Lauris et al v. Novartis Ag et al

Eastern District of California, caed-1:2016-cv-00393

COMPLAINT against NOVARTIS AG, a Global Healthcare Company; NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS CORPORATION, a Delaware Corporation by KRISTI LAURIS, Individually and as Successor In Interest to the ESTATE OF DAINIS LAURIS; KRISTI LAURIS as Guardian ad Litem for L.L.; and TAYLOR LAURIS. Attorney Weakley, James D. added. (Filing fee $ 400, receipt number 0972-6380040)

Interested in this case?

Current View

Full Text

Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 1 of 12 1 James D. Weakley, Esq. Bar No. 082853 2 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP 1630 East Shaw Avenue, Suite 176 3 Fresno, California 93710 Telephone: (559) 221-5256 4 Facsimile: (559) 221-5262 Jim@walaw-fresno.com 5 Attorneys for Plaintiffs, Kristi Lauris, Individually and as Successor In Interest to the Estate of 6 Dainis Lauris; Kristi Lauris as Guardian ad Litem for L.L.; and Taylor Lauris 7 8 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT 9 FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA 10 11 Kristi Lauris, Individually and as Successor) CASE NO. 12 In Interest to the Estate of Dainis Lauris;) Kristi Lauris as Guardian ad Litem for L.L.;) 13 and Taylor Lauris,) COMPLAINT FOR WRONGFUL DEATH) AND PERSONAL INJURIES 14 Plaintiffs,)) 15 v.) JURY TRIAL DEMANDED) 16 Novartis AG, a Global Healthcare) Company; Novartis Pharmaceuticals) 17 Corporation, a Delaware Corporation,)) 18 Defendants.) __________________________________) 19 20 INTRODUCTION 21 1. This is an action brought by Plaintiffs against Defendants Novartis AG and Novartis 22 Pharmaceuticals Corporation (collectively "Novartis") to recover for injuries resulting from 23 Novartis’s intentional failure to warn of dangerous and known risks associated with Tasigna—a 24 Novartis-manufactured prescription medication for treatment of chronic myeloid leukemia (CML). 25 Specifically, Novartis failed to warn of risks that Tasigna caused severe, accelerated, and 26 irreversible forms of atherosclerosis-related conditions—i.e., the narrowing and hardening of 27 arteries delivering blood to the arms, legs, heart, and brain. Despite warning doctors and patients 28 in Canada of the risks of atherosclerosis, Novartis intentionally failed to warn United States ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 2 of 12 1 doctors and patients of these risks. 2 2. Decedent Dainis Lauris, a California resident, was prescribed and took Tasigna for 3 over a year. Upon taking Tasigna, Dainis Lauris developed severe, accelerated, and irreversible 4 atherosclerosis-related conditions, which caused, among other things, 100-percent narrowing of his 5 femoral arteries, 40-to 60-percent narrowing of his coronary arteries, and 70-percent narrowing of 6 his cerebral arteries. At no time while he was prescribed and took Tasigna did Novartis properly 7 warn Dainis Lauris or his prescribing doctors about the atherosclerosis-related risks Novartis knew 8 were associated with Tasigna. As a proximate result of Dainis Lauris’s atherosclerosis-related 9 conditions and Novartis’s intentional failure to warn of them, Dainis Lauris died. 10 JURISDICTION AND VENUE 11 3. This Court has diversity subject matter jurisdiction under 28 U.S.C. § 1332 because 12 Plaintiffs and Novartis are citizens of different states, and the amount in controversy exceeds 13 $75,000. 14 4. Venue is appropriate in this Court under 28 U.S.C. § 1391(a) & (b) because a 15 substantial part of the events and omissions giving rise to this action occurred in this district, and 16 because Novartis resides in this district. 17 5. This Court has personal jurisdiction over Novartis, as Novartis marketed 18 Tasigna in California and sold Tasigna to Dainis Lauris in California. 19 THE PARTIES 20 A. The Plaintiffs 21 6. Dainis Lauris and Kristi Lauris were legally married on May 24, 1995, and 22 were husband and wife prior to and as of the date of Dainis Lauris’s death on March 31, 2014. 23 Together they have two children – Plaintiffs Taylor Lauris and L.L. 24 7. Plaintiffs Kristi Lauris, L.L., and Taylor Lauris are the sole heirs of 25 decedent Dainis Lauris for the purposes of bringing this wrongful death lawsuit. They reside in 26 Fresno County, California. 27 8. Kristi Lauris is the sole legal guardian of Plaintiff L.L. 28 9. Plaintiff Kristi Lauris is the Successor in Interest to the Estate of Dainis Lauris. ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 2 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 3 of 12 1 Prior to or coincident with the commencement of this action, Plaintiff Kristi Lauris filed a 2 declaration as successor in interest of decedent Dainis Lauris, pursuant to California Code of Civil 3 Procedure § 377.32. Said declaration accompanies and is served with this Complaint. In such 4 capacity, plaintiff Kristi Lauris brings this claim for a Survival Cause of Action for Decedent 5 pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 377.30, et seq. 6 B. The Defendants 7 10. Defendant Novartis AG is a global healthcare company based in Switzerland. 8 Novartis AG is in the business of, among other things, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, 9 promoting, testing, labeling, and selling Tasigna. Novartis AG sells Tasigna to patients in the 10 United States through its wholly-owned subsidiary, Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation. 11 11. Defendant Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation is a Delaware Corporation with its 12 principal place of business in East Hanover, New Jersey. Novartis Pharmaceuticals Corporation is 13 in the business of, among other things, manufacturing, marketing, distributing, promoting, testing, 14 labeling, and selling Tasigna. 15 12. Defendants, and each of them, were the agents, servants, representatives and 16 employees of the remaining defendants, and each of them, and were at all times herein acting 17 within the purpose and scope of said agency, service, representative and employment. 18 IV. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS 19 C. Novartis’s Aggressive and Illegal Marketing of Tasigna 20 13. Tasigna is a prescription medication used to treat adults who have CML. CML is a 21 cancer which starts in certain blood-forming cells of the bone marrow, where a genetic change 22 occurs in an immature version of certain cells that make red blood cells, platelets, and most types 23 of white blood cells. Tasigna is part of a group of treatments known as tyrosine-kinase inhibitors 24 (TKIs), which target a protein—BCR-ABL—which is unique to CML cells. 25 14. The first TKI drug—Gleevec—was introduced in 2001, and, like Tasigna, is 26 produced and sold by Novartis. At an annual cost that has more than tripled since it was 27 introduced and is now over $100,000 per patient, Gleevec earned Novartis billions of dollars per 28 year while it maintained patent exclusivity. For example, in 2012, Gleevec sales generated ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 3 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 4 of 12 1 approximately $4.7 billion for Novartis. 2 15. Novartis’s patent on Gleevec expired on July 4, 2015, and there are currently 3 several generic forms of Gleevec on the market, which cost as little as $500 per year. 4 16. In the years leading up to the expiration of Novartis’s patent on Gleevec, 5 Novartis developed Tasigna as a replacement for Gleevec, and began an aggressive campaign to 6 attempt to convince doctors to prescribe, and patients to take, Tasigna over Gleevec. Beginning as 7 early as 2010, Novartis’s strategy was, in the words of one senior Novartis executive, to have 8 Tasigna "cannibalize" Gleevec as Gleevec’s patent approached expiration. This, the executive 9 said, would "create a fairly large amount of the Gleevec business that will be indirectly protected 10 because it [would be] switched already to Tasigna." 11 17. In furtherance of its strategy to have Tasigna cannibalize Gleevec, Novartis engaged 12 in aggressive, and, at times, unethical and illegal marketing of Tasigna. One illegal and unethical 13 practice was Novartis’s disseminating widely-shared social media content that (1) promoted the 14 efficacy of Tasigna while failing to disclose any safety information, including known risks of 15 potentially fatal adverse reactions, (2) misrepresented that Tasigna was approved as a first-line 16 therapy for CML (like Gleevec), when, at the time, it had only been approved as a second-line 17 therapy for CML, and (3) described Tasigna as a "next generation" treatment for CML, which, in 18 the words of the Food & Drug Administration, "misleadingly suggests superiority over other" TKI 19 drugs (including Gleevec), "when this advantage has not been demonstrated by substantial 20 evidence or substantial clinical experience." These practices caused the FDA to issue Novartis a 21 cease and desist letter on July 29, 2010, finding that Novartis had misbranded Tasigna in violation 22 of FDA regulations, and demanding that Novartis immediately cease the misleading and illegal 23 advertising. 24 18. Another unethical practice involved Novartis, beginning in at least 2007, paying 25 illegal kickbacks disguised as rebates and discount payments to specialty pharmacies in exchange 26 for those pharmacies recommending to patients, doctors, and other healthcare managers the 27 ordering and refilling of Tasigna, among other drugs. Novartis took steps to steer patients to these 28 specialty pharmacies, who then encouraged patients and their doctors to switch to or stay on ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 4 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 5 of 12 1 Tasigna through several aggressive intervention programs designed by Novartis. These kickbacks 2 paid to specialty pharmacies in exchange for their promotion of Tasigna were done in violation of 3 the Federal Healthcare Program Anti-kickback Statute, 42 U.S.C. § 1320a-7b(b). 4 19. Another unethical practice involved Novartis’s Japanese operations, where Novartis 5 staff hid reports of adverse reactions in clinical studies of patients taking Tasigna. Novartis staff 6 shredded or deleted thousands of reports of side effects associated with Tasigna, and in multiple 7 instances, Novartis’s sales staff helped doctors rate the severity of side effects. This egregious 8 conduct resulted in the Japanese government ordering an unprecedented 15-day suspension of 9 Novartis’s Japanese operations. 10 D. Novartis Failed to Warn Americans of Known Risks that Tasigna Causes 11 Atherosclerosis 12 20. Tasigna causes several dangerous adverse conditions, including severe, accelerated, 13 and irreversible atherosclerosis-related conditions. These atherosclerosis-related conditions 14 include peripheral arterial occlusive disease (hardening and narrowing of arteries supplying blood 15 to the legs and arms), coronary atherosclerosis (hardening and narrowing of the arteries supplying 16 blood to the heart), and cerebral atherosclerosis (hardening and narrowing of the arteries supplying 17 blood to the brain). These conditions are life-threatening and lead to amputations, heart-attacks, 18 strokes, and death. 19 21. Since at least 2011, Novartis was aware that Tasigna caused severe, accelerated, and 20 irreversible atherosclerosis-related conditions. This knowledge came from several sources, 21 including (1) multiple medical studies and reports linking Tasigna to accelerated and severe 22 atherosclerosis; (2) multiple instances of patients developing atherosclerosis-related conditions 23 reported during clinical trials and post-marketing experience with the use of Tasigna; and (3) 24 information gathered in a Novartis global safety database reporting hundreds of cases of patients 25 developing accelerated and severe atherosclerosis conditions after taking Tasigna. 26 22. The clear and alarming link between Tasigna and atherosclerosis prompted a 27 Canadian health agency—Health Canada—to investigate the risks. As a result, in April 2013, 28 Novartis issued an advisory to Canadian health care professionals and the Canadian public, which ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 5 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 6 of 12 1 Novartis disseminated through its Canadian channels only, and did not disseminate in the United 2 States. These advisories warned of the risks of atherosclerosis associated with Tasigna and that 3 patients taking Tasigna should be monitored for signs of atherosclerosis-related diseases when 4 taking Tasigna. 5 23. At or around the same time, Novartis updated its Canadian Product 6 Monograph—the reference document that Canadian health professionals use when prescribing 7 medication—to warn of the risks of atherosclerosis-related diseases. This warning was 8 prominently displayed in a box warning entitled "Serious Warnings and Risks." Novartis warned 9 that the atherosclerosis-related condition could result in death, and that the risks of peripheral 10 arterial occlusive disease, "can be severe, rapidly evolving, and may involve more than one site. 11 Peripheral arterial occlusive disease might require repeated revascularization procedures and can 12 result in complications that may be serious such as limb necrosis and amputations." 13 24. Despite warning in Canada of the risks of atherosclerosis associated with Tasigna, 14 Novartis did not, during the relevant time period alleged herein, properly warn United States 15 doctors and patients of those risks. Novartis did not send advisories to the United States public or 16 to United States doctors. Nor did Novartis properly warn of the atherosclerosis-related risks on the 17 United States Tasigna label. Novartis did not warn of risks of developing atherosclerosis on the 18 highlights page of the United States label—including in the box warning, under the "Warnings and 19 Precautions" heading, or under the "Adverse Reaction" heading. Nor did Novartis warn of 20 atherosclerosis-related conditions under Section 5 of the label describing "Warnings and 21 Precautions," under Section 6 describing "serious adverse reactions," or under section 6.1 22 describing "Clinical Trial Experience." 23 25. Novartis’s failure to warn United States doctors and patients of the serious risks of 24 developing atherosclerosis-related conditions associated with Tasigna was intentional, and part of 25 an aggressive marketing strategy to sell Tasigna over competing TKI drugs. 26 E. Dainis Lauris Takes Tasigna, Develops Severe Atherosclerosis-Related 27 Conditions, and Dies 28 26. Dainis Lauris was diagnosed with CML in 2001. From 2001 through roughly ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 6 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 7 of 12 1 2012, Lauris was prescribed and took Gleevec. 2 27. In October 2012, Dainis Lauris’s treating physician switched him from Gleevec to 3 Tasigna. As described in paragraph 21 above, the Tasigna label did not properly warn of the risks 4 of atherosclerosis-conditions associated with Tasigna during the relevant time period alleged 5 herein. 6 28. At the time that Dainis Lauris switched from Gleevec to Tasigna, Lauris had no 7 atherosclerosis-related conditions. 8 29. Upon taking Tasigna, Dainis Lauris began feeling cramping and tightening in his 9 legs and shins. This cramping and tightening was a symptom of accelerated atherosclerosis-10 related conditions, including peripheral arterial occlusive disease, which Dainis Lauris developed 11 as a result of Tasigna. But because Novartis failed to warn of the risks of atherosclerosis 12 associated with Tasigna, his cramping and tightening was mistaken as muscle cramping. 13 30. Dainis Lauris’s condition deteriorated dramatically over the next year. By 14 January 2013, he began feeling pain in his legs when conducting routine activities—such as cutting 15 the lawn, walking, and basic exercise. By May 2013, Dainis Lauris’s ability to engage in such 16 normal activities were significantly hampered, and by July 2013 he could not walk short distances 17 without having to stop due to extreme pain. Indeed, on July 4, 2013, he had to be driven one block 18 to enjoy a firework display with his family because walking that distance had become impossible 19 for him. He was also, for the first time in 33 years, unable to attend an annual hunting event with 20 his family, and he could not attend a back-to-school event for his children. The pain greatly 21 affected Dainis Lauris’s quality of life, and sleeping was difficult. Dainis Lauris’s deteriorating 22 condition also caused an enormous amount of stress on his family, who watched him deteriorate 23 from a healthy and active husband and father to a man constantly in pain and unable to perform 24 basic activities. 25 31. Dainis Lauris’s deterioration in health resulted from his severe, accelerated, and 26 irreversible atherosclerosis, including peripheral occlusive arterial disease, coronary artery disease, 27 and cerebral atherosclerosis—all of which was caused by Tasigna. 28 32. By September 2013, Dainis Lauris’s pedal pulse—the pulse of the artery taken at ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 7 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 8 of 12 1 the dorsal surface of the foot—went from "normal" to "not normal," meaning that the blood supply 2 to his lower extremities had been severely diminished. An angiogram was performed on Dainis 3 Lauris, which revealed that there was 100-percent blockage in Dainis Lauris’s right femoral artery 4 near the hip, 90-percent blockage in the artery behind the right knee, and 90-percent blockage in 5 the artery behind his left knee. 6 33. In November 2013, Dainis Lauris’s oncologist happened upon a published article in 7 a medical journal that discussed the link between Tasigna and severe, accelerated atherosclerosis-8 related conditions. He immediately called Dainis Lauris and told him not to take another Tasigna 9 pill. His oncologist switched Dainis Lauris from Tasigna to Sprycel—a competing drug produced 10 by Bristol Myers Squibb Company with no known links to atherosclerosis-related conditions. The 11 oncologist also notified Novartis that Tasigna had caused Dainis Lauris’s atherosclerosis-related 12 conditions, but received no response. 13 34. The discontinuation of Tasigna, however, was too late—Dainis Lauris’s 14 atherosclerosis was advanced and irreversible. On November 22, 2013, in a final effort to reduce 15 further damage to his right leg and avoid amputation, Dainis Lauris had peripheral artery bypass 16 surgery performed on his right leg—an invasive and painful procedure. 17 35. On March 31, 2014, Dainis Lauris died due to complications from his 18 atherosclerosis. An autopsy after his death revealed that in addition to the blockage in his arteries 19 in his legs, Dainis Lauris had approximately 70-percent narrowing of his middle cerebral arteries, 20 and 40-to 60-percent narrowing of his coronary arteries. All of these conditions were caused by 21 Tasigna. 22 CLAIMS FOR RELIEF 23 COUNT I: STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY 24 36. Plaintiffs re-allege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein. 25 37. At all relevant times, Novartis was engaged in the business of creating, designing, 26 manufacturing, selling, advertising, promoting, and distributing Tasigna throughout the world, 27 including in California. 28 38. At all relevant times, despite knowing of risks that Tasigna caused severe, ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 8 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 9 of 12 1 accelerated, and irreversible atherosclerosis-related conditions, and despite warning of such risks in 2 Canada, Novartis failed to reasonably warn patients and doctors in the United States— including 3 Dainis Lauris and the medical professionals that prescribed him Tasigna—of those risks. 4 39. As a proximate result of Novartis’s failure to warn, Dainis Lauris 5 developed atherosclerosis-related conditions—including peripheral arterial occlusive disease, 6 coronary atherosclerosis, and cerebral atherosclerosis—and died. 7 40. Novartis’s failure to properly warn of atherosclerosis was intentional. Driven 8 by its desire for Tasigna to dominate the multi-billion dollar TKI market in the wake of Gleevec’s 9 patent expiration, Novartis intentionally failed to warn Americans of known risks that Tasigna 10 caused severe, accelerated, and irreversible atherosclerosis-related conditions. Such conduct was 11 wanton—done with an oppressive, fraudulent, or malicious motive and in deliberate and conscious 12 disregard for the health and safety of Dainis Lauris and others similarly situated. Therefore, 13 Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of punitive damages against Novartis under Cal. Civ. Code § 14 3294. 15 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against defendants named 16 herein, and each of them, as set forth below. 17 COUNT II: NEGLIGENCE 18 41. Plaintiffs re-allege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein. 19 42. Novartis had a duty to exercise reasonable care in warning about the health and 20 safety risks that it knew or reasonably should have known were associated with Tasigna. Novartis 21 breached this duty of care by failing to reasonably warn of the risk that Tasigna caused 22 atherosclerosis-related conditions. 23 43. Further, in failing to properly warn of the risks that Tasigna causes atherosclerosis, 24 Novartis violated several statutes and regulations, thereby creating a presumption of negligence 25 under California Evidence Code § 669(a), including, but not limited to: 21 C.F.R. § 201.56(a) & 26 (d), and 21 C.F.R. § 201.57(c) & (f). 27 44. As a proximate result of Novartis’s negligence, Dainis Lauris developed 28 atherosclerosis-related conditions – including peripheral arterial occlusive disease, coronary ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 9 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 10 of 12 1 atherosclerosis, and cerebral atherosclerosis – and died. 2 45. Novartis’s failure to properly warn of atherosclerosis was intentional. Driven 3 by its desire for Tasigna to dominate the multi-billion dollar TKI market, Novartis intentionally 4 failed to warn Americans of known risks that Tasigna caused severe, accelerated, and irreversible 5 atherosclerosis-related conditions. Such conduct was wanton—done with an oppressive, 6 fraudulent, or malicious motive and in deliberate and conscious disregard for the health and safety 7 of Dainis Lauris and others similarly situated. Therefore, Plaintiffs are entitled to an award of 8 punitive damages against Novartis under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294. 9 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against defendants named herein, 10 and each of them, as set forth below. 11 COUNT III: WRONGFUL DEATH 12 46. Plaintiffs re-allege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein. 13 47. Prior to and as of March 31, 2014, plaintiff, Kristi Lauris, was the wife of the 14 decedent, Dainis Lauris and they were living together as husband and wife. Plaintiffs L.L. and 15 Taylor Lauris, were the daughters of decedent, Dainis Lauris. Plaintiffs are the sole heirs of 16 decedent Dainis Lauris for the purposes of bringing a claim for wrongful death under the laws of 17 the State of California and United States of America. 18 48. As a direct and legal result of the acts, conduct and omissions of Novartis, its 19 employees and agents, plaintiffs’ decedent, Dainis Lauris, suffered the injuries described above 20 which resulted in and caused his death. 21 49. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts, conduct and omissions 22 of Novartis, its employees and agents, as alleged herein above, plaintiffs were required to and did 23 employ physicians, medical specialists, and nurses to examine, treat and care for plaintiffs’ 24 decedent, and medical and incidental expenses were incurred in an amount not now known to 25 plaintiffs. 26 50. As a further direct and proximate result of the acts, conduct and omissions 27 of Novartis, its employees and agents, as alleged herein above, plaintiffs were required to and did 28///____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 10 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 11 of 12 1 incur funeral, burial and incidental expenses. 2 51. As a further direct and proximate result of the wrongful death of Dainis Lauris, 3 the plaintiffs, Kristi Lauris, L.L., and Taylor Lauris, have suffered the loss of financial support of 4 their husband and father and are also entitled to compensation for the loss of love, companionship, 5 comfort, affection, society, solace and moral support. These damages are in excess of the 6 jurisdictional limits of this court. 7 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs respectfully request judgment against defendants named herein, 8 and each of them, as set forth below. 9 COUNT IV: SURVIVAL CAUSE OF ACTION [C.C.P. §377.20 ET SEQ.] 10 11 52. Plaintiffs re-allege the above allegations as if fully set forth herein. 12 53. Plaintiff, Kristi Lauris is the successor in interest to the Estate of Dainis Lauris, 13 decedent. 14 54. Plaintiff seeks recovery for the wrongful death of Dainis Lauris, and claim all 15 damages sustained by Dainis Lauris and his estate as a proximate cause of the wrongful death, as 16 herein stated. 17 PRAYER FOR RELIEF 18 WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray for judgment against defendants, awarding Plaintiffs any 19 and all damages available to Plaintiffs under the law, including but not limited to: 20 1. General damages according to proof; 21 2. Medical and incidental expenses according to proof; 22 3. Funeral, burial and incidental expenses according to proof; 23 4. All losses because plaintiffs will not be able to pursue their usual occupation and 24 activities according to proof; 25 5. Decedent’s pain and suffering according to proof; 26 6 For loss of consortium, love, companionship, comfort, affection, society, solace, 27 and moral support; 28 7. Punitive and exemplary damages sufficient to punish and make an example of such ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 11 Case 1:16-cv-00393-LJO-SAB Document 1 Filed 03/22/16 Page 12 of 12 1 defendants, under Cal. Civ. Code § 3294, according to proof; 2 8. Plaintiffs’ reasonable attorneys’ fees and costs; 3 9. Prejudgment interest, and 4 10. For any other relief this Court deems appropriate. 5 DEMAND FOR A JURY TRIAL 6 Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial for all issues so triable in this action. 7 DATE: March 21, 2016 8 WEAKLEY & ARENDT, LLP 9 10 By:/s/James D. Weakley James D. Weakley 11 Attorneys for Plaintiffs 12 Of Counsel: 13 ELIAS GUTZLER SPICER LLC Richard M. Elias 14 Greg G. Gutzler Tamara M. Spicer 15 1924 Chouteau Ave., Suite W St. Louis MO 63103 16 (314) 833-6645 (314) 621-7606 (fax) 17 (Pro hac vice applications to be filed) 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 ____________________________ Plaintiffs’ Complaint for Wrongful Death and Personal Injuries 12