throbber
Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 1 of 109
`
`
`
`Robert C. Hilliard (pro hac vice to be filed)
`HILLIARD MARTINEZ GONZALES LLP
`719 S. Shoreline Blvd.
`Corpus Christi, TX 78401
`Telephone: (361) 882-1612
`Facsimile: (361) 882-3015
`Email: bobh@hmglawfirm.com
`
`
`
`Steve W. Berman (pro hac vice to be filed)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`1301 Second Avenue, Suite 2000
`Seattle, WA 98101
`Telephone: (206) 623-7292
`Facsimile: (206) 623-0594
`Email: steve@hbsslaw.com
`
`Shana E. Scarlett (SBN 217895)
`HAGENS BERMAN SOBOL SHAPIRO LLP
`715 Hearst Avenue, Suite 202
`Berkeley, CA 94710
`Telephone: (510) 725-3000
`Facsimile: (510) 725-3001
`Email: shanas@hbsslaw.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiffs
`[Additional Counsel Listed on Signature Page]
`
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`
`NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA
`
`No. ____________________
`AARON K. HOOPER, ALEATHEA BOWEN,
`ANDRE CURRENT, ANGELA VENABLE,
`
`ANTHONY HOLSTON, ARTHUR HAYES III,
`
`BRANDY POSPISIL, BRIDELEE GITTENS,
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`CHRISTOPHER JONES, CORY M. BYNUM,
`
`CRAIG M. RIXNER, CURTIS HARVEY WATTS,
`
`DAVID HEARD, DIANE CLARK CHAVIS,
`JURY TRIAL DEMANDED
`DWAYNE SMITH, EDWARD N. DODSON,
`FLOYD EVANS, GREGORY J. WALKER,
`
`ILENE M. BELTON, JAMES W. TERRY,
`JAMISON D. MCGLOTHLEN, JESSE HODSON,
`JOHN KLIMOWICZ, LARY BANK, MARILYN
`FAULKS, MAURICE ROYAL, MONICA
`THOMPSON, NORMAN J. NESMITH, REGINA
`THOMPSON-XADU, RICHARD BERRYMAN,
`RICHARD J. TREITNER, ROBIN WARREN,
`RYAN L. ALLEN, TERRI BELL, TERRY
`BOURN, THOMAS L. GIST, TIMOTHY JOHN
`GAUB, TIMOTHY M. HOLLAND, TODD
`BAKER, TRACY OXENDINE, WILLIE
`BRASLEY, and YUSEF MOORE,
`
`v.
`
`GILEAD SCIENCES, INC.,
`
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 2 of 109
`
`TABLE OF CONTENTS
`
`Page
`NATURE OF THE ACTION .................................................................................................. 1 
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE .............................................................................................. 5 
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT ........................................................................................ 5 
`PARTIES ................................................................................................................................. 5 
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS ................................................................................................ 21 
`A. 
`Background ................................................................................................................ 21 
`Laws and regulations governing the approval and labeling of
`1. 
`prescription drugs. ......................................................................................... 21 
`Tenofovir and Gilead’s TDF- and TAF- containing drug
`products indicated for use in treating HIV. ................................................... 24 
`Gilead knew before Viread was approved that TDF posed a significant
`safety risk. .................................................................................................................. 29 
`Gilead’s knowledge of TDF toxicity grew as patients’ kidneys and
`bones were damaged by the TDF Drugs. .................................................................. 32 
`Before Gilead developed Stribild, it knew that renal adverse events
`were more likely when patients took TDF as part of a boosted regimen. ................. 36 
`Before Gilead developed each of the TDF Drugs, it knew that TAF
`was less toxic to kidneys and bones than TDF. ......................................................... 37 
`Gilead withheld its safer TAF design to protect its TDF sales and
`extend profits on its HIV franchise. .......................................................................... 44 
`Gilead knowingly designed its TDF drugs to be unreasonably
`dangerous and unsafe to patients’ kidneys and bones. .............................................. 46 
`Gilead obtained FDA approval for its TAF-based products by relying
`on studies demonstrating TAF’s superiority over TDF. ............................................ 49 
`Gilead markets TAF as superior to TDF. .................................................................. 51 
`Gilead failed to adequately warn about the risks of TDF. ......................................... 56 
`Gilead failed to adequately warn doctors about the risks of
`1. 
`TDF. ............................................................................................................... 56 
`Gilead failed to adequately warn patients about the risks of
`TDF. ............................................................................................................... 70 
`Gilead could have unilaterally strengthened its TDF drug
`labels. ............................................................................................................. 72 
`
`B. 
`
`C. 
`
`D. 
`
`E. 
`
`F. 
`
`G. 
`
`H. 
`
`I. 
`J. 
`
`2. 
`
`2. 
`
`3. 
`
`
`
`
`I. 
`II. 
`III. 
`IV. 
`V. 
`
`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
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – i
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 3 of 109
`
`
`
`a. 
`
`b. 
`
`Gilead could have unilaterally strengthened its warnings
`before FDA approval. ........................................................................ 72 
`Gilead could have unilaterally strengthened its warnings
`after FDA approval. ........................................................................... 73 
`(1) 
`Before August 22, 2008 ......................................................... 73 
`(2) 
`On and after August 22, 2008 through July 2012 ................. 74 
`TOLLING OF THE STATUTE OF LIMITATIONS ........................................................... 79 
`VI. 
`VII.  CLAIMS FOR RELIEF ......................................................................................................... 81 
`COUNT I STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – DESIGN DEFECT UNDER THE
`LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES OF
`ARKANSAS, COLORADO, GEORGIA, NEW YORK, RHODE ISLAND,
`SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WEST
`VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN ........................................................................................... 81 
`COUNT II STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY – FAILURE TO WARN UNDER
`THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND OF THE STATES
`OF ARKANSAS, COLORADO, GEORGIA, NEW YORK, RHODE
`ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, WEST
`VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN ........................................................................................... 83 
`COUNT III CONNECTICUT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT, CONN. GEN. STAT.
`52-572N ET SEQ .................................................................................................................. 85 
`COUNT IV LOUISIANA PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT, LA. R.S. §§ 9:2800.51, ET
`SEQ. ....................................................................................................................................... 87 
`COUNT V WASHINGTON PRODUCTS LIABILITY ACT, REV. CODE WASH.
`§§ 7.72-010 ET SEQ. ............................................................................................................ 88 
`COUNT VI NEGLIGENCE AND GROSS NEGLIGENCE UNDER THE LAWS OF
`THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE STATES OF ARKANSAS,
`COLORADO, GEORGIA, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, NORTH
`CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DAKOTA,
`TENNESSEE, TEXAS, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN ........................................ 89 
`COUNT VII FRAUD BY OMISSION UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF
`COLUMBIA AND THE STATES OF ARKASNAS, COLORADO,
`GEORGIA, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW YORK, NORTH CAROLINA,
`RHODE ISLANDS, SOUTH CAROLINA, SOUTH DKOTA, TENNESSEE,
`TEXAS, WASHINGTON, WEST VIRGINIA, AND WISCONSIN ................................... 93 
`COUNT VIII BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY
`UNDER THE LAWS OF THE DISTRICT OF COLUMBIA AND THE
`STATES OF ARKANSAS, COLORADO, MASSACHUSETTS, NEW
`YORK, NORTH CAROLINA, RHODE ISLAND, SOUTH CAROLINA,
`SOUTH DAKOTA, TENNESSEE, TEXAS, AND WEST VIRGINIA ............................... 95 
`COUNT IX VIOLATION OF STATE CONSUMER PROTECTION LAWS ................................ 97 
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – ii
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 4 of 109
`
`
`
`Arkansas, Ark. Code Ann. §§ 4-88-101 et seq. ................................. 99 
`a. 
`Colorado, Colo. Rev. Stat. §§ 6-1-101 et seq. ................................... 99 
`b. 
`Massachusetts, Mass. Gen. Laws Ch. 93A § 1 et seq. .................... 100 
`c. 
`New York: N.Y. Gen. Bus. Law § 349 ........................................... 100 
`d. 
`North Carolina, N.C. Gen. Stat. §§ 75-1.1 et seq. ........................... 101 
`e. 
`Rhode Island, R.I. Gen. Laws §§ 6-13.1 et seq. .............................. 101 
`f. 
`South Carolina, S.C. Code Ann. §§ 39-5-10 et seq. ........................ 102 
`g. 
`South Dakota, S.D. Codified Laws §§ 37-24-1 et seq. .................... 102 
`h. 
`Texas: Tex. Bus. & Com. Code Ann. §§ 17.41 et seq. .................... 103 
`i. 
`PRAYER FOR RELIEF .................................................................................................................. 104 
`JURY DEMAND ............................................................................................................................. 105 
`
`
`
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – iii
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 5 of 109
`
`
`
`Plaintiffs bring this civil action for damages against Defendant Gilead Sciences, Inc.
`(“Gilead” or “Defendant”). Based on the investigation of counsel, Plaintiffs allege on information
`and belief as follows:
`
`I.
`NATURE OF THE ACTION
`1.
`This action arises out of injuries Plaintiffs sustained as a result of ingesting one or more
`of the prescription drugs Viread, Truvada, Atripla, Complera, and Stribild, which are manufactured
`and marketed by Gilead for the treatment of Human Immunodeficiency Virus-1 (“HIV”) infection.1
`2.
`Gilead designed each of the drugs to contain a form of the compound tenofovir that
`Gilead knew was toxic to patients’ kidneys and bones. Tenofovir is a nucleotide analogue reverse
`transcriptase inhibitor (“NRTI”), one of the classes of antiretroviral drugs used to treat HIV. NRTIs
`work by blocking an enzyme HIV needs to replicate. Gilead did not discover tenofovir. Scientists in
`Europe discovered tenofovir in the 1980s, and though the anti-HIV properties of tenofovir were
`promising, it had a downside: it cannot not be administered effectively by mouth.
`3.
`Because an intravenous tenofovir formulation had little sales potential, Gilead
`developed a form of tenofovir, tenofovir disoproxil, which can be taken orally.2 The fumaric acid salt
`of tenofovir disoproxil is tenofovir disoproxil fumarate (“TDF”). When a patient takes a pill containing
`TDF, the patient’s body converts TDF into tenofovir. Although TDF can be taken by mouth, a high
`dose of 300 mg is typically required to achieve the desired therapeutic effect.
`4.
`Gilead designed TDF 300 mg to be an active ingredient in five drugs that are approved
`to treat HIV: Viread (TDF 300 mg tablets), approved October 26, 2001; Truvada (TDF 300
`mg/emtricitabine 200 mg tablets), approved August 2, 2004; Atripla (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200
`mg/efavirenz 600 mg tablets), approved July 12, 2006; Complera (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200
`mg/rilpivirine 25 mg tablets), approved August 10, 2011; and Stribild (TDF 300 mg/emtricitabine 200
`
`
`1 Viread is also indicated to treat Hepatitis B. And Truvada is also indicated for use in combination
`with safe sex practices for pre-exposure prophylaxis (PrEP) to reduce the risk of sexually acquired
`HIV-1 in adults at high risk.
`2 Tenofovir disoproxil is a prodrug form of tenofovir. Prodrugs are pharmacologically inactive
`compounds that can be more efficiently absorbed into the bloodstream and then converted into the
`active form of the drug within the body.
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 1
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 6 of 109
`
`
`
`mg/elvitegravir 150 mg/cobicistat 150 mg tablets), approved August 27, 2012 (collectively, these are
`the “TDF Drugs”).
`5.
`Before Gilead began selling its first TDF Drug, Viread, in 2001, Gilead knew that TDF
`posed a safety risk to patients’ kidneys and bones. Gilead knew that two of its other antiviral drugs
`with structures similar to tenofovir, cidofovir and adefovir dipivoxil, had been highly nephrotoxic (i.e.,
`toxic to kidneys) and that preclinical data for TDF showed that it could cause significant kidney and
`bone damage. Gilead also knew that the relatively high dose of TDF created a greater risk of toxic
`effects, and that bone and kidney toxicities were even more likely to be seen with long-term use of
`TDF for the treatment of a virus that, for the foreseeable future, has no cure.
`6.
`Gilead’s knowledge of the toxic effects of TDF only grew as patients began treatment
`with and were injured by each successive TDF product. By the time Gilead designed Stribild, it had
`ten years’ worth of cumulative evidence that TDF injured patients’ kidneys and bones.
`7.
`Gilead also knew, before it obtained approval to market Viread and Gilead’s subsequent
`TDF Drugs, that it had discovered a safer tenofovir prodrug, tenofovir alafenamide fumarate (“TAF”).
`TAF is absorbed into the cells HIV targets much more efficiently than TDF. As a result, TAF can be
`administered at a dramatically reduced dose compared to TDF, but still achieve the same or higher
`concentrations of active tenofovir in the target cells. Because TAF can be administered at a much lower
`dose than TDF, its use is associated with less toxicity and fewer side effects. A 25 mg dose of TAF
`achieves the same therapeutic effect as a 300 mg dose of TDF, with a better safety profile. Despite
`knowing that TAF could be given at a much lower, safer dose, Gilead designed Viread, Truvada,
`Atripla, Complera, and Stribild to contain TDF rather than safer TAF.
`8.
`Falsely claiming that TAF was not different enough from TDF, Gilead abruptly shelved
`its TAF design in 2004. However, as John Milligan, Gilead’s President and Chief Executive Officer,
`later admitted to investment analysts, the real reason Gilead abandoned the TAF design was that TAF
`was too different from TDF. Once Gilead’s first TDF product, Viread, was on the market, Gilead did
`not want to hurt TDF sales by admitting that its TDF-based products are unreasonably and
`unnecessarily unsafe.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 2
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 7 of 109
`
`
`
`9.
`It was crucial at that time for Gilead to increase Viread sales, which comprised 53% of
`Gilead’s total product sales in 2002, and 68% of Gilead’s total product sales in 2003. Gilead was so
`desperate to expand Viread sales that when promoting the drug to doctors, it called Viread a “miracle
`drug” with “no toxicities.” Gilead did not tell doctors the facts: that Viread posed significant risks to
`patients’ kidneys and bones.
`10.
`In addition, Gilead knew that by withholding the safer TAF design, it could extend the
`longevity of its HIV drug franchise and make billions two times over: first, with TDF medications
`until TDF patent expiration, which would begin by no later than 2018, and second, with TAF
`medications until TAF patent expiration as late as 2032. Only once Gilead realized billions in sales
`through most of the TDF patent life did it seek to market safer TAF-based versions of its HIV
`medications.
`11.
`Finally, in 2015, Gilead began selling the first of its TAF-designed medicines and
`convinced doctors to switch their patients from TDF-based to TAF-based regimens by demonstrating
`TAF’s superior safety profile over TDF with respect to kidney and bone toxicity—the very benefits
`that Gilead could have and should have incorporated into its prior product designs but withheld from
`doctors and patients for over a decade.
`12.
`Gilead also made Stribild even more dangerous to Plaintiffs when it designed the drug
`to include cobicistat in combination with 300 mg TDF. Cobicistat is a pharmacoenhancer or “booster”
`that inhibits the breakdown of elvitegravir, another active ingredient in Stribild. Cobicistat allows
`elvitegravir to persist in the patient’s system long enough to permit once-daily dosing.
`13.
`Gilead knew years before it developed Stribild that: (a) higher tenofovir concentrations
`in patients’ blood, as opposed to the target cells, endangers the kidneys; (b) tenofovir concentrations
`in patients’ blood increase significantly when patients take tenofovir with a booster; and (c) TDF-
`associated renal toxicity occurs more frequently in patients taking TDF as part of a boosted regimen.
`14. When Gilead developed its first TAF-based antiviral product, Genvoya—which is
`Stribild with TAF in place of TDF—Gilead reduced the dose of TAF from 25 mg to 10 mg to account
`for the fact that cobicistat significantly increases tenofovir concentrations. Gilead knew to reduce the
`dose of TAF in Genvoya before it submitted Stribild to the FDA for marketing approval. Despite this
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 3
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 8 of 109
`
`
`
`knowledge, Gilead did not reduce the dose of TDF when it designed Stribild. Stribild is even more
`toxic to patients’ kidneys and bones than Gilead’s other TDF-based products.
`15.
`In addition to withholding safer designs, Gilead failed to adequately warn physicians
`and patients about the risks and safe use of TDF. Gilead provided only the weakest, inadequate
`warnings to doctors and patients about the need for frequent monitoring of all patients for TDF-
`associated kidney and bone damage—preventing doctors from detecting early signs of TDF toxicity.
`16.
`Gilead provides stronger monitoring warnings to physicians and patients in the
`European Union (EU) than it does in the United States for the exact same TDF products. Contrary to
`its U.S. labeling, Gilead has consistently recommended, since the approval of its first TDF Drug in the
`EU, that doctors in the EU monitor all TDF Drug patients for multiple markers of TDF toxicity on a
`frequent, specified schedule. There is no scientific or medical rationale for these differences. Gilead
`was more concerned with increasing or maintaining crucial U.S. sales than it was in safeguarding
`patients from the known risks of TDF.
`17.
`Gilead could have strengthened the warnings in its U.S. labels at any time, including
`before FDA approval for all TDF Drugs and after FDA approval for Viread, Truvada, Atripla, and
`Complera. After August 2008 through July 2012, Gilead could have unilaterally strengthened the
`warnings in its TDF Drug labels after approval based on: increasing evidence that patients with and
`without preexisting risk factors were experiencing adverse effects with a frequency and severity greater
`than reported in Gilead’s Viread clinical trials; expanding evidence that all patients are at risk for TDF-
`induced nephrotoxicity; and Gilead’s own determinations to give stronger warnings regarding the
`exact same TDF Drugs in the EU. This post-approval information demonstrated risks of a different
`frequency and severity than information previously presented to the FDA.
`18.
`Gilead intentionally withheld a safer alternative design of TDF Drugs it knew to be
`dangerously toxic to patients’ kidneys and bones, while failing to adequately warn about the risks and
`safer use of the defective drugs, solely to make more money. Accordingly, Plaintiffs bring this action
`to recover damages for their personal injuries and seek punitive damages arising from Gilead’s willful
`and wanton conduct.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 4
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 9 of 109
`
`
`
`II.
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`19.
`Jurisdiction exists under 28 U.S.C. § 1332(a) because all Plaintiffs and Gilead are
`citizens of different states and the matter in controversy exceeds the sum or value of $75,000, exclusive
`of interests and costs.
`20.
`Venue is proper in this District under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(1)–(2). Defendant resides in
`this District and a substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred
`in this District.
`
`III.
`INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT
`21.
`Pursuant to Civil L.R. 3-2(c), this action shall be assigned to the San Francisco Division
`or the Oakland Division because Gilead resides and has its principal place of business in San Mateo
`County. This action is related to another action pending before Judge Jon S. Tigar in the Northern
`District of California.
`
`IV.
`PARTIES
`22.
`Plaintiffs are consumers who ingested one or more of the following TDF Drugs: Viread,
`Truvada, Atripla, Complera, or Stribild.
`23.
`Plaintiffs suffered personal injuries caused by ingesting TDF.
`24.
`Plaintiff Aaron K. Hooper is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of
`Tennessee and domiciled in Nashville, Tennessee. Plaintiff Aaron K. Hooper purchased and ingested
`the following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Truvada beginning in 2010. As a result
`of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and was
`injured by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or contributed
`to Plaintiff suffering Chronic Kidney Disease. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to
`require and incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff
`has endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life
`as a result of their injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss of earning capacity, and other
`injuries and damages to be proven at trial.
`25.
`Plaintiff Aleathea Bowen is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of North
`Carolina and domiciled in Greensboro, North Carolina. Plaintiff Aleathea Bowen purchased and
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 5
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 10 of 109
`
`
`
`ingested the following TDF Drugs for an FDA-approved use of the drugs: Viread, Truvada and Atripla
`beginning in 2005. As a result of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drugs,
`Plaintiff ingested and was injured by the foregoing TDF Drugs. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drugs
`caused and/or contributed to Plaintiff suffering Chronic Kidney Disease. Plaintiff required and
`incurred and will continue to require and incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a
`result of these injuries. Plaintiff has endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental
`anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of her injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss
`of earning capacity, and other injuries and damages to be proven at trial.
`26.
`Plaintiff Andre Current is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of Arkansas
`and domiciled in Hensley, Arkansas. Plaintiff Andre Current purchased and ingested the following
`TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Truvada beginning in 2005. As a result of Gilead’s
`wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and was injured by the
`foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or contributed to Plaintiff
`suffering bone density loss. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to require and incur
`expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff has endured and
`will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of his
`injuries, and has suffered other injuries and damages to be proven at trial.
`27.
`Plaintiff Angela Venable is and was at all relevant times a citizen of and domiciled in
`Washington, District of Columbia. Plaintiff Angela Venable purchased and ingested the following
`TDF Drugs for an FDA-approved use of the drugs: Truvada and Atripla beginning in 2004. As a result
`of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drugs, Plaintiff ingested and was
`injured by the foregoing TDF Drugs. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drugs caused and/or contributed
`to Plaintiff suffering bone demineralization, which resulted in a diagnosis of osteoporosis. Plaintiff
`required and incurred and will continue to require and incur expenses in connection with medical
`treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff has endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering,
`mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of her injuries, and has suffered other injuries
`and damages to be proven at trial.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 6
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 11 of 109
`
`
`
`28.
`Plaintiff Anthony Holston is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of
`Wisconsin and domiciled in Milwaukee, Wisconsin. Plaintiff Anthony Holston purchased and ingested
`the following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Viread beginning in 2001. As a result
`of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and was
`injured by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or contributed
`to Plaintiff suffering high creatinine levels. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to require
`and incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff has
`endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a
`result of his injuries, and has suffered other injuries and damages to be proven at trial.
`29.
`Plaintiff Arthur Hayes, III, is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of
`Georgia and domiciled in Decatur, Georgia. Plaintiff Arthur Hayes, III, purchased and ingested the
`following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Atripla beginning in 2014. As a result of
`Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and was injured
`by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or contributed to
`Plaintiff suffering low kidney function. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to require and
`incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff has endured
`and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of
`their injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss of earning capacity, and other injuries and
`damages to be proven at trial.
`30.
`Plaintiff Brandy Pospisil is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of New
`York and domiciled in Waverly, New York. Plaintiff Brandy Pospisil purchased and ingested the
`following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Truvada beginning in 2004. As a result of
`Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and was injured
`by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or contributed to
`Plaintiff suffering high creatinine levels. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to require
`and incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff has
`endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 7
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 12 of 109
`
`
`
`result of his injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss of earning capacity, and other injuries and
`damages to be proven at trial.
`31.
`Plaintiff Bridelee Gittens is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of New
`York and domiciled in New York, New York. Plaintiff Bridelee Gittens purchased and ingested the
`following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Viread beginning in 2002. As a result of
`Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and was injured
`by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or contributed to
`Plaintiff suffering Chronic Kidney Disease. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to require
`and incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff has
`endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a
`result of her injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss of earning capacity, and other injuries and
`damages to be proven at trial.
`32.
`Plaintiff Christopher Jones is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of
`Tennessee and domiciled in Jonesborough, Tennessee. Plaintiff Christopher Jones purchased and
`ingested the following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Truvada beginning in 2012.
`As a result of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested
`and was injured by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or
`contributed to Plaintiff suffering low kidney function. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue
`to require and incur expenses in connection with medical treatment as a result of these injuries. Plaintiff
`has endured and will continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life
`as a result of his injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss of earning capacity, and other injuries
`and damages to be proven at trial.
`33.
`Plaintiff Cory M. Bynum is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of North
`Carolina and domiciled in Greensboro, North Carolina. Plaintiff Cory M. Bynum purchased and
`ingested the following TDF Drug for an FDA-approved use of the drug: Atripla beginning in 2009. As
`a result of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drug, Plaintiff ingested and
`was injured by the foregoing TDF Drug. Plaintiff’s ingestion of the TDF Drug caused and/or
`contributed to Plaintiff suffering end-stage renal disease, requiring dialysis treatments and a kidney
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES – 8
`Case No.:
`010759-11/1558273 V1
`
`1
`2
`3
`4
`5
`6
`7
`8
`9
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`

`

`Case 4:21-cv-04283 Document 1 Filed 06/04/21 Page 13 of 109
`
`
`
`transplant. Plaintiff required and incurred and will continue to require and incur expenses in connection
`with medical treatment as a result of these injuries, including surgery. Plaintiff has endured and will
`continue to endure pain, suffering, mental anguish, and loss of enjoyment of life as a result of his
`injuries, has suffered lost earnings and/or a loss of earning capacity, and other injuries and damages to
`be proven at trial.
`34.
`Plaintiff Craig M. Rixner is and was at all relevant times a citizen of the State of
`Louisiana and domiciled in New Orleans, Louisiana. Plaintiff Craig M. Rixner purchased and ingested
`the following TDF Drugs for an FDA-approved use of the drugs: Viread beginning in 2001. As a result
`of Gilead’s wrongful conduct with respect to the defective TDF Drugs, Pl

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