Lewis v. General Mills

£.§

ID

\l

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

ORIGINAL

REESE RICHMAN LLPMichael R. Reese (Stale Bar No. 206773)[email protected]

Kim E. [email protected]

875 Avenueof the Americas, 18* FloorNew York. New York 10001Telephone: (212) 643-0500Facsimile: (212)253-4272

^

FILEDLos Angeles Superior Court

OCT 28 2011

>£ c#

Attorneys for Plaintiffand theProposed Class

John A. ClarkeBy

SHA

ut've Officer/Clerk.Deputy

'ESLEY

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

Case No. BC4/^45 I

-<

KIRA LEWIS, on behalf of herself and all otherssimilarly situated,

Plaintiff,CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT ANA, «

o -Im a:

S2IT) "s, I~ D

vs.

GENERAL MILLS. INC.,

Defendant.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL £m —« j -i in

r"> o n o <=«x» 3: i> s» » ti) me? 5E 3: o

(.1

o

01•O f—CO m

>-* >*

I

'i. &. J, \i ^>><J :ohaqi.'3 eolegnA ;?<..

5c."ri

O

rt»nsn ; /Ay,,.•,.- v? ^ Ô ,:'

o <•-•>

^23W^£WJAH?

5 <> s \* i> 0 f•

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

Plaintiff Kira Lewis ("Plaintiff'), on behalfof 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

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

"Defendant")for misleadingconsumersabout thenatureof the ingredientsof itscereal products sold

under the Kix brand name, namelyOriginal Kix Crispy Corn Puffs and Honey Kix Crispy Corn

Puffs ("Kix", "Product", or "Products").

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

that itsProducts are "made withAllNaturalCorn" or are"madewith AllNaturalCorn& Honey."

Defendant was thereby able to command a premium price by deceiving consumers about the

attributes of itsProducts anddistinguishing theProducts from similarcereals. Forexample, a recent

studyfound thatOriginalKixCrispy ComPuffswas36%more expensive perouncethananorganic

alternative. Nature's Path unsweetened organic com puffs. Cornucopia Institute, CerealCrimes:

How"Natural" ClaimsDeceiveConsumers and Undermine theOrganic Label- ALook Down the

Cereal and Granola Aisle (2011), available at http://www.cornucopia.ore/20n/10/natural-vs-

organic-cereal/. Defendant was motivated to mislead consumers for no other reason than to take

away market share fromcompeting products, therebyincreasing its own profits.

3. Defendant conveyed this message through a significant marketing and advertising

campaign ontheKix 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

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

wholegrain corn, KIX®cereal is a tasty way to kickoff a great day."

IS

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

28

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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

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

phrase"KidTested, Mother Approved®," prominently on theProduct labels, the Kix website, and

all Kix advertisements.

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

believed the term "natural" implied absenceof 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

(August 2010)). Similarly, two polls from 2009and2010showed 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.

contextmarketing.com.

6. Furthermore,Defendant's Kix packaging and marketing targetschildren withvarious

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

"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, thecom isderivedfromunnatural 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

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

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

Kix contains GMO com.

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

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 of another organism." See

-3-

IS

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

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

"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

11. This Complaint is filed, andtheseproceedings are instituted,pursuant to California

BusinessandProfessions 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.

13. No portionof this Complaint is brought pursuant to federal law.

14. The claims ofeach memberofthe Classdo not exceed seventy-five thousanddollars

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

PARTIES

15. Plaintiff Kira Lewis is acitizen ofCaliforniabecause Plaintiff isdomiciled inEncino,

California, and hasno intention ofchanging 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,

CA. PlaintiffLewis 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,

made with "All Natural Com", but instead, made withGMOs, shewould not have purchased the

product

4-

p

I

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

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 duetoconcerns about food safety,

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

definesGMOon its websiteasorganismswiththeir"genetic makeup altered to exhibit traitsthat

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

desired 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 Organizationdefines GMOs as"organisms inwhich

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

selected individualgenes to betransferred fromone organism intoanother, alsobetween non-related

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

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

21. Defendant has engaged in a widespread marketing and advertising campaign to

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

Honey."

22. Defendant engaged inthis misleading and deceptive campaign to charge a

premium and take away market share from other similar products. Arecent 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 theNature's Path

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

-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

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/.

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

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

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, byvirtue 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, HoneyKixCrispyCom Puffs is sold with a labelon the frontof theboxthat

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 Kixas being"made with All Natural Corn" or "made with

AllNatural Cora & Honey" on its website andinprint. Forexample, the Kix website describes its

cereal as follows: (1) "Original Kix stays true to the 70-year-old recipe of wholesome grains like all-

natural whole grain corn"; (2)"Honey Kix contains the wholesome goodness ofOriginal Kix with a

touch of all-natural honey straight from the hive."

25. InSeptember 2010, General Mills issued apress release that claimed the following:

With the same great taste kids have loved for more than 70

years, Kix introduces a new look for Original Kix andHoney

Kix. Now with only eight ingredients - each of them all-

natural - the "Kid-TestedMother-Approved®" cerealhasno

artificial colors, no artificial flavors, or no artificial

preservatives. Kix has whole grain com and is an excellent

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

vitamins C and D.

-6-

l

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

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

quickand nutritious breakfast(2010), available at

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

(emphasis added).

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 onthe packaging. The BoxTops for Education®

promotion is described in the following manner:

We know that a goodeducation for yourkids is just as important to

you asgoodnutrition. That's why KIX is proud to support BoxTops

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 eageryoung minds.

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

child's face, which says:

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 needand great taste your kids love.

28. Supporting themisleading 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).

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

the Products as being "made with AllNatural Com" or"made with All Natural Cora &Honey" are

misleading and deceptive because the Products are derived from unnatural GMOs.

,J

\i

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

30. Based on Plaintiffs counsel's research, however, the truth is that

unfortunately forconsumers 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.

CLASS ALLEGATIONS

31. Plaintiffbringsthisactionpursuant to § 382ofthe CaliforniaCodeofCivilProcedure

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

All consumers who purchased Defendant's Kix Original Crispy Cora Puffs cereal productand/or Kix Honey Crispy Cora Puffs cereal product, bearing the "made with All NaturalCorn" 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 theofficers and directors of the Defendant, and theirlegal representatives, heirs, successors, orassigns and anyentityin which theyhave orhavehad a controlling interest.

32. At this time, Plaintiffdocs not know the exact numberof Classmembers: however,

given thenature of theclaims and thenumber of retail stores selling Defendant's Produas, Plaintiff

believes that Class members are so numerous that joinder of all members of the Class is

impracticable.

33. 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:

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

Products to Plaintiff and those similarly situated using false,

misleading, and/or deceptive statements or representations,

including statements or representations concerning the ingredients

and qualities of its Products;

b. Whether Defendant omittedand/or misrepresented material facts in

connection with the sales of its Products;

8-

o

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

c. Whether Defendant participated in and pursued the common course

of conduct complained of herein;

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

e. Whether Defendant wasunjustly enriched.

34. Plaintiffs claims are typical of those of theClass because Plaintiff, like all members

of theClass, purchased Defendant's Products bearing the •'made withAll 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.

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

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

adjudicationof this controversy.

37. The prerequisites tomaintaining aclass action for injunctive or equitable relief are

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 bymembers of the Class would create arisk of

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.

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.

p

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

CAUSES OF ACTION

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

incorporates such allegations by reference herein.

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

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

its Products.

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

&Honey" label andmarketing materials with intent tosell, distribute, and increase theconsumption

of its Products.

43. Defendant's violations constitute unlawful business actsandpractices, which caused

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

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,

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.

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

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

§ 17200 et seq. by virtue of violating the Consumers Legal Remedy Act, California Civil Code

§ 1150 et seq. ("CLRA").

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

Business and Professions Code § 17200 also by virtue ofviolating § 17500 etseq., which forbids

untrueadvertisingand misleading advertising.

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

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

•10- '

h

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

26

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

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.

47. The above-described unlawful business acts and practices ofDefendant present a

threat andreasonable likelihood ofdeception to Plaintiffandmembers of theClassinthat Defendant

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

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

distributing, and selling of its Products.

48. THEREFORE,Plaintiffprays for relief as set forth below.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(California's Business and Professions Code § 17200 etseq. -

Unfair Business Acts and Practices)



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

practices.

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

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,

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

substantial

53. Plaintiffand othermembers of theClass whopurchased Defendant's Products had no

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.

- 11

i

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

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 andother members of theClass.

55. Asa resultof the business aas andpracticesdescribedabove,Plaintiffand theClass,

pursuant to Business and Professions Code § 17203, areentitled to anorderenjoining 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 thewrongful conduaofDefendant.

56. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(California's Business and Professions Code § 17200 et seq. -

Fraudulent Business Acts and Practices)



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,

packaging, and labelingof the Produas islikelytodeceivereasonable 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/oromitsthetruenatureandqualityof Defendant'sProducts. Saidactsconstitute

fraudulent business acts and practices.

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 theProduas1 truenature or quality.

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

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

- 12-

I

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

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 conduaofDefendant.

62. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for reliefas set forth below.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California's Business and Professions Code § 17500 etseq. -

Misleading and Deceptive Advertising)



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

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

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

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

have known, that these statements were misleading anddeceptive.

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

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

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-

Q

b

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

superior to other produas on that basis. Consumers, including Plaintiffand the Class, were among

the intended targets of such representations.

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

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

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 otherorders and judgments which may be necessary to disgorge Defendant's ill-

gotten gains and restore to any person in interest any money, such as the approximately 36%

premium, paid for the Products asa result of the wrongful conduct of Defendant.

69. THEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for relief as srt forth below.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(California's Business andProfessions Code f 17500 etseq. -

Untrue Advertising)


incorporates suchallegations by reference herein.

71. Plaintiff asserts this cause of action for violations of California's Business and

Professions Code § 17500 etseq. for untrue advertising against Defendant.

72. At all material times, Defendant has engaged in aschemeofoffering the Products for

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

within the definitionofadvertising as contained in Business and Professions Code§17500 et seq. in

• 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

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.

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

theState ofCalifornia and throughout theUnited States - viacommercial marketing and advertising,

produa packaging and labeling, andotherpromotional materials - statementsthat falsely advertise

the Products as being "made withAll 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 bedeceived by suchpromotional

materials.

74. Theabove acts of Defendant indisseminating said untrue advertising throughout the

State ofCalifornia andthroughout 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

prong" of Business and Professions Code § 17500.

75. As aresult oftheabove violations ofthe"untrue prong" of Business and Professions

Code § 17500et seq., Defendanthasbeenunjustly enrichedat the expense of Plaintiffandtheother

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 whichmaybe 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.

76. THEREFORE, Plaintiffprays 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)

77. Plaintiff repeats each and everyallegation contained in the paragraphs above and


- 15-

IS

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

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

Complaint toseek damages, in accordance with the CLRA, after providing Defendant with notice

pursuant to California Civil Code § 1782.

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.

80. Plaintiff and other Class members arc "consumers" as that term is defined by the

CLRA in California Civil Code § 1761(d).

81. The Products that Plaintiffand other members oftheClasspurchased from Defendant

were "goods" within the meaning of California Civil Code § 1761(a).

82. Byengaging intheactions, misrepresentations, andmisconduct setforth in this Class

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

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

constitute unfair methods ofcompetition and unfair or fraudulent acts or practices in that they

misrepresent the particular standard, quality, or grade of the goods.

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

unlawful methods, a«s,and praaices alleged herein pursuant toCalifornia Civil Code §1780(a)(2).

IfDefendant is not restrained from engaging in these types ofpractices inthe future, Plaintiff and

other members of the Class will continue to suffer harm.

84. THEREFORE, Plaintiff praysfor reliefas set forth below.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Express Warranty)

85. Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action

Complaint as if set forth herein.

- 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

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

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

Cora" or "madewith 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.

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.

89. Therefore, Plaintiff prays for relief as set forth below.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of ImpliedWarranty of Merchantability)


Complaints as if set forth herein.

91. 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

"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

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

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

- 17-

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

and by its promotion, marketing, advertising, packaging and labeling of the Produas, Defendant

warranted that the Produas were "made with All NaturalCora" or "made with All NaturalCom &

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

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 thetimeof sale in that Plaintiffand Class

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.

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 of thebenefit 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

about them.


NINTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Breach of Implied Warrant of Fitness for Particular Purpose)



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

"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

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

- 18-

o

Iv

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

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

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 AllNatural Corn&Honey" inthat

they contained GMOs.

97. Defendant breached thewarranty implied at thetimeofsaleinthatPlaintiffand Class

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

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 byDefendant, PlaintiffandClassmembers have

suffered damages inanamount tobedetermined at trial inthat, among other things, they purchased

and paid forProduasthatdid notconform to what was promised aspromoted, marketed, advertised,

packaged, andlabeled byDefendant, and they were deprived of thebenefit 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.

99. Therefore, Plaintiffprays for relief as set forth below.

TENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Deceit and/or Misrepresentation)


Complaintas if set forth herein.

101. Defendant, through theirlabeling, advertising, andmarketing 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

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

deceptive.

102. Theaforementioned misrepresentations, deceptive, and/orfalse actsandomissions

concern material facts that are essential tothe analysis undertaken by Plaintiff, and those similarly

situated, in deciding whether to purchase Defendant's Produas.

- 19-

p

IS

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

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

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

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 alsogained financially from, andas a resultof, this breach.

105. By and through such deceit, misrepresentations, and/or omissions, Defendant

intended to inducePlaintiff, and those similarly situated, to alter their positionto their detriment.

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

misrepresentations, and, as such, weredamaged by Defendant.

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.

108. Defendant acted with intent todefraud, orwith reckless or negligent disregard ofthe

rights of, Plaintiff and those similarly situated.

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


ELEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(Unjust Enrichment)

111 Plaintiff realleges and incorporate the above paragraphs of this Class Action


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 paymentofthe purchase price for Defendant's

Products.

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-

p

!S

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

Defendant to retain the benefil without restitution toPlaintiff, and all others similarly situated, for

the monies paid to Defendant for such Produas.


PRAYER FOR RELIEF

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;

B. Adeclaration that Defendant has committed the violations alleged herein;

C. For restitutionand 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'sBusiness

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

E. Fordeclaratory and injunctive relief only pursuant toCalifornia Civil Code § 1780, as

Plaintiff through this Complaint at this point expressly does not seek any monetary type ofrelief

pursuant to the CLRA;

F. An award of compensatory damages, theamount 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

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

21

!J

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

U

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff hereby demands a trial by jury.

Dated: Oaober 28, 2011 REESE RICHMAN LLP

Michael R. Reese

Kim E. Richman

875 Avenue of the Americas, 18* FloorNew York. New York 10001

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

Attorneysfor Plaintiffand theProposed Class

-22-

is

ORIGINAL

tATTOOCV ORnWVmnoUT ATTOWMYMm. «**rmn«». «f Mtaqt

REBSBRJCHMAN LLP.Michael R. Recae (SlateBarNo. 206773X KimB. Ricnmaij875 Avenue of IfaeAmericas. 18* FloorNew York. New York 10001

wwiift (212) 6433500 who, (212) 253-4272mtmww—* KIRA LEWIS

•iffpaowcowrroycMgoiBjoAcownroF LOS ANGELES

^^S 111 North Hill StreetorrAMDA'eeK Los Angeles, CA 90012

nmeoun-uwaxr£&W

piLEDU» Angeles Superior Court

OCT 28 2011

lohn A Clarke/By. U

cutive OfficBT/Cle "kDeputy

SLEYCASE NAME:

KIRA LEWIS v. GENERAL MILLS. INC.SHAI

CIVIL CASE COVER 8HEET\Z2 unlimited • umnod

(Amount (Amountdemanded demanded toenoaedt $25.000) CS.OOOorlaaa)

Complex Caaa DeaJgnauon

• Counter • JoinderFHed vt*h first appearance bydefendant

(Cat Rule*of Court, rule3402)

CWBtAaOBt BC47245ACQS:

ftamaf-gtatowm^baoony)Mt^fta<irum<(ôwoopa9aa1. Check one box balowfartto case type irtt betf oteerfeea tNa caaa:

Cwiiiau

LZ3 Beach dcortraciAwrrarty (08)• fUe 3.740 eo*Kttaru(u9)

O8wreoflM0sra(09)___ lnunneeeoN«aga<18)C3 Other contrad (37)

Auto Tort

BAUWP2)

Unkiauredrnotarhi(46)

Otter PlrPOAM) (Pareons) InfunrrPropertypinfiiuefWnwuna Oee&i) ToftL3 AtbeataJ(04|

ftoejotlaMty(24)

Mac8ca}(MlpnKtta(4S)

• OB»fPt«VWDf23)ftawPVPttWD (Other)Tort

Susinan tottRnU butkMH pracfio*(07)CMrtghafOa)

Detemetk>n(13)Fraud (16)

gMaOaotua] property(18)PvolBulonal rtaglowioa (25)

Oftar wWOfWD tart<S5)EaiawymeM

1 • WfonyU ttftnanAon (36)

[Z^ZP Qpwatmtonnart;iS)THscaea L-Tto LLlianot

B 1" ) Erntant domahflnvant^__^ oondamnsoon (14)L I WonjM eviction (33)• Other real property (26)UgjafclOataliiarLJ CommareWfSI)• ReattenM{32)CD QruoafSB)JufldaJ

U_J AMftxfe»«*(0S) ( p»rmerer*j ar* aefpareta govern*t—I PastatKertrtrelton men* (11) I—| «--,—«*_*— — - • , .«.

L I Cmgjuflotel review (38)

Pwvtelenaliy Complex CM) UUeatten(CiLRuiea of Court, njl»W«o-Xtt») .

CD AnOtrusVTfBda roflutoOon (03)Comsvesanaa«aal(10)

tort (40)

aea*tt»» BngMton (28)1. GMomwitaVTeaie tart (30)LJ lr*M«ioeao«ermdah»erttia from the

aboa»load etovfibnaly cemplaxcan»ype»(41)

fcifcm^naoi of Judaiiiii it

CH &*fOBm«nlof{udaro«i{20)Mlacaflanaoaa CM) CenpWrrt

• W00<27)CD Othveoirc)ialnl{ritte?9QUtfo6o««J(42)HjjoaBanaoMa OvB PtBon

I—I *armer«ârd corporate governance (21)

._ ^ --^ , oo'npû^n'te 3.400 oftr»CaUfar^tactora nJOjuttno, sxoapflonaf Judicial marutgamarrt

1

a. C! Large mimbercfBe^retBly represented rjarieab.d] ExtBfiahwmoBonpracUcambhgdJfncuSornovBl

Itauaa mat *i!) be tfrrte-eoneumho, to resolve

cL_l SfcrbetanOaJ amountofdoetimerrfaryevlrJarae

Romedlea sought {cnec* a* that ap&): aJ"7") monetaryNumber of causes of action(ipscfyj; ElevenThtacaee E3 to Olsnot adan acton suB.W9mnare any fcnowm rnlated cases, Reand serve anotice offalatedeajo.fYoc may two fiarroCW-OI 5.)

Data: October 27,2011Michael R, Reese ^

d.1 ILarge number ofmtaesaeaa. CD Coordhatlon wtth related acfiora pending In one or more court*

Inoner counties, states, orcountries, orIna federal oourtf. OsubatanDalposqudairv^JudWalauporvlBlori

b.C3»wnmoriol«y;d8daretoryorliViJna^ e.r~lpunHtw

{lYWORrWHtmfltl " !*§&TOS9Timsr

• Ratifflf must flehoi oovar aneetiuDi thetot paper SadIn (rwacOon<)rpraoaedJr«(axoaptaRiaOdaaT«oBSMorcaaaalMunder tha Probate Coda, FemOy Coda, orWarfare endli^MbnaC^l(CM.RutotfCWtruto3.2M.)FaJurebieanctiona. '

• FeeWa oovar aheathaddlflon to anyoovar aheetrequired by local court rute.• H»* caae la cotiiplM in>dar rule X400 at «^. of the CÎ*)rr^

atherp«rtototr»exttanarproceedlrc> "w»™wwswwiiiiu• UnlBss thto ft aooUeottona caaa under ruta 3.740 or aoomplex caae, Ws »ver ahe^ wffl be used for BtaibOcal purposes onJy. _ _ - 'V'frf

Mm MaMri to MMAtfsnr uwm—qinM«olwaiowotspkir.juyt.aR]

CTVILCASE COVER SHEET Q» *m rf Can mmJj* usiutwn i.MftOA Canavk« ju*m «AMenaa% «k1M

DO

\

,4

INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET C*°10To Plamtfmi and Omen Pinna First Papers. If you are ming a flrat paper (tar example, a oompbjM) In a cfvfl caaa. nu marloompleta ar* tile, sJongwW your first paper, the CMCaaa CovarSAaef contained onpaeel. Th»Irrfermatlon wfll beused tooornoDestaSstrca about the types and rwrnberedoeaea IBetL Yoo musl con^lete rtema 1through 6 on the sheet, tn ton 1. you must eheokonebox tor thecase type that bestdescribes the case. If the aaseftb both a general and errors roecrftcrnw ofcase Isted In ItBm 1cneektrMir»reep«cffloralflhec^To assist you In orjrnpto^trtoBneel example* oftte Aooveraheet must be filed only with your biKH paper. Failure to<Ua a oovw siwet «vfih theflisi peaer Redh a oMI esse may aubMfts counsel, orboth toSanctons under, rules 2.30 and 3-220 ofIheCfcOfbrrta Rules cf Court ^^^To Parttee to RuJe 3.740 Coueetkma Cases. A•eoJIocUons case* under rule 3.740 la defined as an action for recovery of moneyow«to ho sum stated to be certain that to rrtrrwo than J26.W^^which property, eervtoea. ormoney m« aco^lrad oncrediL Acollections ease does not Include anaction seeking thetotowtno f1)tortdamages. (2) punlto damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (6) a prejudgment' writ ofattachment The IrJantfflcaflon ofacase as arule 3.740 coOactorts case on (Ha form means that Bwin be exempt from the generalHme-far-BBtvlcB reojulrernents and ease management rules, urtlosa a defendant tDea e reaponafve pleading. A rule 3.740 coHeoborwcase will be subject to the requirements for service andofltaWrig a Judgment In rule 3.740.To Parttee In Complex Cases. In complex eesea only, partJaa mutt also usethe Orf C^ CW Sneef tooesJcnato whether theMae hoomplex. Ifa plairitlT bellevaathe ceae tocorôontpfetfig the appropriate boxaa In Rems 1and 2. If a ptatmBT dasignatea acaseascomplex, the cover sheet muat beserved with uwcomplaint onail partlea to the action. A defendant may fife and serve noMar than the time of Ra flrat appearance a Joinder in thepUrMTs dealvuilen, a courravêate^^the caaeb complex. case TOES A» EXAMPLES

Cor*eet PmrMoaaQy Censes CMUOgaboa (Gel.frioch ofQwacVWurgiiy (08) f&Jtaa of Court Rutoe»^00-£2>

Ante TonrWtoOg-Poisoreair<uryrPropMty

OentaoerWrongiut DeathUnnsured Motortrt(48) (Bttm

oan tovaVM it «to*urod^*^dy^J^4 êt^jâ êwAt^4 awnuMUtU qgrP wCfVCr D

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

• (04)• PropertyOamaps

nonalmjunyWtangW Death

ProductUebBbf (hot aihaftoi or

U«ta?S3prstfaB(4^MedoriMalpractlce-

Phyofctonaa Surgeon*OtfieT PfoSjaatonaJ HaaVi Care

MatonsflosOtrBrrWOAr*D(23)

Prentttoe UabOty (a.o* dpandbf)

Intonflcml BodBy IrfrerfPOAVD(e.9*, iwalii vaiilisee)

litfuiounal tnfflcDenof

Nagflpent tnftjlos ofCinni'wai Dtoaesa

OBMrPUFOAVDNor**HP0nW (Other)Tort

BtatreeaTortAJMUr BueVuaePreetotDT)

CMWont* <>«, dtoertnheflori,ste arrest) (hot eM

_ fiaresanerttl (08)Drtmaflen (e4), atandei, Ibsl)

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

Otfier rôftjeetoeel UalufatdGB(hofrnaoVsrarajieaQ

Otter Kott-PVPCWQTort (35)Emptoymsat

Wrongftll TermlnaflDri (30)C*er Employment (16)

Breach of RgntaVLeeaaContract (notiMbefuf oefalner

oreranptWevtttot)CortracWejianly Breech-feeler

Ptelnttr? (hotirautfornegsgencajNeptojerit Breachof Cenftaotf

WarrantyOfter8r»edirtCortr»cr/VVarr«rity

Ceonceort* (eg., money owed, openbeokeDBOunai)(OB)CcescttanCaiw SaverPiaWWC4w hBrraeary NotBrCoUaatkva

hwranoaCoverage (netpvMonatyoorraaujKtl)Auto SubragaBufiosw Coverage

Crto Contract (37)COtlttJaMJUgTJ ftefcHJ

nesirr^XCMnrM*DhpuaEmhent OemaMtavano

Conotormstton (14)Wrongful Eviction (33)Other Real Property (e.g.. qutottOe) (28)

Writ ofPaaecdan of Real PropertyMortgage ForoctosurtQuIatTMeOBw RealProperly (notomhentebmantoiafluiuvtow^yforeubturej

Ardxruejrrrade Ragutetkw (03)Conetnreoon Detect (10)Qakna IrwoMng Mat* Tort (40)gearrtto LBoaflori (28)OMliuuneiUivToxto Tort (3D)insuranceCoverageClaim

<trt**etrotnpn»<ilonetycoavlBMeeie ftps /tafco* above;(41)

Ereêeeiemof Jadgrnent&BuiU9Jieiit ofJtatajnant (20)

Abejeet of Judgment(OutofCounty)^

CcrBBHasn of Judgrrant (nqn.oameaap njepooroy

Sbajr btflttjAidgmentAdrntruiairteAgencyAeerd

(rWunpaBta**)MtDtoarCBrtttaaan of Erory ef

Judsmem on Unpaid TaaeaOtfwjr ErauiuMtiant of judyineiii

IfbMenarwoua CwOCemaleJMRICO(27)Othercarrasaint (na vecSW

acovaJ(42)OuctuakiyBaflorCrtyIrjunedvilAaDefiDor/ |W

rMraaenenB

MachanksUenOther CemnerdalCofflptaait

Coae(non^Drtiui-tionBtulOharCMrîBpltW

(naHarttoorhcomptax)NtoeeQaaaottsCM Petfflon

Partrenhb and CorporatoOovarnanoa(21)

08w PetBon (notveoflM

CM HarajJaiiaiU

cJOSrAêpenoent Adutt

Election OoroestPefltton tor NameChang*PetBkw tor RoOafFrom Late

Cojlm

Other OMI Pgdaon

P

I*

anno pm. Mr ).ncm

CenrnereW(3i)Ra«lderttW(32)Oruoa (38) (I fte easa anerVe* aega/

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

JudMaJRavMwAiietroiHjfuin(Di)PtBBon Rk AroBraoon Award (11)Wrtm Mandate («),

WfB AiSrWitraDueUandarnuaWiB-Manaairaja en LMoM Court

CawkrUtv

WnVOtharIMted CourtCatsRffVteTAli

Other Judtotol Revtow (39)Revlawof HeeWi OfllecrOrderNcBeeetAppsil-Utor

Cowmlnlnnf AooeaJiCIVtL CASE COVER 8HEET

SHORT Tm£

Kira Lewis v General Mills, Inc.

ORIGINAL

CASE NUMBER

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION{CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION!

| This form Is required pursuant to LASC Local Rule 2.0 In all new crvll case Bungs In the Los Angeles Superior CourtItem I. Check the types of hearing and fill in the estimated lengthof hearing expected for this case:

JURY TRIAL? 0 0>YES CLASS ACTION? liJYES LIMITEDCASE? • YES TIME ESTIMATED FOR TRIAL 2 • HOURS/a DAYS

Item II. Select thecorrect district and courthouse location (4 steps- If you checked 'Limited Case*, skip to Item III, Pg. 4):Step 1: After first completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet Form, find the main civil case cover sheet heading for your case inthe left margin below, and, totheright in Column A, theCivil Case Cover Sheet casetype you selected.Step 2: Checkam Superior Court typeof action in Column B below which bestdescribes 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.

Step

Sr-

o

S<

IS•2. 3

•I£ Sa Px iSo

»iI*II??

*!z a

Applicable Reasons for ChoosingCourthouse Location (see ColumnC below)Ctast Action* mutt be filed hi the County Courthouse, Central DistrictMaybe Hied InCentral(Othercounty, or no Bodilyinjury/Property Damme).Location where causa of action arete.Locationwhere bodilyInjury, death or damage occurred.Location where performance reqiired or defendant resides.

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

4: Fill In the Information requestedon page 4 in Item Hi; completeHern IV. sign the declaration

CMI Caae Cover SheetCategory No.

Auto(2Z)

Urinsured Motorist (48)

Asbestos (04)

Product Liability(24)

Medical Malpractice (46)

OtherPersonal Injury

Property DamageWrongful Death

(23)

Business Tort (07)

CMI Rights (08)

Defamation (13)

Fraud (18)

Type of ActionB

(Check only ©no)

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

D A7280 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxlerenvtiuiiiiiemsO

O A7210 Medkal MaJpractioi - Physicians &SurgeonsD A7240 Other Profe«iorialHeanh Care Malpractice

D A7250 Premises Uabinty (e.g., slip and fall)O A7230 intentional Bodily Injury/Property DarnarjeA/vronglut oeath (e.g.,

assautt, vandalism, etc)

Q A727Q tr*srtlcir^lrfflU^ri<rfErr«aoria! Distress

D A7220 OtTawPersortf Injury/Property OarmajeAMer^rM Death

Z ABQ29 Other ComrrwrrJalrBuslneas Tort (not fraud/breach ofcontract)

• A6005 CM Rlghts/DisouTdnatlon

D A8010 Detematicfl (lisnderrubel)

D A6013 Fraud (nocontract)

cApplicable I

See Step 3 Above

V.2.,4.

1..2..4.

1.. 2., 3.4,8.

1..2..4.

1..2..4.

1..2..4.

1..2..4,

1..2..3.

1..2..4.

fa*1, 2.. 3.

1..2..3.

1,2.. 3.

IS LACTV109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04

CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUMAND STATEMENT OF LOCATION

LASC, rule 2.0

Page 1 of 4

CO

aa ~> 30

I*Is

o

clE

sce

O

a

tc

C•a

&

*

*

I

SHORT TTTLa

Kira Lewis v General Mllla, Inc.

CASENUUBER

ACfvil Cass CevorSheet Category No.

BType of Action

(Check onty one)

CApplicable Reasons-See Step 3 Above

Professional

Negligence

(25)

D A6017 Legal Malpractice

D A60SO Other Professional Malpractice (not medical orlegal)

1..2..3.

1..2..3.

Other (35) D A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 2.,3.

WrongfulTermination(38)

D A6037 VVrongful Termination 1..2..3.

Other Employment(15)

D A6024 Other Emptoyment Complaint Case

0 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 ofContract/Warranty (nofraud)

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

2.. 5.

2., 5.

1..2.. 5.

t.,2.,6.

Collections(03)

Q A6002 ColtectioniCase-Seller Plaintiff

O AB012 Other Promtesory MoterCoDecUona Case

2., S.. 8.

2..S.

Insurance Coverage(18)

0 AB015 Insurance Coverage (net complex) 1 , 2, 5 8.

Ottor Contract(37)

D AS009 Contractual Fraud

0 A6031 TortiousInterference

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

V.2., 3., 5.

1..2..3..8.

EminentDomain/Inverse

Condemnation (14)

D A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Number of oarcels 2.

Vvrongful Eviction(33)

• A6023 Vvrongful Eviction Case 2., 6.

Other Real Property(28)

D A8018 Mortgage Foreclosure

D A8032 QuMTtrJe

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

2., 8.

2.. 6.

Z..6.

Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (31)

• A6021 UrUawfulDetalner-Comrriercial (not drugs orwronr^ eviction) 2.. 6.

Unlawful Detainer-

Residential (32) 0 A6020 Uniewful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 2., 8.

Unlawful Deutner-

Drugs (38)D A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs 2., 8.

Asset Forfeiture(05) D A8108 Asset ForfeitureCase 2.8.

Peblion re Arbitration

(11)D A8115 FvtrtlontoCompel/ConllnTirvacatsArrjrtration 2.. 5.

..1

12

IS

LACIV 109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04


LASC, rule 2.0

Page 2 of 4

SHORT TITLE;

Kira Lewis v General Hi 11a, Inc.

CASS NUMBER

IJ

I

•a•n

"8a

= 5E E

!?£ 2iS "5

?IJS c5 dSo.a5

0

CMI Case Cover SheetCategory No.

Writ of Mandate

(02)

Other Judicial Review(38)

Antitrust/TradeRegulation (03)

Construction Defect (10)

Claims Involving MastTort (40)

Securities Litigation (28)

Toxic TortEnvironmental (30)

insurance CoverageClaims from Complex

Case (41)

Enforcementof Judgment

(20)

RICO (27)

Other Complaints(Mot Specified Above)

(42)

PartnershipCorporationOovernance(21)

Other Petitions(Not Specified Above)

(43)

8.9

O

is LACIV109 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04

BType of Action

(Check only one)

D A8151 WrH - Administrative Mandamus

D A8152 Writ - Mandamus onUnvtad Court CaseMatter

• A8153 WW- OtherLimited Court Case Review

D A61S0 OtherVVrit /Judicial Review

• AS003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation

D A6007 Construction delect

D A6006 Claims Involving Mass Ton

• A8035 Securities Litigation Case

D A8036 ToxicTort/Envlronmertol

D A8014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only)

• A8141 Sister State Judgment

D A8160 Abstract ofJudgment

• 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

D A8033 Racketeering (RtCO) Case

D AB030 Declaratory Relief Only

O A8040 Injunctive Relief Only (not dorneatfc/herassment)D A8011 ClrwrCCfrrmerciaiCorrcilaim(^sa(tiorMorl/n(xi-coin^D ABOOO C4hBrCMComrâirt(nonôrf/non-comptex)

D A6113 Partnership arxl Corporate Governenee Case

D AS121 CM) Harassment

Q AB123 Workplace Harassment

D A8124 Eldar/Dependent Adult Abuse CaseD A6190 ElectionContest

D A6110 Petition for Change of Name

n AB170 Petition for Relief from Late Clafrn Law

D A6100 Other Civil Petition


Applicable Reason* •See Step 3 Above

i.e.

2

2.

2., 8.

1., 2„ 8.

1..2., 3,

1.2.. 6.

1..2..8.

1.. 2.3.. 8.

1..2..5..8.

2., 8.

2.,8,

2..e.

2.. 8.

2.. 8.

2., 8., 9.

V, 2., 8.

1..2..8.

2., 8.

1.. 2.. 8.

1., 2., 8.

2., 8.

2. 3., g.

2.. 3.. 9.

2., 3., 9.

2.

2.. 7.

2.. 3., 4.. 8.

2., 9.

LASC, rule 2.0

Page 3 of 4

O

ISI*

SHORT TTTLE

Kira Lewis v General Hills, inc.CASE NUMBER

Item ill. Statement ofLocation: Enter theaddress oftheaccident, party's residence or place ofbusiness, performance, orother circumstance Indicated in Item II., Step 3on Page 1. as the proper reason for tiling in the court location you selected.

BBl.i

REASON: CHECK THE NUMBER UNDER COLUMN C

WHICH APPLIES IN THIS CASE

1. D2. 03. 04. D5. D6. D7. D8. D9. D10.

ADDRESS

Ib35*4 GeUw^-fWnUeCITY:

Encino

STATE

CA

2PC00&

qmsy

Item IV. Declaration of Assignment Idedans under penalty ofperjury under the laws ofthe State ofCalifornia that the foregoing istrue and correct and that theatrove-erttrded matter isproperly filed tor assignment to the Central civil wealraurthrjuM in thec«"eral District ofthe Los Angeles Superior Court (Code Civ. Proc, §392 etseq., and LASC Local Rule 2.0,subds. (b), (c) and (d)).

Dated: 10/28/2011

PLEASE HAVE THE TOLLOWJNO ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BEFILED IN ORDER TOPROPERLY 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 minorunder18 yearsof age, or if required by Court.

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

LACIV 108 (Rev. 01/07)

LASC Approved 03-04CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM

AND STATEMENT OF LOCATIONLASC, rule 2 0

Page 4 of 4

Documents

Lewis v. General Mills