 (Violation of the Consumers Legal Remedies Act (the “CLRA”), California Civil Code §  1750, et seq.)  On Behalf of Plaintiff and the Class   24.  Consumers also understand that real carrot cake desserts do not need to contain as  much added sugar as typical desserts. This is true because carrots are naturally sweet. In fact,  according to food historians, carrot cake “originated during the Middle Ages when sugar and  sweeteners were expensive for most individuals and often hard to find, so many people used  carrots as a substitute for sugar.” (See https://www.thefooddictator.com/the-hirshon-ultimate- carrot-cake (last accessed August 24, 2020).)   25.  Accordingly, consumers reasonably understand that a “carrot cake” dessert  product is more healthful than a typical dessert product that does not contain any vegetables at all.   27.  The exception is Nabisco’s Carrot Cake Oreos. Like the Hostess Product, the  “Carrot Cake” Oreos do not contain any carrot, or at least not enough to list it in the ingredients.  But, unlike Hostess, Nabisco clearly discloses on the front of the package that its product is  merely “CARROT CAKE FLAVORED”:   28.  Like Nabisco, General Mills also makes a truthful front-of-the-package disclosure  regarding fake carrot. Although its Betty Crocker cake mix does contain real carrot—the  ingredients include “carrot powder”—General Mills discloses to consumers on the front of the  package that the “carrot” pieces inside the box are “IMITATION CARROT FLAVORED  73.  Plaintiff brings this action against Hostess, on behalf of herself and all others  similarly situated, as a class action pursuant to section 1781 of the California Civil Code. Plaintiff  seeks to represent the following groups of similarly situated persons, defined as follows:   All natural persons who reside in California and, between August 25, 2016  and the present, purchased Hostess Carrot Cake Donettes (“the Class”).   74.  This action has been brought and may properly be maintained as a class action  against Hostess because there is a well-defined community of interest in the litigation and the  proposed class is easily ascertainable.   75.  Numerosity:  Plaintiff does not know the exact size the Class, but she estimates  that it is composed of more than 100 persons. The persons in the Class are so numerous that the  joinder of all such persons is impracticable and the disposition of their claims in a class action  rather than in individual actions will benefit the parties and the courts.   78.  Adequacy: Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino will fairly and adequately protect the interests  of all class members because it is in their best interests to prosecute the claims alleged herein to  obtain full compensation due to them for the unfair and illegal conduct of which they complain.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino also has no interests that are in conflict with, or antagonistic to, the  interests of class members. She has retained highly competent and experienced class action  attorneys to represent her interests and those of the Class. By prevailing on her own claims, Ms.  Lauchung-Nacarino will establish Hostess’s liability to all class members. Ms. Lauchung- Nacarino and her counsel have the necessary financial resources to adequately and vigorously  litigate this class action, and she and counsel are aware of their fiduciary responsibilities to the  class members and are determined to diligently discharge those duties by vigorously seeking the  maximum possible recovery for class members.    79.  Superiority: There is no plain, speedy, or adequate remedy other than by  maintenance of this class action. The prosecution of individual remedies by members of the Class  will tend to establish inconsistent standards of conduct for Hostess and result in the impairment of  class members’ rights and the disposition of their interests through actions to which they were not  parties. Class action treatment will permit a large number of similarly situated persons to  prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously, efficiently, and without the  unnecessary duplication of effort and expense that numerous individual actions would engender.  Furthermore, as the damages suffered by each individual member of the Class may be relatively  small, the expenses and burden of individual litigation would make it difficult or impossible for  individual members of the class to redress the wrongs done to them, while an important public  interest will be served by addressing the matter as a class action.   81.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino realleges and incorporates the paragraphs of this Class  Action Complaint as if set forth herein.   82.  Hostess’s actions, representations and conduct have violated, and continue to  violate the CLRA, because they extend to transactions that are intended to result, or which have  resulted, in the sale or lease of goods or services to consumers.    83.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino and other class members are “consumers” as that term is  defined by the CLRA in California Civil Code § 1761(d).   84.  The Product that Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino (and other similarly situated class  members) purchased from Hostess constitutes “goods” within the meaning of California Civil  Code § 1761(a).     86.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino requests that this Court enjoin Hostess from continuing to  employ the unlawful methods, acts and practices alleged herein pursuant to California Civil Code  § 1780(a)(2). If Hostess is not restrained from engaging in these types of practices in the future,  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino and the other members of the Class will continue to suffer harm.   87.  CIVIL CODE § 1782 NOTICE. Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino notices and demands  that within thirty (30) days from that date of the filing of this Complaint, Hostess correct, repair,  replace or otherwise rectify the unlawful, unfair, false and or deceptive practices complained of  herein.    88.  Should the violations herein alleged not be corrected or rectified as required by  Civil Code § 1782 within 30 days with respect to all Class Members, Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino  will seek to amend this Class Action Complaint to seek, on behalf of each Class Member, actual  damages of at least $1,000, punitive damages, an award of $5,000 for each Class Member who is  a disabled person or senior citizen, and restitution of any ill-gotten gains due to Hostess’s acts and  practices.   89.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino also requests that this Court award her costs and  reasonable attorneys’ fees pursuant to California Civil Code § 1780(d).  90.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino realleges and incorporates by reference the paragraphs of  this Class Action Complaint as if set forth herein.   91.  Beginning at an exact date unknown to Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino, but within three  (3) years preceding the filing of the Class Action Complaint, Hostess made untrue, false,  deceptive and/or misleading statements in connection with the advertising and marketing of the  Product.   92.  Hostess made representations and statements (by omission and commission) that  led reasonable customers to believe that the Product that they were purchasing contained carrot  cake, and that it contained a substantial amount of carrot.   93.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino and those similarly situated relied to their detriment on  Hostess’s false, misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing practices, including each of  the misrepresentations and omissions set forth in paragraphs 30-38 and 45 above. Had Ms.  Lauchung-Nacarino and those similarly situated been adequately informed and not intentionally  deceived by Hostess, they would have acted differently by, without limitation, refraining from  purchasing the Product, or paying less for it.   94.  Hostess’s acts and omissions are likely to deceive the general public.    95.  Hostess engaged in these false, misleading and deceptive advertising and  marketing practices to increase its profits. Accordingly, Hostess has engaged in false advertising,  as defined and prohibited by section 17500, et seq. of the California Business and Professions  Code.    96.  The aforementioned practices, which Hostess used, and continue to use, to their  significant financial gain, also constitutes unlawful competition and provides an unlawful  advantage over Hostess’s competitors as well as injury to the general public.    98.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino seeks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated,  full restitution of monies, as necessary and according to proof, to restore any and all monies  acquired by Hostess from her, the general public, or those similarly situated by means of the false,  misleading and deceptive advertising and marketing practices complained of herein, plus interest  thereon.   99.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino seeks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, a  declaration that the above-described practices constitute false, misleading and deceptive  advertising.  100.  Ms. Lauchung-Nacarino seeks, on behalf of herself and those similarly situated, an  injunction to prohibit Hostess from continuing to engage in the false, misleading and deceptive  advertising and marketing practices complained of herein. Such misconduct by Hostess, unless  and until enjoined and restrained by order of this Court, will continue to cause injury in fact to the  general public and the loss of money and property in that Hostess will continue to violate the laws  of California, unless specifically ordered to comply with the same. This expectation of future  violations will require current and future consumers to repeatedly and continuously seek legal  redress in order to recover monies paid to Hostess to which it is not entitled. Ms. Lauchung- Nacarino, those similarly situated and/or other consumers nationwide have no other adequate  remedy at law to ensure future compliance with the California Business and Professions Code  alleged to have been violated herein.  A.  It is Well-Understood by Consumers and Manufacturers in the Food Industry that  “Carrot Cake” Products Must Contain a Substantial Amount of Carrot.  