FILEBYFAX
`
`wooximmrhwmI—I
`
`NNNMNNMNNI—‘I—‘I—‘I—‘HI—‘l—‘f—‘l—‘HooqoscnphwwI—nocooosamcne-cowI-Ao
`
` LAW OFFICES OF
`
`WALKUP, MELODIA, KELLY S: SCHOENBERGER
`A PROFESSIONAL CORPORATION
`
`DEC 3 3 2020
`
`650 CALIFORNIA STREET, 26*" FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CALIFORNIA 94108-2615
`T: (415) 981—7210 , F: (415) 39143965
`
`C
`
`By;
`
`K OF H COURT
`'
`Deputy Clerk
`
`-
`
`MICHAEL A KELLY (State Bar #71460)
`mkelly@walkuplawotfice. com
`KHALDOUN A. BAGHDADI (State Bar #190111)
`kbaghdadi@walkuplawoffice. com
`SARA M. PETERSp(State Bar #260610)
`speters@walkuplawoffice.com
`
`ROBERT KING (State Bar #331709)
`rking@koreintillery.com
`MICHAEL KLENOV (State Bar #277028)
`mklenov@koreintillery.com
`KOREIN TILLERY, LLC
`505 North 7th Street, Suite 3600
`St. Louis, MO 63101
`Telephone: 314-241-4844
`Facsimile: 314—241-3525
`
`ATTORNEYS FOR PLAINTIFFS
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
`
`COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`DAVID HANSE and BILLIE HANSE,
`
`Case No.Q
`
`v.
`
`. Plaintiffs,
`..
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`[Complex] [Personal Injury]
`
`Demand for a Jury Trial
`
`'
`~
`f
`SYNGENTA AG; SYNGENTA CROP
`PROTECTION, LLC; CHEVRON USA,
`INC.; WILBUR—ELLIS COMPANY,
`LLC; and DOES ONE through ONE
`HUNDRED, inclusive,
`
`Defendant.
`
`
`COME NOW Plaintiffs David Hanse and Bonnie Hanse (collectively hereafter
`
`“Plaintiffs”), by and through their undersigned attorneys, and complain of
`
`Defendants Syngenta AG (“SAG”) and SyngentaCrop Protection, LLC (“SCPLLC”)
`
`(together with their predecessors-in-interest, referred to collectively as the “Syngenta
`
`I
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`(OOOfiQCflv-PCOND—l
`
`NNNNNNNMr—lr—IHHHHHi—Ii—IHQmmAwNHOcooo-qmmithD—‘O
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES of
`warm. 5mm. mm
`APEDESSIDNAL(ORPQMTION
`a SCI-{OENBERGER
`650 CALIFORNIASI'REET
`26TH FLO0R
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(413) 981-7210
`
`Defendants”); Chevron USA, Inc. (together with their predecessors-in-interest,
`
`referred to collectively as the “Chevron Defendants”); Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC
`
`(together with its predecessors-in-interest, referred to hereafter as “Wilbur-Ellis”);1
`
`and Does One through Sixty, state:
`
`ALLEGATIONS COMMON TO ALL COUNTS
`
`Nature of the Case
`
`1.
`
`Plaintiff David Hanse (hereinafter “the injured Plaintiff”) suffers from
`
`Parkinson’s disease caused by his exposure to the herbicide paraquatz. Plaintiff Billie
`
`Hanse is the lawful spouse of Plaintiff David Hanse who suffered loss of consortium
`
`due to his Parkinson’s disease.
`
`2.
`
`3.
`
`Plaintiffs are California 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 (or
`
`for loss of support, society, and consortium) 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
`
`1 As alleged herein, the defendants named in this Complaint are liable for Plaintiffs’ injuries based on
`one or more theories: in the case of Chevron USA, Inc., successor liability for the conduct of their
`corporate predecessors in manufacturing and/or selling paraquat; and/or in the case of Chevron USA,
`Inc., vicarious liability for the conduct of their subsidiaries in manufacturing and/or selling paraquat.
`Thus, whenever the. generic term “Defendants” is used in this Complaint, it is intended to include not
`only the companies named as defendants herein, but also the named defendants’ predecessors,
`subsidiaries, and any other related entity whose acts subject the named defendants to liability as
`alleged herein.
`
`‘3 Unless the context indicates otherwise, references in this Complaint to “paraquat” include the
`chemical compound paraquat dichloride and formulated herbicide products containing paraquat
`dichloride as an active ingredient.
`
`2
`COMPLAINT FOR DAL/[AGES
`
`

`

`{DOOKWOUCflrFDJNl—l
`
`NNNNNN‘NNHI—‘t—‘HHD—‘HHl—‘Hdaugwwwowmqmmanr-Io
`
`28
`LAW omcss or
`VVALKUP. BELODIA. KELLY
`5L SCHOENBERGER
`A PROFESSIONAL(OWOMIDN
`650 CALIFORNIA Sl'REEY
`26TH noon
`SAN quusco, ca stuns
`(415) 931-7210
`
`substance that can cause severe neurological injuries and impairment, and should
`
`have taken steps in their research, manufacture, and sale of paraquat to ensure that
`
`people would not be harmed by foreseeable uses of paraquat.
`
`Doe Defendants and General Party Allegations
`
`6.
`
`The true names or capacities whether individual, corporate,
`
`governmental or associate, of the Defendants named herein as Doe are unknown to
`
`Plaintiffs who therefore sue said Defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs pray
`
`leave to amend this Complaint to show their true names and capacities and/or bases
`
`for immunity when the samehave been finally determined.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and upon such information and
`
`belief allege, that each of the Defendants designated herein as Doe is 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.
`
`8.
`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 each of the other, and each was acting within the course
`
`and scope of their agency, service, joint venture, alter ego relationship, employment,
`
`and corporate interrelationship.
`
`Market History of Paraquat and
`
`SuccessorNicarious/Joint Liability Allegations
`
`9.
`
`UK. manufacturer Imperial Chemical Industries Ltd. a/k/a Imperial
`
`Chemical Industries PLC (“ICI”) first introduced paraquat to world markets in or
`
`about 1962 under the brand name GRAMOXONE®
`
`10.
`
`In or about 1971, 101 created or acquired a wholly owned U.S.
`
`subsidiary organized under the laws of the State of Delaware, which was ultimately
`
`known as 101 Americas Inc. (“ICI Americas”).
`
`11.
`
`Chevron Chemical Company was a corporation organized under the
`
`3
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`
`
`

`

`1
`
`laws of the State of Delaware.
`
`12.
`
`Pursuant to distribution and licensing agreements with ICI and ICI
`
`Americas, Chevron Chemical Company had exclusive rights to distribute and sell
`
`paraquat in the United States and did in fact manufacture, formulate, distribute, and
`
`sell paraquat in the United States, including in California for use in California, from
`
`approximately 1964 until approximately 1986.
`
`13.
`
`Chevron U.S.A., Inc. is the successor-in-interest to Chevron Chemical
`
`Company.
`
`14.
`
`At all relevant times, Chevron Chemical Company acted as the agent of
`
`Chevron USA, Inc. in selling and distributing paraquat in the US. At all relevant
`
`times, Chevron Chemical Company was acting within the scope of its agency in
`
`selling and distributing paraquat. Chevron USA, Inc. is liable for the acts of its
`
`agent.
`
`15.
`
`From approximately 1964 through approximately 1986, pursuant to
`
`distribution and licensing agreements with Chevron Chemical Company, SAG’s
`
`and/0r SCPLLC’S predecessors-in-interest, ICI and ICI Americas, and Does One
`
`through Forty 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.
`.
`I
`
`From approximately 1964 through approximately 1986, pursuant to
`16.
`distribution and licensing agreements between and among them, ICI, ICI Americas,
`
`Chevron Chemical Company, and Does One through Forty acted in concert to
`
`register, manufacture, formulate, and distribute and sell (through Chevron Chemical
`Company) paraduatl for use in the US, including in California for use in California,
`
`and their respective successors-in-interest, SAG, SCPLLC, and Chevron USA, Inc.,
`
`are jointly liable for the resulting injuries alleged herein.
`
`LDOOKTCDCflbPOON
`
`NNNNNNNNP—‘Ht—‘i—‘r—IHl—‘f—‘HHqmmgwwHowmqmmAmmr—Io
`
`17.
`
`After 1986, SCPLLC, Does Twenty-One through Sixty, and/or their
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKUP. hlBLODlA. KELLY
`5L SCHOENBERGER
`A PwrsssmNAL(OWMHJN
`650 CALIFORNIA SIREEY
`ZGI'H FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94105
`(415) 581-7210
`
`predecessors-in—interest sold and distributed and continue to sell and distribute
`
`
`‘
`4
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`LOOOK'IGDUTIFkCONI—t
`
`NNNNNNNNHHHHHHHHHH<6:"Oin4>.oaNHo.tooo«1®01»J>ooNi-*O
`
`paraquat in the United States, including in California for use in California.
`18.
`As a result of mergers and corporate restructuring, SAG is the
`
`successor-in-interest to ICI.
`
`As a result of mergers and corporate restructuring, SCPLLC is the
`19.
`successor-in-interest to ICl Americas, Inc.
`
`20.
`
`Thus, from approximately 1964 through the present, the Syngenta
`
`Defendants, Does: One through Sixty, or their predecessors-in-interest have
`
`manufactured, formulated, distributed, and sold paraquat for use in the U.S.,
`
`including in California for use in California.
`
`Injured Plaintiff's Exposure to. Paraquat
`
`21.
`
`At all relevant times, the injured Plaintiff was an agricultural laborer
`
`and/or farmer who was exposed to paraquat in California: (1) when it was mixed,
`
`loaded, applied, and/or cleaned; (2) as a result of spray-drift (the movement of
`
`herbicide spray droplets from the target area to an area ‘where herbicide application
`was not intended, typically by Wind); and/or (3) as a result of contact with sprayed
`plants.
`V
`i
`22. At all, relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that When paraquat
`was used in the intended or aireasonably foreseeable manner, users of paraquat and
`persons nearby would be exposed to it.
`. 23. _ At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that paraquat could
`enter the human body. (1) through absorption or penetration ofthe 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) th1ough respiration into the lungs; and (4) through ingestion into the digestive
`tract of small droplets swallowed after entering the mouth, nose, or conducting
`
`airways.
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKU'P, MELODM. KELLY
`St. SCHOENBERGER
`A PROFESSIONAL(onmmmu
`65!] CALIFORNIASIEEU
`26TH FLOOR
`US
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 941
`(415) 981-1210
`
`
`5
`.
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`(DOOQOUD'erDDNl-A
`HHHHHHHmathONI—‘O
`NNNNNNNNH\‘Imle-RQDNHOEO
`
`Hp—sOO-x‘l
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKUP. RELODIA. KELLY
`8v. SCHOENBERGER
`A WorsssloNALtomxAmN
`650 CALIFORNIA SI'REE?
`26TH FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415) 981-1210
`
`Paraquat Causes Parkinson’s Disease
`24. ' At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that paraquat that
`
`entered a human body could ultimately enter the brain.
`
`25.
`
`At all relevant times, it was reasonably foreseeable that paraquat that
`
`entered a human body could induce the misfolding of the alpha synuclein protein.
`
`26.
`Parkinson’s disease is a progressive neurodegenerative disorder of the
`brain that affects primarily the motor system—the part of the central nervous system
`
`that controls movement.
`
`27.
`
`The characteristic symptoms of Parkinson’s disease are its “primary”
`
`motor symptoms: resting tremor (shaking movement when the muscles are relaxed),
`
`bradykinesia (slowness in voluntary movement and reflexes), rigidity (stiffness and
`
`resistance to passive movement), and postural instability (impaired balance).
`
`28.
`
`Parkinson’s disease’s primary motor symptoms often result in
`
`“secondary” motor symptoms such as freezing of gait; shrinking handwriting; mask—
`
`like expression; slurred, monotonous, quiet voice; stooped posture; muscle spasms;
`
`impaired coordination; difficulty swallowing; and excess saliva and drooling caused
`
`by reduced swallowing. movements.
`
`29.
`
`Non—motor symptoms—such as loss of or altered sense of smell;
`
`constipation; low blood pressure on rising to stand; sleep disturbances; and
`
`depression—are present in most cases of Parkinson’s disease, often for years before
`any of the primary motor symptoms appear.
`
`30.
`
`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.
`
`31.
`
`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
`
`6
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`zoooximcnhwmw
`NNHHr—‘r—‘I—‘I—‘i—‘I—‘I—Jr—lHowmflmmibODNl—‘O
`
`compacta (“SNpc”).
`
`32.
`
`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 motor function (among other things).
`
`33.
`
`The death of dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc decreases the
`
`production of dopamine. Once dopaminergic neurons die, they are not replaced;
`
`when enough dopaminergic neurons have died, dopamine production falls below the
`
`level the brain requires for proper control of motor function, resulting in the motor
`
`symptoms of Parkinson’s disease.
`
`34.
`
`The presence of Lewy bodies (insoluble aggregates of a protein called
`
`alpha-synuclein) in many of the remaining dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc is
`
`another of the primary pathophysiological hallmarks of Parkinson’s disease.
`
`35.
`
`Dopaminergic neurons are particularly susceptible to oxidative stress, a
`
`disturbance in the normal balance between oxidants present in cells and cells’
`
`antioxidant defenses.
`
`36.
`Scientists who study Parkinson’s disease generally agree that oxidative
`stress is a major factor in—if not the precipitating cause of—the degeneration and
`
`death of dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc and the accumulation of Lewy bodies in
`
`the remaining dopaminergic neurons that are the primary pathophysiological
`
`hallmarks of the disease.
`
`37.
`
`Paraquat is highly toxic to both plants and animals, creating oxidative
`
`stress that causes or contributes to cause the degeneration and death of plant or
`animal cells.
`‘
`
`38.
`
`Paraquat creates oxidative stress in the cells of plants and animals
`
`because of “redox properties” that are inherent in its chemical composition and
`
`structure: it is a strong oxidant, and it readily undergoes “redox cycling” in the
`
`presence of molecular oxygen, which is plentiful in living cells.
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`WALKUP. MELODIA. KELLY
`8L SCHOENBERGER
`A PROFESSIONAL(osmium
`650 CALIFORNIA WEE?
`26TH noOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415) 581-7210
`
`39.
`
`The redox cycling of paraquat in living cells interferes with cellular
`
`7'"
`l
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`{OOOKTGDCHRDOLOH
`NNNr—‘p—tn—Ir—Ix—Ir—Ar—‘I—xp—Ar—ANI—lOtDOOx‘ICDO‘IJhDoNI—‘O
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKUP. LIEDDIA. KELLY
`8L SCHOENBERGER
`A PmFésmNALtommmN
`550 CALIFORNIA 51115:?
`26TH FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415) 981-7210
`
`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 present in living cells, a single molecule of paraquat can trigger the
`
`production of countless molecules of destructive superoxide radical.
`
`40.
`
`Paraquat’s redox properties have been known to science since at least
`
`the 1930s.
`
`41.
`
`It has been scientifically known since the 1960’s that paraquat (due to
`
`its redox properties) is toxic to the cells of plants and animals. The same redox
`
`properties that make paraquat toxic to plant cells and other types of animal cells
`
`make it toxic to dopaminergic neurons in humans —that is, paraquat is a strong
`
`oxidant that interferes with the function of, damages, and ultimately kills
`
`dopaminergic neurons in the human brain by creating oxidative stress through redox
`
`cycling.
`
`42.
`
`Paraquat is one of only a handful of toxins that scientists use to produce
`
`animal models of Parkinson’s disease, i.e., use in a laboratory to artificially produce
`
`the symptoms of Parkinson’s disease in animals.
`
`43.
`
`Animal studies involving various routes of exposure have found that
`
`paraquat creates oxidative stress that results in the degeneration and death of
`dopaminergic neurons in the SNpc, other pathophysiology consistent with that seen
`
`in human Parkinson’s disease, and motor deficits and behavioral changes consistent
`
`With those commonly seen in human Parkinson’s disease.
`
`44.
`
`Hundreds of in vitro studies (experiments in a test tube, culture dish, or
`
`other controlled experimental environment) have found that paraquat creates
`
`8
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`oxidative stress that results in the degeneration and death of dopaminergic neurons
`(and many other types of animal cells).
`
`45.
`
`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.
`
`46.
`
`These convergent lines of evidence (toxicology, animal experiments, and
`
`epidemiology) demonstrate that paraquat exposure generally can cause Parkinson’s
`
`disease.
`
`Paraquat Regulation
`
`47.
`
`The Federal Insecticide, Fungicide, and Rodenticide Act (“FIFRA”), 7
`
`U.S.C. § 136 et seq., which regulates the distribution, sale, and use of pesticides
`
`Within the US, requires that pesticides be registered with the US. Environmental
`
`Protection Agency (“EPA”) prior to their distribution, sale, or use, except as described
`by FIERA. 7 U.S.C. 136a(a).
`.
`48.
`The California 'Food & Agric. Code § D. 7, Ch. 2, which regulates the
`labeling, distribution, use, and application of pesticides Within the State of
`
`California, requires that pesticides be registered with the California Department of
`Pesticide Regulation (“CDPR”) before they are offered for sale in the State of
`
`California. Cal. Food & Agric. Code § 12811.
`
`49.
`
`Paraquat is a “restricted use pesticide” under federal law, see 40 C.F.R.
`
`§ 152.175, which means it is "limited to use by or under the direct superyision of a
`
`certified applicator,” and is a “restricted material” under California law, see Cal.
`
`Code Regs. tit. 3, § 6400(e), which means it cannot be sold, used, or possessed by any
`
`person in California without the proper licensing and permitting.
`
`LDOOK'ICDO’II-PWNI—l
`
`NNNNNNNNI—‘I—‘Hb—‘HHHHHH
`
`ammewmi—‘owmqamewwwo
`
`50.
`
`As part of the pesticide registration process, the EPA requires, among
`
`28
`LAW OFFXCES OF
`\VALKUP. RIELODIA. KELLY
`5L SCROENBERGER
`A PEDFESSIONRL(OMMTQN
`650 CALIFORNxAsmm
`26TH FLOOR
`we FRANCISCO, CA 9410:
`(415) 951-7210
`
`other things, a variety of tests to evaluate the potential for exposure to pesticides,
`
`
`9
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`(DOOKTGDCNIF-DJNH
`
`NNNN.NNNMHHHHHHHHHHfifiUfiWiNHowm-QmmrwaP-‘O
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES or
`WALKUP. MEDODIA. KELLY
`5L SCHOENBERGER
`APEDFSBSDNAL(ORPOMTKIN
`650 CALIFORNIA STREET
`ZGTH FLOOR
`SAN FMNGSCO, CA 5415.73
`(415) 9814210
`
`toxicity to people and other potential non-target organisms, and other adverse effects
`
`on the environment.
`
`51.
`
`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.
`52.
`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.i§ 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. § 136a(c)(5)(C); and (4)
`
`when used in accordance with widespread and commonly recognized practice it will
`
`not. generally cause unreasonable adverse effects on theenvironment, 7 U.S.C. §
`1.36a<c)<5)(D>.
`'
`'
`
`53.
`
`FIFRA defines f‘unreasonable adverse effects on the environment” as
`
`“any unreasonable risk to man or the environment, takinginto account the economic,
`social, and environmental costs and benefits of the use of any pesticide.” 7 U.S.C. §
`
`136(bb).
`
`1
`
`A Under FIFRA, “[a]s long as no cancellation proceedings are in effect
`54.
`registration of a pesticide shall be prima facie evidence. that the pesticide, its labeling
`and packaging comply with the registration provisions of [FIFRA].” 7 U.S.C. §
`136a(f)(2). However, FIFRA further provides that “[i]n no event shall registration of
`an article be construed as a defense for the commission of any offense under
`[FIFRA].” 7 U.S C § 136a(f)(2)
`55. The distribution or sale of a pesticide that1s misbrandedis an offense
`
`under FIFRA, which provides in relevant part that “it'shall be unlawful for any
`person in any State to distribute or sell to any person
`any pesticide which is
`
`10
`
`-
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`®OO<IODOIVFCDMH
`
`NN‘NNNNNNP—‘r—‘I—‘HP—‘l—‘r—ll—ll—‘Hammewwi—Iovmmqam.n>oown-ao
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKUP. MEDDLA. KELLY
`5L SCHOENBERGER
`APPDHSSIONALKORS‘SMYON
`650 CALIFORNIA STREEY
`26TH HOUR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94108
`[d15)581-7210
`
`misbranded.” 7 U.S.C. § ‘136j(a)(1)(E). A pesticide is misbranded under FIFRA if,
`
`among other things: (1) its labeling bears any statement, design, or graphic
`
`representation relative thereto or to its ingredients which is false or misleading in
`
`any particular, 7 U.S.C. § 136(q)(1)(A); (2) the labeling accompanying it does not
`
`contain directions for use which are necessary for effecting the purpose for which the
`
`product is intended and if complied with, together with any requirements imposed
`
`under section 136a(d) of 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. §'l36(q)(l)(G).
`
`56.
`
`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
`the approved label despite a determination by the EPA that it would not.
`i
`57.
`Plaintiffs do not seek in this action to impose on Defendants any
`labeling or packaging requirement in addition to or different from those required
`under FIFRA.'Any allegation in this Complaint that a Defendant breached a duty to
`provide adequate directions for the use of or warnings about paraquat, breached a
`duty to provide adequate packaging for paraquat, concealed, suppressed, or omitted
`to disclose any material fact about paraquat, or engaged in any unfair or deceptive
`practice regarding paraquat, is intended and should be construed to be consistent
`
`with that alleged breach, concealment, suppression, or omission, or unfair or
`deceptive practice having rendered the paraquat “misbranded” under FIFRA.
`
`However, Plaintiffs bring claims and seek relief in this action only under state law,
`
`1 1
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`,
`
`,
`
`1
`
`and do not bring any claims or seek any relief in this action under FIFRA.
`Jurisdiction as to Syngenta Defendants
`
`SAG is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of
`58.
`Switzerland, with its principal place of business in Basel, Switzerland. It is a
`
`successor by merger or continuation of business to its corporate predecessors,
`including but not limited to 101.
`59.
`SCPLLC is a limited liability company organized under the laws of the
`State of Delaware. It is a successor by merger or continuation of business to its
`corporate predecessors, including but not limited to ICI Americas. SCPLLC is
`registered with the State of California, Secretary of State to do business in the State
`
`of California.
`
`60.
`
`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.
`
`b.
`
`c.
`
`secured and maintained the registration of paraquat products and other
`pesticides with the CDPR to enable themselves and others to
`I
`
`manufacture, distribute, sell, and use these products in the State of
`
`California;
`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 the Chevron
`
`Defendants and “Syngenta Retailers,” as :well as to applicators and
`‘ farmers in the State of California;
`‘
`i
`employed or utilized sales representatives to market and sell paraquat
`and other pesticides in California;
`
`d.
`
`maintained several locations throughout the State of California,
`
`including in the towns of Sanger, Granite Bay and Roseville;
`
`12
`
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`tDODKTCDUIIP-DJNI—I
`
`NNNNNNNMr—‘P—‘I—lI—‘I—‘HHHHHunmewmwowmQ‘mmeer-do
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKUP, MKUDDIA. KELLY
`8L SCHOENBERGER
`A WDFESSIONAL(ammwu
`65!) CALIFORNIA SIREE?
`ZGTH FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415) 981-7210
`
`

`

`LDOOQCDO'Iermp-A
`HOQ‘C‘OK‘IQ‘WfiWNP—‘O
`
`NND—‘I—‘r—‘I—‘HHHHHH
`
`22
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`WALKUP. MELODIA. KELLY
`5L SCHOENBERGER
`A worsssmnt(ovomon
`65!! CALIFORNIA SIREE?
`ZGTH FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415) 581-7210
`
`e.
`
`attended meetings of the CDPR’S Pesticide Registration and Evaluation
`
`Committee relating to the registration of their pesticides, including
`
`paraquat;
`
`f.
`
`sponsored continuing education seminars for the CDPR at various
`
`locations in the State of California, including the towns of Oxnard, Seal
`
`Beach, Rancho Santa Fe, Somis, Orcutt, Woodland and Pala;
`utilized California state courts to promote their pesticide business,
`
`g.
`
`including filing an action against the CDPR and another pesticide
`
`manufacturer for allegedly using Syngenta data to obtain approval of
`
`pesticides for others without its consent, see Syngenta Crop Prat, Inc. v.
`
`Helliker (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 1135; and filing an action against the
`
`California EPA’s Office of Environmental Health Hazard Assessment
`
`challenging the agency’s decision to list its pesticide atrazine as a
`
`chemical known to cause reproductive toxicity under Proposition 65, see
`Syngenta Crop Protection 0. OEHHA (Sacramento Superior Court Case
`
`No. 34-2014—800001868); and
`
`h.
`
`performed and funded the testing of pesticides in the State of California.
`
`SCPLLC’s contacts with the State of California are related to or gave
`61.
`rise to this controversy.
`I
`
`62.
`
`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. Syngelita Crop Prat, Inc., 830 F. Supp. 2d 550 (SD. Ill. 2011).
`1
`Jurisdiction as to Chevron Defendants
`
`63.
`
`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.
`
`64.
`
`Does One through Twenty are corporate entities which are agents, joint
`
`13
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`LOOOKTOUCflbFOJNr—A
`
`1—1. O
`
`11
`
`12
`
`13
`
`14
`
`15
`
`16
`
`17
`
`18
`
`19
`
`20
`
`21
`
`22
`
`23
`
`24
`
`25
`
`26
`
`27
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VALKUP. MEIDDIA, KELLY
`5; SCHOENBERGER
`A WorzssmNALmuseum"
`650 CALIFORNIA SIREU
`25TH FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415)931-7110
`
`venturers, alter-egos, successors-in-interest, and predecessors-in-interest to Chevron
`
`U.S.A., Inc. Does One through Twenty were each acting within the course and scope
`
`of their agency, joint venture, alter-ego relationship, and corporate interrelationship.
`
`The exact nature, relation, and corporate structure of Does One through Twenty have
`
`not yet been finally determined. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this complaint
`
`with corporate allegations when they are finally determined.
`
`65.
`
`Jurisdiction is proper over Chevron U.S.A. Inc. because it is a California
`
`resident, maintaining its principal place of business and headquarters in California.
`
`Jurisdiction as to Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC
`
`66. Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC is a limited liability company organized
`
`under the laws of the State of California, and with its headquarters and principal
`
`place of business located in the City and County of San Francisco, State of California.
`
`It is a successor-in—interest to Wilbur-Ellis Company, a corporation formerly
`
`organized under the laws of the State of California.
`
`Venue in San Francisco County
`
`67.
`The acts and omissions that give rise to the Chevron Defendants’
`liability in this casefdecisions about the manufacture, formulation, distribution, and
`
`sale of the products that caused Plaintiff’s injuries—occurred during the years 1964
`to 1986, while the three relevant Chevron corporate entities were headquartered at
`555-and 575 Market Street in San Francisco, California. V
`
`68.
`
`The Chevron Defendants’ conduct in the City and County of San
`
`Francisco included but was not limited to the following:
`a.
`their execution of contracts with ICI and ICI Americas related to the
`
`distribution and sale of paraquat;
`
`b.
`
`their decisions regarding what research to conduct or suppress
`
`regarding paraquat;
`
`0.
`
`d.
`
`their collaboration with IO] and ICI Americas regarding paraquat;
`
`their registration of paraquat with the State of California;
`
`14
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`LDUJKWCDUKrk—wmr—l
`
`NNNNNNNNP—‘I—‘b—‘I—‘D—‘l—‘l—‘I—‘i—‘HammAri—‘owmqmmszr—‘O
`
`28
`LAW OFFICES OF
`\VAIXUP. 35101313. KELLY
`& SCHOENBERGER
`A marassnnnuoxvomwn
`65:! CALIFORNIA SIREEY
`26TH FLOOR
`SAN FRANCISCO, CA 94103
`(415) 981-7210
`
`e.
`
`f.
`
`their communications With the State ’of California concerning paraquat;
`
`their submission of research to the State of California regarding
`
`paraquat;
`
`g.
`
`their decisions and agreements to market and sell paraquat;
`
`their dissemination of communications and representations regarding
`
`paraquat;
`
`their execution of contracts to sell paraquat to distributors and dealers;
`
`and
`
`their sales of paraquat to brokers and dealers.
`
`i.
`
`j.
`
`69. Wilbur-Ellis has its headquarters and principal place of business in
`
`California at 345 California Street in the City and County of San Francisco, State of
`
`California.
`
`70.
`
`SCPLLC is a foreign limited liability company registered to do business
`
`in California. SCPLLC has no principal place of business in California and none of its _
`
`members reside in California, and therefore can be sued in any county.
`
`71.
`
`Venue is therefore proper in San Francisco County.
`
`CAUSES OF ACTION
`
`COUNT I — STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY
`
`72.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby refer to, incorporate, and re-allege by this reference as
`
`though set forth in full, each and every allegation hereinabove and makes them a
`part of this Cause of Action, Count One.
`
`Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under a products liability theory for
`73.
`marketing a defectively-designed product, as well as for failing to adequately warn of
`
`the risk of severe neurological injury caused by chronic, low-dose exposure to
`
`paraquat.
`
`74.
`
`At all relevant times, Chevron USA, Inc., the Syngenta Defendants,
`
`Wilbur-Ellis Company, LLC, Does One through Sixty, and their corporate
`
`predecessors designed, manufactured, distributed, and sold paraquat for use in the
`
`
`15
`COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES
`
`

`

`State of California.
`
`«300403019me
`
`75.
`
`At all relevant times and places, the paraquat that Chevron USA, Inc.,
`
`the Syngenta