This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 07:33:00 (UTC).

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

Case Summary

On 05/23/2018 Gustafson 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:

    ******8629

  • Filing Date:

    05/23/2018

  • 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

Gustafson, Donald

Defendants

IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. F/K/A LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. F/K/A JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON

Decedent

Gustafson, Sharon Kathleen

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Hoke, Curtis George

Not Classified By Court 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

Gustafson Notice of Court Order.pdf: Comment: HRG 9/14/2018 Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

Notice

Gustafson Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: HRG 9/14/18 Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Donald Gustafson-POS Re Imerys.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

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

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Affidavit

GUSTAFSON - AFFIDAVIT OF VENUE.pdf: Comment: AFFIDAVIT OF VENUE

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Lawsuit Notice

GUSTAFSON - CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE.pdf: Comment: 1st CMC set for 9/14/18; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

Civil Case Cover Sheet

GUSTAFSON - CCCS.pdf:

 

Docket Entries

  • 09/14/2018
  • 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 5/23/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/12/2018
  • 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
  • 07/11/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Gustafson Notice of Court Order.pdf: Comment: HRG 9/14/2018 Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Gustafson Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: HRG 9/14/18 Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/05/2018
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/25/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Donald Gustafson-POS Re Imerys.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • 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
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Affidavit - GUSTAFSON - AFFIDAVIT OF VENUE.pdf: Comment: AFFIDAVIT OF VENUE

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - GUSTAFSON - CIVIL LAWSUIT NOTICE.pdf: Comment: 1st CMC set for 9/14/18; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - GUSTAFSON - CCCS.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

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

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

Attorneys for Plaintiff,

E-FILED

5/23/2018 12:07 PM Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV 328629

Reviewed By: R. Walker

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

DONALD GUSTAFSON, Individually, and as Successor-in-Interest on behalf of the ESTATE OF SHARON KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON,

Plaintiff, VS.

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. t/k/a JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; and IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC,,

Defendants.

THIS COMPLAINT RELATES TO:

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

POWDER CASES

1

Case No.: 18C V328629

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1. STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO

WARN (AGAINST IMERYS TALC)

2. STRICT LIABILITY FAILURETO

WARN (AGAINST JOHNSON & JOHNSON DEFENDANTS)

3. STRICT LIABILITY DESIGN

DEFECT AND MANUFACTURING DEFECT (AGAINST IMERYS TALC)

4, STRICT LIABILITY

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

5. NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST IMERYS Gustafson, et al. v. Johnson & Johnson, et dl, TALC)

Santa Clara Superior Court Case No.:

16CV 292902 6. NEGLIGENCE (AGAINST JOHNSON

& JOHNSON DEFENDANTS)

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)

13. LOSS OF CONSORTIUM (AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS)

14. WRONGFUL DEATH (AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS)

15. SURVIVAL ACTION (AGAINST

ALL DEFENDANTS) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

COMPLAINT AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

COMES NOW, the above-captioned 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 IMERYS 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 an Decedent suffered from the severe effects of Ovarian Cancer caused by Johnson & Johnson’s bab powder and Shower-to-Shower consumer products which were manufactured, mined, and/o marketed by Defendants (hereinafter, the “PRODUCTS”). Defendants’ PRODUCT'S each contai talc powder, which caused decedent Sharon K athleen Gustafson (“Decedent”) to develop Ovari

Cancer and die therefrom after she used the PRODUCTS in her perineal area.

2. Plaintiff seeks recovery for damages relating to the Decedent’s 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

5. Plaintiff DONALD GUSTAFSON, INDIVIDUALLY, AND AS SUCCESSOR-

IN-INTEREST ON BEHALF OF THE ESTATE OF SHARON KATHLEEN GUSTAFSON

(“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. Mrs. Gustafson, deceased, 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 2014 in California, and her subsequent death in California on May 25, 2016. Plaintiff Don Gustafson was Mrs. Gustafson’s lawful spouse and asserts claims for loss of consortium, wrongful death, survival, and other claims herein for damages and losses caused by the Defendants’

PRODUCTS.

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 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 —

5 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 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 ftrisilicate 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 & Johnson Defendant manufactured the PRODUCTS. The PRODUCTS are composed almost entirely of talc.

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

same effectiveness as the PRODUCTS.

6 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.

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 Defendants advertised an marketed this product as a symbol of “freshness” and “comfort,” eliminating friction on the skin absorbing “excess wetness” to keep skin feeling dry and comfortable, and “clinically proven gentl and mild.” The Johnson & Johnson Defendants compelled women through advertisements to dus themselves with this product to mask odors. The bottle of “Johnson’s Baby Powder” specificall targets women, stating: “For you, use every day to help 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, “A sprinkl

a day keeps odor away,” and through advertisements such as: “Your body perspires in more place

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

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 than just under your arms. Use SHOWER to SHOWER to feel dry, fresh, and comfortabl throughout the day;” and “SHOWER to SHOWER can be used all over your body.”

21. Decedent 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.

22. Upon information and belief, in 1971, the first study was conducted that suggeste an association between talc and ovarian cancer. This study was conducted by Dr. W] Henderso and others in Cardiff, Wales.

23. Upon information and belief, in 1982, the first epidemiologic study was performe on talc powder use in the female genital area. That study was conducted by Dr. Daniel Crame and others. This study found a ninety-two percent increased risk of ovarian cancer with wome who reported genital talc use. Shortly after this study was published, Dr. Bruce Semple of Johnso & Johnson came and visited Dr. Cramer about his study. Dr. Cramer advised Dr. Semple tha Johnson & Johnson should place a warning on its talcum powders about the ovarian cancer risk 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 risk o 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

8 evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presenc of asbestos-like fibers.?

26. Upon information and belief, in response to the United States National Toxicolog Program’s study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA), now known as th PCPC, formed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TIPTF). Johnson & Johnson, Inc., Johnso & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc., and Luzenac—now known as Imerys Talc—wer members of the CTFA and were the primary actors and contributors of the TIPTF. The state purposc of TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companics in order to collectivel defend talc use at all costs and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry. TIPTF hire scientists to perform biased research regarding the safety of talc. TIPTF members, includin Johnson & Johnson and Luzenac, then edited these scientific reports hired by this group prior t the submissions of these scientific reports to governmental agencies. In addition, members o TIPTF knowingly released false information about the safety of talc to the consuming public an used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies regarding talc. These activities wer conducted by these companies and organizations over the past four decades in an effort to preven regulation of talc and to create confusion to the consuming public about the true hazards of tal

and 1its association to ovarian cancer.

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

9 27. Upon information and belicf, on or about November 19, 1994, the Cance Prevention Coalition sent a letter to then Johnson & Johnson C.E.O. Ralph Larsen, urging him t substitute cornstarch for talcum powder products and to label its products with a warning on cance risks.*

28. Upon information and belief, in or about 1996, the FDA requested that the condo industry stop dusting condoms with talc due to the health concerns that studies linked talc t ovarian cancer. Upon this request, all U.S. manufacturers discontinued the use of talc in it 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 Administration (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 Agenc for Research on Cancer (IARC), the specialized cancer agency of the World Health Organization

published a paper whereby they classified perineal use of talc-based body powder as a “Group 2B’

human carcinogen.” TARC, which is universally accepted as the international authority on cancer

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

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

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

10 issues, concluded that studies from around the world consistently found an increased risk o ovarian cancer in women who used talc in perineal areas. IARC determined that between 16-52% of women worldwide used talc to dust their perineum and found an increased risk of ovarian cance 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 regarding “State Rights to Know” and warning information about the Canadian Government’s D2A classificatio of talc. Although the Johnson & Johnson D efendants admittedly received these MSDs, they neve passed this waming information on to consumers. On September 26, 2012, the corporat representative for Imerys testified in open court that his company exclusively supplied the Johnso

& Johnson Defendants with talc used for its baby powder products and that ovarian cancer is

potential hazard associated with women’s perineal use of talc-based body powders, such as th

11 PRODUCTS. Despite this, the Johnson & Johnson defendants continue to mislead consumers such as Decedent, maintaining that talc is safe for personal use®.

33. In 2008, the Cancer Prevention Coalition submitted a “Petition Seeking a Cance Warning on Cosmectic 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 ovaria cancer.’

34. In 2013, Cancer Prevention Rescarch 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.

8 See, e.g., (“talc can be used safely in persona 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”)

? 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 Socicty, Risk Factors for Ovarian Cancer,

12 36. The Gilda Radner Familial Ovarian Cancer Registry, Roswell Park Center Institute and the Department of Gynecologic Oncology University of Vermont publish a pamphlet entitled “Myths & Facts about ovarian cancer: What you need to know.” In this pamphlet, under “known’ risk factors for ovarian cancer, it lists: “Use of Talc (Baby Powder) in the Genital Area.”!”

37. The Defendants had a duty to know and warn about the hazards associated with th use of the PRODUCTS.

38. The Defendants failed to inform its customers and end users of the PRODUCTS o 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, Decedent was injured and suffered damages, namely ovarian cancer, which require

surgeries and treatments.

FEDERAL STANDARDS AND REQUIREMENTS

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

13 Myths and Facts A bout Ovarian Cancer, http://imaging.ubmmedica.com/cancernetwork/forpatients/pdfs/7 M &F%200varian%20Cancer.pdf. 13 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.

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, among othe

things, they contain a poisonous or deleterious substance which may render the

injurious to users under the conditions of use prescribed in the labeling thereof, orunde such conditions of use as are customary or usual.

b. The PRODUCTS are misbranded in violation of 21 U.S.C. § 362 because, among othe 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 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 misbhranded in violation of 21 C.F.R. § 701.1 because they contai false or misleading representations that they are safe for daily application to all parts o 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

14 the PRODUCTS may cause ovarian cancer or a heightened risk of ovarian cancer whe 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 is likel to be read and understood by the ordinary individual under customary conditions o 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 into th stream of interstate commerce.

48. Atall relevant times, Imerys Talc knew or should have known of the unreasonabl

dangerous and carcinogenic nature of the talc it was selling to the Johnson & Johnson D efendants 15 especially when applied to a woman’s perineal regions, and it knew or should have known tha Johnson & Johnson was not warning its consumers of this danger.

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. Atall relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defective and unreasonably dangerou when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner because, despite Imerys Talc’s knowledge that th PRODUCTS were carcinogenic and could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer, Imerys Tal failed to provide adequate warning and/or instruction to consumers, including D ecedent, regardin the increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the use of the PRODUCTS when applied t the perineal area.

51. Had Decedent received warning or instruction regarding the increased risk o ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS when applied to the perineal area, D ecedent woul not have used the PRODUCTS in this manner.

52. Due to the absence of any waming or instruction by the Defendants as to th significant health and safety risks posed by the PRODUCTS as described herein, Decedent wa 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 Decedent of th increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS when applied to the perineal area

despite their actual knowledge of this material fact, Decdent developed ovarian cancer and hav

16 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.

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

COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY FAILURE TO WARN

(A gainst J ohnson & J ohnson Defendants)

5b. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein.

56. 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 reasonably foreseeabl

use of the PRODUCTS, the Johnson & Johnson D efendants failed to provide adequate warning o

17 instruction to consumers, including D ecedent, regarding the increased risk of ovarian cancer whe the PRODUCTS are applied to the female perineal area.

59. Atall relevant times, Decedent used the PRODUCTS to powder their perineal area a use that was reasonably foreseeable and for which the PRODUCTS were supplied.

60. Had Decedent 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, Decedent 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, Decedent was unaware that the PRODUCTS created an increased risk of ovarian cancer as this danger was not known to the general public.

62. Asadirect and proximate result of Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ failure to war Decedent of the increased risk of ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS when applied t the perineal area, despite their actual knowledge of this material fact, Decedent developed ovari cancer and 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 economi damages.

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

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

65. Atall relevant times, Defendant Imerys Talc was engaged in the business of minin and distributing talcum to Johnson & Johnson Defendants for use in the PRODUCTS, and the were knowingly an integral part of the overall manufacture, design, and production of th PRODUCTS and their introduction into the stream of interstate commerce.

66. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were expected to and did reach Deceden 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 in formulatin the PRODUCTS and that the talc would be the primary ingredient in the PRODUCTS, th foreseeable risks of the PRODUCTS far outweighed the benefits associated with their design an formulation.

68. Atall relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defectively manufactured and designe by Imerys Talc in that their design and formulation is more dangerous than an ordinary consume

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 for th same therapeutic purpose.

70. As a direct and proximate result of the defective design and manufacture of th PRODUCTS, Decedent 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 for compensatory treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, and punitive damages in excess o the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest, costs of suit, attorneys’ fees, an

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 the PRODUCT into the stream of interstate commerce, which they sold and distributed throughout the Unite

States.

20 74. At all relevant times, the PRODUCTS were expected to and did reach Deceden 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 f outweighed the benefits associated with their design and formulation.

76. Atall relevant times, the PRODUCTS were defectively manufactured and designe by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants in that their design and formulation is more dangerous tha an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably 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 for th same therapeutic purpose.

78. Atall relevant times, a reasonable and safer alternative design existed, which coul have feasibly been employed by the Johnson & Johnson Defendants to manufacture a product wi the same therapeutic purpose as the PRODUCTS. Despite knowledge of this reasonable and safe alternative design, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants failed to alter the PRODUCTS’ design an formulation. The magnitude of the danger created by the PRODUCTS far outweighs the cos associated with using an alternative, safer design.

79. As a direct and proximate result of the defective design and manufacture of th PRODUCTS, Decedent 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.

80. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso

Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, an 21 punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with 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 Decedent herein, in the design, development, manufacture, testing inspection, packaging, promotion, marketing, distribution, labeling and/or sale of the 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.

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. Atall relevant times, Imerys Talc was negligent in providing talc to the Johnson

Johnson Defendants. Imerys Talc possessed information on the carcinogenic properties of talc

22 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 Decedent, received the information that Imerys Talc possessed on the carcinogenic properties o talc.

87. As adirect and proximate result of Imerys Talc’s negligence, Decedent develope ovarian cancer and have been injured catastrophically and have been caused severe and permanen pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort an economic damages.

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

COUNT VI-NEGLIGENCE

(Johnson & J ohnson Defendants)

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

90. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants breached their duty t Plaintiff and Decedent and were otherwise negligent in marketing, designing, manufacturing, producing, supplying, inspecting, testing, selling and/or distributing the PRODUCTS in one o more of the following respects:

a. Infailing to warn Decedent of the hazards associated with the use of the PRODUCTS; 23 i.

k.

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 ovaria cancer during the normal and/or intended use of the PRODUCTS;

In failing to inform ultimate users, such as Decedent, 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 Decedent, as to the methods forreducin the type of exposure to the PRODUCTS which caused increased risk of ovarian cancer;

In failing to inform the public in general and the Decedent 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.

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

proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff and D ecedent.

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

Decedent purchased and used the PRODUCTS that directly and proximately caused each Deceden

24 to develop ovarian cancer. A s a direct and proximate result, D ecedent was caused to incur medic 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, an punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest

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

COUNT VII - BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(A gainst | 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 were saf and effective for reasonably anticipated uses, including use by women in their perineal area. Although the label has changed over time, the message has been the same: that the productwomen 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. Ourincredibly soft, hypoallergenic, dermatologist and allergy-tested formula glide

over skin to leave it feeling delicately soft and dry while providing soothing relief.” The Johnso

13 & Johnson Defendants instruct consumers on the product labeling to “Shake powder directly int your hand, away from the face, before smoothing onto the skin.”

97. Through other marketing, including on their website for Johnson’s® Baby 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 and comfortabl apply Johnson’s® Baby Powder close to the body, away from the face. Shake powder into you hand and smooth onto skin.” Under a heading “When to Use”, the Johnson & Johnson Defendan recommend that the consumer “Use anytime you want skin to feel soft, fresh and comfortable. Fo baby, use after every bath and diaper change.” On their website for 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 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 alia:

a. “Decades of Safety: Our confidence in using talc reflects more than 30 years of researc

by independent scientists, review boards and global authorities, which have conclude

that talc can be used safely in personal care products. Various government agencie and other bodies also have examined talc to determine the potential for any safety risks

14 See, http://www.safetyandcarecommitment.com/ingredient-info/other/talc 26 and none have concluded that there are safety risks. In fact, no requlatory agency ha ever required a change in labeling to reflect any safety risk 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 a carcinogen and none have concluded that it is. With over 100 years of use, few ingredients hav the same demonstrated performance, mildness and safety profile as 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 in additio to our company testing. Many research papers and epidemiology studies hav specifically evaluated talc and perineal use and these studies have found talc to be safe’

99. Atall relevant times, even up until present day, the Johnson & Johnson Defendant’ representations relating to talc: that the PRODUCTS are safe for personal use, including in th 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 by wome in the perineal area.

101. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of warranty, Deceden purchased and used the PRODUCTS that directly and proximately caused Decedent to develo ovarian cancer. Decedent was caused to incur medical bills, lost wages, and conscious pain an suffering.

102. WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against the Johnson & Johnso Defendants for compensatory, treble damages pursuant to California Civil Code Section 3345, an

punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with 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. Atthe time the Defendants manufactured, marketed, labeled, promoted, distribute and/or sold the PRODUCTS, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants knew of the uses for which th PRODUCTS were intended, including use by women in the perineal area. With this knowledge they impliedly warranted the PRODUCT'S to be of merchantable quality and safe for such use.

105. Defendants breached their implied warranties of the PRODUCTS sold to Deceden 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, Decedent purchased and used the PRODUCTS that directly and proximatel caused Decedent to develop ovarian cancer. As a result, Decedent was caused to incur medic 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, an punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with interest

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

COUNT IX — CIVIL CONSPIRACY

(Aqainst All Defendants)

28 108. 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 and Decedent’ injuries, diseases, and/or illnesses by exposing the Decedent to harmful and dangerou PRODUCTS. Defendants further knowingly agreed, contrived, confederated and conspired t deprive the Decedent of the opportunity of informed free choice as to whether to use th PRODUCTS or to expose themselves to the stated dangers. Defendants committed the wrongs a described herein by willfully misrepresenting and suppressing the truth as to the risks and dange associated with the use of and exposure to the PRODUCTS.

110. Infurtherance of said conspiracies, Defendants performed the following overt acts

a. Formany decades, Defendants, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other have been in possession of medical and scientific data, literature and test reports tha clearly indicated that use of their by women resulting from ordinary and foreseeabl use of the PRODUCTS were unreasonably dangerous, hazardous, deleterious to huma 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 Decedent, 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. I furtherance of this defense strategy, D efendants, through the TIPTF, used thei

influence over the National Toxicology Program (“NTP’) Subcommittee an

29 the threat of litigation against the NTP to prevent the NTP from classifyin talc as a carcinogen on its 10th Report on Carcinogens (“RoC”);

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

c. By these false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments Defendants intended to induce and did induce the Decedent to rely upon these false an fraudulent representations, omissions and concealments, and to continue to expos themselves to the dangers inherentexposure to the PRODUCTS.

111. Decedent 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 Decedent purchased and used the PRODUCTS in her perineal area, which directly and proximatel caused her to develop ovarian cancer. Decedent was caused to incur medical bills, lost wages, an 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 of suit

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

30 COUNT X — FRAUD, FRAUDULENT MISREPRESENTATION, AND INTENTIONAL

CONCEALMENT

(A qainst | 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 Decedent.

116. At all relevant times, the Johnson & Johnson Defendants misrepresented and/o concealed material facts concerning the PRODUCTS to consumers, including the D ecedent, wi knowledge of the falsity of their misrepresentations.

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.”

b. 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.”

c. TheJohnson & Johnson Defendants, through the advertisements described above, knowingly misrepresented to Decedent and the public that the

31 PRODUCTS were safe for use all over the body, including the perineal areas of women.

d. 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.

e. 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.

f. 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.

118. At all 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 Decedent, 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 Decedent, 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 perineal area

120. At all relevant times, Decedent 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.

15 Household PRODUCTS Database, Label for Johnson’s Baby Powder, Original, http://householdproducts.nlm.nih.gov/cgi-bin/household/brands?thl =brands&id=10001040 32 121. Asadirect, foreseeable and proximate result of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Decedent purchased and used the PRODUCTS in their perineal areas. As direct and proximate result of such use, each Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and Deceden was 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, an punitive damages in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this Court, together with 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. Asadirect, foreseeable and proximate result of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ fraudulent conduct, Decedent purchased and used the PRODUCTS in their perineal areas. As direct and proximate result of such use, Decedent developed ovarian cancer, and Decedent wa 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, Decedent, 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. 33 126. 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, but a not limited to the following:

a. 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.”

b. 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.”

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

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

e. Despite actual knowledge that the use of the PRODUCTS in the perineal area created a significantly increased risk of ovarian cancer, the Defendants failed

34 to disclose to consumers and the Decedent, through adequate warnings, representations, labeling, or otherwise, that material fact.

f. 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.

129. Atall 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 Decedent and/or concealed relevant facts that were known to them.

130. At all relevant times, Decedent was not aware of the falsity of the foregoin misrepresentations, nor was she aware that material facts concerning talc and the PRODUCTS ha been concealed or omitted. In reasonable reliance upon the Johnson & Johnson Defendants’ misrepresentations and/or omissions, Decedent was 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 risk o developing ovarian cancer from using the PRODUCTS in the female perineal area, Deceden would not have purchased and/or received the PRODUCTS and/or used the PRODUCTS in tha manner.

131. Decedent’s 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 facts concernin

30 the PRODUCTS and the association between the PRODUCTS and the incidence of ovarian cancer while Decedent was not in a position to know these material facts, and because the Johnson Johnson Defendants failed to warn or otherwise provide notice to the consuming public as to th risks of the PRODUCTS, thereby inducing Decedent to use the PRODUCTS in lieu of safe alternatives and in ways that created unreasonably dangerous risks to her health. At all relevan times, the Defendants’ corporate officers, directors, and/or managing agents knew of and ratifie the acts of the Johnson & Johnson Defendants, as alleged herein.

132. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Decedent has been injure and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment o life, loss of care and comfort, and economic damages.

133. 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 of 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 Complaint a if set forth fully herein.

135. California Code of Civil Procedure Section 3294 provides that “In an action for th 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 and th

36 Decedent’s estate, in addition to the actual damages, may recover damages for the sake of exampl and by way of 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 Decedent. Defendants knew of the dange and risks of the PRODUCTS, yet they concealed and/or omitted this information from labels an 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. Asadirect and proximate result of the D efendants’ acts of oppression, fraud and/o malice described throughout this Complaint, Plaintiff and Decedent have sustained damages as se forth 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 of suit attorneys’ fees, and all such other relief, as this Court deems proper.

COUNT XIII - LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

(Against All Defendants)

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

140. Plaintiff and Decedent were married at the time of Mrs. Decedent’s injuries an subsequent death; Plaintiff was entitled to her comfort, care, affection, companionship, services society, advice, guidance, counsel, and consortium.

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

COUNT XIV - WRONGFUL DEATH

(Aqainst All Defendants)

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

143. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants as se forth herein, the Decedent named in this action used the PRODUCTS in their perineal areas Subsequent to such use, Decedent developed ovarian cancer, suffered substantial pain an

suffering, both physical and emotional in nature, and subsequently died.

38 144. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all of the next of kin or successors-in-interest o Decedent, is entitled to recover damages as Decedent would have if they were living, as a resul of acts and/or omissions of Defendants.

145. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all of Decedent’ next of kin or successors-in interest is also entitled to recover punitive damages and damages for substantial pain and sufferin caused to Decedent from the acts and/or omissions of Defendants as fully set forth herein, including without limitations, punitive damages.

146. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and Deceden have been injured and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, los of enjoyment of life, loss of care and comfort, and economic damages.

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

COUNT XV —SURVIVAL ACTION

(Aqainst All Defendants)

148. Plaintiff incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint as if se forth fully herein. 149. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and/or omissions of Defendants as se

forth herein, the Decedent named in this action used the PRODUCTS in their perineal areas

39 Subsequent to such use, Decedent developed ovarian cancer, suffered substantial pain an suffering, both physical and emotional in nature, and subsequently died.

150. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all of the next of kin or successors-in-interest o Decedent, is entitled to recover damages as Decedent would have if they were living, as a resul of acts and/or omissions of Defendants.

151. Plaintiff, on behalf of himself and all of Decedent’ next of kin or successors-in interest is also entitled to recover punitive damages and damages for substantial pain and sufferin caused to Decedent from the acts and/or omissions of Defendants as fully set forth herein including without limitations, punitive damages.

152. As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff and Deceden have been injured and sustained severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, los of enjoyment of life, loss of care and comfort, and economic damages.

153. 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 of suit

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

TOLLING STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS

154. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs in this Complaint a if set forth fully herein.

40 155. Decedent has suffered an illness that has a latency period and does not arise unti many years after exposure. Decedent’s illnesses did not distinctly manifest until she was mad aware that her ovarian cancer could be caused by their use of the Defendants’ products. Consequently, the discovery rule applies to these cases, and the statute of limitations has bee tolled until the day that Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that their (or decedents’) ovaria cancer was linked to their (or decedents’) use of the Defendants’ products.

156. 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.

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

158. 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 knew tha this information was not available to Plaintiff, Decedent, their medical providers and/or their heal facilities, yet they failed to disclose the information to the public.

159. 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 11 the known or reasonably knowable risks. Plaintiff, Decedent, 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: May 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

E-Mail: choke@ millerfirmllc.com

Attorney for Plaintiff