1

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA

RICHARD PATTERSON, an 

individual; THEODORE ZYWICKI, 

JR., an individual; STEPHANIE 

IHLENFELD, an individual; KIM 

OLINS, an individual; and 

KIMBERLY MURRELL, an 

individual.

Individually and on Behalf of All 

Others Similarly Situated,

Plaintiffs,

v.

PAIGE, LLC, a California limited 

liability company; and NORDSTROM, 

INC., a Washington corporation,

 Defendants.

 CASE NO:

 CLASS ACTION

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT AND JURY TRIAL DEMAND

Plaintiffs RICHARD PATTERSON (“Patterson”), THEODORE ZYWICKI, JR. 

(“Zywicki”), STEPHANIE IHLENFELD (“Ihlenfeld”), KIM OLINS (“Olins”), and 

KIMBERLY MURRELL (“Murrell”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”), on behalf of themselves

and all others similarly situated, allege as follows:

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 1 of 17
2

I. INTRODUCTION

1. This is a nationwide class action seeking monetary damages, 

restitution, injunctive and declaratory relief from Defendants PAIGE, LLC 

(“PAIGE”) and NORDSTROM, INC. (“Nordstrom”) (collectively “Defendants”), 

arising from their advertising, marketing, and sale of purportedly high quality, 

“luxury” jeans which quickly become worthless for their intended purpose as 

fashionable clothing, due to a defect in their design and/or manufacture.

2. Defendant PAIGE designs, manufactures, and distributes a collection 

of designer denim jeans (the “PAIGE Jeans”). PAIGE distributes and promotes the 

PAIGE Jeans throughout the United States and sells the PAIGE Jeans through its 

own retail stores as well as through retail partners, including Defendant Nordstrom.

The PAIGE Jeans sell for a range of prices, but many pairs sell for over $200 each. 

3. To justify these significant prices, the Defendants market both the 

supposed superior quality and luxury status of the PAIGE Jeans. For example, 

certain models of the PAIGE Jeans are sold by both Defendants with a hangtag 

boasting that “PAIGE redefines the standards of luxury ...” and promises that “this 

fabric features an innovative formula that yields luxuriously soft denim that won’t 

stretch out.” Because this hangtag is placed on the PAIGE Jeans in the retail stores, 

consumers are reasonably expected to view these statements and rely upon them 

when choosing to purchase the Jeans. 

4. In fact, the PAIGE Jeans are defectively manufactured and/or 

designed, such that the supposedly “luxurious” denim fabric warps and “puckers,” 

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 2 of 17
3

creating ripples across the surface of the jeans which in turn renders the jeans 

unsightly, aesthetically unappealing, and ultimately useless for their intended 

purpose as luxury fashionwear:

5. Plaintiffs bring this action pursuant to Rule 23 of the Federal Rules of 

Civil Procedure to redress Defendants’ failure to disclose and provide adequate 

warning to their customers that the PAIGE Jeans are defective and unfit for their

ordinary and intended use, and for their sale of the defective “luxury” clothing to 

unwitting consumers.

II. THE PARTIES

6. Plaintiff Patterson is an adult resident of the state of Florida who 

resides in Miami, Miami-Dade County.

7. Plaintiff Zywicki is an adult resident of the state of Michigan who 

resides in Rochester, Oakland County.

8. Plaintiff Ihlenfeld is an adult resident of the state of Texas who resides 

in Austin, Travis County.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 3 of 17
4

9. Plaintiff Olins is an adult resident of the state of California who resides 

in West Hills, Los Angeles County.

10. Plaintiff Murrell is an adult resident of the state of California who 

resides in Costa Mesa, Orange County.

11. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant 

PAIGE is a California limited liability company with its principal place of business 

at 10119 Jefferson Blvd., Culver City, California. PAIGE conducts extensive 

business throughout the United States where it distributes, promotes and sells its 

products to consumers through brick-and-mortar retail stores directly managed by 

PAIGE as well as through retail partners such as Nordstrom.

12. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that Defendant 

Nordstrom is a Washington corporation with its principal place of business at 1617 

6th Ave, Seattle, Washington. Nordstrom conducts extensive business throughout 

the United States where it sells products to consumers through more than 350 retail 

stores, including approximately 22 locations in Florida.

III. JURISDICTION AND VENUE

13. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction under the Class Action

Fairness Act of 2005 (“CAFA”), 28 U.S.C. §§1332(d)(2) and (6) because (i) the 

aggregate amount in controversy exceeds $5,000,000.00 exclusive of interest and 

costs, and (ii) there is minimal diversity because members of the proposed Class 

(including several of the Plaintiffs) are citizens of a State different from that of any 

Defendant.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 4 of 17
5

14. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants by virtue of their

doing substantial business in this Judicial District, including the sale of the PAIGE 

Jeans in multiple brick and mortar retail locations in the District.

15. Venue is proper in this Judicial District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. 

Defendants conducted, and continue to conduct, business in this District, and a 

substantial part of the acts and omissions giving rise to the claims occurred, at least 

in part, within this District. Defendants market, advertise, and sell the defective 

products and otherwise conduct extensive business within this District.

IV. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

A. Facts Relevant to All Claims and Parties:

16. As alleged above, Defendants represent to the public that the PAIGE 

Jeans – which may be sold for more than two hundred dollars each – are high quality 

fashion clothing, fit for such purposes. Thus, Defendants are impliedly warranting 

that the PAIGE Jeans are suitable for regular and expected use as aesthetically 

pleasing, fashionable clothing.

17. The PAIGE Jeans, however, are unfit for such use, because their

purportedly “innovative” fabric develops unsightly “puckering” and ripples across 

the surface after normal use, ruining the aesthetic purpose behind purchasing such 

a purportedly “luxury” article of designer clothing. This puckering occurs regardless 

of the manner in which the Jeans are laundered, and thus cannot be blamed on the 

consumers – it is a defect in the design or manufacturing of the Jeans themselves.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 5 of 17
6

B. Facts Specific to Plaintiffs:

18. Plaintiff Patterson is a resident of Miami, Florida. Within the past 

three years, Patterson purchased a pair of PAIGE Jeans from Nordstrom, which 

thereafter began displaying the “puckering” defect described above.

19. Plaintiff Zywicki is a resident of Rochester, Michigan. Approximately 

two years ago, Zywicki purchased multiple pairs of PAIGE Jeans from Nordstrom 

stores (both Nordstrom and Nordstrom Rack-branded locations), which thereafter 

began displaying the “puckering” defect described above.

20. Plaintiff Ihlenfeld is a resident of Austin, Texas. Within the past year, 

Ihlenfeld purchased a pair of PAIGE Jeans from PAIGE’s retail store in Austin, 

Texas. Approximately one month after the purchase, the Jeans began displaying the 

“puckering” defect described above, despite Ihlenfeld never having placed the Jeans 

in a clothes dryer.

21. Plaintiff Olins is a resident of West Hills, California. Within the past 

four years, Olins purchased multiple pairs of PAIGE Jeans from Nordstrom, which 

thereafter began displaying the “puckering” defect described above, despite Olins 

never having placed any of the Jeans in a clothes dryer.

22. Plaintiff Murrell is a resident of Costa Mesa, California. Within the 

past three years, Murrell purchased multiple pairs of PAIGE Jeans from Nordstrom, 

which thereafter began displaying the "puckering" defect described above within 

approximately three to four months of their purchase, and despite having been worn 

only about four times. Although Murrell used a clothes dryer on certain pairs of 

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 6 of 17
7

PAIGE Jeans and not others, all of her Jeans displayed the “puckering” defect, 

confirming that the defect is not a result of consumers’ actions.

C. Facts Common to All Class Members:

23. Unfortunately, Plaintiffs are not uniquely situated. The claims of the 

proposed Class all derive from Defendants’ sale of the defective PAIGE Jeans and 

deceptive advertising concerning the purported quality of such goods.

24. Defendants engaged in uniform and standardized conduct toward the 

proposed Class. They did not differentiate, in degree of care or candor, in their

actions or inactions, or in the content of their statements or omissions, among 

individual Class members.

25. The relevant, objective facts on these subjects are the same for all Class 

members. 

26. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this lawsuit as a class action on their own 

behalf, and on behalf of all other persons similarly situated, as members of the 

proposed Class identified below, pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a), 

(b)(3), and/or (c)(4). 

27. This action satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, 

adequacy, predominance, and superiority requirements of these provisions as 

described below.

V. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS (LR 23.1):

28. Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and Local Rule 23.1, 

Plaintiffs bring this class action individually and on behalf of the following proposed 

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 7 of 17
8

nationwide class of persons (the “Class”), initially defined as all persons or entities 

in the United States who made retail purchases of one or more pairs of PAIGE Jeans

from a physical retail store operated by one of the Defendants, where such purchase 

occurred during the period between four years prior to the filing of this action and 

the date of the final disposition of this action, and/or such subclasses as the Court 

may deem appropriate (the “Class”).

29. The Class does not include Defendants; any affiliate, parent or 

subsidiary of any of the Defendants; any entity in which any of the Defendants has

a controlling interest; any officer, director or employee of any of the Defendants; any 

successor or assign of any of the Defendants; Plaintiffs’ counsel or anyone employed 

by Plaintiffs’ counsel in this action and their immediate families; any judge to whom 

this case is assigned and any member of their immediate family and staff; 

governmental entities; or individuals who have personal injury claims as a result of 

conduct and/or defects alleged herein.

30. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or supplement the Class 

descriptions with greater specificity or further division into subclasses or limitation 

to certain issues, after conducting discovery in this matter.

31. Plaintiffs also reserve the right to amend or supplement the definition 

of the PAIGE Jeans to, e.g., include additional products with similar defects, after 

conducting discovery in this matter.

32. Numerosity of the Class – The members of the Class are so 

numerous that their individual joinder is impracticable. Plaintiffs are informed and 

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 8 of 17
9

believe that Defendants sold tens of thousands of pairs of the PAIGE Jeans during 

the relevant time period. Disposition of the claims in a class action context will 

provide substantial benefits to the parties and the Court.

33. Commonality and Predominance – Common questions of law and 

fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over questions affecting 

only individual Class members, as is required by Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(2) and (b)(3). 

These common questions include, but are not limited to:

a. Whether the PAIGE Jeans are defectively designed or manufactured;

b. Whether such defects constitute a breach of the implied warranties 

inherent in the sale of such products;

c. Whether Defendants are merchants with respect to goods of the kind 

of the PAIGE Jeans;

d. Whether Defendants made misleading or fraudulent representations 

regarding the quality of the PAIGE Jeans to consumers;

e. Whether Defendants were unjustly enriched by their sale of the PAIGE 

Jeans to consumers;

f. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members suffered out-of-pocket losses as 

a result of Defendants’ actions and/or inactions alleged herein;

g. Whether Plaintiffs and Class members are entitled to damages and 

monetary relief and, if so, in what amount; and

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 9 of 17
10

h. Whether a declaration and/or injunction is appropriate to prevent 

Defendants from making future false or misleading representations 

regarding the PAIGE Jeans.

34. Typicality – The claims of the representative Plaintiffs are typical of 

the claims of each member of the Class, thus satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(3).

Plaintiffs, like all other members of the Class, sustained damages arising from 

Defendants’ breaches of the implied warranty in the PAIGE Jeans, from Defendants’ 

misleading or fraudulent statements regarding the quality of the PAIGE Jeans, and 

from Defendants’ unjust enrichment, as alleged herein. The representative 

Plaintiffs and the members of the Class were and are similarly or identically harmed 

by the same misconduct engaged in by Defendants. Plaintiffs’ claims arise from the 

same practices and course of conduct that give rise to the claims of all other 

members of the Class.

35. Adequacy – The representative Plaintiffs will fairly and adequately 

represent and protect the interests of the Class members and have retained counsel 

who are experienced and competent trial lawyers in complex litigation and class 

action litigation, thus satisfying Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(4). There are no material 

conflicts between the claims of the representative Plaintiffs and the members of the 

Class that would make class certification inappropriate. Counsel for the Class will 

vigorously assert the claims of all Class members.

36. Superiority – This suit may be maintained as a class action under 

Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(b)(3), because a class action is superior to any other available 

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 10 of 17
11

means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this dispute and no unusual 

difficulties are likely to be encountered in the management of this class action. The 

damages suffered by individual Class members are small in comparison to the 

burden and expense of individually litigating each claim. Further, it would be 

virtually impossible for the Class members to individually redress effectively the 

wrongs done to them. Even if Class members themselves could afford such 

individual litigation, the court system could not. In addition, individualized 

litigation increases the delay and expense to all parties and to the court system 

resulting from the legal and factual issues of the case. Individualized litigation also 

presents a potential for inconsistent or contradictory judgments. By contrast, the 

class action device presents far fewer management difficulties; allows the hearing 

of claims which might otherwise go unaddressed because of the relative expense of 

bringing individual lawsuits; and provides the benefits of single adjudication, 

economies of scale, and comprehensive supervision by a single court.

37. Ascertainability: Upon information and belief, the precise number of 

Class members may be ascertained from Defendants’ sales records. Plaintiffs

contemplate the eventual issuance of notice to the proposed Class members setting 

forth the nature of the instant action. Upon information and belief, Class members 

may be notified of this action by recognized, Court-approved notice dissemination 

methods, which may include U.S. mail, electronic mail, Internet postings, social

media, and published notices, in addition to Defendants’ business records.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 11 of 17
12

VI. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF:

COUNT ONE

Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability

(Against Defendant PAIGE)

38. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully stated herein. 

39. Plaintiff Ihlenfeld asserts this claim on behalf of herself and all 

members of the Class who purchased a pair of PAIGE Jeans from physical retail 

stores managed by PAIGE, whether in Florida or in any other state having similar 

laws regarding the breach of implied warranty.

40. PAIGE is a merchant with respect to goods of the kind of the PAIGE 

Jeans.

41. The PAIGE Jeans sold to Ihlenfeld and the above-described members 

of the Class violated the implied warranty of merchantability. Because of the abovedescribed defect, they are not merchantable and not fit for the ordinary purposes for 

which such goods are used, i.e., as luxury fashion clothing.

42. As a direct and proximate result of PAIGE’s breaches of the implied 

warranty, Ihlenfeld and the above-described members of the Class received goods 

whose latent defect substantially impairs their value to consumers such as 

themselves.

43. Ihlenfeld and the above-described members of the Class were unaware 

of this defect and reasonably could not have discovered it before they purchased 

their PAIGE Jeans.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 12 of 17
13

44. Ihlenfeld and the above-described members of the Class seek damages 

based on the diminished value of their PAIGE Jeans as a result of this latent and 

material defect, and all other damages allowable under law.

COUNT TWO

Breach of the Implied Warranty of Merchantability

(Against Defendant Nordstrom)

45. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully stated herein. 

46. Plaintiffs Patterson, Zywicki, Olins and Murrell assert this claim on 

behalf of themselves and all members of the Class who purchased a pair of PAIGE 

Jeans from Nordstrom’s retail stores, whether in Florida or in any other state 

having similar laws regarding the breach of implied warranty.

47. Nordstrom is a merchant with respect to goods of the kind of the 

PAIGE Jeans.

48. The PAIGE Jeans sold to Patterson, Zywicki, Olins and Murrell and 

the above-described members of the Class violated Nordstrom’s implied warranty of 

merchantability. Because of the above-described defect, they are not merchantable 

and not fit for the ordinary purposes for which such goods are used, i.e., as luxury

fashion clothing.

49. As a direct and proximate result of Nordstrom’s breach of the implied 

warranty, Patterson, Zywicki, Olins and Murrell and the above-described members 

of the Class received goods whose latent defect substantially impairs their value to 

consumers such as themselves.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 13 of 17
14

50. Patterson, Zywicki, Olins and Murrell and the above-described 

members of the Class were unaware of this defect and reasonably could not have 

discovered it before they purchased their PAIGE Jeans.

51. Patterson, Zywicki, Olins and Murrell and the above-described 

members of the Class seek damages based on the diminished value of their PAIGE 

Jeans as a result of this latent and material defect, and all other damages allowable 

under law.

COUNT THREE

In the Alternative, Unjust Enrichment

(Against All Defendants)

52. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully stated herein. 

Plaintiffs plead this count in the alternative should Plaintiffs’ statutory claims fail 

or be dismissed.

53. Plaintiffs assert this claim on behalf of themselves and all Class 

members nationwide.

54. Defendants knew or reasonably should have known of the defect in the 

PAIGE Jeans but failed to disclose the defect to Plaintiffs and the Class either at or 

before the time of purchase.

55. Plaintiffs and the Class conferred upon Defendants payment for these 

products, which were benefits that were clearly non-gratuitous. They did so without 

knowledge of the defects affecting the products, which rendered them effectively 

useless for their purpose as luxury fashion clothing.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 14 of 17
15

56. Defendants appreciated, accepted and retained the non-gratuitous 

benefits conferred by Plaintiffs and the Class despite the defects in the PAIGE 

Jeans. Retaining the non-gratuitous benefits conferred upon Defendants by 

Plaintiffs and the Class under these circumstances is unjust and inequitable, and 

Defendants should pay restitution.

COUNT FOUR

Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act

(Against All Defendants)

57. Plaintiffs repeat, re-allege, and incorporate by reference the 

allegations contained in paragraphs 1 through 37 as though fully stated herein. 

58. Patterson asserts this claim on behalf of himself and all Class members 

who are residents of Florida.

59. The Florida Unfair and Deceptive Trade Practices Act (“FUDTPA”) 

prohibits deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any business, trade or

commerce or in the furnishing of any service in the state.

60. Defendants materially misrepresented the quality of the PAIGE Jeans, 

including by failing to disclose the latent defect which would quickly render the 

products useless as luxury, designer fashion clothing.

61. Defendants’ material misrepresentations and omissions were made in 

the course of their respective businesses.

62. Defendants’ actions and/or inactions directly injured Patterson and the

members of the Class who are Florida residents, as described herein.

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 15 of 17
16

63. Patterson and the above-described members of the Class seek to recover

all permitted damages and their attorneys’ fees caused by Defendants’ violations of 

the FUDTPA.

VII. PRAYER FOR RELIEF: 

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs, individually and on behalf of all others similarly 

situated, pray for a judgment against Defendants as follows: 

A. For an order certifying the Class, appointing Plaintiffs as 

Representatives of the Class, and appointing the undersigned law firms as counsel

for the Class; 

B. For compensatory damages to the extent permitted by law in an amount 

to be proven at trial;

C. For an order requiring Defendants to disgorge all profits, benefits, and 

other compensation they obtained from the sale of these defective products, including 

actual damages, and to pay restitution to Plaintiffs and the Class;

D. For an order declaring, adjudging, and decreeing the conduct of the 

Defendants as alleged herein to be unlawful, unfair and/or deceptive, and enjoining 

any such future conduct;

E. For payment of Plaintiffs’ costs and expenses of suit herein incurred

including reasonable attorneys’ fees as permitted by law; 

F. Both pre-and post-judgment interest on any amounts awarded; and 

G. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem proper. 

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 16 of 17
17

VIII. DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL: 

Plaintiffs and the Class hereby demand trial by jury of all issues triable by 

right. 

Dated: December 22, 2022 Respectfully submitted, 

/s/ Marcus W. Corwin, Esq.

Marcus W. Corwin, Esq. (Bar #764647)

MARCUS W. CORWIN, P.A. d/b/a CORWIN 

LAW

6501 Congress Avenue, Suite 100

Boca Raton, FL 33487

Telephone: 561.482.3636

Facsimile: 561.482.5414

mcorwin@corwinlawfirm.com

Jeffrey C. Schneider, Esq. (Bar #933244)

Victor Petrescu, Esq. (Bar #85268)

LEVINE KELLOGG LEHMAN SCHNEIDER + 

GROSSMAN LLP

100 SE 2nd Street, 36th Floor

Miami, FL 33131

Telephone: 305.403.8788

Facsimile: 305.403.8789

jcs@lklsg.com

vp@lklsg.com

Attorneys for Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class

Case 9:22-cv-81973-AMC Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 12/22/2022 Page 17 of 17