Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 1 of 25
`
`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
`
`
`
`
`
`Curtis G. Hoke (SBN 282465)
`THE MILLER FIRM, LLC
`108 Railroad Avenue
`Orange, Virginia 22960
`Tel: (540) 672-4224
`Fax: (540) 672-3055
`Email: choke@millerfirmllc.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`
`
`
`
`
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`
`
`
`DAVID ALBANESE and THERESA
`ALBANESE,
`
` Plaintiffs,
` v.
`
`SYNGENTA AG; SYNGENTA CROP
`PROTECTION, LLC; CHEVRON U.S.A. INC.;
`and DOES 1 through 60 inclusive,
`
` Defendants.
`
`
`
`
`Civil Action No.:
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`
`Plaintiffs DAVID AND THERESA ALBANESE (hereinafter, collectively referred to as
`
`“Plaintiffs”), by and through counsel Curtis G. Hoke of The Miller Firm, LLC allege upon
`
`information and belief and complains of Defendants Syngenta AG (“SAG”) and Syngenta Crop
`
`Protection, LLC (“SCPLLC”) (together with their predecessors-in-interest, referred to collectively
`
`as the “Syngenta Defendants”); Chevron U.S.A. Inc. (together with its predecessors-in-interest,
`
`referred to collectively as the “Chevron Defendants”); and Does One through Sixty, states:
`
`STATEMENT OF THE CASE
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE suffers from Parkinson’s disease caused by his
`
`exposure to the herbicide Paraquat;
`
`1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`3:21-cv-02496
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 2 of 25
`
`
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs DAVID AND THERESA ALBANESE are New York residents.
`
`Defendants are companies that since 1964 have manufactured, distributed, licensed,
`
`marketed, and sold Paraquat for use in the United States, including California.
`
`4.
`
`Plaintiffs bring this action to recover damages for personal injuries resulting from
`
`the injured Plaintiff’s exposures to Paraquat manufactured, distributed, and sold by Defendants.
`
`5.
`
`Defendants’ tortious conduct, including their negligent acts and omissions in the
`
`research, testing, design, manufacture, marketing, and sale of Paraquat, caused Plaintiffs injuries.
`
`At all relevant times, defendants knew or, in the exercise of reasonable care, should have known
`
`that Paraquat was a highly toxic substance that can cause severe neurological injuries and
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`impairment, and should have taken steps in their research, manufacture, and sale of Paraquat to
`
`11
`
`ensure that people would not be harmed by foreseeable uses of Paraquat.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`6.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over Defendants and this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`JURISDICTION
`
`14
`
`1332 because there is complete diversity of citizenship between Plaintiffs and each Defendant.
`
`15
`
`Indeed, Plaintiffs are residents of New York; SPLLC is a Delaware limited liability company with
`
`16
`
`its principal place of business in Greensboro, North Carolina (SPLLC is a wholly-owned
`
`17
`
`subsidiary of Defendant SAG); SAG is a foreign corporation with its principal place of business in
`
`18
`
`Basel, Switzerland; Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation with its principal place of
`
`19
`
`business in San Ramon in Contra Costa County, California. Defendants are all either incorporated
`
`20
`
`and/or have their principal place of business outside of the state in which the Plaintiffs reside.
`
`21
`
`7.
`
`The amount in controversy between Plaintiffs and Defendants exceeds $75,000,
`
`22
`
`exclusive of interest and cost.
`
`23
`
`24
`
`8.
`
`Venue is proper within the Northern District of California pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §
`
`VENUE
`
`25
`
`1391 in that Defendants conduct business here and are subject to personal jurisdiction in this
`
`26
`
`district. Furthermore, Defendants sell, market, and/or distribute Paraquat within the Northern
`
`27
`
`District of California. Also, a substantial part of the acts and/or omissions giving rise to these
`
`28
`
`claims occurred within this District. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a corporation organized under the
`
`
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 3 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`laws of the State of Pennsylvania, with its headquarters and principal place of business in San
`
`Ramon in Contra Costa County, California.
`
`9.
`
`This Court has personal jurisdiction over each of the Defendants in this diversity
`
`case because a state court of California would have such jurisdiction, in that:
`
`a. Over a period of two (Chevron) to six (Syngenta) decades, each Defendant and/or its
`
`predecessor(s), together with those with whom they were acting in concert, manufactured
`
`Paraquat for use as an active ingredient in Paraquat products, distributed Paraquat to
`
`formulators of Paraquat products, formulated Paraquat products, marketed Paraquat
`
`products to the California agricultural community, and/or distributed Paraquat products,
`
`intending that such products regularly would be, and knowing they regularly were, sold
`
`and used in the State of California;
`
`b. Plaintiffs’ claims against each Defendant arise out of these contacts between the
`
`13
`
`Defendant and/or its predecessor(s), together with those with whom they were acting in concert,
`
`14
`
`with the State of California; and
`
`15
`
`c. These contacts between each Defendant and/or its predecessors, together with those with
`
`16
`
`whom they were acting in concert, and the State of California, were so regular, frequent, and
`
`17
`
`sustained as to provide fair warning that it might be hauled into court there, such that requiring it
`
`18
`
`to defend this action in the State of California does not offend traditional notions of fair play and
`
`19
`
`substantial justice.
`
`20
`
`21
`
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`
`10.
`
`This action arises from the actions of Defendants – and, in particular, the actions of
`
`22
`
`Defendant Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Defendant Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a Pennsylvania corporation
`
`23
`
`with its principal place of business in San Ramon in Contra Costa County, California. Pursuant to
`
`24
`
`Local Rule 3-2(c), this claim may be assigned to either the San Francisco Division or the Oakland
`
`25
`
`Division.
`
`26
`
`27
`
`11.
`
`The true names or capacities whether individual, corporate, governmental or
`
`PARTIES
`
`28
`
`associate, of the defendants named herein as Doe are unknown to Plaintiffs who therefore sues
`
`
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 4 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs pray leave to amend this Complaint to show
`
`their true names and capacities and/or bases for liability when the same have been finally
`
`determined.
`
`12.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and belief allege,
`
`that each of the defendants designated herein as Doe is strictly, negligently, or otherwise legally
`
`responsible in some manner for the events and happenings herein referred to, and negligently or
`
`otherwise caused injury and damages proximately thereby to Plaintiffs as is hereinafter alleged.
`
`13.
`
`At all times herein mentioned each and every of the Defendants was the agent,
`
`servant, employee, joint venturer, alter ego, successor-in-interest, and predecessor-in-interest of
`
`10
`
`each of the other, and each was acting within the course and scope of their agency, service, joint
`
`11
`
`venture, alter ego relationship, employment, and corporate interrelationship.
`
`12
`
`14.
`
`U.K. manufacturer Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. a/k/a Imperial Chemical
`
`13
`
`Industries PLC (“ICI”) first introduced Paraquat to world markets in or about 1962 under the
`
`14
`
`brand name GRAMOXONE®.
`
`15
`
`
`
`15. In or about 1971, ICI created or acquired a wholly owned U.S. subsidiary
`
`16
`
`organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which was ultimately known as ICI Americas
`
`17
`
`Inc. (“ICI Americas”).
`
`18
`
`
`
`16. Chevron Chemical Company was a corporation organized under the laws of the
`
`19
`
`State of Delaware.
`
`20
`
`
`
`17.
`
`Pursuant to distribution and licensing agreements with ICI and ICI Americas,
`
`21
`
`Chevron Chemical Company had exclusive rights to distribute and sell Paraquat in the United
`
`22
`
`States and did in fact manufacture, formulate, distribute, and sell Paraquat in the United States,
`
`23
`
`including in California for use in California, from approximately 1964 until approximately 1986.
`
`24
`
`25
`
`
`
`
`
`18. Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is the successor-in-interest to Chevron Chemical Company.
`
`19. At all relevant times, Chevron Chemical Company acted as the agent of Chevron
`
`26
`
`U.S.A. Inc. in selling and distributing Paraquat in the U.S. At all relevant times, Chevron
`
`27
`
`Chemical Company was acting within the scope of its agency in selling and distributing Paraquat.
`
`28
`
`Chevron U.S.A. Inc. is liable for the acts of its agent.
`
`
`
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 5 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`20.
`
`From approximately 1964 through approximately 1986, pursuant to distribution
`
`and licensing agreements with Chevron Chemical Company, SAG’s and/or SCPLLC’s
`
`predecessors-in-interest, ICI and ICI Americas, and Does One through Sixty manufactured some
`
`or all of the Paraquat that Chevron Chemical Company distributed and sold in the United States,
`
`including in California for use in California.
`
`
`
`21.
`
`From approximately 1964 through approximately 1986, pursuant to distribution
`
`and licensing agreements between and among them, ICI, ICI Americas, Chevron Chemical
`
`Company, and Does One through Sixty acted in concert to register, manufacture, formulate, and
`
`distribute and sell (through Chevron Chemical Company) Paraquat for use in the U.S., including
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`in California for use in California, and their respective successors-in-interest, SAG, SCPLLC, and
`
`11
`
`Chevron U.S.A. Inc., are jointly liable for the resulting injuries alleged herein.
`
`12
`
`22. After 1986, SCPLLC, Does One through Sixty, and/or their predecessors-in-
`
`13
`
`interest sold and distributed and continue to sell and distribute Paraquat in the United States,
`
`14
`
`including in California for use in California.
`
`15
`
`
`
`23.
`
`As a result of mergers and corporate restructuring, SAG is the successor-in-interest
`
`16
`
`to ICI.
`
`17
`
`
`
`24. As a result of mergers and corporate restructuring, SCPLLC is the successor-in-
`
`18
`
`interest to ICI Americas, Inc.
`
`19
`
`
`
`25.
`
`Thus, from approximately 1964 through the present, the Syngenta Defendants,
`
`20
`
`Does One through Sixty, or their predecessors-in-interest have manufactured, formulated,
`
`21
`
`distributed, and sold Paraquat for use in the U.S., including in California for use in California.
`
`22
`
`
`
`23
`
`24
`
`PLAINTIFF’S EXPOSURE TO PARAQUAT
`
`26. At all relevant times, Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE was an agricultural laborer
`
`25
`
`and/or farmer who was exposed to Paraquat in the 1960s and 1970s in New York: (1) when it was
`
`26
`
`mixed, loaded, applied, and/or cleaned; (2) as a result of spray drift (the movement of herbicide
`
`27
`
`spray droplets from the target area to an area where herbicide application was not intended,
`
`28
`
`typically by wind); and/or (3) as a result of contact with sprayed plants.
`
`
`
`5
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 6 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`27. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that when Paraquat was used in
`
`the intended or a reasonably foreseeable manner, users of Paraquat and persons nearby would be
`
`exposed to it.
`
`28. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Paraquat could enter the
`
`human body: (1) through absorption or penetration of the skin, mucous membranes, and other
`
`epithelial tissues (including tissues of the mouth, nose and nasal passages, trachea, and conducting
`
`airways, particularly where cuts, abrasions, rashes, sores, or other tissue damage were present); (2)
`
`through the olfactory bulb; (3) through respiration into the lungs; and (4) through ingestion into
`
`the digestive tract of small droplets swallowed after entering the mouth, nose, or conducting
`
`10
`
`airways.
`
`11
`
`12
`
`PARAQUAT CAUSES PARKINSON’S DISEASE
`
`29. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Paraquat that entered a
`
`13
`
`human body could ultimately enter the brain.
`
`14
`
`
`
`30. At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that Paraquat that entered a
`
`15
`
`human body could induce the misfolding of the alpha synuclein protein.
`
`16
`
`31.
`
`Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the brain that
`
`17
`
`affects primarily the motor system-the part of the central nervous system that controls movement.
`
`18
`
`32.
`
`The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary” motor
`
`19
`
`symptoms: resting tremor (shaking movement when the muscles are relaxed), bradykinesia
`
`20
`
`(slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes), rigidity (stiffness and resistance to passive
`
`21
`
`movement), and postural instability (impaired balance).
`
`22
`
`33.
`
`Parkinson’s disease’s primary motor symptoms often result in “secondary” motor
`
`23
`
`symptoms such as freezing of gait; shrinking handwriting; mask-like expression; slurred,
`
`24
`
`monotonous, quiet voice; stooped posture; muscle spasms; impaired coordination; difficulty
`
`25
`
`swallowing; and excess saliva and drooling caused by reduced swallowing movements.
`
`26
`
`34. Non-motor symptoms-such as loss of or altered sense of smell; constipation; low
`
`27
`
`blood pressure on rising to stand; sleep disturbances; and depression-are present in most cases of
`
`28
`
`Parkinson’s disease, often for years before any of the primary motor symptoms appear.
`
`
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 7 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`35.
`
`There is currently no cure for Parkinson’s disease; no treatment will stop or reverse
`
`its progression; and the treatments most commonly prescribed for its motor symptoms tend to
`
`become progressively less effective, and to increasingly cause unwelcome side effects, the longer
`
`they are used.
`
`36. One of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease is the
`
`selective degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons (dopamine-producing nerve cells) in a
`
`part of the brain called the substantia nigra pars compacta (“SNpc”).
`
`37. Dopamine is a neurotransmitter (a chemical messenger that transmits signals from
`
`one neuron to another neuron, muscle cell, or gland cell) that is critical to the brain’s control of
`
`10
`
`motor function (among other things).
`
`11
`
`38.
`
`The death of dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc decreases the production of
`
`12
`
`dopamine. Once dopaminergic neurons die, they are not replaced; when enough dopaminergic
`
`13
`
`neurons have died, dopamine production falls below the level the brain requires for proper control
`
`14
`
`of motor function, resulting in the motor symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.
`
`15
`
`39.
`
`The presence of Lewy bodies (insoluble aggregates of a protein called alpha-
`
`16
`
`synuclein) in many of the remaining dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc is another of the primary
`
`17
`
`pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease.
`
`18
`
`40. Dopaminergic neurons are particularly susceptible to oxidative stress, a disturbance
`
`19
`
`in the normal balance between oxidants present in cells and cells’ antioxidant defenses.
`
`20
`
`41.
`
`Scientists who study Parkinson’s disease generally agree that oxidative stress is a
`
`21
`
`major factor in-if not the precipitating cause of-the degeneration and death of dopaminergic
`
`22
`
`neurons in the SNpc and the accumulation of Lewy bodies in the remaining dopaminergic neurons
`
`23
`
`that are the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of the disease.
`
`24
`
`42.
`
`Paraquat is highly toxic to both plants and animals, creating oxidative stress that
`
`25
`
`causes or contributes to cause the degeneration and death of plant or animal cells.
`
`26
`
`43.
`
`Paraquat creates oxidative stress in the cells of plants and animals because of
`
`27
`
`“redox properties” that are inherent in its chemical composition and structure: it is a strong
`
`28
`
`
`
`7
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 8 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`oxidant, and it readily undergoes “redox cycling” in the presence of molecular oxygen, which is
`
`plentiful in living cells.
`
`44.
`
`The redox cycling of Paraquat in living cells interferes with cellular functions that
`
`are necessary to sustain life-with photosynthesis in plant cells, and with cellular respiration in
`
`animal cells. The redox cycling of Paraquat in living cells creates a “reactive oxygen species”
`
`known as superoxide radical, an extremely reactive molecule that can initiate a cascading series of
`
`chemical reactions that creates other reactive oxygen species that damage lipids, proteins, and
`
`nucleic acids, molecules that are essential components of the structures and functions of living
`
`cells. Because the redox cycling of Paraquat can repeat indefinitely in the conditions typically
`
`10
`
`present in living cells, a single molecule of Paraquat can trigger the production of countless
`
`11
`
`molecules of destructive superoxide radical.
`
`12
`
`13
`
`
`
`
`
`45.
`
`Paraquat’s redox properties have been known to science since at least the 1930s.
`
`46.
`
`It has been scientifically known since the 1960s that Paraquat (due to its redox
`
`14
`
`properties) is toxic to the cells of plants and animals. The same redox properties that make
`
`15
`
`Paraquat toxic to plant cells and other types of animal cells make it toxic to dopaminergic neurons
`
`16
`
`in humans -that is, Paraquat is a strong oxidant that interferes with the function of, damages, and
`
`17
`
`ultimately kills dopaminergic neurons in the human brain by creating oxidative stress through
`
`18
`
`redox cycling.
`
`19
`
`
`
`47.
`
`Paraquat is one of only a handful of toxins that scientists use to produce animal
`
`20
`
`models of Parkinson’s disease, i.e., use in a laboratory to artificially produce the symptoms of
`
`21
`
`Parkinson’s disease in animals.
`
`22
`
`
`
`48. Animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that Paraquat
`
`23
`
`creates oxidative stress that results in the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons in the
`
`24
`
`SNpc, other pathophysiology consistent with that seen in human Parkinson’s disease, and motor
`
`25
`
`deficits and behavioral changes consistent with those commonly seen in human Parkinson’s
`
`26
`
`disease.
`
`27
`
`28
`
`
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 9 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`49. Hundreds of in vitro studies (experiments in a test tube, culture dish, or other
`
`controlled experimental environment) have found that Paraquat creates oxidative stress that results
`
`in the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons (and many other types of animal cells).
`
`
`
`50.
`
`Epidemiological studies have found that exposure to Paraquat significantly
`
`increases the risk of contracting Parkinson’s disease. A number of studies have found that the risk
`
`of Parkinson’s disease is more than double in populations with occupational exposure to Paraquat
`
`compared to populations without such exposure.
`
`
`
`51.
`
`These convergent lines of evidence (toxicology, animal experiments, and
`
`epidemiology) demonstrate that Paraquat exposure generally can cause Parkinson’s disease.
`
`
`
`PARAQUAT REGULATION
`
`52.
`
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7 U.S.C. §
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`136 et seq., which regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides within the U.S., requires
`
`14
`
`that pesticides be registered with the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency (“EPA”) prior to their
`
`15
`
`distribution, sale, or use, except as described by FIFRA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(a).
`
`16
`
`
`
`53.
`
`The California Food & Agric. Code § D. 7, Ch. 2, which regulates the labeling,
`
`17
`
`distribution, use, and application of pesticides within the State of California, requires that
`
`18
`
`pesticides be registered with the California Department of Pesticide Regulation (“CDPR”) before
`
`19
`
`they are offered for sale in the State of California. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 12811.
`
`20
`
`
`
`54.
`
`Paraquat is a “restricted use pesticide” under federal law, see 40 C.F.R. § 152.175,
`
`21
`
`which means it is “limited to use by or under the direct supervision of a certified applicator,” and
`
`22
`
`is a “restricted material” under California law, see Cal. Code Regs. tit. 3, § 6400(e), which means
`
`23
`
`it cannot be sold, used, or possessed by any person in California without the proper licensing and
`
`24
`
`permitting.
`
`25
`
`
`
`55. As part of the pesticide registration process, the EPA requires, among other things,
`
`26
`
`a variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides, toxicity to people and other
`
`27
`
`potential non-target organisms, and other adverse effects on the environment.
`
`28
`
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 10 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`56. As a general rule, FIFRA requires registrants, the chemical companies registered to
`
`sell the pesticides, to perform health and safety testing of pesticides. However, FIFRA does not
`
`require the EPA itself to perform health and safety testing of pesticides, and the EPA generally
`
`does not perform such testing.
`
`
`
`57.
`
`The EPA registers (or re-registers) a pesticide if it is persuaded, based largely on
`
`studies and data submitted by the registrant, that: (1) its composition is such as to warrant the
`
`proposed claims for it, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(A); (2) its labeling and other material required to be
`
`submitted comply with the requirements of FIFRA, 7 U.S.C. § 136a(c)(5)(B); (3) it will perform
`
`its intended function without unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, 7 U.S.C. §
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`136a(c)(5)(C); and (4) when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized
`
`11
`
`practice it will not generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on the environment, 7 U.S.C. §
`
`12
`
`136a(c)(5)(D).
`
`13
`
`
`
`58.
`
`FIFRA defines “unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” as “any
`
`14
`
`unreasonable risk to man or the environment, taking into account the economic, social, and
`
`15
`
`environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. § 136(bb).
`
`16
`
`
`
`59.
`
` Under FIFRA, “[a]s long as no cancellation proceedings are in effect registration
`
`17
`
`of a pesticide shall be prima facie evidence that the pesticide, its labeling and packaging comply
`
`18
`
`with the registration provisions of [FIFRA].” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2). However, FIFRA further
`
`19
`
`provides that “[i]n no event shall registration of an article be construed as a defense for the
`
`20
`
`commission of any offense under [FIFRA].” 7 U.S.C. § 136a(f)(2).
`
`21
`
`
`
`60.
`
`The distribution or sale of a pesticide that is misbranded is an offense under
`
`22
`
`FIFRA, which provides in relevant part that “it shall be unlawful for any person in any State to
`
`23
`
`distribute or sell to any person ... any pesticide which is ... misbranded.” 7 U.S.C. § 136j(a)(1)(E).
`
`24
`
`A pesticide is misbranded under FIFRA if, among other things: (1) its labeling bears any
`
`25
`
`statement, design, or graphic representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or
`
`26
`
`misleading in any particular, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(A); (2) the labeling accompanying it does not
`
`27
`
`contain directions for use which are necessary for effecting the purpose for which the product is
`
`28
`
`intended and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of
`
`
`
`10
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 11 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`this title, are adequate to protect health and the environment, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(F); or (3) the
`
`label does not contain a warning or caution statement which may be necessary and if complied
`
`with, together with any requirements imposed under section 136a(d) of this title, is adequate to
`
`protect health and the environment,” 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(G).
`
`
`
`61. As a result, a pesticide may be misbranded despite an EPA determination that it
`
`met FIFRA’s registration criteria. In other words, notwithstanding its registration, a pesticide is
`
`misbranded if its label contains “false or misleading” statements, has inadequate instructions for
`
`use, or omits warnings or cautionary statements necessary to protect human health. Similarly, a
`
`pesticide may be found to cause unreasonable adverse effects on humans when used according to
`
`10
`
`the approved label despite a determination by the EPA that it would not.
`
`11
`
`62.
`
`Plaintiff does not seek in this action to impose on Defendants any labeling or
`
`12
`
`packaging requirement in addition to or different from those required under FIFRA. Any
`
`13
`
`allegation in this Complaint that a Defendant breached a duty to provide adequate directions for
`
`14
`
`the use of or warnings about Paraquat, breached a duty to provide adequate packaging for
`
`15
`
`Paraquat, concealed, suppressed, or omitted to disclose any material fact about Paraquat, or
`
`16
`
`engaged in any unfair or deceptive practice regarding Paraquat, is intended and should be
`
`17
`
`construed to be consistent with that alleged breach, concealment, suppression, or omission, or
`
`18
`
`unfair or deceptive practice having rendered the Paraquat “misbranded” under FIFRA. However,
`
`19
`
`Plaintiff brings claims and seeks relief in this action only under state law, and does not bring any
`
`20
`
`claims or seek any relief in this action under FIFRA.
`
`21
`
`22
`
`Acts of Syngenta Defendants
`
`63.
`
`SAG is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of Switzerland,
`
`23
`
`with its principal place of business in Basel, Switzerland. It is a successor by merger or
`
`24
`
`continuation of business to its corporate predecessors, including but not limited to ICI.
`
`25
`
`
`
`64.
`
`SCPLLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the State of
`
`26
`
`Delaware. It is a successor by merger or continuation of business to its corporate predecessors,
`
`27
`
`including but not limited to ICI Americas. SCPLLC is registered with the State of California,
`
`28
`
`Secretary of State to do business in the State of California.
`
`
`
`11
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 12 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`65.
`
`SCPLLC or its corporate predecessors have sufficient minimum contacts with the
`
`State of California and have purposefully availed themselves of the privileges of conducting
`
`business in the State of California, in that they:
`
`a. secured and maintained the registration of Paraquat products and other pesticides with
`
`the CDPR to enable themselves and others to manufacture, distribute, sell, and use these products
`
`in the State of California;
`
`b. marketed, licensed, advertised, distributed, sold, and delivered Paraquat and other
`
`pesticides to chemical companies, licensees, distributors, and dealers whom they expected to
`
`distribute and sell Paraquat and other pesticides in or for use in the State of California, including
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`10
`
`the Chevron Defendants and “Syngenta Retailers,” as well as to applicators and farmers in the
`
`11
`
`State of California;
`
`12
`
`c. employed or utilized sales representatives to market and sell Paraquat and other
`
`13
`
`pesticides in California;
`
`14
`
`d. maintained several locations throughout the State of California, including in the towns
`
`15
`
`of Sanger, Granite Bay and Roseville;
`
`16
`
`
`
`e. attended meetings of the CDPR’s Pesticide Registration and Evaluation Committee
`
`17
`
`relating to the registration of their pesticides, including Paraquat;
`
`18
`
`
`
`f. sponsored continuing education seminars for the CDPR at various locations in the State
`
`19
`
`of California, including the towns of Oxnard, Seal Beach, Rancho Santa Fe, Somis, Orcutt,
`
`20
`
`Woodland and Pala;
`
`21
`
`
`
`g. utilized California state courts to promote their pesticide business, including filing an
`
`22
`
`action against the CDPR and another pesticide manufacturer for allegedly using Syngenta data to
`
`23
`
`obtain approval of pesticides for others without its consent, see Syngenta Crop Prot., Inc. v.
`
`24
`
`Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135; and filing an action against the California EPA’s Office of
`
`25
`
`Environmental Health Hazard Assessment challenging the agency’s decision to list its pesticide
`
`26
`
`atrazine as a chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65, see Syngenta
`
`27
`
`Crop Protection v. OEHHA (Sacramento Superior Court Case No. 34-2014-800001868); and
`
`28
`
`
`
`h. performed and funded the testing of pesticides in the State of California.
`
`
`
`12
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 13 of 25
`
`
`
`1
`
`2
`
`3
`
`4
`
`5
`
`6
`
`7
`
`8
`
`9
`
`66.
`
`SCPLLC’s contacts with the State of California are related to or gave rise to this
`
`controversy.
`
`
`
`67.
`
`SAG exercises an unusually high degree of control over SCPLLC, such that
`
`SCPLLC is the agent or mere instrumentality of SAG. SCPLLC’s contacts with California are thus
`
`imputed to SAG for purposes of jurisdiction. See City of Greenville, Ill. v. Syngenta Crop Prot.,
`
`Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 550 (S.D. Ill. 2011).
`
`Acts of Chevron Defendants
`
`68. Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is a corporation organized under the laws of the State of
`
`Pennsylvania, with its headquarters and principal place of business in San Ramon, California.
`
`10
`
`69. Does One through Sixty are corporate entities which are agents, joint venturers,
`
`11
`
`alter-egos, successors-in-interest, and predecessors-in-interest to Chevron U.S.A., Inc. Does One
`
`12
`
`through Sixty were each acting within the course and scope of their agency, joint venture, alter-
`
`13
`
`ego relationship, and corporate interrelationship. The exact nature, relation, and corporate
`
`14
`
`structure of Does One through Sixty have not yet been finally determined. Plaintiff reserves the
`
`15
`
`right to amend this complaint with corporate allegations when they are finally determined.
`
`16
`
`
`
`70.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper over Chevron U.S.A. Inc. because it is a California resident,
`
`17
`
`maintaining its principal place of business and headquarters in California.
`
`18
`
`
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`DEFENDANTS’ TORTIOUS CONDUCT RESULTED IN DAVID ALBANESE
`
`DEVELOPING PARKINSON’S DISEASE
`
`71.
`
`Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE hereby refers to, incorporates, and re-alleges by this
`
`22
`
`reference as though set forth in full, each and every allegation hereinabove and makes them a part
`
`23
`
`of the following allegations.
`
`24
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE is a resident of Albany County, New York.
`
`25
`
`
`
`73.
`
`Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE was exposed to Paraquat manufactured and sold by
`
`26
`
`Defendants.
`
`27
`
`
`
`74.
`
`Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE worked at a farm in New York in the 1960s and
`
`28
`
`1970s, where he personally sprayed Paraquat.
`
`
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
`
`

`

`Case 3:21-cv-02496-SK Document 1 Filed 04/07/21 Page 14 of 25
`
`
`
`
`
`75. During this time, Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE was in close contact to the
`
`Paraquat that was designed, manufactured, and distributed by Defendants, and each of them.
`
`During that time, Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE would also mix, load, spray, and/or clean
`
`Paraquat.
`
`
`
`76.
`
`The Paraquat to which Plaintiff DAVID ALBANESE R was exposed entered his
`
`body through absorption or penetration of the skin, mucous membranes, and other epithelial
`
`tissues (including tissues of the mouth, nose and nasal passages, trachea, and conducting airways,
`
`particularly where cuts, abrasions, rashes, sores, or other tissue damage are present); and/or 2)