                Violation of California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.   By Plaintiff and the Proposed Class against Defendant                   Violation of California Business & Professions Code §§17500, et seq.   By Plaintiff and the Proposed Class against Defendant   26.  In addition to asserting class claims, Plaintiffs assert claims on behalf of  class members pursuant to California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.  The  purpose of such claims is to obtain injunctive orders regarding the unfair and unlawful  business practices which emanated from Defendant’s principal place of business as  alleged herein.  This private attorneys general action is necessary and appropriate because  Defendant has engaged in wrongful acts described herein as part of the regular practice of  its business.   27.  Plaintiff brings this action and all claims stated within on his own behalf and  on behalf of all similarly situated persons pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure 23.    28.  The claims and causes of action alleged herein arise under Federal law and  California law.   29.  Plaintiffs seeks to certify the following Proposed Class:   All persons domiciled within the United States who, on or after November 30,  2012, purchased Trans Fat Food manufactured or sold by Pinnacle Foods, Inc.  containing partially hydrogenated oil.   35.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.    36.  Plaintiff and the Proposed Class are “consumers” as defined by Civil Code §  1761(d).   45.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.    46.  The Unfair Competition Law, California Business & Professions Code §  17200, et seq., prohibits the Defendant from engaging in any unlawful, unfair or  fraudulent business practices in connection with the conduct of its business.   47.  “Unfair competition” is defined by Business & Professions Code § 17200 as  encompassing several types of business “wrongs,” including, but not limited to: (1) an  “unlawful” business act or practice, (2) an “unfair” business act or practice, and (3)  “unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising.”  The definitions in § 17200 are  drafted in the disjunctive, meaning that each of these “wrongs” operates independently  from the others.   66.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.    67.  This cause of action is brought pursuant to the Unfair Competition Law at  Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.   68.   Plaintiff brings this cause of action as an individual, in his capacity as a  private attorney general, and on behalf of the Proposed Class.   69.   Defendant intended to sell the Trans Fat Food to Plaintiff and the Proposed  Class.   70.   Defendant disseminated advertising before the public in California that: (a)  contained statements that were illegal, untrue or misleading; (b) defendants knew, or in  the exercise of reasonable care should have known, was illegal, untrue or misleading; (c)  concerned the nature, quantity and characteristics of goods intended for sale to California  consumers, including Plaintiff and the Proposed Class; and (d) was likely to mislead  or deceive a reasonable consumer.    77.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.   78.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the Proposed Class  against Defendant.    79.  Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or  seller, expressly warranted that the Trans Fat Food contained no Trans Fat or the quantity  of Trans Fat identified on the package or label.   80.  Defendant gave Plaintiff and the Proposed Class a description of the Trans  Fat Food that included a representation that the Trans Fat Food contained no Trans Fat or  the quantity identified on the package or label.   81.  The true facts are that the Trans Fat Food does not contain no Trans Fat, but  actually contain harmful quantities of Trans Fat, and therefore does not meet the quality  represented by the Defendant and are, in fact, unsafe and unfit for human consumption.   82.  The Trans Fat Food is not suitable for sale in the United States because each  of the express warranties regarding Trans Fat content is false.    83.  Plaintiff took reasonable steps to notify the Defendant that the Trans Fat  Food included false representations.   86.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference the allegations contained in all  preceding paragraphs of this complaint.    87.  Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class purchased the Trans Fat Food, which set  forth a label or container making statements of fact with respect to the quantity Trans Fat  contained therein.  Defendant breached the implied warranty of merchantability because  Plaintiffs and the Proposed Class did not receive goods that conformed to the promises or  affirmations of fact on the Defendant’s containers or labels.    88.  At the time of purchase, Defendant was in the business of selling the Trans  Fat Food as a consumer good to the Plaintiff, the Proposed Class and the general public  as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller.  Defendant impliedly  warranted that the Trans Fat Food contained lawful ingredients, contained no Trans Fat or  contained only the amount of Trans Fat indicated on the package or label, and was legal  for sale in the United States.   Breach of Express Warranty  By Plaintiff and the Proposed Class against Defendant   Breach of the Implied Warranty Of Merchantability  By Plaintiff and the Proposed Class against Defendant   Consumers Legal Remedies Act, California Civil Code §§ 1770, et seq.      By Plaintiff and the Proposed Class against Defendant  (Injunctive Relief Only with Reservation)  