Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 1 of 71 PageID: 1

James E. Cecchi
Michael A. Innes
CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI, OLSTEIN,
BRODY & ANGELLO, P.C.
5 Becker Farm Road
Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: 973/994-1700
973/994-1744 (fax)

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed Classes

[Additional counsel appear on signature page.]

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

Township of Medford, Individually and) Case No.

on Behalf of All Others Similarly )
Situated, ) CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
) AND DEMAND FOR JURY
Plaintiff, )
)
vs.
)
FIELDTURF USA INC., a Florida )
Corporation, FIELDTURF INC., a )
Canadian Corporation, TARKETT, INC., )
a Canadian Corporation, and )
FIELDTURF TARKETT SAS, a French )
Corporation, )
)
Defendants. )
)
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 2 of 71 PageID: 2

Plaintiff Township of Medford (Plaintiff) hereby files this Class Action

Complaint, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, against FieldTurf USA

Inc. (FieldTurf USA), FieldTurf Inc., Tarkett, Inc., and FieldTurf Tarkett SAS

(Tarkett) (collectively, FieldTurf or Defendants). Plaintiff alleges the following

upon information and belief based on the investigation of counsel, except as to those

allegations that specifically pertain to Plaintiff, which are alleged upon personal

knowledge:

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a federal class action case involving a massive fraud committed

by an industry giant against those least able to bear the cost.

2. Between the early 2000s and 2012, FieldTurf the leading manufacturer

and seller of synthetic grass turf knowingly sold synthetic grass turf fields

containing a defective monofilament fiber (a component used in synthetic turf fields to

form the grass-like fronds) (the Evolution Fiber) to Plaintiff and hundreds of other

U.S. consumers.

3. The turf fields were sold under the various brand names, including

FieldTurf, Durspine, Duraspine Pro, Prestige, Evolution, Tarkett, and

FieldTurf Tarkett (herein after referred to collectively as, Artificial Turf Fields).

-1-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 3 of 71 PageID: 3

4. The Artificial Turf Fields were and are inherently defective due to the

inferior and defective Evolution Fiber, a defect that also renders the long-term

durability and promised performance of the fields impossible.

5. Despite knowing that the Artificial Turf Fields were defective, FieldTurf

marketed and sold its defective product with representations that they would last for

more than ten years, and would not prematurely degrade.

6. In addition, as if this were not enough, FieldTurf falsely represented that

it used 10 pounds of infill a mixture of sand and rubber granules per square foot of

the product when, in fact, FieldTurf used far less than 10 pounds per square foot of

infill in the turf that it installed. But FieldTurf nonetheless billed Plaintiff (and

Plaintiff paid) for the materials and labor associated with the infill that Plaintiff did

not receive. On information and belief, the under-filling further increased the rate of

premature degradation. Further, FieldTurf knew that providing less than 10 pounds of

infill per square foot created a harder surface that is more prone to cause serious

injuries to athletes than a properly filled surface. The under-filling increased the risk

of, among other things, concussions, and injuries to shoulders and knees.

7. Finally, FieldTurf falsely claimed that the safety studies cited in its

marketing materials to show that the Artificial Turf Fields were safer than natural

grass were independent. In truth, the studies were funded by FieldTurf.

-2-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 4 of 71 PageID: 4

8. FieldTurf is a leading manufacturer and seller of synthetic grass turf,

used in athletic fields, landscaping projects, golf courses, and more. FieldTurf

currently controls 85% of the United States market for synthetic turf fields.

FieldTurfs principal consumers are the schools, towns, and local sports organizations

across the country that buy and install FieldTurfs synthetic grass turf based on

representations, and the reasonable belief, that it will outlast and outperform real grass

turf and FieldTurfs competitors synthetic grass, thereby saving them precious money

over the duration of a fields lifespan.

9. Indeed, FieldTurfs targeted marketing and advertising was specifically

designed to establish that belief. Its website fronts a proven reputation of

trustworthiness and assures schools, towns, local sports organizations, and others that

they will indeed see a return on their substantial investment because FieldTurfs

product lasts longer and performs better than any other synthetic turf available.

FieldTurf made these same promises regarding the defective Artificial Turf Fields at

issue here. FieldTurf sold its Artificial Turf Fields to Plaintiff and hundreds of other

U.S. consumers from 2005 to 2012, all the while knowingly and actively concealing

the damning truth: its purportedly revolutionary Artificial Turf Fields were made

with a defective component material that nullified those representations and promises.

10. From 2005 through 2012, FieldTurf exclusively purchased, and

manufactured its Artificial Turf Fields with the Evolution Fiber supplied by Mattex

-3-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 5 of 71 PageID: 5

Leisure Industries (Mattex), an entity later acquired by TenCate Thiolon Middle

East, LLC (TenCate).

11. Even before FieldTurf entered into its first exclusive supply agreement

with Mattex in November 2005, FieldTurf employees were aware that the Evolution

Fiber was not properly functioning, not meeting the durability and performance

qualities FieldTurf itself tested for, and questioned whether it was the right fiber to use

in FieldTurfs product.

12. Nevertheless, in 2005 FieldTurf aggressively launched a national

marketing campaign that touted its Artificial Turf Fields durability and performance,

based on the Evolution Fiber. It claimed the Artificial Turf Fields offered extreme

performance, unmatched durability, and a ten-plus year lifespan with low maintenance

and the potential to save millions of dollars in back-end costs. Consumers, including

schools, towns, local sporting organizations, and others, relied on those

representations and paid high premiums when purchasing the Artificial Turf Fields as

a result. And sales skyrocketed.

13. By 2006, FieldTurf had irrefutable evidence that its Artificial Turf Fields

were not living up to its claims. In fact, it knew that fields it installed in 2005 and

2006 had already begun to rapidly deteriorate. Internal company documents

demonstrate that officials at FieldTurf considered the deterioration to be a crisis that

could cost the company hundreds of millions in warranty claims and replacements.

-4-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 6 of 71 PageID: 6

Between 2006 and the time in 2012 when FieldTurf finally discontinued selling the

Artificial Turf Fields, the evidence mounted that the fields could not maintain

performance or durability anywhere close to the ten-plus years promised.

14. In 2010, FieldTurfs own testing confirmed that the premature

deterioration of its Artificial Turf Fields was due to the inferior chemical composition

of the Evolution Fiber that was used to manufacture the fields.

15. Rather than inform past or potential purchasers of the defective Evolution

Fiber and the threat of premature deterioration of the Artificial Turf Fields, at any

point in time, FieldTurf simply leaned into its marketing campaigns, pushing

durability, safety, performance, and a ten-plus year lifespan, while pocketing the

revenue from its sale of Artificial Turf Fields that it knew contained the defective

Evolution Fiber.

16. FieldTurf intentionally and knowingly misled consumers through outright

deception and the omission of material facts that, if known by consumers, would have

assuredly had a significant impact on its bottom line. Indeed, FieldTurfs fraud had a

devastating negative impact on the bottom line of the Plaintiff and other consumers

that spent upwards of a combined $570 million to purchase a product that was

promised to have a ten-plus year lifespan.

-5-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 7 of 71 PageID: 7

17. In December 2016, NJ Advance Media finally began to expose

FieldTurfs fraudulent scheme,1 publishing the results and details of an exhaustive six-

month investigation into FieldTurf and the prematurely deteriorating Artificial Turf

Fields.

18. FieldTurfs consumers are left dealing with the fall out of their defective

Artificial Turf Fields. Plaintiff has filed this class action lawsuit to mitigate that fall

out and restore consumers by seeking all legal and equitable relief available under

applicable statutory and common law.

JURISDICTION AND VENUE

19. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

1332(d)(2) because this action is between citizens of different states, there are more

than 100 Class members (defined below), and the matter in controversy exceeds the

sum or value of $5,000,000, exclusive of interest and costs.

20. Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. 1391. Defendants

conduct business in New Jersey, receive substantial compensation and profits from the

sale of its Artificial Turf Fields in this District, all of which contained the defective

Evolution Fiber, and have made material omissions and misrepresentations and

breached contracts and other promises and engaged in unlawful practices in this

1
See Christopher Baxter & Matthew Stanmyre, The Hundred Yard Deception, NJ
ADVANCE MEDIA, https://readymag.com/njdotcom/fieldturf/2/ (last visited June 12,
2017).

-6-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 8 of 71 PageID: 8

District, so as to subject themselves to personal jurisdiction in this District. Further,

Plaintiff is physically located and operates its business in this District, and Defendants

installed the Artificial Turf Fields on Plaintiffs property in this District.

21. Venue in this District is also proper as to the Canadian and French

FieldTurf entities because they are not residents of the U.S., and are otherwise subject

to personal jurisdiction in this District.

22. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because, as further

described herein, Defendants engage in substantial business in New Jersey, including

in this District, and/or have consented to personal jurisdiction in this District,

Defendants directed the defective Artificial Turf Fields to this District, and a

substantial portion of the wrongdoing alleged took place in this District.

PARTIES

Plaintiff

23. Plaintiff Township of Medford is located in Burlington County, New

Jersey. Plaintiff purchased a defective Artificial Turf Field from Defendants in 2006.

Defendants

24. Defendant FieldTurf USA Inc. is a Florida corporation with its principal

place of business located at 75 North Industrial Blvd., N.E., Calhoun, Georgia 30701.

FieldTurf USA markets, manufactures, sells and installs the defective Artificial Turf

Fields in New Jersey and throughout the United States.

-7-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 9 of 71 PageID: 9

25. Defendant FieldTurf Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its principal

place of business located at 8088 Montview Road, Montreal, Quebec, H4P 2L7.

Upon information and belief, FieldTurf Inc. manufactures, sells and installs defective

Artificial Turf Fields or otherwise conducts business in the United States, including

New Jersey.

26. Defendant Tarkett, Inc. is a Canadian corporation with its principal place

of business located at 8088 Montview Road, Montreal, Quebec, H4P 2L7. Upon

information and belief, Tarkett, Inc. manufactures, sells and installs defective

Artificial Turf Fields or otherwise conducts business in the United States, including

New Jersey.

27. Defendant FieldTurf Tarkett is a French corporation with its principal

place of business located at 2 Rue de lEgalite, 92748 Nanterre Cedex, France. Upon

information and belief, FieldTurf Tarkett is the parent corporation to FieldTurf USA

and was actively involved in concealing the defect from United States consumers.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

FieldTurf Today: A Reputation Built on Lies

28. FieldTurf touts itself as the world leader in artificial turf. According to

NJ Advance Media, [t]he research group IBIS World said last year that the highly

competitive U.S. artificial turf installation industry generates about $1.2 billion

annually, and that Field Turf and its parent company, Tarkett, hold the largest market

-8-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 10 of 71 PageID: 10

share.2 As of the filing of this Complaint, FieldTurf has installed over 7,000

synthetic sports fields globally,3 including 1,428 in the United States between 2005

and 2012 alone, 164 of which are installed in New Jersey.4

29. Prominently displayed on the banner page of FieldTurfs website is

FieldTurfs claim that it is the most trusted brand in the industry ostensibly due to its

Artificial Turf Fields combination of safety, performance, and durability:

When it comes to artificial turf sports fields, FieldTurf is the most trusted
brand in the industry. Whether its football, soccer, baseball or any other
sport, our turf fields will provide your athletes with the safety and
performance they need to perform at their best, while giving field owners
the durability they want to maximize the value of their investment.5

30. Indeed, FieldTurfs marketing materials claim that two independent

scientific studies show that Artificial Turf Fields are safer than natural grass.

31. Neither of these studies, however, is independent.

32. Both were funded by FieldTurf.

33. Moreover, studies that are, in fact, free of industry bias have reached a

different conclusion regarding the safety of FieldTurf as compared to natural grass.

2
Id.
3
Home, FIELDTURF, http://www.fieldturf.com/en/home (last visited June 12, 2017).
4
Christopher Baxter & Matthew Stanmyre, NJ ADVANCE MEDIA (Dec. 10, 2016),
Authorities in N.Y., N.J. Examining Conduct of Top U.S. Turf Company,
http://www.nj.com/news/index.ssf/2016/12/authorities_in_ny_nj_examining_conduct
_of_top_us_t.html.
5
FIELDTURF, supra n.3.

-9-
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 11 of 71 PageID: 11

34. The first study cited in FieldTurfs marketing materials, Incidence,

Causes, and Severity of High School Football Injuries On FieldTurf Versus Natural

Grass, was authored by Bill S. Barnhill, M.D., and Michael C. Meyers, Ph.D. and

published in August 2004 in the American Journal of Sports Medicine (hereinafter

referred to as the 2004 Study).

35. The second study cited in FieldTurfs marketing materials, Incidence,

Mechanisms, and Severity of Game-Related College Football Injuries on FieldTurf

Versus Natural Grass a 3-Year Prospective Study, was authored solely by Michael

C. Meyers, Ph.D. and published in the American Journal of Sports Medicine in 2010

(hereinafter the 2010 Study).

36. In 2013, Dr. John Orchard published a paper in the British Journal of

Sports Medicine alleging that both the 2004 Study and the 2010 Study were funded by

FieldTurf and, therefore, were not independent.

37. In that same article, Dr. Orchard cites several studies that are

independent of industry funding, including one that [e]xamined anterior cruciate

ligament (ACL) and other lower limb injury rates in the NFL on FieldTurf compared

to natural grass; the rate on FieldTurf were significantly higher.6

6
John Orchard, Research on products such as artificial turf is potentially exposed to
the same types of industry bias as research on pharmaceuticals., BR. J. SPORTS MED
2013; 47:725-726 (June 22, 2013).

- 10 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 12 of 71 PageID: 12

38. FieldTurf further holds itself out as t h e company that changed the

industry, whose reach extends not only to major sports teams, but to municipalities,

schools, like Plaintiff, and other small organizations across the United States:

Cities and schools have been benefitting from our ability to provide the
very best value for the short and long term, allowing organizations at all
levels to be able to forecast the amount of money they will save by
installing FieldTurf, the safe, long-lasting and high performing artificial
turf system.7

39. While FieldTurf admits that its synthetic grass fields come at a high price

premium on the front end, it justifies those prices with claims that consumers will save

money over the life of the product: The upfront cost is higher, but the cost savings

over time make it a much more financially-sound decision.8

40. As detailed herein, FieldTurf falsely made these same claims from 2005

through 2012 regarding the Artificial Turf Fields at issue in this Complaint, while

omitting material facts that directly precluded any possibility consumers would indeed

receive the promised return on their investment.

41. In fact, FieldTurf established its dominance in the synthetic grass fields

market, in terms of both aggregate sales dollars and the number fields installed, on the

backs of defrauded tax payers and consumers. Indeed, to this day FieldTurf boasts

7
The Company, FIELDTURF, http://www.fieldturf.com/es/artificial-turf/about-
fieldturf (last visited June 12, 2017).
8
Cost Analysis, FIELDTURF, http://www.fieldturf.com/es/fieldturf-difference/cost-
analysis (last visited June 12, 2017).

- 11 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 13 of 71 PageID: 13

that it has more fields that have lasted 10, 11, 12 or even 13 years than all than all of

[their] competitors combined, 9 but nowhere does it disclose that those fields were

and are inherently defective due to an inferior and defective component material that

renders the long-term durability and promised performance of those fields impossible.

Instead, FieldTurf maintains that it has proven to be the most durable and longest-

lasting synthetic turf system in the marketplace.10

The Artificial Turf Evolution

42. Artificial turf has been available since 1965.11 However, according to

FieldTurfs website, even though natural grass required constant maintenance and

could not withstand heavy use, it was considered by many to be the best solution for

sports fields around the world prior to FieldTurfs own revolutionary design for

artificial turf fields in the early 1990s.12

9
FAQ, FIELDTURF, http://www.fieldturf.com/en/artificial-turf/faq (last visited June
12, 2017).
10
FieldTurf launches FieldCare national maintenance program, marks another
industry first, FIELDTURF, http://www.fieldturf.com/es/artificial-turf/artificial-turf-
news/fieldturf-launches-fieldcare-national-maintenance-program-marks-another-ind
(last visited June 12, 2017).
11
Brief History of Synthetic Turf, The roots of synthetic grass. TENCATE,
http://www.tencate.com/amer/grass/synthetic-turf-101/request-a-
presentation/default.aspx (last visited June 12, 2017).
12
FIELDTURF, supra n.6.

- 12 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 14 of 71 PageID: 14

43. Former professional athletes John Gilman (Gilman) and Jean Provost

founded FieldTurf in 1994 to design and sell a new artificial turf that allegedly would

be safer for athletes than the then existing artificial turf fields13 and provide . . . high

performance and extreme durability.14 Specifically, they claimed to design a system

of turf that more closely resembled natural grass by using individual synthetic grass

fibers that are surrounded and stabilized by FieldTurfs patented mixture of sand and

rubber granules, or infill, rather than the shock pad used in more traditional systems.

Prior to installation, the synthetic grass fibers that make up FieldTurfs design are

stitched or tufted into a permeable backing material in rows according to a spacing

formula that allegedly enables cleats to penetrate the infill material rather than the

fiber on the surface of the field. This spacing formula is claimed to provide traction

and prevent player injuries.

44. FieldTurf knew that its new infill and tufts design alone could not

assure the high performance and extreme durability it promised. In fact, FieldTurf

understood, at all times, that the durability and performance of FieldTurfs Artificial

Turf Fields is and was intimately tied to the nature and properties of the fiber itself,

including the fibers component materials and the extrusion method used to

13
FieldTurf USA Inc. v. TenCate Thiolon Middle East E., LLC, No. 11-0050 (TWT)
(N.D. Ga. Mar. 1, 2011), Complaint at 22 [Dkt. No. 1].
14
FIELDTURF, supra n.6.

- 13 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 15 of 71 PageID: 15

manufacture it. As explained below, FieldTurf placed great weight on the chemical

composition of the fiber, as well as its method of extrusion, and FieldTurf deemed the

component synthetic fiber properties to be the key factors affecting the long-term

durability and performance of its finished Artificial Turf Fields.

45. Traditionally, synthetic fibers used in artificial grass field systems have

taken one of two forms: slit-film tape or monofilaments. Both are extruded from a

melted polymer mixed with a blend of other chemicals, known as a Masterbatch,

which plays a key role in determining the finished fibers durability, including its

fade-resistance and ability to withstand ultraviolet radiation. Slit-film tape fibers are

extruded into flat sheets that are approximately five feet wide and then cut into a

predetermined width and perforated by design. Monofilament fibers are made of the

same basic polymer but extruded as spaghetti-like strands, rather than flat sheets.15

46. For some time prior to 2004, FieldTurf built its artificial turf systems

using slit-film tape, which had long-term durability issues due largely to the way in

which it was manufactured and installed. During manufacturing, slit-film tape is

mechanically cut into individual tapes from the original sheet of melted polymer,

which are then cut again so that they have slits approximately 0.05 inches apart.

The tape is then twisted, tufted into the fabric backing, and coated with polyurethane.

15
Paul Steinbach, Synthetic Turf Fields Benefitting from Latest Fiber Technology,
ATHLETIC BUS. (Feb. 2011), http://www.athleticbusiness.com/Outdoor/synthetic-turf-
fields-benefitting-from-latest-fiber-technology.html.

- 14 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 16 of 71 PageID: 16

During slit-film installation, the perforations are combed through repeatedly, or

fibrillated, to form the individual filaments that will comprise the finished playing

surface. This equates to a fiber that is repeatedly split and fibrillated during both

manufacture and installation, ostensibly for a real world grass feel and look; this

repeated splitting and fibrillation inherently compromises the integrity and durability

of the finished artificial turf product.

47. A number of fiber manufacturers, including Mattex and TenCate,

developed and manufactured monofilament fiber in response to the need for a fiber

that was a more durable alternative to slit-film tape.

48. As noted above, while monofilament fiber is made from the same basic

melted polymer plus Masterbatch formula as slit-film tape, its extrusion process is

markedly different. Rather than a flat five feet wide sheet, the extrusion process for

microfilament pushes the melted polymer through a spinneret, which is a multi-

pored device designed to shape each individual fiber, resulting in individual strands of

fiber rather than a flat sheet. No further splitting or cutting is necessary, reducing

manufacturing-based premature fiber destruction. The individual strands are then

wrapped together with a wrap yarn and passed through a machine for tufting. Once

tufted, the monofilament fiber does not need to be fibrillated or untwisted prior to

installation, thereby reducing installation-based causes of premature fiber destruction.

- 15 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 17 of 71 PageID: 17

When manufactured correctly, the result, purportedly, is a more durable finished

product.

49. However, the microfilament extrusion process carries its own risks to

durability, and both the polymer and Masterbatch blends vary between

manufacturersdifferences which can lead to a pronounced impact on fiber durability

and performance. The extrusion of monofilament polyethylene fiber is a highly

technical process, which requires significant expertise and precise control of

temperature and pressure levels. Small changes in extrusion settings (e.g., line speed,

capillary throughput, or head pressure) can dramatically impact a fibers mechanical

durability and resilience. Further, if pressure and temperature are not kept under

control, meaningful damage can be done to the ultraviolet (UV) stabilizer packages

that are added to proprietary Masterbatch formulas. Adequate UV protection is

crucial to any fibers long-term durability and ensures that the extruded polymer fibers

are able to withstand long-term exposure to UV radiation, i.e., sunlight. If a fiber is

not provided with UV stabilizers of an adequate quality or amount, it will fade, split,

and break down as it is exposed to the suns rays over time.

50. Early versions of these microfilament fibers had very thin, flat blades that

were prickly to touch, and as such, they were used primarily in landscape projects. In

2003, Mattex introduced the Evolution Fiber, which had a U shape containing a

curved spine with wings, and which created a softer, more grass-like texture.

- 16 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 18 of 71 PageID: 18

51. FieldTurfs co-founder, Gilman, first learned about Mattexs new

monofilament fiber at an industry show in November 2003. FieldTurf placed an

initial order for Evolution Fiber and invited Mattexs Managing Director, Jeroen van

Balen (van Balen), to FieldTurfs office in Montreal, Canada to discuss the new

fiber.

52. In 2004, FieldTurf requested to, and did, examine the results of Mattexs

UV stability testing, which evaluated the Evolution Fibers durability, tensile strength,

and colorfastness under prolonged UV exposure. FieldTurf also outsourced its own

series of tests to examine the UV stability and durability of the Evolution Fiber.

Finally, FieldTurf conducted in-house accelerated wear testing on turf samples

constructed with Evolution Fiber, or Mad Max testing, to test for premature wear,

i.e. in the form of fibrillation or splitting.16

53. FieldTurf insisted on reviewing and conducting the preliminary testing

going to UV stability and accelerated wear because it knew, well before entering into

any agreement with Mattex for the Evolution Fiber, that chemical composition was a

key factor in the fibers ability to outlast and outperform, and therefore key to

FieldTurfs ability to maintain its marketing claims regarding unmatched durability,

extreme performance, and a long lifespan. In particular, FieldTurf understood, prior

16
TenCate Complaint at 49.

- 17 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 19 of 71 PageID: 19

to entering any agreement with Mattex, that UV degradation was a major potential

cause of premature deterioration in synthetic fibers.

54. FieldTurf and Mattex ultimately signed and entered into an exclusive

supply agreement for the Evolution Fiber on September 10, 2005 (2005 Supply

Agreement).

55. On November 29, 2006, FieldTurf and Mattex entered into another

exclusive supply agreement for the Evolution Fiber, which was extended through

subsequent amendments (2006 Supply Agreement).

56. On July 1, 2008, FieldTurf entered into a new two and one-half year

supply agreement with TenCate, whose parent company had acquired Mattex on

February 12, 2007 (2008 Supply Agreement). Upon information and belief, at all

times material herein, Mattex and/or TenCate were the exclusive suppliers of the

Evolution Fiber.

57. All Artificial Turf Fields manufactured and sold by FieldTurf between

2005 and 2012 were constructed with the defective Evolution Fiber.

58. FieldTurf had ample evidence, even before it signed its first contract with

Mattex, that the Evolution Fiber did not meet the durability and UV standards

FieldTurf knew were needed for its intended product. Certainly, by the time FieldTurf

signed the 2006 Supply Agreement and the 2008 Supply Agreement with Mattex

and/or TenCate, FieldTurf knew that the Evolution Fiber was defective and, as such,

- 18 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 20 of 71 PageID: 20

knew that its Artificial Turf Fields could not live up to its marketing claims or

consumers expectations.

FieldTurf Dominates the Artificial Turf Market

59. Beginning in 2005 and continuing through 2012, FieldTurf

manufactured, marketed, sold, and installed its Artificial Turf Fields with Evolution in

2005 under the brand names FieldTurf, Duraspine, Duraspine Pro, Prestige,

Evolution, Tarkett, and FieldTurf Tarkett.

60. FieldTurfs Artificial Turf Fields were the most expensive on the market.

The average price for an Artificial Turf Field was between $300,000 and $500,000,

with some consumers paying more than $1 million for construction and installation.

A typical field averaged about an $85,000 premium or approximately about $1 per

square foot more than the competition.17

61. FieldTurf justified this high cost by promising consumers its Artificial

Turf Fields were more durable with better performance and a longer useable life than

its competitors. For example:

(a) FieldTurfs marketing showcased high-profile, real world clients,

such as the New England Patriots, to convince consumers by way of example that its

Artificial Turf Fields were indeed worth the investment due to a longer lifespan;

17
Baxter, supra n.1.

- 19 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 21 of 71 PageID: 21

(b) FieldTurf claimed in its marketing materials that the Artificial

Turf Fields had unmatched durability and were far more resistant to UV and foot

traffic;18

(c) In a trade publication article in 2006, FieldTurfs CEO Gilman said,

[w]e anticipate that a mono surface will have a useful life longer than the 10 years we

expect from a tape filament surface;19

(d) FieldTurf wrote in a brochure for the Artificial Turf Fields that their

prior iteration, the slit-film fields, have been in the ground for over 10 years of

consistent play, season after season and that the Artificial Turf Fields are expected to

last even longer due to the obvious increase in durability of our built-in fiber

properties;20

(e) A typical FieldTurf pitch from 2005 2012 claimed its Artificial

Turf Fields would virtually eliminate the maintenance costs associated with natural

grass and could be used 12 months a year, dawn to dusk and under the lights. It

continued, [t]hese fields would also last far longer than competitor turfs and even

FieldTurfs previous products;21

18
Id.
19
Id.
20
Id.
21
Id.

- 20 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 22 of 71 PageID: 22

(f) Another typical marketing pitch claimed, [t]his added longevity

will actually allow the district to amortize the life of the field on a 10+ year basis rather

than the 8+ year life expectancy;22 and

(g) FieldTurf bolstered these claims of extreme performance and

unmatched durability with an eight-year manufacturers warranty with the reassurance

that the fields would indeed last ten years or more with little maintenance. As of the

date of filing this Complaint, FieldTurfs website advertises a similar, if not identical,

warranty:

And while youll probably never need to use it, you can rest assured that
youre protected by the industrys best warranty in the unlikely event
something goes wrong with your artificial turf system.23

62. These claims were a key differentiator between FieldTurfs Artificial

Turf Fields and other manufacturers synthetic grass products. Indeed, FieldTurfs

promises of performance, safety, durability, and an enhanced lifespan were the

primary reason consumers purchased and installed the Artificial Turf Fields at a steep

price premium.

63. Throughout its marketing of the Artificial Turf Fields, FieldTurf

knowingly concealed the products defects, as well as the falsity of the representations

22
Id.
23
Insured Warranty, FIELDTURF, http://www.fieldturf.com/en/fieldturf-
difference/insured-warranty (last visited June 12, 2017)

- 21 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 23 of 71 PageID: 23

that the product had an expected lifespan of more than 10-years. FieldTurf concealed

all of this with the intention that consumers would rely on the false and misleading

claims.

64. Marketing efforts were a success and sales skyrocketed, especially to

schools and towns in New Jersey and across the country, mostly at tax payer

expenseso much so that architects for schools and towns began writing public bid

specifications requiring monofilament fields, and sometimes demanding FieldTurf.24

Court records shows that many town and school officials relied on and used

warranties and FieldTurfs claims about fields lasting 10-plus years to win over

skeptical residents worried about the price tag. Id.

65. According to Troy Squires, FieldTurfs Senior Vice President for Sales

and Marketing from 2004 to 2009: Sales probably almost doubled in a few years . .

. Very high margins, high prices, and it was very successful.

66. Indeed, the numbers25 speak for themselves. Upon information and

belief:

(a) In 2006, FieldTurf sold 168 Artificial Turf Fields nationally,

including about 14 in New Jersey, for an estimated $67 million;

24
Baxter, supra n.1.
25
Sales and revenue figures quoted from Baxter, supra n.1.

- 22 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 24 of 71 PageID: 24

(b) In 2007, FieldTurf sold 317 Artificial Turf Fields nationally,

including about 37 in New Jersey, for an estimated $127 million;

(c) In 2008, FieldTurf sold 419 Artificial Turf Fields nationally,

including about 43 in New Jersey, for an estimated $168 million;

(d) In 2009, FieldTurf sold at least 307 Artificial Turf Fields

nationally; and

(e) In 2010, FieldTurf sold at least 164 Artificial Turf Fields

nationally.

(f) In total, FieldTurf earned approximately $572 million through the

sale of nearly 1,500 fields from 2005 through 2012, the year it discontinued the sale of

the Artificial Turf Fields at issue in this Complaint.

67. As explained in more detail below, each of the Artificial Turf Fields that

FieldTurf marketed, sold, manufactured, and/or installed were made with the same

defective Evolution Fiber, rendering the fields themselves defective and causing

significant premature deterioration, a shorter than promised lifespan, and significantly

sub-par performance.

Discovery and Omission of Truth Regarding Defective Evolution Fiber

68. As has only recently been revealed, beginning in the early 2000s

FieldTurf knew that its Artificial Turf Fields could not possibly meet the unmatched

durability, safety, and superior performance claims it made in its uniform marketing

- 23 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 25 of 71 PageID: 25

campaign to consumers in New Jersey and across the country, and from the time it

started manufacturing, marketing, selling, and installing those fields until the year it

discontinued them, FieldTurf concealed a major material truth the Artificial Turf

Fields were made with defective Evolution Fiber that offered poor UV protection and

were prone to premature deterioration, fraying, fading, matting, and fibrillating years

before their promised lifespan.

69. In fact, by early 2005, Derek Bearden, FieldTurf USAs then-Vice

President of Manufacturing at its plant in Dalton, Georgia had already noticed a drop

in the performance of the Evolution Fiber under Mad Max testing, a test FieldTurf

designed to simulate foot traffic on turf samples and assess how many cycles the

sample can withstand before showing fibrillation or splitting, as compared to the

Evolution Fiber FieldTurf had first inspected in 2003 and 2004.26

70. Additionally, Bonar Yarns, another of FieldTurfs suppliers, warned

FieldTurf in May 2005 that its own testing of the defective Evolution Fiber showed

it did not stand up well to wear and tear. Gilman emailed his director of

manufacturing that month, asking: Is it possible that we erred in our over

exuberance in the adoption of the monofilament yarns, specifically the Mattex

[Evolution Fiber] yarns?27

26
TenCate Complaint at 52.
27
Baxter, supra n.1.

- 24 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 26 of 71 PageID: 26

71. In October 2006, FieldTurfs operations director for Latin America,

Laura Braga, emailed CEO Gilman and executive director Ken Gilman (K. Gilman)

to express her concern regarding premature deterioration in some of the earliest

Artificial Turf Fields, which had been installed in high UV radiation areas in South

America: The corner kick and goal mouth areas are showing premature wear in both

the small fields and the big fields. According to NJ Advance Media, Braga said the

Chileans had reported FieldTurfs first South American field, a slit-film built in 2003,

was in better condition than the less-than-1-year-old Artificial Turf Fields using

Evolution.28 On December 28, 2006, Gilman emailed van Balen at Mattex, writing

We are seeing fields showing splitting after under a year of play and have already

had to replace one full-size field due to yarn failure after only a few months of

installation!29

72. From at least October 2006 forward, FieldTurf, including its top

executives, knew full-well that its Artificial Turf Fields were prematurely

deteriorating and becoming matted shortly after installation and that FieldTurf chose

to conceal that problem from the buying public, despite internal protestations from

concerned employees.

28
Id.
29
Id.

- 25 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 27 of 71 PageID: 27

73. In July 2007, K. Gilman arranged a trip to New Jersey with FieldTurfs

interim CEO from 2007-2008, David Moszkowski (Moszkowski), and other

executives to demonstrate and bring them up to speed on the problems that had been

occurring in fields installed in the state. K. Gilman summarized their observations

of Evolutions premature deterioration, fading, and matting in an email to the group

and Darren Gill (Gill), the Director of Marketing, explaining: This yarn is

nowhere near as robust or resilient as we initially thought and probably will not last

that much longer than a high quality slit-film yarn . . . . In all likelihood in years 5

and 6 these Duraspine fields will be matted down and fibrillating pretty heavily. . . .

Our marketing claims and sales pitches need to reflect this reality.30

74. In November 2007, K. Gilman sent an email to Moszkowski and

FieldTurfs Vice President of Operations from 2000 to 2008, Kevin Reynolds

(Reynolds), writing emphatically: This opens us up to tons of exposure from a

legal standpoint, K. Gilman wrote. The claims made regarding the Duraspine

fiber are ridiculous. Every day we are putting stuff out there that cant and wont live

up to the marketing spin. We have to control this somehow!!!31

75. In February 2008, K. Gilman emailed Moszkowski and others, writing:

I dont want to beat a dead horse but I think this issue (field failure, monofilament

30
Id.
31
Id.

- 26 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 28 of 71 PageID: 28

layover, et cetera ) is extremely important and requires further analysis and

discussion . . . Duraspine is not all that its cracked up to be especially in terms of

wear resistance.32

76. In 2008, on the same day that yet another CEO, Joe Fields (Fields), took

the helm, K. Gilman again implored senior management to respond to the growing

crisis. Analyzing FieldTurfs failures, K. Gilman wrote: Irresponsible sales and

marketing claims are made continuously that the product simply cannot possibly

technically deliver on . . . . This sets us up for future claims, unhappy consumers,

lawsuits, etc.33 Despite K. Gilmans continuing protestations and customer

complaints, FieldTurf entered into another exclusive supply agreement with TenCate

and continued selling the Artificial Turf Fields until 2012.

77. Over the course of 2009 and 2010, FieldTurf received complaints from a

significant number of consumers in North America who had purchased the Artificial

Turf Fields, all of which contained the defective Evolution Fiber. Each complaint

pointed to the same premature degradation of the fibers, resulting in splitting and

shedding during routine use, as well as excessive thinning and fading.

78. FieldTurf representatives, including Howard McNeil (Senior Vice

President of Operations) and Brian Waters (Director of Logistic and Purchasing),

32
Id.
33
Id.

- 27 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 29 of 71 PageID: 29

reported customer complaints to TenCate representatives, and in mid-2010, McNeil

and Waters established weekly telephone conferences and monthly in-person meetings

to address the quality and production issues associated with the Evolution Fiber.34

79. In 2010, FieldTurf also conducted its own independent investigation of

the Evolution Fiber and confirmed what it had already known to be true since 2006:

the Evolution Fiber was defective. Specifically, FieldTurf tests showed that the

premature deterioration in its Artificial Turf Fields was caused by a combination of

inadequate UV protection and a sub-standard polymer in the Evolution Fibers

chemical composition.

80. Then they sued. In 2011, FieldTurf brought suit against Mattex and

TenCate for fraudulent inducement, among other things, alleging that the Evolution

Fiber Mattex/TenCate supplied to them under the 2005 Supply Agreement, the 2006

Supply Agreement, and the 2008 Supply Agreement were indeed defective from the

first shipment through the last.

81. And yet, during this entire period of time, and despite customer

complaints and internal employee warnings, its own internal investigation and its

lawsuit against its third party supplier, never once did FieldTurf modify its marketing

campaigns or disclose the defective Evolution Fiber and the true nature of the

Artificial Turf Fields to anyone not potential consumers, not past purchasers, not

34
TenCate Complaint at 87-88.

- 28 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 30 of 71 PageID: 30

consumers who complained of premature deterioration, both inside and outside of the

eight-year warranty period, and certainly not public authorities.

82. Instead, as it did for so many years prior to bringing the suit, FieldTurf

kept on manufacturing, marketing, selling, and installing the very product it knew to

be defective, using the same marketing claims about unmatched durability, extreme

performance, and a ten plus year lifespan, and further, concealing material information

that made those claims suspect, if not downright impossible to meet.

83. In an industry without set standards, consumers relied on FieldTurfs

claims and assurances that the Artificial Turf Fields were performing as they should

and that they would and could live up to the consistent, unwavering, marketing hype

promising extreme performance, unmatched durability, and a ten plus year lifespan.

84. FieldTurfs current Vice President of Marketing, Innovation and

Customer Service, Gill, flatly stated in a 2012 deposition that marketing materials

for the Artificial Turf Fields were never changed to reflect the true impact of the

defective Evolution Fiber because [he] wasnt asked to change them.35 Period.

End of story.

85. Reynolds summarized FieldTurfs outrageous actions and response to the

defective Evolution Fiber in an interview: You cant stick your head in the sand and

say this isnt a major problem, not a major issue, lets just keep going . . . You have to

35
Baxter, supra n.1.

- 29 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 31 of 71 PageID: 31

make the necessary adjustments based on what youre seeing, and the company never

did that.36

86. But, FieldTurf did stick its head in the sand, concealing the problem,

marketing and installing fields known to contain the defective Evolution Fiber, never

notifying consumers or attempting to make them whole, and never modifying its

marketing campaigns and representations accordingly. Indeed, it left consumers in the

dark and kept pocketing revenue from sales of Artificial Turf Fields that it knew were

made with a defective fiber and incapable of delivering on FieldTurfs extreme and

fallacious marketing claims.

The Truth Begins to Be Revealed

87. In December 2016, NJ Advance Media published the shocking results of

its thorough and searching investigation into the Artificial Turf Fields, the defective

Evolution Fiber, and Defendants elaborate and well-concealed fraud.37 Indeed, it

took NJ Advance Media six months of in-depth investigation, analyzing 5,000 pages

of production from 40 document requests, interviewing dozens of coaches, officials,

and current and former FieldTurf employees, examining 50 fields in New Jersey, and

commissioning the services of an independent testing laboratory the University of

36
Id.
37
Id.

- 30 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 32 of 71 PageID: 32

Michigans Breaker Space Lab to test turf fibers from three locations containing the

Artificial Turf Fields in New Jersey to uncover the breadth of the fraudulent scheme.

Plaintiff Township of Medford

88. In or about 2006, Plaintiff sought bids for a synthetic grass field to

replace an existing natural grass field.

89. Plaintiff ultimately selected a bid submitted by Landtek, a company

working with FieldTurf.

90. After the bid was accepted, FieldTurf recommended that Plaintiff

upgrade the artificial turf to be installed to one of FieldTurfs Artificial Turf Fields

at a higher price point than the turf identified in the winning bid.

91. FieldTurf represented to Plaintiff, both verbally and in marketing

materials, that the product was a superior overall as it boasted, among other things,

greater longevity, durability, and safety features than the original product offered in

the bidding process, as well as those offered by competitors. Plaintiff relied upon this

representation, which became part of the basis of the bargain between FieldTurf and

Plaintiff.

92. FieldTurf also represented to Plaintiff, both verbally and in marketing

materials, that the expected useful life of the Artificial Turf Field was greater than ten

years. Plaintiff relied upon this representation, which became part of the basis of the

bargain between FieldTurf and the Plaintiff.

- 31 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 33 of 71 PageID: 33

93. FieldTurf represented to Plaintiff, both verbally and in marketing

materials, that based on independent scientific studies the Artificial Turf Field was

safer than natural grass. Plaintiff relied upon this representation, which became part

of the basis of the bargain between FieldTurf and Plaintiff.

94. In or about 2006, Plaintiff entered into a contract with Landtek, as an

agent of FieldTurf, to install an Artificial Turf Fields for payment of approximately

$660,000.00.

95. FieldTurf expressly warranted that the goods and services furnished to

Plaintiff would be merchantable, fit for their intended purpose, free from all defects in

materials and workmanship, and free from defects in design.

96. FieldTurf supplied and installed a defective Artificial Turf Field in or

about 2007.

97. The Artificial Turf Field is located at Bob Bende Park, 291 Medford-Mt.

Holly Road, Medford, NJ 08055-9516, and is commonly referred to as Soccer Field

No. 2.

98. As early as 2011, the grass-like fronds on Soccer Field No. 2 began

fading, thinning, tearing out, and shedding. In addition, the seams began to tear.

99. On average, Soccer Field No. 2 was closed two to three weeks during the

usable season every year so that maintenance crews could attempt to repair the

- 32 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 34 of 71 PageID: 34

dangerous conditions resulting from the defective Artificial Turf Field and/or the

under-filling.

100. Ultimately, it became clear that the defects in the Artificial Turf Field

would render it unsafe and, as such, Plaintiff sought bids to replace the defective

Artificial Turf Field.

101. In or about 2016, Plaintiff installed a replacement field at its own expense

with a competitors product. The cost of replacement was over $450,000.00.

Total Damages and Impact

102. Today, FieldTurf officials concede that it has replaced nearly one of

every five, or approximately 20 percent of, outdoor Artificial Turf Fields that it sold

between 2005 and 2012. However, that number is but a small reflection of the true

impact this fraudulent scheme had, and continues to have, on schools, towns, and

others.

103. Upon information and belief, FieldTurf made these replacements with the

same synthetic grass, containing the same defective Evolution Fiber, without any

extension of warranty, without disclosing the lawsuit against its supplier, and without

informing consumers that the replacement would likely perform no better than the

field being replaced. When asked in 2014 if FieldTurf told consumers the Evolution

- 33 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 35 of 71 PageID: 35

Fiber was defective, FieldTurf President Eric Daliere testified: Not in those

words.38

104. When consumers reported or questioned the premature deterioration,

FieldTurf falsely reassured consumers that its Artificial Turf Fields were performing

as they should and that the deterioration was part of normal wear and tear. Due to the

lack of industry standards by which to compare performance, consumers had no way

of knowing the statements were untrue. They relied on FieldTurfs false assurances,

to their detriment. Indeed, Charles Cook, FieldTurfs Vice President of Construction

and Installations for North America, testified that the deterioration was not part of

the normal aging process: On other fibers, other fields, other products, we just dont

see this type of fracturing, shedding, breaking, releasing of fibrils.39

105. Upon information and belief, FieldTurf wrongfully denied an untold

number of valid warranty claims or delayed curing the reported defect for years,

running out the clock on its eight-year warranty.

106. Upon information and belief, the costs of replacement, even under

warranty, can be and often are significant. When FieldTurf did agree to replace the

defective Artificial Turf Fields, it charged a premium of hundreds of thousands of

dollars.

38
Baxter, supra n.1.
39
Id.

- 34 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 36 of 71 PageID: 36

107. Still, FieldTurf has not yet told the majority of its consumers about the

defective Evolution Fiber and the premature deterioration and sub-par performance it

causes in the Artificial Turf Fields.

108. At bottom, FieldTurf promised unmatched durability, extreme

performance, and a ten plus year lifespan. It delivered consumers a product that came

nowhere near close to meeting those promises, and those consumers still do not have

fields of the quality for which they paid and contracted.

TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

Discovery Rule
109. Plaintiff and Class members did not discover, and could not have

discovered through the exercise of reasonable diligence, that FieldTurf had

misrepresented the durability of its Artificial Turf Fields and omitted material facts

regarding the defective Evolution Fiber.

110. Though emails between FieldTurf employees and officers showed that

FieldTurf was aware of the defective Evolution Fiber as early as 2006, and possibly

earlier, FieldTurf knowingly concealed the defective Evolution Fiber from consumers

and the public at large, representing and intentionally manufacturing, marketing,

selling, and installing Artificial Turf Fields containing the defective Evolution Fiber, a

product that fell far below what was promised through its advertisements and

contracts for sale.

- 35 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 37 of 71 PageID: 37

111. Defendants fraud was elaborate and well concealed. Indeed, it took NJ

Advance Media six months of in-depth investigation, analyzing 5,000 pages of

production from 40 document requests, interviewing dozens of coaches, officials, and

current and former FieldTurf employees, examining 50 fields in New Jersey, and

commissioning the services of an independent testing laboratory the University of

Michigans Breaker Space Lab to test turf fibers from three locations containing the

Artificial Turf Fields in New Jersey to uncover the breadth of the fraudulent scheme.

Even now, requests from government officials to open federal and state investigations

into the scheme are pending, which investigations could reveal even more that has yet

to be discovered.

112. Plaintiff and Class members had no realistic ability to discover the

omissions or the fraudulent nature of the misrepresentations, until NJ Advance Media

published the results of its thorough and time consuming investigation in December

2016.

113. Any statutes of limitation otherwise-applicable to any claims asserted

herein have thus been tolled by the discovery rule.

Fraudulent Concealment
114. All applicable statutes of limitation have also been tolled by FieldTurfs

knowing, active, and ongoing fraudulent concealment of the facts alleged herein.

- 36 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 38 of 71 PageID: 38

115. Defendants have known of the defective Evolution Fiber since at least

2006 when they began to investigate customer complaints. Since that time, FieldTurf

has intentionally concealed from, or failed to notify, Plaintiff, the Class members, and

the public of the defective Evolution Fiber and the true durability and performance of

its Artificial Turf Fields.

116. Further, there is no question that FieldTurf knowingly manufactured,

marketed, sold, and installed its Artificial Turf Fields containing the defective

Evolution Fiber well after it knew or had reason to know of the defective Evolution

Fiber.

117. Despite knowing about the defective Evolution Fiber since 2006, and

possibly earlier, FieldTurf actively concealed it from consumers until it discontinued

the Artificial Turf Fields in 2012. Through the date of this filing, FieldTurf has not

acknowledged the full extent of the problem, nor made any effort to make Plaintiff

and the Class members whole.

118. Any otherwise-applicable statutes of limitation have therefore been tolled

by Defendants exclusive knowledge and FieldTurfs active concealment of the facts

alleged herein.

Estoppel
119. Defendants were and are under a continuous duty to disclose to Plaintiff

and Class members the true character, quality, and nature of the Artificial Turf Fields,

- 37 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 39 of 71 PageID: 39

including the character, quality, and nature of its component fibers. Instead, FieldTurf

actively concealed the true character, quality, and nature of the Artificial Turf Fields,

knowingly made misrepresentations about the quality, reliability, durability,

characteristics, and performance of the Artificial Turf Fields and omitted material

information in its marketing and advertisements, in its contracts and warranty

certificates, and in its communications with Plaintiff and Class members.

120. Plaintiff and Class members reasonably relied upon FieldTurfs knowing

and affirmative misrepresentations and/or active concealment of these facts.

121. Based on the foregoing, Defendants are estopped from relying on any

statutes of limitation in defense of this action.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

122. Plaintiff repeats and re-alleges every allegation above as if set forth

herein in full.

123. Plaintiff bring this lawsuit as a class action pursuant to Federal Rules of

Civil Procedure 23(a) and 23(b), on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as

members of the following Nationwide Class and New Jersey Subclass (collectively,

the Classes) on their respective federal and state claims.

124. The proposed Classes are defined as:

Nationwide Class: All persons and entities in the United States,

including its territories, who purchased Artificial Turf Fields from
FieldTurf or its affiliates, entities, or subsidiaries between 2005 and
2012.

- 38 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 40 of 71 PageID: 40

New Jersey Subclass: All persons and entities in the State of New Jersey
who purchased Artificial Turf Fields from FieldTurf or its affiliates,
entities, or subsidiaries between 2005 and 2012.

125. Excluded from the Classes are Defendants, including any entity or

division in which Defendants have a controlling interest, as well as their agents,

representatives, board members, directors, officers, employees, trustees, parents,

children, heirs, assigns, subsidiaries and successors, and other persons or entities

related to, or affiliated with Defendants.

126. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend the Class definitions if discovery and

further investigation reveal that any Class should be expanded, divided into additional

subclasses under Rule 23(c)(5), or modified in any other way.

127. Certification of Plaintiffs claims for class-wide treatment is appropriate

because Plaintiff can prove the elements of its claims on a class-wide basis using the

same evidence as would be used in an individual action alleging the same claims.

128. This action has been brought and may be properly maintained on behalf

of each of the Classes proposed herein under Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23 and

satisfies the numerosity, commonality, typicality, adequacy, predominance, and

superiority requirements of its provisions.

129. Numerosity. Plaintiff does not know the exact size or identities of the

members of the proposed Class, since such information is in the exclusive control of

Defendants. However, based on investigative news reports, pleadings, and

- 39 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 41 of 71 PageID: 41

depositions in related cases, and FieldTurfs own website, Plaintiff believes that both

the Classes encompass many hundreds and perhaps more than a thousand persons and

entities whose identities can be readily ascertained from Defendants books and

records. Therefore, the proposed Class is so numerous that joinder of all members is

impracticable. Further, based on the $300,000 - $500,000 average purchase price of

the Artificial Turf Field Turfs at issue and the reported significant costs of

replacements, additional repairs, and other damages as enumerated herein, Plaintiff

believes that the amount in controversy exceeds $5 million.

130. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact.

All members of the respective Classes have been subject to, and affected by, the same

conduct. These claims are based on standard form contracts and uniform practices in

FieldTurfs sales and marketing practices. Thus, questions of law and fact are

common to members of the Classes and predominate over any questions affecting

only individual members of the Classes. These questions include, but are not limited

to, the following:

(a) whether FieldTurfs Artificial Turf Fields are defective within their

expected or promised lifespan;

(b) whether FieldTurf had knowledge of the defective Evolution Fiber

in its Artificial Turf Fields from 2005 through 2012 or for any portion of time thereof;

- 40 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 42 of 71 PageID: 42

(c) whether FieldTurf concealed the defective Evolution Fiber and true

qualities of its Artificial Turf Fields, including their durability, performance, and

lifespan;

(d) whether FieldTurf actively concealed the defective Evolution Fiber

and true qualities of its Artificial Turf Fields, including their durability, performance,

and lifespan in order to maximize their profits to the detriment of Plaintiff and the

Class members;

(e) whether FieldTurfs omissions regarding the defective Evolution

Fiber in the Artificial Turf Fields were material, intended to, and likely to deceive

Plaintiff and the Class members;

(f) whether FieldTurf had a duty to disclose material facts to Plaintiff

and the Class members regarding the defective Evolution Fiber in the Artificial Turf

Fields;

(g) whether the FieldTurf had been unjustly enriched at the expense of

Plaintiff and the Class members;

(h) whether Plaintiff and the Class members are entitled to restitution,

statutory, or punitive damages, disgorgement, injunction, specific performance, or

other relief;

(i) whether any applicable statute of limitations should be tolled due

Plaintiff and the Class members inability to discover the conduct and/or damages

- 41 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 43 of 71 PageID: 43

complained of herein or due to FieldTurfs fraudulent concealment of the defective

Evolution Fiber in the Artificial Turf Fields;

(j) whether Field Turf should be estopped from relying on any

applicable statutes of limitation; and

(k) whether the Court can order Defendants to pay damages, what the

proper measure of damages is, and also whether the Court can enter injunctive relief.

131. All members of the Classes have been subjected to and affected by a

uniform course of conduct by Defendants that was designed to increase Defendants

income, sales, and reputation through, inter alia:

(a) making false misrepresentations to Plaintiff and the Class members

regarding the durability and performance of its Artificial Turf Fields;

(b) knowingly concealing the truth about the defective Evolution Fiber

and its foreseeable and significant impact on true performance and durability of its

Artificial Turf Fields;

(c) selling and installing its Artificial Turf Fields with a known defect;

(d) making no viable replacement available in a reasonable timeframe;

(e) denying and evading valid warranty claims; and

(f) charging premiums for field replacements due to the concealed

defect.

- 42 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 44 of 71 PageID: 44

132. Typicality. The claims of the individually named Plaintiff is typical of

the claims of the Classes and do not conflict with the interests of any other members

of the Classes in that Plaintiff and the other members of the Classes were subject to

the same conduct, were subject to the terms of the same agreement, and were met with

the same breach of contract by Defendants.

133. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately

represent the interests of the Classes. Plaintiff is committed to the vigorous

prosecution of the Classes claims and has retained attorneys who are qualified to

pursue this litigation and have experience in class actions, including consumer

protection actions.

134. Superiority. A class action is superior to other methods for the fast and

efficient adjudication of this controversy. A class action regarding the issues in this

case does not create any problems of manageability. A class action is superior to all

other available means for the fair and efficient adjudication of this controversy. The

damages or other financial detriment suffered by individual Class members is

relatively small compared to the burden and expense that would be incurred by

individual litigation of their claims against Defendants. It would thus be virtually

impossible for the Classes, on an individual basis, to obtain effective redress for the

wrongs done to them. Furthermore, even if Class members could afford such

individualized litigation, the court system could not. Individualized litigation would

- 43 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 45 of 71 PageID: 45

create the danger of inconsistent or contradictory judgments arising from the same set

of facts. Individualized litigation would also increase the delay and expense to all

parties and the court system from the issues raised by this action. By contrast, the

class action device provides the benefits of adjudication of these issues in a single

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

presents no unusual management difficulties under the circumstances here.

COUNT I
Claim for Relief for Violation of the New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act
(N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:8-1, et seq.)
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass
135. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

136. The New Jersey Consumer Fraud Act (NJCFA) makes unlawful [t]he

act, use or employment by any person of any unconscionable commercial practice,

deception, fraud, false pretense, false promise, misrepresentation, or the knowing

concealment, suppression, or omission of any material fact with the intent that others

rely upon such concealment, suppression or omission, in connection with the sale or

advertisement of any merchandise or real estate, or with the subsequent performance

of such person as aforesaid, whether or not any person has in fact been misled,

deceived or damaged thereby N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:8-2.

- 44 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 46 of 71 PageID: 46

137. Plaintiff, the New Jersey Subclass members, and Defendants are

persons as defined and construed under the NJCFA, N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:8-1(d).

138. Defendants engaged in sales of merchandise within the meaning of

N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:8-1(c), (e), and FieldTurfs actions as set forth herein occurred in

the conduct of trade or commerce.

139. Defendants engaged in deceptive acts and practices in the form of both

misrepresentations and omissions during the conduct of business in and from New

Jersey in violation of the NJCFA. Specifically, Defendants engaged in the methods,

acts, practices, and conduct described in this Complaint, which constitute

unconscionable commercial practices, deception, fraud, misrepresentations, and

knowing concealment or omission of a material fact, as defined under the NJCFA.

These methods, acts and practices include, but are not limited to: (1) representing that

the Artificial Turf Field have characteristics, durability, uses, benefits, and qualities

which they do not have; (2) representing that the Artificial Turf Fields are of a

particular standard, quality, and grade when they are not; (3) advertising the Artificial

Turf Fields with the intent not to sell them as advertised; (4) failing to disclose

material information concerning the Artificial Turf Fields with the intent to induce

consumers to purchase the Artificial Turf Fields; and (5) otherwise engaging in

conduct likely to deceive.

- 45 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 47 of 71 PageID: 47

140. Defendants conduct, as set forth herein, has been unfair in violation of

the NJCFA because the acts or practices violate established public policy, and because

the harm they cause greatly outweighs any benefits associated with those practices.

141. FieldTurf intentionally and knowingly misrepresented and concealed

material facts regarding the Artificial Turf Fields with intent to mislead Plaintiff and

the New Jersey Subclass.

142. FieldTurf knew or should have known that its conduct violated the

NJCFA.

143. Defendants had an ongoing duty to all FieldTurf consumers to refrain

from unfair and deceptive practices under the NJCFA in the course of its business.

144. Defendants owed Plaintiff and New Jersey Subclass members a duty to

disclose, truthfully, all the facts concerning the performance, durability, and reliability

of the Artificial Turf Fields because they:

(a) possessed exclusive knowledge that they were manufacturing,

selling, and distributing Artificial Turf Fields containing the defective Evolution

Fiber;

(b) intentionally concealed the foregoing from Plaintiff and New

Jersey Subclass members;

(c) intentionally installed less than 10 pounds of infill per square foot;

and/or

- 46 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 48 of 71 PageID: 48

(d) made incomplete or negligent representations about the safety,

performance and durability, including lifespan, of the Artificial Turf Fields while

purposefully withholding material facts from Plaintiff that contradicted those

representations.

145. FieldTurfs continuing manufacture, marketing, sale, and installation of

Artificial Turf Fields containing the defective Evolution Fiber and its

misrepresentations and concealment of the true characteristics of the Artificial Turf

Fields were material to Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass.

146. Defendants unfair or deceptive acts or practices were likely to and did,

in fact, deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiff and New Jersey Subclass

members, about the true performance, durability, and lifespan of the Artificial Turf

Fields.

147. Plaintiff and New Jersey Subclass members suffered ascertainable loss

and actual damages as a direct and proximate result of FieldTurfs misrepresentations

and its concealment of and failure to disclose material information. Plaintiff and the

New Jersey Subclass members who purchased the Artificial Turf Fields would not

have purchased them at all and/or if the Artificial Turf Fields true nature had been

disclosed and mitigated would have paid significantly less for them. Plaintiff and

New Jersey Subclass members also suffered diminished value of their Artificial Turf

Fields, as well as lost or diminished use.

- 47 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 49 of 71 PageID: 49

148. As a result of the foregoing wrongful conduct of Defendants, Plaintiff

and the New Jersey Subclass have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial,

and seek all just and proper remedies, including, but not limited to, actual and

statutory damages, treble damages, an order enjoining Defendants deceptive and

unfair conduct, costs and reasonable attorneys fees under N.J. STAT. ANN. 56:8-19,

and all other just and appropriate relief. Additionally, Defendants should be enjoined

from continuing to engage in these unlawful, deceptive practices. Through these

practices, Defendants have improperly obtained and continue to improperly obtain

money from Plaintiff and members of the New Jersey Subclass.

149. Further, Defendants unlawful and deceptive practices set forth above

and throughout this Complaint were and are wanton, willful, and outrageous and

manifest a reckless disregard for the consequences of Defendants actions and for the

rights of Plaintiff and the members of the New Jersey Subclass, which warrant an

award of punitive damages to deter Defendants from committing such acts in the

future.

COUNT II

Breach of Implied Warranty of Merchantability

(N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-314 and 2A-212)
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass
150. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

- 48 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 50 of 71 PageID: 50

151. Defendants are and were at all relevant times merchants with respect to

synthetic grass fields under N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-104(1) and sellers of synthetic

grass fields under 2-103(1)(d).

152. The Artificial Turf Fields are and were at all relevant times goods

within the meaning of N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h).

153. A warranty that the Artificial Turf Fields were in merchantable condition

and fit for the ordinary purpose for which synthetic grass fields are used is implied by

law pursuant to N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-314 and 2A-212.

154. These Artificial Turf Fields, when sold and at all times thereafter, were

not in merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which

synthetic and grass fields are used. Specifically, the Artificial Turf Fields are

inherently defective in that they are manufactured with a component material that

FieldTurf itself has deemed defective. Further, any warranty repairs or replacements

made with Artificial Turf Fields that contain this same defective component material

were not, when the repair or replacement was made, nor at any time thereafter, in

merchantable condition and are not fit for the ordinary purpose for which synthetic

and grass fields are used; as such, they fail to cure FieldTurfs breach of implied

warranty.

155. FieldTurf has been on notice of these issues since at least 2006 through

its own investigative efforts and numerous customer complaints, lawsuits filed against

- 49 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 51 of 71 PageID: 51

it, including the instant Complaint, and by numerous individual letters,

communications, and warranty repair and replacement requests sent by Plaintiff and

other New Jersey Subclass members within a reasonable amount of time after

discovering premature deterioration in their Artificial Turf Fields and/or learning of

the defective Evolution Fiber.

156. As a direct and proximate result of FieldTurfs breach of the implied

warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members

have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT III

Breach of Implied Warranty of Fitness for a Particular Purpose

(N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-315)
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass
157. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

158. Defendants are and were at all relevant times merchants with respect to

synthetic grass fields under N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-104(1) and sellers of synthetic

grass fields under 2-103(1)(d).

159. The Artificial Turf Fields are and were at all relevant times goods

within the meaning of N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h).

160. A warranty that the Artificial Turf Fields were fit for the particular

purpose for which synthetic grass fields are required, in particular as athletic playing

- 50 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 52 of 71 PageID: 52

fields that sustain a great deal of use of wear throughout the year, is implied by law

pursuant to N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-315.

161. FieldTurf knew at the time of contracting the sale and installation of the

Artificial Turf Fields that purchasers intended to use those fields as athletic fields

requiring a particular standard of performance and durability. FieldTurf further knew

that purchasers could not know or understand the nuances of synthetic grass fields

component materials or design and that they were relying on the FieldTurfs skill or

judgment to select or furnish suitable good.

162. These Artificial Turf Fields, when sold and installed and at all times

thereafter, were not fit for the particular purpose for which synthetic and grass fields

are used as athletic turf. Specifically, the Artificial Turf Fields are inherently

defective in that they are manufactured with a component material that FieldTurf itself

has deemed defective. Further, any warranty repairs or replacements made with

Artificial Turf Fields that contain this same defective component material were not,

when the repair or replacement was made, nor at any time thereafter, fit for the

particular purpose for which synthetic and grass fields are used as athletic turf; as

such, they fail to cure FieldTurfs breach of implied warranty.

163. FieldTurf has been on notice of these issues since at least 2006 through

its own investigative efforts and numerous customer complaints, lawsuits filed against

it, including the instant Complaint, and by numerous individual letters,

- 51 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 53 of 71 PageID: 53

communications, and warranty repair and replacement requests sent by Plaintiff and

other New Jersey Subclass members within a reasonable amount of time after

discovering premature deterioration in their Artificial Turf Fields and/or learning of

the defective Evolution Fiber.

164. As a direct and proximate result of FieldTurfs breach of the implied

warranty of merchantability, Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members

have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial.

COUNT IV
BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY
(N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-313 and 2A-210)
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the New Jersey Subclass
165. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

166. FieldTurf is and was at all relevant times merchants with respect to

synthetic grass fields under N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-104(1) and sellers of synthetic

grass fields under 2-103(1)(d).

167. The Artificial Turf Fields are and were at all relevant times goods

within the meaning of N.J. STAT. ANN. 12A:2-105(1) and 2A-103(1)(h).

168. In connection with the purchase all Artificial Turf Fields, FieldTurf

provides an express warranty for eight years. This warranty exists to cover defects in

material or workmanship, resulting in premature wear, during normal and ordinary use

- 52 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 54 of 71 PageID: 54

of the Product for the sport activities set our below or for any other uses for which

FieldTurf gives its written authorization . . . . In addition to the eight-year warranty

described in FieldTurfs marketing materials and provided to Plaintiff and New Jersey

Subclass members, FieldTurf also warranted and represented in the sales contracts,

that the field it installed would be free from all defects in materials and

workmanship and free from defects in design.

169. FieldTurfs warranties formed a basis of the bargain that was reached

when Plaintiff and other New Jersey Subclass members purchased their Artificial Turf

Fields manufactured with the defective Evolution Fiber.

170. Despite the existence of an express warranty, FieldTurf failed to inform

Plaintiff and New Jersey Subclass members that the Artificial Turf Fields were

knowingly manufactured, marketed, sold, and installed with the Evolutions Fiber

Defect, which leads to such premature deterioration, and failed to fix or replace the

defective Artificial Turf Fields with synthetic grass fields that did not contain the

defective Evolution Fiber.

171. Further, Plaintiff and New Jersey Subclass members experienced

premature deterioration within the warranty period.

172. FieldTurf breached the express warranty promising to repair and replace

materials defects and workmanship. FieldTurf has not yet repaired or adjusted, and

- 53 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 55 of 71 PageID: 55

have been unable to repair or adjust, the Artificial Turf Fields materials defects and

workmanship.

173. Further, affording FieldTurf a reasonable opportunity to cure their breach

of written warranty now would be unnecessary and futile here because upon

information and belief, FieldTurf replaces defective fields with the same Artificial

Turf Fields using the same Evolution Fiber. Such replacement would not and cannot

cure the original defect and all consequential damages flowing therefrom.

174. The warranty fails in its essential purpose because the contractual remedy

is insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members whole

and because FieldTurf has failed and/or has refused to adequately provide an adequate

replacement or remedies within a reasonable time.

175. Accordingly, recovery by Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass

members is not restricted to the written warranty, and Plaintiff, individually and on

behalf of the other New Jersey Subclass members, seek all remedies as allowed by

law.

176. Also, as alleged in more detail herein, at the time FieldTurf warranted

and manufactured, marketed, sold, and installed the Artificial Turf Fields, it knew that

the Artificial Turf Fields were inherently defective and did not conform to their

warranty; further, FieldTurf had wrongfully and fraudulently concealed material facts

regarding the Artificial Turf Fields. Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass

- 54 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 56 of 71 PageID: 56

members were therefore induced to purchase or lease the Artificial Turf Fields under

false and/or fraudulent pretenses.

177. Moreover, many of the injuries flowing from the Artificial Turf Fields

cannot be resolved through the limited warranty remedy, as many incidental and

consequential damages have already been suffered because of FieldTurfs fraudulent

conduct as alleged herein, and because of its failure and/or continued failure to

provide such limited remedy within a reasonable time, and any limitation on

Plaintiffs and the other New Jersey Subclass members remedies would be

insufficient to make Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members whole.

178. Finally, because of FieldTurfs breach of warranty as set forth herein,

Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members assert, as additional and/or

alternative remedies, the revocation of acceptance of the goods and the return to

Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members of the purchase price of all

Artificial Turf Fields currently owned, and for such other incidental and consequential

damages as allowed.

179. FieldTurf was provided notice of these issues by numerous complaints

filed against them, including the instant Complaint, within a reasonable amount of

time after FieldTurf confirmed through its own investigations that its Artificial Turf

Fields contained the defective Evolution Fiber.

- 55 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 57 of 71 PageID: 57

180. As a direct and proximate result of FieldTurfs breach of express

warranty, Plaintiff and the other New Jersey Subclass members have been damaged in

an amount to be determined at trial.

COUNT V

Breach of Contract
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class
(against FieldTurf USA)
181. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

182. Plaintiff and members of the Nationwide Class entered into written

contracts with FieldTurf USA.

183. Plaintiff and members of the Nationwide Class formed binding and

enforceable agreements when they executed written contracts and/or when they made

the first required payment under their respective contracts.

184. Plaintiff and all members of the Nationwide Class gave consideration that

was fair and reasonable, and have performed all conditions, covenants, and promises

required to be performed under their contracts with FieldTurf.

185. In exchange for such consideration, FieldTurf contracted to provide

durable Artificial Turf Fields capable of providing superior performance and

durability and extended wear and tear for ten plus years of performance.

- 56 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 58 of 71 PageID: 58

186. FieldTurf failed to perform under the contracts with Plaintiff and

members of the Nationwide Class and thereby breached the contracts.

187. As a result of FieldTurfs breach of the contracts, Plaintiff and members

of the Nationwide Class suffered and will continue to suffer reasonable and

foreseeable consequential damages resulting from such breaches, including, but not

limited to:

(a) increased maintenance and repair costs;

(b) early replacement costs;

(c) premiums charged on top of warranty repairs;

(d) loss of use and ticket sales;

(e) deterrence from seeking other defective-free artificial turf fields;

(f) loss of investment on taxpayer dollars used to pay the exorbitant

and unjustifiable price premium for FieldTurfs Artificial Turf Fields; and/or

(g) other damages for breach of contract.

188. The amount of damages suffered by Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class

by FieldTurfs breach of the contracts is, upon information and belief, in excess of $5

million, all in an amount to be proven at trial.

- 57 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 59 of 71 PageID: 59

COUNT VI

Negligent Misrepresentation
On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class
189. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

190. In its marketing materials throughout the period 2005 2012, FieldTurf

represented that its Artificial Turf Fields were of unmatched durability and that they

would last ten years.

191. When FieldTurf made those representations, it had ample evidence in its

exclusive possession to suggest that its Artificial Turf Fields were made with a

defective fiber and that as a result, they would not or could not possibly live up to its

durability marketing claims, including the 10 plus year claims. FieldTurf failed to

diligently follow up on those early reports and its officials repeatedly expressed

concerns about premature deterioration until it conducted its own investigation in

2012. Following that investigation and FieldTurfs own irrefutable confirmation that

the Artificial Turf Fields were defective due to the Evolution Defect, it failed to

modify its marketing claims or to warn consumers of the possibility of premature

deterioration. As such, those misrepresentations were negligent when made, both

before and after FieldTurfs investigation and instigation of its 2011 lawsuit against

TenCate.

- 58 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 60 of 71 PageID: 60

192. Because no industry standards exist for determining when an artificial

turf field has prematurely deteriorated, consumers, including schools and towns,

justifiably relied upon FieldTurfs representations, both in purchasing and installing

the Artificial Turf Fields and afterwards, when those fields indeed began to lay flat,

shred, and otherwise disintegrate well before the ten plus years promised.

193. Plaintiff and Class members have suffered a cognizable economic loss as

a consequence of their reliance on FieldTurfs representations, including, but not

limited to:

(a) increased maintenance and repair costs;

(b) early replacement costs;

(c) premiums charged on top of warranty repairs;

(d) loss of use and ticket sales;

(e) deterrence from seeking other defective-free artificial turf fields;

(f) loss of investment on taxpayer dollars used to pay the exorbitant

and unjustifiable price premium for FieldTurfs Artificial Turf Fields; and/or

(g) other damages for negligent misrepresentation.

COUNT VII

Unjust Enrichment
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the Nationwide Class
194. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all preceding allegations

as though fully set forth herein.

- 59 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 61 of 71 PageID: 61

195. FieldTurf knowingly manufactured, marketed, sold, and installed

Artificial Turf Fields containing the defective Evolution Fiber and actively concealed

that defect from consumers throughout the entire time period the product was

available, 2005 2012, and into the present. Compounding that concealment,

FieldTurf actively misrepresented the durability and performance properties of its

Artificial Turf Fields, promising, inter alia, a useful life longer than the 10 years

and unmatched durability, while knowing that the product it ultimately delivered

and installed would be unable to deliver on such promises.

196. As a result, FieldTurf sold nearly 1500 Artificial Turf Fields in the

United States from 2005 through 2012 for more than $570 million in revenues.

197. This $570 million in revenue constitutes a direct benefit received from

Plaintiff and Class members, which: (1) directly benefitted FieldTurf or its affiliates;

and (2) was taken to the detriment of Plaintiff and Class members.

198. FieldTurf was unjustly enriched through financial benefits in the form of

increased revenues and profits that resulted when Plaintiff and Class members,

including municipalities, schools, school districts, and other organizations in New

Jersey and across the United States, chose to install Artificial Turf Fields that would

start to prematurely deteriorate within a few years of installation.

199. Plaintiff and Class members purchased the Artificial Turf Fields based on

FieldTurfs direct representations and omissions. Further, Plaintiff and Class

- 60 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 62 of 71 PageID: 62

members understood that FieldTurf would profit from that purchase, either directly

from Plaintiff and Class members or through FieldTurf affiliates who installed

FieldTurfs artificial turf systems and were required to provide financial benefits from

Plaintiff and Class members to FieldTurf.

200. As a result, Plaintiff and the Class members have conferred a benefit on

FieldTurf.

201. FieldTurf had knowledge of this benefit and voluntarily accepted and

retained the benefit conferred on it.

202. By purchasing the Artificial Turf Fields, Plaintiff and the Class members

expected that FieldTurfs Artificial Turf Fields would have the durability,

performance, and lifespan FieldTurf promised, including that they would not

prematurely deteriorate well before ten years. The reduced lifespan of FieldTurfs

artificial turf systems and premature deterioration within a few years of purchase and

installation has unjustly enriched FieldTurf beyond its legal rights by resulting in

profits and revenues received through deception and misrepresentation.

203. FieldTurf will be unjustly enriched if it is allowed to retain these ill-

gotten benefits, and Plaintiff and each Class member is entitled to recover the amount

by which FieldTurf was unjustly enriched at their expense.

- 61 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 63 of 71 PageID: 63

COUNT VIII

Common Law Fraud Under New Jersey Law

on Behalf of Plaintiff and the New Jersey Class
204. FieldTurf made numerous material misrepresentations to Plaintiff and

Class members, concerning the safety and performance of its revolutionary

Artificial Turf Fields.

205. FieldTurf also failed to disclose numerous material facts concerning the

failure rate of its Artificial Turf Fields, and, that FieldTurf knew that its Duraspine

Turf products would not perform as intended.

206. The representations made by Defendants were false.

207. At the time they were made, FieldTurf knew they were false.

208. Despite knowing that its various representations about its Artificial Turf

Fields were false, FieldTurf made them in an effort to induce Plaintiff and other Class

members to purchase its Artificial Turf Fields at a premium price.

209. At the time FieldTurf made these misrepresentations, Plaintiff and other

Class members were ignorant of the falsity of FieldTurfs representations and believed

them to be true.

210. Relying on these false representations, Plaintiff and other Class members

were induced to and did purchase Artificial Turf Fields.

- 62 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 64 of 71 PageID: 64

211. Had Plaintiff known the actual facts, Plaintiff and other Class members

would not have purchased Artificial Turf Fields, or, would not have paid as much for

their Artificial Turf Fields.

212. As a direct and proximate result of FieldTurfs fraud, Plaintiff and the

Class have been damaged in an amount to be proven at trial, which shall include, but

is not limited to, all compensatory damages, incidental and consequential damages,

and other damages allowed by law.

COUNT IX
Fraudulent Concealment Under New Jersey Law
on Behalf of Plaintiff and the New Jersey Class
213. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all the above allegations as if fully set

forth herein.

214. FieldTurf intentionally concealed that its Artificial Turf Fields were

highly defective, or acted with reckless disregard for the truth, and denied Plaintiff

and the other Class members information that is highly relevant to their purchasing

decision.

215. FieldTurf further affirmatively misrepresented to Plaintiff in advertising

and other forms of communication, including standard and uniform material provided

to Plaintiff and other Class members, that the Artificial Turf Fields that it was selling

had no defects, were substantially more durable than any other product on the market,

or even its own products, and would perform properly.

- 63 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 65 of 71 PageID: 65

216. FieldTurf knew these representations were false when made.

217. The Artificial Turf Fields purchased by Plaintiff and the other Class

members were, in fact, defective, and deteriorated much faster than promised under

normal conditions.

218. FieldTurf had a duty to disclose that its Artificial Turf Fields suffer from

numerous defects, because Plaintiff and the other Class members relied on FieldTurfs

material representations that Artificial Turf Fields were far superior to any other

artificial turf surface in existence.

219. The aforementioned concealment was material because if it had been

disclosed, Plaintiff and the other Class members would not have bought Artificial Turf

Fields, or would not have bought at the prices they paid.

220. The aforementioned representations were material because they were

facts that would typically be relied on by a person purchasing an artificial turf surface.

FieldTurf knew or recklessly disregarded that its representations were false because it

had actual knowledge that its Artificial Turf Fields suffered from numerous and

significant defects which they knew would cause the Artificial Turf Fields to fall well

short of FieldTurfs representations concerning Duraspine Turf products.

221. Plaintiff and the other Class members relied on FieldTurfs reputation

along with their failure to disclose the defective nature of the Artificial Turf Fields

in purchasing their Duraspine Turf product.

- 64 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 66 of 71 PageID: 66

222. As a result of their reliance, Plaintiff and the other Class members have

been injured in an amount to be proven at trial, including, but not limited to, their lost

benefit of the bargain and overpayment for their Artificial Turf Fields. FieldTurfs

conduct was knowing, intentional, with malice, demonstrated a complete lack of care,

and was in reckless disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and the other Class members.

Plaintiff and the other Class members are therefore entitled to an award of punitive

damages.

COUNT X
Breach of the Implied Covenant of Good Faith and Fair Dealing
223. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding

allegations as if fully set forth herein.

224. Plaintiff and Defendant had a contract by which Defendant would sell

and supply an Artificial Turf Field for approximately $660,000.00. Furthermore,

Defendants provided a written warranty and other express warranties to Plaintiff,

which promised that the Artificial Turf Fields were durable and would have a lifespan

of at least ten years, among other warranties.

225. Implied in the contract between Plaintiff and FieldTurf is the covenant

that FieldTurf must act in good faith and deal fairly with Plaintiff in performing the

terms of the contract. FieldTurf thus had a duty to ensure that their marketing and

- 65 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 67 of 71 PageID: 67

other representations regarding the quality of the Artificial Turf Fields were not false

and misleading.

226. FieldTurf knew that the marketing representations regarding the

durability of the Artificial Turf Fields were false and/or exaggerated as alleged herein.

227. Nevertheless, FieldTurf continued to misrepresent the durability and life

span of the Artificial Turf Fields in order to induce Plaintiff and the Class to purchase

them.

228. FieldTurfs unfair misrepresentations and omissions regarding the life

span and durability of the Artificial Turf Fields denied Plaintiff and the Class the right

to receive the benefits of the contract which were reasonably expected, and thus

FieldTurf breached the implied covenant of good faith and fair dealing. Because of

FieldTurfs bad faith conduct, Plaintiff and the Class were induced into purchasing

Artificial Turf Fields, costing hundreds of thousands of dollars each, which would fail

or deteriorate long before their advertised and promised useful lives. In sum, Plaintiff

and the Class did not receive the high quality Artificial Turf Fields for which they

paid under the contract.

229. Plaintiff and Class members relied to their detriment upon the misleading

assertions and conduct of FieldTurf and such reliance may be presumed based on

FieldTurfs unlawful conduct and FieldTurfs superior knowledge of the defects in the

Artificial Turf Fields.

- 66 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 68 of 71 PageID: 68

COUNT XI

Declaratory Relief
230. Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference all of the preceding

allegations as if fully set forth herein.

231. An actual controversy has arisen and now exists between Plaintiff and

Defendants concerning their respective rights and duties with regard to Defendants

Artificial Turf Fields supplied and installed at Soccer Field No. 2.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated,

prays for relief and judgment against Defendants as follows:

A. Certification of this action as a class action, appointment of Plaintiff as

the Class and Subclass representatives and the undersigned counsel as Class counsel;

B. An order declaring the actions complained of herein to be in violation of

the statutory law set forth above, including a preliminary injunction enjoining

Defendants from continuing to engage in unlawful business practices as alleged

herein, including from further acts in violation of the NJCFA, pending the outcome of

this action;

C. An order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Classes

compensatory damages, statutory damage and multipliers, and all other forms of

monetary and non-monetary relief recoverable under state law;

- 67 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 69 of 71 PageID: 69

D. An order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Classes damages,

consequential damages, specific performance, and/or rescission;

E. An order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Classes restitution

and disgorgement of profits, or other equitable relief as the Court deems proper;

F. An order awarding Plaintiff and the members of the Classes punitive

damages;

G. An order requiring Defendants to notify Class members about defects in

its Artificial Turf Fields and to provide correct information to the Classes;

H. An award of pre-judgment and post-judgment interest;

I. An award of costs, including, but not limited to, discretionary costs,

expert fees, attorneys fees, and expenses incurred in prosecuting this case; and

J. Grant such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper.

JURY DEMAND

Plaintiff, on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated, hereby demands a

jury trial on all issues so triable.

- 68 -
 Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 70 of 71 PageID: 70

DATED: June 14, 2017 CARELLA, BRYNE, CECCHI,

OLSTEIN, BRODY & ANGELLO, P.C.

/s/ James E. Cecchi

JAMES E. CECCHI

5 Becker Farm Road

Roseland, NJ 07068
Telephone: 973/994-1700
973/994-1744 (fax)
[email protected]

ROBBINS GELLER RUDMAN

& DOWD LLP
PAUL J. GELLER
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
MARK J. DEARMAN
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
JASON H. ALPERSTEIN
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
120 East Palmetto Park Road, Suite 500
Boca Raton, FL 33432
Telephone: 561/750-3000
561/750-3364 (fax)

SEEGER WEISS LLP

CHRISTOPHER A. SEEGER
JENNIFER R. SCULLION
(pro hac vice application forthcoming)
550 Broad Street, Suite 920
Newark, NJ 07102
Telephone: 973/639-9100
973/639-9393 (fax)

- 69 -
Case 3:17-cv-04338 Document 1 Filed 06/14/17 Page 71 of 71 PageID: 71

MITNICK LAW OFFICE, LLC

Craig R. Mitnick, Esq
35 Kings Highway East
Second Floor East
Haddonfield, NJ 08033

Attorneys for Plaintiff and Proposed

Classes

- 70 -