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

DEFENDANTS professed to Plaintiffs’ physicians that they were in possession of factsdemonstrating that Reglan (and, by implication, generic metoclopramide) was safe and effectivefor its intended use and was not defective.187. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS’ representations to Plaintiffs’ physicians weremade to induce the purchase of Reglan and/or metoclopramide, and Plaintiffs and theirphysicians relied upon those statements when purchasing and administering Reglan and/ormetoclopramide.188. Plaintiffs and their physicians reasonably relied on these misrepresentations.189. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS, and also the other GENERIC DEFENDANTS,through their knowing assent and passive cooperation in the dissemination of thesemisrepresentations to doctors, took unconscionable advantage of their dominant position ofknowledge with regard to Plaintiffs and their physicians and engaged in constructive fraud intheir relationship.190. As a direct and proximate result of constructive fraud, as perpetrated by BRANDNAME DEFENDANTS, and knowingly assented to and passively cooperated in by the otherGENERIC DEFENDANTS, Plaintiffs have suffered injuries and damages, as set forth in theirindividual Complaints.COUNT VII – BREACH OF EXPRESS AND IMPLIED WARRANTIES191. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.192. The drug products known as Reglan and/or generic metoclopramide, as designed,tested, manufactured, distributed, promoted, and sold severally by the DRUG COMPANY- 67 -Case ID: 100101997