Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 1 of 15 PageID: 1
`
`Angelo J. Cifaldi, Esq. (N.J. Bar No. 041091984)
`Vincent Cheng, Esq. (N.J. Bar No. 001372007)
`WILENTZ, GOLDMAN & SPITZER, P.A.
`90 Woodbridge Center Drive, Suite 900
`Woodbridge, New Jersey 07095
`(732) 636-8000 (phone)
`(732) 726-4708 (fax)
`acifaldi@wilentz.com
`vcheng@wilentz.com
`
`Attorneys for Plaintiff
`
`IRA BRIEF and CATHIE BRIEF, husband
`and wife;
`
`Plaintiffs,
`
`v .
`
`HELEN OF TROY LIMITED, and
`IDELLE LABS, LTD., JOHN DOE 1
`through JOHN DOE 75 (fictitious);
`
`Defendants.
`
`UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT
`THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY
`NEWARK VICINAGE
`
`Civil Action
`
`Docket No.:
`
`COMPLAINT AND DEMAND
`FOR TRIAL BY JURY
`
`Plaintiffs Ira Brief and Cathie Brief (“Plaintiffs”), by and through their attorneys, bring this
`
`Complaint against, HELEN OF TROY LIMITED, and IDELLE LABS, LTD. (collectively
`
`“Defendants”), and allege upon personal knowledge as to themselves and their own acts and
`
`experiences and upon information and belief as follows:
`
`#13301436.1
`
`1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 2 of 15 PageID: 2
`
`COMPLAINT
`
`1.
`
`This is a civil action brought by Plaintiffs who purchased Sure Unscented Aerosol
`
`Antiperspirant Deodorant (the “Sure Antiperspirant”) from Defendants for normal, household use.
`
`The Products are defective because they contain the chemical benzene, a known carcinogen that offers
`
`no therapeutic deodorant or antiperspirant benefit.
`
`2.
`
`The Sure brand was created by Procter & Gamble in or around 1972 as a personal care
`
`brand for men and women. Today, Defendants market and sell Sure antiperspirant throughout the
`
`United States,
`
`including the State of New Jersey. Defendants distribute and sell
`
`the Sure
`
`Antiperspirant through various authorized retailers in store and online.
`
`3.
`
`Defendants took advantage of the trust consumers have in Sure brands, built over
`
`several decades, representing that the Products are safe for their intended use when, in reality, the
`
`Products contain significant concentrations of benzene, a harmful carcinogen.
`
`4.
`
`Benzene is a carcinogen known to cause cancer in humans. Long-term exposure
`
`additionally causes harmful effects on the bone marrow, a decrease in red blood cells leading to
`
`anemia, and excessive bleeding that can affect the immune system, leading to an increased chance of
`
`infection. According to FDA guidance, there is no safe level of exposure to benzene, and thus it
`
`“should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and drug products
`
`because of [its]; unacceptable toxicity.” FDA, Q3C – 2017 Tables and List Guidance
`
`for Industry; https://www.fda.gov/media/71737/download. FDA guidance provides that “if
`
`[benzene’s] use is unavoidable in order to produce a drug product with a significant therapeutic
`
`advance, then [its] levels should be restricted” to 2 parts per million (“ppm”). Id.
`
`5.
`
`The use of benzene in the Products is demonstrably avoidable. Feasible alternative
`
`formulations, designs, and materials were available to Defendants at the time they formulated,
`
`designed, and manufactured the Products. Critically, such alternative formulations and designs were
`
`#13301436.1
`
`2
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 3 of 15 PageID: 3
`
`and are used by other manufacturers to produce and sell non-defective spray deodorants and
`
`antiperspirants. In any event, the Products have a benzene concentration far above the FDA
`
`concentration limit of 2 ppm.
`
`6.
`
`The Products’ benzene contamination was not disclosed to the consumer on the
`
`product label, the ingredients list, or otherwise.
`
`7.
`
`Plaintiffs seek damages and equitable remedies for themselves.
`
`PARTIES
`
`Plaintiffs
`
`Plaintiff, Ira Brief is a resident and citizen of Clark, New Jersey who purchased and
`
`A.
`
`8.
`
`used the Sure Antiperspirant within the relevant time period. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief is the lawfully
`
`wife of Ira Brief and is also a resident and citizen of Clark, New Jersey.
`
`B.
`
`9.
`
`Defendants
`
`Defendant, Helen of Troy Limited (“Helen of Troy”)
`
`is a publicly-traded,
`
`multinational consumer goods company with headquarters in El Paso, Texas and a diversified
`
`portfolio of well-recognized and widely trusted brands.
`
`10.
`
`Defendant, Idelle Labs, Limited (“Idelle Labs”) is a privately held, wholly owned
`
`subsidiary of Helen of Troy Limited with headquarters in El Paso, Texas.
`
`11.
`
`Defendants John Does 1 through 75, are in the business of creating, designing,
`
`manufacturing, distributing, selling, supplying, maintaining and/or modifying the Sure Aerosol
`
`Antiperspirant Deodorant. Plaintiffs reserve the right to amend this Complaint and name said
`
`unknown individuals or entities as additional defendants pursuant to the Rules of the Court.
`
`JURISDICTION AND VENUE
`
`12.
`
`This Court has jurisdiction over this matter because there is diversity jurisdiction since
`
`Plaintiffs and Defendants are citizens of different states and the aggregate amount in controversy
`
`#13301436.1
`
`3
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 4 of 15 PageID: 4
`
`exceeds $75,000, exclusive of interests and costs. This Court has specific personal jurisdiction over
`
`Defendants because they have substantial aggregate contacts with this District, including advertising,
`
`marketing, and distributing with intent that its Sure products are sold and purchased throughout the
`
`State of New Jersey, engaging in conduct in this District that has a direct, substantial, reasonably
`
`foreseeable, and intended effect of causing injury to persons in New Jersey and because Defendants
`
`purposely availed themselves of doing business in the State of New Jersey.
`
`13.
`
`In accordance with 28 U.S.C. § 1332, venue is proper in this District because a
`
`substantial part of the conduct giving rise to Plaintiffs’ claims occurred in this District, Defendants
`
`transact business in this District, and Defendants have intentionally availed themselves of the laws
`
`and markets within this District.
`
`FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`The Sure Brand
`
`The Sure brand was created by Procter & Gamble in or around 1972 as a personal care
`
`C.
`
`14.
`
`brand for men and women. Defendant, Helen of Troy Limited acquired Sure in 2010. Since its 2010
`
`acquisition, Sure has been marketed and sold as an antiperspirant deodorant.
`
`15.
`
`Sure antiperspirant deodorant is distributed by Defendant, Idelle Labs Ltd., a division
`
`of Defendant, Helen of Troy Limited.
`
`16.
`
`Defendants’ Sure product
`
`line,
`
`including the Sure Antiperspirant deodorant,
`
`is
`
`manufactured, distributed, and sold throughout the United States, including the State of New Jersey.
`
`D.
`
`17.
`
`The Products
`
`Deodorant is a product applied to the body to prevent or mask the odor of perspiration.
`
`Antiperspirants, a subclass of deodorants, prevent sweat glands from producing sweat. The Products
`
`are both deodorant and antiperspirant applied to the body as a spray.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`4
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 5 of 15 PageID: 5
`
`18.
`
`The U.S. Food and Drug Administration (“FDA”) classifies and regulates most
`
`deodorants, including the Product, as cosmetics. In addition, the FDA classifies and regulates
`
`antiperspirants, including the Products, as a drug.
`
`19.
`
`On November 3, 2021, Valisure, an analytical pharmacy and consumer protection
`
`organization, petitioned the FDA to address the dangerous levels of benzene in the Products and other
`
`deodorants and antiperspirants based upon rigorous testing the organization had conducted for a
`
`number of spray deodorant and antiperspirant products.1 The next day, Valisure released the results
`
`of these tests.2
`
`20.
`
`In testing, Valisure found average concentrations of benzene above the FDA
`
`concentration limit of 2 ppm in spray deodorants, including the Product, which are manufactured and
`
`sold by Defendants. This testing revealed that the Sure Products exceeded the FDA concentration
`
`limit for benzene.
`
`E.
`
`21.
`
`Danger Posed by the Product
`
`The carcinogenic properties of benzene are well documented, as noted be the Centers
`
`for Disease Control and Prevention (“CDC”). See CDC, Facts About Benzene (2018),
`
`https://emergency.cdc.gov/agent/benzene/basics/facts.asp
`
`22.
`
`The U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) has determined that
`
`benzene causes cancer in humans. Exposure to benzene can cause leukemia (i.e. Acute myeloid
`
`leukemia), cancer of the blood-forming organs.
`
`1 https://www.valisure.com/valisure-newsroom/valisure-detects-benzene-in-body-spray-products
`2 https://assets-global.website-
`files.com/6215052733f8bb8fea016220/626af96f521a0584e70e50eb_Valisure%20FDA%20Citizen%20Petition%20on
`%20Body%20Spray%20v4.0%5B260%5D.pdf
`
`#13301436.1
`
`5
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 6 of 15 PageID: 6
`
`23.
`
`Long-term exposure to benzene additionally causes harmful effects on the bone
`
`marrow and can cause a decrease in red blood cells, leading to anemia. It can also cause excessive
`
`bleeding and can affect the immune system, increasing the chance for infection.
`
`24.
`
`Due to these significant health risks,
`
`the World Health Organization and the
`
`International Agency for Research on Cancer classify benzene as a Group 1 compound that is
`
`“carcinogenic to humans.”3
`
`25.
`
`The FDA classifies Benzene as a Class 1 compound.4 According to FDA guidance:
`
`Solvents in Class 1 should not be employed in the manufacture of drug substances, excipients, and
`
`drug products, because of their unacceptable toxicity or their deleterious environmental effect.5
`
`26.
`
`27.
`
`The FDA concentration limit for benzene is 2 ppm.6
`
`Defendants exploited decades of existing consumer trust in the Sure brands to sell the
`
`Products contaminated with a benzene concentration level well above the 2 ppm FDA concentration
`
`limit, thus subjecting unwitting consumers to dangerous levels of a known carcinogen.
`
`F.
`
`28.
`
`Defendants’ Representations
`
`Defendants represent to consumers that Sure Antiperspirant is safe and effective for
`
`everyday use. Although Sure Antiperspirant was found to contain benzene concentration well above
`
`the FDA limit, Defendants do not list benzene among the active or inactive ingredients anywhere on
`
`its website, and nothing on the Sure Antiperspirant product label otherwise insinuates, states, or warns
`
`that it contains benzene.
`
`3 https://cdn.who.int/media/docs/default-source/wash-documents/water-safety-and-quality/chemical-fact-sheets-
`2022/benzene-fact-sheet-2022.pdf?sfvrsn=cf3ba277_1&download=true
`4 https://www.fda.gov/media/71737/download
`5 Id.
`6 Id.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`6
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 7 of 15 PageID: 7
`
`G.
`
`29.
`
`Defendants’ Products are Adulterated, Misbranded and Illegal to Sell
`
`Defendants’ antiperspirant Products are drugs which are adulterated under 21
`
`U.S.C. § 351(a)(1) based upon the presence of benzene.
`
`30.
`
`Defendants’ antiperspirant Products are drugs which are misbranded under 21 U.S.C.
`
`§ 352 (a) based upon the presence of benzene.
`
`31.
`
`The Federal Food, Drug, and Cosmetic Act (“FDCA”) prohibits “[t]he introduction or
`
`delivery for introduction into interstate commerce of any food, drug, or cosmetic that is adulterated
`
`or misbranded.” 21 U.S.C. § 331(a), 21 U.S.C. § 352(a).
`
`32.
`
`As alleged herein, Defendants have violated the FDCA and consumer protection
`
`statutes.
`
`33.
`
`Defendants engaged in fraudulent, unfair, deceptive, false, misleading, and/or
`
`unlawful conduct stemming from their omissions surrounding benzene contamination affecting the
`
`Products. No reasonable consumer, including Plaintiffs, would have purchased the Products had they
`
`known of the material omissions of material facts regarding the presence of benzene. Accordingly,
`
`Plaintiffs suffered injury in fact and lost money as a result of Defendants’ misleading representations
`
`and omissions and did not receive the benefit-of-the-bargain.
`
`34.
`
`Plaintiff’s injury is underscored by the fact that numerous other products offering the
`
`same therapeutic benefit at comparable prices exist that are not contaminated with benzene.
`
`PLAINTIFFS’ FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS
`
`35.
`
`Plaintiff Ira Brief purchased and used the Sure Antiperspirant deodorant regularly for
`
`many years, beginning approximately in the 1980s. The last time Plaintiff Brief purchased the Sure
`
`Antiperspirant was in or around March 2021. Plaintiff Brief purchased some of the Sure
`
`Antiperspirant deodorant through the Amazon.com website and is currently in possession of the said
`
`recalled products.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`7
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 8 of 15 PageID: 8
`
`36.
`
`Upon information and belief, Defendants Helen of Troy Limited, Idelle Labs, Ltd.,
`
`and/or John Does 1 through 75, received proceeds from the payment for the sale of Sure
`
`Antiperspirant Deodorant Aerosol Spray.
`
`37.
`
`Defendants Helen of Troy Limited, Idelle Labs, Ltd., and/or John Does 1 through 75,
`
`knew or should have known that the Sure Antiperspirant deodorant, was not safe for its intended use
`
`and could cause users of the product, such as Mr. Brief, to sustain injury.
`
`38.
`
`Nowhere on the packaging did Defendants disclose that the Sure Antiperspirant
`
`deodorant contains benzene at the time of purchase.
`
`39.
`
`At no time was Plaintiff, Ira Brief, warned by Defendants of any of the hazards related
`
`to benzene exposure or the risk of developing leukemia posed by using the Sure Antiperspirant
`
`deodorant in the normal, foreseeable and ordinary daily use.
`
`40.
`
`If Plaintiff Brief had been aware of the existence of benzene and/or the risk of leukemia
`
`in the Sure Antiperspirant, he would not have purchased it.
`
`41.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Plaintiff, Ira Brief’s usage of Sure Antiperspirant
`
`deodorant and exposure to benzene, Plaintiff, Ira Brief developed adverse blood effects and
`
`abnormalities and was ultimately diagnosed with Acute Myeloid Leukemia (“AML”) in February 16,
`
`2022.
`
`42.
`
`Plaintiff, Ira Brief’s exposure to benzene from his use of the Sure Antiperspirant
`
`deodorant, manufactured, produced, sold and/or supplied by Defendants, were a proximate cause of
`
`his AML. Plaintiff, Ira Brief suffered, and continues to suffer, physically, mentally and emotionally
`
`as a result of his disease. Plaintiffs incurred and continue to incur medical expenses.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`8
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 9 of 15 PageID: 9
`
`COUNT I
`
`Negligence
`
`43.
`
`44.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate herein each allegation set forth above.
`
`Defendants negligently and recklessly manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or
`
`supplied Plaintiff Ira Brief with Sure Antiperspirant Deodorant to which he was exposed. These
`
`products contained benzene.
`
`45.
`
`Defendants owed a duty to users of their products, breached that duty, and were
`
`negligent and failed to use ordinary care by failing to eliminate the benzene contained in the products
`
`they supplied to Plaintiff, Ira Brief and which were used by Plaintiff.
`
`46.
`
`Defendants also owed a duty to users of their products, breached that duty, and were
`
`negligent and failed to use reasonable care, in that they failed to adequately warn of the presence of
`
`benzene in the products and failed to adequately warn of the harm associated with exposure to
`
`benzene.
`
`47.
`
`Defendants knew or should have known that these products were defective and
`
`poisonous to Plaintiff Brief.
`
`48.
`
`It was foreseeable to defendants that Plaintiff Brief through ordinary and intended use,
`
`would be exposed to the aforesaid product.
`
`49.
`
`Defendants failed to adequately warn Plaintiff through labeling or otherwise, of the
`
`presence of benzene and of the dangers of using said product.
`
`50.
`
`Defendants failed to adequately test their products to ascertain their dangerous
`
`propensities.
`
`51.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of the Defendants’ negligence, Plaintiff used
`
`Defendants’ products and was exposed to dangerous levels of benzene, and developed acute myeloid
`
`leukemia and other injuries, thereby suffering severe and permanent injury.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`9
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 10 of 15 PageID: 10
`
`52.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiff suffered
`
`numerous painful injuries, including acute myeloid leukemia and incurred numerous medical
`
`expenses, past and future. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief, has and will continue to suffer the loss of the society,
`
`consortium, companionship, love, affection, support, and care of a husband.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against defendants jointly, severally, or in the
`
`alternative, for all compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future medical
`
`expenses, economic damages, loss of consortium, pain and suffering, as well as punitive damages and
`
`costs of suit, pre- and post-judgment interest as provided by law and such other relief as the Court
`
`may deem equitable and just.
`
`COUNT II
`
`Strict Liability
`
`53.
`
`54.
`
`Plaintiffs repeat and re-allege the allegations above as if set forth herein.
`
`Defendants manufactured, sold, supplied, and/or were in the business of selling Sure
`
`Antiperspirant Deodorant products to which Plaintiff Ira Brief was exposed. These products were
`
`defectively designed and unreasonably dangerous at the time they were sold, in that they contained
`
`dangerous levels of benzene, deviated in their construction or quality from the specifications or
`
`planned output in a manner that rendered them unreasonably dangerous, and were not accompanied
`
`by adequate warnings of the presence of benzene or the risk of harm associated with exposure to
`
`benzene.
`
`55.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiff Ira Brief
`
`suffered numerous painful injuries, including acute myeloid leukemia, and suffered damages from
`
`medical expenses, past and future. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief, has and will continue to suffer the loss of
`
`the society, consortium, companionship,
`
`love, affection, support, and care of her husband.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, or in the
`
`#13301436.1
`
`10
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 11 of 15 PageID: 11
`
`alternative, for all compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future medical
`
`expenses, past and future economic damages, past and future loss of consortium, past and future pain
`
`and suffering, as well as punitive damages, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest as
`
`provided by law and such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
`
`COUNT III
`
`Gross Negligence
`
`56.
`
`57.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate herein each allegation set forth above.
`
`The actions and inactions of all the Defendants, and or alternatively the employees or
`
`agents of Defendants, and their predecessors-in-interest, whether taken separately, or together, were
`
`of such a character as to constitute a pattern or practice of intentional wrongful conduct and/or malice
`
`resulting in the damages sustained by Plaintiffs. More specifically, Defendants or alternatively the
`
`employees or agents of Defendants, and their predecessors-in interest, consciously and/or deliberately
`
`engaged in wantonness and/or malice with regard to their products and end-users of their products,
`
`including Plaintiff, Ira Brief.
`
`58.
`
`Defendants had actual awareness of the extreme degree of risk associated with benzene
`
`and exposure to benzene from Defendants’ products, and nevertheless proceeded with conscience
`
`indifference suffered damages to the rights, safety, and welfare of Plaintiff, Ira Brief by failing to act
`
`to minimize or eliminate these risks. Therefore, Defendants were grossly negligent and should be held
`
`liable for punitive and exemplary damages to Plaintiffs.
`
`59.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiff, Ira Brief
`
`suffered numerous painful injuries, including acute myeloid leukemia, and suffered damages from
`
`medical expenses, past and future. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief, has and will continue to suffer the loss of
`
`the society, consortium, companionship,
`
`love, affection, support, and care of her husband.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, or in the
`11
`
`#13301436.1
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 12 of 15 PageID: 12
`
`alternative, for all compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future medical
`
`expenses, past and future economic damages, past and future loss of consortium, past and future pain
`
`and suffering, as well as punitive damages, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest.
`
`COUNT IV
`
`Breach of Warranty
`
`60.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate all allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`61.
`
`Defendants knew or had reason to know of the intended use of the aforesaid products,
`
`and expressly and impliedly warranted that said products would be reasonably fit and safe for their
`
`reasonably foreseeable use.
`
`62.
`
`Defendants warranted that said products were of merchantable quality and free from
`
`defect of design, composition and other defects.
`
`63.
`
`Plaintiff, Ira Brief relied upon said warranties and representations of the Defendants
`
`in the utilizations of said product.
`
`64.
`
`Defendants breached warranties given to Plaintiff, Ira Brief in that said products
`
`contained benzene and were sold and delivered in a dangerous, defective and unsafe condition, which
`
`defects permitted and/or caused said substances to seriously and permanently cause injuries to
`
`Plaintiff while he used said products in a foreseeable manner.
`
`65.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiff, Ira Brief
`
`suffered numerous painful injuries, including acute myeloid leukemia, and suffered damages from
`
`medical expenses, past and future. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief, has and will continue to suffer the loss of
`
`the society, consortium, companionship,
`
`love, affection, support, and care of her husband.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, or in the
`
`alternative, for all compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future medical
`
`#13301436.1
`
`12
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 13 of 15 PageID: 13
`
`expenses, past and future economic damages, past and future loss of consortium, past and future pain
`
`and suffering, as well as punitive damages, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest as
`
`provided by law and such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
`
`COUNT V
`
`Negligent Misrepresentation
`
`66.
`
`Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate all allegations contained in the preceding
`
`paragraphs as if fully set forth herein.
`
`67.
`
`At the times herein mentioned, Defendants were engaged in the business of preparing,
`
`formulating, manufacturing, analyzing, developing,
`
`testing,
`
`inspecting, packaging,
`
`labeling,
`
`advertising, merchandising, selling and/or distributing the aforesaid products.
`
`68.
`
`69.
`
`70.
`
`At the times herein mentioned, defendants distributed the products to Plaintiff.
`
`Defendants represented that the products were safe.
`
`Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff, Ira Brief and the general public their
`
`knowledge about the presence of benzene and propensities of the products to cause injuries such as
`
`those sustained by Plaintiff.
`
`71.
`
`In reliance on these misrepresentations, Plaintiff, Ira Brief used the products in the
`
`manner and purpose intended as represented by Defendants.
`
`72.
`
`Defendants’ misrepresentations, actions and omissions deprived the public and
`
`persons, such as Plaintiff, Ira Brief, the opportunity to choose whether or not to expose themselves to
`
`the aforesaid products.
`
`73.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiff, Ira Brief
`
`suffered numerous painful injuries, including acute myeloid leukemia, and suffered damages from
`
`medical expenses, past and future. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief, has and will continue to suffer the loss of
`
`the society, consortium, companionship, love, affection, support, and care of her husband.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`13
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 14 of 15 PageID: 14
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, or in the
`
`alternative, for all compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future medical
`
`expenses, past and future economic damages, past and future loss of consortium, past and future pain
`
`and suffering, as well as punitive damages, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest as
`
`provided by law and such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
`
`COUNT VI
`
`New Jersey Products Liability Act
`
`74.
`
`75.
`
`Plaintiffs incorporate herein each allegation set forth above.
`
`Defendants are liable to Plaintiffs under the New Jersey Products Liability Act,
`
`N.J.S.A. 2A58C-1 et seq.
`
`76.
`
`As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ acts or omissions, Plaintiff, Ira Brief
`
`suffered numerous painful injuries, including acute myeloid leukemia, and suffered damages from
`
`medical expenses, past and future. Plaintiff, Cathie Brief, has and will continue to suffer the loss of
`
`the society, consortium, companionship, love, affection, support, and care of her husband.
`
`WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs demand judgment against Defendants jointly, severally, or in the
`
`alternative, for all compensatory damages, including but not limited to past and future medical
`
`expenses, past and future economic damages, past and future loss of consortium, past and future pain
`
`and suffering, as well as punitive damages, costs of suit, and pre- and post-judgment interest as
`
`provided by law and such other relief as the Court may deem equitable and just.
`
`#13301436.1
`
`14
`
`

`

`Case 2:22-cv-05085-WJM-LDW Document 1 Filed 08/17/22 Page 15 of 15 PageID: 15
`
`JURY DEMAND
`
`Pursuant to Federal Rule of Civil Procedure, Plaintiffs demand a trial by jury of all
`
`claims in this Complaint.
`
`Dated: August 17, 2022
`
`Respectfully submitted,
`
`Wilentz Goldman & Spitzer
`
`By:
`
`/s/ Angelo Cifaldi
`Angelo J. Cifaldi, Esq.
`N.J. Bar No. 041091984
`Vincent Cheng, Esq.
`N.J. Bar No. 001372007
`
`#13301436.1
`
`15
`
`