Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:15
`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 1 of 15 Page ID #:15
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`EXHIBIT “A”
`EXHIBIT “A”
`
`

`

`SUMMONS
`(CITACION JUDICIAL)
`
`SUM-100
`
`FOR COURT USE ONLY
`(SOLO PARA USO DE LA CORTE)
`
`NOTICE TO DEFENDANT:
`(AVISO AL DEMANDADO):
`CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, a Limited Liability Corporation; CVS PHARMACY, a Corporation, CVS
`CAREMARK, a corporation; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,
`YOU ARE BEING SUED BY PLAINTIFF:
`(LO ESTA DEMANDANDO EL DEMANDANTE):
`
`SYDNEY KEDERIS, an Individual; (SEE ATTACHMENT FOR ALL PLAINTIFFS)
`
`NOTICE! You have been sued. The court may decide against you without your being heard unless you respond within 30 days. Read the information
`below.
`You have 30 CALENDAR DAYS after this summons and legal papers are served on you to file a written response at this court and have a copy
`served on the plaintlff. A letter or phone call will not protect you. Your written response must be in proper legal form if you want the court to hear your
`case. There may be a court form that you can use for your response. You can find these court forms and more information at the California Courts
`Online Self-Help Center (www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), your county law library, or the courthouse nearest you. If you cannot pay the filing fee, ask the
`court clerk for a fee waiver form. If you do not file your response on time, you may lose the case by default, and your wages, money, and property may
`be taken without further warning from the court.
`There are other legal requirements. You may want to call an attorney right away. If you do not know an attorney, you may want to call an attorney
`referral service. If you cannot afford an attorney, you may be eligible for free legal services from a nonprofit legal services program. You can locate
`these nonprofit groups at the California Legal Services Web site (www./awhe/pca/lfomla.org), the California Courts Online Self-Help Center
`(www.courtlnfo.ca.gov/selfhelp), or by contacting your local court or county bar association. NOTE: The court has a statutory lien for waived fees and
`costs on any settlement or arbitration award of $10,000 or more in a civil case. The court's lien must be paid before the court will dismiss the case.
`1AVISOI Lo han demandado. SI no responds dentro de 30 dlas, la corte puede decidlr en su contra sin escuchar su versi6n. Lea la inforrnacl6n a
`continuacl6n.
`T/ene 30 DIAS DE CALENDAR/0 despues de que le entreguen esta cltaclon y papeles legates para presentar una respuesta por escrito en esta
`cotte y hacer que se entregue una cop/a al demandante. Una carta o una 1/amada te/ef6nica no lo protegen. Su respuesta por escrito tiene qua ester
`en forrnato legal correcto sl desea que procesen su caso en la corle. Es poslble que haya un fOrmulario qua usted pueda usar para su respuesta.
`Puede encontrar esfos forrnularios de la cotte y mas inforrnacl6n en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California (www.sucorle.ca.gov), en la
`blblloteca de leyas de su condedo o en la cotte qua le quede mas ceroa. SI no puede pagar la cuota de presentaclon, pida al secretario de la cotte qua
`le de un fOrmulario de exencl6n de pago de cuotas. SI no present& su respueste a tlempo, puede perder el caso por incumpllmlento y la corle le podra
`qulter su sue/do, dlnero y bienes sin mas adverlencla.
`Hay otros requisitos /egales. Es recomendable que /lame a un abogado lnmed/atamente. SI no conoce a un abogado, puede 1/amar a un servicio de
`remision a abogados. Si no puede pagar a un abogado, es poslble qua cumpla con los requlsltos para obtener serviclos legales gratuitos de un
`programs de servicios legates sin fines de lucro. Puede encontrar estos grupos sin fines de lucro en el sltlo web de California Legal Services,
`(www.lawhelpcallfomla.org), en el Centro de Ayuda de las Cortes de California, (www.sucorle.ca.gov) o poniimdose en contecto con la corle o el
`coleglo de abogados locales. AV/SO: Por lay, la cotte t/ene derecho e reclamar las cuotas y /os costos exentos por lmponer un gravamen sobre
`cua/quier recuperac/6n de $10,000 6 mas de valor reciblda madiante un acuerdo o una conceslon de arbitraje en un caso de derecho cMI. Tiena qua
`pagar el gravamen de la corle antes de qua la corle pueda desechar el caso.
`The name and address of the court is:
`(El nombre y direccion de /a corte es): Los Angeles Superior Court
`312 N. Spring Street
`Los Angeles, CA 90012
`The name, address, and telephone number of plaintiff's attorney, or plaintiff without an attomey, is: (El nombre, la direccion y el numero
`de telefono de/ abogado de/ demandante, o de/ demandante que no tiene abogado, es):
`Sahar Malek, Esq - 424 S. Beverly Drive, Beverly Hills, CA 90212- (310) 788-3466
`Clerk, by
`DATE:
`(Fecha)
`(Secretario)
`(For proof of service of this summons, use Proof of Service of Summons (form POS-010).)
`(Para prueba de entrega de esta citation use el formularlo Proof of Service of Summons, (POS-010).)
`NOTICE TO THE PERSON SERVED: You are served
`1. D as an individual defendant.
`2. D as the person sued under the fictitious name of (specify):
`3. D on behalf of (specify):
`under: D CCP 416.10 (corporation)
`D CCP 416.20 (defunct corporation)
`D CCP 416.40 (association or partnership)
`D other (specify):
`4. D by personal delivery on (date)
`SUMMONS
`
`[SEAL)
`
`Form Adopted for Mandatory Use
`Judlclal Council of Califomla
`SUM-100 (Rev. July 1, 2009)
`For your protection and privacy, please press the Clear
`Thie ~nrm hnttnn .,,...,. vnu havA nrlnt...t fhA fnrm
`
`CASE NUMBER: (Numero de/ Caso):
`20STCV06385
`
`, Deputy
`(Adjunto)
`
`D
`D
`D
`
`CCP 416.60 (minor)
`CCP 416.70 (conservatee)
`CCP 416.90 (authorized person)
`
`Code of CiVil Procedure§§ 412.20, 465
`www.couns.ca.gov
`
`l~i&ZZil
`
`AMENDED
`
`Electronically FILED by Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles on 05/21/2021 12:02 PM Sherri R. Carter, Executive Officer/Clerk of Court, by V. Delgadillo,Deputy Clerk
`
`20STCV06835
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 3 of 15 Page ID #:17
`
`SHORT TITLE: Kederis et. al. v CVS Health Solutions et. al.
`
`CASE NUMBER:
`
`-
`
`20STCV06835
`
`1 LORA KEDERIS, and individual and as guardian ad litem for Sydney Kederis; JOSEPH KEDERIS, an
`
`individual,
`
`(Required for verified pleading) The items on this page stated on information and belief are (specify item numbers, not line
`numbers):
`
`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
`
`This page may be used with any Judicial Council form or any other paper filed with the court.
`
`Form Approved by the
`Judicial Council of California
`MC-020 [New January 1, 1987]
`
`ADDITIONAL PAGE
`Attach to Judicial Council Form or Other Court Paper
`
`Page __ _
`
`CRC 201,501
`
`

`

`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Sahar Malek SBN 283863
`SAHAR MALEK LAW, APC
`424 South Beverly Drive
`Beverly Hills, California 90212
`Telephone: (310) 788-3466
`Facsimile: (310) 362-0552
`
`Ben Perlmutter SBN 313968
`PERLMUTTER POURSHALIMI
`424 South Beverly Drive
`Beverly Hills, California 90212
`Telephone: (310) 295-2236
`Facsimile: (310) 295-2238
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`vs.
`
`
`SYDNEY KEDERIS, an individual; LORA
`KEDERIS, and individual and as guardian
`ad litem for Sydney Kederis; JOSEPH
`KEDERIS, an individual,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, a Limited
`Liability Corporation; CVS PHARMACY,
`a Corporation, CVS CAREMARK, a
`corporation; and DOES 1 through 100,
`inclusive,
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`Case No.: 20STCV06835
`
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR
`DAMAGES:
`
`
`1. NEGLIGENCE – PRODUCT
`LIABILITY
`2. FRAUD
`3. INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF
`EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF
`EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`5. UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
`6. PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
`7. VIOLATIONS OF THE CONSUMER
`LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
`
`
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`)
`
`Plaintiffs SYDNEY KEDERIS, an individual minor (hereafter “Sydney”), and LORA
`
`KEDERIS, an individual and guardian ad litem for Sydney Kederis, (hereafter “Lora”) and
`
`JOSEPH KEDERIS, an individual (hereafter “Joseph” or collectively as “Plaintiffs”) set forth the
`
`following claims against Defendants CVS HEALTH SOLUTIONS, LLC, a limited liability
`
`-1-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`Electronically Received 03/08/2021 03:46 PM
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 5 of 15 Page ID #:19
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`company, (hereafter “CVS Health Solutions”), CVS PHARMACY, a Corporation, (hereafter
`
`“CVS Pharmacy”), and CVS CAREMARK, a business, form unknown, (“CVS Caremark”) in this
`
`Complaint as follows:
`
`THE PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiffs is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, an individual residing in
`
`the County of Los Angeles.
`
`2.
`
`Defendants CVS Health Solutions is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, a
`
`Delaware Limited Liability Corporation registered with the California Secretary of State.
`
`Defendant is doing business in the County of Los Angeles.
`
`10
`
`3.
`
`Defendants CVS Pharmacy is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, a
`
`11
`
`Delaware Limited Liability Corporation registered with the California Secretary of State.
`
`12
`
`Defendant is doing business in the County of Los Angeles.
`
`13
`
`4.
`
`Defendants CVS Caremark is, and at all times relevant to this Complaint, a
`
`14
`
`Delaware Limited Liability Corporation registered with the California Secretary of State.
`
`15
`
`Defendant is doing business in the County of Los Angeles.
`
`16
`
`5.
`
`Plaintiff is ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants sued herein as
`
`17
`
`DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by such fictitious names.
`
`18
`
`Plaintiffs will amend this Complaint to allege their true names and capacities when ascertained.
`
`19
`
`6.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that, at all times herein
`
`20
`
`mentioned, each of the Defendants sued herein was the agent and/or employee of each of the
`
`21
`
`remaining Defendants and was at all times acting within the purpose and scope of such agency and
`
`22
`
`employment.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`JURISDICTION AND PROPER VENUE
`
`7.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter and venue is proper in this Court
`
`25
`
`because the dispute and substantial events leading to this instant lawsuit arose in the County of
`
`26
`
`Los Angeles. Furthermore, Defendants have conducted substantial business in, and have otherwise
`
`27
`
`established sufficient contacts with, the State of California.
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`-2-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 6 of 15 Page ID #:20
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`8.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney is a minor and, since an early age, required medical management
`
`for Mast Cell Activation Syndrome (hereafter “MCAS”). Plaintiff Sydney is lactose intolerant.
`
`9.
`
`One medication required for management of MCAS is Bethanechol, which contains
`
`lactose as an ingredient.
`
`10.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney and her mother, Plaintiff Lori, searched for a pharmacy that could
`
`compound the Bethanechol (hereafter “Compounded Bethanechol”) without lactose. On or about
`
`July 2013, their search finally led Plaintiffs to Defendant CVS Caremark.
`
`11.
`
`CVS Caremark received Plaintiff Sydney’s file, with notes of her lactose allergy,
`
`10
`
`and assured Plaintiffs that they can compound the Bethanechol without lactose. As of
`
`11
`
`approximately July 2013, Plaintiff Sydney began taking the allegedly compounded Bethanechol.
`
`12
`
`12.
`
`Since that time, Plaintiff Sydney was experiencing a plethora of symptoms
`
`13
`
`including, but not limited to: constant nausea, extreme abdominal pain, and vomiting.
`
`14
`
`13.
`
`The symptoms were so extreme that Plaintiff Sydney had to leave high school and
`
`15
`
`be home schooled since her 9th grade year.
`
`16
`
`14.
`
`At no time did Plaintiffs know that Plaintiff Sydney’s symptoms were due to her
`
`17
`
`lactose allergy – caused by the Bethanechol. In fact, over the years, Plaintiff Sydney underwent
`
`18
`
`constant tests to determine the cause of these symptoms.
`
`19
`
`15.
`
`In or around February 2019, CVS Caremark notified Plaintiffs that they can no
`
`20
`
`longer compound the Bethanechol. Plaintiff Lora contacted CVS Caremark to ask what
`
`21
`
`ingredients were being used in the compounded form of the Bethanechol (to search for another
`
`22
`
`pharmacy that could make the medication), she was notified that compounding would not be an
`
`23
`
`option since every form of Bethanechol had lactose in it.
`
`24
`
`16.
`
`Confused and surprised by this information that CVS Caremark had been selling a
`
`25
`
`medication with lactose to Plaintiffs for six years, Plaintiffs contacted another pharmacy to confirm
`
`26
`
`that this information was true. The other pharmacy confirmed the information.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`-3-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 7 of 15 Page ID #:21
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`17.
`
`It was then discovered that CVS Caremark had simply been crushing the original
`
`Bethanechol, adding corn syrup to it, and reforming that into the medication before giving it to
`
`Plaintiffs.
`
`18.
`
`At that point, Plaintiff Sydney ceased taking Bethanechol. Almost immediately,
`
`Plaintiff Sydney stopped vomiting, her nausea dissipated, and her stomach pains ceased.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`NEGLIGENCE – PRODUCT LIABILTY (STRICT LIABILITY)
`
`19.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 18 of this Complaint as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`10
`
`20.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, Defendants created, manufactured, tested,
`
`11
`
`assembled, recommended, merchandised, promoted, distributed, supplied and sold
`
`the
`
`12
`
`Compounded Bethanechol to Plaintiffs.
`
`13
`
`21.
`
`Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to use exercise reasonable care in the creation,
`
`14
`
`testing, manufacture, assembly, distribution and sale of the Compounded Bethanechol to adhere
`
`15
`
`to the specifications requested and accepted for same.
`
`16
`
`22.
`
`In manufacturing/creating the Compounded Bethanechol, CVS Caremark created a
`
`17
`
`product that departed from its intended and expressed design – notably that it contained lactose
`
`18
`
`when all lactose was to be excluded from the product.
`
`19
`
`23.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the Compounded Bethanechol
`
`20
`
`contained lactose.
`
`21
`
`24.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff Sydney was allergic to
`
`22
`
`lactose. Defendants further knew or should have known that Plaintiff Sydney would have severe
`
`23
`
`allergic reactions to any medication containing lactose, including Bethanechol.
`
`24
`
`25.
`
`Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and breached their duty by, among other
`
`25
`
`things, failing to use due care in the creation, testing, manufacture, assembly, distribution and sale
`
`26
`
`of the Compounded Bethanechol to adhere to the specifications requested and accepted for same.
`
`27
`
`26.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney used the Compounded Bethanechol in an intended and/or
`
`28
`
`reasonably foreseeable manner.
`
`
`
`-4-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 8 of 15 Page ID #:22
`
`
`
`27.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney sustained injuries and damages as an actual and proximate result
`
`of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
`
`28.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages exceeding the
`
`jurisdictional limit of this Court.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`FRAUD
`
`29.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 28 of the Complaint as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`30.
`
`Plaintiffs informed CVS Caremark that Plaintiff Sydney required Bethanechol
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`without lactose due to her severe lactose allergy.
`
`11
`
`31.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark informed Plaintiffs that they can compound Bethanechol
`
`12
`
`without lactose. Since approximately July 2013, Defendant CVS Caremark was supplying the
`
`13
`
`Compounded Bethanechol to Plaintiffs.
`
`14
`
`32.
`
`The Compounded Bethanechol contained lactose, despite Defendant CVS
`
`15
`
`Caremark’s representations that it did not.
`
`16
`
`33.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark knew or should have known that this representation was
`
`17
`
`false at the time it made the representation.
`
`18
`
`34.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark intended that Plaintiff rely on this representation in
`
`19
`
`ordering and purchasing the Compounded Bethanechol.
`
`20
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiffs, at the time these representations were made by Defendant CVS Caremark
`
`21
`
`and at the time Plaintiffs took the actions alleged herein, were ignorant of the falsity of Defendant
`
`22
`
`CVS Caremark’s representations and reasonably believed them to be true. In reliance on these
`
`23
`
`representations, Plaintiffs were induced to and did order, purchase and ingest the Compounded
`
`24
`
`Bethanechol. Had Plaintiffs known the actual facts, they would not have ordered, purchased and
`
`25
`
`taken the Compounded Bethanechol.
`
`26
`
`36.
`
`Plaintiffs’ reliance was justified because no reasonable basis existed to suggest that
`
`27
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark would make the false representations.
`
`28
`
`
`
`-5-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 9 of 15 Page ID #:23
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`37.
`
`As a proximate result of Defendant CVS Caremark’s fraudulent conduct as alleged
`
`herein, Plaintiffs have suffered damages in a sum exceeding the jurisdictional limit of this Court.
`
`38.
`
`The aforementioned conduct of Defendant CVS Caremark was an intentional
`
`misrepresentation, deceit, and/or concealment of a material fact known to Defendant with the
`
`intention, or reckless disregard, on the part of Defendant CVS Caremark to deprive Plaintiffs of
`
`their legal rights or otherwise cause injury. This conduct is despicable and subjected Plaintiffs to
`
`years of injury and unjust hardship in conscious disregard of Plaintiffs’ rights. Accordingly, an
`
`award of exemplary and punitive damages are appropriate here.
`
`
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`INTENTIONAL INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`39.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate by reference paragraphs 1 through 38 of the Complaint as
`
`13
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`14
`
`40.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark’s conduct in representing that it could compound
`
`15
`
`Bethanechol without lactose and failing to disclose that the Compounded Bethanechol it sold to
`
`16
`
`Plaintiffs contained lactose was outrageous, malicious, intentional or done with reckless disregard.
`
`17
`
`41.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark’s conduct exposed Plaintiff to years of physical, mental
`
`18
`
`and emotional damages.
`
`19
`
`42.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark acted with reckless disregard of the probability that
`
`20
`
`Plaintiff would suffer physical, mental and emotional distress as a result of the constant ingestion
`
`21
`
`of lactose.
`
`22
`
`43.
`
`By reason of the acts alleged herein, Plaintiff was, among other things, prevented
`
`23
`
`from attending high school for years, experienced constant pains and discomfort, and suffers
`
`24
`
`mental and emotional damages.
`
`25
`
`44.
`
`Defendant’s conduct was willful, wanton, malicious, and oppressive, and justify
`
`26
`
`the awarding of exemplary and punitive damages.
`
`27
`
`///
`
`28
`
`///
`
`
`
`-6-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 10 of 15 Page ID #:24
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS
`
`45.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 44 of the Complaint as
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`46.
`
`If Defendant had not known about the lactose in the Compounded Bethanechol,
`
`Defendant should have known.
`
`47.
`
`Defendant’s conduct exposed Plaintiff to years of allergic reactions and symptoms
`
`which included extreme nausea, extreme pain and constant discomfort and caused her to leave
`
`high school for home schooling, miss several hours of each day of life dealing with pain,
`
`10
`
`discomfort and emotional distress.
`
`11
`
`48.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, Defendants created, manufactured, tested,
`
`12
`
`assembled, recommended, merchandised, promoted, distributed, supplied and sold
`
`the
`
`13
`
`Compounded Bethanechol to Plaintiffs.
`
`14
`
`49.
`
`Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to exercise reasonable care in the creation,
`
`15
`
`testing, manufacture, assembly, distribution and sale of the Compounded Bethanechol to adhere
`
`16
`
`to the specifications requested and accepted for same.
`
`17
`
`50.
`
`In manufacturing/creating the Compounded Bethanechol, CVS Caremark created a
`
`18
`
`product that departed from its intended and expressed design – notably that it contained lactose
`
`19
`
`when all lactose was to be excluded from the product.
`
`20
`
`51.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the Compounded Bethanechol
`
`21
`
`contained lactose.
`
`22
`
`52.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff Sydney was allergic to
`
`23
`
`lactose. Defendants further knew or should have known that Plaintiff Sydney would have severe
`
`24
`
`allergic reactions to any medication containing lactose, including Bethanechol.
`
`25
`
`53.
`
`Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and breached their duty by, among other
`
`26
`
`things, failing to use due care in the creation, testing, manufacture, assembly, distribution and sale
`
`27
`
`of the Compounded Bethanechol to adhere to the specifications requested and accepted for same.
`
`28
`
`
`
`-7-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 11 of 15 Page ID #:25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney used the Compounded Bethanechol in an intended and/or
`
`reasonably foreseeable manner.
`
`55.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney suffered emotional distress and anguish as an actual and proximate
`
`result of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
`
`56.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages exceeding the
`
`jurisdictional limit of this Court.
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`UNFAIR BUSINESS PRACTICES
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 56 of the Complaint as
`
`10
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`11
`
`58.
`
`Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereupon alleges that Defendant CVS
`
`12
`
`Caremark has committed acts of unlawful, unfair, and deceptive business practices, as defined by
`
`13
`
`California Business and Professions Code §§17200 et. seq.
`
`14
`
`59.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark assured Plaintiffs that they could and would compound
`
`15
`
`Bethanechol without lactose for Plaintiff Sydney.
`
`16
`
`60.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark, in order to make a profit, placed Plaintiff Sydney at risk
`
`17
`
`of health harms, which she ultimately sustained for about seven years.
`
`18
`
`61.
`
`As a result of these unfair, unlawful and fraudulent business practices, the
`
`19
`
`defrauding Defendant CVS Caremark has been unjustly enriched at Plaintiff’s expense in an
`
`20
`
`amount not yet ascertained. Accordingly, Plaintiff is entitled to an accounting, restitution, and/or
`
`21
`
`reimbursement from Defendant in an amount to be determined at the time of trial.
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`SIXTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`PROFESSIONAL NEGLIGENCE
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 61 of the Complaint as
`
`25
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`26
`
`63.
`
`At all times mentioned herein, Defendants created, manufactured, tested,
`
`27
`
`assembled, recommended, merchandised, promoted, distributed, supplied and sold
`
`the
`
`28
`
`Compounded Bethanechol to Plaintiffs.
`
`
`
`-8-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 12 of 15 Page ID #:26
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`64.
`
`Defendants owed Plaintiffs a duty to use such skill, prudence and diligence as other
`
`members of the profession commonly possess and exercise in the creation, testing, manufacture,
`
`assembly, distribution and sale of the Compounded Bethanechol to adhere to the specifications
`
`requested and accepted for same – specifically to compound Bethanechol to exclude any lactose.
`
`65.
`
`Defendant breached this duty by failing to exclude lactose from the Compounded
`
`Bethanechol.
`
`66.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that the Compounded Bethanechol
`
`contained lactose.
`
`67.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that Plaintiff Sydney was allergic to
`
`10
`
`lactose. Defendants further knew or should have known that Plaintiff Sydney would have severe
`
`11
`
`allergic reactions to any medication containing lactose, including Bethanechol.
`
`12
`
`68.
`
`Defendants failed to exercise ordinary care and breached their duty by, among other
`
`13
`
`things, failing to use due care in the creation, testing, manufacture, assembly, distribution and sale
`
`14
`
`of the Compounded Bethanechol to adhere to the specifications requested and accepted for same.
`
`15
`
`69.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney used the Compounded Bethanechol in an intended and/or
`
`16
`
`reasonably foreseeable manner.
`
`17
`
`70.
`
`Plaintiff Sydney sustained injuries and damages as an actual and proximate result
`
`18
`
`of Defendants’ acts and omissions.
`
`19
`
`71.
`
`As a result of Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff has suffered damages exceeding the
`
`20
`
`jurisdictional limit of this Court.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`SEVENTH CAUSE OF ACTION
`
`VIOLATION OF THE CONSUMER LEGAL REMEDIES ACT
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff incorporates by reference paragraphs 1 through 71 of the Complaint as
`
`24
`
`though fully set forth herein.
`
`25
`
`73.
`
`The Compounded Bethanechol constitutes a “good” bought primarily for personal,
`
`26
`
`family, or household purposes.
`
`27
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiffs constitute “consumers” as defined by the Consumer Legal Remedies Act
`
`28
`
`(hereafter “CLRA”).
`
`
`
`-9-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 13 of 15 Page ID #:27
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`75.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark’s sale of the Compounded Bethanechol constitutes a
`
`“transaction” as defined by the CLRA.
`
`76.
`
`The CLRA prohibits numerous unlawful business acts including, but not limited to,
`
`representing that the subject of a transaction has been supplied in accordance with a previous
`
`representation when it has not.
`
`77.
`
`Defendant CVS Caremark violated the CLRA by misrepresenting the ingredients
`
`of the Compounded Bethanechol - specifically that the Compounded Bethanechol did not contain
`
`lactose when it did.
`
`78.
`
`79.
`
`Plaintiffs were harmed as a result of Defendant CVS Caremark’s violations.
`
`Plaintiffs are entitled to a permanent injunction, recovery of attorney’s fees, costs,
`
`11
`
`expenses, and reimbursement of monies paid.
`
`12
`
`
`
`13
`
`PRAYER
`
`14
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays judgment against Defendants as follows:
`
`1. General damages in an amount to be determined according to proof;
`
`2. Special damages in an amount to be determined according to proof;
`
`3. Punitive damages in an amount appropriate to punish Defendant and deter it and others
`
`from engaging in similar conduct;
`
`4. Permanent injunctive relief as permitted under the CLRA and Business and Professions
`
`Code §§17200 et. seq.;
`
`5. Incident, consequential and actual damages, according to proof;
`
`6. Interest on the amount of judgment commencing from the filing of an offer to
`
`compromise pursuant to C.C.P. § 998;
`
`7. Other losses, past and future, according to proof;
`
`8. Prejudgment interest on those damages attributable to an ascertainable economic value;
`
`9. Costs of suit herein; and
`
`10. Such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper.
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`-10-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 14 of 15 Page ID #:28
`
`
`
`DATE: March 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SAHAR MALEK LAW, APC
`
`By: ____________________________
`
`Sahar Malek
`
`Attorney for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`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-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`Case 2:21-cv-05154 Document 1-3 Filed 06/24/21 Page 15 of 15 Page ID #:29
`
`
`
` DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiffs hereby demand trial by jury.
`
`
`
`DATE: March 8, 2021
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`SAHAR MALEK LAW, APC
`
`By: ____________________________
`
`Sahar Malek
`
`Attorney for Plaintiffs
`
`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-
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`