1. Plaintiff brings this action on behalf of herself, and all other similarly situated  persons residing in California and/or the United States who purchased products sold by  Defendants, THE ORGANIC CANDY FACTORY (“Candy Factory”) and DOES 1  through 10.   2. Candy Factory sells gummy candy shaped in the form of a bear, which it calls  “Gummy Cubs.” Candy Factory also sells chocolate bars filled with the same gummy  candy. Candy Factory sells these products in packaging with either the flavor “Peach” or  “Boysenberry, Blackberry & Raspberry” prominently featured on the front (collectively,  “Gummy Cubs” or “Class Products”). The flavors “Peach” or “Boysenberry Blackberry  & Raspberry” on Candy Factory’s packaging represent to consumers that the Gummy  Cubs contain peach, boysenberry, blackberry, or raspberry ingredients (“Real  Ingredients”). However, the reality is that the Gummy Cubs do not contain these  ingredients.   20. On May 18, 2017, Plaintiff Arabian purchased a package of Candy Factory’s  “Boysenberry, Blackberry & Raspberry” Gummy Cubs from The Coffee Bean store in  Glendale, California for personal, family or household purposes.   21. Plaintiff Arabian purchased the Gummy Cubs while reasonably believing that  they contained boysenberry, blackberry, and raspberry ingredients (“Real Ingredients”).  Plaintiff Arabian based her belief on reasonable reliance on Defendant’s representations  on the Gummy Cubs packaging.   22. There were no asterisks present next to the name “Boysenberry, Blackberry &  Raspberry” on the packaging to disclose the lack of Real Ingredients in the Class  Products.   23. Had there been an adequate disclosure that the Class Products did not contain  Real Ingredients, Plaintiff Arabian would have learned that the Gummy Cubs lacked Real  Ingredients.   26. Candy Factory develops, distributes, markets, advertises and sells Candy  Factory branded Class Products in the United States. Candy Factory promotes and  advertises itself as an “organic” candy brand.   27. Candy Factory has a system of distribution throughout the United States  through which it markets, advertises and sells Candy Factory branded goods. Candy  Factory sells the Class Products their web site, on Amazon, and through multiple  retailers, with both local and nationwide reach, such as The Coffee Bean, T.J. Maxx,  Marshalls, and Williams-Sonoma.   28. Through the years, Candy Factory developed, distributed, marketed, advertised  and sold certain varieties of Gummy Cubs, described below, named either “Peach” or  “Boysenberry, Blackberry & Raspberry,” but which do not in fact contain peach,  boysenberry, blackberry, or raspberry ingredients, respectively.   29. The Gummy Cubs are and always were deceptively named, in that they never  included peach, boysenberry, blackberry, or raspberry ingredients (“Real Ingredients”).     3. Defendants Candy Factory and DOES 1 through 10 collectively, designed,  manufactured, distributed, marketed, and sold the Class Products with such deceptive  representations on the product packaging.   30. The varieties of Gummy Cubs at issue include at least the following: Organic  Gummy Cubs – Peach, Organic Gummy Cubs – Boysenberry Blackberry & Raspberry,  Organic Gummy Cubs in Milk Chocolate – Peach, and Organic Gummy Cubs in Milk  Chocolate – Boysenberry Blackberry & Raspberry.   57.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference as fully set forth herein all  paragraphs of Class Action Complaint.   58.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  California Class.   59.  Candy Factory used the names “Peach” and “Boysenberry, Blackberry &  Raspberry” on the packaging of the Gummy Cubs.   60.  Candy Factory’s use of the names Peach” and “Boysenberry, Blackberry &  Raspberry” on the packaging of the Gummy Cubs were false representations of fact, that  were known by the Defendants to be untrue at the time they were made and were  intended to create reliance.   66.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference as fully set forth herein all  paragraphs of Class Action Complaint.   67.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  California Class.   68.  The Gummy Cubs are produced goods.   69.  The transactions by which the putative class members purchased the Gummy  Cubs were transactions for the sale of goods and at all times relevant, Candy Factory was  the seller of Gummy Cubs and placed these products into the stream of commerce  throughout the United States, including California.   70. Plaintiff and putative class members purchased Gummy Cubs from authorized  retailers of Candy Factory products and/or directly from Candy Factory.    77.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference as fully set forth herein all  paragraphs of Class Action Complaint.   82.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference as fully set forth herein all  paragraphs of Class Action Complaint.   83.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  National Class, including all classes.   84.  Defendants represented that they were selling Gummy Cubs made with peach  or boysenberry, blackberry & raspberry ingredients to Plaintiff and putative class  members.   85.  Defendants knew that the Gummy Cubs did not contain the Real Ingredients.   86.  Defendants made the representation that they were selling Gummy Cubs made  with peach or boysenberry, blackberry & raspberry ingredients to Plaintiff and putative  class members with an intent to induce Plaintiff and putative class members to purchase  the Gummy Cubs.   87.  Defendants’ representation was material, because it related to the contents of  consumable goods and because reasonable consumers are likely to be influenced by the  lack or presence of Real Ingredients in deciding whether to purchase these products.   91.  Plaintiff re-alleges and incorporates by reference as fully set forth herein all  paragraphs of Class Action Complaint.   92.  Plaintiff brings this cause of action on behalf of herself and on behalf of  National Class, including all subclasses.   93.  Defendants intentionally represented that they were selling Gummy Cubs made  with peach or boysenberry, blackberry & raspberry ingredients to Plaintiff and putative  class members.   94.  Defendants knew that the Gummy Cubs did not contain the Real Ingredients.   95.  Defendants made the representation that they were selling Gummy Cubs made  with peach or boysenberry, blackberry & raspberry ingredients to Plaintiff and putative  class members with an intent to induce Plaintiff and putative class members to purchase  the Gummy Cubs.   96.  Defendants’ representation was material, because it related to the contents of  consumable goods and because reasonable consumers are likely to be influenced by the  lack or presence of Real Ingredients in deciding whether to purchase these products.   BREACH OF CONTRACT  (National Class)   BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY  (California Class)   BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY  (California Class)   COMMON LAW FRAUD  (National Class)   INTENTIONAL MISREPRESENTATION  (National Class)   a business entity, form unknown; and  DOES 1 through 10, inclusive,  Defendants.  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  )  Case No.:   unknown, and DOES 1 through 10, inclusive, alleges and affirmatively states as follows:  INTRODUCTION  