IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA
JON B. FELICE, Individually and on behalf
of all others similarly situated,
Plaintiff,
v.
INVICTA WATCH COMPANY OF
AMERICA, INC.,
Defendant.
CASE NO.: 0:16-cv-62772 (UA)
CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT
JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
THE POLASZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC
Christopher S. Polaszek
Fla. Bar No. 0116866
3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33609
(813) 574-7678
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
Jeffrey M. Norton
Roger A. Sachar, Jr.
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
(212) 619-5400
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 1 of 20
Plaintiff Jon B. Felice (“Plaintiff”), by his undersigned attorneys, brings this class action
complaint against Defendant Invicta Watch Company of America, Inc. (“Invicta,” or
“Defendant”). Plaintiff‟s allegations are based upon personal knowledge as to his own acts and
upon information and belief as to all other matters. Plaintiff‟s information and belief is based
upon, among other things, investigation undertaken by his counsel.
NATURE OF THE ACTION
1. This is a class action against Invicta for violations of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act (“FDUTPA”), Fla. Stats. § 501.201, et seq., violations of the Florida
False Advertising Statute, Fla. Stat. § 817.41, violations of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. §
2301, et seq., and breach of express warranty. Plaintiff and members of the class (the “Class”) he
seeks to represent are all current or past owners of Invicta Pro Diver Series Watches (“Pro Diver
Watches”).
2. As alleged herein, Invicta has taken, and continues to take, advantage of its
unwitting consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Class, to a grossly unfair degree by,
inter alia, falsely representing that the Pro Diver Watches are: (a) suitable for scuba diving,
marine activity, and surface water sports; and (b) water resistant from 50 meters to 300 meters
(i.e., 165 to 984 feet), when, in fact, the Pro Diver Watches are prone to leakage at any depth and
in non-marine situations (e,g., swimming, hand washing, bathing, rain, etc.).
3. As a result of the allegations herein, Plaintiff and members of the Class seek
actual damages, plus attorney‟s fees and costs.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE
4. This Court has diversity subject-matter jurisdiction over this class action pursuant
to the Class Action Fairness Act of 2005, Pub. L. No. 109-2, 119 Stat. 4 (“CAFA”), which, inter
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 2 of 20
- 2 -
alia, amends 28 U.S.C. § 1332, at subsection (d), conferring federal jurisdiction over class actions
where, as here:
(a) there are 100 or more members in the proposed Class;
(b) there is minimal diversity, in that at least some members of the proposed
Class have a different citizenship from Invicta; and
(c) the claims of the proposed Class members exceed the sum or value of five
million dollars ($5,000,000) in the aggregate. See 28 U.S.C. §1332(d)(2)
and (6).
5. Plaintiff‟s action satisfies CAFA‟s jurisdictional requirements, in that:
(a) the proposed Class will vastly exceed 100 members, given the international
national scope of Invicta‟s sales;
(b) at least some members of the proposed Class are citizens of states different
than Invicta, a Florida corporation with its principle place of business in
Hollywood, Florida;
(c) at a minimum, the named Plaintiff, a citizen of New York, has a different
citizenship from Invicta;
(d) the claims of the proposed Class members exceed five million dollars in the
aggregate.
6. This Court has personal jurisdiction over the parties because Plaintiff submits to
the jurisdiction of the Court, and Invicta is incorporated and headquartered in the State of Florida
and transacts business within the State of Florida.
7. Venue is proper in the Southern District of Florida because Invicta is
headquartered in this District, conducts substantial business in this District, maintains offices in
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 3 of 20
- 3 -
this District, and because certain of the acts or omissions instituting policies and procedures
affecting Class members occurred in this District.
PARTIES
8. Plaintiff Jon B. Felice is a resident of New York. Mr. Felice purchased an Invicta
Men‟s 8928OB Pro Diver 23k Gold-Plated and Stainless Steel Two-Tone Automatic Watch from
Amazon.com on July 11, 2015 for $82.45.
9. Defendant Invicta is a privately-held corporation organized and existing under the
laws of the State of Florida, with its principal place of business located at 3069 Taft Street,
Hollywood, Florida, 33021. Invicta promotes and markets its watches throughout the United
States and internationally. Invicta is a globally-recognized watch brand with annual revenues
estimated at more than $50 million.
CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS
10. Plaintiff brings this lawsuit on behalf of himself and the proposed Class members
under Rule 23(b)(2) and (3) of the Federal Rules of Civil Procedure. The proposed Class consists
of: All persons who purchased, other than for resale, an Invicta Pro Diver Series watch model
rated for depths of 50-300 meters, between the dates of November 17, 2012, and the present date.
11. Numerosity. The members of the Class are so numerous that their individual
joinder is impracticable. Although the precise number of Class members is currently unknown,
with Invicta‟s annual watch sales reported to exceed $50 million, it is reasonable to assume there
are thousands of Class members. The true number of Class members is known by Defendant.
Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by first class mail, electronic mail
and/or by published notice.
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 4 of 20
- 4 -
12. Existence and Predominance of Common Questions of Law and Fact. Common
questions of law and fact exist as to all members of the Class and predominate over any
questions affecting only individual Class members. These common legal and factual questions
include, but are not limited to, the following:
(a) whether Defendant had an adequate basis for its representations regarding
the water resistant nature of the Pro Diver Watches prior to making them;
(b) whether Defendant violated the provisions of the Florida Deceptive and
Unfair Trade Practices Act, Fla. Stat. §§ 501.201, et seq.;
(c) whether Defendant violated the provisions of the Florida Misleading
Advertising statute, § 817.41, Fla. Stat.;
(d) whether Defendant violated the provisions of the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15
U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.;
(e) whether Defendant committed a beach of express warranty; and,
(f) whether, and to what extent, Plaintiff and members of the Class have been
damaged by the Defendant‟s conduct and the proper measure of damages.
13. Typicality. Plaintiff‟s claims are typical of the claims of the Class in that Plaintiff
and the Class purchased Pro-Diver Watches falsely represented to be water resistant from 50 to
300 meters (i.e, 165-984 feet). Moreover, Plaintiff, like the Class, has been damaged by
Defendant‟s unlawful misconduct.
14. Adequacy of Representation. Plaintiff is a member of the Class and is committed
to prosecuting this action. Plaintiff has retained competent counsel experienced in litigation of
this nature. Plaintiff‟s claims are typical of the claims of other members of the Class in that he is
seeking compensatory damages for Defendant‟s conduct as alleged herein, the same claims being
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 5 of 20
- 5 -
asserted on behalf of each individual member of the respective class. Plaintiff is, therefore, an
adequate representative of the Class as described herein.
15. Superiority and Manageability. The likelihood of individual Class members
prosecuting separate individual actions is remote due to the relatively small loss suffered by each
Class member as compared to the burden and expense of prosecuting litigation of this nature and
magnitude. Absent a class action, the Defendant is likely to avoid liability for their wrongdoing,
and the members of the Class are unlikely to obtain redress for the wrongs alleged herein. This
case presents no unusual management difficulties for this Court.
FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
16. Invicta is the maker and seller of the Pro Diver Watches.
17. Invicta markets and advertises its products over many forms of media including
television, magazines, and the internet.
18. Invicta sells its products through a variety of retail outlets including Amazon.com,
Jet.com, Overstock.com, Evine.com (ShopNBC), Jomashop.com, and its own website,
Invictastores.com.
19. Defendant claims on all of its product descriptions for the Pro Diver Watches that
the watches are water resistant to varying depths (depending on model).
20. For example, on Amazon.com, the Pro Diver Watch product descriptions provide
that the watches are “Water resistant to 200 m (660 ft)” and are “suitable for professional marine
activity and serious surface water sports.”
21. Similarly, on Evine.com, the Pro Diver Watch product specifications state “Water
Resistance 20 ATM - 200 meters - 660 feet.”
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 6 of 20
- 6 -
22. Even on its own website (under the link “Diving Watches”), Invicta represents
that the Pro Diver Watches are water resistant up to depths of 300 meters and more. See
https://invictastores.com/men?dir=asc&limit=25&order=water_resistance_meters&product_colle
ction=1312.
23. The Pro Diver Watches themselves are engraved in numerous locations certifying
their water resistant capability. For instance, the underside of the Plaintiff‟s Pro Diver Watch
(Model No. 8928) is engraved with the marking “WATER RESISTANT 200M” and the lower
center of the face of his watch reads “660ft – 200M WATER RESISTANT.”
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 7 of 20
- 7 -
24. Moreover, both the Instruction Manual and Warranty that accompany the Pro
Diver Watches describe them as “Diver models,” and certify that the watches are water resistant.
25. The instructions further provide tips for divers using the Pro Diver Watch
functions:
26. In addition to the uniform descriptions, Invicta markets the Pro Diver Watches as
diving watches. As noted above, on the invictastores.com website, the Pro Diver Watches are
located under the “Diving Watches” link for both the Men‟s and Women‟s collections.
27. Even the style name of the Pro Diver Watches represents that they are diving
watches.
28. On Invicta‟s website (www.invictawatch.com/watches/pro-diver), the Pro Diver
Watches are shown fully submerged in water:
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 8 of 20
- 8 -
29. The catch phrase associated with the Pro Diver Series, “Master of the Oceans,”
heavily implies that the Pro Diver Watches are capable of being worn underwater in the ocean.
Plaintiff’s Experiences with the Pro Diver Watch
30. The first time Mr. Felice exposed his watch to water was when he wore it while at
a pool. Mr. Felice entered the water while wearing the watch, but only engaged in mild surface
water activity.
31. Immediately upon exiting the water, Mr. Felice discovered that condensation and
water droplets had begun to form under the crystal of the watch.
32. Approximately two weeks later, after having time to dry, the watch again had
condensation form underneath the crystal when Mr. Felice wore it while swimming in a pool.
33. Upon exiting the water, Mr. Felice noticed that in addition to condensation
forming within the watch, the second-hand of the watch no longer functioned.
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 9 of 20
- 9 -
34. After drying out, the watch functioned for the next month until Mr. Felice wore it
while on a boat. While wearing the watch, Mr. Felice entered the water and again noticed
condensation form underneath the crystal.
35. Furthermore, rust had begun appearing on the inside of the watch due to its
exposure to water.
36. The lack of water resistance, malfunctioning parts, and presence of rust had
devalued the watch so much as to make it longer useable by Mr. Felice.
Widespread Reports of Leakage
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 10 of 20
- 10 -
37. Mr. Felice is hardly alone in his complaints regarding the lack of water resistance
of the Pro Diver Watches. Indeed, complaints about the same defect are legion. Below is a
representative sampling of recent (within last 4 years) of comments and reviews for the Pro
Diver Watches in which customers note the penetration of water into their watch at shallow
depths.
Complaint
URL reference
“I got this thing wet in the shower. Now I
constantly get condensation inside of it.”
Amazon.com See https://goo.gl/31JGdE
“while it's a divers watch, after a dive depth of
only 6 feet, water got into the watch. It still works
but there are little droplets on the crystal.”
Amazon.com See https://goo.gl/a6ph73
“First time I swam with this watch. Pool depth is 9
feet and moisture inside crystal. Piece of junk.
Save your money.”
Amazon.com See
https://www.amazon.com/gp/customer-
reviews/R2MYBL8CS2RI5K/ref=cm_cr_arp_
d_rvw_ttl?ie=UTF8&ASIN=B000JQJS6M
“Stem does not tighten, moisture under the crystal.
Sending it back.”
Evine.com See
http://www.evine.com/Product/630-766
“Used it while in the pool which was only 5 feet
deep it was quite disappointing to see the
condensation on the interior of the watch. The dial
was highly obscured making difficult to make out
the time. Water resistant to 200 M... not in this
lifetime.”
Overstock.com See https://goo.gl/jynR8B
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 11 of 20
- 11 -
“within the first week of wearing it, water beaded
up and fogged under the crystal (having only
washed my hands while wearing the watch).”
Consumer Affairs See
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/inv
icta-watches.html?page=2
“While the Invicta watch I purchased was in the
$100.00 USD price range, and said to be
waterproof; you would expect after 2 months use it
would resist water penetration under a Florida rain
storm. Well, just a few hours later it fogged
inside.”
Consumer Affairs See
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/i
nvicta-watches.html?page=4
“My Invicta Dive Watch rated 200 meters failed in
17 feet of water. Last Invicta watch I‟ll ever buy.
Consumer Affairs See
https://www.consumeraffairs.com/retail/i
nvicta-watches.html?page=5
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 12 of 20
- 12 -
“I purchased an Invicta Watch (Model XXXXX)
and within the first 45 day written warranty period
I noticed that I had water damage under the crystal.
The watch case states it is rated water resistant to
100MT. Washing your hands with the watch on
should not result in this problem”
Better Business Bureau See
http://www.bbb.org/south-east-
florida/business-reviews/watches-
dealers/invicta-watch-company-of-america-
in-hollywood-fl-
27002445/complaints#breakdown
“I bought an Invicta watch on groupon and on the
back of the watch it states that it is waterproof. My
husband took a shower with the watch on. Water
got into it and ruined the watch.”
Better Business Bureau See
http://www.bbb.org/south-east-
florida/business-reviews/watches-
dealers/invicta-watch-company-of-america-
in-hollywood-fl-
27002445/complaints#breakdown
“The item is clearly defective – the watch that
supposed to be „water-water resistant‟ for up to 50
meters, had water in it after a simple shower.”
Better Business Bureau See
http://www.bbb.org/south-east-
florida/business-reviews/watches-
dealers/invicta-watch-company-of-america-
in-hollywood-fl-
27002445/complaints#breakdown
“If I didn‟t know better, I would think that this is
an Invicta knock off. My first started fogging
under the crystal in two weeks. An indication of
leaking even though it was never underwater, just
normal wear. I exchanged it for another rand it
began fogging after 5 days.”
Walmart.com
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Invicta-8926-
Mens-Stainless-Steel-Pro-Diver-Black-
Dial-Automatic/30355767
“I am not replacing my watch, after purchase a
year ago. The watch never holds time, the face
allows condensation to collect, and it‟s an
unconformable watch to wear. Yes, this watch is
very stylish and cool looking, but will fall apart
after a couple of months!”
Walmart.com
https://www.walmart.com/ip/Invicta-8926-
Mens-Stainless-Steel-Pro-Diver-Black-
Dial-Automatic/30355767
38. Invicta is well aware of these complaints as illustrated in many of the reviews and
comments online which recount consumers‟ fruitless experiences with Invicta‟s customer
service.
39. Because the Pro Diver Watches sell in a lower-end price point (approximately $75
to $250), Invicta appears uniquely positioned to profit significantly off misrepresentations and
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 13 of 20
- 13 -
defects without significant risk of consumer action. Accordingly, class-based relief is the only
mechanism by which purchasers of the Pro Diver Watches can obtain relief.
COUNT I
Florida Deceptive and Unfair Trade Practices Act
40. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set
forth above as though fully set forth herein.
41. Plaintiff and Class members are “consumers” as defined by Fla. Stat.
§501.203(7), and the subject transactions are “trade or commerce” as defined by Fla. Stat.
§501.203(8).
42. FDUTPA was enacted to protect the consuming public and legitimate business
enterprises from those who engage in unfair methods of competition, or unconscionable,
deceptive, or unfair acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce.
43. Invicta falsely represents that the Pro Diver Watches are water resistant at depths
of 50 to 300 meters (or 165 to 984 feet) and appropriate for various types of water activity.
44. Invicta‟s representations are likely to mislead a reasonable consumer as to the
capabilities of the Pro Diver Watches, including Plaintiff and members of the Class.
45. Further, the Defendant‟s representations of material facts regarding the water
resistant capabilities of the Pro Diver Watches directly harmed Plaintiff and members of the
Class.
46. Said misrepresentations were made through written advertising materials
presented to Plaintiff and members of the Class when purchasing Pro Diver Watches.
47. Said misrepresentations were also made directly on the Pro Diver Watches
marketed and sold to Plaintiff and members of the Class.
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 14 of 20
- 14 -
48. Defendant‟s misrepresentations constitute violations of FDUTPA, § 501.204 (1),
Fla. Stat., which prohibits “[u]nfair methods of competition, unconscionable acts or practices,
and unfair or deceptive acts or practices in the conduct of any trade or commerce....”
49. Due to the failure of the Pro Diver Watches to meet Invicta‟s representations
regarding water resistance, Defendant‟s representations constitute unfair or deceptive actions
resulting in a violation of FDUTPA.
50. Plaintiff and the Class have been damaged as a result of Invicta‟s violations of
FDUTPA in that they incurred the costs of insufficient product value.
51. As a direct and proximate result of the unconscionable, unfair, and deceptive acts
or practices alleged herein, Plaintiff and members of the Class have been damaged and are
entitled to recover actual damages to the extent permitted by law, in an amount to be proven at
trial. In addition, Plaintiff and members of the Class seek equitable relief to enjoin Defendant on
the terms that the Court considers reasonable and appropriate.
COUNT II
Florida Misleading Advertising Statute
52. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set
forth above as though fully set forth herein.
53. Defendant‟s misrepresentations regarding the water resistant capabilities of the
Pro Diver Watches constitute violations of Florida‟s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla.
Stat. § 817.41 (1).
54. Florida‟s prohibition on misleading advertising, Fla. Stat. § 817.41 (1), provides
that it is “unlawful for any person to make or disseminate or cause to be made or disseminated
before the general public of the state, or any portion thereof, any misleading advertisement. Such
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 15 of 20
- 15 -
making or dissemination of misleading advertising shall constitute and is hereby declared to be
fraudulent and unlawful, designed and intended for obtaining money or property under false
pretenses.”
55. Defendant knew, or should have known, about the defects in the Pro Diver
Watches. Complaints about the water resistant qualities of the Pro Diver Watches can be seen in
product comments featured on Amazon.com as far back as August, 2008. Comments regarding
the lack of water resistance continued to appear every year, with some comments being posted as
recent as September of 2016.
56. Defendant intended for the representations about the water resistant capabilities of
the Pro Diver Watches to induce consumers to rely and act upon it. The water resistant nature of
the Pro Diver Watches is the main advertising feature of the Pro Diver Series.
57. Every advertisement and product description for the Pro Diver Watches
consistently states that they are capable of preventing water penetration at depths of 50 to 300
meters. This representation is so crucial to the marketability of the Pro Diver Watches, that these
representations are permanently engraved onto the Pro Diver Watches themselves.
58. Plaintiff and members of the Class suffered injury in justifiable reliance upon
Defendant‟s representations. The water penetration, resulting from activities Invicta represented
as suitable for the Pro Diver Watches, produced condensation within the Pro Diver Watches,
damaged the designs featured on the face of the Pro Diver Watches, significantly lowered the
value of the Pro Diver Watches, and rendered them unusable for the purposes in which they were
purchased.
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 16 of 20
- 16 -
59. As a direct and proximate result of the Invicta‟s misleading advertising
concerning the water resistant nature of the Pro Diver Watches, Plaintiff and members of the
Class have and will continue to suffer damages.
COUNT III
Magnuson-Moss Act
60. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set
forth above as though fully set forth herein.
61. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2310(e), this action shall serve as notice that Plaintiff is
acting on behalf of the Class and that Invicta shall have a reasonable opportunity to cure the
breaches alleged herein.
62. The Pro Diver Watches are “consumer products” within the meaning of the
Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).
63. Plaintiff and Class members are “consumers” within the meaning of the
Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).
64. Defendant is a “supplier” and “warrantor” within the meaning of the Magnuson-
Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. § 2301(4) and (5).
65. Defendant‟s representations regarding the Pro Diver Watches alleged herein all
fall within the definition of “written warranty” provided in the Magnuson-Moss Act, 15 U.S.C. §
2301(6).
66. Defendant made promises and representations in an express warranty provided to
all consumers, which became the basis of the bargain between Plaintiff, Class members and the
Defendant.
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 17 of 20
- 17 -
67. Defendant breached all applicable warranties because the Pro Diver Watches
suffer from a latent and/or inherent defect that causes it to leak when exposed to water, rendering
it unfit for its intended use and purpose. This defect substantially impairs the use and value of the
Pro Diver Watches.
68. Additionally, Defendant knew or should have known of the problems with the Pro
Diver Watches based on the numerous public complaints posted on the internet. Defendant,
having been given reasonable notice of the defect in the Pro Diver Watches and breach of
warranties, had an opportunity for years to cure the defects for Plaintiff and all Class members,
but has failed to do so.
69. Pursuant to 15 U.S.C. § 2310(d)(1), Plaintiff and the Class are entitled to recover
the damages caused to them by Defendants‟ breaches of written warranties, which damages
constitute the full purchase price of the Pro Diver Watches. In addition, pursuant to 15 U.S.C. §
2310(d)(2), Plaintiff and the Class may recover a sum equal to the aggregate amount of costs and
expenses (including attorneys‟ fees based on actual time expended) determined by the Court to
have been reasonably incurred by Plaintiff and the Class for and in connection with the
commencement and prosecution of this action.
70. As a direct and proximate result of the Invicta‟s breach of written warranties
concerning the water resistant nature of the Pro Diver Watches, Plaintiff and members of the
Class have and will continue to suffer damages.
COUNT IV
Breach of Express Warranty
71. Plaintiff incorporates by reference and re-alleges each and every allegation set
forth above as though fully set forth herein.
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 18 of 20
- 18 -
72. Defendant expressly warranted through written product descriptions on its
website and the Pro Diver Watches themselves that the watches were water resistant.
73. Defendant made these representations to all consumers, which became the basis
of the bargain between Plaintiff, Class members and the Defendant.
74. Defendants breached their express warranties because the Pro diver watches are
not in fact water resistant at depths between 50 to 300 meters. In short, the Pro Diver Watches do
not perform as expressly warranted.
75. Defendant knew, or should have known, about the defects in the Pro Diver
Watches based on Plaintiff‟s notice and the plethora of public complaints posted on the internet.
76. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendant‟s breach of express warranties
concerning the water resistant nature of the Pro Diver Watches, Plaintiff and members of the
Class have and will continue to suffer damages.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF
WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment and relief as follows:
A. Declaring that this lawsuit is properly maintainable as a class action, certifying
Plaintiff as representative of the Class, and appointing undersigned counsel as
Class Counsel;
B. Declaring that Invicta violated the FDUTPA;
C. Declaring that Invicta violated Florida‟s prohibition on misleading advertising;
D. Declaring the Invicta violated the Magnuson-Moss Act;
E. Declaring that Invicta breached its express warranties;
F. Awarding actual damages against Invicta in an amount to be determined at trial,
together with prejudgment interest at the maximum rate allowable by law;
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 19 of 20
- 19 -
G. Ordering injunctive relief, including permanently enjoining and restraining the
Defendant from engaging in the unfair and deceptive practices complained of
herein and ordering full disclosure of Defendant‟s actual practices, and the entry
of such other orders as may be necessary or appropriate to restore to Plaintiff and
members of the Class, including restitution and disgorgement of money acquired
by Defendant in violation of the FDUTPA.
H. Awarding Plaintiff and members of the Class an award of attorneys‟ fees and
expenses; and
I. Granting such other and further relief as may be just and proper.
DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY
Plaintiff demands a trial by jury of all issues so triable.
Dated: November 22, 2016
Respectfully submitted,
THE POLASZEK LAW FIRM, PLLC
s/ Christopher S. Polaszek
Christopher S. Polaszek
Fla. Bar. No. 0116866
3407 W. Kennedy Blvd.
Tampa, FL 33609
(813) 574-7678
NEWMAN FERRARA LLP
Jeffrey M. Norton
Roger A. Sachar, Jr.
1250 Broadway, 27th Fl.
New York, NY 10001
(212) 619-5400
Attorneys for the Plaintiff and the Proposed Class
Case 0:16-cv-62772-RLR Document 1 Entered on FLSD Docket 11/22/2016 Page 20 of 20
ABOVE
INFORMATION
IS
TRITE
4:1.
CORR:KT
TO
T
DES
T
OF
my
KVOWLETAGE
14
44
kFir...
aGas-a,
00,
6sath
62772-
R
L
R
DocumeiEtEWL
EOM
MEESE)
Docket
11/22/2016
Page
1
of
1
Tht
JS
44
civil
cower
Anal
and
dbe
infounkiall
caerlamed
harein
wilhar
lepLice
nor
lupplesnenL
the
131ino
and
se
mcc
pleatbolgi
or
other
papal
as
require,
by
lo•,
accept
ni
prividteL
h}.
IJ
rubs.
oakt
Thk
frink.
pJrhy
the
JUAJiII
4.:Ardefekt
Clidm
Lark&
Nihns
L
gfatreler
3974..
d
rbiuirbd
rim
ilit
k
crrNin
ins
[Re
sidiree.t
ecckuR
kixd
a3-ntlx
-nxhn
:EMT
PAGE
(1
iv
Tre.inuarm
11%."OTICE;
Atrou'ounji
nr
IldLo
op
MIPA-111141
cm"
I.
Li)
PLAINTIFFS
JON
B.
FELICE
DEFENDANTS
INVICTA
WATCH
COMPA-NY
OF
AMERICA,
LNC.
(1))
amor
oilltaddeare
afFirs1
LisLed
Eiainto
NEW
YORK
COUNTY
Orli)
County
Itesidaixe
of rust
lisrAd
Defendold
(RA:47P-PT.'N
r.R
•PitOMI.1•17•.•70•d
(IN
UR
MAW
MEW
r-if.SS
AW.39
?CITE!
LAND
CIINIDPAIN
AT
LON
CASES,
UM
THE
LCCATIDN
OF
711F.
TRACI
OF
[AHD
De.h1(.VFD.
(E)
Anareityp
fPro
Acegrms.
re.1=ilior
Anarcupys
arlEnow)
Newrruin
Ferrox
LLP,
12$d
Tinuiloy,
271
F1,
New
Yurk,
NY
Waal,
(212).
6
KV.S.14001
(01)nr.O.
Ci.irry
Wh
i
13
Alva
1:1
pri"tiPr
oripekisa
1:1rALY1
PeoF:11
1:11.170.1
Pa
1:1
=NW
RNLI.
1:1111M.71Ini
k
k
1:1
Win
MIN
/I.
BASE
OF
JUR/SD/CrION
C/TIZENSHEP
OF
PR/NCIPAL
PARTEES
or.
&ca.-m.0r:
Divrra.L1,
Coo
1:1.41p)
am'
Orr
ii:ELE
far
Densimnil
171
1
12
3.
ap.truixem
fl5
ila
'Pl-F
FrF
DEF
Pi11,
u
TIT:
Sete
CI
1
la
I
01
04
ol
BIM
MI
In
PM
SITI4
I
13
3.
nu
woo
roml
04
DiiiLy
IIn
uf
J.i
Cher
Risk
12
la
1
1=
oro
mcd
P,
ir
I
0
5
S
filldarK
&rr
CLL2
Arm
Er?
iiRLlLftI
1!i
AipjL9
51112
Niro
err
galreek
as
LI
i
IZI
1
E
risky,
14
&lila
LI
6
CI
6
Primp
tkorlry
IV.
NATURE
OF
SUIT
eF1.3....r
u.,
.2....
ori.
B....
lick.
ciarnmAcr
a
ORIg
F.DillFEETUIUMLINALIV
EANICRIll
PICT
CrTEllit
ISTATILITM
El
ir.
....rvIz
x
I
mu.
I
.L
r.RF.
.Y
Fil.uf..61%.4
I.
mpukre
0
AA
Ihrog
Ild.11.1
rial
Rain=
H2
ArrahllAllif:
I?do
m'
SA
8
Claii.c1
i.24
In
Man=
0
Abr.
irriEl
1r.i
F.,
..ire..1
rojary
a
1
Pltp.eriy
2L
UVn_
41111Iiiielra..31
3115
Q11
1
Tiln
0
I
OnG
Milk'
Aci
0
MS
.11.i.plare
Rnal
o.l.
P.oliaLLUbliky
n
65.0
Cilxi
HINE'
157
372
9
1•11
0
1219.
Nerouhle
Irdinattot
Lllig
0
Y.
l3r•latlic1
0
Cm
I)
SiIlmoinni[emecr
ID
150
Ittoweis
viClina,
loottn
ID
D
M&min_
URI
li.
Elweluttigil
PEDITIM
METH
1:1
CD
..1unkrin
h.
Einem
own!
a
DJ
44
ukull
Slade
r
Polosil
111.0
Ilan
Ci.p}54411.6
H
430
Boll
Lai
134:Oluni
E15
L
Kiixte.am
Ae.4
CI
:I.34
Feliml
Iixkloyers'
Prc.tur-t
Loibil.q.
130
Yuan
•rti
camrazro
lq
Itiorourpt4IN.13.11,
0
1.mbilm
0
NM
lidta4v.5Frrieoll
1.11.1'117gritznirk
144.1
IN:porom
or
!I
holm!
1
.1:ms
El
.4u
Hoax
Irrurf
Frucix:
4
111
Risk=
bliumal
ad
ti:Irl.
li.mr.*
CI
'40
Mil+14
I
Y4111
CI
111144
LAMM
SOCIAL.
Saitu
RIP!
E:n1T01:11
Orprram-Krnp
CI
11
Itiorina
et
Ow
rple..a.gri
1.-mbilm
RE.F3c.10.1.1.
FROFEKTY
D
%IV
lair
LAW
r.iirel..
FIW.1
MA
(I
WWI.
Fi
11.IJ
Ct.:miner.<WIN
nflimossi'x
EL-Ica:I
In
MO
P.4o4tw
VchkIc
171
•'M
1.1-111
13'
Food.
Am
AO
.Film
k
Luas
l'oril
401
r...1310:1Ri
Pe
I:1
Cr:
5}.14.1(.1k4AOS'
RI ila
I:1
MS
rizo.pr
Vcluuk
13
371.17w1.
klciallm
1:17101.thoeld
KUL
Rair-0.1
CA
1:IZ
a
DIWUDIWW
1.
40.
5
fg.
0
Z50
Setwliidiathi.....11ii=ii
74
N
'.0N
ror
Ceurci
Prolix
H.
mittli
i
F
13
MG
°Oar
Personal
4
Railw.ry
Lakir
.duci
8
tif.3
SSW
Tule
XVI
BELOW.
l'arirKE
Frolipl
41.1:11IF,
CI
3*1.1
(nbpritrairol
Pruptrty
maw
El
731
ilanLy
11151
Hilda
PSI
141131.0
Fi
1951.10hrrNmarlery
+wool
.Y:
1:Enchixa
1
ri
Lay
171
1i4i
Pcsirriy
Dstr•qc
.1.crec
.1,
1
Ail
Ark
dual
kaa.
1:1
AZ
Nord.
lajuy-
Prigiv.
Labia?
n
-.1PrJ
CitbQi
Labui
LiiiIiiim
CI
3
5S
Earsnucoraal
MaJkn
%.:r.1
PI
kto
Ir-c-L
c
[VP!
E
ilpl.
Rti.
lir..
la
#1;S
FIttAINI
ellilttlilthel
MILL
PROPTILTY
C
MI.
RJGHTS
PRJSCINEIR
Pt
TIMMS
5c.ziou•
ALL
FEDERAL
TAX
SIMS
As!
O
11
Luhl
Colakiasir_m_
0
g-14
OLII%
Cad
ELidlia
13•Ircia
Carr.:
UZI(17.eis..71.1.I.
Plimiirr
0
Astilmuko
Q
2
N.
Roxlanize
P
4.11
volar
1:1
10
11.1.t:
rie:4iree
vr
Elertridicf.j
U
519
Ailaloutralve
Protean
CI
Di.
Rp_al
L.
&
EFoubea
1:1411Exe1Lv!.erroi
ri
SIG
11:11:.:m1
1.5
vit.ii
SoIrmx
111
113.11.R.:1
Pm.
26
1:1.euSELsyind
.E...14.pri.L.er
CI
240
D:cla
R.
land
in
44.
FlimrIg.'
WW1
4134
my
1:1Itei
Act
onarAlul
n
VI
i
TrriPro.cluci
Lialpiliiy
n
46
Arr.=
yari...kiliikK-
0
iSa
flc.cr.1
IMWTGUATION
I,
g
'11?i)
t'inaulaipprolt.
ur
Iwo
wt.:.
O
Vt.
A
I I
Ocher
kciiPnv117
Errourrbrri
1%1
Wilk
Prolly
4N.2
cro
oil
im
lion
A
rrpl
kid
ion
In
4441
ArrEr.
witrisibiliiick-
lil
Sia
Mindatua
L
1:1110
Fl
.165
Cahcr
Irrod4
mina
0111.1
13
550-Cea
EWE!
A.ziiuni
0
Mr
Edixtuie.
I:I
555
PrIs4b13:a.itikin
Min....31
DAN:go-
I:I
Culelkind
of
1
Info-Firm
rrl
V.
ORIGEN
1.....11.:4
•v.
)1"
Li
(lir-
Far
4141.1;
ei
1
csrunti
D
2
roma
....A.
ci
7
RiquiL
1:1
0
1
4.
Renvimi
D
5
Tiird..knril
Nub.
13
E..
1:11lauliili
Li
Apro,
4
REmmukd.
Inso.
Pruomieut
li
u
o.
51Ole
P.
L
4.1
.umarrr
ifoLncl.
L
i,
wan
El
A
Mukielisric1
13
r
Appitah-Cciat
Nan
tri
1
mil
Errol
c
d
PV4.6-Y
IMISIPr
DIIIIC1
..if...:
11!...7
ki
P
naliNhgr.ii
N.A.
urn..
.-il,
RELATED,
•:s....14.hwirii.di.
21)
Re-filell
rose
&IFS
.1%10-
0
RInteliCkpes
in
YRS
II'
\.:0
RE-FILED
CA
S.L.f..09
J
L;M:ECL
11OCKETNI7111EFHL
0110
ihe
U.S.
C:i.-.1
S
LIND,
under
whirl
1:12il
are
filing
and
Write
o
BriefSmiemeng
DiCau.sc
en.
wordslaijobaleilamifiliami
111.14011
irkitsft•:
V][.
CAILISY.
OF
.ALCTICIN
LENCrTri
OF
TRRL
via
ilnyN
Infirm/IA
r.z.
b4.11h
skim
RI
lry
vnlim
nee)
VIII"
REQ1LIESTED
IN
C1JECK
IF
TDB
LS
A.
CLASS
ACT1.031
in
DEMAND
3
CHICK
YSS
uoly
ilacroirogki/
in
1.5zirrebiol.
COMPLAINT:
LIMER
1/.R.C.1'.
n
.11.11111i
114K154.4N0s
in
Vitz
I:I
N
n
JATE.
RIIIILIATLIPE
F
.LTTc:$rJF.
iF
ErgArt
Nvernber
22.
2D
Lb
Chei.GL,
vbik.e
.7..Y_aa
ziak
431;114C
1
111$P
WYLY
RECEIPT
AMOITHT
DT
.4.420E
MAO
RIDGE
