This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:32:06 (UTC).

Haney v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. (coordinated into JCCP4872 Los Angeles)

Case Summary

On 02/23/2018 Haney filed an Other - Complex Tort/Class Action lawsuit against Johnson Johnson, coordinated into JCCP4872 Los Angeles. This case was filed in Santa Clara County Superior Courts, Downtown Superior Court located in Santa Clara, California. The Judge overseeing this case is Walsh, Brian C. The case status is Other - Stayed.

Case Details Parties Documents Dockets

 

Case Details

  • Case Number:

    ******3905

  • Filing Date:

    02/23/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Stayed

  • Case Type:

    Other - Complex Tort/Class Action

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Haney, Debra

Defendants

IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Luzenac America, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Hoke, Curtis George

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Order

Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings signed/BCW

Notice

Haney Notice of Order.pdf: Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

Notice

Haney Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service Summons DLR (Civil):

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Proof of Service Summons DLR (Civil):

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/BCW

Summons: Issued/Filed

HANEY - SUMMONS.pdf:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

HANEY - CCCS.pdf:

Affidavit: Venue

Affidavit Venue:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

 

Docket Entries

  • 06/22/2018
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 3/9/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/14/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order - Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Staying Action Due to Pending Coordination Proceedings signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Haney Notice of Order.pdf: Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/04/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Haney Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/20/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service Summons DLR (Civil):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Proof of Service Summons DLR (Civil):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/09/2018
  • 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/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - HANEY - SUMMONS.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - HANEY - CCCS.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Affidavit: Venue - Affidavit Venue:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

2/23/2018 2:13 PM

Curtis G. Hoke (SBN 282465) Clerk of Court

THE MILLER FIRM, LLC guperlorfcsourttozclA, 108 Railroad Ave ounty of Santa Clara

' 18CV 323905

Orange, VA 22960 Telephone: (540) 672-4224 Facsimile: (540) 672-3055 choke@ millerfirmllc.com

Reviewed By: A. Hwan

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA (UNLIMITED JURISDICTION)

DEBRA HANEY, Case No.: 18CV323905 Plaintiff,

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

Vs DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON &

JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. f/k/a JOHNSON %\}gll‘vlc:c'fi%%II&YE%ISL}JECTO & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. ( ) and IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a

2. STRICT LIABILITY FAILURETO LUZENAC AMERICA, INC,, WARN (AGAINST JOHNSON & Defendants. JOHNSON DEFENDANTS)

3. STRICT LIABILITY DESIGN

DEFECT AND MANUFACTURING DEFECT (AGAINST IMERYS TALC)

THIS COMPLAINT RELATES TO:

Judicial Council Coordination Proceeding No. 4872: JOHNSON & JOHNSON TALCUM

POWDER CASES

4, STRICT LIABILITY

MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND DESIGN DEFECT (AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTYS)

TALC)

6. NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST JOHNSON

& JOHNSON DEFENDANTYS)

7.BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTYS)

8. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

(AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTYS)

9. CIVIL CONSPIRACY (AGAINST ALL

DEFENDANTYS)

10. FRAUD, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION,

INTENTIONAL CONCEALMENT (AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTYS)

11. NEGLIGENT

MISREPRESENTATION (AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS)

12. PUNITIVE DAMAGES (AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, the above-captioned plaintiff (“Plaintiff”’), and brings this Complaint and Demand for Jury Trial by and through her attorneys THE MILLER FIRM, LLC and complains and alleges against Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. (collectively referred to

as “Defendants™), as follows:

SUMMARY OF ALLEGATIONS

1. This is a products liability action against the Defendants because Plaintiff ha suffered from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson’s baby powde and Shower-to-Shower consumer products which were manufactured, mined, and/or marketed b Defendants (hereinafter, the “PRODUCTS”). Defendants’ PRODUCTS each contain tal powder, which caused Plaintiff to develop Ovarian Cancer after she used the PRODUCTS in he

perineal area.

2. Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the PRODUCTS and talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian cancer. All of Plaintiff’s claims involve common legal and medical issues.

3. At all relevant times, all Defendants were engaged in the research, development,

manufacture, design, testing, sale and marketing of PRODUCTS, and introduced such products

3 into interstate commerce with knowledge and intent that such products be sold in all States,

including but not limited to the State of California.

4, Defendants concealed and continue to conceal their knowledge of talc powder’ unreasonably dangerous risks from Plaintiff, other consumers, and the medical community Specifically, Defendants failed to adequately inform Plaintiff, consumers, and the medic community about the known risks of Ovarian Cancer associated with perineal use of th

PRODUCTS.

PARTY PLAINTIFF

d. Plaintiff DEBRA HANEY (“Plaintiff”) is a competent individual over the age of 18 currently residing in California and hereby submits to the jurisdiction of this Court and alleges that Venue in this Court is proper. Plaintiff regularly used Defendants’ PRODUCTS in her perineal region and suffered from severe physical, economic, and emotional injuries as a result of her use of Defendants” PRODUCTS, including but not limited to Ovarian Cancer

diagnosed in 2008 in Califomnia.

PARTY DEFENDANTS

0. Defendant, JOHNSON & JOHNSON, is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey. 7. Atall relevant times, JOHNSON & JOHNSON was engaged in the business of

manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing the PRODUCTS. At al

4 relevant times, Johnson & Johnson regularly transacted, solicited, and conducted business in all States of the United States, including the State of California.

8. Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. is a New Jersey corporation with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey.

9. At all relevant times, defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. was engaged in the business of manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling, and/or distributing the PRODUCTS. At all relevant times, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. regularly transacted, solicited, and conducted business in all States of the United States, including the State of California.

10. Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. are collectively referred to herein as the “Johnson & Johnson Defendants”.

11. Defendant IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. is a Delaware corporation with its principal place of business in the State of California — specifically, its head office and laboratory are located at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose, California 95112 (County of Santa Clara).

12. Atall relevant times, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. (hereinafter described as “Imerys Talc” or “Imerys Talc America, Inc.”), has been in the business of mining and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based

products, including the PRODUCTS. Imerys Talc is the successor or continuation of Luzenac

5 America, Inc., and Imerys Talc America, Inc. is legally responsible for all liabilities incurred when it was known as Luzenac A merica, Inc.

ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS

13. Talc is a magnesium trisilicate that is mined from the earth. Talc is an inorgani mineral. The Defendant, Imerys Talc America, Inc., f/k/a Luzanec America, Inc. mined the tal contained in the PRODUCTS.

14. Talc is the main substance in talcum powders. The Johnson & Johnso Defendants manufactured the PRODUCTS. The PRODUCTS are composed almost entirely o talc.

15. At all relevant times, a feasible alternative to the PRODUCTS has existed Cormnstarch is an organic carbohydrate that is quickly broken down by the body with no know health effects. Comstarch powders have been sold and marketed for the same uses with nearl the same effectiveness as the PRODUCTS.

16. At all relevant times, Defendant Imerys Talc! mined the talc contained in th PRODUCTS.

17. Atall relevant times, Imerys Talc continually advertised and marketed talc as saf

for human use.

I All allegations regarding actions taken by Imerys Talc also include actions taken while that entity was known as Luzenac America, Inc.

6 18. Atall relevant times, Imerys Talc supplied its customers, including the Johnson & Johnson Defendants, with Material Safety Data Sheets (“MSDS”) for talc, which were suppose to convey adequate health and warning information to its customers.

19. Historically, “Johnson’s Baby Powder” has been a symbol of freshness cleanliness, and purity. During the time in question, the Johnson & Johnson Defendan advertised and marketed this product as a symbol of “freshness” and “comfort,” eliminatin friction on the skin, absorbing “excess wetness” to keep skin feeling dry and comfortable, an “clinically proven gentle and mild.” The Johnson & Johnson Defendants compelled wome through advertisements to dust themselves with this product to mask odors. The bottle o “Johnson’s Baby Powder” specifically targets women, stating: “For you, use every day to hel feel soft, fresh, and comfortable.”?

20. Atall relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants advertised and markete their “Shower to Shower” product as safe for use by women as evidenced in its slogan, * sprinkle a day keeps odor away,” and through advertisements such as: “Your body perspires 1 more places than just under your arms. Use SHOWER to SHOWER to feel dry, fresh, an comfortable throughout the day;” and “SHOWER to SHOWER can be used all over your body.”

21. Plaintiff used the PRODUCTS to dust their perineum for feminine hygien purposes. This was an intended and foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS based on the advertising

marketing, and labeling of the PRODUCTS.

2 Retailer Wal-Mart lists the labels for Johnson’s Baby Powder, http://www.walmart.com/ip/Johnson-s-Baby- Powder-22-0z/10294007. 7 22. Upon information and belief, in 1971, the first study was conducted tha suggested an association between talc and ovarian cancer. This study was conducted by Dr. W Henderson and others in Cardiff, Wales.

23. Upon information and belief, in 1982, the first epidemiologic study wa performed on talc powder use in the female genital area. That study was conducted by Dr, Daniel Cramer and others. This study found a ninety-two percent increased risk of ovaria cancer with women who reported genital talc use. Shortly after this study was published, Dr Bruce Semple of Johnson & Johnson came and visited Dr. Cramer about his study. Dr. Crame advised Dr. Semple that Johnson & Johnson should place a warning on its talcum powders abou the ovarian cancer risks so that women can make an informed decision about their health.

24, Upon information and belief, since approximately 1982, there have bee approximately twenty-two additional epidemiologic studies providing data regarding th association of talc and ovarian cancer. Nearly all of these studies have reported an elevated ris of ovarian cancer associated with genital talc use in women.

25. Upon information and belief, in or about 1993, the United States Nation Toxicology Program published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestos form talc and found clea evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without th

presence of asbestos-like fibers.?

3 Inhalation Toxicology Research Institute Annual Report, 1993 — 1994,

8 26. Upon information and belief, in response to the United States Nationa Toxicology Program’s study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), no known as the PCPC, formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). Johnson & Johnson Inc., Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., and Luzenac—now known as Imerys Talc—were members of the CTFA and were the primary actors and contributors of the TIPTF, The stated purpose of TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companies in order to collectively defend talc use at all costs and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry. TIPTF hired scientists to perform biased research regarding the safety of talc. TIPTF members, including Johnson & Johnson and Luzenac, then edited these scientific reports hired by thig group prior to the submissions of these scientific reports to governmental agencies. In addition members of TIPTF knowingly released false information about the safety of talc to the consuming public and used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies regarding talc These activities were conducted by these companies and organizations over the past four decades in an effort to prevent regulation of talc and to create confusion to the consuming public about the true hazards of talc and its association to ovarian cancer.

27. Upon information and belief, on or about November 19, 1994, the Cancer

Prevention Coalition sent a letter to then Johnson & Johnson C.E.O. Ralph Larsen, urging him to

9 substitute cornstarch for talcum powder products and to label its products with a warning o cancer risks.*

28. Upon information and belief, in or about 1996, the FDA requested that th condom industry stop dusting condoms with talc due to the health concerns that studies linke talc to ovarian cancer. Upon this request, all U.S. manufacturers discontinued the use of talc i its condom manufacturing process to reduce the potential health hazards to women.”

29. Upon information and belief, in or about 1990, the U.S. Food and Dru A dministration (FDA) asked manufacturers to voluntarily stop putting talc on surgical glove because mounting scientific evidence showed that it caused adhesions in surgical patients.®

30. Upon information and belief, in or about February 2006, the International A genc for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organizatio published a paper whereby they classified perineal use of talc-based body powder as a “Grou 2B” human carcinogen.” IARC, which is universally accepted as the international authority o cancer issues, concluded that studies from around the world consistently found an increased ris

of ovarian cancer in women who used talc in perineal areas. JARC determined that between 16

4 Petition Seeking a Cancer Warning on Cosmetic Talc PRODUCTS, May 13, 2008

> “A Women’s Campaign Against Talc on Condoms,” Philly.com, °Id.

71ARC, “Perineal use of talc-based body powder (Group 2B),” available at

10 52% of women worldwide used talc to dust their perineum and found an increased risk o ovarian cancer in women talc users ranging from 30-60%.

31. Upon information and belief, in or about 2006, the Canadian government, unde The Hazardous PRODUCTS Act and associated Controlled PRODUCTS Regulations, classifie

2% ¢¢

talc as a “D2A,” “very toxic,” “cancer-causing”’ substance under its Workplace Hazardou Materials Information System (WHMIS). Asbestos is also classified as “D2A.”

32. Upon information and belief, in or about 2006, Defendant Imerys Talc bega placing a warning on the MSDS it provided to the Johnson & Johnson Defendants regarding th talc it sold to them for use in the PRODUCTS. The MSDSs not only provided the warnin information about the IARC classification but also included warning information regardin “States Rights to Know” and warning information about the Canadian Government’s D2 classification of talc. Although the Johnson & Johnson Defendants admittedly received thes MSDs, they never passed this warning information on to consumers. On September 26, 2012 the corporate representative for Imerys testified in open court that his company exclusivel supplied the Johnson & Johnson Defendants with talc used for its baby powder products and tha ovarian cancer is a potential hazard associated with women’s perineal use of talc-based bod

powders, such as the PRODUCTS. Despite this, the Johnson & Johnson defendants continue t

mislead consumers, such as Plaintiff, maintaining that talc is safe for personal use®.

8 See, e, (“talc can be used safely in person care products”; We want to assure women and caregivers who use our talc products that numerous studies support its safety, and these include assessments by external experts in addition to our company testing. Many research papers and epidemiology studies have specifically evaluated talc and perineal use and these studies have found talc to be safe”)

11 33. In 2008, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a “Petition Seeking a Cance Warmning on Cosmetic Talc PRODUCTS” to the FDA. The petition requested that the FD immediately require cosmetic talcum powder products to bear labels with a prominent warnin that frequent talc application in the female genital area is responsible for major risks of ovari cancer.”

34. In 2013, Cancer Prevention Research published a study that showed that wome who used talcum powder in their groin areapercent greater risk of developin ovarian cancer than women who did not use talc products in that area. '

35. Presently, the National Cancer Institute!! and the American Cancer Society'? lis genital talc use as a “risk factor” for ovarian cancer.

36. The Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry, Roswell Park Cente Institute, and the Department of Gynecologic Oncology University of Vermont publish

pamphlet entitled, “Myths & Facts about ovarian cancer: What you need to know.” In thi

9 Cancer Prevention Coalition “Petition Seeking a Cancer Warning on Cosmetic Talc PRODUCTS” submitted13, 2008,

10 “Genital powder use and risk of ovarian cancer: a pooled analysis of 8,525 cases and 9,859 controls,” Cancer Prevention Research, June 2013, 1 National Cancer Institute, Ovarian Cancer Prevention,

12 American Cancer Society, Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer,

12 pamphlet, under “known’ risk factors for ovarian cancer, it lists: “Use of Talc (Baby Powder) 1 the Genital Area.”!?

37. The Defendants had a duty to know and warn about the hazards associatedPRODUCTS.

38. The Defendants failed to inform its customers and end users of the PRODUCT of a known catastrophic health hazard associated with the use of its PRODUCTS.

39. In addition, the Defendants procured and disseminated false, misleading, an biased information regarding the safety of the PRODUCTS to the public and used influence ove governmental and regulatory bodies regarding talc.

40. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ calculated and reprehensibl conduct, Plaintiff were injured and suffered damages, namely ovarian cancer, which require

surgeries and treatments.

FEDERAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

41. Plaintiff hereby incorporate the above paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

42. At all relevant times, Defendants had the obligation to comply with fede standards and regulations in the manufacture, design, marketing, branding, labeling, distribution

and sale of the PRODUCTS.

13 Myths and Facts A bout Ovarian Cancer, http://imaging.ubmmedica.com/cancernetwork/forpatients/pdfs/7 M&F%200varian%20Cancer.pdf. 13 43. Defendants, each individually, in solido, and/or jointly, violated the Federal Food Drug and Cosmetic Act, 21 U.S.C. §301, et seq.

44, Defendants have or may have failed to comply with federal standards an requirements governing the manufacture, design, marketing, branding, and sale of th PRODUCTS including, but not limited to, the following violations of sections and subsections o the United States Code and the Code of Federal Regulations:

a. The PRODUCTS are adulterated in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 361 because, amon other things, they contain a poisonous or deleterious substance which may rende them injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, or under such conditions of use as are customary or usual.

b. The PRODUCTS are misbranded in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 362 because, amon other things, their labeling is false or misleading.

c. The PRODUCTS are misbranded in violation 21 U.S.C. § 362 because words, statements, or other information required by or under authority of 21 U.S.C. § 362 a not prominently placed thereon with such conspicuousness and in such terms as t render them likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual unde customary conditions of purchase and use.

d. The PRODUCTS are misbranded in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 701.1 because the contain false or misleading representations that they are safe for daily application t all parts of the female body.

e. The PRODUCTS do not bear a warning statement, in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 740.1 to prevent a health hazard that may be associated with the PRODUCTS, namely tha the PRODUCTS may cause ovarian cancer or a heightened risk of ovarian cance when applied to the perineal area.

f. The PRODUCTS do not prominently and conspicuously bear a warning statement, i violation of 21 C.F.R. § 740.2, as to the risk of ovarian cancer causedPRODUCTS when applied to the perineal area, in such terms and design that it i

14 likely to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customa conditions of purchase and use.

g. The PRODUCTS, in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 740.10, do not conspicuously state o their principal display panel that the safety of the PRODUCTS have not bee determined and/or that the safety of the PRODUCTS’ principal ingredients have no been determined.

COUNT I -STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN

(Aqainst Imerys Talc)

45, Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

46. At all relevant times, Imerys Talc mined and sold talc to the Johnson & Johnso Defendants with full knowledge that the Johnson & Johnson Defendants were then packaging th talc and selling to consumers as the PRODUCTS and consumers of the PRODUCTS were usin it to powder their perineal regions.

47. At all relevant times, by mining talc and supplying that talc to the Johnson Johnson Defendants for use in the PRODUCTS, Imerys Talc was knowingly an integral part o the overall manufacture, design, and production of the PRODUCTS and their introduction int the stream of interstate commerce.

48. At all relevant times, Imerys Talc knew or should have known of th unreasonably dangerous and carcinogenic nature of the talc it was selling to the Johnson & Johnson Defendants, especially when applied to a woman’s perineal regions, and it knew o

should have known that Johnson & Johnson was not warning its consumers of this danger.

15 49, At all relevant times, Imerys Talc knew or should have known that the use of th PRODUCTS significantly increase the risk of ovarian cancer in women based upon scientifi knowledge dating back until at least 1971.

50. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defective and unreasonabl dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner because, despite Imerys Talc’ knowledge that the PRODUCTS were carcinogenic and could lead to an increased risk o ovarian cancer, Imerys Talc failed to provide adequate warning and/or instruction to consumers including Plaintiff, regarding the increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the use of th PRODUCTS when applied to the perineal area.

51. Had Plaintiff received wamming or instruction regarding the increased risk o ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS when applied to the perineal area, Plaintif would not have used the PRODUCTS in this manner.

52. Due to the absence of any warning or instruction by the Defendants as to th significant health and safety risks posed by the PRODUCTS as described herein, Plaintiff we unaware that the PRODUCT'S created an increased risk of ovarian cancer, as this danger was no known to the general public.

53. As a direct and proximate result of Imerys Talc’s failure to warn Plaintiff of th increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS when applied to the perine area, despite their actual knowledge of this material fact, Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer an have been injured catastrophically and have been caused severe and permanent pain, suffering

disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort and economic damages.

16 54. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Imerys Talc fo compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitiv damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs o suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN

(A gainst ] ohnson & J ohnson Defendants)

55. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

50. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants were engaged in th business of manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling and/or distributing, an otherwise introducing into the stream of interstate commerce, the PRODUCTS.

57. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants knew or should hav known that the use of the PRODUCTS in the female perineal area significantly increased the ris of ovarian cancer in women based upon scientific knowledge dating back until at least 1971.

58. Atall relevant times, the PRODUCTS, manufactured and supplied by the Johnso & Johnson Defendants, were defective and unreasonably dangerous because, despite the Johnso & Johnson Defendants’ knowledge that its PRODUCTS were carcinogenic and could lead to a increased risk of ovarian cancer when applied to the female perineal area, a reasonabl foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants failed to provid adequate warning or instruction to consumers, including Plaintiff, regarding the increased risk o

ovarian cancer when the PRODUCTS are applied to the female perineal area.

17 59. At all relevant times, Plaintiff used the PRODUCTS to powder their perine areas, a use that was reasonably foreseeable and for which the PRODUCTS were supplied.

60. Had Plaintiff received warning and/or instruction from the Johnson & Johnso Defendants regarding the increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS whe applied to the perineal area, Plaintiff would not have used the PRODUCTS in this manner.

61. Due to the absence of any warning or instruction by the Johnson & Johnso Defendants as to the significant health and safety risks posed by the PRODUCTS as describe herein, Plaintiff were unaware that the PRODUCTS created an increased risk of ovarian cancer as this danger was not known to the general public.

62. As a direct and proximate result of Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ failure t warn Plaintiff of the increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS whe applied to the perineal area, despite their actual knowledge of this material fact, Plaintif developed ovarian cancer and have been injured catastrophically and have been caused seve and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort and economic damages.

63. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345 and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together wi

interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT III — STRICT LIABILITY DESIGN DEFECT AND MANUFACTURING DEFECT

(Against Imerys Talc)

04. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se

forth fully herein.

65. At all relevant times, Defendant Imerys Talc was engaged in the business o mining and distributing talcum to Johnson & Johnson Defendants for use in the PRODUCTS and they were knowingly an integral part of the overall manufacture, design, and production o the PRODUCT'S and their introduction into the stream of interstate commerce.

66. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were expected to and did reach Plaintif without a substantial change in their condition.

67. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defectively and improperl manufactured and designed by Imerys Talc in that, when Imerys Talc supplied its talc product t Johnson & Johnson with full knowledge that Johnson & Johnson would use its talc i formulating the PRODUCTS and that the talc would be the primary ingredient in th PRODUCTS, the foreseeable risks of the PRODUCTS far outweighed the benefits associate with their design and formulation.

68. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defectively manufactured an designed by Imerys Talc in that their design and formulation is more dangerous than an ordin

consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner.

19 69. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS created significant risks to the health an safety of consumers that far outweigh the risks posed by other products on the market used fo the same therapeutic purpose.

70. As a direct and proximate result of the defective design and manufacture of th PRODUCTS, Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer and have been injured catastrophically and hav been caused severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment o life, loss of care, comfort and economic damages.

71. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Imerys Talc fo compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitiv damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs o

suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT IV — STRICT LIABILITY MANUFACTURING DEFECT AND DESIGN DEFECT

(A gainst J ohnson & | ohnson Defendants) 72. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se

forth fully herein.

73. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants were engaged in th business of manufacturing, formulating, creating, designing, testing, labeling, packaging supplying, marketing, promoting, selling, advertising, and otherwise introducing th PRODUCTS into the stream of interstate commerce, which they sold and distributed throughou the United States.

20 74. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were expected to and did reach Plaintif without a substantial change in condition.

75. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defectively and improperl manufactured and designed by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants in that, when the PRODUCT left the hands of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants, the foreseeable risks of the PRODUCTS £ outweighed the benefits associated with their design and formulation.

76. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defectively manufactured an designed by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants in that their design and formulation is mo dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonabl foreseeable manner.

77. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS created significant risks to the health an safety of consumers that far outweigh the risks posed by other products on the market used fo the same therapeutic purpose.

78. At all relevant times, a reasonable and safer alternative design existed, whic could have feasibly been employed by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants to manufacture product with the same therapeutic purpose as the PRODUCTS. Despite knowledge of thi reasonable and safer alternative design, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants failed to alter th PRODUCTS’ design and formulation. The magnitude of the danger created by the PRODUCT far outweighs the costs associated with using an alternative, safer design.

79. As a direct and proximate result of the defective design and manufacture of th PRODUCTS, Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer and have been injured catastrophically and hav been caused severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment o

life, loss of care, comfort and economic damages.

21 80. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together wi

interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT V-_NEGLIGENCE

(Aqainst Imerys Talc)

81. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

82. At all relevant times, Imerys Talc had a duty to exercise reasonable care t consumers, including Plaintiff herein, in the design, development, manufacture, testing inspection, packaging, promotion, marketing, distribution, labeling and/or sale of th PRODUCTS.

83. At all relevant times, Imerys Talc mined and sold talc to the Johnson & Johnso Defendants, which it knew was then being packaged and sold to consumers as the PRODUCT by the Johnson and Johnson Defendants. Further, Imerys Talc knew that consumers of th PRODUCTS were using it to powder their perineal regions.

84. At all relevant times, Imerys Talc knew or should have known that the use of th PRODUCTS in the perineal area significantly increases the risk of ovarian cancer based upo

scientific knowledge dating back to the 1971.

22 85. Atall relevant times, Imerys Talc knew that Johnson & Johnson Defendants we not providing warnings to consumers of the PRODUCTS of the risk of ovarian cancer posed b talc contained therein.

86. At all relevant times, Imerys Talc was negligent in providing talc to the Johnso & Johnson Defendants. Imerys Talc possessed information on the carcinogenic properties of talc including its risk of causing ovarian cancer. Imerys Talc was negligent because it knew that th talc they provided to Johnson & Johnson Defendants would be used in the PRODUCTS, but the did not adequately take steps to ensure that ultimate consumers of the PRODUCTS, includin Plaintiff, received the information that Imerys Talc possessed on the carcinogenic properties o talc.

87. As a direct and proximate result of Imerys Talc’s negligence, Plaintiff develope ovarian cancer and have been injured catastrophically and have been caused severe an permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfo and economic damages.

88. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Imerys Talc fo compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitiv damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs o suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT VI-NEGLIGENCE

(Johnson & Johnson Defendants) 89. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se

forth fully herein. 23 90. Plaintiff and were otherwise negligent in marketing, designing, manufacturing, producing, supplying, inspecting, testing, selling and/or distributing the PRODUCTS in one or more of th following respects:

a.

b.

&

@

=h

J.

k. Each and all of these acts and omissions, taken singularly or in combination, were

proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants breached their duty t

In failing to warn Plaintiff of the hazards associated with the use of the PRODUCTS;

In failing to properly test their products to determine adequacy and effectiveness o safety measures, if any, prior to releasing the PRODUCTS for consumer use;

In failing to properly test the PRODUCTS to determine the increased risk of ovari cancer during the normal and/or intended use of the PRODUCTS;

In failing to inform ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the safe and proper method of handling and using the PRODUCTS;

In failing to remove the PRODUCTS from the market when the Defendants knew o should have known the PRODUCTS were defective;

In failing to instruct the ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the methods fo reducing the type of exposure to the PRODUCTS which caused increased risk o ovarian cancer:

In failing to inform the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular of the know dangers of using the PRODUCTS for dusting the perineum;

In failing to advise users how to prevent or reduce exposure that caused an increase risk for ovarian cancer:

In marketing and labeling the PRODUCTS as safe for all uses despite knowledge t the contrary;

In failing to act like a reasonably prudent company under similar circumstances;

In failing to use a safer alternative to talc in the PRODUCTS, such as cornstarch.

24 91. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants knew or should hav known that the PRODUCTS were unreasonably dangerous and defective when put to thei reasonably anticipated use.

92. As a direct and proximate result of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff purchased and used the PRODUCTS that directly and proximately cause each Plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. As a direct and proximate result, Plaintiff were cause to incur medical bills, lost wages, and conscious pain and suffering.

93. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together wi

interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT VII - BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(A gainst J ohnson & ] ohnson Defendants)

94. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

95. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants knew or should hav known that the PRODUCTS were unreasonably dangerous and defective when put to thei reasonably anticipated use.

96. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants expressly warranted through direct-to-consumer marketing, advertisements, and labels, that the PRODUCTS we

safe and effective for reasonably anticipated uses, including use by women in their perineal area

13 Although the label has changed over time, the message has been the same: that the product i safe for use on women as well as babies. At least as of 2014, the baby powder label stated tha “Johnson’s® Baby Powder is designed to gently absorb excess moisture helping skin fee comfortable. Our incredibly soft, hypoallergenic, dermatologist and allergy-tested formul glides over skin to leave it feeling delicately soft and dry while providing soothing relief.” Th Johnson & Johnson Defendants instruct consumers on the product labeling to “Shake powde directly into your hand, away from the face, before smoothing onto the skin.”

97. Through other marketing, including on their website for Johnson’s® Bab Powder, Defendants similarly encouraged women to use the product daily. Defendants state tha Johnson’s® Baby Powder ‘“keeps skin feeling soft, fresh and comfortable. It’s a classic Johnson’s® Baby Powder helps eliminate friction while keeping skin cool and comfortable. It’ made of millions of tiny slippery plates that glide over each other to help reduce the irritatio caused by friction.” Under a heading “How to Use,” “For skin that feels soft, fresh an comfortable, apply Johnson’s® Baby Powder close to the body, away from the face. Shak powder into your hand and smooth onto skin.” Under a heading “When to Use”, the Johnson Johnson Defendants recommend that the consumer “Use anytime you want skin to feel soft fresh and comfortable. For baby, use after every bath and diaper change.” On their website fo Johnson’s® Baby Powder, Defendants also state the product is “Clinically proven to be safe gentle and mild.”

98. Even more recently, in February or March, 2016, after a St. Louis Jury rendered

$72 million dollar verdict against Johnson & Johnson, including punitive damages, Johnson

26 Johnson published a web page directed at consumers misleadingly assuring them of the safety o talc titled “Our Safety & Care Commitment”'* and touted the safety of talc, stating, inter dlia:

a. “Decades of Safety: Our confidence in using talc reflects more than 30 years o research by independent scientists, review boards and global authorities, which hav concluded that talc can be used safely in personal care products. Various governmen agencies and other bodies also have examined talc to determine the potential for an safety risks, and none have concluded that there are safety risks. In fact, n regulatory agency has ever required a change in labeling to reflect any safety ris from talc powder products.”

b. “Our Position on Talc: At Johnson & Johnson Consumer Inc., our confidence in usin talc is based on a long history of safe use and more than 30 years of research b independent researchers, scientific review boards and global regulatory authorities Various agencies and governmental bodies have examined whether talc is carcinogen, and none have concluded that it is. With over 100 years of use, fe ingredients have the same demonstrated performance, mildness and safety profile a cosmetic talc.”

c. “We want to assure women and caregivers who use our talc products that numerou studies support its safety, and these include assessments by external experts i addition to our company testing. Many research papers and epidemiology studie have specifically evaluated talc and perineal use and these studies have found talc t be safe”

99. At all relevant times, even up until present day, the Johnson & Johnso Defendant’s representations relating to talc: that the PRODUCTS are safe for personal use including in the perineal region.

100. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS did not conform to these expres

representations because they cause serious injury, including ovarian cancer, when used b

women in the perineal area.

14 See, http://www.safetyandcarecommitment.com/ingredient-info/other/talc 27 101. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of warranty, Plaintif purchased and used the PRODUCTS that directly and proximately caused each Plaintiff t develop ovarian cancer. Plaintiff were caused to incur medical bills, lost wages, and consciou pain and suffering.

102. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together wi interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT VIII - BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES

(A gainst | ohnson & ] ohnson Defendants)

103. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

104. At the time the Defendants manufactured, marketed, labeled, promoted distributed and/or sold the PRODUCTS, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants knew of the uses fo which the PRODUCTS were intended, including use by women in the perineal area. With thi knowledge, they impliedly warranted the PRODUCTS to be of merchantable quality and safe fo such use.

105. Defendants breached their implied warranties of the PRODUCTS sold to Plaintif because they were not fit for their common, ordinary and intended uses, including use by wome in the perineal area.

106. As a direct and proximate result of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ breach o

implied warranties, Plaintiff purchased and used the PRODUCTS that directly and proximatel 28 caused each Plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. As a result, Plaintiff were caused to incu medical bills, lost wages, and conscious pain and suffering.

107. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together wi

interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT IX — CIVIL CONSPIRACY

(Against All Defendants)

108. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

109. Defendants and/or their predecessors-in-interest knowingly agreed, contrived combined, confederated and conspired among themselves to cause Plaintiff’ injuries, diseases and/or illnesses by exposing the Plaintiff to harmful and dangerous PRODUCTS. Defendan further knowingly agreed, contrived, confederated and conspired to deprive the Plaintiff of th opportunity of informed free choice as to whether to use the PRODUCTS or to expos themselves to the stated dangers. Defendants committed the wrongs as described herein b willfully misrepresenting and suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with th use of and exposure to the PRODUCTS.

110. In furtherance of said conspiracies, Defendants performed the following ove

acts:

29 a. For many decades, Defendants, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with eac other, have been in possession of medical and scientific data, literature and tes reports that clearly indicated that use of their by women resulting from ordinary an foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS were unreasonably dangerous, hazardous deleterious to human health, carcinogenic, and potentially deadly;

b. Despite the medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports possessed by an available to Defendants, Defendants individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with eac other, fraudulently, willfully and maliciously:

i. Withheld, concealed and suppressed said medical information regarding th increased risk of ovarian cancer from Plaintiff, as described above; I addition, on July 27, 2005, Defendants, as part of the TIPTF, corresponde about and agreed to edit and delete portions of scientific papers bein submitted on their behalf to the United States Toxicology Program in attempt to prevent talc from being classified as a carcinogen;

1. Instituted a “defense strategy” through the TIPTF to defend talc at all costs In furtherance of this defense strategy, Defendants, through the TIPTF, use their influence over the National Toxicology Program (“NTP’ Subcommittee and the threat of litigation against the NTP to prevent the NT from classifying talc as a carcinogen on its 10th Report on Carcinogen (“RoC”);

iii. Caused to be released, published and disseminated medical and scientifi data, literature, and test reports containing information and statemen regarding the risks of ovarian cancer which Defendants knew were incorrect incomplete, outdated, and misleading. Specifically, Defendants, through th TIPTF, collectively agreed to release false information to the publi regarding the safety of talc on July 1, 1992; July 8, 1992; and November 17 1994. In a letter dated September 17, 1997, the Defendants were criticized b their own toxicologist consultant for releasing this false information to th public, yet nothing was done by the Defendants to correct or redact thi public release of knowingly false information.

c. By these false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments Defendants intended to induce and did induce the Plaintiff to rely upon these fals and fraudulent representations, omissions and concealments, and to continue t expose themselves to the dangers inherentexposure to th PRODUCTS.

30 111. Plaintiff reasonably and in good faith relied upon the fraudulent representations omissions, and concealments made by D efendants regarding the nature of the PRODUCTS.

112. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendants’ conspiracy Plaintiff purchased and used the PRODUCTS in the perineal areas, which directly an proximately caused each Plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer. Plaintiff were caused to incu medical bills, lost wages, and conscious pain and suffering.

113. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants fo compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitiv damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs o

suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT X — FRAUD, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, AND INTENTIONAL

CONCEALMENT

(A gainst J ohnson & ] ohnson Defendants)

114. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

115. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants intentionally, willfully, and/or recklessly, with the intent to deceive, misrepresented and/or concealed material facts t consumers and users, including Plaintiff.

116. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants misrepresented and/o concealed material facts conceming the PRODUCTS to consumers, including the Plaintiff, wi

knowledge of the falsity of their misrepresentations. 31 117. At all relevant times, upon information and belief, the misrepresentations an concealments concerning the PRODUCTS made by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants include but are not limited to the following:

a. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants falsely labeled and advertised the PRODUCTS in the following ways, among others: “For you, use every day to help feel soft, fresh, and comfortable,” “a sprinkle a day keeps the odor away” “your body perspires in more places than just under your arms,” “Use SHOWER to SHOWER to feel dry, fresh, and comfortable throughout the day,” and “SHOWER to SHOWER can be used all over your body.”

=

The Johnson & Johnson Defendants falsely advertised the PRODUCT SHOWER to SHOWER to be applied “all over,” and in particular, urges women to use it to “Soothe Your Skin: Sprinkle on problem areas to soothe skin that has been irritated from friction. A pply after a bikini wax to help reduce irritation and discomfort.”

2

The Johnson & Johnson Defendants, through the advertisements described above, knowingly misrepresented to Plaintiff and the public that the PRODUCTS were safe for use all over the body, including the perineal areas of women.

e

The Johnson & Johnson Defendants intentionally failed to disclose that talc and the associated PRODUCTS, when used in the perineal area, increase the risk of ovarian cancer.

D

The Johnson & Johnson Defendants intentionally failed to include adequate warnings with the PRODUCTS regarding the potential and actual risks of using the PRODUCTS in the perineal area on women and the nature, scope, severity, and duration of any serious injuries resulting therefrom.

=h

Despite knowing about the carcinogenic nature of talc and its likelihood to increase the risk of ovarian cancer in women, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants falsely marketed, advertised, labeled and sold the PRODUCTS as safe for public consumption and usage, including for use by women to powde their perineal areas.

15 Household PRODUCTS Database, Label for Johnson’s Baby Powder, Original, http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?thl=brands&id=10001040 32 118. Atall relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants actively, knowingly, an intentionally concealed and misrepresented these material facts to the consuming public with th intent to deceive the public and Plaintiff, and with the intent that the consumers would purchas and use the PRODUCTS in the female perineal area.

119. At all relevant times, the consuming public, including Plaintiff, would no otherwise have purchased the PRODUCTS and/or applied the PRODUCTS in the perineal area i they had been informed of the risks associated with the use of the PRODUCTS in the perine area.

120. At all relevant times, Plaintiff relied on the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ misrepresentations concerning the safety of the PRODUCTS when purchasing the PRODUCT and using them in her perineal area, and her reliance was reasonable and justified.

121. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Johnson & Johnso Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff purchased and used the PRODUCTS in their perine areas. As a direct and proximate result of such use, each Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, an Plaintiff were caused to incur medical bills, lost wages, and conscious pain and suffering.

122. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345 and punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together wi

interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT XI —-NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

(Against All Defendants)

123. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

124. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Johnson & Johnso Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Plaintiff purchased and used the PRODUCTS in their perine areas. As a direct and proximate result of such use, each Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, an Plaintiff were caused to incur medical bills, lost wages, and conscious pain and suffering.

125. Defendants had a duty to accurately and truthfully represent to the medical an healthcare community, Plaintiff and the public that the PRODUCTS had been tested and foun to be safe and effective for use in the perineal area. However, the representations made b Defendants, in fact, were false.

126. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the representations concerning th PRODUCTS while they were involved in their manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce, because Defendants negligentl misrepresented the PRODUCTS’ high risk of unreasonable, dangerous, adverse side effects.

127. Defendants breached their duty in representing that the PRODUCTS were safe fo use in the perineal areas of women.

128. At all relevant times, upon information and belief, the misrepresentations omissions and concealments concerning the PRODUCTS made by the Defendants include, bu

are not limited to the following:

34 . The Johnson & Johnson Defendants labeled and advertised the PRODUCTS

in the following ways, among others: “For you, use every day to help feel soft fresh, and comfortable;” “A sprinkle a day keeps the odor away;” “Your body perspires in more places than just under your arms;” “Use SHOWER to SHOWER to feel dry, fresh, and comfortable throughout the day; and “SHOWER to SHOWER can be used all over your body.”

. The Johnson & Johnson Defendants advertised the product SHOWER to SHOWER to be applied “all over,” and in particular, urged women to use it to “Soothe Your Skin: Sprinkle on problem areas to soothe skin that has been irritated from friction. Apply after a bikini wax to help reduce irritation and discomfort.”

. Defendants, through the advertisements described above, among others, misrepresented to consumers, including the Plaintiff, that the PRODUCTS were safe for use all over the body, including the female perineal area.

. Despite actual knowledge of the health risks of the PRODUCTS, the Defendants failed to disclose to the consumers and the Plaintiff, through adequate warnings, representations, labeling, or otherwise, that the PRODUCTS were inherently dangerous and carcinogenic in nature, which poses serious health risks to consumers.

Despite actual knowledge that the use of the PRODUCTS in the perineal area created a significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer, the Defendants failed to disclose to consumers and the Plaintiff, through adequate warnings, representations, labeling, or otherwise, that material fact.

Despite knowing about the carcinogenic nature of talc and its likelihood to increase the risk of ovarian cancer in women, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants falsely marketed, advertised, labeled and sold the PRODUCTS as safe for public consumption and usage, including for use by women to powde their perineal areas.

At all relevant times, Defendants failed to exercise reasonable care in ascertainin

or sharing information regarding the safe use of PRODUCTS, failed to disclose facts indicatin

that the PRODUCTS were inherently dangerous and carcinogenic in nature, and otherwise faile

to exercise reasonable care in communicating the information concerning the PRODUCTS t

Plaintiff and/or concealed relevant facts that were known to them.

30 130. At all relevant times, Plaintiff were not aware of the falsity of the foregoin misrepresentations, nor was she aware that material facts concerning talc and the PRODUCT had been concealed or omitted. In reasonable reliance upon the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions, Plaintiff were induced to and did purchase the PRODUCT and did use the PRODUCTS on her perineal area. If the Defendants had disclosed true an accurate material facts concerning the risksPRODUCTS, in particular the ris of developing ovarian cancer from using the PRODUCTS in the female perineal area, Plaintif would not have purchased and/or received the PRODUCTS and/or used the PRODUCTS in tha manner.

131. Plaintiff” reliance upon the Defendants’ misrepresentations and omissions wa justified and reasonable because, among other reasons, those misrepresentations and omission were made by individuals and entities who were in a position to know the material fac concerning the PRODUCT'S and the association between the PRODUCTS and the incidence o ovarian cancer, while Plaintiff was not in a position to know these material facts, and because th Johnson & Johnson Defendants failed to wamm or otherwise provide notice to the consumin public as to the risks of the PRODUCTS, thereby inducing Plaintiff to use the PRODUCTS i lieu of safer alternatives and in ways that created unreasonably dangerous risks to her health. A all relevant times, the Defendants’ corporate officers, directors, and/or managing agents knew o and ratified the acts of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants, as alleged herein.

132. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff have bee injured and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss o

enjoyment of life, loss of care and comfort, and economic damages.

36 133. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demand judgment against all Defendants fo compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitiv damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs o suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT XII — PUNITIVE DAMAGES

(Aqainst All Defendants)

134. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complain as if set forth fully herein.

135. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 3294 provides that “In an action fo the breach of an obligation not arising from contract, where it is proven by clear and convincin evidence that the defendant has been guilty of oppression, fraud, or malice, the plaintiff, i addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of example and by way o punishing the defendant.”

136. The Defendants have acted with oppression, fraud, and/or malice in the followin ways, in addition to the acts and/or omissions described throughout this Complaint:

a. Defendants knew of the unreasonably high risk of ovarian cancer posed by th PRODUCTS before manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling the PRODUCTS, ye purposefully proceeded with such action;

b. Despite their knowledge of the high risk of ovarian cancer associated with th PRODUCTS, Defendants affirmatively minimized this risk through marketing and promotion efforts and product labeling;

C. Through the actions outlined above, Defendants expressed a reckless indifferenc to the safety of users of the PRODUCTS, including Plaintiff. Defendants knew of the dange

and risks of the PRODUCTS, yet they concealed and/or omitted this information from labels an 37 warnings contained on the PRODUCTS in furtherance of their conspiracy and concerted action

These actions were outrageous because of Defendants’ evil motive or a reckless indifference t

the safety of users of the PRODUCTS.

137. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ acts of oppression, frau and/or malice described throughout this Complaint, Plaintiff have sustained damages as set fort above.

138. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against all Defendants fo compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitiv damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs o

suit, attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

TOLLING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

139. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complain as if set forth fully herein.

140. Plaintiff have suffered an illness that has a latency period and does not arise unti many years after exposure. Plaintiff” illnesses did not distinctly manifest themselves until the were made aware that their ovarian cancer could be caused by their use of the Defendants’ products. Consequently, the discovery rule applies to these cases, and the statute of limitation has been tolled until the day that Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that their (or decedents’

ovarian cancer was linked to their (or decedents’) use of the Defendants’ products.

38 141. Furthermore, the running of any statute of limitations has been equitably tolled b reason of Defendants’ fraudulent concealment and conduct. Through their affirmativ misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff, decedents, an consumers the true risks associated with PRODUCTS.

142. As a result of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff, decedents, and consumers we unaware, and could not reasonably know or have learned through reasonable diligence, tha Plaintiff and decedents had been exposed to the risks alleged herein and that those risks were th direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.

143. Furthermore, Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitation because of their concealment of the truth regarding the safety of PRODUCTS. Defendants we under a duty to disclose the true character, quality and nature of PRODUCTS because this wa non-public information over which they continue to have exclusive control. Defendants kne that this information was not available to Plaintiff, their medical providers and/or their heal facilities, yet they failed to disclose the information to the public.

144. Defendants had the ability to and did spend enormous amounts of money i furtherance of their purposes of marketing and promoting a profitable product, notwithstandin the known or reasonably knowable risks. Plaintiff, decedents, consumers, and medic professionals could not have afforded to and could not have possibly conducted studies t determine the nature, extent and identity of related health risks, and they were forced to rely o

Defendants’ representations.

PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against all Defendants as follows, individually an under survival claims: (I) Judgment for Plaintiff and against D efendants; (2) For medical and related expenses, according to proof; (3) Forloss of earnings and/or earning capacity, according to proof; (4) Forexemplary or punitive damages, according to proof; (5) For treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345; (6) Formental and physical suffering, according to proof; (7) For Plaintiff” cost of suit herein; (8) Fordisgorgement of profits, according to proof; (9) Default judgment as a sanction for the bad faith destruction of evidence, if any, an according to proof, if any; (10) For such other and further relief as this court may deem just and proper, includin prejudgment interest.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all claims so triable in this action.

DATED: February 23, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

/s/ Curtis G. Hoke

Curtis G. Hoke (SBN 282465) THE MILLER FIRM, LLC 108 Railroad Avenue

Orange, Virginia 22960

Tel: (540) 672-4224

Fax: (540) 672-3055

40 E-Mail: choke@ millerfirmllc.com

Attorney for Plaintiff