 The Q50 is a luxury sedan that debuted in the United States in  August 2013.  Since then, it has become Infiniti’s best-selling vehicle in the  United States.  More than 40,000 Q50s have been sold in the United States since  its introduction.    This action is brought as a class action pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and (b)(3), on behalf of a Class defined as follows:  All persons and entities that purchased or leased a 2014  Infiniti Q50 for end use and not for resale.  Excluded from the Class are: (i) Defendant and its officers and directors,  agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, authorized distributors and dealers, (ii) all Class  Members that timely and validly request exclusion from the Class, and (iii) the  Judge presiding over this action.    Plaintiffs also seek certification under Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a) and  (b)(3) of the following proposed state classes (“State Classes”):  All persons and entities that purchased or leased a 2014  Infiniti Q50 for end us and not for resale in the State of California.  All persons and entities that purchased or leased a 2014  Infiniti Q50 for end use and not for resale in the State of Nevada.  Excluded from the State Classes are: (i) Defendant and its officers and  directors, agents, affiliates, subsidiaries, authorized distributors and dealers, (ii)  all State Class Members that timely and validly request exclusion from the State  Class, and (iii) the Judge presiding over this action.    Certification of Plaintiffs’ claims for classwide treatment is  appropriate because Plaintiffs can prove the elements of their claims on a  classwide basis using the same evidence as would be used to prove those  elements in individual actions alleging the same claims.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    Each Plaintiff is a “consumer” within the meaning of the Magnuson  Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).    Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the  Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4)-(5).    The Q50 is a “consumer product” within the meaning of the  Magnuson Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).    15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1) provides a cause of action for any consumer  that is damaged by the failure of a warrantor to comply with a written warranty.    Defendant’s representations as described herein, such as on  Defendant’s website and brochures, that Plaintiffs and the other Class members  would be able to access the Advertised App/Functions through Q50s’  InTouch  are written warranties within the meaning of the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act,   Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    Plaintiffs and the other Class members individually formed  contracts with Defendant for the purchase of a Q50 equipped with an InTouch  system.    The contract included terms regarding delivery of an InTouch  system capable of running the Advertised Apps/Functions on a certain date.   Plaintiffs and the other Class members bargained for this term in the sales  contract.    Defendant breached each of these contracts when it failed to deliver  an InTouch system capable of running the Advertised Apps/functions on that  certain date.  Although Defendant eventually delivered portions of the  Advertised Apps/Functions, the delivery was nearly a year overdue and did not  meet specifications.  Plaintiffs and the other Class members have been without  the Advertised Apps/Functions from the time they took delivery to about late- September 2014 at the earliest.  Certain features, including but not limited to  certain music apps and e-mail capabilities are still unavailable or substandard.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.    Defendant’s conduct, as described herein, in misrepresenting Q50s’  technological features and emphasizing Q50s’ InTouch system as capable of  performing certain tasks it was unable to perform, while omitting the fact that  InTouch could not access the Advertised Apps/Functions, violates the California  Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et seq.   Specifically, Defendant violated the CLRA through advertisements, promotional  material, packaging materials, such as vehicle inserts, and statements by  salespersons when it portrayed the InTouch system as capable of interfacing with  several popular mobile phone apps, by engaging in the following practices  proscribed by California Civil Code § 1770(a) in transactions that were intended  to result in, and did result in, the sale of the product:  a.  representing that the Q50 has characteristics, uses and  benefits which it does not have;  b.  representing that the Q50 is of a particular standard, quality,  or grade, when it is not;  c.  advertising the Q50 with intent not to sell it as advertised; and  d.  representing that the Q50 has been supplied in accordance  with previous representations when it has not.    Plaintiffs reallege and incorporate by reference the preceding  paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.   Breach of Express Warranty  (National Class or, in the Alternative, the California Class)   Breach of Contract under California Law  (National Class or, in the Alternative, the California Class)   The Q50 and the InTouch System   Violation of the California Consumers Legal Remedies Act  (National Class or, in the Alternative, the California Class)   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law  (National Class or, in the Alternative, the California Class)   Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act  (National Class or, in the Alternative, Each State Class)  