(Breach of Contract)    (Breach of Warranty)    (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code)  (§17200 (Unfair Competition))   (Cal. Bus. & Prof. Code)  (§17500 and §17508 (False Advertising))   (Cal.Civ.Code § 1750 et seq.)    25.  For example, Defendants’ Principal Display Panel on packaging of its L- Arginine-Ornithine stated a quantity of “2000 mg”, and that the package contained “300  capsules”.  This package is designed to, and does lead an average reasonable  consumer to conclude that the package contains 300 capsules each containing 2000  mg of L-Arginine-Ornithine, or a total of 600,000 mg.      26.  Instead, the package contained 300 capsules that each provide only 1000  mg of L-Arginine-Ornithine, or a total of 300,000 mg.    27.  In much smaller type the on “Supplemental Facts Panel”, located on the  back of the bottle and shelved to face away from the consumer, Defendants indicated  that “serving size” was two capsules. The 2000 mg representation on the Principal  Display Panel was therefore based on this “serving size.” Nothing on the Principal  Display Panel indicated that the 2000 mg dosage was predicated on consumption of  more than one capsule, or that it was not an accurate representation of the quantity of  L-Arginine-Ornithine per capsule.   28.  Similarly, the Principal Display Panel on packaging for Defendant’s  Calcium 1000 mg Carmel Chews represented that the package contained “Calcium  1000 mg Caramel Chews” and that “60 SOFT CHEWS” were inside the package.   33.  Plaintiff / Oregon Sub-Class Representative WALTERS is an Oregon  resident, who within the class period purchased one or more of the above Accused VSI  Products from a VS store located within the state of Oregon.  At the time of the  purchase, WALTERS was unaware that the package he purchased misrepresented the  amount of milligrams per unit of the product, or the overall amount of the supplement  contained within the package.   36.  Plaintiffs bring this action for themselves, and on behalf all similarly  situated persons who purchased one or more of the Accused VSI Products within the  United States, and within any Class State as the Court may determine appropriate for  class certification treatment pursuant to Federal Rules of Civil Procedure 23(a) and  23(b).     61.  On behalf of themselves and the members of the National Class, Plaintiffs  / Class Representatives reallege paragraphs 1 through 60, and further allege:   62.  Representations made on the Principal Display Panel of the Accused VS  Products created a warranty.   63.  Defendants warranted that the package or container of the Accused VSI  Product contained the stated number of units and that each of those would contain the  stated number of milligrams of the ingredient represented on the Principal Display  Panel.   64.  Defendants further warranted that each package of Accused VSI Product  contained the total number of milligrams of the ingredient represented on the Principal  Display Panel.   65.  Defendants breached the warranty because each of the units contained  less than half of stated number of milligrams of the ingredient represented on the  Principal Display Panel.   66.  Defendants also breached the warranty because each package of  Accused VSI Product contained half or less of the total number of milligrams of the  ingredient represented on the Principal Display Panel.   72.  On behalf of herself and the California Subclass, California Plaintiff ROE  realleges paragraphs 1 through 67, and further alleges:   73.  The CLRA applies to Defendants’ actions and conduct described herein  because it extends to transactions which are intended to result, or which have resulted,  in the sale of goods to consumers.    74.  Plaintiff ROE and each member of the California Subclass is a “consumer”  within the meaning of California Civil Code §1761(d).   84.  On behalf of herself and the California Subclass, California Plaintiff ROE  realleges paragraphs 1 through 67, and further alleges:   85.  Defendants have engaged in and continues to engage in an unfair,  unlawful and fraudulent business practice described herein. By engaging in the above- described practices, Defendants have committed one or more acts of false advertising  within the meaning of California Business and Professions Code §17500 and §17508.   86.  Defendants’ advertising was and is false and misleading because it  consisted of one or more statements which were known, or which by the exercise of  reasonable care should have been known to be false or misleading.   87.  Specifically, Defendants’ advertising is untrue and misleading because the  true or accurate quantities / milligrams for each of the Accused VSI Products is not fully  and adequately disclosed on the Principal Display Panel at the time purchase.    COMPLAINT  (1) Breach of Contract and Warranty  (2) Fraud by Uniform Written  Misrepresentation and Omission  (3) State Unlawful Trade Practices  (4) Unjust Enrichment  (3) Injunctive Relief  RICK KLINGBEIL, PC  2300 SW First Ave., #101  Portland, OR 97201  Ph: 503-473-8565  Fax: 503-427-9001  rick@klingbeil-law.com  constituted an express warranty, was part of the basis of the bargain and a contract  between Plaintiffs / Class Members, and Defendants.  