Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 24
`
`
`
`
`DIAMOND LAW
`David J. Diamond
`Arizona Bar No. 10842
`P.O. Box 65237
`Tucson, Arizona 85728
`Tel: (520) 909-0909
`ddiamond@diamondlawusa.com
`khampton@diamondlawusa.com
`
`ANDRUS WAGSTAFF, PC
`Aimee H. Wagstaff (To be admitted PHV)
`Colorado Bar No. 36819
`David J. Wool (To be admitted PHV)
`Colorado Bar No. 44614
`7171 W. Alaska Drive
`Lakewood, CO 80226
`Tel: (303) 376-6360
`Fax: (303) 376-6361
`aimee.wagstaff@andruswagstaff.com
`david.wool@andruswagstaff.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`
`IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`FOR THE DISTRICT OF ARIZONA
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`
`Ben Barr,
`
` Plaintiff,
` v.
`
`Syngenta AG; Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC;
`and Chevron U.S.A. Inc.,
`
` Defendants.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr (hereinafter referred to as “Plaintiff”), by and through counsel,
`alleges upon information and belief and complains of Defendants Syngenta AG (“SAG”)
`and Syngenta Crop Protection, LLC (“SCPLLC”) (together with their predecessors-in-
`interest, referred to collectively as the “Syngenta Defendants”); Chevron U.S.A. Inc.
`(together with its predecessors-in-interest, referred to collectively as the “Chevron
`Defendants”); and Does One through Sixty, and states:
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 24
`
`
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`1.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr suffers from Parkinson’s disease caused by his exposure to
`the herbicide Paraquat.
`2.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr is an Arizona resident.
`3.
`Defendants are companies that since 1964 have manufactured, distributed,
`licensed, marketed, and sold Paraquat for use in the United States, including in Arizona.
`4.
`Plaintiff brings this action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting
`from exposure to Paraquat manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendants.
`5.
`Defendants’ tortious conduct, including their negligent acts and omissions in
`the research, testing, design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of Paraquat, caused
`Plaintiff’s injuries. At all relevant times, Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable
`care should have known, that Paraquat was a highly toxic substance that can cause severe
`neurological injuries and impairment, and should have taken steps in their research,
`manufacture, and sale of Paraquat to ensure that people would not be harmed by
`foreseeable uses of Paraquat.
`
`JURISDICTION
`6.
`This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and this action pursuant to 28
`U.S.C. § 1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiff and each
`Defendant. Indeed, Plaintiff is a resident of Arizona; SPLLC is a Delaware limited liability
`company with its principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina (SPLLC is a
`wholly-owned subsidiary of Defendant SAG); SAG is a foreign corporation with its
`principal place of business in Basel, Switzerland; and Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a
`Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of business in San Ramon in Contra
`Costa County, California. Defendants are all either incorporated and/or have their
`principal place of business outside of the state in which the Plaintiff resides.
`7.
`The amount in controversy between Plaintiff and Defendants exceeds
`$75,000, exclusive of interest and cost.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 24
`
`
`
`VENUE
`8.
`Venue is proper within the District of Arizona pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391
`in that Defendants conduct business here and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`district. Furthermore, Defendants sell, market, and/or distribute Paraquat within the
`District of Arizona. Plaintiff is a resident of this District and seeks ongoing medical care
`and attention in this District for his Parkinson’s disease caused by exposure to Defendant’s
`deadly chemical Paraquat.
`9.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants in this
`diversity case because a state court of Arizona would have such jurisdiction, in that:
`a. Over a period of two (Chevron) to six (Syngenta) decades, each Defendant
`and/or its predecessor(s), together with those with whom they were acting in
`concert, manufactured Paraquat for use as an active ingredient in Paraquat products,
`distributed Paraquat to formulators of Paraquat products, formulated Paraquat
`products, marketed Paraquat products to the Arizona agricultural community,
`and/or distributed Paraquat products, intending that such products regularly would
`be, and knowing they regularly were, sold and used in the State of Arizona;
`b. Plaintiff’s claims against each Defendant arise out of these contacts
`between the Defendant and/or its predecessor(s), together with those with whom
`they were acting in concert, within the State of Arizona; and
`c. These contacts between each Defendant and/or its predecessors, together
`with those with whom they were acting in concert, and the State of Arizona, were
`so regular, frequent, and sustained as to provide fair warning that it might be hauled
`into court there, such that requiring it to defend this action in the State of Arizona
`does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.
`PARTIES
`10.
`The true names or capacities whether individual, corporate, governmental or
`associate, of the defendants named herein as Doe are unknown to Plaintiff who therefore
`sues said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiff prays leave to amend this
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 24
`
`
`
`Complaint to show their true names and capacities and/or bases for liability when the same
`have been finally determined.
`11.
`Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief
`alleges, that each of the defendants designated herein as Doe is strictly, negligently, or
`otherwise legally responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein
`referred to, and negligently or otherwise caused injury and damages proximately thereby to
`Plaintiff as is hereinafter alleged.
`12. At all times herein mentioned each and every of the Defendants was the
`agent, servant, employee, joint venturer, alter ego, successor-in-interest, and predecessor-
`in-interest of each of the other, and each was acting within the course and scope of their
`agency, service, joint venture, alter ego relationship, employment, and corporate
`interrelationship.
`13. U.K. manufacturer Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. a/k/a Imperial
`Chemical Industries PLC (“ICI”) first introduced Paraquat to world markets in or about
`1962 under the brand name GRAMOXONE®.
`14.
` In or about 1971, ICI created or acquired a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary
`organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which was ultimately known as ICI
`Americas Inc. (“ICI Americas”).
`15.
` Chevron Chemical Company was a corporation organized under the laws of
`the State of Delaware.
`16.
` Pursuant to distribution and licensing agreements with ICI and ICI
`Americas, Chevron Chemical Company had exclusive rights to distribute and sell Paraquat
`in the United States and did in fact manufacture, formulate, distribute, and sell Paraquat in
`the United States, including in Arizona for use in Arizona, from approximately 1964 until
`approximately 1986.
`17.
` Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the successor-in-interest to Chevron Chemical
`Company.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 24
`
`
`
`18.
` At all relevant times, Chevron Chemical Company acted as the agent of
`Chevron U.S.A. Inc. in selling and distributing Paraquat in the U.S. At all relevant times,
`Chevron Chemical Company was acting within the scope of its agency in selling and
`distributing Paraquat. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is liable for the acts of its agent.
`19.
`From approximately 1964 through approximately 1986, pursuant to
`distribution and licensing agreements with Chevron Chemical Company, SAG’s and/or
`SCPLLC’s predecessors-in-interest, ICI and ICI Americas, and Does One through Sixty
`manufactured some or all of the Paraquat that Chevron Chemical Company distributed and
`sold in the United States, including in Arizona for use in Arizona.
`20.
` From approximately 1964 through approximately 1986, pursuant to
`distribution and licensing agreements between and among them, ICI, ICI Americas,
`Chevron Chemical Company, and Does One through Sixty acted in concert to register,
`manufacture, formulate, and distribute and sell (through Chevron Chemical Company)
`Paraquat for use in the U.S., including in Arizona for use in Arizona, and their respective
`successors-in-interest, SAG, SCPLLC, and Chevron U.S.A. Inc., are jointly liable for the
`resulting injuries alleged herein.
`21. After 1986, SCPLLC, Does One through Sixty, and/or their predecessors-in-
`interest sold and distributed and continue to sell and distribute Paraquat in the United
`States, including in Arizona for use in Arizona.
`22.
` As a result of mergers and corporate restructuring, SAG is the successor-in-
`interest to ICI.
`23.
` As a result of mergers and corporate restructuring, SCPLLC is the
`successor-in-interest to ICI Americas, Inc.
`24.
` Thus, from approximately 1964 through the present, the Syngenta
`Defendants, Does One through Sixty, or their predecessors-in-interest have manufactured,
`formulated, distributed, and sold Paraquat for use in the U.S., including in Arizona for use
`in Arizona.
`
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 6 of 24
`
`
`
`PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO PARAQUAT
`25. At all relevant times, Plaintiff Ben Barr worked on his father’s farm in
`Mississippi in the 1960’s and 1970’s and in this capacity was exposed to Paraquat: (1)
`when it was mixed, loaded, applied, and/or cleaned; (2) as a result of spray drift (the
`movement of herbicide spray droplets from the target area to an area where herbicide
`application was not intended, typically by wind); and/or (3) as a result of contact with
`sprayed plants.
`26. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that when Paraquat was
`used in the intended or a reasonably foreseeable manner, users of Paraquat and persons
`nearby would be exposed to it.
`27. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Paraquat could enter
`the human body: (1) through absorption or penetration of the skin, mucous membranes,
`and other epithelial tissues (including tissues of the mouth, nose and nasal passages,
`trachea, and conducting airways, particularly where cuts, abrasions, rashes, sores, or other
`tissue damage were present); (2) through the olfactory bulb; (3) through respiration into
`the lungs; and (4) through ingestion into the digestive tract of small droplets swallowed
`after entering the mouth, nose, or conducting airways.
`PARAQUAT CAUSES PARKINSON’S DISEASE
`28. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Paraquat that entered
`a human body could ultimately enter the brain.
`29.
` At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Paraquat that
`entered a human body could induce the misfolding of the alpha synuclein protein.
`30.
`Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the brain
`that affects primarily the motor system-the part of the central nervous system that controls
`movement.
`31.
`The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary” motor
`symptoms: resting tremor (shaking movement when the muscles are relaxed), bradykinesia
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 7 of 24
`
`
`
`(slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes), rigidity (stiffness and resistance to passive
`movement), and postural instability (impaired balance).
`32.
`Parkinson’s disease’s primary motor symptoms often result in “secondary”
`motor symptoms such as freezing of gait; shrinking handwriting; mask-like expression;
`slurred, monotonous, quiet voice; stooped posture; muscle spasms; impaired coordination;
`difficulty swallowing; and excess saliva and drooling caused by reduced swallowing
`movements.
`33. Non-motor symptoms—such as loss of or altered sense of smell;
`constipation; low blood pressure on rising to stand; sleep disturbances; and depression—
`are present in most cases of Parkinson’s disease, often for years before any of the primary
`motor symptoms appear.
`34.
`There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease; no treatment will stop or
`reverse its progression; and the treatments most commonly prescribed for its motor
`symptoms tend to become progressively less effective, and to increasingly cause
`unwelcome side effects, the longer they are used.
`35. One of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease is
`the selective degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons (dopamine-producing nerve
`cells) in a part of the brain called the substantia nigra pars compacta (“SNpc”).
`36. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (a chemical messenger that transmits signals
`from one neuron to another neuron, muscle cell, or gland cell) that is critical to the brain’s
`control of motor function (among other things).
`37.
`The death of dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc decreases the production of
`dopamine. Once dopaminergic neurons die, they are not replaced; when enough
`dopaminergic neurons have died, dopamine production falls below the level the brain
`requires for proper control of motor function, resulting in the motor symptoms of
`Parkinson’s disease.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 8 of 24
`
`
`
`38.
`The presence of Lewy bodies (insoluble aggregates of a protein called alpha-
`synuclein) in many of the remaining dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc is another of the
`primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease.
`39. Dopaminergic neurons are particularly susceptible to oxidative stress, a
`disturbance in the normal balance between oxidants present in cells and cells’ antioxidant
`defenses.
`40.
`Scientists who study Parkinson’s disease generally agree that oxidative stress
`is a major factor in-if not the precipitating cause of-the degeneration and death of
`dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc and the accumulation of Lewy bodies in the remaining
`dopaminergic neurons that are the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of the disease.
`41.
`Paraquat is highly toxic to both plants and animals, creating oxidative stress
`that causes or contributes to cause the degeneration and death of plant or animal cells.
`42.
`Paraquat creates oxidative stress in the cells of plants and animals because of
`“redox properties” that are inherent in its chemical composition and structure: it is a strong
`oxidant, and it readily undergoes “redox cycling” in the presence of molecular oxygen,
`which is plentiful in living cells.
`43.
`The redox cycling of Paraquat in living cells interferes with cellular
`functions that are necessary to sustain life-with photosynthesis in plant cells, and with
`cellular respiration in animal cells. The redox cycling of Paraquat in living cells creates a
`“reactive oxygen species” known as superoxide radical, an extremely reactive molecule
`that can initiate a cascading series of chemical reactions that creates other reactive oxygen
`species that damage lipids, proteins, and nucleic acids, molecules that are essential
`components of the structures and functions of living cells. Because the redox cycling of
`Paraquat can repeat indefinitely in the conditions typically present in living cells, a single
`molecule of Paraquat can trigger the production of countless molecules of destructive
`superoxide radical.
`44.
` Paraquat’s redox properties have been known to science since at least the
`1930s.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 9 of 24
`
`
`
`45.
` It has been scientifically known since the 1960s that Paraquat (due to its
`redox properties) is toxic to the cells of plants and animals. The same redox properties that
`make Paraquat toxic to plant cells and other types of animal cells make it toxic to
`dopaminergic neurons in humans—that is, Paraquat is a strong oxidant that interferes with
`the function of, damages, and ultimately kills dopaminergic neurons in the human brain by
`creating oxidative stress through redox cycling.
`46.
` Paraquat is one of only a handful of toxins that scientists use to produce
`animal models of Parkinson’s disease, i.e., use in a laboratory to artificially produce the
`symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in animals.
`47.
` Animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that
`Paraquat creates oxidative stress that results in the degeneration and death of dopaminergic
`neurons in the SNpc, other pathophysiology consistent with that seen in human
`Parkinson’s disease, and motor deficits and behavioral changes consistent with those
`commonly seen in human Parkinson’s disease.
`48.
` Hundreds of in vitro studies (experiments in a test tube, culture dish, or
`other controlled experimental environment) have found that Paraquat creates oxidative
`stress that results in the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons (and many other
`types of animal cells).
`49.
` Epidemiological studies have found that exposure to Paraquat significantly
`increases the risk of contracting Parkinson’s disease. A number of studies have found that
`the risk of Parkinson’s disease is more than double in populations with occupational
`exposure to Paraquat compared to populations without such exposure.
`50.
` These convergent lines of evidence (toxicology, animal experiments, and
`epidemiology) demonstrate that Paraquat exposure generally can cause Parkinson’s
`disease.
`
`PARAQUAT REGULATION
`51.
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7
`U.S.C. § 136 et seq., which regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides within the
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 10 of 24
`
`
`
`U.S., requires that pesticides be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency
`(“EPA”) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as described by FIFRA. 7 U.S.C.
`136a(a).
`52.
`Paraquat is a “restricted use pesticide” under federal law, see 40 C.F.R. §
`152.175, which means it is “limited to use by or under the direct supervision of a certified
`applicator.”
`53.
` As part of the pesticide registration process, the EPA requires, among other
`things, a variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to
`people and other potential non-target organisms, and other adverse effects on the
`environment.
`54.
` As a general rule, FIFRA requires registrants, the chemical companies
`registered to sell the pesticides, to perform health and safety testing of pesticides.
`However, FIFRA does not require the EPA itself to perform health and safety testing of
`pesticides, and the EPA generally does not perform such testing.
`55.
` The EPA registers (or re-registers) a pesticide if it is persuaded, based
`largely on studies and data submitted by the registrant, that: (1) its composition is such as
`to warrant the proposed claims for it, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(A); (2) its labeling and other
`material required to be submitted comply with the requirements of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. §
`136a(c)(5)(B); (3) it will perform its intended function without unreasonable adverse
`effects on the environment, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(C); and (4) when used in accordance
`with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will not generally cause
`unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(D).
`56.
` FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” as “any
`unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
`environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb).
`57.
` Under FIFRA, “[a]s long as no cancellation proceedings are in effect
`registration of a pesticide shall be prima facie evidence that the pesticide, its labeling and
`packaging comply with the registration provisions of [FIFRA].” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2).
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 11 of 24
`
`
`
`However, FIFRA further provides that “[i]n no event shall registration of an article be
`construed as a defense for the commission of any offense under [FIFRA].” 7 U.S.C. §
`136a(f)(2).
`58.
` The distribution or sale of a pesticide that is misbranded is an offense under
`FIFRA, which provides in relevant part that “it shall be unlawful for any person in any
`State to distribute or sell to any person ... any pesticide which is ... misbranded.” 7 U.S.C.
`§ 136j(a)(1)(E). A pesticide is misbranded under FIFRA if, among other things: (1) its
`labeling bears any statement, design, or graphic representation relative thereto or to its
`ingredients which is false or misleading in any particular, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(A); (2) the
`labeling accompanying it does not contain directions for use which are necessary for
`effecting the purpose for which the product is intended and if complied with, together with
`any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, are adequate to protect health
`and the environment, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(F); or (3) the label does not contain a warning
`or caution statement which may be necessary and if complied with, together with any
`requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, is adequate to protect health and
`the environment,” 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(G).
`59. As a result, a pesticide may be misbranded despite an EPA determination
`that it met FIFRA’s registration criteria. In other words, notwithstanding its registration, a
`pesticide is misbranded if its label contains “false or misleading” statements, has
`inadequate instructions for use, or omits warnings or cautionary statements necessary to
`protect human health. Similarly, a pesticide may be found to cause unreasonable adverse
`effects on humans when used according to the approved label despite a determination by
`the EPA that it would not.
`60.
`Plaintiff does not seek in this action to impose on Defendants any labeling or
`packaging requirement in addition to or different from those required under FIFRA. Any
`allegation in this Complaint that a Defendant breached a duty to provide adequate
`directions for the use of or warnings about Paraquat, breached a duty to provide adequate
`packaging for Paraquat, concealed, suppressed, or omitted to disclose any material fact
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 12 of 24
`
`
`
`about Paraquat, or engaged in any unfair or deceptive practice regarding Paraquat, is
`intended and should be construed to be consistent with that alleged breach, concealment,
`suppression, or omission, or unfair or deceptive practice having rendered the Paraquat
`“misbranded” under FIFRA. However, Plaintiff brings claims and seeks relief in this
`action only under state law, and does not bring any claims or seek any relief in this action
`under FIFRA.
`
`Acts of Syngenta Defendants
`61.
`SAG is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`Switzerland, with its principal place of business in Basel, Switzerland. It is a successor by
`merger or continuation of business to its corporate predecessors, including but not limited
`to ICI.
`62.
` SCPLLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State
`of Delaware. It is a successor by merger or continuation of business to its corporate
`predecessors, including but not limited to ICI Americas. SCPLLC is registered with the
`State of Arizona, Arizona Corporation Commission to do business in the State of Arizona.
`63.
` SCPLLC or its corporate predecessors have sufficient minimum contacts
`with the State of Arizona and have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of
`conducting business in the State of Arizona, in that they:
`a. secured and maintained the registration of Paraquat products and other
`pesticides with the Arizona Department of Agriculture (AZDA) to enable
`themselves and others to manufacture, distribute, sell, and use these products
`in the State of Arizona;
`b. marketed, licensed, advertised, distributed, sold, and delivered Paraquat
`and other pesticides to chemical companies, licensees, distributors, and
`dealers whom they expected to distribute and sell Paraquat and other
`pesticides in or for use in the State of Arizona, including the Chevron
`Defendants and “Syngenta Retailers,” as well as to applicators and farmers in
`the State of Arizona;
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 13 of 24
`
`
`
`c. employed or utilized sales representatives to market and sell Paraquat and
`other pesticides in Arizona;
`d. attended AZDA meetings relating to the registration of their pesticides,
`including Paraquat; and
`e. performed and funded the testing of pesticides in the State of Arizona.
`64.
`SCPLLC’s contacts with the State of Arizona are related to or gave rise to
`this controversy.
`65.
` SAG exercises an unusually high degree of control over SCPLLC, such that
`SCPLLC is the agent or mere instrumentality of SAG. SCPLLC’s contacts with Arizona
`are thus imputed to SAG for purposes of jurisdiction. See City of Greenville, Ill. v.
`Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 550 (S.D. Ill. 2011).
`Acts of Chevron Defendants
`66. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State
`of Pennsylvania. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is registered with the State of Arizona, Arizona
`Corporation Commission to do business in the State of Arizona.
`67. Does One through Sixty are corporate entities which are agents, joint
`venturers, alter-egos, successors-in-interest, and predecessors-in-interest to Chevron
`U.S.A., Inc. Does One through Sixty were each acting within the course and scope of their
`agency, joint venture, alter-ego relationship, and corporate interrelationship. The exact
`nature, relation, and corporate structure of Does One through Sixty have not yet been
`finally determined. Plaintiff reserves the right to amend this complaint with corporate
`allegations when they are finally determined.
`DEFENDANTS’ TORTIOUS CONDUCT RESULTED IN BEN BARR
`DEVELOPING PARKINSON’S DISEASE
`68.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr hereby refers to, incorporates, and re-alleges by this
`reference as though set forth in full, each and every allegation hereinabove and makes
`them a part of the following allegations.
`69.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr is a resident and citizen of Yavapai County, Arizona.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 14 of 24
`
`
`
` Plaintiff Ben Barr was exposed to Paraquat manufactured and sold by
`
`70.
`Defendants.
`71.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr worked on his father’s farm in Mississippi in the 1960’s
`and 1970’s. Paraquat was applied to achieve total vegetation kill while he worked on the
`farm.
`
`72. During this time, Plaintiff Ben Barr was in close contact to the Paraquat that
`was designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendants, and each of them.
`73.
` The Paraquat to which Plaintiff Ben Barr was exposed entered his body
`through absorption or penetration of the skin, mucous membranes, and other epithelial
`tissues (including tissues of the mouth, nose and nasal passages, trachea, and conducting
`airways, particularly where cuts, abrasions, rashes, sores, or other tissue damage are
`present); and/or 2) through the olfactory bulb; and/or 3) through respiration into the lungs;
`and/or 4) through ingestion into the digestive tract of small droplets swallowed after
`entering the mouth, nose, or conducting airways. Once absorbed, the Paraquat entered his
`bloodstream, attacked his nervous system, and was substantial factor in causing him to
`suffer Parkinson’s disease.
`74.
` Plaintiff Ben Barr began suffering symptoms consistent with Parkinson’s
`disease and was diagnosed with Parkinson’s disease in or about April 2020.
`75.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr had no reason to suspect the diagnosis was connected to
`his past Paraquat exposure.
`76.
`Plaintiff Ben Barr was never told, either by a medical professional, by media,
`or by the Defendants, that chronic exposure to Paraquat could cause him to suffer
`Parkinson’s disease.
`77.
` Plaintiff Ben Barr first became aware of Paraquat’s role in causing his
`Parkinson’s disease and the wrongful acts of the Defendants that caused or contributed to
`his developing Parkinson’s disease within a year of the filing date of this Complaint.
`78.
` Plaintiff Ben Barr did not discover this earlier because he had no reason to
`suspect that being exposed to Paraquat could cause him to suffer Parkinson’s disease.
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-08068-ESW Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 15 of 24
`
`
`
`79.
` Defendants’ acts and omissions were a legal, proximate, and substantial
`factor in causing Plaintiff Ben Barr to suffer severe and permanent physical injuries, pain,
`mental anguish, and disability, and will continue to do so for the remainder of his life.
`80. By reason of the premises, it became necessary for Plaintiff Ben Barr to
`incur expenses from medical care and treatment, and related costs and expenses required in
`the care and treatment of said injuries. Plaintiff Ben Barr’s damages in this respect are
`presently unascertained as said services are still continuing.
`81.
` By reason of the premises, it will be necessary for Plaintiff Ben Barr to incur
`future expenses for medical care and treatment, and related costs and expenses required for
`future care and treatment. Plaintiff’s damages in this respect are presently unascertained as
`said services are still continuing. Plaintiff prays leave to insert elements of damages in this
`respect when the same are finally determined.
`82. By reason of the premises, Plaintiff Ben Barr has been at times unable to
`maintain regular employment, incurring special damages in a presently unascertained sum
`as said loss is still continuing. Plaintiff prays leave to insert elements of damages with
`regards to past wage loss, future wage loss, and lost earning capacity when the same are
`finally determined.
`83.
` By reason of the premises, Plaintiff has suffered general (non-economic)
`damages in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
`84.
` By reason of the premises, Plaintiff has suffered special (economic)
`damages in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional minimum of this court.
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`COUNT I - STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY DESIGN DEFECT
`85.
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference each allegation set forth in preceding
`paragraphs as if fully stated herein.
`86. Defendants are liable to Plaintiff under a products liability theory for
`marketing a defectively-designed product, as well as for failing to adequately warn of the
`risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to Par