15.  Easton is one of the largest manufacturers of sporting goods equipment  in the country.   16.  Some of Easton’s most common and popular sports products are youth  baseball bats.  Easton manufactures, sells, and distributes a number of different types  of baseball bats under various Easton brands.   17.  Easton’s bats are some of the most high-end, premium youth baseball  bats on the market, with the more expensive models retailing for over three hundred  and fifty dollars each ($350.00).  Among baseball players, “Easton” baseball bats  are widely known as an upscale baseball bat that sells for a premium price.   18.  Many of Easton’s customers who buy its baseball bats are parents of  school age children in middle school and high school who play competitively for  various local and national youth baseball leagues.   48.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations by reference as  though fully set forth herein.   49.  Section 17500 of the California Business and Professions Code  generally prohibits untrue or misleading advertising.    57.  Plaintiff incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations as  if fully set forth herein.   58.  California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”) defines unfair  competition to include any “unlawful, unfair or fraudulent” act or practice, as well  as any “unfair, untrue or misleading” advertising. Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200.   59.  Section 17200 of the UCL applies to all Class members’ claims,  because Defendants’ poor quality control measures and decisions as to the bats’  marketing and labeling occurred within and emanated from the State of California.   60.  Defendants have engaged in “unlawful” conduct in violation of the  UCL, because Defendants’ bats are falsely and misleadingly advertised as being  substantially lighter than they actually are in violation of Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code §  17500 as described above.   64.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations by reference as  though fully set forth herein.   65.  Through product labeling and advertising, Defendants created written  express warranties and expressly warranted to Plaintiff and the other members of the  Class as to the specific weight of the bats.   66.  Specifically, Defendants stamped each affected bat with a label  expressly warranting that the bat weighed a certain amount in ounces. As such,  Defendants uniformly made an express warranty to Plaintiff and the other Class  members, warranting that Easton bats weighed a specific amount in ounces.   67.  Prior to making their respective purchases, Plaintiff and the other Class  members sought out and relied on Defendants’ express warranty that Easton bats  weighed a specific amount, appropriate for the person who would be using the bat.  Thus, the weight representations made by Defendants formed a part of the basis of  the bargain.   71.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates the foregoing allegations by reference as  though fully set forth herein.   72.  The implied warranty of merchantability requires that goods be fit for  the ordinary purposes for which goods of that type are used; have adequate labeling;  and conform to any promises or affirmations made on any product label.   73.  Defendants, as the marketers and distributors of the Easton baseball  bats purchased by Plaintiff and the other members of the Class, are merchants.   74.  Plaintiff and the other Class members purchased Defendants’ baseball  bats in a consumer transaction.   75.  The overweight baseball bats that Defendants sold were not fit for the  ordinary purposes for which they were sold, and they did not conform to the  expectations of consumers. Individuals who purchased Defendants’ overweight bats  cannot use them for training, practice, or in games, because the additional weight  interferes with performance and increases the risk of sports injuries.   79.  Plaintiff hereby incorporates the allegations in paragraphs 1 – 63 by  reference as though fully set forth herein.   80.  Plaintiff and the other Class members conferred a benefit on  Defendants by purchasing the non-conforming baseball bats. This benefit is  measurable using the price of Defendants’ bats and the premium built into the cost  of Defendants’ bats to consumers. Defendants appreciate or have knowledge of such  benefit.   81.  Defendants’ retention of this benefit violates principles of justice,  equity, and good conscience.   82.  It would be inequitable and unjust for Defendants to retain the benefit  of revenues obtained from purchases of non-conforming baseball bats by Plaintiff  and the other Class members, because Defendants materially misrepresented the  weights of the baseball bats such that the baseball bats were no longer age and  strength appropriate.   Background   Breach of Implied Warranty  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class)   Breach of Express Warranty  (on behalf of Plaintiff and the other members of the Class)   Unjust Enrichment  (in the alternative and on behalf of Plaintiff and the other Class members)   Violation of the California Business and Professions Code: Unfair Business  Practices (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17200 et seq.) on behalf of Plaintiff and the  other members of the Class    Violation of the California Business and Professions Code: False Advertising  (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code § 17500) on behalf of Plaintiff and the other members  of the Class   