that all of Plaintiffs’ UCL claims are predicated on the allegation that Hain falsely represented the Products as organic. MTD Reply, ECF No. 99 at 15. Because the court denies Hain's motion to dismiss those allegations, Plaintiff's unlawful and unfair UCL claims survive. 10 . See McKinniss v. General Mills, Inc., No. CV 07-2521 GAF (FMOx), 2007 WL 4762172, at *3 (C.D.Cal. Sept. 18, 2007) (a reasonable consumer would know that Berry Berry Kix cereal contained no fruit where the packaging fully complied with the applicable regulations, which allowed products to describe their flavors, and where the consumer would know that the cereal contained no fruit by pouring it into a cereal bowl); Rooney v. Cumberland Packing Corp., No. 12-CV-0033-H (DHB), 2012 WL 1512106 (S.D.Cal. April 16, 2012) (<HOLDING>); Dvora v. General Mills, Inc., No. CV
holding a contract was divisible in its nature  if the intention is expressly stated in the contract holding that the brand name sugar in the raw would not make a reasonable consumer believe that the product is actually raw where the package expressly stated the sugar was not raw holding that the sugar tree checkpoint program violated the fourth amendment when officers operating the checkpoint were instructed to stop every vehicle that took the exit regardless of whether a traffic violation had occurred holding that the sugar tree ruse did not violate the fourth amendment when officers only stopped vehicles for minor traffic violations holding there is no authority that provides that the mere sale of a consumer electronics product in california can create a duty to disclose any defect that may occur during the useful life of the product