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

COUNT IV - NEGLIGENCE PER SE162. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.163. Under the doctrine of negligence per se, the duty of the DRUG COMPANYDEFENDANTS to exercise reasonable care in the manufacture, design, testing, assembly,inspection, labeling, packaging, supplying, marketing, selling, advertising, preparing for use,warning of the risks and dangers associated with the use of their respective metoclopramideproducts, includes the obligation to conform their products and activities related to thoseproducts to safety standards imposed by applicable statutes or regulations.164. Distribution by the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS of their respectivemetoclopramide products, specifically their acts and omissions as described above, constituteviolations of FDCA §301(a), 21 USC §331(a), which declares unlawful the distribution of a drugthat is ―misbranded,‖ as that term is defined by standards established in FDCA §502, 21 USC§352, and in regulations duly promulgated to clarify those standards, and also a violation ofparallel state statutes and regulations. Conduct in violation of these statutes and regulationsconstitutes a breach of duty of reasonable care toward the plaintiffs that would subject thedefendants to civil liability for personal injuries proximately caused by the violations.165. DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS failed to perform proper pharmacovigilanceto identify adverse events associated with their drug products as required by 21 C.F.R. 314.80,and to report significant new information regarding metoclopramide that might affect the safety,effectiveness or labeling of the drug, as required by 21 C.F.R. 314.81- 60 -Case ID: 100101997