throbber
Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 1 of 32 Page ID #:1
`
`
`DIXON DIAB & CHAMBERS LLP
`DEBORAH S. DIXON (SBN 248965)
`ddixon@theddcfirm.com
`TARINA MAND (SBN 316477)
`tarina@theddcfirm.com
`501 West Broadway, Suite 800
`San Diego, California 92101
`Telephone: (619) 354-2662
`
`GOMEZ TRIAL ATTORNEYS
`JOHN H. GOMEZ (SBN 171485)
`jgomez@thegomezfirm.com
`
`655 W. Broadway Suite 1700
`
`San Diego, California 92101
`Telephone: (619) 237-3490
`Facsimile: (619) 237-3496
`
`Counsel for Plaintiff
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`CENTRAL DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`EASTERN DIVISION
`
`
`Case No: 5:21-cv-2146
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LASHANAE LITTLES, individually
`and on behalf of THE ESTATE OF
`MAKAI SANDERS,
`
`
`
`
`v.
`
`Plaintiff,
`
`ABBOTT LABORATORIES, INC.;
`MEAD JOHNSON & COMPANY,
`LLC and/or MEAD JOHNSON
`NUTRITION COMPANY,
`
`
`Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`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
`29
`30
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 2 of 32 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
`
`PARTIES, JURISDICTION, AND VENUE
`1.
`Plaintiff LaShanae Littles, individually and on behalf of the Estate of
`Makai Sanders, is an adult and resident of San Bernardino County, California. She
`is the mother of Makai Sanders, who was a minor and is now deceased, and sues as
`his successor-in-interest for causes of action that survive her baby’s death.
`2.
`On December 25, 2020, Makai Sanders (“Baby Sanders”) was born at
`Community Hospital of San Bernardino in San Bernardino, California.
`3.
`Baby Sanders, is the son of LaShanae Littles (“Plaintiff” or “the
`mother”).
`4.
`The Defendant, Mead Johnson & Company, LLC and/or Mead Johnson
`Nutrition Company (“Mead”) manufactures, designs formulates, prepares, tests,
`provides instructions, markets, labels, packages, places into the stream of commerce
`in all fifty states, including California, and sells premature infant formula products
`including Enfamil Human Milk Fortifier and Enfacare Powder.
`5.
`The Defendant, Abbott Laboratories, Inc. (“Abbott,” together with
`Mead, the “Defendants”) manufactures, designs, formulates prepares, tests, provides
`instructions, markets, labels, packages, places into the stream of commerce in all
`fifty states, including California, and sells premature infant formula including
`Similac Special Care.
`6.
`This Court has original jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a)
`because complete diversity exists between Plaintiff and Defendants, and the matter
`in controversy, exclusive of interest and costs, exceeds the sum or value of $75,000.
`7.
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over Defendants because
`Defendants are authorized to conduct and do conduct business in the State of
`California and Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with this State and/or
`sufficiently avails itself of the markets in this State through its promotion, sales,
`distribution and marketing within this State to render the exercise of jurisdiction by
`this Court permissible.
`
`2
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 3 of 32 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
`
`8.
`Venue is proper in this Court pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §§ 1391(a) and (b)
`because a substantial part of the events or omissions giving rise to Plaintiff’s claims
`occurred in this judicial district.
`GENERAL ALLEGATION
`9.
`On December 25, 2020, Baby Sanders was born prematurely with a low
`birth weight of 4 pounds and 2 ounces.
`10. Following the birth, Makai Sanders, was placed in the Neonatal
`Intensive Care Unit (NICU) at Community Hospital of San Bernardino.
`11. Baby Sanders, was intravenously fed Similac Special Case 20Fe,
`Enfamil HMF High Protein, Enfamil Premature, and Enfamil Premium, while in the
`NICU.
`12. On January 25, 2021, after being fed Defendants products, Baby
`Sanders developed Necrotizing Enterocolitis (“NEC”).
`13. On January 27, 2021, at only 34 days old, Baby Sanders passed away
`from medical complications after developing NEC, which are the direct and
`proximate result of consumption of Defendants unreasonably dangerous cow’s milk-
`based products.
`
`THE SCIENCE
`14. According to the World Health Organization (“WHO”), babies born
`prematurely, or “preterm,” are defined as being born alive before 37 weeks of
`pregnancy are completed, like Makai Sanders. The WHO estimates that
`approximately 15 million babies are born preterm every year and that number is
`rising.
`15. Nutrition for preterm babies, like Makai Sanders, is significantly
`important. Since the United States ranks in the top ten countries in the world with
`the greatest number of preterm births, the market of infant formula and fortifiers is
`particularly vibrant.
`/ / /
`
`3
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 4 of 32 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
`
`16. Originally, cow’s milk-based products were believed to be good for the
`growth of premature, low birth weight babies; however, science and research have
`advanced for decades confirming the significant dangers of the Defendants’ cow’s
`milk-based products
`in causing Necrotizing Enterocolitis (“NEC”) and/or
`substantially contributing to death in preterm and severely preterm, low-weight
`infants, along with many other health complications and long-term risks to babies,
`yet, the Defendants did nothing to change their product, packaging, guidelines,
`instructions, and/or warnings. Additionally, advances in science have created
`alternative formulas and fortifiers that are derived from human milk and non-bovine
`based products; however, the Defendants continue to promote and sell their defunct
`cow’s milk-based products.
`17. As early as 1990, a prospective, multicenter study on 926 preterm
`infants found that NEC was six to ten times more common in exclusively formula-
`fed babies than in those fed breast milk alone and three times more common than in
`those who received formula plus breast milk. Babies born at more than 30 weeks
`gestation confirmed that NEC was rare in those whose diet included breast milk, but
`it was 20 times more common in those fed formula only. A. Lucas, T. Cole, Breast
`Milk and Neonatal Necrotizing Enterocolitis, LANCET, 336: 1519-1523 (1990).
`18.
`In a study published in 2007 it was reported: “The use of an
`exclusive HUM [Human] diet is associated with significant benefits for
`extremely premature infants <1259 g BW. The benefits include decreased NEC
`rates, mortality, late-onset sepsis, PDA, BPD, ventilator days, and ROP.
`Importantly, while evaluating the benefits of using an exclusive HUM-based
`protocol, it appears that there were no feeding-related adverse outcomes. This
`study demonstrates that an exclusive HUM diet provides important benefits
`beyond NEC.” Hair, Amy, et al. Beyond Necrotizing Enterocolitis Prevention:
`Improving Outcomes with an Exclusive Human Milk-Based Diet. (Breastfeeding
`Medicine. 2016, Nov 2., 11(2):70-75.)
`
`4
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 5 of 32 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
`
`19. A study published in 2010 established that when premature babies were
`fed an exclusive diet of mother’s milk, donor milk, and human milk fortifier, these
`babies were 90% less likely to develop surgical NEC. Sullivan, S., et al., An
`Exclusively Human Milk-Based Diet Is Associated with a Lower Rate of Necrotising
`Enterocolitis than a Death of Human Milk and Bovine Milk-Based Products.
`(Journal of Pediatrics 2010; 156:562-7.)
`20.
`In 2011, the U.S. Surgeon General published a report titled, “The
`Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding.” In it, the Surgeon
`General warned that “for vulnerable premature infants, formula feeding is associated
`with higher rates of [NEC].” U.S. Dep’t. of Health & Human Serv., Off. of Surgeon
`Gen., “The Surgeon General’s Call to Action to Support Breastfeeding,” p. 1, (2011).
`This same report stated that premature infants who are not breast fed are 138% more
`likely to develop NEC. Id., Table 1, p. 2.
`21.
`In 2012, the American Academy of Pediatrics issued a policy statement
`that all premature infants should be fed an exclusive human milk diet because of the
`risk of NEC associated with the consumption of cow’s milk-based products. The
`Academy stated that “[t]he potent benefits of human milk are such that all pre-term
`infants should receive human milk … If
`the mother’s own milk
`is
`unavailable…pasteurized donor milk should be used.” Breastfeeding and the Use
`of Human Milk, PEDIATRICS, 129:e827-e841 (2012).
`22. A study published in 2013 showed that, out of 104 the premature infants
`participating in the study receiving an exclusive human-milk based diet, all 104
`exceeded targeted growth standards, as well as length, weight, and head
`circumference gain. The authors concluded that “this study provides data showing
`that infants can achieve and mostly exceed targeted growth standards when receiving
`an exclusive human milk-based diet.” A. Hair, et al., Human Milk Feed Supports
`Adequate Growth in Infants <1250 Grams Birthweight, BMC RESEARCH NOTES,
`6- 459 (2013). Thus, inadequate growth was proven to be a poor excuse for feeding
`
`5
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 6 of 32 Page ID #:6
`
`
`cow’s milk-based products, but the practice continued largely due to extensive and
`aggressive marketing campaigns conducted by infant formula companies.
`23.
`In another study published in 2013 it was reported: “This is the first
`randomized trial in EP [Extremely Premature] infants of exclusive HM [Human
`Milk] vs. PF [Preterm Formula]. The significantly shorter duration of TPN and
`lower rate of surgical NEC support major changes in the strategy to nourish EP
`infants in the NICU.” Cristofalo, E.A., et al., Exclusive Human Milk vs. Preterm
`Formula: Randomized Trial in Extremely Preterm Infants. (J Pediatr 2013 Dec;
`163(6): 1592-1595.)
`24.
`In a study published in 2014, it was reported: “Necrotizing enterocolitis
`(NEC) is a devastating disease of premature infants and is associated with significant
`morbidity and mortality. While the pathogenesis of NEC remains incompletely
`understood, it is well established that the risk is increased by the administration of
`infant formula and decreased by the administration of breast milk.” Good, Misty, et
`al., Evidence Based Feeding Strategies Before and After the Development of
`Necrotizing Enterocolitis. (Expert Rev Clin Immunol. 2014 July; 10 (7): 875-884.)
`25.
`In that same article it was reported: “Necrotizing enterocolitis (NEC) is
`the most frequent and lethal gastrointestinal disorder affecting preterm infants, and
`is characterized by intestinal barrier disruption leading to intestinal necrosis, multi-
`system organ failure and death. NEC affects 7-12% of preterm infants weighing less
`than 1500 grams, and the frequency of disease appears to be either stable or rising
`in several studies. The typical patient who develops NEC is a premature infant who
`displays a rapid progression from mild feeding intolerance to systemic sepsis, and
`up to 30% of infants will die from this disease.”
`26.
`In that same article it was reported: “A wide variety of feeding practices
`exist on how to feed the premature infant in the hopes of preventing necrotizing
`enterocolitis. There have been several meta-analysis reviewing the timing of
`administration and rate of advancement of enteral feedings in the premature infant
`
`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
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 7 of 32 Page ID #:7
`
`
`as reviewed above, but there is no consensus on the precise feeding strategy to
`prevent this disease. The exclusive use of human breast milk is recommended for
`all premature infants and is associated with a significant decrease in the incidence of
`NEC. By determining the specific ingredients in breast milk that are protective
`against NEC, it is our hope that this devastating disease will one day be preventable.”
`27.
`In a study published in 2016 it was reported: “Extremely premature
`infants who received an exclusive HUM diet had a significantly lower incidence
`of NEC and mortality. The HUM group also had a reduction in late-onset sepsis,
`BPD, and ROP. This multicenter study further emphasizes the many benefits of
`an exclusive HUM diet, and demonstrates multiple improved outcomes after
`implementation of such a feeding protocol.” Hair, Amy, et al. Beyond
`Necrotizing Enterocolitis Prevention: Improving Outcomes with an Exclusive
`Human Milk-Based Diet. (Breastfeeding Medicine. 2016, Nov. 2, 11(2):70-75.)
`28.
`In a study published in 2017, it was reported: “Human milk is the
`preferred diet for preterm infants as it protects against a multitude of NICU
`challenges, specifically necrotizing enterocolitis. Infants who receive greater
`than 50% of mother’s own milk (MOM) in the 2 weeks after birth have a
`significantly decreased risk of NEC. An additional factor in the recent declining
`rates of NEC is the increased utilization of donor human milk (DHM). This
`creates a bridge until MOM is readily available, thus decreasing the exposure to
`cow milk protein. Preterm infants are susceptible to NEC due to the immaturity
`of their gastrointestinal and immune systems. An exclusive human milk diet
`compensates for these immature systems in many ways such as lowering gastric
`pH, enhancing intestinal motility, decreasing epithelial permeability, and
`altering the composition of bacterial flora. Ideally, preterm infants should be fed
`human milk and avoid bovine protein. A diet consisting of human milk-based
`human milk fortifier is one way to provide the additional nutritional supplements
`necessary for adequate growth while receiving the protective benefits of a human
`
`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
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 8 of 32 Page ID #:8
`
`
`milk diet.” Maffei, Diana, Schanler, Richard J., Human milk is the feeding
`strategy to prevent necrotizing enterocolitis! (Semin Perinatol. 2017 Feb;
`41(1):36-40.).
`29.
`In another study published in 2017, it was reported: “In summary,
`HM [Human Milk] has been acknowledged as the best source of nutrition for
`preterm infants and those at risk for NEC. Two RCTs [Randomized Clinical
`Trials] on preterm infants weighing between 500 and 1250 g at birth compared
`the effect of bovine milk-based preterm infant formula to MOM or DHM on the
`incidence of NEC. Both trials found that an exclusive HM diet results in a lower
`incidence of NEC. A Cochrane systematic review that evaluated the effect of
`DHM or bovine milk-based formula on health outcomes for preterm infants also
`determined that formula significantly increases the risk of NEC.” Shulhan,
`Jocelyn, et al., Current Knowledge of Necrotizing Enterocolitis in Preterm
`Infants and the Impact of Different Types of Enteral Nutrition Products. (ASN.
`ADV Nutr 2017; 8:8-0.91.)
`30. Yet another study that analyzed the data from a 12-center randomized
`trial concluded that fortification of breast milk with a cow’s milk-based fortifier
`resulted in a 4.2-fold increased risk of NEC and a 5.1-fold increased risk of surgical
`NEC or death, compared to fortification with a breast milk-based fortifier.
`31. Another study conducted a randomized comparison of extremely
`preterm infants who were given either (a) a diet of breast milk fortified with a breast
`milk-based fortifier or (b) a diet containing variable amounts of cow’s milk-based
`products. The babies given exclusively breast milk products suffered NEC 5% of the
`time. The babies given cow’s milk products suffered NEC 17% of the time.
`32. Further, when Defendants recognized a shift in the medical community
`towards an exclusive breast milk-based diet for premature infants, Abbott developed
`a product called “Similac Human Milk Fortifier.” Similar to the “Human Milk”
`formula, these names are misleading in that they suggest that the products are
`
`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
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 9 of 32 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
`
`
`derived from breast milk, when, in fact, they are cow’s milk-based products. One
`study, for example, found that 91.2 percent of parents surveyed in the NICU
`interpreted “human milk fortifier” as potentially meaning breast milk-based product.
`33. Abbott’s packaging directs users to: “Add only to human milk—do not
`add water.” This direction is convoluted by Abbott’s misleading use of the term
`human milk. The fortifier can be added to Abbott’s “Human Milk” formula, as well
`as breast milk. There is no indication that the fortifier is only meant to be added to
`breast milk, and even if this was the intended direction, the widespread
`misapplication of the fortifier to Abbott’s “Human Milk” formula would be its own
`doing by deliberately conflating and misdirecting the delineation of “human milk.”
`The packaging appears as:
`
`
`
`34. Defendants have designed powerful misleading marketing campaigns
`to deceive parents into believing that: (1) cow’s milk-based products are safe,
`including for preterm infants; (2) cow’s milk-based products are equal, or even
`superior, substitutes to breast milk; (3) cow’s milk-based products are necessary for
`proper growth and development of preterm infants; and (4) physicians consider
`Defendants’ cow’s milk-based products a first choice. This marketing scheme is
`employed despite Defendants knowing of and failing to warn of the extreme risk of
`9
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 10 of 32 Page ID #:10
`
`
`NEC and death that cow’s milk-based products pose to preterm infants like Baby
`Sanders.
`35. The products Abbott markets specifically for premature infants are
`available at retail locations and online. No prescription is necessary. As seen above,
`Abbott’s packaging failed to give any precaution to use the product under the
`direction of a physician, however, newer packaging includes such a caution: “To be
`used only under the supervision of a doctor.” The packaging seems to be changed
`recently to include this warning and products with the older packaging are still
`widely available to buy online.
`36. Despite knowing of the risk of NEC, Abbott did not warn of the
`significantly increased risk of NEC (and resulting medical conditions, and/or death)
`associated with its products, or of the magnitude of this increased risk. Abbott
`likewise did not provide instructions or guidance for how to avoid NEC.
`37. Abbott deceived the public, parents, physicians, other medical
`professionals, and medical staff into believing that its products were a safe and
`necessary alternative, supplement and/or substitute to breast milk.
`38. Despite knowing that its products were being fed to premature infants,
`often without the parents’ informed consent, Abbott failed to require or recommend
`that medical professionals or hospitals inform parents of the significant risk of NEC
`or to require that parental consent be obtained prior to the products being fed to their
`babies.
`39. On information and belief, Abbott was aware of the significantly
`increased risk of NEC and death associated with their cow’s milk-based products,
`and instead of warning of the dangers, or removing them altogether, Abbott has
`continued to use cow’s milk as the foundation of their products. Abbott fails to
`mention “cow’s milk” anywhere on its packaging, and surreptitiously refers to cow’s
`milk under its ingredients as “Nonfat Milk.” The words “cow’s milk” or “cow” are
`nowhere to be found on any of the packaging or marketing for its product.
`
`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
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 11 of 32 Page ID #:11
`
`
`
`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
`
`Abbott’s Failure to Provide Adequate Warnings, Instructions or Guidelines
`40. Defendant Abbott Laboratories,
`Inc. manufactures, designs,
`formulates, prepares, tests, provides instructions, markets, labels, packages, places
`into the stream of commerce in all fifty states, including California, and sells
`premature infant formula and fortifier.
`41. Abbott’s Similac product contained only the following packaging
`information guidelines, instructions and warnings:
`“Similac Special Care 20 – Precautions:
`• Very low-birth-weight infants are particularly susceptible to
`gastrointestinal complications; therefore, feeding should be initiated
`cautiously
`• Tolerance to enteral feedings should be confirmed by initially offering
`small volumes of formula followed by cautious progression to higher
`caloric feedings
`• Spitting up, abdominal distention, abnormal stools or stool patterns,
`excessive gastric residuals, or other signs of intestinal dysfunction have
`been associated with enteral feeding before the intestinal tract is ready
`to accommodate the regimen. At the first sign of these problems, enteral
`feeding should be slowed or discontinued
`• Not intended for feeding low-birth-weight infants after they reach a
`weight of 3600 g (approximately 8 lb) or as directed by a physician”
`“Similac Special Care 24 – Precautions:
`• Very low-birth weight infants are particularly susceptible to
`gastrointestinal complications; therefore, feeding should be initiated
`cautiously
`• Tolerance to enteral feedings should be confirmed by initially offering
`small volumes of formula followed by cautious progression to higher
`caloric feedings
`• Spitting up, abdominal distention, abnormal stools or stool patterns,
`excessive gastric residuals, or other signs of intestinal dysfunction have
`been associated with enteral feeding before the intestinal tract is ready
`to accommodate the regimen. At the first sign of these problems, enteral
`feeding should be slowed or discontinued
`• Not intended for feeding low-birth-weight infants after they reach a
`weight of 3600 g (approximately 8 lb) or as directed by a physician”
`“Similac Special Care 24 High Protein – Precautions:
`
`11
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 12 of 32 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
`
`• Very low-birth-weight infants are particularly susceptible to
`gastrointestinal complications; therefore, feeding should be initiated
`cautiously
`• Tolerance to enteral feedings should be confirmed by initially offering
`small volumes of formula followed by cautious progression to higher
`caloric feedings
`• Spitting up, abdominal distention, abnormal stools or stool patterns,
`excessive gastric residuals, or other signs of intestinal dysfunction have
`been associated with enteral feeding before the intestinal tract is ready
`to accommodate the regimen. At the first sign of these problems, enteral
`feeding should be
`slowed or discontinued.
`• Not intended for feeding low-birth-weight infants after they reach a
`weight of 3600 g (approximately 8 lb) or as directed by a physician
`
`“Similac Special Care 30 – Precautions:
`• Very low-birth-weight infants are particularly susceptible to
`gastrointestinal complications; therefore, feeding should be initiated
`cautiously
`• Use this product only after feedings of lower caloric density are well-
`established. For improved tolerance, it is best to increase caloric density
`slowly, by 2- to 4-Cal/fl oz increments
`• Hydration status should be monitored
`• Spitting up, abdominal distention, abnormal stools or stool patterns,
`excessive gastric residuals, or other signs of intestinal dysfunction have
`been associated with enteral feeding before the intestinal tract is ready
`to accommodate the regimen. At the first sign of these problems, enteral
`feeding should be slowed or discontinued
`• Not intended for feeding low-birth-weight infants after they reach a
`weight of 3600 g (approximately 8 lb) or as directed by a physician”
`“Similac Special Care Premature 20 calorie and 24 calorie and High Protein
`Precaution:
`• If signs of intolerance develop, slow feeding or discontinue.
`• Not intended for low-birth-weight infants after they reach a weight of
`3600 grams (approx.. 8 lb) or as directed by a doctor.”
`
`“Similac Special Care Premature 30 calorie – Precaution:
`• Use once feeding tolerance is established
`• If signs of intolerance develop, slow feeding or discontinue.
`• Hydration status should be monitored
`12
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 13 of 32 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
`
`
`
`• Not intended for low-birth-weight infants after they reach a weight of
`3600 grams (approx.. 8 lb) or as directed by a doctor.”
`
`42. Defendant Abbott’s product, Similac Alimentum and Similac
`Alimentum Expert Care, contain only the following packaging information warnings
`and instructions:
`
`Safety Precautions: Never use a microwave oven to warm
`mixture. Serious burns can result.
`Warning: Powdered infant formulas are not sterile and should
`not be fed to premature infants or infants who might have
`immune problems unless directed and supervised by your baby’s
`doctor.
`
`43. Defendant Abbott’s range of Human Milk Fortifiers contain only the
`following packaging information warnings and instructions:
`Similac Human Milk Fortifier Concentrated Liquid: Precautions
`• Add only to human milk—do not add water
`• This product is nutritionally incomplete by itself and is designed
`to be added to human breast milk
`
`
`Similac Human Milk Fortifer Hydrolyzed Protein Concentrated Liquid:
`Precautions
`• Add only to human milk—do not add water
`• This product is nutritionally incomplete by itself and is designed
`to be added to human breast milk
`• Additional iron may be necessary
`• Tolerance to enteral feedings should be confirmed by offering
`small volumes of unfortified human milk
`• Once enteral feeding is well established, Similac Human Milk
`Fortifier Hydrolyzed Protein Concentrated Liquid can be added
`to human milk
`• Not intended for feeding low-birth-weight infants after they
`reach a weight of 3600 g (approximately 8 lb) or as directed by
`a physician
`
`
`
`Similac Human Milk Fortifier Powder: Precautions
`• Add only to human milk—do not add water
`
`13
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 14 of 32 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
`
`
`
`
`
`• Tolerance to enteral feedings should be confirmed by offering
`small volumes of unfortified human milk
`• Once enteral feeding is well established, Similac Human Milk
`Fortifier Power can be added to human milk (see Preparation,
`page 29)
`• Not intended for feeding low-birth-weight infants after they
`reach a weight of 3600 g (approximately 8 lb) or as directed by
`a physician
`1. Barrett-Reis B, et al. Pediatrics. 2000;106:581-588.
`2. Chan GM. J Perinatol. 2003;23:620-623.
`3. *Escherichia coli, Staphylococcus, Group B Streptococcus, and
`Enterobacter sakazakii (now Cronobacter sakazakii).
`
`Liquid Protein Fortifier: Precaution
`• If signs of intolerance develop, slow feeding or discontinue.
`
`44. Science and research have advanced in recent years confirming the
`dangers of the defendant’s cow’s milk-based product in causing NEC and death in
`premature infants, yet the Defendant did nothing to change its product, packaging,
`guidelines, instructions and warnings.
`45. The warnings and instructions are overly broad and vague, and do not
`ever mention that the product significantly increases the risk of NEC and death, nor
`provide any detailed instructions or evidence on when and how to feed the infants
`and how to avoid NEC and death when feeding its products.
`46. None of this medical literature properly warns the user that its product
`causes NEC and death nor does it provide guidance on how to avoid NEC or death
`while using its product.
`47. Despite knowing that its product significantly increases the risk of NEC
`and death, Abbott Laboratories, Inc. deliberately chose to omit a specific warning of
`NEC or death, and deliberately failed to provide any detailed instructions or
`guidance on how to avoid NEC or death when feeding Similac.
`48. The cow’s milk-based product, Similac, is dangerous to premature
`infants in that it significantly increases the risk that the baby will develop NEC.
`
`14
`LaShanae Littles, et al. v. Abbott Laboratories, Inc., Case No. 5:21-CV-2146
`COMPLAINT
`
`

`

`Case 5:21-cv-02146 Document 1 Filed 12/27/21 Page 15 of 32 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
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`49. The cow’s milk-based product, Similac, is dangerous to premature
`infants in that it significantly increases the risk that the baby will die.
`50. The Defendant, Abbott Laboratories, Inc., failed to properly warn that
`its product, Similac, can significantly increase the risk that the premature infant will
`develop NEC and suffer catastrophic injuries as occurred to Makai Sanders.
`51. Based on information and belief, Abbott Laboratories, Inc.’s cow’s
`milk-based product, Similac, did cause Baby Sanders, to develop NEC, which
`caused his unfortunate and untimely death.
`52. Prior to February 2019, the Defendant, Abbott Laboratories, Inc. was
`aware, or should have been aware, that its product was not safe for use, as it was
`used, in the premature infant, Makai Sanders, yet they took no steps to prevent its
`use in such a situation.
`53. The Defendant, Abbott Laboratories, Inc. did foresee, or should have
`foreseen, that its product would be used as it was in the case of Makai Sanders and
`knew or should have known, that such use would significantly increase the risk of
`NEC in Makai Sanders, yet it took no steps to prevent such use.
`54. The product, Similac, was not safe to be used as it was in the case of
`Makai Sanders, and the Defendant knew, or should have known, it was unsafe, yet
`it failed to properly instruct, or warn the FDA, NICUs, hospitals, doctors and parents
`that its product was not safe.
`55. The product, Similac, was not safe to be used as it was in the case of
`Makai Sanders and the Defendant knew or should have known it was unsafe, yet it
`failed to provide detailed instructions or guidelines on when and how its product
`would be safe to use in a premature infant like Makai Sanders.
`56. The Defendant, Abbott Laboratories, Inc, has marketed its products as
`safe and beneficial for premature infants like Makai Sanders.
`57. Because the Defendant Abbott Laboratories, Inc.’s product is specially
`designed as food for

This document is available on Docket Alarm but you must sign up to view it.


Or .

Accessing this document will incur an additional charge of $.

After purchase, you can access this document again without charge.

Accept $ Charge
throbber

Still Working On It

This document is taking longer than usual to download. This can happen if we need to contact the court directly to obtain the document and their servers are running slowly.

Give it another minute or two to complete, and then try the refresh button.

throbber

A few More Minutes ... Still Working

It can take up to 5 minutes for us to download a document if the court servers are running slowly.

Thank you for your continued patience.

This document could not be displayed.

We could not find this document within its docket. Please go back to the docket page and check the link. If that does not work, go back to the docket and refresh it to pull the newest information.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

You need a Paid Account to view this document. Click here to change your account type.

Your account does not support viewing this document.

Set your membership status to view this document.

With a Docket Alarm membership, you'll get a whole lot more, including:

  • Up-to-date information for this case.
  • Email alerts whenever there is an update.
  • Full text search for other cases.
  • Get email alerts whenever a new case matches your search.

Become a Member

One Moment Please

The filing “” is large (MB) and is being downloaded.

Please refresh this page in a few minutes to see if the filing has been downloaded. The filing will also be emailed to you when the download completes.

Your document is on its way!

If you do not receive the document in five minutes, contact support at support@docketalarm.com.

Sealed Document

We are unable to display this document, it may be under a court ordered seal.

If you have proper credentials to access the file, you may proceed directly to the court's system using your government issued username and password.


Access Government Site

We are redirecting you
to a mobile optimized page.





Document Unreadable or Corrupt

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket

We are unable to display this document.

Refresh this Document
Go to the Docket