15.  Raw foodism is a relatively new diet movement known for its health benefits.  The  movement focuses on the consumption of foods with living enzymes, probiotics, and nutrients to  help humans fully digest food without relying on their own digestive enzymes.    16.  As the name suggests, consumption of “raw” foods is vital to the raw food  movement.  “Raw” foods are usually organic foods that are unprocessed, uncooked, and not  decontaminated to maintain the presence of enzymes, probiotics, and other qualities in their  original state.  Raw foods are favored over otherwise denatured or processed food for two reasons.   First, the treatment process destroys or alters many of the enzymes, nutrients, and vitamins found  in food.  Second, raw foodists believe that foods without a significant amount of active enzymes  take longer to digest and thus clog up the digestive system and arteries with partially digested fats,  proteins, and carbohydrates.   17.    “Raw” foods and juices cannot be pasteurized.  This is because pasteurization  preserves and sterilizes by substantially reducing the live, active enzymes that are the essence of  raw foods.  Accordingly, truly “Raw” products typically have a shelf life of five days or less.  As a  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page5 of 24 5  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  24.  Plaintiff Heikkila seeks to represent a class defined as all persons in the United  States who purchased the Juice Products for personal or household use, excluding those who  purchased the Juice Products for resale (hereafter, the “Class”).     25.  Plaintiff Heikkila also seeks to represent a subclass defined as all members of the  Class who purchased Juice Products within the State of California (the “California Subclass”).   26.  Members of the Class and Subclass are so numerous that their individual joinder  herein is impracticable.  On information and belief, members of the Class and the California  Subclass number in the millions.  The precise number of Class and Subclass members and their  identities are unknown to Plaintiff at this time but may be determined through discovery of  Defendant’s records.  Class members may be notified of the pendency of this action by mail, email,  and/or publication through the distribution records of Defendant and third party retailers and  vendors.    27.  Common questions of law and fact exist as to all Class members and predominate  over questions affecting only individual Class members.  These common legal and factual  questions include, but are not limited to:  a.  Whether Defendant violated the Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act, 15 U.S.C.  §§ 2301, et seq.;   b. Whether Defendant breached an express warranty made to Plaintiff and the Class;   c. Whether Defendant breached an implied warranty made to Plaintiff and the Class;  d. Whether Defendant was unjustly enriched by its conduct;  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page8 of 24 8  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  32.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.   33.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  against Defendant.   34.  The Juice Products are consumer products as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(1).   35.  Plaintiff and Class members are consumers as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(3).   36.  Defendant is a supplier and warrantor as defined in 15 U.S.C. §§ 2301(4) and (5).   37.  In connection with the sale of the Juice Products, Defendant issued a written  warranty as defined in 15 U.S.C. § 2301(6), by making the express warranty that the Juice Products  were “Raw.”    38.  In fact, the Juice Products do not conform to the Express Warranty because the  Express Warranty is false and misleading in that the Juice Products are subjected to HPP, thus  rendering them not “Raw,” in contradiction to the representations on the product packaging.  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page10 of 24 10  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  42. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.     43. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  against Defendant.    44. In connection with the sale of the Juice Products, Defendant issued a written  Express Warranty.  Defendant, as the designer, manufacturer, marketer, distributor, and/or seller  expressly warranted that the Juice Products were fit for their intended purpose as raw juices by  making the Express Warranty to Plaintiff and the Class.   45. Defendant’s Express Warranty, its affirmations of fact and promises made to  Plaintiff and the Class regarding the Juice Products, and its descriptions of the Juice Products  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page11 of 24 11  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  48. Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set  forth herein.    49. Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the Class  against Defendant.    50. Defendant is and was at all relevant times a “merchant” within the meaning of the  Uniform Commercial Code (“UCC”).  Defendant manufactured, distributed, and marketed the  Juice Products, which are “goods” within the meaning of the UCC.  Consequently, Defendant  impliedly warranted that the Juice Products were merchantable, including that they could pass  without objection in the trade under the contract description, that they were fit for the ordinary  purposes for which such goods are used, that they were of fair average quality within the  description, that they were adequately labeled, and that they would conform to the promises or  affirmations of fact made on their container or labels.  However, each of these implied warranties  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page12 of 24 12  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  57.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set  forth herein   Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page13 of 24 13  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  62.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the foregoing paragraphs as if fully set  forth herein.    63.  Plaintiff brings this claim individually and on behalf of the members of the  California Subclass against Defendant.     64.  In violation of Cal. Civ. Code §§ 1750, et seq., Defendant has engaged in unfair and  deceptive acts and practices in the course of transactions with Plaintiff and members of the  California Subclass.  Such transactions were intended to and did result in the sales of goods to  Plaintiff and the California Subclass.  Plaintiff and members of the California Subclass are  “consumers” as that term is used in the CLRA because they sought or acquired Defendant’s goods  or services for personal, family, or household purposes.   65.  Cal. Civ. Code § 1770(a)(5) prohibits “[r]epresenting that goods or services have  sponsorship, approval, characteristics, ingredients, uses, benefits, or quantities which they do not  have or that a person has a sponsorship, approval, status, affiliation, or connection which he or she  does not have.”  Defendant violated this provision by making the Misrepresentation.  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page14 of 24 14  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  72.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set  forth herein.  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page15 of 24 15  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  80.  Plaintiff repeats the allegations contained in the paragraphs above as if fully set  forth herein.  Case3:14-cv-00556-WHO   Document1   Filed02/05/14   Page16 of 24 16  1  2  3  4  5  6  7  8  9  10  11  12  13  14  15  16  17  18  19  20  21  22  23  24  25  26  27  28  A.  The Raw Food Movement   Breach Of The Implied Warranty Of Merchantability   Breach Of Express Warranty   Unjust Enrichment / Common Law Restitution   Violation Of California’s Unfair Competition Law (“UCL”),  California Business & Professions Code §§ 17200, et seq.   Violation Of California’s False Advertising Law (“FAL”),  Calif. Business & Professions Code §§ 17500, et seq.   Violation Of The Magnuson-Moss Warranty Act (“MMWA”),  15 U.S.C. §§ 2301, et seq.   Violation Of California’s Consumers Legal Remedies Act (“CLRA”),   California Civil Code §§ 1750, et seq.  