21.Plaintiffs bring this action as a class action pursuant to Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, on  behalf of a Nationwide Class defined as: All persons who, between October 7, 2009 and the  present, purchased one or more containers of “Great  Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce” at a  Walmart store located in the United States.   22.Plaintiff Tye also brings this action as a class action pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, on behalf of a California Sub-Class defined as: All persons who, between October 7, 2009 and the  present, purchased one or more containers of “Great  Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce” at a  Walmart store located in California.   23.Plaintiff  Schmoll also brings this action as a class action pursuant to  Fed.R.Civ.P. 23, on behalf of a New Jersey Sub-Class defined as: All persons who, between October 7, 2009 and the  present, purchased one or more containers of “Great  Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce” at a  Walmart store located in New Jersey.   25.The members of the class and sub-classes for whose benefit this action is  brought are so numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable.  26.Upon information and belief, the proposed Nationwide Class is composed  of over 100,000 persons and each proposed State Sub-Class is composed  of at least 5,000 persons.  27.No violations alleged in this complaint are a result of any oral  communications or individualized interaction of any kind between class  members and Defendants.  28.Rather, all claims in this matter arise from the identical, false, written  affirmative  statements on the Product label as outlined in detail herein.   30.In addition, there are common questions of law and fact affecting the  rights of all California Sub-Class members, including, inter alia, the  following: a. Whether Defendants’ actions, as outlined herein, violated  the California Business & Professions Code § 17200 et seq.; b. Whether Defendants’ actions, as outlined herein, violated  the California Business & Professions Code § 17500 et seq.; c. Whether Defendants’ action in placing the word “PORK”  under the word “INGREDIENTS” on the Product label  constituted an express warranty under California law; and d. Whether, by the facts alleged herein, Defendants have  breached an express warranty under California common  law.  33.Plaintiffs are each members of the class and sub-class he seeks to  represent.  34.The claims of Plaintiffs are not only typical of all class and sub-class  members, they are identical.  36.All claims of Plaintiffs and the class and sub-classes are based on the same  legal theories.   37.Plaintiffs have no interest antagonistic to, or in conflict with, the class or  sub-classes.  38.Plaintiffs will thoroughly and adequately protect the interests of the class  and sub-classes, having retained qualified and competent legal counsel to  represent themselves and the class and sub-classes.  39.Defendants have acted and refused to act on grounds generally applicable  to the class and sub-classes, thereby making appropriate injunctive and  declaratory relief for the class as a whole.  40.The prosecution of separate actions by individual class members would  create a risk of inconsistent or varying adjudications.  41.A class action is the only practical, available method for the fair and  efficient adjudication of the controversy since, inter alia, the damages  suffered by each class member were less than $2 per container of the  Product purchased and, as such, individual actions are not economically  feasible.  43. Defendants are in the business of manufacturing, distributing, marketing,  and selling, inter alia, “Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce.”   44. “Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce” is a an exclusive  Walmart “store brand” food product, sold at Walmart stores throughout  the United States, including 200 Walmart stores in California, 60 Walmart  stores in New Jersey and 136 Walmart stores in Pennsylvania.  46.Since the initial offering of  the Product, each and every label on this  Product has borne a uniformly-worded label which includes, inter alia, the  word “PORK” under the word “INGREDIENTS,” as depicted in Figure  2, below. Figure 2  47.In actuality, rigorous scientific testing, including microscopic and  chemical analysis, has revealed that the Product contains no pork  whatsoever.   49.It is equally clear that Defendants have been fully aware for some time  that in order to label a product as “Pork & Beans,” the product must  contain at least some pork. See U.S. Food and Drug Administration CPG  Sec. 567.200, entitled “Pork and Beans and Similar Bean Products,” which makes clear that the product must be made “with pork.”  50.Indeed, over fifteen years ago, the United States Department of  Agriculture  promulgated a written “Commercial Item Description” which specifies that any product described as “‘Pork and Beans in  Tomato Sauce’ … shall contain a minimum of 12 percent ham, bacon  or pork based on the weight of the smoked or fresh meat at the time of  formulation.”    51.Despite this, Defendants opted to name the Product “Great Value Pork &  Beans in Tomato Sauce,” knowing that it contains no pork whatsoever.  52.Defendants also choose to list the word “PORK” on the Product label,  under the word “INGREDIENTS,” knowing that the Product actually  contained no pork whatsoever.    54.While no one reasonably expects any product called “pork & beans” to  contain a majority of pork, or even a large quantity of pork, it is clear that  labeling a product which contains no pork whatsoever as “pork & beans” is misleading and deceptive. 55.Defendants sold the Product in their regular course of business.    56.Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Class purchased the Product.  57.The written, uniformly-worded label on the Product (as depicted herein)  constituted an express warranty provided to all purchasers of the Product  under the law of each state in the United States in which the Product was  sold.  58.Defendants’ written affirmations of fact, promises, and/or descriptions on  the Product label were part of that express warranty under the laws of each  state in the United States in which the Product was sold.   60.The false information provided on the label was undiscoverable to  Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Class at the time of purchase  of the Product.  61.All conditions precedent to seeking liability under this claim for breach of  warranty have been performed by or on behalf of Plaintiffs and the  members of the Nationwide Class in terms of paying for the goods at  issue.    62.Defendants had actual and/or constructive notice of the false labeling  information and to date have taken no action to remedy their breaches of  warranty.  63.Defendants were on notice of their breaches of warranty and have refused  to remedy such breaches.  64.By placing the Product into the stream of commerce, by operation of law  in each state in the United States, Defendants also impliedly warranted to  Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Class that the Product was  accurately labeled in conformance with the law.  66.As a result of the breach of these warranties, Plaintiffs and the members of  the Nationwide Class are entitled to legal and equitable relief including  damages, costs, attorneys’ fees, rescission, and/or other relief as deemed  appropriate, for an amount to compensate them for not receiving the  benefit of their bargain. 67.Plaintiffs incorporate all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if set  forth fully herein.  68.Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Class have conferred  substantial benefits on Defendants by purchasing the Product, and  Defendants have knowingly and willingly accepted and enjoyed these  benefits.  70.Under the common law of unjust enrichment in every state in the United  States where the Product was sold, it would be inequitable for Defendants  to retain the benefit of the payments under these circumstances and such  retention constitutes unjust enrichment.  71.Under the law of every state in the United States where the Product was  sold, both law and equity demand disgorgement of Defendants’ ill-gotten  gains.    72.As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ wrongful conduct and  unjust enrichment, Plaintiffs and the members of the Nationwide Class are  entitled to restitution from Defendants and institution of a constructive  trust disgorging all profits, benefits, and other compensation obtained by  Defendants. 73.Plaintiff Tye incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if  set forth fully herein.  75.Defendants sold the Product in California during the class period  applicable to Plaintiff Tye and the members of the California Sub-Class.    76.Defendants are each a “person” within the meaning of the Sherman Food  Drug & Cosmetic Law, California Health & Safety Code section 109875,  et seq. (the “Sherman Law”).   77.As a result of Defendants’ illegal business practices, Plaintiff Tye and the  members of the California Sub-Class, pursuant to California Business and  Professions Code section 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such  future conduct and such other orders and judgments which may be  necessary to disgorge Defendants’ ill-gotten gains and to restore to Plaintiff  Tye and members of the California Sub-Class any money paid for the  Product.   77.Defendants’ business practices, as described herein, are unlawful under  section 17200, et seq. by virtue of Defendants’ violations of the  advertising provisions of Article 3 of the Sherman Law and the  misbranded food provisions of Article 6 of the Sherman Law.  78.Defendants’ business practices are unlawful under section 17200 et seq. by  virtue of Defendants’ violations of section 17500 et seq., which forbids  untrue and misleading advertising.  78.Defendants’ unlawful business acts present a threat and a reasonable  continued likelihood of injury to Plaintiff Tye and members of the  California Sub-Class.  79.Defendants’ business practices are unlawful under section 17200 et seq. by  virtue of Defendants’ violations of the Consumer Legal Remedies Act,  California Civil Code section 1750, et seq.  80.Plaintiff Tye incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if  set forth fully herein.  81.Defendants’ conduct as set forth herein constitutes unfair business acts and  practices within the meaning of the California Business and Professions  Code § 17200, et seq.  82.Defendants sold the Product in California during the class period applicable  to Plaintiff Tye and the members of the California Sub-Class.    83.Plaintiff Tye and the members of the California Sub-Class suffered a  substantial injury by virtue of buying the Product which they would not  have suffered absent Defendants’ illegal conduct.   84.Defendants’ deceptive marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling of  the Product and their sale of unsalable misbranded products that were  illegal to possess was of no benefit to consumers, and the harm to  consumers and competition is substantial.  86.Plaintiff and the members of the California Sub-Class had no way of  reasonably knowing that the Product was misbranded and was not properly  marketed, advertised, packaged and labeled, and thus they could not have  reasonably avoided the injury each of them suffered.    87.The consequences of Defendants’ conduct as set forth herein outweigh any  justification, motive or reason therefor.  Defendants’ conduct is and  continues to be immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, contrary to public policy,  and is substantially injurious to Plaintiff Tye and the California Sub-Class.   88.Pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17203, and as a result of  Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff Tye and the California Sub-Class are  entitled to an order enjoining such future conduct by Defendants, and such  other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge  Defendants’ ill-gotten gains and restore any money paid by Plaintiff Tye  and the members of California Sub-Class to purchase the Product from  Defendants in California. 90.Defendants’ conduct as set forth herein constitutes fraudulent business  practices under California Business and Professions Code section 17200, et seq.  91.Defendants’ conduct in mislabeling and misbranding its food products  originated from and was approved at Defendants’ headquarters.  92.Defendants sold the Product in California during the class period.  93.Defendants’ misleading marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling of  the Product and their misrepresentations that the Product was salable,  capable of legal possession and not misbranded were likely to deceive  reasonable consumers, and in fact, Plaintiff Tye and the members of the  California Sub-Class were deceived.  By the acts set forth herein,  Defendants have engaged in fraudulent business acts and practices.    94.Defendants’ fraud and deception caused Plaintiff Tye and members of the  California Sub-Class to purchase the Product from Defendants which they  would have not otherwise purchased had they known the true nature of the  Product.   96.As a result of Defendants’ conduct as set forth herein, Plaintiff Tye and  members of the California Sub-Class, pursuant to California Business and  Professions Code section 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such  future conduct by Defendants, and such other orders and judgments which  may be necessary to disgorge Defendants’ ill-gotten gains and restore any  money paid for the Product by Plaintiff Tye and members of the California  Sub-Class.  97.Plaintiff Tye incorporates all preceding paragraphs of this complaint as if  set forth fully herein.   98.Plaintiff Tye asserts this cause of action for violations of California  Business and Professions Code § 17500, et seq. for misleading and  deceptive advertising against Defendants on behalf of the California Sub- Class.   BREACH OF WARRANTY On Behalf of the Nationwide Class  CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17500 et seq. Misleading and Deceptive Advertising On Behalf of the California Sub-Class Only  CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 et seq. Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices On Behalf of the California Sub-Class Only  CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 et seq. Unfair Business Acts and Practices On Behalf of the California Sub-Class Only  CALIFORNIA BUSINESS & PROFESSIONS CODE § 17200 et seq. Unlawful Business Acts and Practices On Behalf of the California Sub-Class Only  NEW JERSEY TRUTH IN CONSUMER CONTRACT, WARRANTY AND NOTICE ACT N.J.S.A. 56:12-14 et seq. On Behalf of the New Jersey Sub-Class Only 162. Plaintiff Schmoll incorporates all preceding paragraphs as though fully  set forth at length herein. 163. Plaintiff Schmoll and the members of the New Jersey Sub-Class are  “consumers” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:12-15 and 16. 164. Defendants are “sellers” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:12-15 and 16.  165. The Product label on “Great Value Pork & Beans in Tomato Sauce” is  both a consumer “notice” and “warranty” within the meaning of N.J.S.A. 56:12-15 and 16.  166. By the acts alleged herein, Defendants have violated N.J.S.A. 56:12-16  because, in the course of Defendants’ business, Defendants have offered  written consumer notices and warranties to Plaintiff Schmoll and the New  Jersey Sub-Class which contained provisions which violated their clearly  established legal rights under New Jersey state law, within the meaning of  UNJUST ENRICHMENT On Behalf of the Nationwide Class 