This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 08:00:23 (UTC).

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

Case Summary

On 02/28/2018 Goings 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:

    ******3995

  • Filing Date:

    02/28/2018

  • Case Status:

    Other - Stayed

  • Case Type:

    Personal Injury - Other Product Liability

  • Court:

    Santa Clara County Superior Courts

  • Courthouse:

    Downtown Superior Court

  • County, State:

    Santa Clara, California

Judge Details

Judge

Walsh, Brian C

 

Party Details

Plaintiff

Goings, Marilou

Defendants and Cross Defendants

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

Johnson & Johnson

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

Does 1 through 100, inclusive

Other

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Zukin, Helen E

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)

Goings POS J&J.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil)

Goings POS J & J Consumer.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

Notice

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

Proof of Service

DOC508.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

Order: Deeming Case Complex

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

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Goings Civil Cover.pdf:

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

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

 

Docket Entries

  • 07/06/2018
  • 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 3/13/18, 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
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Goings POS J&J.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 05/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service: Summons DLR (Civil) - Goings POS J & J Consumer.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service of Summons/Complaint

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 04/23/2018
  • Notice: Entry of Order - Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

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

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/22/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Proof of Service - DOC508.pdf: Comment: Proof of Service

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 03/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Discovery and Responsive Pleading Deadline signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Goings Civil Cover.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 02/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies): Comment: Complaint for Damages and Demand for Jury Trial

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

Helen Zukin, State Bar No. 117933 2ukin@kiesel.law

Melanie Meneses Palmer, State Bar No. 286752 palmer@kiesel law

Cherisse H. Cleofe, State Bar No. 290152 cleofe@kiesel .law

KIESEL LAW LLP

8648 Wilshire Boulevard

Beverly Hills, Califormia 90211-2910

Tel: 310-8%4-4444

Fax: 310-8%4-0812

Ted G. Meadows ted.meadows@beasleyallen.com

BEASLEY,ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN,

PORTIS & MILES, P.C.

218 Commerce Street

Montgomery, Alabama 36104

Tel: 800-898-2034

Fax: 334-954-7555

Attomeys for Plaintiff

E-FILED

2/28/2018 4:.00 PM Clerk of Court

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

18CV323995

Reviewed By: R. Walker

R. Allen Smith, Jr. allen@smth-law.org

THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC

681 Towne Center Boulevard, Suite B

Ridgeland, Mississippi 39157

Tel: 601-952-1422

Fax: 601-952-1426

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

MARILOU GOINGS, an individual, Plaintiff,

V.

18CV323995

Case No.

COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

1. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY-

JOHNSON & JOHNSON;: JOHNSON &

JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.;

IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,

Defendants.

FAILURE TO WARN

2, STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY-

DESIGN DEFECT

3. NEGLIGENCE

4, NEGLIGENT

MISREPRESENTATION

5. BREACH OF EXPRESS

WARRANTY

6. BREACH OF IMPLIED

WARRANTY

7. DECEIT BY CONCEALMENT -

CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§

1709, 1710 Plaintiff herein, by and through counsel, for her causes of action against the Defendants, alleges as follows:

PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff MARILOU GOINGS is a competent individual, over the age of 18, a citizen of the United States, and a resident of San Diego County in the State of California.

2. 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.

3. 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 worddwide. 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.

4, 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 conpanies conducting business in 60 countries of the world and organized into three business segments: Consumer, Pharmaceutical and Medical Devices.

D. 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 mumerous offices and warehouses in the United States.

0. 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.

7. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at all relevant times, Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON has engaged in substantial, continuous economnic activity in California, including marketing, distribution, and sale of hillions 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 comnected to the Plaintiff’ s claims as alleged herein.

8. 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.

) 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. Specifically, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. maintains its Head Office and Laboratory at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose, California 95112.

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC., is the successor or continuation of Luzenac America, Inc., and IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. is legally responsible for all liahilities incurred when it was known as Luzenac America, Inc.

11. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendant, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. has been in the business of mining and distributing talcum powder for use in talcum powder based products, including the PRODUCTS.

12. 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.

13. 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.

14. 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 Defendants agents, servants, employees and/or owners, acting in the course and scope of its respective agencies, services, employments and/or ownerships.

15. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, all allegations conceming 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 ary and all other persons acting on behalf of Defendants.

16. 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 Shower to Shower body powder and Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder (hereinafter “PRODUCTS”) into the stream of commerce by designing, manufacturing, marketing, packaging, labeling, and/or selling said PRODUCTS to Californians, including Plaintiff herein.

17. 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 PRODUCT'S worldwide and in the State of California.

18. At all relevant times alleged herein beginning in or about 1984, Plaintiff MARILOU GOINGS purchased the PRODUCTS and used said PRODUCTS on a daily basis in and around her perineal regions through in or about 2001. While a citizen and resident of the State of California, and a citizen and resident of the County of San Diego, Plaintiff purchased the PRODUCT'S and used the PRODUCT'S by applying the PRODUCT'S to her body in accordance with the instructions for use that accompanied the PRODUCTS and in a reasonably foreseeable manner. In or about December 2012, Plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, and underwent surgery and other treatments for said ovarian cancer. Plaintiff was diagnosed with ovarian cancer, which developed while she resided in the State of California. Plaintiff developed ovanan 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 PRODUCT'S, and Defendants’ wrongful and negligent conduct in the research, development, testing, manufacture, production, promotion, distribution, marketing, and sale of the PRODUCTS.

19. Asadirect and proximate result of the injuries alleged herein, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur medical expenses in the future, has endured and will endure pain and suffering and loss of enjoyment of life, and Plaintiff has otherwise been damaged in a personal and pecuniary nature.

20. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, all clains in this action are a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ and/or their corporate predecessors negligent, willful, and wrongful conduct in connection with the design, development, manufacture, testing, packaging, promoting, marketing, distribution, labeling, and/or sale of the PRODUCTS.

21. Plaintiff in this action seeks recovery for damages as a result of developing ovarian cancer, which was directly and proximately caused by such wrongful conduct by Defendants, the unreasonably dangerous and defective nature of the talcum powder, the main ingredient of the PRODUCTS, and the attendant effects of developing and suffering from ovarian cancer. 22. 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, and introduced said PRODUCTS into interstate conmmerce with knowledge and intent that such products be sold to consumers in the State of California.

23. Venue is proper in this Court because PLAINIIFF is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, Defendant, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC,, is a Delaware corporation, with its principal place of business in San Jose, California in the County of Santa Clara. Specifically, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. naintains its Head Office and Laboratory at 1732 North First Street, Suite 450, San Jose, Califormia 95112.

24. Plaintiff is a citizen of the State of California and the County of San Diego, purchased the PRODUCTS in the State of California and the County of San Diego, used the PRODUCTS in the State of California and the County of San Diego, and was exposed to the PRODUCTSS in the State of California and the County of San Diego.

25. The California Superior Court has jurisdiction over all DEFENDANTI'S because, based on information and belief, each is a corporation and/or entity and/or person organized under the laws of or having its principal place of business in the State of California, a foreign corporation or association authorized to do business in California and registered with the California Secretary of State, or that has sufficient mininmum contacts in California, is a citizen of California, or otherwise intentionally avails itself of the California market so as to render the exercise of jurisdiction over it by the California courts consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

20. Further, DEFENDANIS have each purposefully availed themselves of the benetits and protections of the laws within the State of California. Collectively, DEFENDANT'S conduct substantial, continuous, and systemic business in California and have had sufficient contact with California such that the exercise of jurisdiction would be consistent with the traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

/1]

COMMON ALLEGATIONS

27. The PRODUCTSS that are the subject of this action all contain talc, also known as magnesium trisilicate. Talc is an inorganic mineral that is mined from the earth.

28. Talc is the main ingredient contained in the PRODUCTS, as the PRODUCTS are conposed almost entirely of talc.

29. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, a feasible altemative to the PRODUCT'S has existed.

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, Comstarch is an organic carbohydrate that is quickly broken down by the body with no known health effects. Comstarch powders have been sold and marketed for the same uses with nearly the same effectiveness.

31. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants have continually advertised and marketed talc as safe for human use.

32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, IMERY S TALC AMERICA, INC. (IMERYS)" has continually advertised and marketed talc as sate for human use.

33. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times, IMERY S supplied customers with material safety data sheets for talc. These material safety data sheets are supposed to convey adequate health and waming information to its customers.

34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, historically, the PRODUCT “Johnson’s Baby Powder” has been a symbol of freshness, cleanliness, and purity.

35. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the Defendants advertised and marketed this product as the beacon of “freshness” and “comfort”, eliminating friction on the skin, absorbing “excess wetness” helping keep skin feeling dry and comfortable, and “clinically proven gentle and mild”. The Defendants

1 All allegations regarding actions taken by Imerys Talc also include actions taken while that entity was known as Luzenac America, Inc. conpelled women through advertisements to dust themselves with this product to mask odors. The bottle of “Johnson’s Baby Powder” specifically targets women by stating, “For you, use every day to help feel soft, fresh, and comfortable.”

30. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants 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 “Your body perspires in more places than just under your amms. Use SHOWER to SHOWER to feel dry, fresh, and comfortable throughout the day.” And “SHOWER to SHOWER can be used all over your body.”

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

38. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that in 1971, the first study was conducted that suggested an association between talc and ovarian cancer. This study was conducted by Dr. W] Henderson and others in Cardiff, Wales.

39. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that in 1982, the first epidemiologic study was performed on talc powder use in the female genital area. This study was conducted by Dr. Daniel Cramer and others. This study found a 92% increased risk in ovarian cancer with women who reported genital talc use. Shortly after this study was published, Dr. Bruce Senple of defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON came and visited Dr. Cramer about his study. Dr. Cramer advised Dr. Semple that defendants should place a waming on its talcum powder PRODUCT'S conceming the ovarian cancer risks so that women can make an infonmed decision about their health.

40. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that since 1982, there have been approximately twenty-seven (27) 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.

41. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that in 1993, the United States National Toxicology Program published a study on the toxicity of nonasbestiform talc and found clear evidence of carcinogenic activity. Talc was found to be a carcinogen, with or without the presence of asbestos-like fibers.

42. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, in response to the United States National Toxicology Program’s study, the Cosmetic Toiletry and Fragrance Association (CTFA) fonmed the Talc Interested Party Task Force (TTPTF). Defendants JOHNSON & JOHNSON, and JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. were members of the CTFA and were the primary actors and contributors of the TTIPTF. The stated purpose of the TIPTF was to pool financial resources of these companies in an effort to collectively defend talc use at all costs and to prevent regulation of any type over this industry. The TIPTF hired scientists to perform biased research regarding the safety of talc, members of the TIPTF edited scientific reports of the scientists hired by this group prior the submission of these scientific reports to govemmental agencies, members of the TIPTF knowingly released false infonmation about the safety of talc to the consuming public, and used political and economic influence on regulatory bodies regarding talc. All of these activities have been well coordinated and planned by these conmpanies and organizations over the past four (4) decades in an effort to prevent regulation of talc and to create confusion to the consuming public about the true hazards of talc relative to ovarian cancer.

43. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, on November 10, 199, the Cancer Prevention Coalition mailed a letter to then JOHNSON & JOHNSON C.E.O, Ralph Larson, informing his 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.” The letter cited a recent study from Dr. Hadow of Harvard Medical School confirming this fact and quoted a portion of the study where Dr. Hadow and his colleagues discouraged the use of talc in the female genital area. 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. The letter concluded by requesting that JOHNSON & JOHNSON withdraw talc products from the market because the altemative of com starch powders, or at a minimum, place waming information on its talc-based PRODUCT'S about ovarian cancer risk they pose.

44, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, in 1996, the condom industry stopped dusting condoms with talc due to the health concems of ovarian cancer.

45. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, in February of 2006, the Intemational Association for the Research of Cancer (IARC) part of the World Health Organization published a paper whereby they classified perineal use of talc based body powder as a “Group 2B” human carcinogen. IJARC which is universally accepted as the intemational 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. JARC 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 with this Evaluation”: “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.”

46. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, in 2006, the Canadian govemment under The Hazardous Products Act and associated Controlled Products Regulations classified talc as a “D2A”, “very toxic”, “cancer causing” substance under its Workplace Hazardous Materials Information System (WHMIS). Asbestos is also classified as “D2A”.

47. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, in 2006, Defendants’ vendor, Imerys Talc, began placing a waming on its Material Safety Data Sheets (MSDS) it provided to the Johnson & Johnson Defendants regarding the talc it sold to them to be used in the PRODUCT'S. These MSDSs not only provided the waming information about the IARC classification but also included waming information regarding “States Rights to Know” and waming information about the Canadian Govemment's “D2A” classification of talc as well.

48. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, Defendants had a duty to know and wam about the hazards associated with the use of the PRODUCTS.

49. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, Defendants failed to inform consumers, customers, and end users of the PRODUCT'S of a known catastrophic health hazard associated with the use of its products. In addition, the Defendants procured and disseminated false, misleading, and biased information regarding the safety of the PRODUCTS to the public and used influence over govemmental and regulatory bodies regarding talc.

50. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ calculated and reprehensible conduct, Plaintiff suffered catastrophic injuries and damages, namely ovarian cancer, which required surgery and treatment.

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY FOR FAILURE TO WARN

(Against All Defendants)

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

52. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Imerys Talc mined and sold talc to the Defendants, and Defendants then packaged and sold said talc in the PRODUCTS to consumers, knowing that consumers of the PRODUCT'S were using it to powder their perineal regions.

53. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew and/or should have known of the unreasonahly dangerous and carcinogenic nature of the talc contained in the PRODUCTS.

54. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants, especially when used in a woman’s perineal regions, knew or should have known that no wamings were being given consumers of the serious risks posed by use of the PRODUCTS.

5d. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the Defendants were manufacturing, marketing, testing, promoting, selling and/or distributing the PRODUCT'S in the regular course of business. 56. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff used the PRODUCTS to powder her perineal area, which is a reasonably foreseeable use.

57. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, at all pertinent times, all Defendants in this action knew or should have known that the use of talcum powder based products in the perineal area significantly increases the risk of ovarian cancer based upon scientific knowledge dating back to the 1960s.

58. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, including the time of sale and consumption, the PRODUCT'S, when put to the aforementioned reasonably foreseeable use, were in an unreasonably dangerous and defective condition because they failed to contain adequate and proper wamings and/or instructions regarding the increased risk of ovanan cancer associated with the use of the PRODUCTS by women to powder their penineal area. Defendants themselves failed to properdy and adequately wam and instruct Plaintiff as to the risks and benefits of the PRODUCTS given Plaintiff’s need for this information.

59. Had Plaintiff received a waming that the use of the PRODUCTS would have significantly increased her risk of ovarian cancer, Plaintiff would not have used the same. As a proximate result of Defendants’ design, manufacture, marketing, sale, and distribution of the PRODUCTS, Plaintiff has been injured catastrophically, and has been caused severe and permanent pain, suffering, disability, impairment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care, comfort, and econoniic damages.

60. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Plaintiff’s cancer was the direct and proximate result of the unreasonably dangerous and defective condition of the PRODUCTS at the time of sale and consuniption, including their lack of wamings; Plaintiff has suffered injuries and damages including but not limited to conscious pain and suffering, medical expenses and lost wages.

6l. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the Defendants’ products were defective because they failed to contain wamings and/or instructions, and breached express warranties and/or failed to conform to express factual representations upon which the Plaintiff justifiably relied in electing to use the products. The defect or defects made the products unreasonably dangerous to those persons, such as Plaintiff, who could reasonably be expected to use and rely upon such products. As a result, the defect or defects were a producing cause of the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.

62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the Defendants’ products failed to contain, and continue to this day not to contain, adequate wamings and/or instructions regarding the increased risk of ovarian cancer with the use of their products by women. The Defendants continue to market, advertise, and expressly represent to the general public that it is safe for women to use their product regardless of application. Defendants continue with these marketing and advertising campaigns despite having scientific knowledge that dates back to the 1960's that their products increase the risk of ovarian cancer in women when used in the perineal area.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT LIABILITY IN TORT - DESIGN DEFECT

(Against All Defendants)

6l. Plaintiff hereby incorporates each of the preceding paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.

62. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the PRODUCTS were designed, engineered, developed, manufactured, fabricated, assembled, equipped, tested or failed to test, inspected or failed to inspect, labeled, advertised, promoted, marketed, supplied, distributed, licensed, wholesaled, and sold by Defendants.

63. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the PRODUCT'S manufactured, supplied, licensed and/or placed into the stream of commerce by Defendants were defective and unreasonably dangerous in that:

o the foreseeable risks far exceeded the benefits associated with the design or formulation; e they contained inadequate wamings or instructions; and e they contained dangerous ingredients while feasible safer altemative designs and ingredients were available.

04. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the PRODUCT'S manufactured, supplied, licensed and/or placed into the stream of commerce by Defendants were more dangerous than an ordinary consumer would expect, and more dangerous than other products or procedures available.

65. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew that the PRODUCTS were to be purchased and used without inspection for defects.

00. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the PRODUCT'S were and are unsafe for their intended use by reason of defects in the design so that they would not safely serve their purpose, but would instead expose the users of said PRODUCT'S to serious injuries.

67. Plaintiff used the PRODUCT'S in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

68. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants designed the PRODUCT'S defectively, causing the PRODUCT'S to fail to perfonm as safely as an ordinary consumer would expect when used in an intended or reasonably foreseeable manner.

69. Asalegal and proximate result of the aforementioned defects in the design of the PRODUCTS, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged herein.

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE

(Against All Defendants)

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

71. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants were negligent in marketing, designing, manufacturing, producing, supplying, inspecting, testing, selling and/or distributing the PRODUCTS in one or

more of the following respects:

72.

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

In faling to properdy test their products to determine adequacy and effectiveness or safety measures, if any, prior to releasing the PRODUCT'S for CONSUIMET USE;

In failing to properly test their products to detenmine the increased risk of ovarian cancer during the normal and/or intended use of the PRODUCTS;

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

In failing to remove the PRODUCT'S from the market when the Defendants knew or should have known the PRODUCT'S were defective;

In failing to instruct the ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the methods for reducing the type of exposure to the PRODUCT'S which caused increased risk of ovaran cancer;

In failing to inform the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular of the known dangers of using the PRODUCT'S for dusting the perineuny;

In failing to advise users how to prevent or reduce exposure that caused increased risk for ovarian cancer;

In marketing and labeling the PRODUCTS as safe for all uses despite knowledge to the contrary.

In falling to act like a reasonably prudent company under similar Clrcumstances.

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. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants knew or should have known that the PRODUCTS were

73. unreasonably dangerous and defective when put to their reasonably anticipated use.

74. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, 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 PRODUCT'S that directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer;

75. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, Plaintiff was caused to incur medical hills, lost wages, and conscious pain and suffering.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

(Against All Defendants)

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

77. Defendants had a duty to accurately and truthfully represent to the Plaintiff and the public, that the PRODUCT'S had been tested and found to be safe and effective for use in the perineal area. The representations made by Defendants, in fact, were false.

78. Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care in the representations conceming the PRODUCTS while they were involved in their manufacture, sale, testing, quality assurance, quality control, and distribution in interstate commerce, because Defendants negligently misrepresented the PRODUCT'S’ high risk of unreasonable, dangerous, adverse side effects.

79. Defendants breached their duty in representing that the PRODUCTS have no serious side effects.

80. As aforeseeable, direct and proximate result of the negligent misrepresentation of Defendants as set forth herein, Defendants knew, and had reason to know, that the PRODUCT'S had been insufficiently tested, or had not been tested at all, and that they lacked adequate and accurate wamings, and that it created a high risk, and/or higher than acceptable risk, and/or higher than reported and represented risk, of adverse side effects.

8l. As a proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, Plaintiff has been injured and sustained severe and penmanent pain, suffering, disability, impainment, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of care and comfort, and economic damages.

11

111 111

32.

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

In falling to propedy test their products to determine adequacy and effectiveness or safety measures, if any, prior to releasing the PRODUCTS for CONSUIMET USE;

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

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

In failing to remove the PRODUCT'S from the market when the Defendants knew or should have known the PRODUCT'S were defective;

In failing to instruct the ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the methods for reducing the type of exposure to the PRODUCT'S which caused increased risk of ovanan cancer;

In failing to inform the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular of the known dangers of using the PRODUCT'S for dusting the perineuny;

In failing to advise users how to prevent or reduce exposure that caused increased risk for ovarian cancer;

In marketing and labeling the PRODUCTS as safe for all uses despite knowledge to the contrary.

In falling to act like a reasonably prudent company under similar clrcumstances.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

(All Defendants)

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

84. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, Defendants expressly warranted, through direct-to-consumer marketing, advertisements, and labels, that the PRODUCTS were safe and effective for reasonably anticipated uses, including use by women in the perineal area.

8>. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that, at all relevant times alleged herein, the PRODUCT'S did not conform to these express representations because they cause serious injury when used by women in the perineal area in the form of ovarian cancer.

80. As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ breach of warranty, Plaintiff purchased and used, as aforesaid, the PRODUCTS that directly and proximately caused Plaintift to develop ovarian cancer; Plaintiff was caused to incur special and general damages.

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

(Against All Defendants)

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

88. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and based thereon alleges that at the time the Defendants manufactured, marketed, labeled, promoted, distributed and/or sold the PRODUCTS, Defendants knew of the uses for which the PRODUCT'S were intended, including use by women in the perineal areq, and impliedly warranted the PRODUCT'S to be of merchantable quality and safe for such use.

89. Defendants breached their implied warranties of the PRODUCT'S sold to Plaintiff because they were not fit for their commmon, ordinary and intended uses, including use by women in the perineal area. 90. As a direct, foreseeable and proximate result of the Defendants’ breaches of implied warranties, Plaintiff purchased and used, as aforesaid, the PRODUCT'S that directly and proximately caused Plaintiff to develop ovarian cancer; Plaintiff was caused to incur medical hills, lost wages, and conscious pain and sutfering.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

DECEIT BY CONCEALMENT - CALIFORNIA CIVIL CODE §§ 1709, 1710

(Against All Defendants)

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

92. Defendants, and each of them, from the time that the PRODUCT'S were first tested, studied, researched, evaluated, endorsed, manufactured, marketed and distnibuted, and up to the present, willfully deceived Plaintiff and the public in general, by concealing from them, the true facts conceming the PRODUCT'S, which the Defendants had a duty to disclose.

93. At all times relevant hereto, Defendants, and each of them, conducted a sales and marketing canmpaign to promote the sale of the PRODUCT'S and willfully deceived Plaintiff, and the public in general as to the health risks and consequencesPRODUCT'S including, but not limited to, the following false, deceptive, misleading, and untruthful advertisements, public statements, marketing campaigns, and promotions:

a. In faling to wam Plaintiff of the hazards associated with the use of the PRODUCTS;

b. In falling to propedy test their products to determine adequacy and effectiveness or safety measures, if any, prior to releasing the PRODUCTS for CONSUIMET USE;

c. In failing to properly test their products to determine the increased risk of ovarian cancer during the normal and/or intended use of the PRODUCTS;

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

e. In failing to remove the PRODUCT'S from the market when the Defendants knew or should have known the PRODUCT'S were defective;

f. Infailing to instruct the ultimate users, such as Plaintiff, as to the methods for reducing the type of exposure to the PRODUCT'S which caused increased risk of ovaran cancer;

g. In failing to inform the public in general and the Plaintiff in particular of the known dangers of using the PRODUCT'S for dusting the perineuny;

h. In failing to advise users how to prevent or reduce exposure that caused increased risk for ovarian cancer;

i. In marketing and labeling the PRODUCTS as safe for all uses despite knowledge to the contrary.

j. In faling to act like a reasonably prudent company under similar Clrcumstances.

9. Defendants, and each of them, were aware of the foregoing, and that the PRODUCT'S were not safe, fit, and effective for use as intended. Furthermore, Defendants were aware that the use of the PRODUCT'S were hazardous to health, and that the PRODUCTS cany a significant propensity to cause serious injuries to users including, but not limited to, the injuries suffered by Plaintiff as alleged herein.

95. Defendants intentionally concealed and suppressed the true facts conceming the PRODUCT'S with the intent to defraud the Plaintiff, other consumers, and the public in general, in that Defendants knew that Plaintiff would not have used the PRODUCTS if she had known the true facts conceming the risks and dangers of the PRODUCTSS.

90. As a result of the foregoing fraudulent and deceitful conduct by Defendants, and each of them, Plaintiff sutfered injuries and damages as alleged hereinabove.

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION FRAUD

(Against All Defendants)

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

herein. 08. Defendants falsely and fraudulently represented to Plaintiff, and members of the general public, that the PRODUCT'S were safe for use. The representations by Defendants were in fact, false. The true facts were that the PRODUCT'S were not safe for use by and members of the general public and were, in fact, extremely dangerous to consumers.

99. Detendants made other representations about the safety of PRODUCT'S, including, but not limited to, the false, deceptive, misleading, and untruthful advertisements, public statements, marketing campaigns, and promotions alleged herein.

100. The representations by Defendants were, in fact, false. The true facts are that the PRODUCT'S cause ovarian cancer.

101. Defendants misrepresented the safety of the PRODUCTS, represented that the PRODUCT'S marketed were safe for long term use, and concealed wamings of the known or knowable risks and side effects of the PRODUCTS.

102. When the Defendants made these representations, they knew that such representations were false. Defendants made the representations with the intent to defraud and deceive Plaintiff, consumers and the public in general, and with the intent to induce them to use the PRODUCT'S and act in the manner alleged in this conmplaint.

103. The Plaintiff took the actions alleged in this complaint, while ignorant of the falsity of the representations and reasonably believed them to be true. In reliance upon such representations, Plaintiff was induced to, and did, use the PRODUCTS as alleged in this conmplaint. If Plaintiff had known the actual facts, Plaintiff would not have taken such actions nor used the PRODUCT'S, and her reliance upon Defendants’ misrepresentations was justified because such misrepresentations were made and conducted by individuals and entities that were in a position to know the true facts.

104. Asadirect and proximate result of Defendants’ fraud and deceit, Plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged in this complaint.

105. In doing the acts alleged in this complaint, the Defendants acted with oppression, fraud, and malice. Plaintiff is therefore entitled to punitive damages to deter the Defendants and others from engaging in similar conduct in the future. The wrongful conduct was undertaken with the advance knowledge, authorization, or ratification of an officer;, director, or managing agent of Defendants. 106. The Defendants have acted willfully, wantonly, with an evil motive, and recklessly in one or more of the following ways: a. Defendants knew of the unreasonably high risk of ovarian cancer posed by the PRODUCT'S before manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling the PRODUCTS, yet purposetully proceeded with such action; b. Despite their knowledge of the high risk of ovarian cancer associated with the PRODUCTS, Defendants affirmatively minimized this risk through marketing and promotional efforts and product labeling; c. Through the actions outlined above, Defendants expressed a reckless indifference to the safety of users of the PRODUCTS, including Plaintiff. Defendants’ conduct, as described herein, knowing the dangers and risks of the PRODUCTS, yet concealing and/or omitting this information, in furtherance of their conspiracy and concerted action was outrageous because of Defendants’ evil motive or a reckless indifference to the safety of users of the PRODUCTS. 107. As a direct and proximate result of the willful, wanton, evilly motivated and/or reckless conduct of the Defendants, the Plaintiff has sustained damages as set forth above.

TOLLING STATUTES OF LIMITATIONS AND PUNITIVE DAMAGES

108. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference all other paragraphs of this Complaint. 109. Plaintiff suffered an illness that has a latency period and does not arise until many years after exposure. Plaintiff’s illness did not distinctly manifest as having been caused by the PRODUCT until Plaintiff was made aware that the ovarian cancer could be caused by use of the Defendants’ PRODUCT'S. 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. 110. Furthenmore, the nuinning 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 PRODUCTS.

111. As a result of Detendants’ actions, Plaintiff was unaware, and could not reasonably know, or could not have reasonably leamed through reasonable diligence, that Plaintiff has been exposed to the risks alleged herein and that those risks were the direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.

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

113. Defendants had the ability to and did spend enormmous amounts of money in furtherance of their purpose of marketing and promoting profitable PRODUCT'S, 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.

114. In representations to Plaintiff and the public in general, Defendants also fraudulently concealed and intentionally omitted the following material information:

e that the PRODUCT'S were not as safe as other products available;

e that the PRODUCT'S were dangerous and;

e that the PRODUCTS were defectively and negligently designed and had defective, inadequate, and insufficient wamings and instructions.

115. Defendants were under a duty to disclose to Plaintiff, and the public in general, the detective nature of the PRODUCTS.

116. Defendants made the misrepresentations and actively concealed information conceming the safety and efficacy of the PRODUCT'S 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. 117. Defendants made these misrepresentations and actively concealed information conceming the safety and efficacy of the PRODUCTS in the labeling, advertising, promotional material or other marketing efforts.

118. These representations, and others made by Defendants, were false when made and/or were made with the pretense of actual knowledge when such knowledge did not actually exist, and were made recklessly and without regard to the true facts.

119. 'The misrepresentations and active concealments by Defendants were perpetuated directly and indirectly by Defendants, its sales representative, employees, distributors, agents, marketers and detail persons.

120. At the time the representations were made, Plaintiff did not know the truth about the dangers and serious health and/or safety risks inherentPRODUCT'S. 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.

121. 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.

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

123. 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.

124. '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, hillboards and other commercial media containing matenal representations, which were false and misleading, and contained omissions and concealment of the truth about the dangersPRODUCTS.

125. Defendants intentionally made material misrepresentations to the medical conmmimity and public, including Plaintiff, regarding the safety of the PRODUCTS, specifically that the PRODUCT'S did not have dangerous and/or serious adverse health safety concems, and that the PRODUCT'S were as safe as other products.

126. Defendants’ intent and purpose in making these misrepresentations was to deceive the Plaintiff; to gain the confidence of the public, the medical commumity, 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.

127. Defendants recklessly and/or intentionally falsely represented the dangerous and serious health and safety concemns 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 altematives.

128. At all times relevant to this action, Defendants knew that the PRODUCT'S were not safe for consumers.

129. '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.

130. 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 the U.S.A.

131. '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.

132. Pror to the manufacturing, sale and distribution of the PRODUCT'S, Defendants, and each of them, knew that the PRODUCT'S were in a defective condition as previously alleged herein and knew that those who were prescribed the PRODUCTS would experience and did experience severe physical, mental, and emotional 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 PRODUCT'S were unreasonably subjected to risk of injury.

133. Despite such knowledge, Defendants, and each of them, acting through its officers, directors and managing agents for the purpose of enhancing Defendant’s profits, knowingly and deliberately failed to remedy the known defects in the PRODUCT'S and failed to wam the public, including the Plaintiff, of the extreme risk of injury occasioned by said defects inherent in the PRODUCTS. Defendants and its individual agents, officers, and directors intentionally proceeded with the manufacturing, sale, distribution and marketing of the PRODUCT'S knowing that the public, including Plaintiff, would be exposed to serious danger in order to advance Defendants’ Own pecuniary interest and monetary profits.

134. Defendants’ conduct was despicable, and so contemptible that it would be looked down upon and despised by ordinary decent people, and was carmied on by Defendants with willful and conscious disregard for safety, entitling Plaintiff to exemplary damages under California Civil Code section 3294.

135. Plaintiff filed this lawsuit within the applicable limitations period of first suspecting that the PRODUCT'S were the cause of any appreciable harm sustained by Plaintift, 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. Plaintift 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 harmm and, when the injuries were discovered, the causes were not immediately known. Plaintiff did not suspect, nor did she 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.

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

137. 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 federal agency, regulation or rule is stated solely as background and do not raise a federal question. Plaintiff chooses to pursue claims based on state law and is not asserting claims that raise federal questions.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants and DOES 1-100, jointly and severally, and as appropriate to each cause of action alleged 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 tral;

2. Past and future economic and special damages according to proof at the time of

trial; 3. Loss of eamings and impaired eaming capacity according to proof at the time of trial; 4, Medical expenses, past and future, according to proof at the time of trial; D. For past and future mental and emotional distress, according to proof; 0. Punitive or exemplary damages according to proof at the time of trial; 7. Attomey’s fees; 8. For costs of suit incurred herein; Q. For pre-judgment interest as provided by law; and

/1] /1]

DATED: February 28, 2018 KIESEL LAW LLP

By: 2% Z@ Helen Z0kin

Melanie Meneses Palmer Cherisse H. Cleofe

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Ted G. Meadows

THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC R. Allen Smith, Jr.

Attorneys for Plairtiff

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintiff hereby demands a jury trial on all counts in this Complaint.

DATED: February 28, 2018 KIESEL LAW LLP

By: Helen in Melanie Meneses Palmer Cherisse H. Cleofe

BEASLEY, ALLEN, CROW, METHVIN, PORTIS & MILES, P.C. Ted G. Meadows

THE SMITH LAW FIRM, PLLC R. Allen Smith, Jr.