This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 08:01:28 (UTC).

Deuberry v. Johnson & Johnson, et al. [Coordinated into JCCP4872 Los Angeles]

Case Summary

On 07/24/2018 Deuberry filed a Personal Injury - Other Product Liability 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:

    ******1747

  • Filing Date:

    07/24/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Stayed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Deuberry, April

Defendants

Imerys Talc America, Inc. f/k/a Luzenac America, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Griffin, Keith David

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

Notice of Court Order re Coordination of Add-On Cases: Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

Order: Deeming Case Complex

Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Action Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Action Pending Coordination Proceedings signed/BCW

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

April Deuberry - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

 

Docket Entries

  • 11/16/2018
  • 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 8/9/18, when the case was deemed complex. Matter stayed, as of 8/9/18, pending coordination proceedings.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 10/29/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Notice of Court Order re Coordination of Add-On Cases: Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/09/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Action Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Action Pending Coordination Proceedings signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/24/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - April Deuberry - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf: Comment: COMPLEX

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

GIRARDI | KEESE

THOMAS V. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 36603 DAVID N. BIGELOW, State Bar No. 181528 KEITH D. GRIFFIN, State Bar No. 204388 1126 Wilshire Boulevard

Los Angeles, California 90017

Telephone: (213) 977-0211

Facsimile: (213) 481-1554

Attorneys for Plaintiff

E-FILED

7/24/2018 10:19 AM Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV331747

Reviewed By: R. Walker

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

APRIL DEUBERRY, Plaintiff, V.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

.

N AW D

oo

. 18CV331747

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- FAILURE TO WARN | STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- DESIGN DEFECT BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY - FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT FRAUD NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff, APRIL DEUBERRY ("PLAINTIFF"), alleges against JOHNSON & JOHNSON;

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.

f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively referred to

herein as "DEFENDANTS") as follows:

// |

NATURE OF THE ACTION

1. This is a products liability case arising out of the severe injuries PLAINTIFF suffered as a resulttalc-based products manufactured, designed, marketed, promoted, labeled, teéted, distributed, and/or sold by DEFENDANTS, and each of them.

2. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, substantially contributed to the manufacture, design, distribution, pfomotion, marketing, labeling, testing and selling of the talc-based products used by PLAINTIFF, including but not limited to Johnson's® Baby Powder and Shower to | Shower® (the talc-based products used by Plaintiff are referred to herein as the "SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS"). Each DEFENDANT is, and at all relevant times herein was, a participant and/or entity in the chain of distribution for these products.

PARTIES

3. PLAINTIFF is, and at all relevant times herein was, a citizen and resident of the

State of Indiana.

4. PLAINTIFF used the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to dust her perineum for feminine hygiene purposes on a daily basis for many years, beginning in approximately 1971 through approximately 2011,

5. PLAINTIFF purchased the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS in the State of - Indiana. |

6. In or about September 13, 2002, PLAINTIFF was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. PLAINTIFF has undefgone extensive tfeatment to treat her cancer.

7 PLAINTIFF's ovarian cancer was and is a direct and proximate resultSUBJ ECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS developed, manufactured, designed, marketed, labeled, promoted, tested, distributed and/or sold by DEFENDANTS. |

8. PLAINTIFF received treatment for her cancer in the State of Indiana.

9. Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey.

10. JOHNSON & JOHNSON was and is authorized to do business in the State of

California and was and is engaged in substantial comings and business activities in California,page 2 can't be parsed

of Delaware with its principal place of business in the State of California.

21. IMERYS TALC is, and at all relevant times herein was, engaged in the business of mining, producing, supplying, and distributing talcum powder for the use in talcum-based products, including but not limited to the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

22. According to its website, IMERYS TALC is "the world's leading talc producer" for talcum-based products.'

23. IMERYS TALC was and is authorized to do business in the State of California and was and is engaged in substantial comings and business activities in California, including Los Angeles County.

24. IMERYS TALC derives substantial revenue from the products it sells, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, in the State of California and County of Los Angeles.

25. Upon information and belief, IMERYS TALC mined, produced, distributed and/or supplied the talcum powder utilized in the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS used by PLAINTIFF.

26. PLAINTIFF is ignorant of the true names and capacities of defendants sued herein as Does 1 through 100 and therefore sue these defendants by such fictitious names pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure §474. PLAINTIFF is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief alleges, that each of the defendants designated as a Doe are legally - responsible in some manner for the events and happenings and caused damages, as alleged herein. PLAINTIFF will seek leave of the Céurt to amend this Complaint to show the true names and capaéities of the defendants, designated as Does, when the same has been ascertained.

VENUE AND JURISDICTION |

27. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over all DEFENDANTS because,

based on information and belief, each is a corporation and/or entity and/or person organized under

the laws of or having its principal place of business in the State of California, a foreign : http://www.imerystalc.com/content/corporate/About_Imerys Talc/ Who_are_we./Overview/ (last accessed November 18, 2016).page 4 can't be parsed

N

~N O Wn

28

swie SiagTtagtms](g S -, A

Cramer, et al. ("Cramer Study"). This study found a 92% increésed risk of ovarian cancer in women who reported genital talc use.

35. Shortly after the Cramer Study was published, Dr. Cramer met with Dr. Bruce Semple from Johnson & Johnson. Dr.‘:ICramer recomrfiended that Johnson & Johnson should place a warning to consumers on its teficum powder products and talcum-based products about the increased risks of ovarian cancer.

36. In1992,a comprehensive' study was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that concluded there was a statistically significant threefold increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who use talc-based products, including talc-based baby powders, to dust their genital area during ovulation.

37. In2000, a prospective study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found a 40% increased risk of cancer in women who applied talcum powder on their perineum.

38. In 2003, a meta-analysis was conducted which pooled data from 16 studies, and found a 33% increased risk of ovarian cancer in talc and talcum powder users.

39. Nearly all of the numerous epidemiologic studies performed that evaluated the association of talc and ovarian cancer have réported an inéreased risk of ovarian cancer caused by genital talc use in women., |

40. As manufacturers, suppliers, and/or sellers of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, DEFENDANTS were aware, or should have been aware of the significant studies and medical literature finding an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who used talc-based powders and products in the genital area.

Defendants Knew that Talc- and Talcum Powder-Based Products | Caused Ovarian Cancer

41. Further, DEFENDANTS knew, or reasonably should have known of the dangers and increased risks associated with talc-based products as a result of the numerous organizations who highlighted and/or notified DEFENDANTS of these risks.

42. In 1994, the Cancer i’révention Coalition notified the CEO of Johnson & Johnson 10

28

that the studies evaluating talcum powder use "...shows conclusively that the frequent use of talcum powder in the genital area poses a serious health risk of ovarian cancer." This letter cited the difficulties in detecting ovarian cancer and low survival rate, and urged Johnson & Johnson to remove their talc- and talcum powder-based products from the market because of the safer | alternative (cornstarch-based powders), or alternatively, place a warning to potential consumers on their talc-based products regarding the increased risks of ovarian cancer. |

43, In or around February 2006, the International Association for the Research of Cancer ("IARC") section of the World Health Organization published a paper and classified talc- based body powder as a Group 2B human carcinogen. In reaching this conclusion, IARC reviewed numerous studies and concluded that these studies consistently found an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women associated with perineal talc use.

44, Moreover, in 2006, the Canadian government classified talc as a "D2A" (very toxic), and a "cancer causing” substance.

45. Prior to their distribution to the general public, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew and were aware that the use of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS by women for feminine hygiene purposes increased the risk of ovarian cancer.

46. DEFENDANTS knew about these adverée side effects, yet, without further testing and without including any warning, began marketing and selling the SUBJ ECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to the general public, including PLAINTIFF.

47, Prior to the time PLAINTIFF used the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, DEFENDANTSQ and each of them, knew through pre-market studies and post-marketing studies and reports that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were associated with a significant increased risk bf ovarian cancer in women who used these products for feminine hygiene purposes.

48. Further, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew and/or should have known that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS present an unreasonable and hazardous risk.

49, Despite knowing that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS caused ovarian

O 0 0 N

10 11 12

13-

28

SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS for use by women for feminine hygiene purposes.

50. Further, upon information and belief, DEFENDANTS and their agents, employees, and officers, promoted the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to the general public as safe, despite their knowledge to the contrary.

Defendants Concealed the Risks of the Subject Talc-Based Products and Misrepresented the Safety of Thesre Products

51. Despite DEFENDANTS’ longstanding knowledge of the increased risk of ovarian cancer, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to warn and disclose to consumers, including PLAINTIFF, that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS significantly increase the risk of ovarian cancer. |

52. DEFENDANTS knew of the dangerous effects associated with the use of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS for feminine hygiene purposes from the published studies and other medical literature confirming these risks. However, DEFENDANTS took no action to properly study the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, which would have reflected that risk. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to adequately warn or remedy the risks, but instead concealed, suppressed and failed to disclose the dangers.

53. Further, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, knew of the harmful effects of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS and/or talcum powder prior to PLAINTIFF's initial use of these products, yet DEFENDANTS purposefully failed to disclose these risks to the general public, including PLAINTIFF. |

54. Moreover, each of the DEFENDANTS actively marketed and promoted talcum powder and/or the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS as safe and non-hazardous to women's health. These intentional marketing and promotional strategies included disseminating false and misleading information regarding the safety of SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to the public and medical community.

O 0 3 N

22

23

24 25 26 27 28

development in cosmetic applications and avoid the initiation of a process for classification of talc as a carcinogen."

56. The February 1998 memo also discussed a plan to criticize and downplay the studies associating talc with cancer.

57. Asearly as 1998, IMERYS TALC knew that talc was hazardous to human health and a potential carcinogen. Despite this knowledge, IMERYS TALC purposefully and knowingly criticized the scientific literature revealing this causal connection and downplayed the risks of talc.

58. | IMERYS TALC knew that its product, talc, was a component lof the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS and that inclusion of talc in these products presented a danger to consumers, yet they conéciously attempted to prevent consumers, including PLAINTIFF, from knowing this information.

59, This concealment was done in order to increase profits in the cosmetic application market, including but not limited to the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS which IMERYS TALC knew were being used by consumers for feminine hygiene pfirposes, including by PLAINTIFF. )

60. Further, at all relevant times herein, JOHNSON & JOHNSON markéted and promoted the SUBJ ECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS as products for freshness, cleanliness, and comfort. Further, the labeling on Johnson's Baby PoWder specifically states its intended use for

"2 Moreover,

women: "For you, use anytime you want skin to feel soft, fresh, and comfortable. DEFENDANTS utilized slogans on the Shower to Shower products to target potential female purchasers, stating: "Just a sprinkle a day helps keep odor away."3

61. Despite knowing the serious and hazardous risks that the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS caused to women who used these products for feminine hygiene purposes, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, promoted, advertised, and marketed the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS to the general public, including PLAINTIFF, as safe and efficacious for use

2 https://www.johnsonsbaby.com/powder/johnsons-bab -when-to-use

3

-powder#how-am

http://www.showertoshower.com/Home 10 11 12 13

14.

28

in feminine hygiene care.

DELAYED DISCOVERY AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

62. The discovery rule applies to toll the running of the statute of limitations. until PLAINTIFF knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care and diligence, should have known of the existence of her claims against all DEFENDANTS. The nature of PLAINTIFF's injuries and subsequent damages, and their causal relationshipSUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were not and could not have been discovered through reasonable care and diligence.

63. PLAINTIFF was diagnosed with ovarian cancer on or about September 13, 2002. PLAINTIFF attempted to identify the cause of her cancer, as she underwent extensive treatments, including but not limited to surgery and chemotherapy. PLAINTIFF was unsuccessful in ascertaining a suspected source of her cancer until within the applicable limitations period. Indeed, none of PLAINTIFF's doctors or healthcare providers ever suspected or discussed the possibility with PLAINTIFF her use of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS was the cause of her ovarian cancer.

64. Further, PLAINTIFF did not believe or had any reason to believe that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS—which were and are marketed and promoted by DEFENDANTS as safe and harmless for use—could have been the cause of the serious injuries PLAINTIFF suffered. PLAINTIFF continued to use the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS approximately through 2011.

65. PLAINTIFF did not suspect, nor did she have reason to suspect, the cause of the injuries caused by the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, or the tortious nature of the conduct causing those injuries, until less than the applicable limitations period prior to the filing of this action. |

66. Despite investigation, PLAINTIFF did not learn that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were a cause of her injuries until 2016.

67. Further, DEFENDANTS are estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense because all DEFENDANTS fraudulently concealed from and misrepresented to PLAINTIFT the connection between the injuries sustained by PLAINTIFF and the oo 3 AN

\O

28

DEFENDANTS' tortious conduct. Additionally, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, continue to misrepresent to the general public that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS are safe for use by women for feminine hygiene purposes.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

(By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.;

| | and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- FAILURE TO WARN

68. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusi\}e, and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full.

69. DEFENDANTS!' products, the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, were and are defective due to inadequate warnings regarding the increased risks of ovarian cancer associated with their use.

70. Each DEFENDANT was a critical entity and participant in the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS entering the stream of commerce.,

71. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, knew or should have known at the time SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS left DEFENDANTS' possession, that these products contained inadequate warnings regarding the increased risks of ovarian cancer associated with their use,

72. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, had a duty to warn and provide adequate warnings and information to those whom they could expect to use the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS and/or be endangered by their probable use, including PLAINTIFF,

73. Atall times and places mentioned herein, J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, failed to use reasonable care to warn, give adequate warnings or provide facts describing the dangerous propensitiés of the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS to the public and general population, including PLAINTIFF.

74. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and 1 || each of them, further failed to provide proper post-market and/or post-sale warnings or 2 || instructions because, after DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of the risks of dangerous 3 || side effects of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, they failed to provide adequate 4 warnings to users or consumers of the product, including PLAINTIFF, and continued to promote 5 || and market the products as safe.

75. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS' failure to provide adequate warnings and failure to use reasonable care to warn of the dangerous risks and effects of the

SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and

O 0 3 N

damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering,

10 || extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and

11 || will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

12 76. In performing the foregoing acts and omissions, DEFENDANTS, and each of

13 || them, acted despicably, fraudulently, and with malice and oppression'so as to justify an award of 14 || punitive and exemplary damages.

15 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

16 || (By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER 17 || COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.;

18 and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

19 STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- DESIGN DEFECT

20 77. - PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, and incorporates them

21 || herein by reference as though set forth in full.

22 78. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and 23 || each of them, designed, manufactured, tested, marketed, distributed, and/or sold the SUBJECT 24 || TALC-BASED PRODUCTS into the stream of commerce.

25 - 79. Each DEFENDANT was a critical entity and participant in the SUBJECT TALC- 26 || BASED PRODUCTS entering the stream of commerce.

27 80. The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS Were expected to and did reach

28 || PLAINTIFF without substantial change in its condition as manufactured, created, designed, tested,28

labeled, sterilized, packaged, supplied, marketed, sold, advertised, warned and otherwise distributed. -

81 .‘ PLAINTIFF used the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS in a manner for which they were intended by DEFENDANTS, and/or in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

82. The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS caused increased risks of ovarian .cancer and harfn upon use, and therefore constitute unreasonably dangerous products for normal use due to its defective design and DEFENDANTS' improper misrepresentations.

83. The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS used by PLAINTIFF were defective in their design or formulation when they left the hands of DEFENDANTS, an'd each of thém, in that the foreseeable risks exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation.

84. Further, the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS used by PLAINTIFF were defective in their design or formulation when they left the hands of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were and are unreasonably dangerofis, and they were more dangerous than an ordinary consumer, including PLAINTIFF, would expect.

85. The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were further defectively marketed by DEFENDANTS, and each of them, in that DEFENDANTS -made inappropriate, misleading, inaccurate and incomplete representations about the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS in advertisements, news, commercials, and direct to consumer advertisements. These deceptive marketing representations were made directly to the general public, including PLAINTIFF. These deceptive marketing representations were made in order to induce sales and increase profits.

86. PLAINTIFF relied on these defective marketing statements made by DEFENDANTS in her decision to use the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

87. Asadirect and proximate result of the defective design of the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

88. In performing the foregoing acts and omissions, DEFENDANTS, and each of28

them, acted despicably, fraudulently, and with malice and oppression so as to justify an award of punitive and exemplary damages.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

(By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

89. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full.

90. Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and J&J CONSUMER (collectively the "J&J DEFENDANTS") were each a critical entity and participant in the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS entering the stream of commerce. |

91. The J&J DEFENDANTS were aware that consumers, including PLAINTIFF, would use the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and these defendants knew, or had reason to know, that consumers, including PLAINTIFF, would rely on the skill, judgment, and labeling of said defendants in providing the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS for their intended use.

92. PLAINTIFF did rely on the skill, judgment, knowledge, and representations of the J&J DEFENDANTS in her decisions to use the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

93. The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were not safe for their intended use nor were tfiey of merchantable quality as warranted by the J&J DEFENDANTS in that these products were and are defectively designed and contained inadequate warnings, thereby dangerously and hazardously exposing consumers, including PLAINTIFF, to harm and serious injury. |

94, As adirect and proximate result of each of said defendant's breach, PLAINTIFF suffered seriQus and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic

1 FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

2 || (By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; J OHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER

3 | COMPANIES, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

4 - BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

5 9. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, and incorporates them 6 || herein by reference as though set forth in full. | 7 96. The J&J DEFENDANTS were each a critical entity and participant in the 8 StJBJ ECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS entering the stream of commerce. 9 97. At all times herein mentioned, said defendants; and each of them, represented to the

10 || general public, including PLAINTIFF, that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were safe, 11 || efficacious, and proper for their intended use, and that they did not produce any dangerous or

12 || unwarned of side effects, including but not limited to ovarian cancer.

13 98. PLAINTIFF did rely on these express representations made by these defendants in 14 || her decision to utilize the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

15 99, The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were not effective, safe; or fit for their 16 || intended use as described, marketed, and Wa£rantéd by the J&J DEFENDANTS.

17 100. As adirect and proximate resfilt of each of said defendant's breach, PLAINTIFF

18 || suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not

19 || limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic

20 || loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future,

21 - FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

22 (By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON

23 , CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a 24 LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

25 FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

26 101. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, and incorporates them

27 || herein by reference as though set forth in full. 28 102. The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, O R 3 Ay

17

28

and each of them, intentionally omitted, suppressed and/or concealed material facts concerning the use and dangers associated with the use of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, including but not limited to the risks of ovarian cancer when these products were used by women on their genital area, and the fact that safer and more efficacious alternatives were available.

103. IMERYS TALC, as early as 1998, knew that its talc product was being used in the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS and that its talc product was known to present an increased risk of cancer to consumers of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

104. Despite this knowledge, IMERYS TALC knowingly and intentionally suppressed and downplayed the risks of talc in cosmetic products, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and directed a plan to reverse the scientific consensus that talc was a carcinogen and hazardous for human use.

105. Moreover, the J&J DEFENDANTS knew, through medical literature and studies, its own doctors and studies that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were harmful for human use, specifically use by women for feminine hygiene purposes.

106. Despite this knowledge, the J&J DEFENDANTS diffused any reports connecting talc-based products, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, with cancer. ‘

107. Moreover, the J&J DEFENDANTS specifically ignored .é recommendation as early as 1982 by the author of one such study finding an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who used talc products on their genitals, that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS should carry a warning label of such increased risks.

108. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, purposefully and willfully downplayed and understated the serious nature of the risks associated with the use of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, in order to increase and sustain sales.

109. As a direct and proximate result of each defendant's concealment of material facts and intention obfuscation of the truths regarding the risks of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injurics and damages, as described

herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and28

physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future. | 110. The foregoing acts, conduct and omissions of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were vile, base, willful, malicious, wanton, oppressive and fraudulent, and were done with a conscious disregard for the health and safety of PLAINTIFF and other users of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and in reckless ignorance of the truth of said products, for the- primary purpose of increasing and sustaining profits. As such, PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive damages. |

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive) FRAUD 111. PLAINTIFF re-alleges paragraphs 1 through 67, inclusive, and incorporates them herein by reference as though set forth in full. | 112, The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, knowingly and intentionally made materially false and misleading representations to the general public, including PLAINTIFF, to the effect that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and their component parts, were safe for their intended use. 113. The J&J DEFENDANTS specifically represented to consumers, including

PLAINTIFF, that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were safe for use for feminine

hygiene purpbses, despite {he J&J DEFENDANTS knowledge that numerous studies had found a connection between talc products and increased risk of cancer.

114. Moreover, IMERYS TALC specifically targeted the scientific community's cénsensus that talc caused an increased risk of cancer by using and/or paying experts in the field to criticize such studies and thus downplay the actual risk of talc in cosmetic products, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

115. These defendants' superior knowledge and expertise, their relationship of trust and

confidence with the public, and their specific knowledge regarding the risks and dangers of thepage 17 can't be parsed

page 18 can't be parsed

O KK J N

10 11 12 13 14

28

have been known and/or discovered by DEFENDANTS.

129. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, had a duty to exercise reasonable care in the design, formulation, manufacture, labeling, marketing, advertising, supplying, sale, and distribution of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

130. Specifically, each DEFENDANT had a duty to assure that the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS did not pose an unreasonable risk of bodily harm and/or adverse events.

131. | J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and cach of them, and their agents, officers and/or employees, failed to exercise ordinary care and failed to comply with existing standards of care, including but not limited to the following acts and/or omissions: |

a. J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, negligently and recklessly produced, manufactured, designe‘d, marketed, advertised, supplied, sold, and distributed the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS;

b. By omitting adequate warnings from the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, failed to act as reasonably »prudent manufacturers, sellers, and/or distributors of their products;

c. Further, by promoting, marketing, and advertising the SUBJECT TALC- BASED PRODUCTS as safe for use by women for feminine hygiené purposes, each DEFENDANT was negligent and put PLAINTIFF at risk for the serious injuries PLAINTIFF sustained as a result of each DEFENDANT's negligence.

d. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached their duty to the public, including PLAINTIFF, by failing to warn of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS' dangerous characteristics and increased risks of serious harm and injury, including but not lirriited to developing ovarian cancer.

132, As adirect and proximate cause of each DEFENDANTS' negligence, PLAINTIFFpage 20 can't be parsed

page 21 can't be parsed