Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 1 of 21 Page ID #:1
`
`
`
`Eric B. Strongin (SBN 216561)
`Joel S. Poremba, Esq. (SBN 195722)
`STRONGIN | BURGER LLP
`999 Corporate Drive, Suite 220
`Ladera Ranch, CA 92694
`Tel.: 949-529-2250
`Fax: 949-386-7253
`estrongin@stronginburger.com
`jporemba@stronginburger.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff, Focus Industries Med, LLC
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`10
`
`
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`FOCUS INDUSTRIES MED, LLC,
`an Oregon limited liability company,
`
` Plaintiff,
`
`v.
`
`SNS GLOBAL PHARMA
`CORPORATION, a California
`corporation; ASAP
`INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD, a
`Malaysian company; and DOES 1 to
`120 inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
` CASE NO.:
`
`COMPLAINT FOR:
`
`
`(1) BREACH OF CONTRACT;
`(2) STRICT LIABILITY;
`(3) BREACH OF IMPLIED
`WARRANTY;
`(4) FRAUD / DECEIT – FALSE
`PROMISE;
`(5) NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE
`WITH PROSPECTIVE
`ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE;
`(6) NEGLIGENCE
`
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`Plaintiff, FOCUS INDUSTRIES MED, LLC, an Oregon limited liability
`
`Company, herein files its Complaint allege as follows:
`
`PARTIES
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff, FOCUS INDUSTRIES MED, LLC, (hereafter “FOCUS”),
`
`is an Oregon limited liability company, with its principal place of business in Gold
`
`Beach, Oregon and with warehouses in Gold Beach, Oregon and in Los Angeles,
`
`1
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 2 of 21 Page ID #: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
`
`
`
`California. Josh Richards is, and at all relevant times was, a resident and citizen of
`
`the County of Orange, State of California, and the Chief Executive Officer of
`
`FOCUS.
`
`2.
`
`Defendant, SNS GLOBAL PHARMA CORPORATION, (hereafter
`
`“SNS”), is a California corporation with its principal place of business in Camarillo,
`
`California.
`
`3.
`
`Defendant, ASAP
`
`INTERNATIONAL SDN BHD,
`
`(hereafter
`
`“ASAP”), is a foreign company who is located in Selangor, Malaysia where it
`
`conducts its manufacturing and shipping business. At all relevant times, ASAP
`
`maintained and maintains a mailing address and American office in Pinole,
`
`California with a California business phone number of 707-553-6191, representing
`
`as a Northern California area code and phone number. The California phone number
`
`is listed on its website as being “For Customer Service or Product Inquiry.”
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs are ignorant of the true names and capacities of Defendants
`
`sued hereunder as DOES 1-120, inclusive, and therefore sue these Defendants by
`
`such fictitious names. These Defendants, and each of them, are, and at all times
`
`herein mentioned were the predecessors, successors, agents, employees, alter-egos,
`
`co-conspirators, and/or have otherwise been involved with the wrongdoings alleged
`
`herein and their identities or involvement are unknown or unclear, and thus they are
`
`sued by such fictitious names, and their true names will be substituted at a later date
`
`as they become known.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants and each of them, are in a principal-agent relationship, or
`
`are co-conspirators or are otherwise jointly responsible with respect to all of the
`
`causes of action set forth herein.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`1. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
`
` because this is a civil action wherein the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or
`
`value of $75,000.00, exclusive of interest and costs and punitive damage claims,
`2
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 3 of 21 Page ID #:3
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`and is between citizens of different states, i.e. Plaintiff is a citizen of Oregon with
`
`its principal place of business in Oregon; and has a warehouse in Los Angeles,
`
`California; and Defendants are citizens of California and Malaysia. Therefore, this
`
`Court has subject matter jurisdiction based on complete diversity of citizenship of
`
`the parties. 28 U.S.C § 1332(a).
`
`2. This court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants pursuant to and
`
`consistent with the 14th Amendment Due Process Clause in that Defendants, acting
`
`through their agents or apparent agents, engaged in one or more of the following:
`
`a) the transaction of business within this state; b) the making of the contract at issue
`
`within this state; and c) the commission of tortious acts within this state as more
`
`fully alleged herein. Requiring Defendants to litigate these claims in California
`
`would not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice and is
`
`permitted by the United States Constitution. All of Plaintiffs’ claims arise from
`
`conduct Defendants purposefully directed to California which caused damage to
`
`Plaintiffs in California. At all relevant times, Defendants have transacted and
`
`conducted business in the State of California and derived substantial benefit and
`
`revenue from such business and transacted with Plaintiffs in the State of California.
`
`3.
`
`Venue is properly set in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391(b)
`
`since a substantial part of the events giving rise to the claims at issue occurred
`
`within this judicial district.
`
`GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`4.
`
`FOCUS is a company who purchasers and then sells PPE equipment
`
`to hospitals, medical/health clinics and to fire and rescue departments, and other
`
`customers, who require PPE equipment for their respective healthcare businesses.
`
`5.
`
`SNS is a company who purchases PPE from PPE-manufacturers and
`
`who subsequently sells the product to companies that then sell PPE equipment to
`
`healthcare businesses in the United States. It holds itself out as a manufacturer and
`
`distributor of medical devices, pharmaceuticals, and health supplements.
`3
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 4 of 21 Page ID #:4
`
`
`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.
`
`ASAP is a company who manufacturers PPE and ships this product to
`
`customers around the world. Among its PPE lineup, ASAP manufactures surgical
`
`latex powdered gloves and surgical latex powder free gloves.
`
`7. ASAP is an acronym for “Art & Science of Amazing Protection.”
`
`8. On its website, https://whyasap.com/, ASAP represents and advertises
`
`the following information about its philosophy, standards, and its PPE gloves:
`
`
`“ASAP stands for art & science of amazing protection. Each piece of
`ASAP product combines elements of art and science which aims to
`provide superior protection, satisfying the needs of every individual
`users.”
`
`“ASAP is synonymous with dynamism, top-grade products and
`providing solutions to the ever-evolving concerns of Personal
`Protective Equipments (PPE).”
`
`“ASAP honours and cares for every element of life as well as the
`importance of protecting them in everything that we do.”
`
`“ASAP Surgical Gloves are manufactured in a totally integrated
`facility and are packaged to allow aseptic donning. These gloves
`provide exceptional cleanliness and confirmation of sterility. Our
`surgical gloves inherent the physical properties of natural rubber which
`offers flexibility and elasticity with excellent comfort.” The powdered
`gloves are advertised to “assure you of nothing less than top-notch
`performance” and the non-powdered gloves “will no doubt protect you
`against blood and cross-contamination.”
`
`“Our products are made to fit in a wide range of industries, from
`medical to industrial and more. Explore our vast range of gloves and
`face masks for various industries, available in a wide range of different
`colors that will match your usage and industry.”
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`9. On its website, https://snsgph.com/, SNS represents and advertises
`
`the following information about its philosophy and standards:
`
`
`
`“Our Mission Statement - To provide quality medical products with
`
`4
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 5 of 21 Page ID #:5
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`superior value to global healthcare providers, importers, distributors,
`and end-users, improving patient care and enhancing the quality of
`peoples’ lives.”
`
`“We take pride in our commitment to providing fast, safe, and secure
`delivery, and offer competitive prices on all our products. Our
`customer care is exceptional as we value our clients’ needs as our own,
`and offer the highest level of ethics. Getting the medical supplies you
`need should be timely, hassle-free, and cost-effective. SNS Global
`Pharma strives to deliver all this and more.”
`“We deliver the highest quality pharmaceuticals, medical devices,
`health supplements, and technical services in a sustainable and cost-
`effective fashion.”
`
`“SNS Global Pharma supplies gloves, syringes, diagnostic kits, etc.
`directly from the largest and best quality manufacturers in the world.”
`
`“With our global partners, we import and export from our local and
`international markets. We distribute to clientele in an ethical, efficient,
`and professional manner, by partnering with manufacturers and
`distributors around the globe.”
`
`10. SNS advertises that it supplies ASAP Nitrile Examination Disposable
`
`Gloves on its website, https://snsgph.com/product/asapnitrile/.
`
`11. Between January and March 2021, FOCUS purchased over
`
`$2,000,000 of ASAP nitrile gloves from SNS. The purchases are reflected in the
`
`Parties’
`
`invoices:
`
`Invoice No. SNS10292020-98, SNS02022021-26 and
`
`SNS03182021-12, (collectively “Exhibit 1” and collectively referred to herein as
`
`the “ASAP Product”). Following receipt of the product, FOCUS stored the goods
`
`in its warehouses and began selling the ASAP product to its customers in August
`
`2021.
`
`
`
`12. Shortly after August 2021, FOCUS received a litany of customer
`
`complaints regarding the ASAP Product. Namely, customers complained that the
`
`gloves were soiled with dirt, grease, rust, contained holes and were inconsistent in
`
`5
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 6 of 21 Page ID #:6
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`thickness and were easily torn. The customers were concerned that further use of
`
`the gloves could result in infection to patients, healthcare professionals and
`
`emergency response personnel. As a result, FOCUS’ customers discontinued use of
`
`ASAP Product. Additionally, FOCUS launched an investigation into the ASAP
`
`Product which confirmed the aforementioned poor quality of the product.
`
`13. On October 25, 2021, FOCUS’ customer, Essential Hero, notified it
`
`that an ASAP carton of gloves was soiled and defective (LOT 05016761-08). The
`
`gloves were dirty, had rust spots, and were unusable. Essential Hero demanded a
`
`full refund and declined to purchase additional products from FOCUS.
`
`14. On November 2, 2021, Clear Point Healthcare System/Community
`
`Memorial Health System (“Clear Point”), one of FOCUS’ largest and newest
`
`clients, informed FOCUS that the ASAP gloves it purchased from FOCUS
`
`contained holes and rust stains, as well as deformities and inconsistencies in
`
`thickness. Clear Point professionals were so alarmed with the state of the gloves
`
`that the issue was elevated to the health system’s infection control unit and senior
`
`leadership.
`
`15. On November 3, 2021, FOCUS received yet another complaint, this
`
`time from an Amazon customer who requested a refund because a case of ASAP
`
`Blue Nitrile Powder Free Exam Gloves, purchased from FOCUS, were soiled and
`
`defective.
`
`16. On November 5, 2021, FOCUS received yet another complaint from
`
`Tygard Valley and Rescue (“Tygard”) complaining of the poor quality of ASAP
`
`gloves it had purchased from FOCUS. The gloves were easily torn, appeared soiled,
`
`and were of poor quality. Tygard’s representative noted that Tygard could not use
`
`the remaining gloves on scene due to concerns regarding their safety and efficacy.
`
`17. It was FOCUS’ reasonable expectation that medical grade “thick” and
`
`“extra thick” gloves from ASAP are intended to protect against contamination and
`
`infection necessarily are free of holes and substances such as grease, dirt and rust.
`
`6
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 7 of 21 Page ID #:7
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`Yet, in this case, the gloves sold to FOCUS were extensively damaged and soiled
`
`rendering the product unusable and potentially dangerous. FOCUS did not receive
`
`the same product that ASAP and SNS, whose quality they warrant, advertise and
`
`subsequently sold to FOCUS to be in non-defective condition.
`
`18. FOCUS’ business has been substantially interrupted and the
`
`remaining inventoried ASAP Product has been deemed a total loss. Due to the
`
`defective ASAP gloves provided by SNS, FOCUS refunded its customers and
`
`replaced the soiled goods with non-defective gloves. FOCUS is incurring
`
`substantial and ongoing losses, both economic and reputational in nature in sums to
`
`be determined by the time of trial.
`
`19. On November 30, 2021 FOCUS made a formal demand to SNS for
`
`12
`
`reimbursement of substantial losses; the cost of ASAP goods; storage expenses;
`
`13
`
`transportation costs; reimbursement and refund costs; lost business. FOCUS
`
`14
`
`demanded SNS refund it the cost of the ASAP Product in the amounts reflected in
`
`15
`
`Exhibit 1.
`
`16
`
`20. In a further demand, on or about December 22, 2021 FOCUS requested,
`
`17
`
`at minimum, $2,000,000 in immediate reimbursement from SNS. The basis for this
`
`18
`
`demand was rooted in SNS’s misrepresentations and assurances regarding the
`
`19
`
`quality of its ASAP nitrile gloves.
`
`20
`
`21. SNS’s representations regarding the quality of its product are
`
`21
`
`demonstrably false. SNS publicly markets itself as a US FDA registered global
`
`22
`
`company that provides “certified medical devices” and “quality medical products
`
`23
`
`with superior value” to its customers/distributors throughout the world. (See SNS’s
`
`24
`
`“About Us” section on its website). In the December 2021 demand, FOCUS
`
`25
`
`reminded SNS it purchased its nitrile gloves, manufactured by ASAP, a product that
`
`26
`
`SNS promotes on its website as:
`
`
`
`
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`• Providing “great resistance to punctures, cuts, and snags”;
`
`• Designed to resist “a greater range of chemicals including bases, oils,
`7
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 8 of 21 Page ID #:8
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`and various solvents”;
`
`
`
`• Providing “greater puncture resistance than conventional latex
`
`gloves”;
`
`
`
`
`
`• Having a professional appearance;
`
`• Sealed to ensure consistent quality and reduce potential air and
`
`moisture contamination. See http://snsgph.com/product/asapnitrile/
`
`22. Despite SNS’s representations regarding quality, the gloves FOCUS
`
`purchased from SNS were contaminated, of inconsistent thickness, and unsuitable
`
`for medical use, among other things. Many of the gloves were shipped with
`
`punctures and were snagged; were demonstrably unprofessional in appearance, full
`
`of rust and grease stains; and, as pointed out by several customers, comprised of
`
`material that was so weak/inconsistent in quality that the gloves could be torn by a
`
`slight pull of the hands. FOCUS had not sold all the ASAP gloves when the torrent
`
`of customer complaints cascaded into them. However, FOCUS has over $1,000,000
`
`in ASAP gloves sitting in its warehouses that it cannot, in good conscience,
`
`distribute/sell downline to its customers.
`
`23. FOCUS customers that complained regarding the quality of the
`
`Gloves demanded refunds. FOCUS’ two large clients have already severed their
`
`business relationship with it. As a result, FOCUS stands to lose more than
`
`$10,000,000 in future revenue.
`
`24. In December 2021, FOCUS demanded SNS to provide a full refund and
`
`collection of ASAP product in FOCUS’ Gold Beach and Los Angeles warehouses
`
`($1,082,715.00), freight and transportation cost to be covered at SNS expense. It
`
`further demanded SNS refund and collect ASAP gloves located at Clear Point
`
`Healthcare System/Community Memorial Health, Essential Hero, Amazon, and
`
`Tygard Valley and Rescue ($436,000.00), freight and transportation cost to be
`
`covered at SNS expense. Lastly, FOCUS demanded indemnification against future
`
`complaints by FOCUS’ state contract customers (State of Oregon and State of Iowa)
`8
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 9 of 21 Page ID #:9
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`who purchased the defective ASAP gloves from FOCUS but have not yet
`
`complained or requested a refund, and assurance that if/when these clients
`
`encountered a string of defective and faulty gloves that do not conform to 510k
`
`standards, that SNS will issue a refund and collect the damaged product. To date,
`
`SNS has remained silent re said demand.
`
`FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF CONTRACT
`
`(Against Defendant, SNS; and Does 1 to 20)
`
`25. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in
`
`Paragraph Nos. 1 through 24, inclusive, as though fully set-forth herein.
`
`26. Between January and March 2021, FOCUS purchased over
`
`$2,000,000 of ASAP nitrile gloves from SNS. The purchases are reflected in the
`
`Parties’
`
`invoices:
`
`Invoice No. SNS10292020-98, SNS02022021-26 and
`
`SNS03182021-12, “Exhibit 1”. The offer of payment by FOCUS to SNS in
`
`exchange for nitrile gloves sold by SNS were subject to the terms of the agreement
`
`as memorialized in Exhibit 1 for which adequate consideration was furnished by
`
`both parties to the purchase contracts between them.
`
`27. SNS breached the subject contracts wherein it supplied defective nitril
`
`gloves to FOCUS which were so damaged that the entire basis for using the brand
`
`new PPE gloves were rendered absolutely frustrated.
`
`28. Although demand has been made, SNS has failed and refused to
`
`compensate FOCUS for the damages and monies it incurred as a result of SNS’
`
`breach(es).
`
`29. Plaintiff has performed all the conditions, terms, and conditions on its
`
`part to be performed under the agreements.
`
`30. As a result of Defendant’s breach, Plaintiff has been damaged at an
`
`amount to be proven at trial, but in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION – STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`
`(Against Defendants, ASAP; SNS; and Does 21 to 40)
`9
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 10 of 21 Page ID #:10
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`31. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in
`
`Paragraph Nos. 1 through 30, inclusive, as though fully set-forth herein.
`
` 32. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief
`
`alleges that at all times mentioned herein, the subject nitrile gloves, and its related
`
`components and/or materials, were defective and dangerous, in manufacture, design,
`
`sufficient instructions, and warnings, in that such defective components and/or
`
`materials of the subject skylight were likely to cause, bring about and affect a failure
`
`of the subject gloves, thereby rendering the subject gloves unsafe for its intended
`
`use.
`
`10
`
`
`
`33. Furthermore, Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`information and belief alleges, that certain additional components and/or materials
`
`of the subject gloves were defective in manufacture, design, sufficient instructions,
`
`and warnings, and the subject skylight was neither appropriately nor adequately safe
`
`for use.
`
`15
`
`
`
`34. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`alleges that, at the time of the incident complained of, the subject gloves were in
`
`substantially the same condition as it was when it left the possession of Defendant,
`
`ASAP.
`
`19
`
`
`
`35. At all times and places mentioned herein, ASAP and SNS, and/or
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`DOES 21-40, and each of them, knew or should have known at the time said product
`
`left their possession, that said product was defective in design, manufacture,
`
`sufficient instructions, and warnings, that it did not meet users’ and ordinary
`
`consumers’ reasonable expectations for safety when used in a reasonably foreseeable
`
`manner, and was dangerous, defective, unfit, and unsafe for its intended use and that
`
`said conditions were likely to cause and bring about a failure and malfunction of the
`
`subject nitrile gloves when used in a foreseeable manner, and not properly and
`
`adequately tested or inspected.
`
`28
`
`
`
`
`
`36. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and upon such information and belief
`10
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 11 of 21 Page ID #:11
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`alleges that, the subject gloves had associated deficits, risks, and defects, including,
`
`but not limited to, defective design; the gloves were soiled with dirt, grease, rust,
`
`and holes, and were inconsistent in thickness and easily torn; customers were
`
`concerned that further use of the gloves could result in infection to patients,
`
`healthcare professionals and emergency response personnel; and/or the gloves
`
`lacked sufficient warnings and/or use instructions. Moreover, ASAP, SNS and/or
`
`DOES 21-40, and each of them, failed to adhere to industry standards regarding the
`
`design, testing, distribution, and manufacturing process, amongst others, which
`
`could have averted Plaintiff’s injuries and damages.
`
`10
`
`
`
`37. These deficits, risks, and defects were known or certainly knowable by
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`ASAP and/or SNS, and/or DOES 21-40, and each of them, via the use and employ
`
`of scientific knowledge, available industry guidelines and requirements, the FDA
`
`and other governmental guidelines, available at the time of design, manufacture,
`
`testing, and distribution of the subject nitrile gloves.
`
`15
`
`
`
`38. The associated risks, deficits, and defects of the subject gloves
`
`16
`
`17
`
`presented a substantial danger to users of the products and ordinary consumers
`
`would not have recognized the associated risks, deficits, and defects.
`
`18
`
`
`
`39. At the times and places mentioned herein, ASAP, SNS, and/or
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`DOES 21-40, and each of them, knew or should have known at the time the subject
`
`nitrile gloves left their possession, that said product was defective in its instructions,
`
`warnings, design, and manufacture, likely to perform unsafely in a manner
`
`unanticipated by a prudent user, and having such knowledge, ASAP, SNS and/or
`
`DOES 21-40, and each of them, should have used reasonable care to warn, or
`
`give adequate use instructions and warning of the product’s defects and deficits in
`
`design and operational characteristics to those intending to use the product or to
`
`work within its vicinity-in the manner in which it was intended to be used.
`
`27
`
`
`
`40. At all times and places mentioned herein, ASAP, SNS and/or
`
`28
`
`
`
`DOES 21-40, and each of them, failed to use reasonable care to warn, give adequate
`11
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 12 of 21 Page ID #:12
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`use instruction or warning to provide facts describing the subject gloves’ dangerous
`
`propensities to those whom they could expect to use the product or to be in its
`
`vicinity, to be endangered by its probable use, and such deficits and defects as
`
`illustrated hereinabove were a substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s damages. The
`
`foreseeable risks of failure associated with the design and/or manufacture of the
`
`subject gloves outweigh the benefits associated with it.
`
`
`
`41. As a proximate result of the defects referenced hereinabove, the failure
`
`to use reasonable care, to utilize a better design, to manufacture the subject gloves
`
`as advertised and that would otherwise pass FDA standards, and to warn or give
`
`adequate use instructions and/or warning of the defective condition and dangerous
`
`characteristics of the defective gloves, when used in intended manner, Plaintiff
`
`sustained extensive past and future economic and non-economic damages, physical
`
`injuries, past and future medical expenses, past and future and severe and ongoing
`
`emotional distress and pain and suffering, and other such damages, all in an amount
`
`to be proven at trial.
`
`THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION – BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY
`
`(Against Defendant, SNS; and Does 41 to 60)
`
`42. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in
`
`Paragraph Nos. 1 through 41, inclusive, as though fully set-forth herein.
`
`43. Plaintiff was provided defective gloves by SNS which were defectively
`
`manufactured, designed, assembled, promoted, distributed or sold by SNS and/or
`
`DOES 41 to 60.
`
`44. Plaintiff hereby alleges that the subject gloves were not of the same
`
`quality as those generally acceptable in the trade, was not fit for the ordinary
`
`purposes for which such products are used, was not designed and manufactured to
`
`prevent the type of incident that resulted in Plaintiff’s injuries on the date of the
`
`subject incident, was not adequately labeled to provide enough warning, and as such
`
`did not measure up to the standards acceptable in the industry which are required by
`12
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 13 of 21 Page ID #:13
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`medical, FDA and/or governmental guidelines and requirements, among other
`
`requirements and guidelines.
`
`45. SNS and/or DOES 41-60, and each of them, impliedly warranted that
`
`the subject gloves, which they designed, manufactured, assembled, promoted,
`
`distributed, and sold was merchantable, fit and safe for ordinary use.
`
`46. SNS and/or DOES 41-60, and each of them, further impliedly
`
`warranted that subject gloves which SNS and/or DOES 41-60, and each of them,
`
`marketed, designed, manufactured, assembled, tested, inspected, promoted,
`
`distributed, fabricated, and sold was fit for the particular purposes for which it was
`
`intended and sold and adheres to industry, safety, governmental requirements and 5
`
`guidelines.
`
`47. Contrary to these implied warranties, the subject gloves were defective,
`
`unmerchantable, and unfit for its ordinary use when sold, and unfit for the particular
`
`purpose for which they were sold.
`
`FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION – FRAUD / DECEIT – FALSE PROMISE
`
`(Against Defendant, SNS; and Does 61 to 80)
`
`48. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in
`
`Paragraph Nos. 1 through 47, inclusive, as though fully set-forth herein.
`
`49. Between January and March 2021, FOCUS purchased over $2,000,000
`
`of ASAP nitrile gloves from SNS. The purchases are reflected in the Parties’
`
`invoices: Invoice No. SNS10292020-98, SNS02022021-26 and SNS03182021-12,
`
`“Exhibit 1”.
`
`50. SNS warranted and represented to FOCUS that its nitril gloves from
`
`ASAP:
`
`
`
`
`
`• Provided “great resistance to punctures, cuts, and snags”;
`
`• Were designed to resist “a greater range of chemicals including bases,
`
`oils, and various solvents”;
`
`
`
`• Provided “greater puncture resistance than conventional latex
`13
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 14 of 21 Page ID #:14
`
`
`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
`
`
`
`gloves”;
`
`
`
`
`
`• Had a professional appearance;
`
`• Were sealed to ensure consistent quality and reduce potential air and
`
`moisture contamination.
`
`51. However, SNS had no intention to perform this promise when it was
`
`made to FOCUS. To the contrary, SNS’ intention was to operate solely in their
`
`interest without any regard for FOCUS’ business affairs and financial matters.
`
`Plaintiff is informed, believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendants
`
`intentionally provided it with defective product that were so damaged/defective,
`
`soiled, ruined and/or abused prior to delivery to FOCUS that the sums SNS charged
`
`and collected from FOCUS were beyond the scope of reasonable expectation for
`
`FOCUS and its customers with regards to FDA / PPE basic standards for healthcare
`
`usage on patients and by healthcare providers and first responders.
`
`52.
`
`In justifiable reliance on Defendant’s promise(s) its gloves were of the
`
`quality it represents on its website, Plaintiff entered into the subject purchase
`
`agreements with SNS in 2021 and duly paid SNS the fees and costs identified in
`
`those agreements. Exhibit 1.
`
`53. Defendant failed to perform their promises under the agreements and
`
`instead provided FOCUS with damages, ruined nitrile gloves.
`
`54. As a legal and proximate result of Defendant’s false promises, Plaintiff
`
`has incurred and will continue to incur damages in an amount to be proven at trial,
`
`but in excess of the minimum jurisdiction of this Court.
`
`55.
`
`In performing the acts herein alleged, Defendant, and each of them,
`
`acted fraudulently, maliciously, despicably, and in willful disregard of Plaintiff’s
`
`rights and/or intentionally made the misrepresentations and omissions of material
`
`fact described herein, for the purpose of depriving Plaintiff of money and property,
`
`thereby justifying an award of punitive damages against Defendant in amounts
`
`according to proof.
`
`14
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-06087 Document 1 Filed 08/26/22 Page 15 of 21 Page ID #:15
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION – NEGLIGENT INTERFERENCE WITH
`
`PROSPECTIVE ECONOMIC ADVANTAGE
`
`(Against Defendant, SNS; and Does 81-100)
`
`56. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference the allegations made in
`
`Paragraph Nos. 1 through 55, inclusive, as though fully set-forth herein.
`
`57. Between January and March 2021, FOCUS purchased over $2,000,000
`
`of ASAP nitrile gloves from SNS. The purchases are reflected in the Parties’
`
`invoices: Invoice No. SNS10292020-98, SNS02022021-26 and SNS03182021-12,
`
`“Exhibit 1”.
`
`58. Defendant, and each of them, knew or should have known of FOCUS’
`
`business relationship with third parties as a seller of PPE equipment, and
`
`specifically, seller of nitrile gloves free of damage, holes, soot and that were the
`
`correct thickness. SNS further knew or should have known that such opportunities
`
`would be disrupted if SNS did not act with reasonable care. Plaintiff is informed,
`
`believes, and based thereon alleges that Defendant knew or should have known that
`
`it was improperly providing damaged / defective product to FOCUS and reasonably
`
`knew, or should have known, FOCUS was subsequently providing the subject nitril
`
`PPE product to healthcare customers working in the healthcare industry. SNS should
`
`have known, or did know, that by selling FOCUS damaged / defective nitrile gloves
`
`that it would interfere with FOCUS’ future business and economic opportunities.
`
`59.
`
`Instead, Defendant failed to abide by the duties and representations it
`
`identifies on its website and in the subject agreements by acting in their own self-
`
`interest to FOCUS’ economic detriment. In doing so, Defendant failed to act with
`
`reasonable care.
`
`25
`
`
`
`60. As a legal and proximate result of Defendant’s interference, Plaintiff’s
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`relationships and business op