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

More documents

Recommendations

Info

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 <strong>Complaint</strong>s,when their physicians prescribed and they consumed Reglan and/or generic metoclopramideproducts, leading to their toxic cumulative overexposure to metoclopramide.- 68 -Case ID: 100101997
COUNT VIII - UNFAIR AND DECEPTIVE TRADE PRACTICES197. Plaintiffs hereby incorporate by reference all preceding paragraphs as if fully setforth herein.198. State laws require the DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, as merchants, torefrain from unfair or deceptive acts or trade practices in the design, development, manufacture,promotion, and sale of their prescription drug products.199. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS, with the contemporaneous or later passiveassent and cooperation of the other DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, financed, assisted,supported and participated in advertising and other, similar efforts to promote the use of Reglanand/or metoclopramide, in order to create demand for the drug and thereby increase sales andprofits.200. The DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, in the manner described, deliberatelymisrepresented the safety of Reglan and/or metoclopramide and intentionally concealed the risksattendant to use of the drug.Through these misrepresentations, DRUG COMPANYDEFENDANTS intended to influence (and did influence) the decisions of prescribing physiciansand the drug-taking of their patients toward the end of increasing and maintaining theprescribing, purchasing, and use of Reglan and generic metoclopramide products, and excludingthe options of not using a drug or using substantially cheaper alternative drugs from the sameclass.201. BRAND NAME DEFENDNATS, while engaged in the conduct and practicesidentified above, and the other DRUG COMPANY DEFENDANTS, through their passive assentand cooperation as identified above, committed one or more violations of state law, including,but not limited to, the following:- 69 -Case ID: 100101997
Page 1 and 2:
IN RE ::COURT OF COMMON PLEASPHILAD
Page 4:
Sears Tower - Suite 5500Chicago, IL
Page 7 and 8:
4 Penn Center, Suite 8001600 John F
Page 9 and 10:
Northstar Rx LLC4971 Southridge Blv
Page 11 and 12:
Richmond Pharmaceuticals, Inc.3510
Page 13 and 14:
Jersey 07940. Defendant regularly c
Page 15 and 16:
12. Defendant Baxter Healthcare Cor
Page 17 and 18: with process via The Hague Conventi
Page 19 and 20: Pharmaceuticals USA, Inc. on Decemb
Page 21 and 22: Case Management Order No. 1, Defend
Page 23 and 24: 34. Defendant Watson Laboratories,
Page 25 and 26: through its registered agent for se
Page 27 and 28: 47. Defendant VistaPharm, Inc. is a
Page 29 and 30: labeling, and design of metoclopram
Page 31 and 32: metoclopramide not yet known by Pla
Page 33 and 34: packaging and/or advertising the ph
Page 35 and 36: 76. In addition, Philadelphia Count
Page 37 and 38: 87. The ―indications‖ (recommen
Page 39 and 40: e satisfied that the proposed label
Page 41 and 42: prescribed by physicians, most of w
Page 43 and 44: exercise of reasonable care should
Page 45 and 46: 113. Since 1985, GENERIC DEFENDANTS
Page 47 and 48: e. independently monitor the sales
Page 49 and 50: disfigurement, disability, pain and
Page 51 and 52: care industry and consumers, includ
Page 53 and 54: associated with the ordinary, expec
Page 55 and 56: 146. The Reglan and/or generic meto
Page 57 and 58: 158. Each of the DRUG COMPANY DEFEN
Page 59 and 60: 22. They failed to implement proper
Page 61 and 62: 166. As lawful consumers of Reglan
Page 63 and 64: duration of use - confirming they w
Page 65 and 66: involuntary movements, aggravation
Page 67: DEFENDANTS professed to Plaintiffs
Page 71 and 72: loss: the difference between the pr
Page 73 and 74: 214. BRAND NAME DEFENDANTS knew, or
Page 75 and 76: 217. Alternatively or in addition,
Page 77 and 78: 224. In addition, DRUG COMPANY DEFE
Page 79 and 80: 237. The representatives of Deceden
Page 81 and 82: 248. Plaintiffs also allege that th
Page 83 and 84: d) They continued to promote the sa
Page 85: (G)Such other relief as is deemed j
show all

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

You also want an ePaper? Increase the reach of your titles

Delete template?

Save as template?