ORIGINAL

REESE RICHMAN LLP

Los Angeles Superior Court

FILED

Michael R. Reese (Stale Bar No. 206773)

2
mreese@reeserichman.com

3
4

Kim E. Richraan kricnman@reeserichman.com

875 Avenueof the Americas, 18* Floor

New York. New York 10001

>

^ c#

OCT 28 2011
John A. Clarke By
SHA

ut've Officer/Clerk

.Deputy
'ESLEY

Telephone: (212) 643-0500

Facsimile: (212)253-4272

Attorneys for Plaintiff and the Proposed Class

7

8 9
10

-<

11

12
13 14

15
16 17 18

19
20
21
22

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

KIRA LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all others similarly situated,

Plaintiff,

Case No.

BC4/^45 I
o m -I a:

CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ANA,

23
24 25
vs.

S2
IT) "s,
~ D

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

r"> o x 3:

n i>
ti)

o s
m

m j <=

I
I

-i

in

e? 5E 3: o

GENERAL MILLS. INC., 26

Defendant.

(.1

o 01
O f

27
ID

CO
>-*

m
>*

28

\l

5
c."

>><J :ohaqi.'3 eolegnA ;?<..

'i. &. J, \i ^

ri

rtnsn

^23W^WJAH?

; /Ay,,.,.-

v?

^^
O
o

,:'
<->

5 <> s \* i> 0 f

1
2

Plaintiff Kira Lewis ("Plaintiff'), on behalf of herself and all others similarlysituated, andby and through her undersigned counsel, alleges the following based upon her own personalknowledge and the investigation of her counsel. Plaintiff believesthat substantial evidentiary support willexist for the allegations set forth herein after a reasonable opportunity for discovery.
NATURE OF THE ACTION

3
4

5
6 7

1.

This is a proposed class action against General Mills, Inc. ("General Mills" or

"Defendant")for misleadingconsumersabout the natureof the ingredientsof itscereal products sold under the Kix brand name, namely Original Kix Crispy Corn Puffs and Honey Kix Crispy Corn
Puffs ("Kix", "Product", or "Products").

9 10
11

2.

During a period of time at some point from October 26, 2005, to the present (the

"Class Period"), Defendant engaged in a widespread marketing campaign to mislead consumers about the natureof the ingredientsin Kix. Specifically, Defendant madethe misleading statements

12

13 14
15

that its Products are "made withAllNaturalCorn" or are "made with AllNaturalCorn& Honey."
Defendant was thereby able to command a premium price by deceiving consumers about the

attributes of its Products anddistinguishing the Products from similarcereals. Forexample, a recent studyfound thatOriginalKixCrispy Com Puffswas36% more expensive perouncethananorganic
alternative. Nature's Path unsweetened organic com puffs. Cornucopia Institute, CerealCrimes: How "Natural" ClaimsDeceiveConsumers and Undermine theOrganic Label- ALook Down the

16
17

18

19
20 21

Cereal and Granola Aisle (2011), available at http://www.cornucopia.ore/20n/10/natural-vsorganic-cereal/. Defendant was motivated to mislead consumers for no other reason than to take

away market share from competing products, therebyincreasing its own profits.

22
23
24

3.

Defendant conveyed this message through a significant marketing and advertising

campaign onthe Kix packaging, website, and advertisements. Forexample, General Mills places the
label "madewith AllNaturalCom" on itsOriginal Kix CrispyCom Puffscerealand thelabel "made
with All Natural Com & Honey" on its Honey Kix Crispy Com Puffs cereal. The Kix Product

25
26
27

packaging also includes the sentence: "Madewithsimple, gcod-for-you ingredients likeall-natural

wholegrain corn, KIX cereal is a tasty way to kick off a great day."

28

4.

The representation that Kix is "made with All Natural Com" or is "made with All

2 3
4

Natural Com & Honey" is central to the marketing of the Products, and is displayed, along with the

phrase"Kid Tested, Mother Approved," prominently on the Product labels, the Kix website, and
all Kix advertisements.

5 6 7

5.

A 2010 poll by the Hartman Group found that a majority of consumers erroneously

believed the term "natural" implied absence of genetically modified organisms ("GMOs"). The
Hartman Group, Beyond Organic and Natural (2010) (as quoted in Canada Organic Trade
Association, Consumer Confusion About theDifference: "Natural" and "Organic" Product Claims

8 9
10
11

(August 2010)). Similarly, two polls from 2009and 2010showed a majority of consumers saidthe
"natural" label was either "important" or "very important." Context Marketing, Beyond Organic:
How Evolving Consumer Concerns Influence Food Purchases (2009), available at www.

12 contextmarketing.com.
13
14

6.

Furthermore,Defendant's Kix packaging and marketing targetschildren withvarious

promotional gimmicks, such as: 1) the phrase "Kid-Tested, Mother Approved", 2) the phrase

15 16
17 28

"great Kix taste = happy kids", 3) Box Tops for Education, and 4) a "Message to Moms"
accompanied by a cartoon child's face.
7. Unfortunately for consumers and their children, Kix is not "made with All Natural

Cora." Rather, the com isderived from unnatural genetically modifiedplants. Recent GMOtesting of Kix shows that Kix containsGMOcorn. Cornucopia Institute, Cereal Crimes: How "Natural"
Claims Deceive Consumers and Undermine the Organic Label - A Look Down the Cereal and

19
20
21
22

Cranota Aisle (2011),available at httd://www.cornucopia.ore/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-cereal/.

23

8.

Further testing by an independent lab hired by Plaintiffs counsel has confirmedthat

24
25

Kix contains GMO com.

9.

Monsanto Company, an agricultural company that pioneered GMO seeds, defines

26
27 28

GMO on its website as organisms with their "genetic makeup altered to exhibit traits that are not naturally theirs. In general genes are taken (copied) from one organism that shows a desired trait

and

transferred

into

the

genetic

code
-3-

of

another

organism."

See

IS

http.7/www.monsanto.com/newsview5/Pages/gtossarv.aspx#p (last visited October 28, 2011) (emphasis added). Therefore, "unnatural" is the defining characteristic of GMO foods.
10. Because of this, Defendant's claim that Kix is "made with All Natural Com" or is

3
4

"madewith All Natural Cora & Honey"is false, misleading, anddesigned to deceive consumers into

purchasing its Products. Plaintiffbrings this action to stop Defendant's misleading practice.
JURISDICTION AND VENUE

6
7

11.

This Complaint is filed, andthese proceedings are instituted, pursuant to California

8 9 10 11 12
13
14

Business and Professions Code 17203 and 17535, to recoverdamages and to obtain otherrelief
that Plaintiff and the class have sustained as a result of violations by Defendant of California

Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. and 17500 et seq., as well asConsumers Legal

Remedies Act - CaL Civ. Code 1750 et seq. (under which only injunctive reliefis sought at this
point).

12.

Venue as to Defendant is properin this Court pursuant to California Code of Civil

Procedure 395. Substantial acts in furtherance of the alleged improper conductoccurred within
this jurisdiction. Plaintiff resides within this jurisdiction and bought Defendant's Products within this jurisdiction.

15

16
17 18

13. 14.

No portion of this Complaint is brought pursuant to federal law. The claims ofeach member ofthe Classdo not exceed seventy-five thousanddollars

19

($75,000) exclusive of interest and costs.

PARTIES

20 21
22 23

15.

Plaintiff Kira Lewis is a citizen of California because Plaintiff isdomiciled inEncino,

California, and hasno intention of changing her domicile. Plaintiff Lewis bought an 8.7oz. boxof
Kix cerealon or about August 19,2011 for$3.29 at a Ralphs store on Ventura Boulevard in Encino,

24 25

CA. Plaintiff Lewis relieduponthe statement thatthe produa was"Made With All Natural Com" in
deciding to purchasethe Product. Had Plaintiffknown atthe time that the Product was not, in fact,

26 27
28

made with "All Natural Com", but instead, made with GMOs, she would not have purchased the
product

IS

4-

I 2 3
4

16.

Defendant Genera! Mills is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of

business in Minneapolis, Minnesota. It markets and distributes Kix.

SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS

17.

GMOs have created controversy around theworld due toconcerns about food safety,

5
6
7

the effect on natural ecosystems, gene flow into non-GM crops, and other issues. One consumer

response has been to purchase products represented as "natural" rather than food products that are
derived from GMOs.

18.

Aproduct that isderived from GMOs isunnatural bydefinition. Monsanto Company

9
10

definesGMO on its websiteas organismswiththeir "genetic makeup altered to exhibit traitsthat

are not naturally theirs. In general, genes are taken (copied) from one organism that shows a

11 desired
12 13
14
15

trait and transferred into the genetic code of another organism."

See

http.7/www.monsanto.com/newsviews/Pages/plossarv.aspx#g (last visited October 28, 2011)

(emphasis added).

19.

Furthermore, the World Health Organization defines GMOs as"organisms inwhich

the genetic material (DNA) has beenaltered in a way that does not occur naturally... It allows

16 selected individualgenes to betransferred fromone organism into another, alsobetween non-related

17
18
19

species." See http://www.who.int/foodsafetv/pufalications/biotech/20questions/en/ (last visited

October 28, 2011) (emphasis added).

20.

Based on the definitions above and the public understanding, an important

20 characteristic of a product derived from GMOs is that it is unnatural.

21

21.

Defendant has engaged in a widespread marketing and advertising campaign to

22

portray its Products as being "made with All Natural Cora" or "made with All Natural Com &
Honey."

23
24 25
26 27
p

22.

Defendant engaged inthis misleading and deceptive campaign to charge a

premium and take away market share from other similar products. A recent study compared the
prices of Original Kix Crispy Com Puffsand an organic alternative. Nature's Path unsweetened

organic com puffs.

The Kix cereal was 36% more expensive per ounce than the Nature's Path

28

cereal. Cornucopia Institute, Cereal Crimes: How "Natural" Claims Deceive Consumers and
-5-

1 2

Undermine the Organic Label - A Look Down the Cereal and Granola Aisle (2011), available at
http://www.comucopia.org/2011/10/natural-vs-organic-ccreaI/.

3
4

23.

Defendant sells two types ofKix cereal under the General Mills label that are widely

consumed by bothchildren and adults. Original Kix Crispy Com Puffs is sold with a label on the

5 6
7

front of the box that states prominently "made with All Natural Com." The Original Kix Crispy
CornPuffs cerealboxdisplays the"made with All Natural Com" label in a bright green color. The

box, by virtue ofthecombination of this label with the phrase "KidTested, Mother Approved" and
the image of the cereal made in the shape of com, is designed to evoke wholesomeness and healthiness. Similarly, Honey Kix CrispyCom Puffs is sold with a labelon the frontof the boxthat

9 10
11 12

states prominently "made with All Natural Com & Honey." The Honey Kix Crispy Com Puffs cereal box displays the "made with All Natural Cora & Honey" label in bright while and yellow.
The box, by virtue of the combination of this label with the phrase "Kid Tested, Mother
Approved", is designed to evoke wholesomeness and health. 24. Defendant also advertises Kix as being "made with All Natural Corn" or "made with

13 14
15

AllNatural Cora & Honey" on its website and in print. Forexample, the Kix website describes its

16
17

cereal as follows: (1) "Original Kix stays true to the 70-year-old recipe of wholesome grains like allnatural whole grain corn"; (2) "Honey Kix contains the wholesome goodness of Original Kix with a
touch of all-natural honey straight from the hive."

18 19
20

25.

InSeptember 2010, General Mills issued apress release that claimed the following:
With the same great taste kids have loved for more than 70

21
22 23
24

years, Kix introduces a new look for Original Kix andHoney

Kix. Now with only eight ingredients - each of them allnatural - the "Kid-TestedMother-Approved" cerealhasno
artificial colors, no artificial flavors, or no artificial

25

preservatives. Kix has whole grain com and is an excellent

26
27 28

source of iron and a good source of calcium, fiber, and

vitamins C and D.

-6-

General Mills, News release, Survey reveals cereal tops the list of preferred ways to serve a

2 3
4

quick and nutritious breakfast(2010), available at

http://www-Bftn^lmills.com/en/Media/NewsReleases/Librarv/20iO/September/Kix.aspx
(emphasis added).

5 6 7

26.

Furthermore, Defendant targets children with various promotional gimmicks. For

instance, the phrase "Kid-Tested, Mother Approved" appears prominently on the packaging. The phrase "great Kix taste=happykids"alsoappears on the packaging. The BoxTops for Education
promotion is described in the following manner: We know that a good education for your kids is just as important to

8
9 10
11

you asgood nutrition. That's why KIX is proud to support Box Tops
for Education. Visit boxtops4education.com to learn how you can use box tops to earnmoney for your kids' schools, and help support
all the great local programs that nurture eager young minds.

12

13
14

27.

Finally, the packaging includes a "Message to Moms" accompanied by a cartoon

15

child's face, which says:

16 17
18
19

Since we made our first batch ofcrispycom puffs in 1937, KIX has

been dedicated to helping kids get a bright start to their day. Our

promise issimple: we'Ualways give you acereal thatprovides good

nutrition your kids need and great taste your kids love.

20 21 22
23 24 25

28.

Supporting the misleading anddeceptivenature of the Defendant's claims about Kix,

a study conducted by the Rudd Center for Food Policy and Obesity at Yale University found that

specific nutrition-related health claims on cereal boxesresult in parents believing those products to

be healthier than other children's cereals. Such claims also lead to greater willingness in parents to
buythose cereals for their children. See http://opac.vale,edu/news/article.aspx?id=8782(last visited
October 4, 2011).

26 27 28

29.

Asstated herein, such statements and the wide-spread marketing campaign portraying

the Products as being "made with All Natural Com" or"made with All Natural Cora & Honey" are
misleading and deceptive because the Products are derived from unnatural GMOs.

1 2 3 4
5

30.

Based on

Plaintiffs counsel's research,

however, the truth is that

unfortunately for consumers and theirchildren, Kix is not "made with All NaturalCom" or "made

with All Natural Cora &Honey" because il is made up ofunnatural, genetically modified crops.
Testing by an independent lab hired by plaintiffs counsel hasconfirmed that Kix contains GMO
com.

6
7

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

31.

Plaintiffbringsthis actionpursuant to 382 ofthe CaliforniaCodeofCivil Procedure

8 9
10 11

and 1781 of the California Civil Code, on behalf of:

All consumers who purchased Defendant's Kix Original Crispy Cora Puffs cereal product
and/or Kix Honey Crispy Cora Puffs cereal product, bearing the "made with All Natural Corn" or"made with All Natural Corn &Honey" label, during theperiod October 26,2005, to present (the"Class"). Excluded from theClass are officers anddirectors of theDefendant, membersofthe immediate families of the officers and directors of the Defendant, and their legal representatives, heirs, successors, orassigns and anyentityin which theyhave orhave
had a controlling interest.

12

13

32.
14
15

At this time, Plaintiffdocs not know the exact numberof Class members: however,

given the nature of the claims and the number of retail stores selling Defendant's Produas, Plaintiff
believes that Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is
16

impracticable.
17

33.
18
19

There is a well-defined community of interest in the questions of law and fact

involved in this case. Questions of law and fact common to the members of the Class which predominate over questions which may affect individual Class members include:
20

a. Whether Defendant labeled, marketed, advertised, and/or sold the

21

Products to Plaintiff and those similarly situated using false,

22

misleading, and/or deceptive statements or representations,

23

including statements or representations concerning the ingredients

24

and qualities of its Products;

25

b. Whether Defendant omittedand/or misrepresented material facts in

26

connection with the sales of its Products;

27

28
,J

\i

8-

1
2

c. Whether Defendant participated in and pursued the common course

of conduct complained of herein;

3
4

d. Whether Defendant's labeling, marketing, advertising, and/or

selling of its Products as being "made with All Natural Corn" or

"made with All Natural Corn & Honey" constitutes an unfair or

deceptive consumer sales practice; and

6
7

e. Whether Defendant wasunjustly enriched.

8 9 10
11

34.

Plaintiffs claims are typical ofthose of theClass because Plaintiff, like all members

of theClass, purchased Defendant's Products bearing the 'made with All Natural Corn" or"made

with AH Natural Cora & Honey" label at a premium price in a typical consumer setting and
sustained damages from Defendant's wrongful conduct.

12

35.

Plaintiffwill fairly and adequately protect the interests of theClass and has retained

13 14
15
16 17

counsel that is experienced in litigating complex class actions. Plaintiff has no interests which
conflict with those of the Class.

36.

A class action is superior to other available methods for the fair and efficient

adjudication of this controversy.

37.

The prerequisites tomaintaining aclass action for injunctive or equitable relief are

18
19 20

met as Defendant has acted or refused to act on grounds generally applicable to the Class, thereby
making appropriate final injunctive orequitable relief with respect to the Class as a whole.
38. The prosecution of separate actions by members of the Class would create a risk of

21 22
23 24

establishing inconsistent rulings and/or incompatible standards of conduct for Defendant. For

example, one court might enjoin Defendant from performing the challenged acts, whereas another might not. Additionally, individual actions may bedispositive of the interests of the Class even
though certain Class membersare not parties to suchactions.

25 26 27
o

39.

Defendant's conduct is generally applicable to the Class as a whole and Plaintiff

seeks, inter alia, equitable remedies with respect to the Class as a whole. As such. Defendant's

systematic policies and practices make declaratory relief with respect to the Class as a whole
appropriate.

28

13

CAUSES OF ACTION

2 3
4

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(California's Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. Unlawful Business Acts and Practices)

40.

Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and

6
7

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

41.

Defendant designed the false, misleading, and deceptive "made with All Natural

8
9

Com" label and marketing materials with intent tosell, distribute, and increase the consumption of
its Products.

10
11 12 13
14

42.

Defendant designed thefalse, misleading, anddeceptive "made with AllNatural Com

&Honey" label and marketing materials with intent tosell, distribute, and increase theconsumption
of its Products.

43.

Defendant's violations constitute unlawful business actsand practices, which caused

PlaintiffandClass members to suffer pecuniary loss. Specifically, Defendant's false, deceptive, and

15

misleading "made with AllNatural Com" label and"made with All Natural Cora& Honey" label
caused consumers to purchase Defendant's Products and to pay a premium for those Products,

16
17

believing theywerenotmade using genetically modified organisms andthat,therefore, theProducts

were superior to other cereals when, in fact, Defendant's Products were made with GMOs and were not superior to other cereals on that basis.

18 19
20
21

44.

In this regard, Defendant's manufacturing, marketing, advertising, packaging,

labeling, distributing, and selling of the Products violate California's Business and Professions Code

22 23

17200 et seq. by virtue of violating the Consumers Legal Remedy Act, California Civil Code
1150 et seq. ("CLRA").

24
25
26

45.

The business acts and practices alleged above are unlawful under California's

Business and Professions Code 17200 also by virtue of violating 17500 etseq., which forbids
untrue advertising and misleading advertising.

27
p

46.

As aresult ofthe business acts and practices described above, Plaintiffand the Class,

28

pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such future
10- '

conduct on the part ofthe Defendant and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary
to disgorge Defendant's ill-gotten gains and to restore to any person in interest any money, such as
the approximately 36% premium, paid for the Products as a result of the wrongful conduct of
Defendant.

3
4

5
6 7

47.

The above-described unlawful business acts and practices of Defendant present a

threat andreasonable likelihood of deception to Plaintiffand members of theClassinthat Defendant

has systematically perpetrated and continues to perpetrate such acts or practices upon members of

8
9

the Class by means of misleading manufacturing, marketing, advertising, packaging, labeling,

distributing, and selling of its Products.

10
11

48.

THEREFORE, Plaintiffprays for relief as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

12
13

(California's Business and Professions Code 17200 etseq. Unfair Business Acts and Practices)

14
15

49.

Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

26
17
18

50. practices.

Such acts of Defendant, as described above, constitute unfair business acts and

51.

Plaintiff and other members of the Class who purchased Defendant's Products

19
20 21
22

suffered a substantial injury by virtue of buying a product they would not have purchased absent

Defendant's unfair marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling or by paying for the unfairly
marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled Products.

52.

There is no benefit to consumers or competition from deceptively marketing,

23
24

advertising, packaging, and labeling cereaL Indeed, the harm to consumers and competition is
substantial

25

53.

Plaintiff and othermembers of theClass whopurchased Defendant's Products had no

26
27

way ofreasonably knowing that the Produa they bought was not as marketed, advertised, packaged,
and labeled. Thus, they could not have reasonably avoided the injury each of them suffered.

28
h

- 11

i 2

54.

The gravity of the consequences of Defendant's condua as described above

outweighs any justification, motive, or reason therefor, particularly considering the available legal alternatives which exist in the marketplace, and is immoral, unethical, unscrupulous, offends
established public policy, or is substantially injurious to Plaintiff and other members of theClass.
55. As a resultof the business aas andpracticesdescribedabove, Plaintiffand theClass,

3
4

6
7

pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, areentitled to an orderenjoining such future

conduct onthepart of Defendant and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to
disgorge Defendant's ill-gotten gains and torestore toany person ininterest anymoney, such asthe
approximately 36%premium, paidfor theProducts asa result of the wrongful conduaofDefendant.
56. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

9 10
11

12
13 14
15

(California's Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq. Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices)

57.

Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

16
17
18

58.

Such acts ofDefendant, asdescribed above, constitute fraudulent business practices

under California's Business and Professions Code 17200 et seq.

59.

As more folly described above, Defendant's misleading marketing, advertising,

19
20
21 22

packaging, and labelingof the Produas islikelyto deceivereasonable consumers. Indeed, Plaintiff

and other members of the Class were unquestionably deceived regarding the characteristics of Defendant's Produas,asDefendant's marketing, advertising, packaging, and labeling ofits Produas
misrepresents and/oromitsthe true natureandqualityof Defendant'sProducts. Saidactsconstitute
fraudulent business acts and practices.

23 24
25

60.

This fraud and deception caused Plaintiffand members ofthe Class to purchase more

ofDefendant's Produas than they would have ortopay more than they would have for the Produrts
had theyknow the Produas1 true nature or quality.

26
27

61.

As aresult ofthe business acts and practices described above, Plaintiffand the Class,

28

pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17203, are entitled to an order enjoining such future
- 12-

I 2

conduct on the part ofDefendant and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to

disgorge Defendant's ill-gotten gains and to restore to any person in interest any money, such as the
approximately 36% premium, paid for the Products as aresult ofthe wrongful condua ofDefendant.
62. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for reliefas set forth below.
FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

3
4

6
7

(California's Business and Professions Code 17500 etseq. Misleading and Deceptive Advertising)

8
9
10

63.

Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

64.

Plaintiff asserts this cause of artion for violations of California's Business and

11

Professions Code 17500 et seq. for misleading and deceptive advertising against Defendant. 65. At all material times, Defendant engaged in ascheme ofoffering its Products for sale

12
13
14

to Plaintiff and other members of the Class by way of, inter alia, commercial marketing and
advertising, produa packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials. These materials
misrepresented and/or omitted thetruenature and quality of theProduas, Said advertisements and

15 16 17 18

inducements were made within the State ofCalifornia and throughout the United States and come

wiihin the definition ofadvertising as contained in Business and Professions Code \1500 et seq.,in
that such promotional materials were intended as inducements to purchase the Produas, are
statements disseminated by the Defendant to Plaintiff and the Class, and were intended to reach Plaintiff and members of the Class. Defendant knew, or in theexercise of reasonable care should

19
20

21
22

have known, that these statements were misleading anddeceptive.

66.

Infurtherance ofsaid plan and scheme, Defendant has prepared and distributed within

23
24
25

the Stale ofCalifornia and throughout the United States - via commercial marketing and advertising, produa packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials - statements that misleadingly and deceptively represent the true nature and quality of Defendant's Produas. Consumers, including
Plaintiff, necessarily and reasonably relied on these materials, believing the Produas were made

26

27

without the use ofgenetically modified organisms, and were therefore superior to other products,
when in fact the Products were made using genetically modified organisms, and were therefore not
-13-

28

1 2

superior to other produas on that basis. Consumers, including Plaintiffand the Class, were among
the intended targets of such representations.

3
4

67.

The above acts of Defendant, in disseminating said misleading and deceptive

statements to consumers, including Plaintiff and members of the Class, were and are likely to

5
6 7

deceive reasonable consumers, including Plaintiffand other members ofthe Class, by obfuscating
the true nature and quality ofthe Products, all in violation ofthe "misleading prong" ofBusiness and
Professions Code 17500.

68.

As a result of the above violations of the "misleading prong" of Business and

9
10 11

Professions Code 17500 et seq., Defendant has been unjustly enriched atthe expense ofPlaintiff
and the other members of theClass. Plaintiff and the Class, pursuant to Business and Professions

Code 17535, are entitled to an order ofthis Court enjoining such future condua on the part of
Defendant and such other orders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendant's illgotten gains and restore to any person in interest any money, such as the approximately 36%
premium, paid for the Products as a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant.
69. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as srt forth below.
FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

12
13 14

15 16
17

(California's Business and Professions Code f 17500 etseq. Untrue Advertising)

18

19
20 21 22 23

70.
71.

Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and
Plaintiff asserts this cause of action for violations of California's Business and

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

Professions Code 17500 etseq. for untrue advertising against Defendant.

72.

At all material times, Defendant has engaged in ascheme ofoffering the Products for

24 25 26
27

sale to Plaintiff and other members of the Class by way of, inter alia, commercial marketing and
advertising, produa packaging and labeling, and other promotional materials. These materials
misrepresented and/or omitted the true nature and quality ofthe Products. Said advertisements and

inducements were made within the State ofCalifornia and throughout the United Slates and come

28
Q

within the definition ofadvertising as contained in Business and ProfessionsCode17500 et seq. in

14-

that such promotional materials were intended as inducements to purchase the Products, are
Statements disseminated by the Defendant to Plaintiff and the Class, and were intended to reach
Plaintiff and members of the Class. Defendant knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should
have known, that these statements were untrue.

2 3
4 5

73.

in furtherance of said plan and scheme, Defendant has prepared and distributed within

6 7
8

theState ofCalifornia and throughout theUnited States - viacommercial marketing and advertising,
produa packaging and labeling, andotherpromotional materials - statementsthat falsely advertise

the Products as being "made with All Natural Cora" or"made with All Natural Corn & Honey" and as therefore beingsuperior toother cereals. Consumers, including Plaintiff and theClass, are among
the intended targets of suchrepresentations andwouldreasonably be deceived by suchpromotional
materials.

9
10 11 12
13
14

74.

The above acts of Defendant indisseminating said untrue advertising throughout the

State ofCalifornia and throughout the United States deceived Plaintiff and the other members ofthe
Class by obfuscating the nature and quality of Defendant's Produas, all in violation ofthe "untrue

15

prong" of Business and Professions Code 17500.

16
17

75.

As aresult ofthe above violations ofthe"untrue prong" of Business and Professions

Code 17500et seq., Defendanthas been unjustly enrichedat the expense of Plaintiffand the other

18
19 20 21 22

members of theClass. Plaintiff and theClass, pursuant to Business and Professions Code 17535,
are entitled to an orderof this Court enjoining such future conducton the part of Defendant, and

such otherorders and judgments whichmay be necessary to disgorge Defendant's ill-gotten gains

and restore to anyperson ininterest any money, such as theapproximately 36% premium, paid for
the Produas as a result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant.

23
24
25

76.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

SKTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California Consumers Legal Remedies Act - Cat Civ. Code fi 1750 et seq.)
(Injunctive Relief Only)

26 27

77.

Plaintiff repeats each and every allegation contained in the paragraphs above and

28

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

- 15-

1 2

78.

This cause ofaction is brought pursuant to the California Consumers Legal Remedies

Act, California Civil Code 1750 et seq. ("CLRA"). This cause ofaction does not seek monetary
damages at thispoint but is limited solely toinjunctive relief. Plaintiff will amend this Class Action

3
4 5

Complaint toseek damages, in accordance with the CLRA, after providing Defendant with notice
pursuant to California Civil Code 1782.

6
7

79.

Defendant's actions, representations, and conduct have violated, and continue to

violate, the CLRA because they extend to transactions that are intended to result, or which have
resulted, in the sale of lease of goodsor services to consumers.

8 9

80.
81.

Plaintiff and other Class members arc "consumers" as that term is defined by the
The Products that Plaintiffand other members oftheClass purchased from Defendant

10 CLRA in California Civil Code 1761(d).

11

12 13
14

were "goods" within the meaning of California Civil Code 1761(a). 82. Byengaging intheactions, misrepresentations, and misconduct setforth in this Class

Action Complaint, Defendant has violated, and continues to violate, 1770(a)(7) of the CLRA.

15

Specifically, in violation ofCalifornia Civil Code 1770(a)(7), Defendant's acts and practices

16
17

constitute unfair methods ofcompetition and unfair or fraudulent acts or practices in that they
misrepresent the particular standard, quality, or grade of the goods.

18 19 20
21

83.

Plaintiff requests that this Court enjoin Defendant from continuing to employ the

unlawful methods, as, and praaices alleged herein pursuant toCalifornia Civil Code 1780(a)(2).
IfDefendant is not restrained from engaging in these types of practices inthe future, Plaintiff and
other members of the Class will continue to suffer harm.

22
23 24 25

84.

THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for reliefas set forth below.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Express Warranty)

85.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action

26
27 28

Complaint as if set forth herein.

- 16-

IS

86.

Defendant provided Plaintiff and other members of the Class with written express

2 3
4 5 6
7

warranties including, but not limited to, warranties that its Products were "made with All Natural

Cora" or "made with All Natural Corn & Honey," as set forth above.

87.

Defendant breached these warranties. This breach resulted in damages to Plaintiff

and other members of the Class, who overpaid for the Products, which were not "made with All

Natural Cora" or "made with All Natural Corn& Honey" in that they contained unnatural GMOs
and did not otherwise conform to Defendant's warranties.

8 9 10

88.

Asa proximate result of the breach of warranties byDefendant, Plaintiff and Class

members have suffered damages in an amount to be determined at trial in that, among other things, they purchased and paid for Products that did not conform to what was promised as promoted,
marketed, advertised, packaged and labeled by Defendant, and they were deprived ofthe benefit of
their bargain and spent money on Products that did not have any value or had less value than warranted, or Produas thatthey would not have purchased andused had theyknown the truefacts
about them.

11 12
13 14

15

89.

Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16
17
18

(Breach of ImpliedWarranty of Merchantability)

90.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action

19 20

Complaints as if set forth herein.

91.

Plaintiff and other Class members purchased Defendant's Products, which were

21
22 23 24 25

promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled as being"made with All Natural Com" or

"made with All Natural Com & Honey," as set forth above. Pursuant to these sales, Defendant

impliedly warranted that its Products would be merchantable and fit for the ordinary purposes for
which such goods are used and would conform to the promises or affirmations of fact made in the

Products' promotions, marketing, advertising, packaging, and labels. In doing so. Plaintiffand other

26
27

Class members relied on Defendant's representations that the Products had particular charaaeristics,
asset forth above,and, at or aboutthattime, Defendant soId the Products to Plaintiff andotherClass

28

members. By its representations regarding the reputable nature ofthe company and related entities,
- 17-

1
2

and by its promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling of the Produas, Defendant
warranted that the Produas were "made with All Natural Cora" or "made with All NaturalCom &

3
4

Honey" and had particular characteristics, as set forth above. Plaintiff and Class members bought
the Produas relyingon Defendant's representations that its Produas were "made with All Natural

5
6 7

Corn" or "made with All Natural Corn & Honey," when, in fact, the Products were unnatural
because they contained GMOs.

92.

Defendant breached the warranty impliedat the time of sale in that Plaintiffand Class

8 9
10 11

members did not receive goods that were "made with AH NaturalCorn" or "made with All Natural

Com & Honey" as represented and thus, the goods were not merchantable as fit for the ordinary
purposes for which such goods are used oras promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, labeled, or
sold.

12 13
14

93.

As a proximate result of this breach of warranty by Defendant, Plaintiff and Class

members have suffered damages in an amount tobe determined attrial in that, among other things,

they purchased and paid for Products that did not conform to what was promised as promoted,
marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled byDefendant, and they were deprived ofthebenefit of
their bargain and spent money on Products that did not have any value or had less value than
warranted or Produas that they would not have purchased and used had they known thetrue facts

15 16
17

18 about them.
19 20
21

94.

Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Implied Warrant of Fitness for Particular Purpose)

22
23 24
25

95.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action

Complaint as if set forth herein.

96.

Plaintiff and other Class members purchased Defendant's Products, which were

promoted, marketed, advertised, packaged, and labeled as being "made with All Natural Com"or

26

"made with All Natural Com &Honey." Pursuant to these sales and by their promotion, marketing,
advertising, packaging, and labeling, Defendant impliedly warranted that their Products were "made

27 28

with Ail Natural Cora" or"made with AllNatural Corn &Honey," as set forth above. Plaintiff and
- 18-

Class members bought the Products from Defendant relying on Defendant's skill and judgment in
furnishing suitable goods as well as its representation that its Produas were "made with All Natural

3
4

Com" or "made with All Natural Cora & Honey," as set forth above. However, Defendant's Produas were not "made with AllNatural Corn" or "made with All Natural Corn& Honey" inthat
they contained GMOs.

5 6
7

97.

Defendant breached thewarranty implied at thetimeof saleinthatPlaintiffand Class

members did not receive Produas that were "made with All Natural Com" or "made with All

8 9 10 11
12 13
14

Natural Corn &Honey" asrepresented, and thus the goods were not fit for thepurpose aspromoted,
marketed, advertised, packaged, labeled, or sold.

98.

Asa resultof this breach of warrant by Defendant, PlaintiffandClassmembers have

suffered damages inanamount to bedetermined at trial inthat, among other things, they purchased
and paid forProduasthatdid notconform to what was promised aspromoted, marketed, advertised,
packaged, and labeled byDefendant, and they were deprived of the benefit of their bargain and spent

money on Produas that did nothave any value or had less value than warranted or products they
would not have purchased and used had they known the true facts about them.

15

16
17 18 19 20 21
22

99.

Therefore, Plaintiffprays for relief as set forth below.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Deceit and/or Misrepresentation)

100.

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action

Complaintas if set forth herein.

101.

Defendant, through theirlabeling, advertising, and marketing of the Products, makes

uniform representations and offers regarding the quality of the Products, as described above. Defendant engaged in, andcontinues to engage in,such fraudulent, misrepresentative, false, and/or

23
24
25
26

deceptive actswith full knowledge that such aas were, and are, in fact, misrepresentative, false, or
deceptive.

102.

The aforementioned misrepresentations, deceptive, and/orfalse acts andomissions

27
28
o

concern material facts that are essential tothe analysis undertaken by Plaintiff, and those similarly
situated, in deciding whether to purchase Defendant's Produas.
- 19-

Iv

1 2

103.

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, would have aaed differently had they not been

misled - Le. they would not have paid money for the Produas in the first place.

3 4 5

104.

Defendant has a duty to correct the misinformation it disseminates through its

advertising of the Produas. By not informing Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, Defendant
breached this duty. Defendant also gained financially from, and as a result of, this breach.
105. By and through such deceit, misrepresentations, and/or omissions, Defendant

6
7

intended to induce Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, to alter their position to their detriment.

8
9

106.

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, justifiably and reasonably relied onDefendant's

misrepresentations, and, as such, weredamaged by Defendant.

10
11 12

107.

As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's deceit and/or misrepresentations,

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, have suffered damages in anamount equal tothe amount they
paid for Defendant's Produas. The exact amount of this difference will beproven at trial.

13
14

108.

Defendant acted with intent todefraud, or with reckless or negligent disregard ofthe

rights of, Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

15

109.
110.

Plaintiff, and those similarly situated, are entitled to punitive damages.

Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.
ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

16
17
18

(Unjust Enrichment)

19
20 21
22 23

111

Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action

Complaint as if set forth herein.

112.

As a result of Defendant's deceptive, fraudulent, and misleading labeling,

advertising, marketing, and sales of the Products, Defendant was enriched, at the expense of

Plaintiff, and allothers similarly situated, through the payment ofthe purchase price for Defendant's
Products.

24 25 26
27
p

113.

Under the circumstances, it would beagainst equity and good conscience topermit

Defendant to retain the ill-gotten benefits that it received from Plaintiff, and all others similarly
situated, in light ofthe fact that the Produas purchased by Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated,
were not what Defendant purported them to be. Thus, it would be unjust or inequitable for
-20-

28

IS

1
2

Defendant to retain the benefil without restitution to Plaintiff, and all others similarly situated, for
the monies paid to Defendant for such Produas.

3
4

114.

Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

5 6
7

THEREFORE, Plaintiff pray for judgment as follows:

A. Certification of the Class, certifying Plaintiff as representative of theClass, and

designating her counsel as counsel for the Class;

8 9 10 11 12
13
14

B. A declaration that Defendant has committed the violations alleged herein;

C. For restitution and disgorgement pursuant to, without limitation, California's Business &

Professions Code 17200 et seq. and 17500 etseq.; D. For declaratory and injunctive reliefpursuant to, without umftation, Califoraia's Business

& Professions Code 17200 et seq. and 17500 etseq.;

E. Fordeclaratory and injunctive relief only pursuant to California Civil Code 1780, as

Plaintiff through this Complaint atthis point expressly does not seek any monetary type ofrelief
pursuant to the CLRA;

15

16
17 18

F. An award of compensatory damages, the amount of which is to be determined at trial;

G. For punitive damages; H. For interest at the legal rate on the foregoing sums;
I. For costs of suit incurred; and

19
20
21

J. For such further relief as this Court may deem just and proper.

22 23 24
25 26

27
p

28
21

!S

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: Oaober 28, 2011 REESE RICHMAN LLP

3
4

5
6
7
Michael R. Reese Kim E. Richman

875 Avenue of the Americas, 18* Floor

New York. New York 10001

Telephone: (212) 643-0500 Facsimile: (212)253-4272

Attorneysfor Plaintiffand the Proposed Class

10
U

12 13 14 15
16

17

18 19 20 21
22

23
24 25 26 27
!J

28
-22-

ORIGINAL
t
ATTOOCV ORnWV mnoUT ATTOWMYMm. **rmn. f Mtaqt
nmeoun-uwaxr

&W

REBSBRJCHMAN LLP.Michael R. Recae (SlateBarNo. 206773X KimB. Ricnmaij

875 Avenue of IfaeAmericas. 18* Floor New York. New York 10001

piLED U Angeles Superior Court

mtmww* KIRA LEWIS iffpaowcowrroycMgoiBjoAcownroF LOS ANGELES

wwiift (212) 6433500

who, (212) 253-4272

^ ^ S 111 North Hill Street

orrAMDA'eeK Los Angeles, CA 90012
CASE NAME:

OCT 28 2011
lohn A Clarke/
By.
SHAI
CWBtAaOBt

cutive OfficBT/Cle "k Deputy

SLEY

KIRA LEWIS v. GENERAL MILLS. INC.

CIVIL CASE COVER 8HEET

\Z2 unlimited
(Amount
demanded

umnod
(Amount
demanded to

Complex Caaa DeaJgnauon

Counter

Joinder
ACQS:

BC47245

enoaedt $25.000)

CS.OOOorlaaa)

FHed vt*h first appearance bydefendant (Cat Rule*of Court, rule3402)

ftamaf-gtatowm^baoony)Mt^fta<irum<(^owoopa9aa
1. Check one box balowfartto case type irtt betf oteerfeea tNa caaa:
Auto Tort Cwiiiau

BAUWP2)

Unkiauredrnotarhi(46)

LZ3 Beach dcortraciAwrrarty (08)

Pwvtelenaliy Complex CM) UUeatten

(CiLRuiea of Court, njlWo-Xtt) .

fUe 3.740 eo*Kttaru(u9)

CD AnOtrusVTfBda roflutoOon (03)

Comsvesanaaaal(10)
tort (40)

Otter PlrPOAM) (Pareons) InfunrrProperty

pinfiiuefWnwuna Oee&i) Toft

L3 AtbeataJ(04|

O8wreoflM0sra(09) ___ lnunneeeoNaga<18)

ftoejotlaMty(24)
Mac8ca}(MlpnKtta(4S)

C3 Other contrad (37)

^__^ oondamnsoon (14)

aea*tt BngMton (28)

OBfPtVWDf23)

1" ) Erntant domahflnvant

1.

GMomwitaVTeaie tart (30)

aboaload etovfibnaly cemplaxcan
ype(41)

LJ lr*Mioeaoermdaherttia from the DO

fcifcm^naoi of Judaiiiii it

ftawPVPttWD (Other)Tort

L I WonjM eviction (33)

Other real property (26) Susinan tottRnU butkMH pracfio*(07) CMrtghafOa) UgjafclOataliiar Detemetk>n(13) LJ CommareWfSI) Fraud (16) ReattenM{32) gMaOaotua] property(18) CD QruoafSB) JufldaJ PvolBulonal rtaglowioa (25) Oftar wWOfWD tart <S5)
EaiawymeM

CH &*fOBmnlof{udaroi{20)
Mlacaflanaoaa CM) CenpWrrt

W00<27) CD Othveoirc)ialnl{ritte?9QUtfo6oJ(42)

U_J AMftxfe*(0S)

tI PastatKertrtrelton men* (11) I| --,*_*

( *armer^ard corporate governance (21) II prmerer*j ar* aefpareta govern*

- , ..

HjjoaBanaoMa OvB PtBon

WfonyU ttftnanAon (36)

[Z^ZP Qpwatmtonnart;iS) L I Cmgjuflotel review (38) THscaea ^ L-Tto LLlianot , oo'np^u^n'te 3.400 oftrCaUfar^ ._ --^
tactora nJOjuttno, sxoapflonaf Judicial marutgamarrt

a. C! Large mimbercfBe^retBly represented rjariea d.1 I Large number ofmtaesaea b.d] ExtBfiahwmoBonpracUcambhgdJfncuSornovBl a. CD Coordhatlon wtth related acfiora pending In one or more court*
Itauaa mat *i!) be tfrrte-eoneumho, to resolve

cL_l SfcrbetanOaJ amount ofdoetimerrfaryevlrJarae f. OsubatanDalposqudairv^JudWalauporvlBlori Romedlea sought {cnec* a* that ap&): aJ"7") monetary b.C3wnmorioly;d8daretoryorliViJna^ e.r~lpunHtw
Number of causes of action(ipscfyj; Eleven

Inoner counties, states, orcountries, or Ina federal oourt

Thtacaee E3 to Olsnot adan acton suB. W 9mnare any fcnowm rnlated cases, Reand serve anotice offalatedeajo.fYoc may two fiarroCW-OI 5.)

Michael R, Reese

Data: October 27,2011

{lYWORrWHtmfltl "

^
imsr

!*& TOS9T
'

Ratifflf must flehoi oovar aneetiuDi thetot paper SadIn (rwacOon<)rpraoaedJr(axoaptaRiaOdaaToBSMorcaaaalM under tha Probate Coda, FemOy Coda, orWarfare endli^MbnaC^l(CM.RutotfCWtruto3.2M.)FaJure
bieanctiona.

FeeWa oovar aheathaddlflon to anyoovar aheetrequired by local court rute.

Mm MaMri to MMAtfsnr uw mqinMolwai

atherprtototrexttanarproceedlrc> "wwwswwiiiiu UnlBss thto ft aooUeottona caaa underruta 3.740 or aoomplex caae, Ws ver ahe^ wffl be used for BtaibOcal purposes onJy
_ _ CTVILCASE COVER SHEET
owotspkir.juyt.aR]

H* caae la cotiiplM in>dar rule X400 at ^. of the C^I*)rr^

'V'frf

Q *m rf Can mm Jj* usi u t w n i.Mft OA Canavk ju*m AMenaa% k 1M

is

\ ,4

cneektrMirreepcffloralflhec^

onebox tor thecase type that bestdescribes the case. If the aaseftb both a general and errors roecrftcrnw ofcase Isted In ItBm 1

staSstrca about the types and rwrnberedoeaea IBetL Yoo musl con^lete rtema 1through 6 on the sheet, tn ton 1. you must eheok

To Plamtfmi and Omen Pinna First Papers. If you are ming a flrat paper (tar example, a oompbjM) In a cfvfl caaa. nu marl oompleta ar* tile, sJongwW your first paper, the CMCaaa CovarSAaef contained onpaeel. ThIrrfermatlon wfll beused tooornoDe

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET

C*10

To assist you In orjrnpto^trtoBneel example* oftte Aoover aheet must be filed only with your biKH paper. Failure to<Ua a oovw siwet vfih theflisi peaer Redh a oMI esse may aubM fts counsel, orboth toSanctons under, rules 2.30 and 3-220 ofIheCfcOfbrrta Rules cf Court ^^^

To Parttee to RuJe 3.740 Coueetkma Cases. AeoJIocUons case* under rule 3.740 la defined as an action for recovery of money
owto ho sum stated to be certain that to rrtrrwo than J26.W^^

damages. (2) punlto damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (6) a prejudgment' writ of attachment The IrJantfflcaflon ofacase as arule 3.740 coOactorts case on (Ha form means that Bwin be exempt from the general
case will be subject to the requirements for service andofltaWrig a Judgment In rule 3.740.
Mae hoomplex. Ifa plairitlT bellevaathe ceae to cor^

which property, eervtoea. ormoney m aco^lrad oncrediL Acollections ease does not Include anaction seeking thetotowtno f1)tort

Hme-far-BBtvlcB reojulrernents and ease management rules, urtlosa a defendant tDea e reaponafve pleading. A rule 3.740 coHeoborw

To Parttee In Complex Cases. In complex eesea only, partJaa mutt also usethe Orf C^ CW Sneef tooesJcnato whether the
oontpfetfig the appropriate boxaa In Rems 1and 2. If a ptatmBT dasignatea a caseas complex, the cover sheet muat be served with uw complaint onail partlea to the action. A defendant may fife and serve noMar than the time of Ra flrat appearance a Joinder in the
pUrMTs dealvuilen, a courrav^eate^^
rWtoOg-Poisoreair<uryrPropMty OentaoerWrongiut Death Unnsured Motortrt(48) (Bttm
oan tovaVM i t to*urod
nuMUtU qgrP wCfVCr D
^*^dy^J^4 ^et^j^a ^ewAt^4 aw

the caaeb complex.

Ante Ton

case TOES A EXAMPLES

Cor*eet

frioch ofQwacVWurgiiy (08)

Breach of RgntaVLeeaa

PmrMoaaQy Censes CMUOgaboa (Gel.

f&Jtaa of Court Rutoe^00-2>

gearrtto LBoaflori (28)

CortracWejianly Breech-feeler
Neptojerit Breachof Cenftaotf Warranty

Contract (notiMbefuf oefalner oreranptWevtttot)

Ardxruejrrrade Ragutetkw (03) Conetnreoon Detect (10) OMliuuneiUivToxto Tort (3D)

Qakna IrwoMng Mat* Tort (40)

Ptelnttr? (hotirautf ornegsgencaj

hsfracfofAuto)

Other WO/WDi (Persowel Injury; Piupeity PeHnejafWhUHglui flesfli)

Tort

Ceonceort* (eg., money owed, open

beokeDBOunai)(OB)
CcescttanCaiw SaverPiaWW

Ofter8redirtCortrcr/VVarrrity

insuranceCoverage Claim <trt**etrotnpn<ilonetycoavlBM

(04)

Ere^eeeiemof Jadgrnent
County)^

eeie ftps /tafco* above;(41)

PropertyOamaps nonalmjuny
WtangW Death ProductUebBbf (hot aihaftoi or

&BuiU9Jieiit ofJtatajnant (20)

Abejeet of Judgment(Outof

C4w hBrraeary NotBrCoUaatkva

hwranoaCoverage (netpvMonaty

CcrBBHasn of Judgrrant (nqn.

oameaap njepooroy

Uta?S3prstfaB(4^
Matonsflos

oorraaujKtl)

MedoriMalpractlcePhyofctonaa Surgeon*

Auto SubragaBufi osw Coverage

Sbajr btflttjAidgment

Crto Contract (37)

COtlttJaMJUgTJ ftefcHJ

OtfieT PfoSjaatonaJ HaaVi Care

AdrntruiairteAgencyAeerd (rWunpaBta**) MtDtoarCBrtttaaan of Erory ef

Judsmem on Unpaid Taaea

OtrBrrWOAr*D(23) Prentttoe UabOty (a.o* dp andbf) Intonflcml BodBy IrfrerfPOAVD (e.9*, iwalii vaiilisee)
litfuiounal tnfflcDenof

nesirr^XCMnrM*Dhpua
Emhent OemaMtavano

Otfwjr ErauiuMtiant of judyineiii

IfbMenarwoua CwOCemaleJM RICO(27)

Conotormstton (14) Wrongful Eviction (33)

Othercarrasaint (na vecSW

acovaJ(42)

Other Real Property (e.g.. qutottOe) (28) Writ of Paaecdan of Real Property
Mortgage Foroctosurt
QuIatTMe

OuctuakiyBaflorCrty IrjunedvilAaDefiDor/ |W
rMraaenenB

Nagflpent tnftjlos of
Cinni'wai Dtoaesa

OBMrPUFOAVD

OBw RealProperly (notomhent ebmantoiafluiuvtow^y

foreubturej CenrnereW(3i) RalderttW(32)

MachanksUen

Other CemnerdalCofflptaait
Coae(non^Drtiui-tionBtul OharCMr^iBpltW (naHarttoorhcomptax) NtoeeQaaaottsCM Petfflon Partrenhb and Corporato Oovarnanoa(21)

Nor**HP0nW (Other)Tort
BtatreeaTortAJMUr BueVuae

PreetotDT)

CMWont* <>, dtoertnheflori,

_ fiaresanerttl (08)

ste arrest) (hot eM

Oruoa (38) (I fte easa anerVe* aega/

(fti<Hoheaktht>fBrn;affiorMte,
repart at Comnejrolat or RaaktorsM
JudMaJRavMw

Drtmaflen (e4), atandei, Ibsl)

08w PetBon (notveoflM

CM HarajJaiiaiU

Freud (10) tofta**a*aarf **"|'*\f (**) Prpfiiabrel Medtjerice (25)

Otfier r^oftjeetoeel UalufatdGB

AiietroiHjfuin(Di)

PtBBon Rk AroBraoon Award (11) Wrtm Mandate (),

CawkrUtv

cJOSrA^epenoent Adutt
Election Ooroest

(hofrnaoVsrarajieaQ Otter Kott-PVPCWQTort (35) Emptoymsat Wrongftll TermlnaflDri (30) C*er Employment (16)

WfB AiSrWitraDueUandarnua WiB-Manaairaja en LMoM Court

RffVteTAli

Pefltton tor NameChang*

PetBkw tor RoOafFrom Late
Cojlm

WnVOtharIMted CourtCats

Other Judtotol Revtow (39)

Other OMI Pgdaon

Revlaw of HeeWi OfllecrOrder NcBeeetAppsil-Utor

anno pm. Mr ).ncm

Cowmlnlnnf AooeaJi

CIVtL CASE COVER 8HEET

I*

ORIGINAL
SHORT Tm
CASE NUMBER

Kira Lewis v General Mills,

Inc.

{CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION!

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

| This form Is required pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.0 In all new crvll case Bungs In the Los Angeles Superior Court
Item I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated lengthof hearing expected for this case:
JURY TRIAL? 0 YES CLASS ACTION? 0> liJ YES LIMITEDCASE? YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 2 HOURS/a Item II. Select thecorrect district and courthouse location (4 steps- If you checked 'Limited Case*, skip to Item III, Pg. 4):

DAYS

Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet Form, find the main civil case cover sheet heading for your case in
the left margin below, and, tothe right in Column A, theCivil Case Cover Sheet casetype you selected. Step 2: Checkam Superior Court typeof action in Column B below which best describes the nature of thiscase.

Step 3: In Column C,circle the reason for the court location choice that applies to the type ofaction you have checked.
For any exception to the court location, see Los Angeles Superior Court Local Rule 2.0.

Applicable Reasons for Choosing Courthouse Location (see ColumnC below)

Ctast Action* mutt be filed hi the County Courthouse, Central District

Maybe Hied InCentral(Othercounty, or no Bodilyinjury/Property Damme).

Locationwhere bodilyInjury, death or damage occurred. Location where performance reqiired or defendant resides.

Location where causa of action arete.

6. Location ol property or permanently garaged vehicle. 7. Location wherepetitioner reskta. 9. Location where one ormore of(he parties reside.
10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office.

a. UJcaUwiwrwmlnoeferxJantAesrxrKientfLJKtloravvtrtlv.

Step 4: Fill In the Information requested on page 4 in Item Hi; complete Hern IV. sign the declaration
CO
B
CMI Caae Cover Sheet

c
Applicable I See Step 3 Above
V.2.,4.

Type of Action

Category No.

S
r-

(Check only no)

Auto(2Z)
Urinsured Motorist (48)

D A7100 Motor Verdde Personal Injury/Property OamageAttongtul Death

Q A7110 Personal lr\|ury/Propeity DamagerVVronglul Death - Uninsured Motorist
D A6070 Asbestos Property Damage D A7221 Asbestos - Personal InJuryrVvrcngful Death

S
<

1..2..4.

Asbestos (04)

IS
2. 3

Product Liability(24)

D A7280 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxlerenvtiuiiiiiemsO

1.. 2., 3.4,8. 1..2..4.

1..2..4.

Medical Malpractice (46)

O A7210 Medkal MaJpractioi - Physicians &Surgeons D A7240 Other ProfeiorialHeanh Care Malpractice
D A7250 Premises Uabinty (e.g., slip and fall)

I
S
x
a

Other

Personal Injury
Property Damage

O A7230 intentional Bodily Injury/Property DarnarjeA/vronglut oeath (e.g.,

assautt, vandalism, etc)

1..2..4.
1..2..4,

So

Wrongful Death
(23)

Q A727Q tr*srtlcir^lrfflU^ri<rfErraoria! Distress

D A7220 OtTawPersortf Injury/Property OarmajeAMer^rM Death Z ABQ29 Other ComrrwrrJalrBuslneas Tort (not fraud/breach ofcontract)
A6005 CM Rlghts/DisouTdnatlon

1..2..3. 1..2..4.

i I*
II
a

Business Tort (07)

CMI Rights (08)
Defamation (13) Fraud (18)

fa*
1, 2.. 3.
1..2..3. 1,2.. 3.

??
*!
z

D A8010 Detematicfl (lisnderrubel)

D A6013 Fraud (nocontract)

IS

LACTV109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LASC, rule 2.0 Page 1 of 4

SHORT TTTLa
a

CASENUUBER

Kira Lewis v General Mllla,

~

Inc.

> 30

A
Cfvil Cass Cevor

Sheet Category No.

B Type of Action (Check onty one)

C Applicable Reasons -See Step 3 Above

1..2..3.

Professional

I*
Is
o

Negligence (25) Other (35)

D A6017 Legal Malpractice

D A60SO Other Professional Malpractice (not medical orlegal)

1..2..3.

D A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort D A6037 VVrongful Termination

2.,3.

WrongfulTermination
(38)

1..2..3.

cl E

Other Employment (15)

D 0

A6024 Other Emptoyment Complaint Case A8109 Labor Commissioner Appeal*

1..2..3.
10.

Breach of Contract/

Warranty (08) (not insurance)

D A6004 Breach of RarrtaVLease Contract (not Unlawful Detainer orwrongful eviction) D AOOOB rjorrtraetWarTanty Breach -Seller PlalrrUH (notraud/neglrganee) D A6019 Negligent Breech of Contract/Warranty (nofraud)

2.. 5.
2., 5.

1..2.. 5.

D A6028 Other Breech ofContraet/VvarrBrty (not fraud ornegligence)

s
c

t.,2.,6.
2., S.. 8. 2..S.
1 , 2, 5 8.

Collections

A6002 ColtectioniCase-Seller Plaintiff

(03)

O AB012 Other Promtesory MoterCoDecUona Case

Insurance Coverage
(18)
Ottor Contract

0
D

AB015 Insurance Coverage (net complex)

AS009 Contractual Fraud

V.2., 3., 5.

(37)

A6031 Tortious Interference

1..2..3..8.

D AS027 Other Corrrraa Dtspute(n bnjachrtnsurarwe/treud/negjr^

Eminent

Domain/Inverse Condemnation (14)

A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation

Number of oarcels

2.

Vvrongful Eviction (33)

a

A6023 Vvrongful Eviction Case

2., 6.

tc

Other Real Property (28)

D A8018 Mortgage Foreclosure

D A8032 QuMTtrJe

2., 8.
2.. 6. Z..6.

AB060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant rorecioiure)

A6021 UrUawfulDetalner-Comrriercial (not drugs orwronr^ eviction)

Unlawful Detainer-

Commercial (31)
Unlawful Detainer-

2.. 6.

&
* Residential (32)
Unlawful Deutner-

0 A6020 Uniewful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction)

D A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs
D A8108 Asset ForfeitureCase

2., 8.

Drugs (38)
*

2., 8.

I
..1
12 IS

Asset Forfeiture(05)
Peblion re Arbitration

2.8.

(11)

D A8115 FvtrtlontoCompel/ConllnTirvacatsArrjrtration

2.. 5.

LACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LASC, rule 2.0

Page 2 of 4

SHORT TITLE;

CASS NUMBER

Kira Lewis v General Hi 11a,

Inc.

CMI Case Cover Sheet

I
J

Category No.

B Type of Action (Check only one)

Applicable Reason* See Step 3 Above

i.e.
2

D A8151 WrH - Administrative Mandamus

Writ of Mandate

I
a
n

D A8152 Writ - Mandamus onUnvtad Court Case Matter

A8153 WW- OtherLimited Court Case Review

(02)
"8
a

2.

Other Judicial Review

(38)
Antitrust/Trade

D A61S0 OtherVVrit /Judicial Review

2., 8.

Regulation (03)
Construction Defect (10)
Claims Involving Mast Tort (40)

AS003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation

D A6007 Construction delect

1., 2 8.

1..2., 3,

D A6006 Claims Involving Mass Ton A8035 Securities Litigation Case

1.2.. 6.

Securities Litigation (28)

Toxic Tort Environmental (30)

1..2..8.

D A8036 ToxicTort/Envlronmertol

1.. 2.3.. 8.

insurance Coverage

Claims from Complex Case (41)

D A8014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)

A8141 Sister State Judgment D A8160 Abstract ofJudgment

1..2..5..8.

2., 8.

Enforcement

= 5 E E

2.,8,
2..e. 2.. 8.
2.. 8.

of Judgment
(20)

iS "5

!? 2

A8107 Confession ofJudgment (non-domesoc relations) O A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) D A6114 PeUHon/CertNlcale for Entry ofJudgment on Unpaid Tax
A8112 Other Enforcement ofJudgment Case

2., 8., 9.

RICO (27)

D A8033 Racketeering (RtCO) Case

V, 2., 8. 1..2..8.
2., 8.

?I
5
JS c

D AB030 Declaratory Relief Only

Other Complaints (Mot Specified Above)
(42)

So

.a

O A8040 Injunctive Relief Only (not dorneatfc/herassment) D A8011 ClrwrCCfrrmerciaiCorrcilaim(^sa(tiorMorl/n(xi-coin^ D ABOOO C4hBrCMComr^airt(non^orf/non-comptex)
D A6113 Partnership arxl Corporate Governenee Case
D AS121 CM) Harassment

1.. 2.. 8.

5 PartnershipCorporation Oovernance(21)

1., 2., 8.
2., 8.

2. 3., g. 2.. 3.. 9. 2., 3., 9.

2.

Q AB123 Workplace Harassment

D A8124 Eldar/Dependent Adult Abuse Case

0
Other Petitions

(Not Specified Above)

(43)

D A6190 ElectionContest

D A6110 Petition for Change of Name n AB170 Petition for Relief from Late Clafrn Law
D A6100 Other Civil Petition

2.. 7.

2.. 3., 4.. 8.

2., 9.

8
.9

is

LACIV109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LASC, rule 2.0

Page 3 of 4

SHORT TTTLE

CASE NUMBER

Kira Lewis v General Hills,

inc.

Item ill. Statement ofLocation: Enter theaddress oftheaccident, party's residence or place ofbusiness, performance, or

other circumstance Indicated in Item II., Step 3on Page 1. as the proper reason for tiling in the court location you selected.
REASON: CHECK THE NUMBER UNDER COLUMN C
WHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE
ADDRESS

BBl.iD2. 03. 04. D5. D6. D7. D8. D9. D10. 1.

CITY:

Ib35*4 GeUw^-fWnUe

STATE

2PC00&

Encino

CA

qmsy

Item IV. Declaration of Assignment Idedans under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the foregoing is
true and correct and that theatrove-erttrded matter isproperly filed tor assignment to the Central civil wealraurthrjuM in the

c"eral
subds. (b), (c) and (d)).

District ofthe Los Angeles Superior Court (Code Civ. Proc, 392 etseq., and LASC Local Rule 2.0,

Dated: 10/28/2011

PLEASE HAVE THE TOLLOWJNO ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BEFILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1. Original Complaint or Petition.

2. If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance bythe Cleric

3. Civil Case Cover Sheet form CM-010.

4. Complete Addendum to CMI Case Cover Sheet form LACIV109 (Rev. 01/07), LASC Approved 03-04.
5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless fees have been waived.

6. Signed order appointing theGuardian ad Litem, JC form FL-935. ifthe plaintiff or petitioner Is a minor
under 18 years of age, or if required by Court.

7. Additional copies ofdocuments tobeconformed bythe Clerk. Copies ofthecover sheet and this addendum must beserved along with thesummons and complaint, orother initiating pleading in the case.

IS
I*

LACIV 108 (Rev. 01/07) LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LASC, rule 2 0

Page 4 of 4