This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/08/2019 at 14:18:10 (UTC).

Chen v. Cyprus Amax Minerals Company, et al.

Case Summary

On 10/24/2018 Chen filed a Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability lawsuit against Cyprus Amax Minerals Company. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Kuhnle, Thomas. The case status is Other - Transferred.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******6661

  • Filing Date:

    10/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Transferred

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Asbestos Product Liability

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Kuhnle, Thomas

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

CHEN, RUEYEH

Defendants

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY

IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorneys

Oganesyan, Albert

Purdy, Stuart James

Defendant Attorneys

Calfo, Alexander Gerard

Lashinsky, Natalie Garcia

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice Removal to Federal Court: Comment: DEFENDANTS JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INCS NOTICE TO STATE COURT CLERK AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT

Notice

Notice of Suggestion of Pendency of Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay: Comment: NOTICE OF SUGGESTION OF PENDENCY OF BANKRUPTCY AND AUTOMATIC STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

Notice

Notice CMC 6-7-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 6/7/19 at 10am in D5

Dismissal

Partial Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.

Stipulation and Order

Stipulation and Order re Electronic Service: Comment: Stipulation & Order re Electronic Service - signed/TEK

Dismissal

Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Cyprus Amax Minerals Company: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Cyprus Amax Minerals Company

Statement: Case Management Conference

Joint CMC Statement: Comment: Case Management Statement

Notice: Appearance

Notice Appearance:

Notice

Notice: Comment: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.

Notice

Notice: Comment: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

Civil Lawsuit Notice

Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 2/8/19 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable)

Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable) Plaintiff:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE; STRICT LIABILITY)

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Civil Case Cover Sheet-signed.pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed: Comment: Summons

4 More Documents Available

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/07/2019
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (2nd CMC) Asbestos. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 10/26/18, when the case was deemed complex. The stay on discovery was lifted on 2/8/19. Responsive pleadings are now due by 2/28/19. Bankruptcy proceedings (Ch11) commenced on 2/13/19 as to Imerys Talc America, Inc., Imerys Talc Vermont, Inc., and Imerys Talc Canada, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/28/2019
  • Hearing: Exparte Application - Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 2:30 PM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: DEFENDANTS JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.'S EX PARTE APPLICATION FOR SEVERANCE OR, IN THE ALTERNATIVE, AN ORDER SHORTENING TIME FOR HEARING

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/26/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice Removal to Federal Court: Comment: DEFENDANTS JOHNSON & JOHNSON AND JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INCS NOTICE TO STATE COURT CLERK AND ADVERSE PARTIES OF REMOVAL TO FEDERAL COURT

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Comment: to Complaint, atty Calfo

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2019
  • Answer (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Comment: to Complaint, atty Calfo

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/14/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice of Suggestion of Pendency of Bankruptcy and Automatic Stay: Comment: NOTICE OF SUGGESTION OF PENDENCY OF BANKRUPTCY AND AUTOMATIC STAY OF PROCEEDINGS

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice CMC 6-7-19 at 10am in D5: Comment: CMC set for 6/7/19 at 10am in D5

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/13/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Dismissal - Partial Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.: Comment: Partial * Dismissal Without Prejudice of the Complaint as to Defendant Imerys Talc America, Inc.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Conference: Case Management - Joint CMC Statement: Judicial Officer: Kuhnle, Thomas; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Result: Held; Comment: (1st CMC) Asbestos. Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 10/26/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/08/2019
  • View Court Documents
  • Stipulation and Order - Stipulation and Order re Electronic Service: Comment: Stipulation & Order re Electronic Service - signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
8 More Docket Entries
  • 11/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice: Appearance - Notice Appearance:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF DEFENDANT IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice: Comment: NOTICE OF APPEARANCE ON BEHALF OF SPECIALLY APPEARING DEFENDANT CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 11/14/2018
  • First Paper Filed - Fee - Comment: Taken on Ntc of Apperance

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/TEK

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Civil Lawsuit Notice: Comment: 1st CMC set for 2/8/19 at 10am in D5; assigned to Hon. Thomas E. Kuhnle

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Advance jury fee (Nonrefundable) - Advance Jury Fee (Nonrefundable) Plaintiff:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE; STRICT LIABILITY)

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Civil Case Cover Sheet-signed.pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed: Comment: Summons

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

10/24/2018 10:39 AM

STUART PURDY, CA Bar No. 183154 Clerk of Court

ALBERT OGANESYAN, CA Bar No. 285637 Superior Court of CA, SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P. C. County of Santa Clara 3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 540 18CV336661

Long Beach, California 90806 Reviewed By: R. Walker

Telephone (562) 590-3400 Facsimile (562) 590-3412

A ttorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNIY OF SANTA CLARA

Case No. 18c V336661

RUEYEH CHEN

Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR

PERSONAL INJURY- ASBESTOS

Vs (NEGLIGENCE; SIRICT LIABILITY)

CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS

COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY ); IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CY PRUS

INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY

and WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.);

JOHNSON & JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON

CONSUMER INC.,, a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON; and

DOES 1-450 INCLUSIVE,

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

COMES NOW Plaintiff, RUEY EH CHEN (hereinafter “Plaintiff’), and complains and alleges as follows:

1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate, governmental or otherwise of Defendant DOES 1 through 450, inclusive, are unknown to Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the true names and capacities of said Defendants have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this Complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each Defendant designated herein as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and caused injuries and damages proximately thereby to the Plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged.

2, At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants were the agent, servant, employee and/or joint venture of its Co-Defendants and each of them, and at all said times each Defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service, employment and/or joint venture. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, Defendants CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY), IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.), JOHNSON & JOHNSON JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and DOES 1-450 inclusive were individuals, corporations, partnerships and/or unincorporated associations organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or the laws of some other state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said Defendants, and each of them, were and are authorized to do and are doing business in the State of California, or the laws of some other

state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said Defendants have regularly conducted business in the County of Santa Clara, State of California.

3. Plaintiff alleges herein that she developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from Defendants’ ashbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment requiring and/or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or products designed to cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-containing products including: CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY) (as a supplier of asbestos containing talc); IMERY'S TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in- interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CY PRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc); JOHNSON & JOHNSON (for asbestos-containing Johnson’s Baby Powder); and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON (for asbestos-containing Johnson’s Baby

Powder).

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(Negligence) PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-450, THEIR

“ALTERNATE ENTITIES”, AND EACH OF THEM AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

4, Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the general allegations set forth above.

D. At all times herein mentioned, each of the named Defendants and DOES 1 through 450 were the successor, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying,

labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising asbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos- containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment requiring and/or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos- containing products, and/or products designed to cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-containing products including, but not limited to, those products identified in paragraph 3 above. Said entities shall hereinafter collectively be called “alternate entities.” Each of the herein named Defendants is liable for the tortious conduct of each successor, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line or a portion thereof, assign, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary, whole or partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity, or entity that it was a member of or funded that researched, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others and advertised asbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment requiring and/or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or products designed to cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos- containing products. The following Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the acts of each and every “alternate entity”, and each of them, in that there has been a virtual destruction of Plaintiff’s remedy against each such “alternate entity”’; Defendants, and each of them, have acquired the assets, product line, or a portion thereof of each such “alternate entity”; Defendants, and each of them, have caused the destruction of Plaintiff’s remedy against each such “alternate entity”; each such Defendant has the ability to assume the risk-spreading role of each such “alternate entity”’; and that each such Defendant enjoys the goodwill originally attached to each such “alternate entity.”

DEFENDANT ALTERNATE ENITTY CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY SIERRA TALC COMPANY

UNITED TALC COMPANY

METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. CHARLES MATHIEU INC.

AMERICAN TALC COMPANY

IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.

CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY

WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. JOHNSON & JOHNSON

0. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them were and are engaged in the business of researching, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, renting, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging, and advertising asbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos- containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment requiring and/or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or products designed to cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-containing products (hereinafter referred to as “Defendants’ Products™).

7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly researched, manufactured, fabricated, specified, designed, modified, tested or failed to test, abated or failed to abate, warned or failed to warn of the health hazards, failed to recall and/or retrofit, labeled, assembled, distributed, leased, bought, rented, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged, and advertised Defendants’ Products including, but not limited to, those products identified in paragraph 3 above, in that Defendants’ Products were unreasonably dangerous because they

released respirable asbestos fibers which resulted in personal injuries to users, consumers, workers, bystanders, and others including Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN herein (hereinafter collectively called “exposed persons”). Defendants’ Products were used at all times in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, their “alternate entities” and each of them, thereby rendering Defendants’ Products unsatfe and dangerous for use by “exposed persons”. Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN herein alleges that she was exposed to asbestos that was caused to be released as a result of exposure to Defendants’ Products including, but not limited to, those products identified in paragraph 3 above, which were a substantial contributing factor in the development of her malignant mesothelioma, and therefore proximately caused Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN’s injuries.

8. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable care while engaging in the activities mentioned above and each Defendant breached said duty of reasonable care in that Defendants, and each of them, failed to safely and adequately design, manufacture and/or sell Defendants’ Products; failed to test Defendants’ Products; failed to recall and/or retrofit; failed to investigate the hazards of Defendants’ Products; failed to warn “exposed persons”, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, of the health hazards of using and being exposed to Defendants’ Products; failed to disclose the known or knowable dangers of using and being exposed to Defendants’ Products; failed to warn of the harmful exposures caused by use of Defendants’ Products; failed to obtain suitable alternative materials to ashestos when such alternatives were available; and as otherwise stated herein.

9. Defendants’ Products were and are hazardous to the health and safety of Plaintiff, and others in Plaintiff’s position personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products, and since on or before 1930, the hazards and dangerous propensities of Defendants’ Products were both known and knowable to the Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, through the use of medical and/or scientific data and other knowledge available to Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, at the time of Defendants’ manufacture, distribution, sale, research, study, fabrication, design, modification, labeling, assembly, leasing, buying, offering

for sale, supply, inspection, service, installation, contracting for installation, repair, marketing, warranting, re-branding, re-manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising of Defendants’ Products, which clearly indicated the hazards and dangerous propensities of asbestos presented a substantial danger to users of and bystanders to Defendants’ Products, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN through the intended and reasonably foreseeable use of said products.

10. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew, or reasonably should have known, that Defendants’ Products were dangerous and were likely to be dangerous when used in their intended and reasonably foreseeable manner.

11. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew, or reasonably should have known that Defendants’ Products would be personally used, worked with, mixed, swept, or otherwise disturbed in their ordinary, intended and foreseeable use, resulting in the release of airborne hazardous and dangerous asbestos fibers, and that through such activity, “exposed persons,” including Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN herein, would be exposed to hazardous and dangerous asbestos fibers. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew, or reasonably should have known that users such as Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, and others in her position personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products would not realize or know the dangers. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them negligently failed to adequately warn or instruct of the dangers of Defendants’ Products and failed to recall and/or retrofit Defendants’ Products. A reasonable designer, manufacturer, distributor, seller, installer, buyer or supplier, under the same or similar circumstances, would have warned of the dangers to avoid exposing others to a foreseeable risk of harm. The negligent failure of Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them to warn was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN.

12. Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN personally used, handled, applied, was in close proximity to, and/or was otherwise exposed to asbestos from Defendants’ Products referred to herein in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, and each of them.

Plaintiff’s exposure to Defendants’ Products occurred at various locations set forth in Exhibit “A” which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein.

13. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them as aforesaid, Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN’s exposure to asbestos from the use of Defendants’ Products caused severe and permanent injury to the Plaintiff, the nature of which along with the date of Plaintiff’s diagnosis and the date she learned such injuries were attributable to exposure to Defendants’ Products are set forth in Exhibit “B”, which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that progressive lung disease, cancer and other serious diseases are caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers without perceptible trauma and that said disease results from exposure to Defendants’ Products over a period of time.

14. Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN suffers from malignant pleural mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos from Defendants’ Products including those identified in paragraph 3 above. Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN was not aware at the time of exposure that Defendants’ Products presented any risk of injury and/or disease.

15. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, their “alternate entities” and each of them, Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN has suffered and will continue to suffer permanent injuries and future injuries to her person, body and health including, but not limited to, pain, discomfort, loss of weight, loss of appetite, fatigue, somnolence, lethargy, dyspnea, dysphagia, and other physical symptoms, and the mental and emotional distress attendant thereto, as Plaintiff’s malignant mesothelioma progresses, all to her general damage in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a limited civil case.

16. Asadirect and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, their “alternate entities” and each of them, Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN has incurred, is presently incurring, and will incur in the future liability for physicians, surgeons, nurses, hospital care, medicine, hospices, X-rays and other medical treatment, the true and exact amount thereof being presently unknown to Plaintitf, subject to proof at trial.

17. As a further direct and proximate result of the said conduct of the Defendants,

their “alternate entities” and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur loss of income, wages, profits and commissions, a diminishment of earning potential, and other pecuniary losses, the true and exact amount thereof being presently unknown to Plaintiff, subject to proof at trial.

18. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them also engaged in the following wrongful acts:

(a) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them suppressed from all consumers and individuals, including Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN, medical and scientific information concerning the health hazards associated with inhalation of asbestos, including the substantial risk of injury or death therefrom. Although Defendants, and each of them knew of the substantial risks associated with exposure to asbestos, they willfully and knowingly concealed such information from the users of and individuals exposed to Defendants’ Products in conscious disregard of the rights, safety and welfare of “exposed persons”, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN;

(b) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them belonged to, participated in, and financially supported industry organizations including, but not limited to, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (now Personal Care Products Council), the Gypsum Association, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Hygiene Foundation and others, which for and on behalf of Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them actively promoted the suppression of information about the dangers of asbestos to users of and individuals exposed to the aforementioned Defendants’ Products, thereby misleading Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN as to the safety of Defendants’ Products. Through their participation and association with such industry organizations, Defendants and each of them knowingly and deliberately concealed and suppressed the true information regarding asbestos and its dangers, and propagated misinformation intended to instill in users of and individuals exposed to Defendants’ Products a false security about the safety of Defendants’ Products. The Dust Control Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee of the Asbestos Textile Institute, was specifically enlisted to study the subject of dust control. Discussions in

this committee were held many times regarding the dangers inherent in asbestos and the dangers, which arise from the lack of control of dust, and such information was suppressed from public dissemination from 1946 to a date unknown to Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN at this time;

(c) Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at A shestos and Thetford Mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of the workers at Raybestos-Manhattan plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated through the A sbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them herein. Between 1942 and 1950, the Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them failed to provide this information to consumers;

(d) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them failed to warn Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, and others of the nature of Defendants’ Products which were dangerous when breathed and which could cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma, despite the fact that Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them possessed knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that Defendant’s Products were dangerous and a threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith;

(e) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them failed to provide Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN with information concerning adequate protective masks and other equipment devised to be used when personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products and those of their “alternate entities”, and each of them, despite knowing that such protective measures were necessary, and that they were under a duty to disclose that Defendants’ Products were dangerous and would result in injury to Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN and others when personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products;

() Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew and failed to disclose that Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN and anyone similarly situated, upon inhalation of

asbestos would, in time, have a substantial risk of developing irreversible conditions of pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma and/or cancer;

(g) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them failed to provide information of the true nature of the hazards of Defendants’ Products and that exposure to Defendants’ Products would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the public, including buyers, users, and physicians employed by Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN so that said physicians could not examine, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff and others who were exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them were under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading.

19. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, and their officers, directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them are liable for the oppressive and malicious acts of their “alternate entities”, and each of them, and each Defendant’s officers, directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of the acts of each of their “alternate entities” as set forth herein.

20. The herein-described conduct of Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them was and is willful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and health of “exposed persons,” including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, in that Defendants, and each of them continued to manufacture, market and/or sell Defendants’ Products known to cause asbestos to be released and to cause severe, permanent injuries and death, despite possessing knowledge of the substantial hazards posed by use of Defendants’ Products, in order to continue to profit financially therefrom. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them engaged in such conduct so despicable, contemptible, base, vile, miserable, wretched and loathsome as to be looked down upon and despised by ordinary people and justifies an award of punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiff, for the sake of example and by way of punishing Defendants,

seeks punitive damages according to proof. 21. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which was intended by Defendants, and each of them to cause injury to the Plaintiff, and despicable conduct which was carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN.

22. Defendants, and each of them engaged in the despicable conduct described herein that subjected persons, including Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN, to cruel and unjust hardship in the form of severe, debilitating and fatal diseases like asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, in conscious disregard of those persons’ rights.

23. Asadirect and proximate result of such intentional conduct by Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN sustained the injuries and damages alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, their “alternate

entities”, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

(Strict Liability)

AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS DOES 1- 450, THEIR “ALTERNATE ENTITIES” AND EACH OF THEM, AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS:

24. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth therein, each and every one of the general allegations and the allegations contained in the First Cause of A ction herein.

25. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them sold the aforementioned Defendants’ Products, which were defective in that they failed to adequately warmn or instruct of the known and knowable dangers and risks of the ordinary, intended, and foreseeable use of Defendants’ Products, which dangers and risks would not have been and were not recognized by ordinary consumers and individuals of Defendants’ Products, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, and the lack of sufficient instructions and/or warnings was a substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN and others in Plaintiff’s position who were

personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products.

20. Defendants’ Products were defective and unsafe for their intended purpose and foreseeable use in that when personally used, worked with, handled, removed, mixed, swept or otherwise disturbed, Defendants’ Products would result in the release, and therefore inhalation of hazardous and dangerous asbestos fibers by exposed persons, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN. The defect existed in all of Defendants’ Products when they left the possession of the Defendants, their “alternate entities” and each of them. At the time Defendants’ Products were used by Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN, and others in her position personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to same, Defendants’ Products were substantially the same as when they left the possession of the Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, and/or any changes made to Defendants’ Products after they left the possession of Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them were reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, their “alternate entities” and each of them. Defendants’ Products were used by Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, and others in her position personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants and each of them. The defect in Defendants’ Products was a substantial factor in causing harm and personal injuries to Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, including malignant mesothelioma, while being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner, thereby rendering Defendants’ Products defective, unsafe, and unreasonably dangerous for their ordinary and intended use.

27. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and conduct outlined herein, Defendants’ Products were defective in that they failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have expected in that Defendants’ Products, and each of them caused respirable asbestos fibers to be released during their ordinary and intended use, and such hazardous exposures lacked any perceptible qualities to the human body, yet they cause severe and fatal diseases including asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancers in humans. Plaintiff further alleges that “exposed persons”, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN,

were unaware of the harmful effects of asbestos and further unaware of the harmful exposures to Defendants’ Products when such exposures occurred, and thus the failure of Defendants’ Products to perform as safely as Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN had reason to expect was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Moreover, Defendants’ Products were also defective in their design under the “risk/benefit test” of design defect because the risks of Defendants’ Products outweighed their benefits.

28. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and conduct outlined herein, Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN has suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein.

29. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them also engaged in the following wrongful acts:

(a) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them suppressed from all consumers, including Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN, medical and scientific information concerning the health hazards associated with inhalation of asbestos, including the substantial risk of injury or death therefrom. Although Defendants, and each of them knew of the substantial risks associated with exposure to asbestos, they willfully and knowingly concealed such information from the users of and bystanders to Defendants’ Products in conscious disregard of the rights, safety and welfare of “exposed persons”, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN,;

(b) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them belonged to, participated in, and financially supported industry organizations including, but not limited to, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (now Personal Care Products Council), the Gypsum Association, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Hygiene Foundation and others, which, for and on behalf of Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them actively promoted the suppression of information about the dangers of asbestos to users and bystanders of the aforementioned Defendants’ Products, thereby misleading Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN as to the safety of Defendants’ Products. Through their participation and association with such industry organizations, Defendants, and each of them knowingly and deliberately concealed and suppressed the true information regarding asbestos and its dangers, and propagated

misinformation intended to instill in users of and bystanders to Defendants’ Products a false security about the safety of said products. The Dust Control Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee of the A sbestos Textile Institute, was specifically enlisted to study the subject of dust control. Discussions in this committee were held many times regarding the dangers inherent in asbestos and the dangers which arise from the lack of control of dust, and such information was suppressed from public dissemination from 1946 to a date unknown to Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN at this time;

(c) Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at A shestos and Thetford Mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of the workers at Raybestos-Manhattan plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated through the A sbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them herein. Between 1942 and 1950, the Defendants, their “alternate entities” and each of them, failed to provide this information to consumers;

(d) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, failed to warn Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN and others of the nature of Defendants’ Products which were dangerous when breathed and which could cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma, despite the fact that Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them possessed knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that Defendants’ Products were dangerous and a threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith;

(e) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them failed to provide Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN with information concerning adequate protective masks and other equipment devised to be used when personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, despite knowing that such protective measures were necessary, and that they were under a duty to disclose that Defendants’ Products were dangerous and would result in injury to Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN and others personally using, handling, applying, in close proximity to,

and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants’ Products; (f) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them knew and failed to disclose that Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN and anyone similarly situated, upon inhalation of asbestos would in time have a substantial risk of developing irreversible conditions of pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma and/or cancer;

(g) Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them failed to provide information of the true nature of the hazards of Defendants’ Products and that exposure Defendants’ Products would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the public including buyers, users, and physicians employed by Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, so that said physicians could not examine, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff and others who were exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them were under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading.

30. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, and their officers, directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of or should have known of each of the acts set forth herein. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them are liable for the oppressive and malicious acts of their “alternate entities”, and each of them, and each Defendant’s officers, directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified, and had full knowledge of, or should have known of the acts of each of their “alternate entities” as set forth herein.

31. The herein-described conduct of Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them was and is willful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and indifference to the safety and health of “exposed persons,” including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN, in that Defendants, and each of them continued to manufacture, market and/or sell dangerous products known to cause severe, permanent injuries and death, despite possessing knowledge of the substantial hazards posed by use of Defendants’ Products, in order to continue to profit financially therefrom. Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them engaged in such conduct so despicable, contemptible, base, vile, miserable, wretched and

loathsome as to be looked down upon and despised by ordinary people and justifies an award of punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiff, for the sake of example and by way of punishing said Defendants, seeks punitive damages according to proof.

32. Defendants, and each of them engaged in conduct which was intended by Defendants, and each of them to cause injury to the Plaintiff, and despicable conduct which was carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others, including Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN.

33. Defendants, and each of them engaged in the despicable conduct described herein that subjected persons, including Plaintiff RUEYEH CHEN, to cruel and unjust hardship in the form of severe, debilitating and fatal diseases like asbestosis, lung cancer and mesothelioma, in conscious disregard of those persons’ rights.

34. Asadirect and proximate result of such intentional conduct by Defendants, their “alternate entities”, and each of them, Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN sustained the injuries and damages alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and their “alternate

entities”, and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.

Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN: 1. For Plaintiff’s general damages according to proof; 2. For Plaintiff’s loss of income, wages, household services, and earning

potential according to proof;

3. For Plaintiff’s medical and related expenses according to proof; 4, For Plaintiff’s cost of suit herein; D. For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof; 0. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper, including costs and prejudgment interest as provided in C.C.P. Section 998, C.C.P. Section 1032, and related provisions of law.

DATED: October 24, 2018 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C.

By: (9 ________________________ Stuart Purdy Albert Oganesya

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable.

DATED: October 24, 2018 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C.

By:éééfi N Stuart Purdy

EXHIBIT “A”

Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN’s exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products

occurred at various locations within the States of California and Texas including, but not limited

to:

EXHIBIT “B”

Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN’s exposure to Defendants’ Products caused severe and permanent injury to Plaintiff RUEY EH CHEN including, but not limited to, mesothelioma. Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma in approximately April 2011, with recurrence in