12.  The products at issue in this case consist of all varieties (e.g., different  types of roasts) and sizes (e.g., 11.5 oz., 30.6 oz., etc.) of Maxwell House ground  coffee canisters, tins, and bricks which make a specific servings representation on  the front label (e.g., “MAKES UP TO 90 6 FL CUPS”).   49.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-48 above as  if fully set forth herein.   50.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed California Consumer Subclass against Defendant pursuant to  California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”), Cal. Civ. Code § 1750, et  seq.   67.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-48 above as  if fully set forth herein.   68.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against  Defendant.    69.  The UCL, Cal. Bus. & Prof Code § 17200, provides, in pertinent part,  that “unfair competition shall mean and include unlawful, unfair or fraudulent  business practices and unfair, deceptive, untrue or misleading advertising . . . .”     70.  Under the UCL, a business act or practice is “unlawful” if it violates  any established state or federal law. Defendant’s false and misleading advertising of  the Products was and continues to be “unlawful” because it violates the CLRA, the  FAL, and other applicable laws as described herein. As a result of Defendant’s  unlawful business acts and practices, Defendant has unlawfully obtained money  from Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass and California Consumer  Subclass.    74.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-48 above as  if fully set forth herein.   75.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against  Defendant.     84.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-48 above as  if fully set forth herein.   85.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against  Defendant.   86.  California’s implied warranty of merchantability statute provides that  “a warranty that the goods shall be merchantable is implied in a contract for their  sale if the seller is a merchant with respect to goods of that kind.”  Cal. Com. Code §  2314(1).   87.  California’s implied warranty of merchantability statute also provides  that “[g]oods to be merchantable must be at least such as . . . (f) conform to the  promises or affirmations of fact made on the container or label if any.”  Cal. Com.  Code § 2314(2)(f).   92.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in paragraphs 1-48 above as  if fully set forth herein.    93.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of  the proposed California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass against  Defendant.     A.  The Products At Issue    Breach of Express Warranty  (for the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass)   Breach of Implied Warranty  (for the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass)   Intentional Misrepresentation   (for the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass)   Violation of California’s False Advertising Law  California Business & Professions Code § 17500, et seq  (for the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass)   Violation of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act  California Civil Code § 1750, et seq.  (for the California Consumer Subclass)   Violation of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),  California Business & Professions Code § 17200, et seq.  (for the California Subclass and California Consumer Subclass)  