This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/07/2019 at 16:41:32 (UTC).

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

Case Summary

On 03/05/2018 Fitzgerald 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:

    ******4262

  • Filing Date:

    03/05/2018

  • 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

Plaintiffs

Fitzgerald, Sean

Fitzgerald, Jennifer

Defendants

Imerys Talc America, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Robinson, Mark Parker, Jr.

Other Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Order

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

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Fitzgerald POS-Imerys.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Fitzgerald POS-J&J Consumer.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Fitzgerald POS-J&J.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons

Notice

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

Notice

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

Notice

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

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

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Fitzgerald Civil Case Cover Sheet Final.pdf:

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/13/2018
  • Conference: Case Management - Judicial Officer: Walsh, Brian C; Hearing Time: 10:00 AM; Cancel Reason: Vacated; Comment: (1st CMC) Discovery and responsive pleading deadline stayed, as of 3/15/18, when the case was deemed complex.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/24/2018
  • 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
  • 05/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Fitzgerald POS-Imerys.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Fitzgerald POS-J&J Consumer.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/10/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Fitzgerald POS-J&J.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/01/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Fitzgerald Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/19/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Fitzgerald Notice of Order.pdf: Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/03/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Fitzgerald Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/15/2018
  • 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
  • 03/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Fitzgerald Civil Case Cover Sheet Final.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/05/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint for Damages; Demand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

3/5/2018 3:11 PM

Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq. Bar #054426 Clerk of Court ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC. Superior Court of CA, 19 Corporate Plaza Drive County of Santa Clara Newport Beach, CA 92660 18CV324262

Tel: 949-720-1288 - .

Fox: 010-720-1202 Reviewed By: R. Walker

mrobinson@ robinsonfirm.com

Michelle Parfitt, Esq.

Patrick Lyons, Esq. ASHCRAFT & GEREL,LLP 4900 Seminary Road, Suite 650

Alexandria, VA 22311 Tel: 703-931-5500 Fax: 703-820-1656

mparfitt@ ashcraftlaw.com plyons@ ashcraftlaw.com (Pro Hac Vice A dmission Anticipated)

Attorneys for Plaintiffs

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

case no. 18C V324262

JENNIFER FITZGERALD and SEAN FITZGERALD, OMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES;

C Plaintiffs, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

i v ) JOHNSON & JOHNSON, a New Jersey E corporation doing business in California; ;

1. Negligence 2. Loss of Consortium

JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER

COMPANIES, INC., a New Jersey corporation doing business in California;

IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC., a Delaware E Corporation with its principal place of business in the State of Califomnia;

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, Plaintiffs (hereinafter “Plaintiff”) herein, by and through counsel, for causes of action against the Defendants, allege as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff is a competent individual, over the age of 18, and a citizen of the United States.

2. Venue of this case is appropriate in the Superior Court of the State of California, County of Santa Clara because injury to Plaintiff occurred in this County.

3. This suit arises out of and relates to Defendants’ contacts with the State of California, and occurrences within the State of California. For the vast majority of relevant times, Plaintiff was a resident of the State of California. For the vast majority of relevant times, Plaintiff purchased JOHNSON & JOHNSON’s and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.’s talc-based products known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower (hereinafter “the PRODUCTS”), from sources within the State of California. Forthe vast majority of relevant times, Plaintiff purchased JOHNSON & JOHNSON’s and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.”s PRODUCTS as a result of being exposed in California to Defendants’ advertising and promotion of said PRODUCTS. For the vast majority of relevant times, Plaintiff used JOHNSON & JOHNSON'’s and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.'s PRODUCTS within the State of California. For the vast majority of relevant times, Plaintiff was exposed to JOHNSON & JOHNSON'’s and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.’s PRODUCTS within the State of California. Atall relevant times, Plaintiff was diagnosed in the State of California with injuries caused by Defendants’ PRODUCTS. For the vast majority of relevant times, Plaintiff was injured and suffered harm as a result of purchasing and using JOHNSON & JOHNSON'’s and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.’s PRODUCTS within the State of California. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was injured and suffered harm as a result of relevant actions of Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. engaged together with IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. in the State of California. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was injured and suffered harm as aresult of conduct by IMERY STALC AMERICA, INC. in the State of California, forwhich JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC. are derivatively liable. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was treated in the State of California for injuries caused by Defendants’ PRODUCTS.

[11]

5. Upon information and belief, in or about July 1999, Plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer and received medical treatment for said ovarian cancer in Santa Clara County, in the State of California. Plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which developed while she resided in the State of California. Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, while a citizen and resident of the State of California, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the PRODUCTS, and Defendants” wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, design, labeling, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the PRODUCTS.

0. Plaintiff brings this action in accordance with California Code of Civil Procedure section 378 as Plaintiff’s claims arise out of the same transaction, occurrence, or series of transactions or occurrences and questions of law and fact are common to all of the other plaintiffs that were or may be joined in this case will arise in the action. All claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of the negligent, willful, and wrongful acts and/or omissions of Defendants and/or their corporate predecessors in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the PRODUCTS by JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. known as Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Shower to Shower, and the talcum powder product which was mined, extracted, sorted, milled, treated, formulated, processed, packaged, sold, and shipped by IMERY STALC AMERICA, INC. to JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. foruse in the PRODUCTS and for sale to the public. Plaintiff in this action seeks recovery for damages as a result of ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, and the attendant effects of developing ovarian and/or fallopian tube cancer. All of the claims in this action involve common legal, common factual, and common medical issues.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON is a corporation doing business in and authorized to do business in the state of California, and was incorporated in New Jersey in 1887.

8. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, that at all relevant times Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON maintains an office located at One Johnson & Johnson Plaza, New Brunswick, New Jersey, 08933 as well as several locations within the state of California, and has approximately 127,100 employees worldwide. As stated in JOHNSON & JOHNSON’S Form10-K Annual Report Pursuant to Section 13 of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934 for the fiscal year ended January 3, 2016, JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S primary focus is on products related to human health and well-being.

9, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S family of companies includes more than 250 operating companies conducting business in 60 countries of the world and organized into three business segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times the JOHNSON & JOHNSON family of companies includes 121 manufacturing facilities and, within the United States, eight facilities are used by the Consumer segment. In addition to the manufacturing facilities, JOHNSON & JOHNSON maintains numerous offices and warehouses in the United States.

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times the Consumer segment of the JOHNSON & JOHNSON family of companies includes a broad range of over- the-counter products including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson’s Baby Powder. These products are marketed to the general public and sold both to retail outlets and distributors throughout the world.

12. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times, Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON has engaged in substantial, continuous economic activity in California, including marketing, distribution, and sale of billions of dollars in products to Californians including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson’'s Baby Powder, that said activity by Defendant is substantially connected to the Plaintiff’s claims as alleged herein.

13. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges at all relevant times, Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC., was a New Jersey Corporation doing business in the state of California, a wholly owned subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and engaged in substantial, continuous economic activity in California, including marketing, distribution, and sale of billions dollars in products to Californians including, but not limited to, Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder, that said activity by Defendant is substantially connected to the Plaintiff’s claims as alleged herein. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. are hereinafter referred to collectively as the “JOHNSON & JOHNSON" Defendants.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendant, IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC,, is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in the state of California.

15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC,, is the successor or continuation of Luzenac America, Inc., and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (hereinafter “IMERYS"”) is legally responsible for all liabilities incurred when it was known as Luzenac A merica, Inc.

16. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendant IMERY S has been in the business of mining, extracting, processing, treating, formulating, promoting, selling, and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based products, including the PRODUCTS.

17. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants Does 1 through 100, inclusive, were unknown to Plaintiff at the time of original filing of the underlying complaint in this action and, therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names.

18. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, the true names or capacities, whether individual, corporate, or otherwise, of Defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, remain unknown to Plaintiff and, therefore Plaintiff sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff is informed and believes and based thereon alleges that each of the Defendants designated herein by fictitious names is in some manner legally responsible for the events and happenings herein referred to and caused damages proximately and foreseeably to Plaintiff as alleged herein.

19. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, all of said Defendants herein, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, are collectively referred to herein as “Defendants” and all acts and omissions of Defendants as alleged herein were undertaken by each of the Defendants or said D efendants agents, servants, employees and/or owners, acting in the course and scope of its respective agencies, services, employments and/or ownerships.

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, all allegations concermning Defendants includes Defendants’ parents, subsidiaries, affiliates, divisions, franchises, partners, joint venturers, organizational units of any kind, predecessors, successors and assigns, and their officers, directors, employees, agents, representatives, and any and all other persons acting on behalf of Defendants.

21. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of placing the PRODUCTS into the stream of commerce by designing, manufacturing, marketing, packaging, labeling, and/or selling said PRODUCTS to Californians, including Plaintiff herein as follows: JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the PRODUCTS to consumers and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the PRODUCTS to JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. for sale, without substantial change, to the general public worldwide and in the state of California.

22. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendants and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, designed, developed, patented, manufactured, marketed, advertised, promoted and/or sold the PRODUCTS worldwide and in the state of California.

[ 23. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff purchased the PRODUCTS and used said PRODUCTS on a daily basis in and around her perineal regions. Plaintiff purchased the PRODUCTS and used the PRODUCTS by applying the PRODUCTS to her body in accordance with the instructions for use that accompanied the PRODUCTS and in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

24. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon allege that, at all relevant times, Defendants were engaged in the business of placing the PRODUCTS into the stream of commerce by designing, manufacturing, marketing, packaging, labeling, and/or selling said PRODUCTS as follows: JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. designed, developed, manufactured, tested, packaged, promoted, marketed, advertised, distributed, labeled, and sold the PRODUCTS to consumers and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, processed, formulated, packaged, sold, and shipped the talcum powder that comprises the PRODUCTS to JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. for sale, without substantial change, to the general public worldwide and in the state of California.

25. Upon information and belief, Plaintiff purchased the PRODUCTS and used the PRODUCTS by applying the PRODUCTS to her body in accordance with the instructions for use that accompanied the PRODUCTS and in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

20. Uponinformation and belief, Plaintiff’s developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects and sequelae therefrom, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of talcum powder, the main ingredient of the PRODUCTS, and Defendants” wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, formulation, processing, packaging, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the PRODUCTS and/ or the talcum powder that comprises the PRODUCTS.

27. Upon information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the injuries alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred and will in the future incur both general and special damages as hereinafter alleged.

28. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, all claims in this action are a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and/or their corporate predecessors negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct as follows: Defendants’ design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, sale, mining, extraction, processing, treatment, formulation, packaging, and distribution of the PRODUCTS.

29. Plaintiff in this action seeks recovery for damages as a result of ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the talcum powder, the main ingredient of the PRODUCTS.

30. Plaintiff developed ovarian cancer, and suffered effects attendant thereto, as a direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the PRODUCTS and the talcum powder therein, and Defendants’ wrongful and negligent conduct as follows: Defendants’ design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, sale, mining, extraction, processing, treatment, formulation, packaging, and distribution of the PRODUCTS, and as a direct and proximate result of these injuries, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur medical expenses in the future, has endured and will endure pain and suffering, has endured and will endure loss of enjoyment of life, has endured and will endure other general and special damages, and has otherwise been damaged in a personal and pecuniary nature.

31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, all Defendants were engaged in the research, development, manufacture, design, testing, sale and marketing of PRODUCTS as follows: Defendants’ design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, sale, mining, extraction, processing, treatment, formulation, packaging, and distribution of the PRODUCTS, and Defendants introduced said PRODUCTS into interstate commerce with knowledge and intent that such PRODUCTS be sold to consumers in the State of California.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendant IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. (“IMERY S”) was not merely a raw materials supplier. Rather, IMERY S actively designs, develops, and formulates talc for specific uses.

COMMON FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

a. Introduction to the PRODUCTS

33. Historically, the PRODUCTS, which include “Johnson’s Baby Powder” and “Shower to Shower,” have represented freshness, cleanliness, and purity.

[11]

35. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. advertised and marketed the product “Shower to Shower” as safe for use by women, as evidenced in its slogan, “A sprinkle a day keeps odor away,” and through advertisements such as, “Y our 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.”

36. Plaintiff herein used the PRODUCTS to dust her perineum for feminine hygiene purposes. This was an intended and foreseeable use of the PRODUCTS based on the advertising, marketing, and labeling of the PRODUCTS.

37. Upon information and belief, the PRODUCTS are composed almost entirely of magnesium trisilicate, also known as talc. Talc is an inorganic mineral that is mined from the earth.

38. Upon information and belief, at all relevant times, IMERY S supplied its customers, including JOHNSON & JOHNSON, with material safety data sheets for talc. These material safety data sheets are supposed to convey adequate health and warning information to customers.

39. Upon information and belief, since as early as the 1970s, IMERY S and JOHNSON & JOHNSON have been on notice of an association between talc exposure and ovarian cancer, as discussed more fully below.

40. Upon information and belief, since the 1970s, Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. have nonetheless continually advertised and marketed the PRODUCTS as safe for human use, and IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. has marketed and promoted talcum powder, the main ingredient of the PRODUCTS, as safe for human use. Upon information and belief, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. decided to downgrade the quality of the talc product supplied by IMERY S and informed IMERY S to supply a downgraded version of the talc product to use in its PRODUCT in order to reduce costs and increase profits for JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.,

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

b. Timeline of the Scientific Literature Analyzing the Relationship Between Talc and

Ovarian Cancer

42. Research published as early as 1961 has established that particles, like talc, can translocate from the exterior genital area to the ovaries in women. See G.E. Egli, and Michael Newton, The Transport of Carbon Particles in the Human Female Reproductive Tract, 12 FERTILITY STERILITY 2,151-155(1961).

43. Due to talc’s potential for transmission, researchers remained concerned about its carcinogenic nature and the effects of use. In 1968, a study concluded that “[a]ll of the 22 talcum products analyzed have a . . . fiber content ... averaging 19%. The fibrous material was predominantly talc but probably contained minor amounts of tremolite, anthophyllite, and chrysotile [asbestos-like fibers] as these are often present in fibrous talc mineral deposits . . . Unknown significant amounts of such materials in products that may be used without precautions may create an unsuspected problem.” L. J. Cralley et al., Fibrous and Mineral Content of Cosmetic Talcum PRODUCT, 29 AM. INDUSTRIAL HYGIENE Assoc. J. 350-354 (1968). A 1976 follow-up study concluded that “[t]he presence in these products of asbestiform anthophyllite and tremolite, chrysotile, and quartz indicates the need for a regulatory standard for cosmetic talc . . . We also recommend that evaluation be made to determine the possible health hazards associated with the use of these products.” Arthur Rohl, et al., Consumer talcums and powders: mineral and chemical characterization, 2 ] ToXICOL ENVIRON HEALTH 255-284 (19706).

44, In 1971, the first study was published that suggested an association between talc and ovarian cancer. This study was published by W. J. Henderson in Cardiff, W ales at the Tenovus Institute. The study found talc particles “deeply embedded” in ten of thirteen ovarian tumors, twelve of twenty-one cervical tumors, one primary carcinoma of the endometrium and five of twelve “normal” ovaries from women with breast cancer. W. J. Henderson et al., Talc and carcinoma of the ovary and cervix, 78 ]J. OBSTET. GYNAECOL. BR. COMMW. 3, 2066-272 (1971).

45. In 1982, the first epidemiologic study was published on talc powder use in the female genital area. This study was published by Dr. Daniel Cramer and others. This study found a 92% increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who reported genital talc use. Additionally, it found that talc application directly to the genital area around the time of ovulation might lead to talc particles becoming deeply imbedded in the tissues of the ovary, and perhaps causing foreign body reaction capable of causing growth of epithelial ovarian tissue. This study showed an epidemiologic association between the use of cosmetic talc in genital hygiene and ovarian cancer. Daniel Cramer et al., Ovarian cancer and talc: a case control study, 50 CANCER 372-376 (1982).

46. Since 1982, there have been approximately twenty-two (22) additional epidemiologic studies providing data regarding the association of talc and ovarian cancer. Nearly all of these studies have reported an elevated risk for ovarian cancer associated with genital talc use in women:

e [n 1983, Patricia Hartage and Robert Hoover of the National Cancer Institute and Linda Lester and Larry McGowan of the George Washington University Medical Center, published a case- control interview study regarding ovarian cancer. Although no association was proven due to the small sample size, the study found an “excess relative risk” of 2.5 (95% CI=0.7 to 10.0) of ovarian cancer for women who use talc in the genital area. Patricia Hartage et al., Talc and ovarian cancer, 250 JAMA 1844 (1983) available at http://jamanetwork.com/journals/jama/article-abstract/1725023.

e [n 1988, a case control study of 188 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancer and 539 controls found that 52% of the cancer patients habitually used talc on the perineum before their cancer diagnosis. The study showed that women using talc daily on their perineum had 1.45 1285854.2

times the risk of ovarian cancer then women that did not use talc daily, showing a positive dose- response relationship. Alice Whittemore et al., Personal and environmental characteristics related to epithelial ovarian cancer. II. Exposures talcum powder, tobacco, alcohol, and coffee, 128 AM. J. EPIDEMIOL. 6, 1228-1240 (1988).

A case control study conducted in 1989 found similar results. The study looked at 235 women diagnosed with epithelial ovarian cancerand 451 controls and found an increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who reported genital talc powder use more than once per week. Margaret Booth et al., Risk factors for ovarian cancer: a case-control study, 60 BR. J. CANCER 4, 592- 598 (1989).

A nother case control study conducted in 1989 by Bernard Harlow of Harvard Medical School at Brigham and Women's Hospital, found an increased risk of ovarian cancer generally from genital talc use after bathing, and a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer from women that used talc-containing powders in combination with deodorizing powders on their perineum. This study also found a positive dose-response relationship. Bernard Harlow and Neinke Weiss, A case-control study of borderline ovarian tumors: the influence of perineal exposure to talc, 130 AM. J. EPIDEMIOL. 2, 390-394 (1989).

A 1992 study, also by Dr. Harlow, found that frequent and long term talc use directly on the genital area during ovulation increased a woman’s risk of ovarian cancer threefold. The study also found “[t]he most frequent method of talc exposure was use as a dusting powder directly to the perineum (genitals). Brand or generic ‘baby powder’ was used most frequently and was the category associated with a statistically significant risk for ovarian cancer.” This study looked at 235 ovarian cancer cases compared to 239 controls, concluding that “given the poor prognosis for ovarian cancer, any potentially harmful exposures should be avoided, particularly those with limited benefits. For this reason, we discourage the use of talc in genital hygiene, particularly as a daily habit.” Bernard Harlow et al., Perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer risk, 80 OBSTET. GYNECOL. 1, 19-26 (1992). 1285854.2

the development of ovarian cancer may be associated with genital fiber exposure (especially talc on sanitary napkins), and a relative risk of 4.8 for ovarian cancer development from talc use on sanitary napkins. Karen Rosenblatt et al., Mineral fiber exposure and the development of ovarian cancer, 45 GYNECOL. ONcoOL. 20-25 ( 1992).

Another 1992 case-control study conducted by Yong Chen with 112 diagnosed epithelial ovarian cancer cases and 224 age-matched community controls, found an elevated risk for ovarian cancer in women who applied talc-containing dusting powder to the lower abdomen and perineum for longer than 3 months. Y ong Chen et al., Risk Factors for Epithelial Ovarian Cancer in Beijing, China, 21 INT. J. EPIDEMIOL. 23-29 (1992).

In 1993, the United States National Toxicology Program published a study on the toxicity of non-ashestiform talc and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. The study found “some evidence of carcinogenic activity in male rats” and “clear evidence of carcinogenic activity in female rats.” Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presence of asbestos-like fibers. National Toxicology Program, Toxicology and carcinogenesis studies of talc (CAS No 14807-96-6) in F344/N rats and B6C3F 1 mice (Inhalation studies), Technical Report Series No. 421 (September 1993).

In 1995, a case control study conducted in Australia by David Purdie, involving over 1600 women found a statistically significant 27% increased risk in ovarian cancer for women who regularly use talc in the region of the abdomen or perineum. David Purdie et al., Reproductive and other factors and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer: an Australian case-control study, 62 INT. J. CANCER 6, 678-684 (1995).

In 1996, a case-control study similarly found a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who used talc-based powders in their genital area. See A sher Shushan et al., Human menopausal gonadotropin and the risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, 65 FERTIL. STERIL. 1,13-18 (1995). 1285854.2

fallopian tubes where they could cause scarring and irritation in the ovaries. Scientists believed in some cases that the scarring led to infertility or cancer.” Marie McCullough, Women’s health concerns prompt condom makers to stop using talc, Jersey Journal (City Ed.) (Jan. 10, 1996). In 1997, a case-control study of 313 women with ovarian cancer and 422 controls found that the women with cancer were more likely to have applied talc powder to their external genitalia area. Women using these products had a statistically significant 50% to 90% higher risk of developing ovarian cancer. Linda Cook et al., Perineal powder exposure and the risk of ovarian cancer, 145 AM. J. EPIDEMIOL. 459-465 (1997).

In 1997, a case-control study conducted by Stella Chang and Harvey Risch from the Department of Epidemiology and Public Health, Y ale University School of Medicine, which included over 1,000 women found a statistically significant increased risk for ovarian cancer for women who applied talc via sanitary napkins to their perineum. The study indicated that “[cJommercial talc substitutes often replace talc with cormstarch. Furthermore, women may choose to powder or dust with cornstarch instead of talc. When cornstarch was assessed in relation to risk of ovarian carcinoma, no associations were found,” concluding “[t]he results of this study appear to support the contention that talc exposure increases risk of ovarian carcinoma. Dusting with talcum powder is not an unusual practice for women, and, given the heterogeneity of the etiology and course of ovarian carcinoma, any possible harmful practices, particularly those with little benefit, should be deliberated.” Stella Chang and Harvey Risch, Perineal talc exposure and risk of ovarian carcinoma, 79 CANCER 12, 2396-2401 (1997).

A 1998 case-control study conducted in Canada by Beatrice Godard found increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who used talc-based powders on their perineum. Beatrice Godard et al., Risk factors for familial and sporadic ovarian cancer among French Canadians: a case- control study, 179 AM.J. OBSTET. GYNECOL. 2, 403-410 (1998). 1285854.2

and risk of epithelial ovarian cancer that, when viewed in perspective of published data on this association, warrants more formal public health warnings.” The study was funded by a grant from the National Cancer Institute (“NCI”). Daniel Cramer et al., G enital talc exposure and risk of ovarian cancer, 81 INT. J. CANCER 3, 351-356 (1999).

In 2000, Roberta Ness, from University of Pennsylvania, led a case control study of over 2,000 women. This study found a statistically significant 50% increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital talc use in women. The study also found that talc causes inflammation, and that inflammation contributes to cancer cell development. Roberta Ness et al., Factors Related to Inflammation of the Ovarian Epithelium and Risk of Ovarian Cancer, 11 EPIDEMIOLOGY 2, 111- 117 (2000).

Also in 2000, a prospective cohort study found a 40% increase in invasive serous cancers in women who applied talc to their perineum. Dorota Getrig et al., Prospective Study of Talc Use and Ovarian Cancer, 92 J. NATL. CANCER INST. 3, 249-252 (2000).

In 2003, a meta-analysis was conducted which re-analyzed data from 16 studies published prior to 2003, finding a 33% increase in ovarian cancer risk among talc users. Michael Huncharek et al., Perineal application of cosmetic talc and risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer: A meta-analysis of 11,933 subjects from sixteen observational studies, 23 ANTICANCER RES. 2C, 1955-60 (2003). 1285854.2

use is easily avoidable.” Paul Mills et al., Perineal talc exposure and epithelial ovarian cancer risk in the Central Valley of California, 112 INT. J. CANCER 458-64 (2004).

In 2008, Margaret Gates performed a combined study of over 3,000 women from a New England-based case-control study and a prospective Nurses’ Health Study (the “Gates Study”). This study was funded by NCI, and found a general 36% statistically significant increased risk of epithelial ovarian cancer from genital talc use. A 60% increased risk of the serous invasive subtype was also found. Dr. Gates noted a pronounced and positive dose-response relationship, increasing risk with increasing talc usage by women. These results “provide additional support for a main effect of genital talc exposure on epithelial ovarian cancer . . . the finding of highly significant trends between increasing frequency of use and risk ‘strengthen[ing] the evidence of an association, because most previous studies have not observed a dose response.”” Notably, the study promoted an alternative to talc, comstarch, which “has not been shown to increase ovarian cancerrisk . .. ” The study concluded that “women should be advised not to use talcum powder in the genital area, based on our results and previous evidence supporting an association between genital talc use and ovarian cancer risk. Physicians should ask the patient about talc use history and should advise the patient to discontinue using talc in the genital area if the patient has not already stopped.” Margaret Gates et al., Talc Use, Variants of the GSTMI, GSTTI1, and NATZ2 Genes, and Risk of Epithelial Ovarian Cancer, 17 CANCER EPIDEMIOL, B10. & PREV. 9, 2436-2444 (2008). 1285854.2

at http://www.medscape.com/viewarticle/581781.

In 2008, Melissa Merritt, from the Australian Cancer Study and A ustralian Ovarian Cancer Study Group, conducted a case-control study of over 3,000 women finding a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer for women who used talc on their perineum was confirmed. This study also confirmed a statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer of a serous subtype in women who used talc on their perineum. Melissa Merritt et al., Talcum powder, chronic pelvic inflammation and NSAIDs in relation to risk of epithelial ovarian cancer, 122 INT. J. CANCER 1, 170-176 (2008).

In 2009, a case-control study of over 1,200 women found the risk of ovarian cancer increased significantly with frequency and duration of talc use. The study found an overall statistically significant 53% increased risk of ovarian cancer from genital talc use. The study also found a 108% statistically significant increased risk of ovarian cancer in women with the longest duration and most frequent talc use. In conclusion the study stated, “that risk of ovarian cancer is significantly associated with talc use and with a history of endometriosis, as has been found in recent studies.” Anna Wu et al., Markers of inflammation and risk of ovarian cancer in Los Angeles County, 124 INT. J. CANCER 6, 1409-1415 (2009). e Various meta-analyses conducted have found positive associations between the use of talc in the genital area and ovarian cancer. See generally Bernard Harlow et al., Perineal exposure to talc and ovarian cancer risk, 80 OBSTET. GYNECOL. 1, 19-26 (1992); Andrew Gross, A meta- analytical approach examining the potential relationship between talc exposure and ovarian cancer, b J. EXP0. ANAL. ENVIRON. EPIDEMIOL. 2, 181-195 (1995); Michael Huncharek et al., Perineal application of cosmetic talc and risk of invasive epithelial ovarian cancer: a meta- analysis of 11,933 subjects from sixteen observational studies, 23 ANTICANCER RES. 1955-60 (2003).

C. Knowledge of the Connection Between Talc Usage and Ovarian Cancer within the

Government, within the Medical Community, and within the D efendant Companies

47. Upon information and belief, in 1975, JOHNSON & JOHNSON was aware of Henderson, et al.’s Tenovus data suggesting an association between talc and ovarian cancer, and was thereby on notice of the association as early as the mid-1970s. JOHNSON & JOHNSON sent a donation to the Cardiff Scientific Society in order to obtain information concerning research being conducted Tenovus Institute and JOHNSON & JOHNSON admitted that it was on notice of the talc and ovarian cancer problem.

48. Upon information and belief, shortly after Dr. Cramer’s 1982 study was published, Dr. Semple visited with Dr. Cramer about his study. Dr. Cramer advised Dr. Semple that JOHNSON & JOHNSON should place a warning on its talcum powder PRODUCTS concerning ovarian cancer risks so that women could make an informed decision about their health.

49, Upon information and belief, on August 12, 1982, JOHNSON & JOHNSON publicly recognized the studies linking the use of the PRODUCTS to ovarian cancer. In a New York Times article entitled “Talcum Company Calls Study on Cancer Link Inconclusive,” the company admitted to being aware of the 1982 Cramer article that concluded women who apply talc daily to their genital areas were three times more likely to contract ovarian cancer.

50. Upon information and belief, JOHNSON & JOHNSON recognized that the safety of cosmetic powders was a concern in a May 1986 Technological Forecast. JOHNSON & JOHNSON recognized that the safety of cosmetic powders was a concern, especially among health professionals, that studies have implicated talc use in the vaginal area with incidents of ovarian cancer and that Johnson's Baby Powder sales were declining along with the overall cosmetic powders market in a classic mature model curve.” Upon information and belief, JOHNSON & JOHNSON in approximately 1992 was looking for “opportunities to grow” the Baby Powder franchise despite the fact that the same internal document cited cancer linkage as a “major obstacle” and recommended implementing a plan to market to Hispanic and African American’s by launching an adult Hispanic media program and potentially launching an adult black print effort.

51. In 1993, the United States National Toxicology Program published a study on the toxicity of non-asbestiform talc and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presence of asbestos-like fibers.

52. Upon information and belief, on November 10, 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition mailed a letter to then JOHNSON & JOHNSON C.B.O, Ralph Larson, informing the company that studies as far back as 1960°s “ ... show conclusively that the frequent use of talcum powder in the genital area pose a serious health risk of ovarian cancer.” Upon information and belief, the letter cited a recent study from Dr. Harlow of Harvard Medical School confirming this fact and quoted a portion of the study where Dr. Harlow and his colleagues discouraged the use of talc in the female genital area. Upon information and belief, the letter further stated that 14,000 women per year die from ovarian cancer and that this type of cancer is very difficult to detect and has a low survival rate. Upon information and belief, the letter concluded by requesting that JOHNSON & JOHNSON withdraw talc products from the market, or at a minimum, place warning information on its talc-based products disclosing the risk of ovarian cancer.

53. Upon information and belief, on September 17, 1997, JOHNSON & JOHNSON was notified that on three separate occasions TIPTF had released false information to the public about the safety of talc, that studies had shown a statistically significant association between hygienic talc use and ovarian cancer, and that anybody who denies this risks that the talc industry will be perceived by the public like it perceives the cigarette industry: denying the obvious in the face of all evidence to the contrary.

54. Upon information and belief, in 1998 IMERY S wanted to stop discussions about ovarian cancer in order to free the development in cosmetic applications, avoid the initiation of a process for classification of talc as a carcinogen, and implement a plan to discredit research and scientists.

[11]

56. Upon information and belief, as of September 12, 2000, Luzenac was specifically aware, knew, and acknowledged that the general public was not aware of any health issues regarding talc.

57. Uponinformation and belief, as of October 13, 2000, Luzenac was specifically aware, knew, and explicitly acknowledged that that the company would ultimately be held responsible for placing a harmful product into the stream of commerce.

58. Upon information and belief, in this letter the CTFA admitted that talc was “toxic,” that “some talc particles... can reach the human ovaries,” and acknowledged prior epidemiologic studies have concluded that talc increases the risk of ovarian cancer in women.

59. Upon information and belief, internal reports in 2002, indicated that Luzenac may be asked when the company first learned of the possible association of talc with ovarian cancer, when it began to warn of this risk, and whether company felt a moral and ethical obligation to inform women that the hygienic use of talc may increase their risk for ovarian cancer, or were the company’s profits from mining and selling this potentially dangerous, life-threatening product more important than protecting the health and welfare of the women and children in our society.

60. Upon information and belief, Luzenac considered implementing warnings, including a wamming label would warmn the consumers the product is not to be used for genital dusting and would report of the possible association between genital dusting and ovarian cancer.

61. In February of 2006, IARC published a paper whereby they classified perineal use of talc based body powder as a “Group 2B” human carcinogen. JARC, which is universally accepted as the international authority on cancer issues, concluded that studies from around the world consistently found an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women from perineal use of talc. IARC found that between 16-52% of women in the world were using talc to dust their perineum and found an increased risk of ovarian cancer in women talc users ranging from 30-60%. IARC concluded: “There is limited evidence in humans for the carcinogenicity of perineal use of talc-based body powder.” By definition “Limited evidence of carcinogenicity” means “a positive association has been observed between exposure to the agent and cancer for which a causal interpretation is considered by the Working Group to be credible, but chance, bias or confounding could not be ruled out with reasonable confidence.”

02. In 2006, the Canadian government under The Hazardous Products Act and associated

n u

Controlled Products Regulations classified talc asa “D2A,” “very toxic,” “cancer causing” substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). A sbestos is also classified as “D2A".

63. Upon information and belief, in 2006, IMERY S began placing a warning on the Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) it provided to JOHNSON & JOHNSON in conjunction with the talc product it sold to them to be used in the PRODUCTS. These MSDSs provided the warning information about the TARC classification, warning information regarding “States Rights to Know,” and warning information about the Canadian Government's “D2A " talc classification.

64. Upon information and belief, in 2006 Luzenac was on notice of the potential for product liability litigation against the talc producers for failing to wam of the health risks associated with Talc use.

65. Upon information and belief, in spite of the mounting evidence pointing to the carcinogenicity of the PRODUCTS, particularly when used in the perineal region, from 2008 through 2009 JOHNSON & JOHNSON admitted that its marketing was targeting use of JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S baby powder for obese women.

d. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERYS Failed to Warn Consumers of the Dangers of

Talc Use

66. Atall times herein mentioned, D efendants had a duty to know and warn about the hazards associated with the use of the PRODUCTS.

67. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, despite the mounting scientific and medical evidence regarding talc use and ovarian cancer development over the past several decades, none of the warnings on product labels or in other marketing informed users, or similarly situated individuals, that use of the PRODUCTS in the genital area could lead to an increased risk of ovarian cancer. For example, the only warnings on the Baby Powder label are to “[k]eep powder away from child’s face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems,” and to “[a]void contact with eyes.” The label

also states: “SAFETY TIP: Keep out of reach of children. Do not use if quality seal is broken.” JOHNSON & JOHNSON provides similar warnings on their website: “[f]or external use only. Keep out of reach of children. Close tightly after use. Do not use on broken skin. Avoid contact with eyes. Keep powder away from child’s face to avoid inhalation, which can cause breathing problems.”

68. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, JOHNSON & JOHNSON continues to represent on the labeling and in their marketing that Johnson’s Baby Powder has “clinically proven mildness,” is “clinically proven to be safe, gentle and mild,” and “that the safety of cosmetic talc is supported by decades of scientific evidence and independent peer reviewed studies.”

69. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants failed to inform customers and end users of the PRODUCTS of a known catastrophic health hazard associated with their use.

70. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, Defendants procured and disseminated false, misleading, and biased information regarding the safety of the PRODUCTS to the public and used influence over governmental and regulatory bodies regarding talc.

71. Upon information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ calculated and reprehensible conduct, Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries and damages, namely ovarian cancer, which required surgeries and treatments.

e. Defendant IMERYS Failed to Warn Consumers of the Dangers of Talc Use

72. On information and belief, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendant IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC., mined, manufactured and sold talc to JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. for sale to the public.

73. At all times herein mentioned, the talcum powder mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, formulated, packaged, shipped, supplied, sold, marketed and distributed by IMERY S to JOHNSON & JOHNSON for sale to the public was inherently and extremely dangerous in that, as set forth in detail above, it causes cancer in humans.

74. On information and belief, at all relevant times alleged herein, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. then packaged and sold said talc in the PRODUCTS they sold to consumers, and IMERY S knew that consumers of the PRODUCTS were using it to powder their perineal regions. 75. On information and belief, the PRODUCTS had potential risk and side effects that were known or knowable in light of the scientific and medical knowledge that was generally accepted in the scientific community at the time of the manufacture, distribution and sale.

76. Oninformation and belief, the potential risks and side effects presented a substantial danger when the PRODUCTS were used or misused in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.

77. On information and belief, ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks and side effects described herein.

78. Upon information and belief, IMERY S actively participated in the design, development, and formulation of the PRODUCTS. IMERYS is the world’s largest talc producer and engages in the development, formulation, treatment, and promotion of talc for specific use in the PRODUCTS. IMERY S has represented publicly that:

e IMERY S spearheads talc milling technology, a complex process where the methods used depend both on the ore type and the final application. To obtain exactly the right particle sizegiven application, we use a variety of techniques including compressed air, steam and impact milling - many of which have been developed in-house. Median particle sizes can range from less than 1 micron to 15 microns, and top cuts from 6 microns to over 100 microns.

e IMERY S implements specific treatments to the talc used in the PRODUCTS by milling, sorting, heating, grinding, and works directly with JOHNSON & JOHNSON on formulations (“... applications specialists work directly with customers on their

formulations.”)

http://www.imerystalc.com/content/corporate/A boutlmerysTalc/Expertise_and quality/Exp ertise/index.php

e IMERY S uses sorting and milling technologies to process talc, laser and image analysis technology, friction sorting, flotation techniques, drying, crushing grounding and micronizing;

e IMERYS specifically promotes its talc for use in body powders and engineers it processing so that the Talc retain perfume (“... surfaces of the talc platelets retain the 79.

perfume with the minimum loss of potency.”)

IMERY S employs end-market specialists to pilot each market sector to match right talc to the right application and leads its products to new innovations... .

IMERY S employs experts from the specialist markets it serves and provides technical expertise, collaborating on research projects, and supports JOHNSON & JOHNSON in its product development and marketing efforts;

Working at our technical centers in San José and Toulouse, our R&A teams focus on finding new applications for talc and new formulations to improve existing applications; formulation studies for customers; and fundamental research.

IMERY S works with JOHNSON & JOHNSON to develop new process technologies for its products;

IMERY S collaborates JOHNSON & JOHNSON on research to find new applications for its products;

IMERY S employs teams to find new applications for talc, conducts formulation studies

for customers, and conducts fundamental research concerning Talc.

Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein

mentioned, IMERY S failed to adequately warn that its talcum powder PRODUCTS presented substantial

dangers and risks, which would not have been recognized by ordinary consumers when used in an intended

or reasonably foreseeable way, as evidenced through the following conduct:

[11]

1285854.2

Through its mining, extraction, sorting, milling, processing, treating, formulating, packaging and manufacture of the talcum powder that comprises the PRODUCTS, IMERYS had a significant role in creating the finished PRODUCTS, and did not actually or reasonably rely on JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. to convey warnings to end users, and any such reliance would have been unjustified.

IMERY S did not take the additional steps it should have, including inquiring about JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC.’s warning e [MERYS ignored known facts that would provide notice of a substantial risk that JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. might fail to warn consumers of the risks of talcum powder exposure, and those warnings might fail to reach CONSUMETs.

e IMERYS knew there was a substantial likelihood that JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. would not convey the necessary or adequate warnings or information to ultimate consumers of talc PRODUCTS.

e IMERYS knew JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. were not conveying such warnings or information to consumers, and that said Defendants’ economic motivations were such that they had an incentive to withhold necessary information about talcum powder because warnings would make the products containing talc less attractive to consumers.

80. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all times herein mentioned, IMERY S could and should have shared its superior knowledge and information about the dangers involvedtalcum powder with JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC., and could and should have warned said Defendants and the public of the risks of harm.

81. According to IMERY S’S website (http://www.imerystalc.com/) talc is used in agriculture, ceramics, cosmetics, food, paints and coatings, paper, pharmaceuticals, plastics, and rubber products, and for each broad category of applications IMERY S manufactures and markets talc products with unique features, formulations and physical properties which are designed for specific uses within those categories. IMERY S’S subjective plan of milling, treating and formulating its Talc products for use in JOHNSON & JOHNSON PRODUCTS constitutes a design. The Talc product produced by IMERY S is of common experience, encountered generally in everyday life, and a product on which a jury can rely on its own expectations of safety, and it failed to perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended and reasonably foreseeable manner.

82. The Talc product sold by IMERY S is inherently dangerous for perineal application, is not substantially changed during the manufacturing of the finished products sold by JOHNSON & JOHNSON to consumers, and IMERY S had more than a limited role in creating the finished product and the PRODUCTS. IMERY S did not have to guess or speculate about the type of use to which its Talc product would be put, but rather IMERY S was aware of and intended that the Talc product supplied would be used in the manner in which it was actually used. The Talc products supplied by IMERY S were specifically designed to meet the needs of JOHNSON & JOHNSON.

83. The Talc product designed and sold by IMERY S is itself harmful and, without change in its composition, remains so when incorporated into the PRODUCT'S and, renders the PRODUCT'S into which it is incorporated harmful, contrary to ordinary consumer expectations. JOHNSON & JOHNSON did not significantly alter the IMERY S Talc product. It is not just a design defect in the manufactured end product that caused the injury, but the defective nature of the IMERY S Talc product contained in the PRODUCTS.

84. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, the talcum powder mined, extracted, sorted, milled, processed, treated, formulated, packaged, shipped, supplied, sold, marketed and distributed by IMERY S to JOHNSON & JOHNSON for sale to the public was not substantially changed during the manufacturing of the finished PRODUCTS, and Imerys had a significant role in creating the finished PRODUCTS.

85. Upon information and belief, IMERY S actively participated in the design, development, and formulation of the PRODUCTS. Specifically, as stated on IMERY S’S website www.imerystalc.com, IMERY S is the world’s largest talc producer and represents on its website the following:

From mine to market Sorting Sorting the different talc ores according to their talc content and brightness is a key phase of the production process. Techniques include state-of-the-art laser and image analysis technology, friction sorting or flotation techniques. The ores are then dried,

crushed, ground and micronized. From mine to market

p Overburden removal %4 (e t._' . % ,- - Sorting

» ‘Sorting the different talc ores e o ! - 'y ' according to their talc content and brightnass is a key phase : N of the production process.

S T T - : : N Technigques include state-of- . . . the-art laser and image p Treated talcs R \ i analysis technology, friction ! b 3 e sorting or flotation techniques. [ PR L Nl S : The ores are then dried, n o Al . crushed, ground and micronized.

Milling Imerys spearheads talc milling technology, a complex process where the methods used depend both on the ore type and the final application. To obtain exactly the right particle sizegiven application, we use a variety of techniques including compressed air, steam and impact milling - many of which have been developed in-house. Median particle sizes can range from less than 1 micron to 15

microns, and top cuts from 6 microns to over 100 microns.

From mine to market

p Overburden removal r MiIling : — Ay Imerys spearheads talc milling g dic axine MERFL . OSRRRS technology, a complex process P e ol where the methods useddepend both on the ore type Milli ’ MR R and the final application. To itino by o obtain exactly the right particle (R T R YA . o sizegiven b A1 A 3 application, we use a variety of (P T ; A . techniques including S a | e compressed air, steam and | LTI aie B impact milling - many of which

have been developed in-house. Median particle sizes can range from less than 1 micron to 15 microns, and top cuts from 6 microns to over 100 microns.

Treated talcs Certain grades of talc are treated, e.g. amine-coated talcs for fertilizers; silane-coated

talcs for the rubber industry; and cationic talcs for pitch control in papermaking. For the cosmetics and pharmaceuticals industries, talcs are heat- treated to decontaminate

them. Extraction and processing Search From mine to market SO T R Ty Treated talcs

= Certain grades of talc are s treated, e.q. amine-coated

= talcs for fertilizers; silane- e i coated talcs for the rubber industry; and cationic talcs for pitch conirol in papermaking. For the cosmetics and pharmaceuticals industries, p Packaging talcs are heat-treated to decontaminate them.

Treated talcs pp '

L L

http://www.imerystalc.com/content/corporate/A bout talc/Extraction _and processing/

Formulating for our customers Our applications specialists work directly with customers on their formulations. Existing formulations are improved and rendered more cost-effective, or replaced by more advanced solutions. Every year, we carry out more than a hundred formulation studies at our research and development facilities in Denver and Toulouse and help customers achieve their performance objectives while saving

them valuable time.

Formulating for our customers

Qur applications specialists work directly with customers on their formulations. Existing formulations are improved and rendered more cost-effective, or replaced by more advanced solutions. Every vear, we camy out more than a hundred formulation studies at our research and development facilities in Denver and Toulouse and help customers achieve their perfiormance objectives while saving them valuable time.

http://www.imerystalc.com/content/corporate/A bout-ImerysTalc/ Expertise_and quality/ Expertise/index.php Body powders & Creams Imerys talcs make excellent body powders and fragrance carriers for scented powders...

Baby and Body Powders With their soft, silky feel, Imerys talcs make excellent body powder. Applied after bathing, talc dries the skin, preventing chafing, and gives a pleasant, soothing, cool sensation. Imerys talcs are excellent fragrance carriers for scented body powders. The surfaces

of the talc platelets retain the perfume with the minimum loss of potency.

http://www.imerystalc.com/content/bu/Cosmetics/A pplications/ Body powder & creams/america.php

Cosmetics

Comerel Havd = dpphibod 3 Woly podde d ciauE

Body powders & creams

Imerys talcs make excellent body ———— powders and fragrance cariers for

scented powders. They are ideal for face . d hody creams, NN (o1 and body cream‘ VWhih thair 2ol silley fedd Imanys tales maka exceliont body povders Key il Foplied alier bathing, tak: dries tha skin, praventing ctafing, and ghves pleasent, soohing. ool sensaion.

Invearys Baliss are excalen fragrance canmiens for soented body prravders. The =urfacas of the takz plaleiets ralain 158 pacfomne wils thi rnininnues lass of poloncy

A team of experts at your service

1285854.2

Good understanding of each market segment is vital to matching the right talc to the right application.

At Imerys Talc, we have end-market specialists on board who pilot each market sector, leading the way with new innovations... .

Working at state of the art R&D facilities and pilot plants in the United States, Europe, and Assia Pacific, our experts - many of whom have been recruited from the specialist markets we e providing technical expertise and collaborating on research projects to support our customers, e developing new process technology to increase efficiency and product quality,

e collaborating on research to improve products and find new applications

A team of experts at your service

The world relies on our minerals, and we rely on one of our most Good understanding of each important resources in finding, mining, processing and delivering market segment is vital to

them - our people. e . . matching the right talc to the right

Working at state-of-the-art R&D facilities and pilot plants in the applic ation.

United States, Europe, and Asia Pacific, our experts - many of whom

have been recruited from the specialist markets we serve - are dedicated to: At Imerys Talc, we have end-

market specialists on board who pilot each market sector, leading the way with new innovations.

» providing technical expertise and collaborating on research projects to support our customers,

» developing new process technology to increase efficiency and product quality, » Innovation + collaborating on research to improve products and find new

applications. » Product stewardship

http://www.imerystalc.com/content/corporate/A bout-Imerys-Talc/Expertise _and quality/ Expertise/index.php

86. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, IMERY S did not actually or reasonably rely on JOHNSON & JOHNSON to convey warnings to end users, and any such reliance would have been unjustified.

87. Because of the gravity of the risks posed by the talc involved and the severity of the harm to consumers, and because of its unique and sophisticated knowledge of the dangers inherent in its talcum powder, IMERY S could and should have taken additional steps, such as inquiring about JOHNSON & JOHNSON’S warning practices, to ensure that warnings were communicated to consumers.

88. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, IMERY S had the legal right to issue notices regarding the safe use of JOHNSON & JOHNSON'S talc products, including end uses of the products. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, IMERY S also had the legal right to refuse to sell talc to JOHNSON & JOHNSON, if JOHNSON & JOHNSON’S use was improper, unsafe or

unlawful.

[11]

90. Uponinformation and belief, in 2006, when IMERY S added a warning to its talcum powder label, the company still never required JOHNSON & JOHNSON to convey the same or a substantially similar warning to end users of the product, even though IMERY S knew there was a substantial likelihood that JOHNSON & JOHNSON would not convey the necessary or adequate warnings or information to ultimate consumers of talc, and even though it knew in 2006, as discussed herein, of the potential for talc producers to be liable in product liability litigation in the United States.

91. Upon information and belief, at all times herein mentioned, IMERY S knew for a fact that JOHNSON & JOHNSON was not conveying such warnings or information to consumers, and that said Defendants’ economic motivations were such that they had an incentive to withhold necessary information about talcum powder because warnings would make products containing talc less attractive to consumers.

92. Uponinformation and belief, at all times herein mentioned, IMERY S could and should have shared its superior knowledge and information about the dangers involvedtalcum powder with JOHNSON & JOHNSON and could and should have warned said Defendants and the public of the risks of harm.

93. At all times herein mentioned, IMERY S failed to adequately warn that its talcum powder products presented substantial dangers and risks, which would not have been recognized by ordinary consumers, when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable way.

94. Asadirectand proximate result of IMERY S’ calculated and reprehensible conduct, Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries and damages, namely ovarian cancer, which required surgeries and treatments.

f. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERYS Conspired to Conceal the Dangers of Talc

95. Upon information and belief, the JOHNSON & JOHNSON Defendants and IMERY S and/or their predecessors-in-interest knowingly agreed, contrived, combined, confederated and conspired among themselves to cause injuries, diseases, and/or illnesses by exposing consumers and Plaintiff to the harmful and dangerous PRODUCTS. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S knowingly agreed, contrived, confederated and conspired to deprive Plaintiff the opportunity of informed free choice as to whether to use the PRODUCTS or to expose themselves to the dangers associated with them. JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERYS committed the above described wrongs by willfully misrepresenting and suppressing the truth as to the risks and dangers associated with the use of the talcum powder contained within the PRODUCTS.

96. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of said conspiracies, for decades JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, have been in possession of medical and scientific data, literature and test reports which clearly indicated that ordinary and foreseeable use of their PRODUCTS by women is unreasonably dangerous, hazardous, deleterious to human health, carcinogenic, and potentially deadly.

97. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of said conspiracies, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S, despite the medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports possessed by and available to said Defendants, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, fraudulently, willfully and maliciously withheld, concealed and suppressed medical information regarding the increased risk of ovarian cancer, as set out hereinabove. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of said conspiracies, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S, despite the medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports possessed by and available to said Defendants, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, caused to be released, published and disseminated medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports containing information and statements regarding the risks of ovarian cancer which JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S knew were incorrect, incomplete, outdated, and misleading. Upon information and belief, specifically, through TIPTF, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S collectively agreed to release false information to the public regarding the safety of talc on July 1, 1992; July 8, 1992; and November 17, 1994. Upon information and belief, in a letter dated September 17, 1997, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S were criticized by their own Toxicologist consultant forreleasing this false information to the public, as stated hereinabove, yet nothing was done by JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S to correct or redact this public release of knowingly false information.

98. Upon information and belief, in furtherance of said conspiracies, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S, despite the medical and scientific data, literature, and test reports possessed by and available to said Defendants, individually, jointly, and in conspiracy with each other, by these false and fraudulent representations, omissions, and concealments, intended to induce Plaintiff and others to rely upon false and fraudulent representations, omissions and concealments, and to continue to expose themselves to the dangers inherent in the use and exposure to the PRODUCTS.

99. Upon information and belief, individually and in concert with each other, JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S participated in a common plan to commit the torts alleged herein, and each acted tortuously in pursuance of the common plan to protect and promote the health and safety of talc use, to the known detriment of the public, including Plaintiff.

100. Plaintiff reasonably and in good faith relied upon false representations, omissions, and concealments made by JOHNSON & JOHNSON and IMERY S regarding the nature of the PRODUCTS.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE

(Against All Defendants)

101. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

102. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. were negligent in marketing, designing, manufacturing, producing, supplying, inspecting, testing, selling and/or distributing the PRODUCTS in one or more of the following respects:

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

e failing to properly test their PRODUCTS to determine adequacy and effectiveness or safety

measures, if any, prior to releasing the PRODUCTS for consumer use;

e failing to properly test their PRODUCTS to determine the increased risk of ovarian cancer

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

e failing to inform ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the safe and proper methods of handling

and using the PRODUCTS;

e failing to remove the PRODUCTS from the market when the Defendants knew or should have

known the PRODUCTS were defective; e failing to instruct the ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the methods for reducing the type

of exposure to the PRODUCTS which caused increased risk of ovarian cancer;

e failing to inform the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular of the known dangers of

using the PRODUCTS for dusting the perineum;

e failing to advise users how to prevent or reduce exposure that caused increased risk for ovarian

cancer;

e marketing and labeling the PRODUCTS as safe for all uses despite knowledge to the contrary;

and

e failing to act as a reasonably prudent company under similar circumstances.

103. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. and IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. knew, or reasonably should have known that users, including Plaintiff, would not realize the dangers of using the PRODUCTS, and a reasonable manufacturer, distributor and/or seller under the same or similar circumstances would have warned of the dangers or instructed on the safe use of the PRODUCTS.

104. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, each and all of these acts and omissions, taken singularly or in combination, were a proximate cause of the injuries and damages sustained by Plaintiff.

105. On information and belief, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC. and IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. knew or should have known that the PRODUCTS were unreasonably dangerous and defective when used or misused in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

106. On information and belief, as a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence in one or more of the aforementioned ways, Plaintiff purchased and used, as aforesaid, the PRODUCTS that directly and proximately or were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer.

107. On information and belief, as a proximate result of the conduct, acts, and omissions alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred medical expenses, will in the future incur medical expenses, has suffered and will suffer other special damages, and has suffered and will suffer conscious pain and suffering and other general damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

(Against All Defendants)

108. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

109. This cause of action is asserted by the Plaintiff, whose spouse suffered personal injuries as a result of using the PRODUCTS.

110. By reason of the injuries sustained by Plaintiff’s spouse, the Plaintiff has been and will continue to be deprived of herlove, companionship, comfort, care, assistance, protection, affection, society, and moral support, and as a result has sustained general and special damages.

TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

111. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint.

112. Plaintiff suffered illnesses that have latency periods and do not arise until many years after exposure. The illnesses did not distinctly manifest as having been caused by the PRODUCTS until Plaintiff was made aware that the ovarian cancer could be caused by use of the PRODUCTS. Consequently, the discovery rule applies to this case and the statute of limitations has been tolled until the day that Plaintiff knew or had reason to know that ovarian cancer was linkedPRODUCTS.

113. Furthermore, the running of any statute of limitations has been equitably tolled by reason of Defendants’ fraudulent concealment and conduct. Through their affirmative misrepresentations and omissions, Defendants actively concealed from Plaintiff the true risks associated with the talcum powder contained within the PRODUCTS.

114. Asaresult of Defendants’ actions, Plaintiff was unaware, and could not reasonably know, or could not have reasonably learned through reasonable diligence, that Plaintiff had been exposed to the risks alleged herein and that those risks were the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.

115. Furthermore, Defendants are estopped from relying on any statute of limitations because of their concealment of the truth, quality and nature of the PRODUCTS. Defendants were under a duty to disclose the true character, quality and nature of PRODUCTS because this was non-public information which the Defendants had and continue to have in their exclusive control, and because the Defendants knew that this information was not available to Plaintiff.

116. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants had the ability to and did spend enormous amounts of money in furtherance of their purpose of marketing and promoting profitable PRODUCTS, notwithstanding the known or reasonably known risks. Plaintiff and medical professionals could not have afforded and could not have possibly conducted studies to determine the nature, extent and identity of related health risks, and were forced to rely on Defendants’ representations.

117. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, in representations to the Plaintiff and the public in general, Defendants also fraudulently concealed and intentionally omitted the following material information:

e thatthe PRODUCTS were not as safe as other products available;

e thatthe PRODUCTS were dangerous; and

o that the PRODUCTS were defectively and negligently designed and had defective, inadequate,

and insufficient warnings and instructions.

118. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants were under a duty to disclose to Plaintiff, and the public in general, the defective nature of the PRODUCTS.

119. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants made the misrepresentations and actively concealed information concerning the safety and efficacy of the PRODUCTS with the intention and specific desire to induce the consumers, including the Plaintiff, to rely on such misrepresentations in selecting, purchasing and using the PRODUCTS.

120. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants made these misrepresentations and actively concealed information concerning the safety and efficacy of the PRODUCTS in the labeling, advertising, promotional material or other marketing efforts.

[11]

122. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the misrepresentations and active concealments by Defendants were perpetuated directly and indirectly by Defendants, their sales representative, employees, distributors, agents, marketers and detail persons.

123. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, at the time the representations were made, Plaintiff did not know the truth about the dangers and serious health and/or safety risks inherentPRODUCTS. Plaintiff did not discover the true facts about the dangers and serious health and/or safety risks, nor did Plaintiff discover the false representations of Defendants, nor would Plaintiff with reasonable diligence have discovered the true facts or Defendants’ misrepresentations.

124. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that Plaintiff, and the public in general, had no way to determine the truth behind Defendants’ concealment and omissions, and that these included material omissions of facts surrounding the PRODUCTS, as set forth herein.

125. Had Plaintiff known the true facts about the dangers and serious health and/or safety risks of the PRODUCTS, Plaintiff would not have purchased, used, or relied on Defendants’ PRODUCTS.

126. Defendants had a duty when disseminating information to the public to disseminate truthful information and a parallel duty not to deceive the public, including Plaintiff.

127. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the information distributed to the public and Plaintiff by Defendants included, but was not limited to, reports, press releases, advertising campaigns, television commercials, print advertisements, billboards and other commercial media containing material representations, which were false and misleading, and contained omissions and concealment of the truth about the dangersPRODUCTS. 128. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants intentionally made material misrepresentations to the medical community and public, including Plaintiff, regarding the safety of the PRODUCTS, specifically that the PRODUCTS did not have dangerous and/or serious adverse health safety concerns, and that the PRODUCTS were as safe as other products.

129. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants’ intent and purpose in making these misrepresentations was to deceive the Plaintiff; to gain the confidence of the public, the medical community, and Plaintiff, to falsely assure them of the quality and fitness for use of the PRODUCTS; and induce Plaintiff and the public to use the PRODUCTS.

130. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants recklessly and/or intentionally falsely represented the dangerous and serious health and safety concerns inherentPRODUCTS to the public at large, for the purpose of influencing the sales of PRODUCTS known to be dangerous and defective, and/or not as safe as other alternatives.

131. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, at all times relevant to this action, D efendants knew that the PRODUCTS were not safe for CONSUMETS.

132. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the misrepresentations and active concealment by Defendants constitute a continuing tort. Indeed, Defendants continue to misrepresent the potential risks and serious side effects associated with the use of the PRODUCTS.

133. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, as a result of the Defendants’ advertising and marketing efforts, and representations, the PRODUCTS are and continue to be pervasively manufactured and used in California and throughout the United States.

134. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges, at all relevant times alleged herein, the acts, conduct, and omissions of Defendants, and each of them, as alleged throughout this Complaint were fraudulent, willful and malicious and were done with a conscious disregard for the rights of Plaintiff and other users of the PRODUCTS and for the primary purpose of increasing Defendant’s profits from the sale and distribution of the PRODUCTS. Defendants’ outrageous and unconscionable conduct warrants an award of exemplary and punitive damages against each Defendant in an amount appropriate to punish and make an example of each Defendant.

135. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, prior to the manufacturing, sale and distribution of the PRODUCTS, Defendants, and each of them, knew that the PRODUCTS were in a defective condition as previously alleged herein and knew that those who used the PRODUCTS would experience and did experience severe injuries. Further, Defendants and each of them through its officers, directors, managers, and agents, had knowledge that the PRODUCTS presented a substantial and unreasonable risk of harm to the public, including Plaintiff and, as such, consumers of the PRODUCTS were unreasonably subjected to risk of injury.

136. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, despite such knowledge, D efendants, and each of them, acting through its officers, directors and managing agents for the purpose of enhancing Defendants’ profits, knowingly and deliberately failed to remedy the known defects in the PRODUCTS and failed to warn the public, including the Plaintiff, of the extreme risk of injury occasioned by said defects inherent in the PRODUCTS. Defendants and their individual agents, officers, and directors intentionally proceeded with the manufacturing, sale, distribution and marketing of the PRODUCTS knowing that the public, including Plaintiff, would be exposed to serious danger in order to advance Defendants’ own pecuniary interest and monetary profits.

137. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants’ conduct was despicable, and so contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people, and was carried on by Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for safety, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages under California Civil Code section 3294.

138. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit within the applicable limitations period of first suspecting that the PRODUCTS were the cause of any appreciable harm sustained by Plaintiff, within the applicable limitations period of first suspecting or having reason to suspect any wrongdoing, and within the applicable limitations period of first discovering the injuries. Plaintiff could not, by the exercise of reasonable diligence, have discovered any wrongdoing and could not have discovered the causes of the injuries at an earlier time because the injuries occurred without initial perceptible trauma or harm and, when the injuries were discovered, the causes were not immediately known. Plaintiff did not suspect, nor did Plaintiff have reason to suspect, that wrongdoing had caused the injuries until recently. Plaintiff filed the original action within two years of discovering the causes of action and identities of Defendants.

139. Plaintiff had no knowledge of the defects in the PRODUCTS or of the wrongful conduct of Defendants as set forth herein, nor did Plaintiff have access to information regarding other injuries and complaints in the possession of Defendants. A dditionally, Plaintiff was prevented from discovering this information sooner because Defendants herein misrepresented and continue to misrepresent to the public that the PRODUCTS are safe and free from defects, and Defendants fraudulently concealed information to allow Plaintiff to discover a potential cause of action sooner.

140. Plaintiff has reviewed her potential legal claims and causes of action against the Defendants and intentionally chooses only to pursue claims based on state-law. Any reference to any federal agency, regulation orrule is stated solely as background information and does not raise a federal question. Plaintiff chooses to only pursue claims based on state law and is not making any claims that raise federal questions.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES INC., Defendant IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC., and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, jointly and severally, and as appropriate to each cause of action alleged and the standing of Plaintiffs as follows:

1. Past and future general damages, the exact amount of which has yet to be ascertained, in an amount which will conform to proof at time of trial;

Past and future economic and special damages according to proof at the time of trial; Loss of earnings and impaired earning capacity according to proof at the time of trial; Medical expenses, past and future, according to proof at the time of trial;

Loss of consortium damages according to proof at the time of trial;

Funeral expenses and other special damages according to proof at the time of trial;

~Ne = N

Punitive or exemplary damages according to proof at the time of trial; 8. Attorney’s fees; 9. For costs of suit incurred herein; 10. For pre-judgment interest as provided by law; and

11. Forsuch other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.

Dated: March 5, 2018 Respectfully submitted,

ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.

v Mk [ Rebrsas

Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial on all counts in this Complaint.

Respectfully submitted, Dated: March 5, 2018 ROBINSON CALCAGNIE, INC.

o, Nk [ Robarans,

Mark P. Robinson, Jr., Esq.