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

DEFENDANTS, were expected to and did reach Plaintiffs without a substantial change in theircondition.193. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS, through advertising and promotional materials,statements of sales representatives and paid endorsers, and each of the DRUG COMPANYDEFENDANTS, through product labels shipped with the drug from the factory, expresslywarranted its metoclopramide product to have the properties represented therein and impliedlywarranted that the product was safe for the use for which it was intended, including those usesthat were ordinary, common, and foreseeable. These warranties include, but are not limited towarranties such as those identified in the Uniform Commercial Code §§ 2-313, 2-314 and 2-315.194. The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS breached said express and impliedwarranties by failing to deliver products that conformed to the properties described in the labeland/or advertising and promotional representations made for their respective products and byfailing to deliver products that were safe for their intended uses, including long termmetoclopramide therapy, in light of the substantially greater risk of dangerous side effectsassociated with its ordinary and expected uses, including long term therapy, than disclosed andwarranted in the product label and/or other advertising and promotional representations.195. The express and implied warranties, as described, were part of the basis of thebargain for the purchase and consumption by the Plaintiffs of metoclopramide products madeand sold by the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS.196. As a direct and proximate result of these breaches of express and impliedwarranties, Plaintiffs suffered injuries and damages, as set forth in their individual Complaints,when their physicians prescribed and they consumed Reglan and/or generic metoclopramideproducts, leading to their toxic cumulative overexposure to metoclopramide.- 68 -Case ID: 100101997