Third Amended Master Long Form Complaint - Dispute Resolution ...

associated with the ordinary, expected, and/or intended use of the metoclopramide product orproducts it manufactured, distributed, and/or sold, including the information that there existedsafer and more or equally effective alternative non-metoclopramide drug products, each of theDRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS breached its duty to purchasers and consumers of itsmetoclopramide products.138. The actions of each of the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, as describedabove, were performed willfully, intentionally, and/or with reckless disregard for the life andsafety of the Plaintiffs and the public.139. Actions of each of the BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS, as described above, alsoviolated the state and federal statutes, including the FDCA, pertaining to the labeling of drugsand so rendered the metoclopramide product or products sold by that defendant ―misbranded,‖ asthat term is used in those statutes.140. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and inactions of the DRUGCOMPANY DEFENDANTS, as set forth above, Plaintiffs were exposed to Reglan and/ormetoclopramide and suffered and continue to suffer the injuries and damages set forth withgreater specificity in their individual Complaints.COUNT II - STRICT LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT141. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.142. The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS are liable to Plaintiffs for the injuriesand damages sustained by Plaintiffs pursuant to state common law and/or state Product LiabilityActs due to the defective design and/or formulation of their several products, namely Reglanand/or generic metoclopramide.- 53 -Case ID: 100101997