 (Breach of Express Warranty)    (Breach of Implied Warranties)    (Fraudulent Concealment)    (Product Liability – Design Defect)    (Violation of Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.SC. § 2301, et seq.)   (California Unfair Competition Law – Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200, et seq.)   (Negligence)   (Violation of Consumer Legal Remedies Act – Civil Code § 1750, et seq.)    The Mini Cooper is a distinctive vehicle that has been a popular  automotive icon since the 1960s.  Defendant acquired Mini Cooper in 2002 and  marketed it as a new class of high-end vehicles that were affordable.  In 2007,  Defendant released its second generation of Mini vehicles, featuring a four-stroke  engine (the “Prince engine”).  The Defective Vehicles were manufactured with the  Prince engine.    Unlike most engines made for the consumer market, the Prince engine  uses a metal timing chain rather than a “belt” made of composite materials.  When the  Prince engine was first introduced in 2004, Defendant touted the timing chain’s  durability compared to a timing belt, and indicated that the timing chain would remain  maintenance-free throughout the full running life of the engine.  One of the features of  the Prince engine Defendant has promoted is that the timing chain and tensioner are  located inside the engine block.  However, actual road use has shown a significant  drawback to this design: if the chain fails, damage to the engine can be catastrophic.    Plaintiffs seek relief in their individual capacity and seek to represent a  class consisting of all others who are similarly situated.  Pursuant to Fed. R. Civ. P.  23(a) and (b)(2) and/or (b)(3), Plaintiffs seek certification of a class initially defined as  follows:  All persons who formerly or currently own or lease the following Mini  Cooper vehicles in California: 2007 through 2010 Hardtop (R56), 2008  through 2010 Clubman (R55), and 2009 through 2010 Convertible (R57).     Excluded from the Class are Defendant and its subsidiaries and affiliates,  Defendant’s executives, board members, legal counsel, the judges and all other court  personnel to whom this case is assigned, their immediate families, and those who  purchased the Product for the purpose of resale.    Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend or modify the Class definition with  greater specificity or division into subclasses after they have had an opportunity to  conduct discovery.    Numerosity.  Fed. R. Civ. P. 23(a)(1).  The Class is so numerous that  joinder of all members is unfeasible and not practicable.  While the precise number of  Class members has not been determined at this time, Plaintiffs are informed and  believes that many thousands of consumers have purchased the Products.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.    Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Class.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.      Defendant engaged in unlawful, unfair, and/or fraudulent conduct under  California Business & Professional Code § 17200, et seq.    Defendant’s conduct is unlawful in that it violates the Consumers Legal  Remedies Act, California Civil Code § 1750, et seq. (as set forth in the first cause of  action), and the Transportation Recall Enhancement, Accountability and  Documentation Act (the “TREAD Act”), 49 U.S.C. § 30101, et seq. (by failing to  timely inform the NHTSA of the Defect and allowing the Defective Vehicles to be sold  with the Defect).    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.      Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Class.    Defendant had a duty to its customers as a manufacturer of motor vehicles  to design, manufacture, market, and provide vehicles that, in their ordinary operation,  are reasonably safe for their intended uses.  Defendant had a duty to adequately test its  vehicles’ safety before selling millions to consumers worldwide.    Defendant had a duty to test vehicles for timing chain tensioner problems  once Defendant was on notice that its vehicles had a propensity to have timing chain  tensioner issues leading to catastrophic engine failure, which can cause bodily injury,  death, and property damage.  Moreover, Defendant had a duty to provide true and  accurate information to the public to prevent undue risks arising from the foreseeable  use of its products.    At all times relevant, Defendant sold, marketed, advertised, distributed,  and otherwise placed Defective Vehicles into the stream of commerce in an unlawful,  unfair, fraudulent, and/or deceptive manner that was likely to deceive the public.    Defendant was negligent, and breached the above duties owed to Plaintiffs  and Class members.    As direct and proximate causes of Defendant’s breaches, Plaintiffs and the  Class have been damaged including, but not limited to, the cost of repairs required due  to timing chain tensioner problems, the financial loss of owning the Defective Vehicles  that are unsafe, and being subjected to potential risk of injury.   Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.    Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.    Plaintiffs and Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the   Plaintiffs incorporate by reference and re-allege the preceding paragraphs.    Plaintiffs bring this claim individually and on behalf of the Class.    Plaintiffs, and each member of the Class, formed a contract with Defendant  at the time Plaintiffs and the other members of the Class purchased the Defective  Vehicles.  The terms of that contract include the promises and affirmations to provide  vehicles free of “defects in materials or workmanship.”  This express warranty became  part of the basis of the bargain and is part of a standardized contract between Plaintiffs  and the members of the Class on the one hand, and Defendant on the other.    All conditions precedent to Defendant’s liability under this contract have  been performed by Plaintiffs and the Class.    Plaintiffs purchased an extended, 100,000-mile warranty, which was still in  effect at the time the Defect manifested (at approximately 91,000 miles).    Defendant breached the terms of this contract, including the express  warranty, with Plaintiffs and the Class by not providing a vehicle that could provide the  benefits described above (being free from defects).    As a result of Defendant’s breach of its express warranty, Plaintiffs and the  Class have been damaged in the amount of the repair costs associated with the Defect,  as well as their vehicles’ diminished value as a result of the Defect.  SYSTEMATICALLY FAIL AND CAN CAUSE CATASTROPHIC ENGINE  FAILURE  