This case was last updated from Santa Clara County Superior Courts on 08/14/2019 at 08:00:02 (UTC).

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

Case Summary

On 06/28/2018 Caron 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:

    ******0836

  • Filing Date:

    06/28/2018

  • 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

Caron, Sandra

Defendants

Johnson & Johnson Consumer Companies, Inc.

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

Johnson & Johnson

Not Classified By Court

Superior Court of California

Attorney/Law Firm Details

Plaintiff Attorney

Griffin, Keith David

Not Classified By Court Attorney

Superior Court of CA, County of Santa Clara

 

Court Documents

Notice

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

Notice

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

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies)

Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

Summons: Issued/Filed

Summons Issued Filed:

Civil Case Cover Sheet

Caron, Sandra - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf:

 

Docket Entries

  • 10/12/2018
  • 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 7/13/18, when the case was deemed complex. Matter stayed, as of 7/13/18, pending coordination proceedings.

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 09/26/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Caron Notice of Court Order of Coord.pdf: Comment: Notice of Court Order Re Coordination of Add-On Cases

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 08/23/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Notice - Caron Notice of Submission.pdf: Comment: Notice of Submission of Potential Add-On Cases for Coordination of This Case Into JCCP 4872

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/13/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Order: Deeming Case Complex - Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Action Pending Coordination Proceedings: Comment: Order Deeming Case Complex and Staying Action Pending Coordination Proceedings signed/BCW

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 07/10/2018
  • Civil Lawsuit Notice - Comment: 1st CMC set for 10/12/18 at 10am in D1; assigned to Hon. Brian C. Walsh

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies) - Complaint (Unlimited) (Fee Applies):

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Summons: Issued/Filed - Summons Issued Filed:

    Read MoreRead Less
  • 06/28/2018
  • View Court Documents
  • Civil Case Cover Sheet - Caron, Sandra - Civil Case Cover Sheet.pdf:

    Read MoreRead Less

Complaint Information

E-FILED

6/28/2018 1:17 PM

GIRARDI | KEESE Clerk of Court THOMAS V. GIRARDI, State Bar No. 36603 Superior Court of CA, DAVID N. BIGELOW, State Bar No. 181528

KEITH D. GRIFFIN, State Bar No. 204388 %ggy%%g%%nta Clara 1126 Wilshire Boulevard : _

Los Angeles, California 90017 Reviewed By: V. Taylor

Telephone: (213) 977-0211 Facsimile: (213) 481-1554

Attorneys for Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SANTA CLARA

SANDRA CARON, Case No. 18CV330836 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

V. 1. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY-

JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & FAILURE TO WARN

JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, 2. STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a DESIGN DEFECT LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 3. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY through 100, inclusive, 4. BREACH OF EXPRESS

WARRANTY

Defendants. 5. FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT 6. FRAUD 7. NEGLIGENT

MISREPRESENTATION

8. NEGLIGENCE

Plaintiff, SANDRA CARON ("PLAINTIFF"), alleges against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive (collectively referred to herein as "DEFENDANTS") as follows:

// // b A W N =

O 60 3 O NATURE OF THE ACTION

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

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

PARTIES

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

-+ PLAINTIFF used the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to dust her perineum for feminine hygiene purposes on a daily basis for many years, beginning in approximately 1970 through approximately 2007.

D PLAINTIFF purchased the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS in the State of Maine.

6. In or about May 31, 2016, PLAINTIFF was diagnosed with ovarian cancer. PLAINTIFF has undergone extensive treatment to treat her cancer.

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

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

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

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

California and was and is engaged in substantial comings and business activities in California, wn A W N

O o0 9 O

including Los Angeles County.

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

12. JOHNSON & JOHNSON is engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, promoting and selling such over-the-counter products, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

13, At all relevant times herein, JOHNSON & JOHNSON designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, tested, distributed and sold the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to the general public, including PLAINTIFF.

14. Defendant JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC. (hereinafter "J&J CONSUMER") is a corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of New Jersey with its principal place of business in the State of New Jersey.

1 Upon information and belief, J&J CONSUMER is, and at all relevant times herein was, a wholly owned subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON.

16. J&J CONSUMER was and is authorized to do business in the State of California and was and is engaged in substantial comings and business activities in California, including Los Angeles County.

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

18. J&J CONSUMER is engaged in the business of designing, developing, manufacturing, testing, promoting and selling such over-the-counter products, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

19. At all relevant times herein, J&J CONSUMER designed, manufactured, marketed, promoted, tested, distributed and sold the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to the general public, including PLAINTIFF.

20. Defendant IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.

(hereinafter "IMERYS TALC") is corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State o 3 N

\O

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

VENUE AND JURISDICTION

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

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

the laws of or having its principal place of business in the State of California, a foreign

lhttp_://www.imer)gstalc.com/c0ntent/cogporate/About Imerys_Talc/Who_are_we./Overview/ (last accessed November 18, 2016). —

W

O o6 3 O

10 11 12

28

corporation or association authorized to do business in California and registered with the California Secretary of State, or that has sufficient minimum 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.

28. Further, DEFENDANTS have each purposefully availed themselves of the benefits and protections of the laws within the State of California. Collectively, DEFENDANTS conduct substantial 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.

29. As such, the DEFENDANTS purposefully availed themselves of the laws and protections of the State of California, targeted California consumers, such as PLAINTIFF, and gained substantial profits from the sales of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS sold in the State of California, including those purchased by PLAINTIFF.

30. Venue is proper in this court pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure § 395(a) in that a substantial part of the events giving rise to this action occurred in Los Angeles County.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

31. Talc is an inorganic mineral composed of hydrated magnesium silicate that is mined from the earth. Talc is the main substance in talcum powders.

32. Talcum powders are widely used in various cosmetic products, including the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

Numerous Studies Have Found that Talc- and Talcum Powder-Based Products Increase the Risk of Ovarian Cancer

33. The first study connecting the use of talc and talc-based products with ovarian cancer was conducted in 1971 by Dr. Henderson in Cardiff, Wales. This study showed an association between talc and ovarian cancer.

0 3 N

O

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

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

36. In 1992, a comprehensive study was published in Obstetrics & Gynecology that concluded there was a statistically significant threefold increased risk of ovarian cancer in women who use tale-based products, including talc-based baby powders, to dust their genital area during ovulation.

37. In 2000, a prospective study published in the Journal of the National Cancer Institute found a 40% increased risk of cancer in women who applied talcum powder on their perineum.

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

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

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

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

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

42. In 1994, the Cancer Prevention Coalition notified the CEO of Johnson & Johnson NN

O© 0 N O W

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

cancer, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, aggressively and actively marketed and promoted the o NN N »n B

O

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

3, In February 1998, a memo was written by Luzenac (now known as IMERYS TALC) regarding a visit to H. Anton Culver, the chief of epidemiology division at UC Irvine. The

O ©0 3 O

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

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

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

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

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

60. Further, at all relevant times herein, JOHNSON & J OHNSON marketed and promoted the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS as products for freshness, cleanliness, and comfort. Further, the labeling on Johnson's Baby Powder specifically states its intended use for

"2 Moreover,

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

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

BASED PRODUCTS to the general public, including PLAINTIFF, as safe and efficacious for use

2 https://www.iohnsonsbaby.com/powder/johnsons-baby- owder#thow-amp-when-to-use

3

http://www.showertoshower.com/Home wpnm b W N

O &0 3 O

in feminine hygiene care.

DELAYED DISCOVERY AND FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

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

63. PLAINTIFF was diagnosed with ovarian cancer on or about May 31, 2016. PLAINTIFF attempted to identify the cause of her cancer, as she underwent extensive treatments, including but not limited to surgery and chemotherapy. PLAINTIFF was unsuccessful in ascertaining a suspected source of her cancer until within the applicable limitations period. Indeed, none of PLAINTIFF's doctors or healthcare providers ever suspected or discussed the possibility with PLAINTIFF her use of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS was the cause of her ovarian cancer.

64. Further, PLAINTIFF did not believe or had any reason to believe that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS—which were and are marketed and promoted by DEFENDANTS as safe and harmless for use—could have been the cause of the serious injuries PLAINTIFF suffered. PLAINTIFF continued to use the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS approximately through 2007.

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

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

67. Further, DEFENDANTS are estopped from asserting a statute of limitations defense because all DEFENDANTS fraudulently concealed from and misrepresented to

S W ~N O

10 11 12 13

28

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

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION

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

and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive)

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- FAILURE TO WARN

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

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

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

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

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

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

R N

O

16

28

each of them, further failed to provide proper post-market and/or post-sale warnings or instructions because, after DEFENDANTS knew or should have known of the risks of dangerous side effects of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, they failed to provide adequate warnings to users or consumers of the product, including PLAINTIFF, and continued to promote and market the products as safe.

75. As a direct and proximate result of DEFENDANTS' failure to provide adequate warnings and failure to use reasonable care to warn of the dangerous risks and effects of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future,

76. In performing the foregoing acts and omissions, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted despicably, fraudulently, and with malice and oppression so as to justify an award of punitive and exemplary damages.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION

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

STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY- DESIGN DEFECT

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

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

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

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

O 60 3 O

10 11 12

14 15 16 17

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

O & N O

10

27

28

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

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION

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

BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

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

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

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

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

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

94, As adirect and proximate result of each of said defendant's breach, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

/1]

/1 [\

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

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

96. The J&J DEFENDANTS were each a critical entity and participant in the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS entering the stream of commerce.

97. At all times herein mentioned, said defendants, and each of them, represented to the general public, including PLAINTIFF, that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were safe, efficacious, and proper for their intended use, and that they did not produce any dangerous or unwarned of side effects, including but not limited to ovarian cancer.

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

99. The SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were not effective, safe, or fit for their intended use as described, marketed, and warranted by the J&J DEFENDANTS.

100. As a direct and proximate result of each of said defendant's breach, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

FRAUDULENT CONCEALMENT

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

102. The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, =S

O 60 3 O W

18

28

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and o N N n B

\O

16

28

physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

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

SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive) FRAUD

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

112. The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, knowingly and intentionally made materially false and misleading representations to the general public, including PLAINTIFF, to the effect that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and their component parts, were safe for their intended use.

113. The J&J DEFENDANTS specifically represented to consumers, including PLAINTIFF, that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS were safe for use for feminine hygiene purposes, despite the J&J DEFENDANTS knowledge that numerous studies had found a connection between talc products and increased risk of cancer.

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

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

—_—

Wl

SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, each gave rise to an affirmative duty to meaningfully disclose and provide all material information concerning the risk and dangers associated with said products.

116. The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, knew or reasonably should have known, that PLAINTIFF would rely upon the deceitful misrepresentations made by each of the DEFENDANTS regarding the safety and efficacy of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS.

117. PLAINTIFF did rely upon the misrepresentations and/or omissions of truth made by J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive.

118. As a direct and proximate result of each DEFENDANT's deceiving misrepresentations, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

119. The foregoing acts, conduct and omissions of DEFENDANTS, and each of them, were vile, base, willful, malicious, wanton, oppressive and fraudulent, and were done with a conscious disregard for the health and safety of PLAINTIFF and other users of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and reckless ignorance of the truth of said products, for the primary purpose of increasing and sustaining profits. As such, PLAINTIFF is entitled to punitive damages.

SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION

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

NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

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

herein by reference as though set forth in full.

121. The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, O o0 N O

10 11 12 13

28

and each of them, distributed, sold, and supplied the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS to the general public, including PLAINTIFF, with materially false and incomplete information with regard to the safety of said product for use.

122. The J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, supplied false information that the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and their component parts, were safe for use for feminine hygiene purposes.

123. In supplying this false information, the J&J DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, failed to exercise reasonable care.

124. The false information communicated to PLAINTIFF was material, and PLAINTIFF relied in good faith on the information to her detriment.

125. As a direct and proximate result of each the said DEFENDANTS' misrepresentations, PLAINTIFF suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

126. In performing the foregoing acts and omissions, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted despicably, fraudulently, and with malice and oppression so as to justify an award of punitive and exemplary damages. |

EIGHTH CAUSE OF ACTION

(By PLAINTIFF Against JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER COMPANIES, INC.; IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. f/k/a LUZENAC AMERICA, INC.; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive) NEGLIGENCE

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

128. In the exercise of reasonable care, the defective and dangerous characteristics and of condition of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS, and that they were unsafe for the use and purpose for which they were intended when used as recommended and foreseeable by J&J

DEFENDANTS, IMERYS TALC, and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, should O o« 3 N

have been known and/or discovered by DEFENDANTS.

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

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

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

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

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

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

d. DEFENDANTS, and each of them, breached their duty to the public, including PLAINTIFF, by failing to warn of the SUBJECT TALC-BASED PRODUCTS' dangerous characteristics and increased risks of serious harm

and injury, including but not limited to developing ovarian cancer.

132. As adirect and proximate cause of each DEFENDANTS' negligence, PLAINTIFF o0

10 11 12 13

28

suffered serious and permanent injuries and damages, as described herein, including but not limited to physical injuries, pain and suffering, extreme mental and physical anguish, economic loss, and the need for continuing treatment, and will continue to suffer such damages in the future.

133. The foregoing acts, conduct, and omissions of each DEFENDANT were vile, willful, malicious, wanton, oppressive, and fraudulent, and were done with a conscious disregard for the health, safety and rights of PLAINTIFF, and other persons affected by the use of DEFENDANTS' product, and for the primary purpose of increasing DEFENDANTS' profits. In performing the foregoing acts and omissions, DEFENDANTS, and each of them, acted despicably, fraudulently, and with malice and oppression so as to justify an award of punitive and exemplary damages.

RELIEF REQUESTED

WHEREFORE, PLAINTIFF prays for judgment against DEFENDANTS, and each of them, as follows:

1. Compensatory damages, including but not limited to pain, suffering, emotional distress, loss of enjoyment of life, loss of consortium, and other non-economic damages, in an amount to be determined at trial;

o Past and future medical expenses, income, earning capacity, and other economic

damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

3. Punitive damages in an amount to be determined at trial;

4. Pre- and post- judgment interest;

2 Expenses and costs incurred in this action; and

6. For such other and further relief as this Court deems necessary, just and proper.

DATED: June 20, 2018

MELISA ROSADINI

N =

O 0 N O »n B

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL

PLAINTIFF hereby demands a trial by jury. DATED: June 20, 2018 GIRARDI

By: AS V. GIRARDI TH D. GRIFFIN

MELISA ROSADINI

Attorneys for Plaintiff