepresented the use of the Accused
`
`5
`
`Product at denture clinics in the United States, despite that the product is defective
`
`6
`
`and unusable.
`
`7
`
`86.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful actions have led members of the public to believe
`
`8
`
`the Accused Product is safe, effective, approved by governmental agencies, and in
`
`9
`
`use in the United States when these representations are false. By using and making
`
`10
`
`these false representations, Defendant is enticing consumers to attempt to use
`
`11
`
`dangerous and ineffective products.
`
`12
`
`87.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendant’s false and deceptive
`
`13
`
`representations were made knowingly, or were made with reckless disregard for the
`
`14
`
`truth of the matters communicated, or Defendant acted negligently in failing to
`
`15
`
`ascertain the truth of the matters communicated.
`
`16
`
`88.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct is causing and likely to cause substantial
`
`17
`
`injury to professional denture services, the public, the trade, and to Plaintiffs, was
`
`18
`
`and is conducted in trade and commerce, and has the potential for repetition.
`
`19
`
`89.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct has irreparably damaged Plaintiffs in
`
`20
`
`their business and property and will continue to damage Plaintiffs and the public
`
`21
`
`unless restrained by this Court. Plaintiffs are without an adequate remedy at law.
`
`22
`
`Pursuant to NRS 598.0979, Plaintiffs are entitled to, among other things, an order
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`COMPLAINT - 14
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.16 Page 16 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`permanently enjoining and restraining Defendant from continuing their advertising,
`
`2
`
`manufacturing, promoting, and/or selling the Accused Product.
`
`3
`
`90.
`
`Defendant’s unlawful conduct has directly and proximately caused
`
`4
`
`Plaintiffs to suffer damages in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event
`
`5
`
`not less than $77,000 and $79,444.20 respectively, plus attorneys’ fees and costs,
`
`6
`
`treble damages, and punitive damages pursuant to NRS 598.777, NRS 598.920, and
`
`7
`
`NRS 598.0999.
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`COUNT VIII
`
`Breach of Express Warranty
`
`91.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 90 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`92.
`
`Defendant entered into the Agreements with Plaintiffs for the sale of
`
`goods, software, and services.
`
`93.
`
`Defendant made an affirmation to Plaintiffs about the ease of use,
`
`functionality, and performance of the Accused Product.
`
`94.
`
`Defendants made statements, both orally and in writing, about the
`
`promised functionality and performance of the Accused Product that it would
`
`function as promised.
`
`95.
`
`These affirmations and descriptions of
`
`the functionality and
`
`performance of the Accused Product became part of the basis of the bargain between
`
`21
`
`the parties.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`COMPLAINT - 15
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.17 Page 17 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`96.
`
`The Accused Product did not conform to Defendant’s affirmations and
`
`2
`
`descriptions about the promised functionality and performance of the Accused
`
`3
`
`Product.
`
`4
`
`97.
`
`The warranty was not excluded or modified by NRS 104.2316 or
`
`5
`
`R.C.W.A. 62A.2-316.
`
`6
`
`98.
`
`As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged and
`
`7
`
`require relief in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event not less than
`
`8
`
`$77,000 and $79,444.20 respectively, plus attorneys’ fees and costs and other
`
`9
`
`damages as provided by law.
`
`COUNT IX
`
`Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability
`
`99.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 98 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`100.
`
`Plaintiff Fox’s Spokane and Defendant entered into a valid, binding
`
`contract for the Accused Product and Plaintiff A.Q. Denture and Defendant entered
`
`into a valid, binding contract for the Accused Product (collectively, the
`
`“Agreements”).
`
`101. Defendant is a merchant with respect to good of that kind.
`
`102. Defendant is legally obligated and contractually bound to provide the
`
`promised product and software as advertised to produce a full, complete, workable,
`
`and superior set of dentures for Plaintiffs’ respective clients in three hours or less
`
`along with all promised product capabilities.
`
`103. Defendant tendered good to Plaintiffs that were not fit for ordinary use.
`
`COMPLAINT - 16
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.18 Page 18 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`104. Defendant warrantied, both orally and in its marketing materials, that
`
`2
`
`the Accused Product would produce a full, complete, workable, and superior set of
`
`3
`
`dentures in three hours or less; the resulting complete set of dentures would be
`
`4
`
`completely safe and as hard as Lucitone 199; and that the Accused Product and
`
`5
`
`components thereof have been approved by the FDA.
`
`6
`
`105. Defendant knew at the time of contracting the particular purpose for
`
`7
`
`which the goods were required, and that Plaintiffs relied on Defendant’s skill or
`
`8
`
`judgment to select or furnish suitable goods.
`
`9
`
`106.
`
`Plaintiffs have each performed as required under the Agreements by
`
`10
`
`paying to Defendant the agreed upon purchase price.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`107. Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability.
`
`108.
`
`The warranty was not excluded or modified by NRS 104.2316 or
`
`13
`
`R.C.W.A. 62A.2-316.
`
`14
`
`109. As a result of Defendant’s actions, Plaintiffs have been damaged and
`
`15
`
`require relief in an amount to be determined at trial, but in any event not less than
`
`16
`
`$77,000 and $79,444.20 respectively, plus attorneys’ fees and costs and other
`
`17
`
`damages as provided by law.
`
`COUNT X
`
`Breach of Implied Warranty for a Particular Purpose
`
`110.
`
`Plaintiffs reallege each and every allegation contained in paragraphs 1
`
`through 109 as if fully set forth herein.
`
`111.
`
`Plaintiff Fox’s Spokane and Defendant entered into a valid, binding
`
`contract for the Accused Product.
`
`COMPLAINT - 17
`
`
`LEE & HAYES, P.C.
`601 W. Riverside Avenue, Suite 1400
`Spokane, Washington 99201
`P: (509) 324-9256 Fax: (509) 323-8979
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`
`
`25
`
`26
`
`
`
`Case 2:21-cv-00080-SAB ECF No. 1 filed 02/04/21 PageID.19 Page 19 of 21
`
`
`
`1
`
`112.
`
`Plaintiff A.Q. Denture and Defendant entered into a valid, binding
`
`2
`
`contract for the Accused P