Walmart Sued Over Girl Scouts Killed by Driver On

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

Case No. Case No. # DEFENDANTS COMPANY LLC EAST, STORES WAL INC. WALMART KE INC.; (HOLDINGS), I MARKETING, & SALES INC DISTRIBUTING, AW SCHNEIDER, JUDY Litem, ad Guardian his SCHNEIDER SARA as Successor Interest to J.O. J.K. General Co Individually KELLEY, ROBIN and KELLEY BRIAN GWilson Gary Wilson TSutton Tara Sutton Facsimile: Telephone: Los Angeles, CA 3400 2049 CenturyEast, Park Suite LLP KAPLAN ROBINS DMartinez D Attorneys for Plaintiffs Facsimile: 612 612 Telephone: Minneapolis, MN 2800 800 LaSalle Avenue,Suite LLP KAPLAN ROBINS RBruce Rashanda Bruce JDePauw Jason DePauw PSieff Sieff Philip Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Pageof67 avid Martinez , a minor , a , their minor child - @ MART STORES EAST LP; , STORES MART 3:20 v.

@ @ RobinsKaplan.com @ @ RobinsKaplan.com THE ESTATE OF H.H. THE ESTATE RobinsKaplan.com 310 - @ RobinsKaplan.com - cv

RobinsKaplan.com 310- (pro hac vice to be submitted) be (pro viceto hac , and asPersonal Representatives and Administrators of THE ESTATE OF (pro hac vice to be submitted) be (pro viceto hac - , State Bar No. and asSuccessor and , Individually, RobinsKaplan.com in - 06942 (pro hac vice submitted) be vice to (pro hac - - - 339- - 229- , State Bar No. Interest to OF THE ESTATE 349- 552- (pro hac vice be (pro vice to hac submitted) 90067 ; 55402

WAL 4181 5800 8500 0130 deceased, byand through , deceased, , deceased; ; Defendants. Plaintiffs, AND JOHN DOE DOE ANDJOHN

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA OF DISTRICT NORTHERN - NNIC HO; ALICE HO; ALICE HO; NNIC - 3208 MART STORES, IN STORES, MART

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT STATES UNITED 139358 .;

NC.; AW & HO HO AW & NC.; PRODUCT PRODUCT AW

193183 1–10,

, deceased,

L - -

1 MART

- -

in and

C. -

;

DAMAGES FOR COMPLAINT Case No. 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1. 7. 6.

EMOTIONAL DISTRESS EMOTIONAL OF INFLICTION NEGLIGENT ACTION SURVIVAL NUISANCE PUBLIC ADVERTISING FALSE UNFAIR NEGLIGENCE WARN TO – FAILURE PRODUCTS STRICT T DEFEC –MANUFACTURING LIAB PRODUCTS STRICT DESIGN – DEFECTIVE LIAB PRODUCTS STRICT DEATH WRONGFUL WARRANTY IMPLIED OF BREACH WARRANTY EXPRESS OF BREACH 3:20 BUSINESS PRACTICES BUSINESS -

- 0

6942

LIABILITY LIABILITY

COMPLAINT

ILITY ILITY ILITY :

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 being surface from is However,whatever cleaned. debris a contain they gas remover such accessible, aerosols, as glue, fluids,cleaning gasoline and cheap they high are used easily get because and to commonare products Many household Defendant against by way of Complaint bydeceased, through and Guardian his ad Litem, JUDY SCHNEIDER deceased Representatives and General Co OF OF and have known have and al at WalInc., Inc., Marketing, AW& Ho, Kennic Inc., (Holdings), HO Alice Ho, distributors, and sellers of dust removers manufacture, distribute, andthese sell products profit greatly Manufacturers, asaresult. who design, companies the much that so so abusers, among popular inhalant removers are get Dust productto high. e th purchase can meaning with dollars anyone few a States, United nearly immediately. tha Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page2of67 t, t, if inhaled, causesthe person to lose consciousness and of bodily control their movements , deceasedH.H 2. 1. Plaintiffs, 3. 3:20

- ; and Plaintiff, J.O. s Mart Stores East, LP, and Wal prays - cv - One type of One type Inhalant abuse has been known prevalent and intheUnited Statesfor decades. These dustThese removers are cheap and availableat retail locations the throughout 06942 . These areproducts compressed gas in a can thatare used to spray off and dust

minor BRIAN BRIAN

l timesmaterial, , and as Successor

, KELLEY inhalant inhalant that people commonly get to dust abuse is high computer a minor, minor, a - Administrators of that people inhale their dust removers to get thatpeopletheir removers inhale to high. dust

Individually, Individually, - INTRODUCTION and and Mart Stores East, LLC (collectively “ s bring this action and allege asfollows: —such - in , KELLEY ROBIN - , THE SCHNEIDER SARA to ESTATE OF Interest -

as AW Distributing, Inc., AWas Distributing, -

and and

THE ESTATE OF J.K. OF ESTATE THE

as Successor

JURY JURY , asexamples. Individually, and as and Individually, Personal WalmartInc., Wal TRIAL DEMAND TRIAL - in

- (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) Interest to THE ESTATE THE to ESTATE Interest Defendants AWProduct Sales & , —difluoroethane their minor child,

- COMPLAINT Mart Stores,Mart ”)

—know —

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 J.K. Scouts volunteer Girl group. the J.K. sold and distributed, if altogether Defendants avoided foreseeablyand whileonDefendants vehicle high inhale inhale Coltenman a ofhighway, named the side onthe from grass trash the from side of Atthe the highway. a same Scouts Girl groupvolunteer was the pickingup time Schneider Defendants the preventable, yet manufacturers, distributors,sellersof and thesedust removers predictable and foreseeable injuries and deaths. Every one of these injuries and deaths was those children, inChippewa Falls, Wisco preventable childrenwere who were members of Scouts Girl Troop 3055 parent a and of of one years. The manufacturers, distributors,sellers and dus of these twenty stretchingleast caused bypeopleonfor driving at bystanders high removers back while dust vehicle, catastrophictheir deadly oftenresultingin and results bodily quicklycontrol movementscrash driving,consciousnessand can or ofwhile they lose their anywhere, includingdriving. while themnearly abuse remover ondust high When someonegets producessuch and quick a accessible, cheap, so removerhighly is dust Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page3of67 , , H.H. H.H. Ultra Duster 6. 5. 4. 3:20

and Sara , and , were partwere of group a Girl Scouts and parents who volunteering were clean to litter have failed to deter or or faileddeter —have to pr - and and cv - Several people in particular whose injuries and deaths were foreseeable and There have been numerous Dust remover abuse comes at a terrible price for many innocent bystanders. Because 06942 , Sara Schneider Colten

to get high while driving and strike and harm and kill innocent bystanders bystanders like and harm and innocent getwhile strike to high driving kill and Schneider

Ultra Duster

Treu drove off highway the while high onUltra Duster

These individuals’ tragic injuries and deaths would been have ’ The collision of manytheThe collision resulted in deaths, including deaths , knowing it was it , knowing had not negligent not had Ultra Duster event peopleevent from nsin. public reports of and deaths injuries -

3 dust remover dust

On November 3,2018, J.K reasonably reasonably ly and defectively designed, manufactured, and ly designed, defectively inhaling their dust removers.

on the sameon the highway. t removers foreseeable that someonewould

Treu was and powerfuland

are fullyare aware of these

and s and , driving his motor H.H., truck

COMPLAINT high, people people high,

to innocent Predictably

and and

many of —like Sara Sara

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 authority authority to onlitigate behalf of J.K.’s Personal Representatives and General Co Representatives of J.K.’s granting Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley Domiciliary Letters of Informal Administration as Persona Domiciliary of Informal Administration as Personal Representatives of J.K.’s Wisconsin, ofon State the of Probate Registrar, by County, Circuit of issued the Court Chippewa Orders through byand and J.K. of death. her for claims survivorship. including, and wrongful death of su J.K.’s 3,2018,On November Robin Kelley waspresent for, was in the ofzone and danger, witnessed with her sister. and marriedparents KelleyRobinKelley, and ChippewaWisconsin,her Brian with Falls, County, time of J drivenbyColtenvehicle J.K.’s witnessed and of zone danger, the for, wasin Kelley waspresent Brian 3,2018, On November Case No. Case No. rvivors and beneficiaries entitled tomake claims herein forth asset and asprescribed by law, Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page4of67 , having been conferred authority to administer J.K.’s administer authority to conferred been , having serious injur serious injur 12. 11. 10. 9. 8. 7. 3:20 .K.’s -

death, she havingdeath, yearsold, in was nine born been -

Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley are suing in their individual capacities their in are suing KelleyRobin and Brian Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley are the Personal Representatives for theEstate of Brian KelleyBrian RobinKell and Robin Kelley is J.K.’s Robin Kelley is Brian Kelley is J.K.’s J.K. 06942 ies ies

died on died November struck 3,2018after being grievouslybyand injured same the

that resulted that resulted in death when J.K. her thatresulted indeath her

Estate collectivelyare attached hereto asExhibit TreuWisconsin. ofChippewa County, Hallie, Lake Village the in PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE AND JURISDICTION PARTIES, April 30, 2020, granting Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley Letters RobinKelley and Brian Kelley 2020,granting 30, April

surviving mothersurviving in Chippewa father in surviving who resides Falls, Wisconsin.

TheKelley Family Estate, by and through the laws of State the ofWisconsin - ey were Administrators - after

J.K.’s J.K.

who residesChippewa in Falls, Wisconsin. was struck by wasstruck the vehicle.motor

was struck by the wasstruck motor vehicle. parents and natural guardians at thetime

of of

J.K.’s Estate and and beenhaving conferred Estate

2009.

Estate of onbehalf , and the

J.K.

1. was living inwas living Chippewa

Estate. The Orders COMPLAINT

and At the as

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Sara Schneider death and survivorship concerning both of both Estate concerning H.H. the deathsurvivorship and wrongful claims of entitledtobeneficiaries make set forth as claims and herein prescribedas bylaw, for including, near the filing of this Complaint. ad Litem Guardian or for will appointmentas apply thisCourt at to Schneider Judy Litem, and/or and and Wisconsin. surviving biological of mother Sarasurviving Schneider of Sara Schneiderof time of their deaths, Sara Schneider County, Wisconsin, with daughter,County, her H.H. old, havingyears been in born by injured volunteering with the Girl Scouts younger brothe ChippewaWisconsin,her with Falls, County, had been deceased prior date prior of deceased the been had to H.H.’s Schneider struck operated killedvehicle was also and bythe byColten maternal her and grandmother, Judy Schneider. time of H.H.’s drivenbyColtenvehicle

Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page5of67 as Successor 18. 17. 16. 15. 14. 13. 3:20

was the operated vehicle by TreuColten . At the time of Sara Schneider - cv

- death, she was 10years having old, bornbeen in H.H.’s J.O. J.O. Judy Schneider is Schneider Judy survivingthe biological grandmotherof J.O. J.O. Sara Schneider H.H. , by and through his ad through, byand his Guardian Litem, Schneider Judy 06942 - in . J.O. , a minor, , a

- is the surviving biological brother of biologicalbrother H.H. surviving the is

is represented by his biological grandmother Judy Schneider as Guardian ad as byhis Schneider biological grandmother Judy represented is

Interest to Sara Schneider died on November 3, 2018 after being struck and grievously injured byt struckinjured being grievously and 3,2018after November on died

parentguardian. natural and living sole resides in Cary, Illinois.

Treu Wisconsin. County, of Chippewa Hallie, Lake Village the in is suing suing is

also died onNovember 3,2018 being after and struck grievously

1986.

volunteer group

Sara Schneider’s Sara was H.H.’s Individually,

Sara Schneider , her son, J.O. son, , her and Sa and ’s Estate, and is suing on behalf of the survivors and and and ofsurvivors onbehalf ’s is the Estate, suing - mother and and guard mother ian. natural

5 .

to clean the roadside litter, and Sara Schneider

and and ra Schneiderra Judy Schneider residesChippewaFalls, in Schneider Judy H.H.’s Family

was as ,

and her mother, Schneider. her Judy and Suc

Treu. Treu.

living living Chippewain Falls,Chippewa

H.H.’s mother, mother,

H.H. 2008. H.H. cessor and is the surviving biologicalson surviving the is and

J.O., ’s deaths.’s

At the time of their deaths, Sara

natural fathernatural deceased is and - her mother, mother, her in . Sara Schneider

- Interest to

was living was living in Chippewa

and H.H. and ’s ’s

death, was she 32 and the Estate ofand the Sara Schneider H.H. COMPLAINT , was also and is the is , and ’s

Estate At the At the he he

, ,

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and co and Executive Officer, Secretary, and g, marketing, advertising, distributing, and selling of of distributing,g, marketing, and researching, advertising, selling inspecting, promoting, labelin engagedindirectly in the designing, testing, producing, processing, assembling, formulating, and/or have directly the (collectively, been Defendants “AW AWIndividual Defendants”) the and Secretary, Alice Ho Inc. a is HO (Holdings), of AW & Chief Director, owner, Chief Officer, Executive Secretary, Officer, and Financial agentregistered Chief Executive Officer, and registered agent shareholder 90703 California Cerritos, at 1180 belief,and reside HayneR Corporate Defendants”). Distributing, Sales AWProduct California94401.#343, SanMateo, 90703HayneR California , 1180 registeredCorporation with Street, Cerritos,Street, California 90703, 1180 HayneR principalplaceat located 13411Andy its of Californiaregistered a with business Corporation is California 90703California 13411 Cerritos, at Andy Street, principalplaceof located Corporation its registered with business California94401. 2nd Avenue#343,SanMateo, Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page6of67 - owner of AW & HO (Holdings), Inc. ofowner HO AW (Holdings), & 23. 22. 20. 19. 21. 3:20 and , -

cv Director, - AW Corporate Defendants Defendants relevant times, uponinformation AW belief, Corporate At all and the Defendants Product (“AW INC. MARKETING, & SALES PRODUCT AW Defendant ( INC. AW DISTRIBUTING, Defendant Defenda 06942 Chief Financia and and

President, manager, and registered agent of AW Distributing, Inc.; nt AW &HO (HOLDINGS), INC.(“AW Holdings”) is a California 1180 HayneR

HO KENNIC

its principal place of business located at 13411 Andy Street, Cerritos, 13411Cerritos, at Andy Street, principalplaceof located its business Kennic Ho Kennic is “AW Defendants”). the Individual (collectively, l Officer l , Chief Financial Officer ofAW Product SalesMarketing, & Inc.; oa and AWHoldings are collectively referred to as the “AW , Hillsborough, California 94010 , Hillsborough,oad California d, Hillsborough, California, 94010, California, Hillsborough, d, oa The Defendants The

d, Hillsborough, California94010d, Hillsborough, AW . (Defendants and and of AW Distributing, Inc.; co

ALICE HO ALICE

- Product Sales & Product Marketing, Inc.; and AW of

co d, Hillsborough, California - owner

are individuals individuals who, uponinformationare “ , Director, Chief Executive Officer, AWDistributing”) is a California - and 204 E. 2nd Avenue 2nd 204E. and and and owner, Director, Chief Director, owner, 13411

94010, COMPLAINT Andy Street,

and 204 E. 204and E.

- Sales”) Sales”) owner, owner, co

a -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Defendants property,combined their skill agreement. and purpose such out common ofmeans control and thecarry to direction the in voice a to and andownership interest from participa California Ultra Duster for ultimate sale and use throughout Defendants, including the Individual the including Individual Defendants, Def AW ofother corporate shield assets the to company shell designed a as Defendant AW Holding corpora and personal distinctions between observe to operated the otherAWDefendants astheir alter egos, engaged inco thewere soleof shareholders the otherAW and controlled, dominated, Defendants managed, and maintainadequate insurance. formalities, failed to properly capitalize, failed to generate and corporate keep records and failed to allat relevant times shared thesame corporate address example, Defendants inter For and amongstAW AWCorporate Defendants. the est ownership the ofAW theconsent other Defendants. employment,agency, ego, alter venture joint and enterprise, joint and the permission with and venturer within coursejoint ofotherAW the the Defendants, same Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page7of67 theStateof California ownership, managementownership, 25. 26. 24. 28. 27. 3:20 ted in and/or facilitated the distribution and sale of millions sale and the facilitated distribution ted and/or in .

- acted with and contributed to a mutual understanding, common mutual with a contributedto and acted purpose cv - the AWDefendants words,or the their doing,otherwise, so conduct In through Each AW Defendant acted asan agent, employee, co upon and informationAWknowingly Further, belief, and willfully the Defendants AW upon belief, and information AW Moreover, the aof has unity existed, belief, relevantand times,there uponinformation At all 06942

in the joint enterprise over

and/or in ofknowledge furtherance a , employees,

at leastat

the last decade.the endants’ $9,270,000residence. endants’ , and each had the right to share in its profits losses and

and and officers, they failed to observecorporate -

- the United States, including within the State of

te funds. Further, the AW Defendants used used funds. thete AW Defendants Further,

office

and scope andof furtherance scope such and in s

s location business and/or Individual Defendants at Defendants Individual joint venture. Further, venture. AW the joint - - mingling of assets, and failed and ofmingling assets,

conspirator, alter ego and/or ofUltra Duster cans in

COMPLAINT ,

and joint joint and , all timesall and theand

and and

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 30,2020). June 1 Defendants agreedeach beto personally liable for AW debts owed Distributing’s Daihoto Sangyo. however,AW Individual the lawsuit, namedthe to being not parties agreement. Despite of Ultra Duster it sent to AWDistributing. That litigation was resolved by way of a settlement failure of alleged Daiho 2018 pay in result AW to a Distributing’s Sangyofor shipments as contract the Sangyo,Inc., Daiho forei including the liabilities alleged in this Complaint and others related to Ultra Duster. For example, avoid to liability creditors, defraud inand transfers multiple AW Holdings, order including to Daiho Sangyo, Inc. Distributing,Inc. DaihoSangyo, AW Default, v. , No.Upon 18- Any of located business Bentonville,place in Arkansas. Defendant to thefiction of theseparate existence of these entities would sanction a fraud ofUltra distributing purpose Duster cans to retailers. Californiafor warehousethe a in operate jointly AWDefendants Corporate the that and 94401,” Cerritos, California90703 13411 Andy Street, Kennic Ho states that the AWCorporate Defendants’ “principal places of business located are at Defendants. thatdeclaration, In ofAW D Corporate the authorized byall ofbehalf and Bentonville, Arkansas. Upon information and Walbelief, is a Delaware limited liability corporation with its principal pla Defendant California within the state of California business l / and Case No. Case No.

Notice of Settlement, forNotice Continuing Request Jurisdiction and Stipulationfor Entry of Judgment Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page8of67 or bringor results inequitable about 29. 31. 30. 32. 3:20 ocated in Bentonvill ocated in . WAL WAL - cv - Upon information and belief, the AWUpon the e moved informationhav belief, and Defendants assets amongst them, As such, the separateness of the AW Defendants has adherence ceased and to exist otherrecentIn litigation, defendant Ho Kennic submitteda sw Defendant WALMART INC. a is Delaware corporation with its principal place of 06942 - MART STORES EAST LP , STORES MART - MART STORES, INC STORES, MART

gn distributor of UltraDuster, AWfor breachof sued Distributing

and is registered to do business and receive service of process in e, Arkansas.Walm . . formally changed. nameWalmart its to In and 204E. 2ndAvenue#343,SanMateo,California is a Delawareis limited partnership with its principal -

art Inc. ownsandart operates many retail stores

- Mart Stores East, LP and Wal WAL - MART STORES EASTLLC , STORES MART ce of located business in - CIV Ct. Sup.05244 (Ca. Ct. , orn declaration on declarationorn on promote injustice COMPLAINT c. in 2018. in c. efendant - Mart Mart 1

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 relevant to this action. including sale,marketing,district, the of product promotion distribution Duster, and the Ultra district, maintain a registered agent for rvice se ofin process thisdistrict, and dobusiness in this 1965 becauseDefendants all reside in this district exceeds the sum- of Seventy of betweendiversity exists citizenship Plaintiffs and Defendants, and the amount controversy in the Duster that resulted in ofmanufacturing, designing,Ultra distributing,the selling, purchasing and “Defendants”) were all active and knowing participants in the chain of commerce that resulted in identities namedifbe more fully and discovered. when their are The pseudonymous designations are being used topreserve claims against theseparties who will sumers othercon R.and Treu Colten into the to distribution streamand of users. commerce commerce thatsold,designed, distributed, and/or manufactured Ultra Plaint to unknown selling of UltraDuster for ultimate and sale use marketing,advertising, ecting, formulating, distributing, insp promoting, andresearching, labeling, Walmarttimes, indesigning, the testing, wasinvolved producing,processing, assembling, Wal subsidiaries,successorsassigns, or including Stores East, LLC subsidiaries are ofWalmart Inc. (Walmart Inc. and anyaffiliates, of its disbursements. disbursements. Duster. ofpurchasing Ultra significantoverdistributing, control manufacturing, exercised designing, and the selling, Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page9of67 deaths of J.K. - Mart Stores East, LLC referred are to collectively as “Walmart”). At all material and relevant 35. 34. 33. 36. 3:20 - cv - Jurisdiction properJurisdiction is in pursuantthis Court to 28 U.S.C. §1332because complete At all material and relevant times, the DoeJohn #1Company–10, whosespecific Defendants identities are currently Venue is proper in this this in proper Venue is 06942

, iffs, are the individuals,business entities, and corporations within the chain of H.H.

, and and

Five ($75,000), Dollars exclusiveThousand of int Sara Schneider Jurisdiction & Venue & Jurisdiction Court

. At all material and relevant times, all Defendants pursuant to 28U.S.C. to pursuant §1391(b) - Wal

throughout 9

- Mart Stores,Inc., Wal and/or maintain significant contacts in this AW AW

the United States. Defendants Defendants

Duster for marketing, sale, and Walmart(collective - Mart Stores East, LP,

(1)

and 18 U.S.C. § 18U.S.C.§ and erest, costserest, and COMPLAINT ly ly

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 deaths in the in deaths Mental Health Services Administration, and American Addiction Centers. SubstanceAbuseand onDrugAbuse, Institute National the awarenes abuse,as ofs such inhalant consequences https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research , Abuse? 6 https://www.aafp.org/afp/2003/0901/p869.html AmericanAbuse, Family Physician, 5 Apr. visited 27, 2020). reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq Health Indicators in Survey onDrugHealth States:the from Results 2018National United the Useand 4 Apr. visited 27, 2020). education/safety “InhalantAbuse:Deadly. AbuseAbuse: Can It’s Inhalant Kill,” 3 23 http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/ 2 cheap, easily accessible, and easy to conceal. aero get to homes schools high. and thisday. to continues and Case No. Case No. Recognition andPrevention E. Anderson, of M.D.M.D.,Inhalant Carrie Recognition A. Glenn Loomis, & Substance A States Safety United AGuide ConsumerParent’s Product Preventing Commission, to Inhalant onDrug Institute Euphoria National of Dysfunction Abuse,Review to Inhalants: (Oct. 1977), National on DrugInstitute National Abus Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page10of67 . sols, gasoline, and and sols, gasoline, spray paint. . 42. 41. 40. 39. 38. 37.

3:20 - cv United StatesUnited wasapproximately 100- - buse and Mental Health Services Administration, Useand KeySubstance Mental inhalant - The National Institute on Institute The National stated DrugAbusehas thatthe numberof inhalant Numerous organizations governmental and dedicate entities resources to raising Inhalants areInhalants knownbe for to their effects abused intoxicating oftenbecause they are variety a include of such products, Inhalants as oxide, nitrous cleaning fluids, found in inhalingcommonproducts sniffing deliberate of or the abuse is Inhalant Inhalant abuse has been a public health issue in the U 06942 - guides/containers

- abuse 2

viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.152.2815&rep=rep1&type=pdf#page= (last updated July (last 2012). 3

Inhalants: theWhat are Inhalant Consequences Inhalants: of e, Medical - 4 and

(Sep. 1,2003), INHALANT ABUSE INHALANT - packaging/parents- FACTS 5

. 10

report - 200 people per year as200 people per of2012. July,

- s/inhalants/what

guide

- - https://www.cpsc.gov/safety preventing- nited States fornited many years - are

- inhalant other - medical - COMPLAINT abuse (last 6

- - related related (last

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 chemically. as “dust thiscategory remover” beComplaint, referredofto “dustwill removers.” products or “compressedair,” gas cleaner,” “c including “keyboard cleaner,” “electronics cleaner,” “computer cleaner,” “dusting spray,” “canned Apr. visited 27, 2020). reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf https://www.samhsa.gov/data/s Health Health Indicators in th 10 talks https://www.houstonpress.com/news/inhalants PressHouston (September6,2016), 9 https://americanaddictioncenters.org/inhalant 8 Apr. visited 27, 2020). reports/NSDUHNationalFindingsR https://www.samhsa.gov/data/sites/default/files/cbhsq Health Indicators in SurveyHealth States:the from Results 2018National United the 7 intoxica many,manymore thatareprobably recorded something being as else.” justfrom annually, probably, inhalant Education, epidemic.” million overthe inhalants oldin past. used two people have 12 years Case No. Case No. Carter Sherman, Carter — Inhalants Centers, Addiction American Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Useand KeySubstance Mental Substance Abuse and Mental Health Services Administration, Use and KeySubstance Mental Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page11of67 - about , . 48. 47. 44. 46. 45. 43.

ting effects compressed is gas dusting sprays. 3:20

8 -

8730670 - cv - Dust removers typically share similar characteristics, both physically and Compressed gas dusting sprays are often referred to in many ways, different American Addiction Centers ref One particular category of inhalants that are known to be abused for their areabused be that known categoryto of inhalants One particular for ExecutiveConsumer toStickler, Director ofAlliance Sara According the 2018, In the Survey National on Drug Useand Health reported thatapproximately 06942 -

. related deaths are vastly underreported: “You’re looking in the hundreds the in underreported: looking are vastly “You’re related deaths e Surveye onDrug States: from Results 2018National United the Useand COMPRESSED GAS DUSTING SPRAYS DUSTING GAS COMPRESSED

the alerts and thecases we able are totrack on our own. But there’s TheEasy Deadly Acquire About but to DrugNobody That Talks ites/default/files/cbhsq The Inhalants, of Dangers eport2018/NSDUHNationalFindingsReport2018.pdf ompressed gas duster,” as examples. For purposes of this

- abuse - -

the 11 ers to inhalant abuse as “the forgotten asdrug to abuse “the inhalant ers

- - easy

(last updated (last 10, June 2019). 10 - -

- to

- acquire - but 7

- 9 deadly

onDrug Useand - drug - that COMPLAINT (last (last - nobody-

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 12 http://www.awdus.com/products_01_01.html 11 printerspluss, computers, keyboard manymore.” as a“compressed gas air duster” that “blast[s] dust, dirt, and unwanted micro printersplus computers, keyboards, manymore.” removers onthedust market, was which “blast to dust, and dirt, - micro unwanted Ultra Duster. manufactured, belief,tested, eled,and designed, lab sold distributed, remover and/or called dust a highly pressurized gas out of thecan toclear asurface of dust and debris. nozzle. the throughout spray and gas of pressurized topped by a spray nozzle and an actuator trigger that opens a valve to release apressurized stream Case No. Case No. AWDistributing, Inc., AWDistributing, Inc., Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page12of67 53. 52. 51. 50. 49. 3:20 - cv

- At all material and relevant times, Defendants advertised and marketed Ultra Duster At all material and relevant times, the function of Ultra Duster was similar to other times uponinformationand material relevant and all at forDefendants, example, Dust removers nearly are identic Dust removers are physically similar in that they are sold in a handheld can that is 06942

Ultra Duster Product Description, Ultra Duster Product Description, . -

12 al in appearance and function, which is to spray a spray to is which function, inand al appearance 12 11

- articles away from articles away COMPLAINT

from from

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 as a“Compressed Gas Duster.” 13 http://www.awdus.com/products_01_01.html manufacturer, is to “Remove[] Dust &Lint in Home or Office.” http://www.3m.com/us/office/advisory/Artwork3MDustRemoverApprovedOctober2008.pdf Case No. Case No. 3M Company, 3MDust Company, 3M Remover Label Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page13of67 54. 3:20 - cv - The primary function The primary function of 3M similar a Remover, Dust product, to according its 06942

. -

13 3M Dust Remover marketed is COMPLAINT .

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://falconsafety.com/shop/dusters/disposable/disposable 14 flowerarrangements.” and projects silk ornaments,machines, holiday sewing craft collectibles, window blinds, home like the around your Use in office cleankeyboards,CPU,or spacearea. to for desk removing laptop, Great dust potent “provide to manufacturer, dust is toaccording its Case No. Case No. Falcon Safety Products, Dust SafetyProducts, Inc., Falcon Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page14of67 55. 3:20 - cv - The primary function 06942

- Off Product Description of another similarof product, another Dust 14

- removing power for practically any task. any for power practically removing

- duster ,

- 10- - oz/ Off branded dust remover, dust Off branded . COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Manufacturing https://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/compound/1%2C1- 17 https://falconsafety.com/wp 16 05185.html https://www.crcindustries.com/products/duster 15 “DFE”). gas 1- fluorinatedcalled hydrocarbon volatile, damaging sensitive components orsurface finishes.” without debris remove to ofembedded blast “provide[] product to manufacturer, powerful is a CID=6368, of products. properties certain pr to or foamingpropellant agent air fresheners, disinfectants,household cleaners, automotivecleanersand waxes and Case No. Case No. National Center for Information, Biotechnology PubChem National Data Dust SafetyProducts, Inc., Falcon Inc., CRCIndustries, Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page15of67 57. 56. 58. 3:20 16

. -

cv - (last visite Dust removers chemically are similar inthat they typically contain a pressurized The primary function ofproduct, according similar a CRC its to Duster, DFE used many is in consumer products 06942

CRC Duster Product Description, Description, CRC Product Duster d Apr.27,2020). - content/uploads/SDS_dust 17

opel the main product out of its container or create the foaming foaming create or the out container of mainproduct opel its the - Off Compressed Gas Duster Safety DataSheet - -

8482- ane1, difluoroeth (hereinafter “difluoroethane” or 15

15 moisture difluoroethane#section=Use-

- —such as deodorants, hair spray, mousse, - off

compressed - free base, 1,1- - dust - - gas lint - Difluoroethane, Difluoroethane, - duster.pdf remover - and —as an aerosol , - COMPLAINT 8- .

wt - oz -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://www.sciencedirect.com/science/article/pii/0041008X60900028 surgical anesthesia because of their analgesic effects. 24 2(4):363 andAppliedCompoun Fluorinated Toxicology Pharmacology Hydrocarbons,” I. ds: 23 https://pubs.acs.org/doi/pdf/10.1021/ie50270a012 Engineering Chemistry, 24(6):637 22 of Forensic Journal and TheAmerican (DFE),” Difluoroethane Medicine Pathology 21 20 19 https://www.hindawi.com/journals/criem/2016/9204790/#B2 Reports in Emergency Medicine , vol. 2016,Article ID9204790(2016), L. CatesCardiomyopathy Matthew and Alexis Huffing “Severe D. after Cook, Dust Sep.4,2019, 11,9 e5565, al., B et PsychosisFollowingNovotny, Clara 1,1- “Acute http://www.inche Information, 1,1- 18 ofimpending consciousness.” loss 1960,specifically in DFEhydrocarbons humantesting and ondogs volunteers. bodily movements. their move control to normally or interferescompletely withability person’s a debilitating and impairing effects such as unconsciousness, drowsiness, dizziness, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501351 2006), (March https://ame loss of inabilitydizziness, inhibitions, make to decisions, sound slurred and speech. suffocation. Case No. Case No. Id. Properties Joseph “Anesthetic and of Poznak F. of Alan Artusio,Jr., Series a Fluorinated E. May Booth& Derivatives of Bixby,“Fluorine Harold Chloroform,” and Industrial Joseph, et al., Avella, “Fatal Cardiac Arrhythmia After Repeated Exposure to 1,1 Id. Centers, Addiction American International Programme on Chemical Safety, Internationally Peer Reviewed Chemical Safety Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page16of67 63. 65. 64. 60. 59. 62. 61. 3:20 - 73 (July 1960), 1960), 73 (July ricanaddictioncenters.org/inhalant - 18 cv

- As early as 1936, scientists began testing fluorinated hydrocarbons as a potential The volunteer human testers e th inhaled DFE “noted and goodanalgesia and Researchers continued their research into the anesthetic properties of fluorinated DFE thatcontain products also cause partiallyInhaling can paralysis,which or Because DFE is a central nervous system depressant, when inhaled, it causes When inhaled, DFE can also cause death by cardiac arrest. containing products DFE effectsofThe impairing commonlyin inhaling result 06942 Difluoroethane, ISCS: 1729 (March 2009), Difluoroethane, ISCS: 1729(March m.org/documents/icsc/icsc/eics1729.htm

https://www.ncbi.nlm.ni Huffing Dust or Canned Air - 24 41 1932), (June

- abuse/side- -

16 [abstract]. [first page]. [first

h.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820689/ -

effects Difluoroethane Inhalation,” Cureus Inhalation,” Difluoroethane ;

- . Off: Side Effects, Signs, Side Effects, Off: and More.

(last updated (last 17,2019). Jun. [abs

21 tract].

, vol. , vol. - 20 - . 27 ; Off,” Case Off,” COMPLAINT

(1):58

vol. - and and 60 60

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 delusions. psychoactive, intoxicating- 29 28 edited.pdf https://www.proceedings.med.ucla.edu/wp- 1,1 - with Abuse 27 26 25 DFEcontaining containing DFE,dustday. as removers,to continue products such this hydrocarbons similarvolatile DFE. to of substance abuse.popular a possible surgical anesthetic because of explosive its properties. https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/drugfacts/inhalants https://americanaddictioncenters.org/inhalant soughteffects alongthe with to others are others numerous, publicto and accessible, the also easily in domain. newspapers. accessible, for example by asimple online search of widely available publicmedia, like Case No. Case No. Inhalants: , on Drug Inhalants? WhatInstitute are National Abuse, Inhalants: Id. MD, Liu Skeletal Regina Thomas& Blair, Fluorosis and “Sniffer’s Dermatitis” After Inhalant Centers, Addiction American Id. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page17of67 67. 72. 71. 70. 69. 68. 66. 74. 73. 3:20 . 26

cv - According According to the American Addictio Predictably when foreseeably, Predictably and persona intentionally inhales dusta remover dying, getting ofkilli and hurt, people Reports DFE use can leadto addiction, which aform is Substance of Abuse Disorder. after started dying inhaling of in1960s reports fact, teenagers the In surfacing Because of these effects, DFE and is, has been at materialall DFE the While exhibited goodanesthetic researchers properties, eliminated DFE as Reports of peopleReports getting ondust high remover, harm and driving, causing death and ofremover abuse dust Reports in public the easily domainareand numerous 06942 Difluroethane

that person frequently exhibits frequentlyexhibits meso person ofthat orall theaforementioned adverse health

27 like side effects, such as a rush of euphoria, hallucinations, and -

Proceedings of UCLA of , Proceedings 23(2019), , vol. Health after intoxicating, psychoactive side effects. Huffing Dust or Canned Air DUST REMOVER ABUSE REMOVER DUST 28

content/uploads/2019/03/Liu - abuse/side- -

- n Centers, inhaling DFE also causes immediate

ectseff

(last updated 2020). (last April - Off: Side Effects, Signs, Side Effects, Off: and More. ng after inhaling injuring and others

(last updated (last 17,2019). Jun. 25

- A190213RL

and relevant times , a COMPLAINT - BLM

- 29

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/125/5/906#T1 Data, 1993- 30 2003: dustinhaling remover paint and to high driving bystandersinnocent death while injuries removers. on dust on high removers. while dust abusin been dust removers since at least the 1990s. havecountry and on compiled data reported people intentionally inhaling including propellants, Case No. Case No. Melinda R. Marsolek, et Trends al., Inhalant Monitoring Abuse: Using by ControlPoison Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page18of67 — 30

in general has general beenin decline in time over 1993,propellantabuse since 79. 78. 77. 76. 75. 3:20 this day. get removersdoso to high to this g dust continue and to - , Pediatrics, 125(5) 2008, Pediatrics, cv - Researchers have reportedResearchers have thatwhile inhalant abuse is It clear, and has been clear at all material and relevant times peoplecause, that will clear, is It and has been clear at all material and relevant times isIt clear, and has been clear at all material and relevant times have people , that Governmental agencies, organizations, researchers, an 06942

specifically around to around—specifically increased starting skyrocket started 1998 and

906-

913 (May 2010), -

—such as sniffing gasoline or d media from the around

—su , that, people will drive

ch asch intentionally COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 in a swimming pool, where he drowned when his heart drowned he stopped. swimmingheart a where whenin pool, his her crashed from offand vehicleshe high road after got veered the remover. dust vehicle crash 37 inhalant https://madisoncourier.com/Content/News/News/Article/Car 36 - 1de0 https://www.dailylocal.com/news/coroner- 35 https://www.nytimes.com/1999/03/02/us/fatal 1999), 34 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/9397568 Sci.,42(6):1186 –7 (Nov.1997), 33 https://www.goupstate.com/news/20080912/woman- 32 31 data andonconsumer collect publish to product ofNEISS the is purpose ElectronicInjury Sur National surveillance the system as known passengers were also reported to have DFE system. in their vehicleher off side the of road and the a struck tree gettingafter high on remover; dust thr afterhigh ofvehicle getting control woman her remover ondust lost driving. while abuse during same this time frame. 2001), room visits fromroom visits 1997- aerosol including inhalant United States, the in Case No. Case No. National Electronic Injury Surveillance System, Accidents- Draws Regatta Car Crashat Use AttentionInhalant to Macleod, Coroner UseLed Katrina Inhalant Says Fatal to Michael Janofsky, 2, N.Y. Inhalants Youth, Danger to as Times(Mar. CrashReveals Fatal Fatalities al., TwoRelatedUse et LATraffic the Difluoroethane to of Broussard, Craig Peters, Crash Plea Huffing , GoUpstate.com WomanSubmits in 12,2008), (Sep. Id. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page19of67 5aa7 85. 84. 82. 86. 83. 81. 80. - 3:20 use/178/961/31258 - 94c5 - cv ed after the driver got high from inhaling a can of propellant containing DFE. - In JuneIn of teenag 2001,a er in Indianapolis died after getting high on dust remover Almost exactly two yearslater in Pennsylvaniadied2001, a teenager when she of a published two 1997,researchers case report whenIn individualswhotheir died The United StatesConsumer Safety Product Commission operates an injury ran killed indriver schoolwere juniors when 1999,fivehigh Pennsylvania the In In dustabout remover propellant same that ofThis calculated 57% all study comprised 06942 - 43dd18fb828d.html 1997, a 1997, a catastrophically and woman driver another struck injured when the

2010. . 37

31 .

says- - - crash

19 inhalant

- [abstract]. related injuries, by cataloging some emergency some emergency related injuries,bycataloging

- submits reveals- - use , MadisonCourier25, 2006), (July

34 - ity, Local News24, Daily (Feb. - - inhalants

led Aerosol Containers plea crash 36 - veillance System (“NEISS”). The to

- in - - - ticle_76cc60a8 fatality/ar at - huffing - - Regatta as - - related injuriesoccurring danger - crash - draws - - 35 to Years 1997- .

32 - , J. F , J.

youth.html -

COMPLAINT attention orensic ee of the the of ee 33

- . to -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/15171188 separate incidents. remover in ondust high getting after killed were children several remover after dust inhaling Difluoroethane (DFE) 42 death https://www.reuters.com/article/us 41 https://www.today.com/parents/dusting- 40 49(3):627 39 38 Apr. visited 27, 2020). http://www.hospital 2010- with high getting associated containing removersproducts ondust other and DFE. from Walmart. with inhaling removers. associated dust https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/16501351 2006), (March from 2002– Case No. Case No. Fatal Cardiac Arrhythmia Repeated Cardiac al., Joseph Fatal Arrhythmia , et After Exposure1,1- Avella, to Wal PeterAlexander, “Dusting” theNew is Killer High forTeens 1,1- Caused by Death Z.Sudden Xiong,et al., Id. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page20of67 - All ofAll Body from - Mart, 3M Sued in Teenager’s in Solvent Sued from Death Mart, 3M Teenager’s 90. 92. 91. 89. 87. 88. 3:20 - 9 (May 2004), 9 (May - 2010. solvent - cv - 41 In 2005, Today.com alerted its readers to the increasing danger of “dusting,” or readers 2005,Today.comto increasingdanger ofIn its the “dusting,” alerted In 2006, researchers published a research article reviewing the death of aperson 2006,aIn woma In 2004, researchers published a research article reviewing the death of aperson The NEISS’s first record of acomputer duster There dozens are of of reports dust remover abuse clearly identified in the NEISS 06942

, 38 40

- - idUSN3122706820070531

data.com/accidents/1133 , The American Journal of and Journal Medicine The American Forensic Pathology, 27(1):58 ,

n died after gettingn died on3Mhigh RemoverDust that purchased she - walmart 39 new

- huffinglawsuit/wal - killer- - - aerosol .

20 difluorethane, Inhalation Sci.,J. Forensic [abstract]. [abstract].

- high

- containers/all - - teens , Reuters 31, (May 2007),

- specific injury specific injury 2002: is 2D80555302 - , Today (Jul. 26, 2005), , Today(Jul.26,2005), mart - of - 3m - body/index.html - sued . - in - teenagers 42

COMPLAINT (last - - 60 60

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 a vehicle driven vehicle a on3M woman bya high Remover Dust who was 48 https://academic.oup.com/jat/article/36/9/626/784617 Examiner’s Office, Toxicology, ofJournal tical Analy Vol.36(9):626 47 935e80b0c920.html police 46 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/al 45 44 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/17132266 Difluoroethane 43 dust remover inthe man’s vehicle. Remover Dust on3M high getting SanDiego Examiner’sthe CountyMedical - from Office 2007 car ondusttheir high remover when crashed. teenagersbeen whobelieved have ofwere to onthethree deaths huffing removers, focusing dust approximatelycontained ofremover, including cans dust forty CRCDuster high getting on and after remover.vehicle died dust Island Independent Island https://www.youtube.com/watch times.” An intact can containing DFE w onto across right lanes, the shoulder, downand a steep embankment, overturning vehiclethe many the to mphmanwhen “veered he 65 travelingapproximately described as the crash who sawthe death DFE,involving 3” “Case identified the death of 50- a Dust Remover Dust Case No. Case No. 12- al.,Involving Chris, Vance, Deaths 1,1 - et Schulz, Teen Sarah Who Ran Over Police Officer In Dothan of 2010), Downing City ,59So. v. 3d16(Ala. andTeens Huffing KCRA3, AAccident Motor al., the T.Fatality HahnInhalation 1,1- , et Vehicle Involving of Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page21of67 11 Crime Briefs 10,2008), , TheEdmond(Dec. Sun - officer 95. 98. 97. 94. 93. 96. 3:20 - cv - involved- - - In 2007, a man 2007,a waskilledaIn he in as parking lot bywalking when wasstruck he In 2008,anIn Oklahomaman ofwas arrestedoncharges public afterintoxication involving case a DFE published 17deaths identifying 2012,researchers at report In TV 2006,a In aired California a newschannel report special on dangersof the 2006,researchersIn published of case a report individualan whoher crashed had In 2007, In , J. Analytical30(8):638 , J. Toxicology, vol. 06942 branded dust re , (Jan. 18,2007), .

in a Nebraska man crashed his vehicle into after atree getting high on 3M - second , YouTube (Jun. 17, , YouTube (Jun. 2011), - mover. supreme ?v=b03ZSk8g40U - accident/article_e545b1c0 - 48 branded dust remover; the police found more than 200 cans of of cans more found200 than police remover;branded dust the

https://www.theinde 46

- court/1539446.html as found among the crash debris. crash among found as the Difluoroethane at the Medical Difluoroethane County San Diego 44 -

21 [abstract].

- . 43

According to the article, the article, trunk of car the According to the . volved in volved in Accident Second - pendent.com/news/teen 42 (Oct. 2006), 2006), 42 (Oct.

year

. - af76 2011. - old male in acar crash. Witnesses - - branded dust remover.branded dust - 5a21 47 - 33 (Nov./Dec. 2012), Among those 17 reports of 17reports Amongthose 8062-

- branded - , TheGrand who dust remover. COMPLAINT - ran 45 - over

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Walmart, veeredintoWalmart, oncoming struck and killed and musica traffic, teacher. 55 - dui/article_44842e90 https://billingsgazette.com/news/state- 54 https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007/s11419- Peculiar Device Toxicologya, Forensic 5 (2009), 27:4 53 elco_crash.html https://www.inquirer.com/philly/hp/news_update/20090910_Cops___Huffing__cause_of_fatal_D 10, 2009), 52 585/teen https://www.wfmj.com/story/10951 51 hospital https://journalstar.com/news/local/crime 50 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC2584001/ Ossification: A Case Report 49 111878ece7e5.html https://www.edmondsun.com/news/local_news/crime remover. stemmingfrom charges he that killed someone when remover. dust sidewalk. on a killed teenage and teenager a seriously and injuredremover another struck and remover that she purchased Walmart. at Remover Dust on 3M afterhighremover.vehicle getting ondust Case No. Case No. Jason Nark, Crash Man KilledTeacher Cops: Did DrugsBefore that of A Fatality T.Inhalation 1,1 Shinozuka, Due C.to Sasaki, Before AdmitsFatal(Aug.24,2009), Teen Crash,21WFMJ Huffing Huffing infor Arrested Hospital Garage TalmageMan Little, Jill, Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page22of67 William Browning, Casper Man Faces Felony DUI William (Sep. Inquirer BenderPhiladelphia , Cops: FatalCrashThe Causeof Delco “Huffing” , 105. 104. 103. 102. 101. 100. 99. - 3:20 garage/article_172e2f0c 54

- cv et al., et al., 53 52 - In 2010, a 2010,a In man got on Pennsylvania high in dust remover purchased he at local a In 2009, a man in Wyoming was found guilty of aggravated vehicular homicide Wyomingfound vehicular of homicide guilty aggravated manwas 2009,a in In case 2009,a study In analyzed death ofthe man a who getting diedon after high 2009, In a womanPennsylvania off road aftergot veered the she high ondust Ohioteena 2009,an In 2009,a manhisIn wasfoundin vehicle gettingNebraska unresponsive after high 2008,researc In 06942

Inhalant Abuse of 1,1 of Abuse Inhalant - (last visited Jan. Jan. visited 7,2020). (last

- 1c24- branded dust remover.branded dust - 5c11 , Patient Safety in Surgery, vol. 2(1):28, 2008), vol. (Oct. , Patient2(1):28, Surgery, Safetyin hers published a case report of an individual who had crashed his who crashed ofhad individual an case a report hers published - bc49 86af ger died when she crashed her car afterhigh getting ondust whencar ger died her crashed she - - - and 11de 4030c05dfd34.html 51 - - and

Difluoroethane (DFE) Leading to to Difluoroethane (DFE)Leading Heterotopic 49 regional/wyoming/casper -

- 8056- 50 admits courts/talmage- -

22 008-

001cc4c03286.html -

- huffing- he passed out while driving and high on dust and ondust high driving while passed he out - , Billings Gazette (Apr. Gazette , Billings 18, 2011), 0065- - briefs/article_a7286710 , Lincoln Journal(Aug. , Lincoln Star 11, 2009),

. .

7 before man . - Difluoroethane (HFC - arrested - fatal - man .

, The Philadelphia Inquirer - - crash faces- - for 55 - r who were walking . huffing- e3da

felony - 51d4- - COMPLAINT 152a) With With 152a) - in - b733-

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 high ondusthigh remover. 3M getting Remover ondustDust after high removers, including https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FjlazUNE2- 62 huffing/article_33bd9038- https://trib.com/news/local/casper/year- 61 - dui/article_44842e90 https://billingsgazette.com/news/state- 60 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7kRttfMkSro 59 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=K1hNUrWuYKo 58 https://www.tandfonline.com/doi/full/10.3109/00952990.2010.504874 vol.36(6):320- Health Threat?An Public Emerging 57 https://www.pjstar.com/article/20110820/NEWS/308209911 56 h_that_killed_teacher.html https://www.inquirer.com/philly/hp/news_update/20101013_Cops__Man_did_drugs_before_cras 12,2010),(Oct. remover while sitting in the driver’s seat of a vehicle. afterhighremover purchasedvehicle getting he ondust at Wal local a abuse by adolescents was becoming apublic health threat. high remover.getting on dust inhaling dustcar. sittinginhaling removerin while parked a Case No. Case No. @swifferkillsdogs, Jimmy @swifferkillsdogs, Huffing Dust Remover , YouTube14,2011), (Dec. 19- Inhaling Remover @shurrden,Bella Dust News, 40/29 Police Say HighonDuster Teens Garland, of Eric Matthew & Spray Howard, Inhalation ComputerDuster Among Adolescents: DaveHaney,Teen Gets Prison for Fatal Crash Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page23of67 William Browning, Casper Man Faces Felony DUI Year Old Faces DUI Charge After Allegedly Huffing 110. 108. 112. 111. 107. 106. 109. 3:20 - cv 24 (Jul. 21, 24 (Jul. 2010), - In 2011, a man in Wyoming was reported to have crashed his vehicle after getting hisafter vehicle have to crashed Wyoming manwasreported 2011,a in In 2010, In TVa newsstation a aired report on several teenagers who crashed a car A video posted to YouTube.com postedA to video young manhigh 2011showsa getting in ondust Two days later, yet another man in Wyoming was reported tohave crashed his dust remover that Abusewarned of Alcohol Drugand Journal American 2010,the In 2010,an In Illinois killedteenager the passenger in hisvehicle when he crashed after A video uploaded to YouTube.com uploadedA to video one least Novemberperson 27,2010showsat on 06942

60 1c24-

2683- .

- 5c11 56

5537- bc49 , TheAme - 9ba4 - - and 4030c05dfd34.html old - regional/wyoming/casper faces 9ac8d3e5ca19.html , YouTube (Nov.27,2010), - rican Journal Journal Abuse, ofrican Alcohol Drugand

23 8 - , YouTube 3,2010), (Sep. dui , Journal Star Peoria (Aug.20,2011), . .

- 59

- 62 . charge , Billings Gazette (Apr. Gazette , Billings 18,2011),

57 , Casper .

- . after .

- - branded dust remover.branded dust alleged Star Tribune Star 20, (Apr. 2011), - man mart beforehand. [abstract]. - ly faces-

- felony

COMPLAINT - 61 58

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 killing three three killing of passengers. his Can , of Aerosol (Oct.Accused “Huffing” The PalmPost 23, 2012), Beach 69 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/21295430 of- Emergency 265e3 30(1): Journal Medicine, 68 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xdbH2PXS2kU Duster@theicedub, Trip Part 2 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4yR9MJl3OQk 67 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20875935 Peculiar Device Toxicology,a, Forensic (2009), 27:45 66 police Aug. 28,2017), 11, 2011,updated 65 https://caselaw.findlaw.com/il 64 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GYRQN 63 remover. dust on of high control got womanwhen she vehicle ownthe lost their drivewayher after in standing associated with inhaling d present. resultingmind the woods; debilitating and - removerthe in ondust high inhalingremovers. with dust Remover remover with hispassengers, who also inhale from thecan. dust remover while sittin Case No. Case No. Julius Whigham Injured Crashthat Two; with Beach Julius DUI Delray Woman,19,Charged in II, Kurn PC Duster @theicedub, Trip Part 1 of A Fatality T.Inhalation 1,1 Shinozuka, Due C.to Sasaki, Melissa Pinion People v. Blakey, 44N.E.3dApp. Ct. 1186(Ill. 2015). @allenpalin, at DoingDuster Whataburger Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page24of67 - officer/ 114. 119. 118. 117. 116. 115. 113. 67 3:20 -

branded dust remover.branded dust iali - cv 69 et al., al., , et . -

In 2011, In an man Illinois his crashed vehicle after getting high ondust remover, In FebruaryIn of 2012,a woman and struck seriously injured twomen who were In 2012, researchers published a research article reviewing the death of aperson young twovideosYouTube.com posted In to 2011,several in men shown getting are In 2011, researchers published a research article reviewing three deaths associated afterhigh vehicle getting Dust on3M her California woman 2011,a In crashed video postedAnother to YouTube.com young 2011showsa in man on high getting 06942

- Whitt, PoliceOfficer Honor Rialto to Madd

Inhalant Abuse of Computer Cleaner Manifested as Angioedema as of Manifested Abuse Inhalant , Computer Cleaner American g in the driver’s theg in driver’s seatofThe vehicle. a youngman theof shares can dust ust removers. 66 -

64 court , YouTube

, YouTube (Apr. 29, 2011), , YouTube29,2011), (Apr. https://www.dailynews.com/2011/03/11/madd- - of - 68 appeals/1719505.html

(Apr. 29,2011) (Apr. - , YouTube (Dec. 26, 2011), 7raLM&has_verified=1 - 5 (Jan. 2012), 2012), 5 (Jan.

24 [abstract]. [abstract].

; .

, 63

. , Los Angeles Daily News (Mar. -

Difluoroethane (HFC .

altering effects visibly to - - honor COMPLAINT 152a) With - rialto -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 hours. failure after inhaling twenty cans of Defendants’ to herfather’s car after the man contro lost of 2012. dust remover she purchased a at localWalmart before she struck and killed another driver inAugust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ePXED7E4- 76 3692(16)42923- 4,290A CHEST,Volume 144,Issue 75 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=sDpnX0m7a8E 74 twice/ https://chicago.cbslocal.com/2012/09/20/suit 73 crash June 30,2013), updated 72 - huffing/article_f72d7085 17,2015), (Jan. 71 case,1464214/ 70 https://www.palmbeachpost.com/article/20121023/NEWS/812023237 caused amulti she and struck five a killed high remover.getting on dust 2015), 2015), dust r dust Case No. Case No. ABC 17 News, 21- News, ABC17 al. DanxuanLong“ et Wood TV8, “Huffing” Suit: Teen Driver May Have Run Over Girl Twice, CBS 20,2012), (Sep. Chicago Siblings Crash Killed for Sentenced that Miss Man Ole Curtis,Crash Manslaughter Times in Brent Guiltyof “Huffing,” Man While Online Argus Steve Bauer, Judge Rejects New Trial in Fatal Huffing Case Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page25of67 - emover. that . 75

http://www.statecollege.com/news/local- 125. 121. 124. 123. 122. 120. 126.

3:20 70 -

killed - cv 76 Driver on “Duster” Causes 3 . - - In 2013,researc In walking teenager a who killed and was man struck Vermont 2012,a September In In 2012,aIn TV aired station story a featuringa who teenager lost consciousness and In 2012, a woman charged was with reckless homicide after local authorities said October 2012,In man a the crossed median killed and struck and twosiblings after A woman convicted was of third In 2014, a TV 2014,a In - reported twenty a newsstation vehicle vehicle shecrash after on driving. high remover got while dust 06942

5/fulltext https://www.timesargus.com/news/man- - ole -

miss Year A Case of Ultra Duster Intoxication Causing Acute Renal Failure ,” https://www.wmcactionnews5.com/story/23505970/man- . - c65c - siblings/ - Old Dies from Inhaling from Duster Old Dies (Nov.11,014), 2 Air Can Inhaling , YouTube year 72 - hers published acase study ofman a who sufferedacute renal from

5b5a - old girl while driving high on while high remover. driving old dust girl .

- (Oct. 29,2013), (Oct. 9420- l of his vehicle when he got highremover. whengot he ondust ofvehicle l his dc234b33b782.html - Car Crash - huffing -

25 news/judge - sw&feature=youtu.be degree murder Pennsyl in

- Ultra Duster Ultra

. - https://journal.chestnet.org/article/S0012 teen , YouTube (Dec. 13, 2012), guilty , WMC523, News (Sept. Action 2013, -

driver - rejects- one - , StateCollege.com (June 10, , StateCollege.com(June . of

- - branded dust remover in twentyin remover branded dust - may - manslaughter year new - . . have -

- old had afterold huffing died trial- - vania after she huffed - run 73 in 74

- -

fatal in over sentenced - crash - - COMPLAINT huffing- girl - - while 5- - for 71 -

- -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 associated with inhaling removers. associated dust crashed carhimself have afterto his getting ondusthigh remover,passenger. injuring his and bound- https://www.fox9.com/news/impaired- 83 htt Emergency in Reports vol. Medicine, 2016,Article ID9204790 (2016), 82 2- https://link.springer.com/article/10.1007%2Fs1201 Toxicology 81 store_n_55e5d01ae4b0c818f6193149 https://www.huffpost.com/entry/woman- 80 7411373.php https://www.mrt.com/crime/article/MPD 79 inhalants/33406 2014), 78 001a4bcf887a.html https://poststar.com/news/local/spread 77 to acabin for theweekend after thedriver huffed Defendants’ Ultra Duster product. associatedwith dust inhaling removers.person alleged she crashed her aftercar getting high on dust remover. removers. dust for inhaling ofassociatedwith thehuffingman a public dangers washospitalized after men Minn.) Ultra Duster product at Walmart. Case No. Case No. Kendhammer Cardiomyopathy Matthew and L. Cates Severe D.Huffing after Dust Alexis Cook, Kumar S. , HuffPost ULTRADUSTED: WomanHuffing Arrested Canned Air 1,2015), (Sep. MPD: Man Inhales Air Thoms,in Near Driver- Erica “Huffing” of Feared Spread Star (June, ThePost 2,2014), Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page26of67 ps://www.hindawi.com/journals/criem/2016/9204790/ , (Aug.9,2017) ; minnesota https://www.penbaypilot.com/article/driver- 132. 131. 129. 133. 128. 127. 130. FOX wrong- 9,Impaired, 3:20 77

et al., Cardiomyopathy from al., , et 1,1- - 16, 370- cv . - In 2016,resea In In 2016, researchers published a research article reviewing the death of aperson man chargeda authoritiesTexas 2014,local felony in a In with when was alleged he In 2017, a driver 2017,a In struck fatallykilledand three traveling Minnesota menwho were near 2014,a In woman suffered the warn to prompted Greenwich,Yorkwere in New enforcement 2014,law In In 2015, In womana wasarrestedafter local foundauthorities her huffing Defendants’ et al. al. Distributing, AW , et v. Inc 06942 . - men . , 73 (Nov. 2015),

Duster, Injures Passenger inCrash rchers published a research article reviewing thedeath of another Fatal Fatal CrashBelfast Abuse lants Chargedwith Inha of

80 way driver in court fordeaths ofthree cabin

. - wrong- of 81 - accused -

Man huffing- ., et al., et way , Cardiovascular Inhalation Difluoroethane - - 82 inhales

- - of - feared/article_287eac5e-

fatal injuries in Maine when local authorities - driver near , Case No.., Case 20-

- huffing 015- - air - fatal - . - 9348- in

duster - - court - canned 2, 2014), 2,2014), (Jun. , MRT.com belfast 78 5

- [abstract]. injures - for cv - - air - crash - 01539 deaths- -

at - passenger - - big ea9c charged

- - NEB of - - box- bound Minnesota - - 11e3 three TNL (D. (D. TNL - - in 83 abuse- - - COMPLAINT -

- Off a0bf (May 14, (May cabin , Case - - 79

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 remover. of can dust to huff a from continuing then and car her crashing immediatelyafter of car her video demonstrates effects immediate, demonstrates debilitating the ofvideo dust inhaling remover. inhales dust remover while sitting in the driver’s seat of his truck parked and parking a in lot. The 5,2019).Jul. Department of Medicine, Emergency 90 https://lptv.org/one Crash CountIn OfTheWoods One Lake Dead After 89 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC6820689/ e5565 42019), 11(9) (Sep. vol. 88 wreck/ 87 https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Wt 86 https://www.youtube.com 85 84 when occur dust individualan inhales remover CRC Duster after psychosis remover.inhaling dust a his vehicle while onFalcondriving high SafetyProducts his afterhighcrashed vehicle getting onDefendants’ - https://www.kmzu.com/savannah ManSavannah Deadly ChargeOver Joseph Facing St. Wreck Manslaughter https://wjon.com/four 7, 2017) WJON.com, In Sherburne OneLifeInjuries Crash, FourHurt, With Threatening Labounty, (Dec. Case No. Case No. Kathy Prybys, DO, “Sudden Sniffing Death,” University of Maryland School of Medicine, of School SniffingUniversity of DO, Death,” Prybys, Medicine, Kathy Maryland “Sudden B. al. Novotny,et Clara Products Safety Falcon v. Silvestry @Diamondmytegaming,Parking Duster aMcDonald’s Air in Lot @RoadCam,Gas CausedaCrash,YouTube (Nov.27,2017), WomanInhaling Duster Chairez v. AW Distributin Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page27of67 McDougall v. CRC McDougall v. .

136. 135. 140. 139. 138. 137. 134. 3:20

- - cv branded dust remover.branded - In a particularlydisturbing a In posted video YouTube.com youngto 2017,a man in YouTube.com postedA to video womanin d 2017showsa in the sitting In 2019,aIn published researcher article an about “[s]udden sniffingcan death”which 2019,a In Minnesota woman killed and was struck driver bya who been had huffing a published of 2019,researchers casewoman study a sufferedIn from who acute 2018,a In headman afterwas killed being struck driver onbyanother who was 2017,a In Minnesota and mother suffered whendaughter severe injuries driver a 06942 - dead

- Industries, Inc. hurt - after /watch?v=YJrroAChIW4 - “Acute PsychosisFollowing 1,1- “Acute one g, Inc., et g, Inc., No. et ,Case 20- al. - cra - with sh man 89 - - in , No.Case 20 life

, No.Case ESX https://umem.org/educational_pearls/3622/ - - facing - lake 88 3JF1tgM0 - threatening

- of - - manslaughter —“an inexpensive easily accessible product[].” -

the 27

. - - - . CV- woods

y - Ultra Duster product. - injuries , (Jul. 23, 2019) L cv - 1499- 003103- ’ Dust ’ - -

. 01473- county/ Difluoroethane Inhalation,” Cureus Inhalation,” Difluoroethane - charge - JRT in - - Off product. sherburne 20 (Sup. Ct.20 (Sup. Brian Lock, NJ.); - NEB - . Lakeland PBS, Lakeland LIB (D.Minn.);

- over , YouTube (Oct. 2, , YouTube (Oct. 2017),

TNL (D.Minn.) TNL - - deadly - 84 crash/ 87

, (June 28,2018),

86 (last updated st .

- joseph COMPLAINT ; river side Justin Justin - 90

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 County- was walking after the man control the whenwas walkinghe on ofvehicle after high remover. lost his got dust https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=wfXzHDY5Lrc2012), 95 https://play.aetv.com/shows/intervention/season 94 https://psychiatryonline.org/doi/pdf/10.1176/appi.ajp- Journa Residents’ Psychiatry 93 myocardial https://www.cureus.com/articles/26124- doi:10.7759/cureus.8402 e8402 Infarction,” 12(6): Cureus (Jun. 1,2020), 92 https://www.wsaw.com/content/news/Court 2020) 91 youngwomanon a wasaddicted getting off who to high removers. dust whoovercome workto follows people remover. on dust removers. entertainment personalities have fallen victimto theintoxicating and addicting effects of dust basisfor one daily month.on a cans inhaling multiple of cardiomyocyte Dustsignificant damage after dust remover whil dust show portrayed the one of characters a the with addiction was drug and high getting on depicted Case No. Case No. Towelie Inhaling 2000 Cans of Computer Air Duster a 2000 Duster Towelie ComputerAir Day @trilabyte700, CansInhaling of Intervention: A&E, Allison Cojanu, Alexandru Fox WZAW, Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page28of67 Ca o A., Shiliang 145. 144. 143. 142. 141. 146. hit 3:20

- - and - infarction cv - On August theIn movieThirteen culture, been dust has removerportrayedAnd popular abuse onfilm in TV and and On 1, June 2020, researchers published a case study of man a who suffered from killed- and eighteen an manstruck Wisconsin 2020, a On 28, May South Park South show 7ofTV 14,Episode the Season In - 06942 - run Court docs: Texting Adams fatal was in afactor hit docs: County Court 93 e sitting in a car.

570840431.html?ref=431.

et al et . Inhalant Abuse:Inhalant Clothing, Americanin TheWolf Journal Sheep’s of

, “Air Duster, “Air Inhalant NonAbuse Causing - Season 4, Episode 19 4,Episode Season 11, 2008,in l (Feb. l 2018), , S4 E19 (Aug.11,2008), 92

, and recover from recover —and released in 2003, two characters are portrayed getting high air - duster - docs -

28 - 4/episode - - Texting

inhalant -

rj.2018.130203 — -

- - huffing- . 19 abuse their drug addictions, the addictions, the drug showtheir focused

. of TV the show Intervention - causing factors

. that aired on April 28, 2010, aired28,2010, onApril that - 94 Off ST Elevation MyocardialElevation ST

- - non- in - - and ust remover dust branded - fatal , YouTube st - - run, (Mayrun, 28, year elevation - Adams - COMPLAINT old girl 91 (Feb. 16, (Feb.

- -

which which

who

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 dust removers containingdust DFE market. onthe overdose. a hotel’s a about call possible to 1994 movie huffing- https://www.usmagazine.com/celebrity Mugshot 97 call 96 Duster called remover Ultra sold dust a labeled, and/or distributed, manufactured, tested, designed, and wasonnight, that Carter road danger a the had times report multiple been to Carter Carter huffing remover been allnight, had dust all driving (Sep. 21, 2017, updated 10,2019), 21,2017,updated June (Sep. Case No. Case No. US Weekly, Computer Duster” Inhaling Friend911Call “He’s Says in (Audio) AaronCarter: Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page29of67 .

148. 150. 149. 147. see- 3:20 , (Jun. 23,2020) - his Little Rascals, cv - On 23,2020,Brandon an June known Hall, prominently actor role for his the in At all material belief, and times uponinformation and material relevant and all at Defendants, 911 called his friends after his car crashed singer, popular a Carter, 2017,Aaron In - ‘Little Rascals’ Star Bug Hall Arrested for Allegedly Huffing Air Duster: See the 06942 mugshot/

was arrested for huffing dust remover after local authorities responded

and relevant times, the function of function times,Ul the relevant and DUSTER ULTRA DEFENDANTS’ - news/news/little https://theblast.com/c/aaron 97

as aresult. 29

- rascals 96

- bug- tra Duster was similar to other

- carter hall - arrested - computer - for , TheBlast - COMPLAINT - duster allegedly - 911- -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 compressed gas dusters on themarket

similar to other dust products otherdust market: to remover onthe similar 99 http://www.awdus.com/products_01_01.html 98 as a“compressed gas air duster” that computers, keyboards, printersplus computers, keyboards, manymore.” Case No. Case No. AWDistributing, Inc., A Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page30of67 WDistributing, Inc., 153. 152. 151. 3:20 - cv - At all material and relevant times,main the ingredient inUltra Duster At material all and relevant times, the appearance of UltraDuster was substantially At all material and relevant times, Defendants advertised and marketed Ultra Duster 06942

Ultra Duster Data Safety http://awdus.com/MSDS01.HTMLUltra Sheet, Ultra Duster Product Description,

was DFE: —was “blast[s] dust, dirt, and“blast[s] dirt, micro dust, unwanted - . -

99 -

articles away fro COMPLAINT like other other —like .

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 driving. that year after Duster beingdust bya remover struck onUltra woman washigh while who 2016). Distributing and (attached hereto as Exhibit 3), 102 https://www.drugabuse.gov/publications/research 101 100 while Ultraand to high driving harminnocentget subsequently kill Duster inhaled bystanders. or Ultra to high. aled get Duster inh people intentionally inhale Ultra Duster to get high. DFE:inhaling onlinefor UltraDuster acknowledgesN severepublished the Central velocitydisplacehigh to because the sole purpose of product this topropel is apressurized burst ofthe cana gasat from Exhibit 4), as (attached hereto Ho Dep.”) (“Ho Transcript of Deposition Kennic 22,2015); Ct.Oct. Cir. (attached2012) 2) hereto Exhibit as RepresentativeCorporate Walmart of onOctober 22,2015. Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page31of67 onDrugInstitute National Abuse,Inhalants: Letter from the Director AWDistributing, Inc., Complaint, GriecoComplaint, v. Merrill, et al. 159. 158. 157. 156. 155. 154. 102 3:20 A of copy thatComplaint is atta - Grieco v. Merrill, et al. cv 100 - In fact, a civil lawsuit was commenced against mu material relevant and times,At all intentionally knew Defendants thatpeople material relevant and times,At all intentionally knew Defendants thatpeople Because the DFE inUltra Duster causes psychoactive effects when inhaled, many At material all and relevant times, theMaterial Safety Data Sheet that Defendants At all material and relevant times, DFE was the main ingredient in Ultra Duster 06942

Walmart

dust and other material from of thesurface whatever item being is cleaned. in 2012 when two Florida residents were seriously injured earlier seriously 2012residentswere —in when in twoFlorida Ultra Duster Data Safety http://Ultra Sheet,

Grieco v. Merrill, et al.

, No. 50- ,50- No. ;

Deposition Transcript of Joe Bussell (“Bussell Dep.”) ched hereto asExhibit - 2012-

2012- 31 -

reports/inhal -

101 CA- CA-

, No. 50- , 021342- 021342-

A copy of his deposition A is ofdeposition copy transcript his ants/letter- 2012- awdus.com/MSDS01.HTML MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. Ct. Cir. MB(AD), Feb. 15, (Fla. ltiple defendants MB(AD), Ct. (Fla. Cir. Nov. 20, 2. Joe Bussell testified as the CA- ervous System effects of , director

021342- . —including AW

MB(AD), (Fla. COMPLAINT .

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Feb. 15,2016). 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 104 103 aware that people inhale Ultra Duster to get high, and that people “abuse[]it”: thatpeople and “abuse[]high, it”: AW Distributing transcript2016. Ais ofdeposition copy attached his hereto Exhibitas 4. attached hereto as Exhibit Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page32of67 Bussell Dep.–18, Grieco Bussell 36:9 –18, Grieco Ho Dep. 28:10 161. 160. 3:20 - cv - According to Joe Bussell, Walmart’s Corporate Representative, Walmart is also to Ho, Kennic whoAccording testified he that was AWDistributing’s Manager, 06942 and —and HoKennic personally

3. Kennic Ho testified onbehalf v. Merrill, al. et

v. Merrill,al. et 103

- , No. 50- , are aware—are people that inh

32 , No. 50-

2012-

CA- of AW on15,February Distributing CA- 021342- 021342-

MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. Ct. ale Ultraale Duster to get MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. 104

COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Feb. 15,2016).

105 sold: being started Duster since containing dustdifluoroethane Ultra removerbefore products inhale Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page33of67 –19, Grieco Ho Dep. 29:7

105 162.

3:20 - cv - Distributing has known that people intentionally haspeople known AW that Distributing to Ho, Kennic According 06942

v. Merrill, et al.

, N -

33 o. 50-

2012-

CA- 021342- MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. Ct. COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Feb. 15,2016). 106 abused Ultra Duster since least at May 2010: Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page34of67 –25, Grieco Ho Dep. 104:5 163. 3:20 - cv - In fact, Kennic fact, In Ho testified under oath was thathe aware that people misused and 06942

v. Merrill, al. et

106 - , No. 50- ,

2012-

CA- 021342- MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. Ct. COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 204:2, and–204:2, 23. –16, 203:3 204:13 –18, 202:4 201:3 –200:15,–24, 199:25 193:6 –179:10,–187:1, 178:23 186:13 –177:9, –23, 176:25 166:14 163:13, –25,13, 149:3 –153:10, 151:24 155:6, 157:15–156:3 –158:1,–160:23, 159:16 161:1 id. also See 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 108 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 107 removers in Walmart stores and parking lots: Duster since misusing abusingbeen and Ultra at 2008: least Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page35of67

–25,Bussell Dep. 121:12 –15,Bussell Dep. 148:11 165. 164. 3:20 - cv - Walmart Knows people that have misused and abused Ultra Joe Bussell 06942

similarly testified under oath that Walmart was aware that people have Grieco Grieco

at 116:11–117:6,–121:21, 120:16 125:15

v. Merrill, et al. v. Merrill, et al.

108 -

- , No. 50- , No. 50- , No.

107 2012- 2012-

CA- CA- 021342- 021342- 126:9, 144:5–126:9, –17, 147:2 Duster Duster similarand dust MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. (Fla. MB(AD), (Fla. MB(AD), –12, 162:22 COMPLAINT

Cir. Cir. – –

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 109 contents unpleasant to inhale. bitterant ad http://www.ultraduster.com/ mayfatal”: harmfulcontents be or noticegeneral to user ofproductthe the that“misuse bydeliberately concentrating inhalin and Ultra Duster “ Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page36of67 Ultra Duster, Bitterant 167. 166. 168. 3:20 ditive that discourages - cv - now At all material and relevant times, AWDistributing published a website At all material and relevant times, the product label for Ultra Duster contained a At all material and relevant times, the Ultra Duster Website published anotice that 06942 comes

, http://www.ultraduster.com/bitterant.html with an additive knownbi as additive an with

(“ ”

Ultra DusterUltra Website 109

potential abusive and misusage of the product bymaking misusagepotential abusiveand ofproduct its the -

”) ”) which states “

tterant, makingextremely contents the tterant, . ULTRA a contains DUSTER

COMPLAINT g

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 112 111 110 motora vehicle. Duster Ultra to exposed be, who or could who warned are, people never whenperson onUltraDuster. high vehicle another of lose control or personuld their strike riskthata co and injure and kill predictable Ultra Duster can cause harm or death to innocent bystanders, including theforeseeable and experience as aresult of inhaling Ultra Duster. of user the productabout the person kill or onUltra Duster.injure another when high of control the lose thatcould person risk a predictable and foreseeable the including Dusterharmbystanders, thatinhaling innocent cause to Ultra warnings can death or visitors of the website of potential users of Ultra Duster information on inhalant abuse at https://inhalant ” inhale. tounpleasant Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page37of67 AWDistributing, Inc., AWDistributing, Inc., Ultra Duster, Bitterant 173. 172. 171. 170. 169. 3:20 - cv - At all material and relevant times, and upon information and belief, Defendants Defendants belief, and relevant and times, uponinformation and material At all At allmaterial relevantand times, providednowarnings Defendants that inhaling At all material and relevant times, At all material and relevant times, the Ultra Duster Bitterant Webpage provided no At all material and relevant times, the Ultra Duster Bitterant Webpage only advised 06942 112

The informational noticeThe informational contains website a providelink to users and the , Website generally, Website generally, http://www.ultraduster.com/bitterant.html potential for inhalant abuse

potential for harm that the user 111

http://www.awdus.com/ http://www.awdus.com/ -

Defendants providedDefendants inadequate warnings to the

and innocent bystandersand innocent .

that they shouldoperate not that they ir vehicle and and strike - abuse.net/ COMPLAINT : 110

may

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 sell the product without such an advertisement Fe advertised the existence of a“bittering agent” because certain retailers, such asWalmart, form a Ultra sell in bypersoseekinghigh.to ns be Duster get to continued to inhaled that no intention discouragingof of actually abuse UltraDusteras as continued inhalant Defendants an from UltraDuster to high. people inhaling get https://www.samsclub.com/p/ultra 114 113 Ultra Duster “[c]ontains a bitterant to help discourage inhalant abuse”: present in Ultra Duster since Ultra Duster was first distributed in the United States: Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page38of67 b. 15,2016). Sam’sClub,Ultra Duster Label –25, Grieco Ho Dep. 104:5 178. 177. 176. 175. 174. 3:20 - cv - At all material and relevant times and upon information and belief, Defendants only belief, and only Defendants upon information relevant and times and material At all material relevant and timesAt all had Defendants uponinformation and belief, and The The At all material and relevant times, “bittering or to(“bitterant” agent”) Ho,been bitterant Kennic a has According 06942 advertised bittering agent, in fact, did not effectively discourage or prevent prevent or effectively discourage not did fact, in agent, advertised bittering

v. Merrill, al. et

- duster ,

- compressed

- , No. 50- , label. onthe

38 the product label for Ultra Duster advertised that

- gas 2012- -

4pk

CA- - canned 021342- - 114 air/prod22700731

MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. Ct.

113 COMPLAINT

would not

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 22,2015). Ct. Oct. in their [Ultra Duster] supplied to Walmart”: 115 or deter to discourageworked abuse product. of Ultra Duster the otherwise took any reasonable efforts to ensure the bittering agent they claim is present actually not did a contain agent Duster bittering whatsoever. or purpose. intended advertised advertised a label to response Duster in known i such asWalmart, Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page39of67

–7, Dep. 220:3 Bussell 183. 182. 181. 180. 179. 3:20 - s an ingredient an s added to “discourage inhalant did fact, abuse,” notin workfor its cv - And uponinformation and belief, ofDefendants none the conducted any testing or Or worse, reasonable further investigation and discovery may Ultra show that However, a At allmaterial and relevant times uponinformation and belief,and certain retailers According to Bussell, Joe Walmart required 06942

required Defendants to advertise theexistence of a“bittering agent” on their Ultra

G t all material all t and relevant times, the“bittering agent” that Defendants rieco

v. Merrill, al. et ncidents of dust removerncidents abuse.

115 -

, No. 50- -

AW Distributing “to include a bitterant - 2012

CA- 021342- MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Feb. 15,2016). tested to ensure a“bittering agent” was actually released from theproduct: 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 117 116 Ultra Duster be tested to ensure a “bittering Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page40of67 Bussell Dep.–10, Grieco Bussell 139:7 –7, Grieco Ho Dep. 114:20 185. 184. 3:20 - cv - Similarly, according to Joe Bussell,Walmart did not require that Ultra Duster be According to According 06942

Kenn v. Merrill, al. et

v. Merrill, et al. ic

Ho, AW did even not specifically Distributing request that agent” was released from the product: - , No. 50- ,

, No. 50- , No. -

2012-

2012- CA- 021342- CA- 021342- MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. Ct. 117

MB(AD), (Fla. Cir.

116

COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 C 119 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 118 abuse. inhalant discourage containedhelp bitteringto a Duster agent Duster continued high, abuse get despite people to Ultra to publicUltra to advertising the that high get despiteadvertito the whether the “bittering agent” was even effective: showed whether Ultra Duster released a“bittering agent” when UltraDuster was sprayed: Case No. Case No. 22,2015). Oct. t. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page41of67 Bussell Dep.–10, Grieco Bussell 41:3 Dep.–8, Grieco Bussell 43:1 189. 188. 187. 186. 3:20 - cv - At all material andAt all relevant times, should known knew Defendants or have that At all material and relevant times, people continued to abuse Ultra Duster in order according Moreover, to Joe Bussell, wasWalmart aware not of data any thatshowed In fact, according to Joe Bussell, Walmart had not seen any research or datathat 06942

sed “bittering sed agent,”including

v. Merrill,al. et v. Merrill,al. et -

41 , No. 50-

, No. 50- 119

2012-

2012- Colten CA- CA- 021342- Treu 021342-

MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. COMPLAINT 118

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Duster in Walmart stores and Walmart parking lots: 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 121 22,2015). Ct. Oct. 120 Duster despite the advertised “bittering agent” since at least 2012: Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page42of67 Bussell Dep.–13, Grieco Bussell 54:3 Dep.–12, Grieco Bussell 74:5 191. 190. 3:20 - cv - According to Joe Bussell, Walmart was aware thatUltra people abuse to continued According to Joe Bussell, Walmart was aware that people continued to abuse Ultra 06942

v. Merrill,al. et v. Merrill,al. et -

42 , No. 50- , No. 50-

121

2012- 2012- CA- CA-

120 021342- 021342-

MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. MB(AD), (Fla. Cir. COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Feb. 15,2016). 122 alternative deterrent in the Ultra Duster: pay an to wantot not include thatAWdid ForHo testified inhalant. example, Distributing Kennic refused to consider alternative deterrents to effectively discourage abuse of Ultra Duster as an advertised “bittering agent” did not effectively discourage abuse of Ultra Duster asan inhalant. Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page43of67 –156:19,v.:19 Merrill, Grieco Ho Dep. 155 193. 192. 3:20 - cv - At all material and relevant times, and upon information and belief, Defendants Defendants belief, and relevant and times, uponinformation and material At all the material relevant and times,known knew Defendants have that At all should or 06942

122

- No. 50-

2012-

CA- 021342- MB(AD) (Fla. Cir. Ct. COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 available at 303:L953 at (2012), –5, available obstruction. N andsignaling reverse asbronchodilators. on for muscle receptors smooth targets novel airway 00303.2012https://journals.physiology.org/doi/full/10.1152/ajplung. to therapy: pill A swallow? nchodilator a bitter bro https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3066567/ et al. 123 intoxicating increasingUltraDuster’s body and effects. cause bronchialpotentially smooth relaxation, muscle thereby increasing DFE in absorption the formulation, the physiological effectsof inhaling “bittering a agent” mixed DFE with could Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page44of67 Deshpande DA, Wang WCH, Mcilmoyle EL, Robinett KS, Schillinger RM,Wang EL, DA, Robinett KS, Deshpande WCH, e.g., Schillinger An See, Mcilmoyle SS, Bitter receptors taste bronchodilate localized onairway by muscle smooth calcium 194. 3:20 - cv - Even if Defendants successfully incorporated a “bittering agent” intoUltra Duster’s 06942

AT AT M ED ED N -

Y 44 available at 16:1299 at –304, available (2010),

- M

P 123 HYSIOL

; Clifford RL, Knox AJ. Future - L UNG UNG Liggett SB.; Liggett Bitter taste C ELL ELL E XPERT M OL OL O P HYSIOL PIN PIN COMPLAINT

HER HER

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4437536/ T wheninhalantdeter no abuse, UltraDuster fact contained bittering in such agent. relevant times, Defendants falsely claimed that Ultra Duster contained a bittering agent that would just not the UltraDuster,person inhaling but bystanders innocent motorin vehicle crashes as well. of therisks and dangers associated with the foreseeable misuse of Ultra Duster that might befall promotions,infor marketing,and labels, warnings, foreseeable would harm use this cause bystanders, innocent including to motorin crashes. vehicle of commerce, despite knowledge of theforeseeable misuseUltra D of in motor vehicle crashes. werepersons Ul using portion saleswholarge get were productto high. ofpeople to the their Ultra Duster purchased intended use because people were purchasing Ultra Duster to get high. if used for its only expected be than would inwhat far greater sold quantities wasbeing Duster use.intended if used for its only expected be than would inwhat far greater sold quantities wasbeing Duster if expected used wouldbe foruse. what its intended only than Case No. Case No. ARGETS Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page45of67 202. 201. 200. 199. 198. 197. 196. 195. 3:20 (2013), 17:721 (2013), - cv - Reasonable At material all and relevant times, Defendants provided false and misleading At material all and relevant times, Defendants placed Ultra Duster into the stream material andAt all relevant times, should known knew Defendants or have that At all material and re At all material a Ultra that knownhave knew material relevant and times, should Defendants or At all At all material and relevant times,Ultra Duster was sold in quantities far greater 06942

tra a Duster in manner death that resulted andin injury to bystanders innocent –31 available at

further investigation and discovery may show at all that material and nd relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known that Ultra that knownhave knew nd relevant times,should Defendants or levant times, Defendants knew or should have known that a times,knownlevant knew Defendants have a should or that -

- mation and failed to provide adequate warning provideadequate to mation failed and

uster as an inhalant, and that that and uster inhalant, an as

COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 or kill innocent bystanders, innocent kill includingor J.K. Ultra Duster to get high, drive while h Ultra Dus Schneider willfullyand disregardedthe rights safety and ofpublic, the bystanders,J.K. killincluding or injure innocent control and onDuster, of Dusterlose vehicles, high their get drive while Ultra Ultra to high, use other product to Ultra Duster that effectively deterred inhalant abuse. completely ineffective. was agent” “bittering the fact when inhalantin would abuse, agent that deter bittering a contained in theVillage of Lake Hallie

Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page46of67

207. 206. 205. 204. 203. 208. 3:20 ter , because they placed their dust remover products containing difluoroethane containing products theirremover , becausetheydust placed - cv —into the streamofcommerce, - On November 3,2018, On November Colt At all times relevant, Defendants negligently At all material and relevant times, people predictably and foreseeably continued to At material all and relevant times, Defendants or failed add agent” to “bittering a At While driving,While and passenger Treu his 06942 , H.H.J.K. all materialall and relevant times, Defendants falsely claimed Ultra Duster that

, AND , , Chippewa County,Wisconsin. ’S SCHNEIDER SARA igh on Ultra Duster onUltra igh , H.H. on R. Treu (hereinafter “Treu”) was driving his vehicle

despite knowledge thatpeople will continue use to -

46 , and , and , H.H.

, John Stender,huffed, John ofremover. can a dust Sara Schneider Sara Schneider Sara , and , lose control of their vehicles, injure and of their , lose control

FATAL INJURIES FATAL ,

maliciously including .

, .

, despicably, wantonly J.K. ,

H.H. COMPLAINT Sara Sara , and —such as

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1

which they purchased at alocal Walmart: store Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page47of67

209. 3:20 - cv - The dust remover that Treu inhaled and got high from was from high got and inhaled Treu remover that The dust 06942

Defendants’ UltraDefendants’ Duster COMPLAINT

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 to pursuant Civ.CodeCal. §377.60. Representatives and General Co inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifset herein fully forth as at length. deceased where hospitalSt.was in Minnesota, she Healthcare Paul, pronouncedChildren’s Specialty program. were lawf and centerline, vehicle of highway, crossedthe and southbound his struck the lane where the J.K. of vehicle, predictably his he foreseeably and dr and/orall ofbodilyconsciousness movements, control his and lost the ability to maintain control washigh he on Ultra Duster . onUltrahigh Duster of agentpresence bittering in product. a the this wrongful death wrongful death claim tothis Civ. Code Cal. §377.60. pursuant Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page48of67 Sara Schneider 215. 218. 217. 216. 214. 213. 212. 211. 210. 3:20 . H.H.

ully picking up trash on the side of the road, as part of the volunteer Adopt partofvolunteer as the road, of onthe the side uptrash ully picking The collision caused many deaths, includingof manytheJ.K. deaths, deaths collision caused The - cv - In an attempt by first responders to save to J.K.’s responders attemptbyfirst an In Plaintiff Plaintiff KelleyPlaintiffs Brian RobinKelley and , Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re Because Treu predictably and foreseeably huffed Ultra Duster , gotlost high, drive to lostthe and maintainTreu ability to controlability whe ofvehicle his of lost consciousnessmovements allcontrol was Treu hishe bodily and/or when from high Ultra Duster hisgot huffing and passenger Treu huffing both high got Ultrafrom his and passenger Treu intentionally Duster . and Sara and Schneider 06942 ,

. as additionalas well membersof of Scout whom their 3055,all Troop Girl

J.O. , Individually

( As t As - FIRST Administrators of o All Plaintiffs Defendants) and were pronounced deceased the at scene of thecollision Wrongful Death Wrongful , CAUSE and asSuccessor

- allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation -

ove off northbound the lane ofhighway, the crossed 48

OF ACTION OF -

J.K. ’ s

Estate, - in -

life, life, Interest to the Estate of H.H.

Individually, and

bring thiswrongful deathclaim J.K.

, was tran H.H.

despitethe advertised Sara Schneider Sara , and sported to Gillette COMPLAINT as Per - a - Highway Highway . ,

, brings

H.H. sonal n

, .

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 life. losses that such beneficiaries would have received from Sara Schneider maintenan earnings, to limited not but lifetime, including, value that Decedent suchthat beneficiaries would have received from H.H. recognized, similar losses maintenance, other and support,inheritance earnings, to limited not but value that H.H. beneficiaries and the pecuniary va pecuniary the and beneficiaries and other similar losses. for for survivors. suffered byJ.K. life. other similar losses that such beneficiaries would have received from J.K. maintenance, notand her but toinheritance lifetime, limited during earnings, support, including, J.K. substantialabout a bringing part in Schneider support and support thatDecedenteconomic value Plaintiffs Brian Kel ley, Robin J.O. Kelley, and Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page49of67 J.K.

227. 226. 225. 219. 224. 223. 220. 222. 221. ’ 3:20 s

past future and los

, bringsthiswrongful deathto pursuant Civ.CodeCal. §377.60. - cv - Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff Plaintiff By reason ofBy reason foregoing, the Kelley Plaintiffs Brian Robin and claimKelley damages Plaintiffs Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley claim d ligentThe neg and wrongful acts and omissions of Defendants asalleged herein had Plaintiffs Brian KelleyPlaintiffs and Brian RobinKelley also claim loss of for the damages financial As

06942 would have providedbeneficiarieswould have her to and lifetime, during Estate her including, ’ s

proximate result of the negligent and wrongful acts of Defendants, of Defendants, acts ofnegligent wrongful and result the anda direct proximate beneficiaries and the pecuniary value of the anticipated services of J.K. Sara Schneider

J.O. J.O.

J.O. J.O. s ofs consortium, society, guidance, services, support, tutelage, comfort , Individually also claims damages for loss of claimsthe damagesloss supportand financial also for economic of claimsthe damagesloss supportand financial also for economic

claimsdamages pecuniary all for losses sufferedby H.H.’s lue services of ofanticipated H.H. the

would have provided to her beneficiaries and Estate during her during Estate and to beneficiaries her provided would have , H.H. J.K. , and as Successorand as , and Sara Schneider, and -

claim damages for grief and mental and foranguish. grief claim damages

would provided have to her beneficiaries Estate and 49

for the rest of h ce, support, inheritance and similar and support,inheritance ce, other

- in - amagesfor pecuniary all losses ’s deaths.’s Interest tothe Estate of Sara ernatural life. to the survivors. the to

for the rest of her natural

COMPLAINT

to the

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 for itto be J.K. alternative designs were, have been, and available are to Defendants and/orintendedanticipated function of Ultra Duster. similar losses. tutelage, comfortother and guidance, society, support, services, of consortium, loss future and resulting damages to their families, without substantially reduced the risk of similar of guidance,tutelage, consortium,comfortother loss society, and losses. support, services, alternative designs were, have been, and available are toDefendants deaths were a reasonably foreseeable result of Ultra deaths were reasonably foreseeable. misused inareasonably foreseeable mann inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. beneficiaries and thepecuniary value of theanticipated services of Sara Schneider Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page50of67 , H.H. 236. 230. 235. 234. 233. 232. 231. 229. 228. 3:20 , and Sara, and Schneider reasonably marketable. - cv

- At all material and relevant times By reason ofBy reason foregoing, the Plaintiff J.O. At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re of By reason Plaintiff 06942

J.O. Strict Products Liability – Liability Products Strict

the foregoing,the Plaintiff J.O. claims damagesfor pecuniary all losses suffered by Sara Schneider ( SECOND ’s As to All Plaintiffs and Defendants

injuries deaths,injuries and without rendering Ultra Duster

J.K.

, H.H. er. CAUSE OF ACTION -

a , a rendering or substantially impairing the reasonably llegeincorporate and by reference every allegation -

50 nd , the Ultra, the Duster productwasat case issueinthis , ,

, safer, technologically feasible, and practical , safer, technologically feasible, and practical - J.K. J.K. Sara Schneider

Duster

Defective , ,

claims damages for claims damages Sara for Schneider H.H. H.H.

’s defective design. defective’s , and , and , and

Design ’s )

Sara Schneider Sara Schneider

that prevented would have injuries and deaths and the deaths and and injuries

that prevented wouldhave

H.H.’s

theto survivors.

’s ’s past and future and past too expensive

COMPLAINT injuries and injuries and injuries and ’s pa ’s or or ’s ’s st st

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 in this case. this in Sara Schneider Ultra Duster available to available to warningsinstructionsadequate and providing onthe U modifications found Ultra in Duster modifications released during each spray. themodifications in packagingof Ultra Duster prevented foreseeable misuse of Ultra Duster. alternative designs were, have been, and available are to Defendants ders bystan inmotorinnocent to vehicle crashes. formulations thatwould preventedhave or substantially reduced the riskof injury, harm, death and Defendants outweighed designand has toits continues defective outweigh utility. “ Case No. Case No. bittering agent.bittering ” Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page51of67 245. 244. 243. 242. 241. 240. 239. 238. 237. 3:20

- that werethat practicable, feasible, and/or otherwise reasonable alternative designs and/or Defendants , a defectively designed dangerousproduct. defectively , a unreasonably and cv

in the formulation, and/or amount, and/or inclusion altogether of the propellant, DFE, DFE, inclusion ofpropellant, altogether the and/oramount, formulation, and/or the in - in the formulation, and/or amount, and/or inclusion altogether of altogether Ultra inclusion Duster and/oramount, formulation, the in ’ At all material and relevant times Multiple safer, feasible alternative designs of Ultra Duster Reasonable,alternative safer designs of Reasonable,alternative safer designs of Reasonable,alternative safer designs of Reasonable,alternative safer designs of At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times could be killed as a result of the design defects ofUltra of design the result the Duster a as be product could killed issue at 06942

, yet, , yet,

Defendants

ha ve

marketed and sold, continue and -

, including a modification thatless so DFE be can 51 , it was, it reasonably foreseeable J.K. that

safer designs for Ultra Duster , safer, technologically feasible, and practical - , the riskof, the harm byUltra caused Duster ’s

ltra Duster productpackaging. Ultra Duster Ultra Duster Ul Ultra Duster tra Duster

, include, are notbut limited to, , include, are notbut limited to, , include, are notbut limited to, , include, are notbut limited to, that would have reduced and/or

were, have been, and are s

to market to and sell, were available to

COMPLAINT , H.H. , and s

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Duster case was abused, amanufacturing defect apparently existed in the Ultra Duster case,this any manufacturing standards. manufactured thean differently th manufactured sameas according to product Defendants’ of Defendants’ fromperformance designformulae,and deviated specifications, standards the contained a manufacturing defect and was not reasonably fit, suitable or safe. altered innot w any in substantially the same condition as wasit when leftit Defendants’ inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. deaths and the resulting damages families. totheir were a substantial, direct, and proximate cause of J.K. this case,this as wasit unable todeter abuse. agent, discourage, Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page52of67 . and/or formulation inhalant deter

252. 253. 251. 250. 249. 248. 247. 246. 254. 3:20 - deter cv

bittering agent that Defendants - At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times the, concerning Ultra Duster At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material an Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re The design defect or At all material and relevant times 06942 , or prevent ay since the time left it Defendants’

Strict Products Liability –Manufacturing Defect did inhalant intended abuse, advertised workforor its not purpose. ( As to All Plaintiffs and Defendants d relevant times CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE THIRD

defects concerning theUltra Duster

abuse. Because the - allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation

advertised as an ingredient added anUl as to ingredient advertised -

52 , the Ultra, the Duster productwasat case issueinthis Ultra, the Duster productwasat case issueinthis Ultra, the Duster productwasat case issueinthis , , the , the , the

- Defendants

control. Ultra D Ultra Duster , H.H.

Ultra Duster

, and Sara, and Schneider ha uster

ve )

advertised thattheir control. product issuein at case this product issuein at case this

product

product at issue in this in issue product at

at issue in this case case this in issue at product product at issue in ’s COMPLAINT

tra Duster injuries and

atissue in bittering

Ultra Ultra

to to

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 vehicle crashes. misusingdriver Ultra Duster H.H. Sara Schneider along can the DFE with can when the wassprayed. mix the with DFE, thus, and, the “bittering agent” simply inside rested the can didand escape not impairedby drivers Ultrainhaling Duster Ultraon the Duster inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifset herein fully forth as at length. the product at issue inthis case. theconcerning Ultra Duste Ultra Duster do not, althoughdo not, Defendants’ some cans ofUltra Duster not atthiscase did a issuein contain agent”whatsoever. product “bittering Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page53of67 Ultra Duster Sara Schneider Sara , and 263. 258. 262. 261. 260. 259. 257. 255. 256. 3:20 - cans contain a“bittering agent.” cv - At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times, Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re At all material and relevant times Upon information and belief, reasonable investigation discoveryand may show that, investigation andReasonable further may discovery Ultra show that the Upon information and belief, reasonable investigation discoveryand may show that

06942 could be killed asa result of themanufacturing defect ordefects of the

product at issue in this case were a substantial, direct, and proximate cause of J.K. product at issue in case. this

’s Strict ProduStrict manufactured byDefendants

r injuries and deaths and the resulting damages to their families.

could cause injury, harm, and/or death to to could bystandersmotor innocent causeharm, death in injury, and/or product at issue in this case, notproduct thiscase, the agent”did issuein uniformly “bittering at (

As to All Plaintiffs and design specifications and performance standards mandate that all FOURTH cts Liability Warn –Failure to have motor injuredin icle veh bystanders crashes. CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE - allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation

, Defendants , the manufacturing defect manufacturing , the defects or it wasit reasonably foreseeable J.K. that , ,

Defendants - Defendants

Defendants

contain and “bittering a some agent”

failed provide to adequate an warning

knew or should have known that a knownknew have a should or that

knew or shouldknownknew or have that

)

COMPLAINT Ultra Duster

concerning , H.H.

Duster

, and cans cans

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 bystanders in motor vehicle crashes.motor in vehicle bystanders Defendants Duster abo instructions and/or to bystandersmotorinnocent death in crashes. vehicle fo the associatedwith and dangers the risks about chain othersof to the distribution in instructions and/or to bystandersmotorinnocent death in crashes. vehicle foreseeable misuse of Ultra Duster instructions about therisks and dangers associated with the foreseeablemisuse of and/or saleofuse Ultra Duster. could i or relevantthat service organization other authorities, enforcementlegislativelaw authorities,any newsorganizations, and/or authorities, and/or retailersof Duster warnings, marketing,labels, promotions, and information about the effect deterrent of Ultra information.on this enhancedproduct’s a manufacturers,wouldhave andprudent distributors, sellers and reasonably crashes, vehicle bystanders motor in harm,to injury, innocent death caused and has other reliabl sellers manufacturer Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page54of67 reseeable misuse of UltraDuster

’s “bittering agent.” “bittering ’s would have kept reasonably familiar with news events and stories, scientific studies, and and studies, stories, and scientific familiar withwould reasonably newsevents kept have 268. 267. 269. 266. 265. 264. that might befall not just the person inhaling Ultra Duster, but might innocent injure 3:20 - e information concerning theforeseeable misuse of Ultra Duster cv

s product at issue in this case concerning the risks and dangers associated with the associated with risks the dangers thisand concerning in at case issue product , - At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times Defendants , had At all materia At all material and relevant times At all material and relevant times 06942 distributors, or sellers Ultra Duster, as well as to foreseeable misusers of Ultra Duster, regulatory

Ultra Duster dangersof and causinginjury, the, including, risks harm ut the risks and dangers associated with theforeseeable misuse of Ultra

l andl relevant times,

, including the risks and dangers of causing injury, of and, includingrisks harm, causing the dangers and because - reasonably prudent manufacturers,distributors, and

54 , ,

, Defendants Defendants

failed to convey this information conveyto to this dis failed Defendants mplement restrictions theconcerning impropermplementrestrictions - Defendants ,

Defendants

failed to provide adequate warnings warnings provideadequate failed to warnings provideadequate failed to did not provide any warning on the did warning provideany onthe not

did not act reasonably act as prudent not did

provided false and misleading and false provided provided warnings adequate or while driving, which while driving, warning based warning based Ultra Duster COMPLAINT tributors , and/or , and/or

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 selling of Ultra Duster in that they: marketing,advertising, formulating, distributing, inspecting, promoting, andresearching, labeling, to exercise reasonable int care Ultra Duster as an inhalant while driving. assure that the product would not cause foreseeable injuries and deaths sale,distribution and/or monitoring ofpackaging, Ultrapromotion, Duster, including, to duty a thein design, research, formulation,supply, manufacture,marketing, testing, production, inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. Duster bystandersinnocent in vehiclemotor crashes, thatwarning would have heededbeen bythe Ultra to death injury, dangersof and harm,and/or causing the concerning risks warnings including innocent bystanders, such as Duster, andforeseeable themisusesUltra including risk of of harm, injury, danger death and to inprovidingcare reasonable and adequate warnings of and therisks dangers associated with the in this case was asubstant to Schneider injuries and deaths and the resulting damages families. totheir Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page55of67

others ofand the distribution in chain others

274. 273. 272. 271. 270. misuser or misusersinvolvedmotormisuser or crash the vehicle in that 3:20 .

- cv - At all material and relevant times, Defendants breached their duty when they failed At all material and At all material and relevant times Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re At all material and relevant times 06942

ial, direct, proximate and cause of J.K. J.K. ( As to All Plaintiffs CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE FIFTH ,

H.H. relevant times, Defendants owed aduty toexercise reasonable

he designing, testing, producing, processing, assembling, producing, processing, assembling, testing, designing, he , and Sara, and Schneider the foreseeable misuser of theUltra Duster

Negligence - allege and -

55 , , Defendants

Defendants’

and Defendants -

incorporateby reference every allegation

, caused by theforeseeable misuse of had a duty toexercise reasonable care

failure provide to adequate warnings

) ,

H.H. through foreseeable misuse.through foreseeable killed killed

, and Sara, and Schneider J.K. , product issue at H.H. COMPLAINT Sara Sara , and ’s

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 of distributionchain and- end inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. Sara Schneider design,their manufacture, distribution saleand of dangerousproduct, unreasonably an “contents [of Ultra Duster] ext thatUltraDuster including contained “bitteranthelp a to discourage abuse,” andinhalant made the for fit use. adequately or safe. The “bittering agent”thatDefendant “bittering safe.The or express warranties because contained it manufacturing a defect and was not reasonably fit, suitable assurances of safety, that was inten website, product labeling, product descriptions, promises, and written including verbal and harms losses, permanent substantial and damages and Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page56of67 275. b. 277. 276. a. 279. 280. 278. 3:20

- cv - Ast a direc and proximate result of Defendants foreseeable misuse ofUltra Duster as an inhalant while driving. danger and risk of harm,to injury, bystanders innocent death caused and bythe and dangers associated with the foreseeable misuses of Ultra Duster, including the of useandFailed to careinings due warn reasonable adequate risks providing the At all material and relevant times, Defendants expressly warranted Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re caused by the foreseeable misuse ofUltraDuster asan inhalant while driving. bystanders ofinnocent foreseeable harm,to avoid to the risk death and injury, Duster use manufacturing, to care indesigning, /or due and the Failed distributing of Ultra At material all and relevant times, Defendants breached various express warranties, At all material and relevant times, Ultra Duster did not conform to Defendants’ At all material and relevant times, Defendants made these warranties through their

06942 killedwere they and

( As To All Plaintiffs and Defendants) remely unpleasantinhale.” to users CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE SIXTH Breach of Express Warranty ded cr to and their families that Ultra Duster was safe, of mercha and ntable quality, eate a demandfor Ultra Duster. - allege and incorporate by refer incorporateallege and s advertised asan ingredient added toUltra Duster to -

, as more fully described herein described more fully . , as

have suffered, and in the future the suffered,in and have will suffer

’ carelessness’ ,

ence everyence allegation

negligence, and of and negligence,

to othersto in the COMPLAINT J.K. , H.H.

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 breached warranties and realized Ultra Duster’s danger. inpreviouscontained the paragraphs ifsetherein fully forth as at length. Defendants’misconduct was asubstantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. will suffer permanent and substantial losses, harms asmore and damages, fully described herein. misrepresentations, adequately or fitquality, for use. Co underincluding Cal. bystanders,J.K. killincluding or injure innocent control and onDuster,of Dusterlose vehicles, high their get drive while Ultra Ultra to high, use basis of the bargain of the purchase of the UltraDuster that distribution of foreseeablea injury, risk harm,to bystanmotorinnocent death in and vehicleders crashes. condition defective posed dangerousand designed, wasin as unreasonably an it of Defendants, hands the left that,when it in formulation or express warranties design in defective was because it to bystandersmotorinnocent death in crashes. vehicle pr failed to design and manufacture Ultra Duster in a manner such that the “bittering agent” oranother purpose. Defendants intended advertised or its workfor not did “inhalantfact, abuse,” in deter Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page57of67 oduct oduct effectively deterred inhalant so abuse, as avoidto the offoreseeable injury,risk harm, and 287. 286. 285. 284. 283. 282. 281. 3:20 - predictably predictably foreseeablyand relied on Defendants’ express warranties, which becamea cv - Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, omissions, and At all material and relevant times, Defendants breached their express warranties, J.K. At all material and relevant times, people predictably and foreseeably continued to At all material and relevant times, people At all material and relevant times, Ultra Duster did not conform to Defendants’ 06942 , J.K. H.H.

, mm. Code , H.H. Sara SchneiderSara ( As To All Plaintiffs and Defendants) , SEVENTH SEVENTH Sara Schneider Breach of I . §2313, because Ultra Duster was not safe, of merchantable , consumers, and the public , consumers, the and CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE - allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation mplied Warranty - , and their families

57 ,

H.H.

Sara Schneider Sara , and

is of subject is Complaint the this and others in the product’s chain of chain the in product’s others and

have suffere future the in d, and

could the not discovered have

COMPLAINT .

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Defendants’herein. misconduct was asubstantial factor in causing Plaintiffs harm. will sufferfuture and permanent substantia misrepresentations, and realized Ultra Duster’s danger. and measure up to the promises or facts stated facts promisesonthe or measure the container upto or product’s label Ultra the which Duster iswas used, adequately not contained, packaged, labeled,no and did and generally acceptablesame those the was as in trade, for quality fit thefor not ordinary purposes including Ultra Duster only if was it indeed of merchantable quality and safe and fit for foreseeable its uses. safe and fit for its intended use. J.K. Sara Schneider Tr was safe, ofmerchantable quality, and adequately fit for foreseeable use. p advertised, Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page58of67 e u, would intentionally inhale the Ultra Duster for its intoxicating effects while driving. , Sara Schneider H.H. 295. 294. 292. 293. 291. 290. 289. 288. 3:20 , pursuant Cal. to Comm. § Code. Sara Schneider - cv romoted, and sold Ultra romoted, sold and Duster. - As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ actions, omissions, and At material all and relevant times, consumers and thepublic, including J.K. materialallAt and relevant times,Defendants breachedtheir implied war At all material and re At material all and relevant times, consumers and thepublic, including J.K. At all material and rele At all material and relevant times, Defendants impliedly warranted that Ultra Duster At material all and relevant times, Defendants designed, distributed, manufactured, d Tr d , an 06942 , by the use of reasonable care, would not have discovered the breached warranty breached discovered have the care,wouldnot , bytheof use reasonable J.K.

e u reasonably relied upon the judgment and sensibility ofsell judgment to sensibility Defendants uponthe and u reasonably relied , H.H. , and Tr

, and Sara, and Schneider

u, because the Ultra Duster was not ofmerchantable quality or levant times, vant times, Defendants were aware that consumers, including l losses, harms and damages, asmore fully described

2314 –2315, to public,consumers the and including -

Defendants’ Ultra Duster product was not of the of Duster wasnot the Defendants’ Ultra product

and theirfamilies

have suffered, in and the

COMPLAINT

ranties, , , H.H. H.H.

t , ,

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 unfair, unlawf prohibits which inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. injunctive reliefunder purpose. De advertised bittering notevenwasfor that despite whethereffective having determined the fact or agent in product, the knowingdespite thatthe bittering agent wasnot for effective thatadvertised purpose for advertised product the purpose deterring of and preventing fact J.K. fraudulentbusiness and practices. Ultra Duster products. resulting foreseeable harm. And in fact, Defendants inserted abittering agent into the Dust Def product and harm cause bystanders and this innocent themselves. to knowledge, Despite knew that it wasreasonably foreseeable that userswould intentionally their inhale UltraDuster but motor innocent UltraDuster, incrashes inhaling vehicle bystanders as well. dangers associated with the foreseeable misuseUltra Duster of might that not just befall theperson informationand about the deterrent provided Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page59of67 endants failed to take reasonable and necessary precautions against that foreseeable misuse and , as more, as described fully herein. , H.H. 297. 296. 298. 301. 300. 299. 3:20 false, unfair, deceptive, untrue, and misleading , Sara Schneider - cv - claims Prof. Bus. Cal. & Code §17200 these to Plaintiffs bring pursuant Plaintiffs repeat, At all material and relevant times, The Defendants’ misconduct The Defendants’ misconduct outlined thisComplaint in unfair,constitutes unlawful At all materi relevantdescribedDefendants and times,herein, as thoroughly and al 06942

Cal. Prof. Bus. & Code §17203, as set forth in Plaintiffs’ prayer for relief. fendants misled consumers and the general public about the general the ofsafety the publicabout its and misledfendants consumers , and their families have suffered, and in the future will suffer future injury have the families suffered,in and their in, and ( As To All Plaintiffs and Defendants) fraudulent and ul business practices. CAUSE OF ACTION EIGHTH OF CAUSE reiterate, re Unfair Business Practices

As adirect and proximate result of Defen effect of Ultra of Duster’seffect “bittering agent” and the risks and -

allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation is ongoing As continuing. is and such, Plaintiffs seek -

and asmore described fully herein, -

warnings, labels, promotions, marketing,

a user from intentionally inhaling

dants’ dants’

COMPLAINT misconduct

Defendants et seq et - Off Off .,

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 Ultra Duster products. generalthe the publicabout and purpose. misledsafety Defendants consumers ofadvertised its not evenbittering wasfor that despite whether effective having determined the fact or agent in product, despit the for advertised frominhaling product the user purpose deterringa of and preventing intentionally foreseeable would harm use this cause bystanders, innocent including to motorin crashes vehicle of commerce despite knowledge of the foreseeable misuse of Ultra Duster as an inhalant, and that in motor vehicle crashes. were people Ultrausing aDuster in manner death that resulted in injuryand to bystanders innocent deceptive, prohibits which false inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. resulting foreseeable harm. And in fact, Defendants inserted abittering agent into the Dust Defendants failed to take reasonable and necessary precaut product and harm cause bystanders and this innocent themselves. to Despite knowledge, knew that it wasreasonably foreseeable would that users intentionally their inhale UltraDuster but bystandinnocent Duster, inmotorers vehicle crashes as well. with the foreseeable misuse of Ultra Duster that might befall not just the person inhaling Ultra the deterrentabout effect of Ultra Duster’s “bittering agent,” and the misleading and untrue, Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page60of67 305. 304. 303. 302. 307. 306. 3:20 - cv - At all material and relevant times, Defendants placed Ultra Duster into the stream material andAt all relevant times, should known knew Defendants or have that claims Prof. Bus. Cal. & Code §17500 these to Plaintiffs bring pursuant Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re At material all and relevant times, and asdescribed thoroughly here At all material and relevant times, Defendants provided false, unfair, deceptive, 06942 e knowinge thatthe bittering agent wasnot for effective thatadvertised purpose

advertisements,

( As To All Plaintiffs and Defendants) and/ormisleading advertising. CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE NINTH False Advertising warnings, promotions, labels, marketing,and information - allege and inco allege and -

ions against that foreseeable misuse and rporateby reference every allegation

risk

s and dangers associated in, Defendants Defendants in, COMPLAINT et seq et - Off Off ., .

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 peopl inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. Cal.injunctive relief under Prof. Bus. & Code §17535. described herein. Schneider the use of deception, fraud, false advertising, false pretenses, misrepresentations, unfair and/or intent that people rely thereon in connection with the sale or advertisement of Ultra Duster through resultedand mannerina to death injury motor that bystandersinnocent crashes, in vehicle with the Duster, but innocent bystanders inmotor vehicle crashes as well. with the foreseeable misuse of Ultra Duster that might befall not just the person inhaling Ultra risks the dangersassociated promotions, informationand marketing, and labels, about warnings, Duster that Defendants knew tobe defective. saleof and Ultra marketing misleading practices and the unfair commercial in unconscionable, in motor vehicle crashes. were people Ultrausing aDuster in manner death that resulted in injuryand to i Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page61of67 e continued to abuse Ultra Duster in order to get high despite the advertised“bittering the agent.” despite orderto high Duster continuedin e get abuse to Ultra 312. 311. 310. 308. 316. 315. 314. 313. 309. 3:20

and - cv

- their families their At all material andAt all relevant times, should known knew Defendants or have that claimsPlaintiffs Civ Cal. bring these to pursuant Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ misconduct At material all and relevant times, Defendants induced people to use Ultra Duster in At At material all and relevant times, Defendants engaged indeceptive, material andAt all relevant times, should known knew Defendants or have that The Defendants’ mis 06942

all materialall and relevant times, Defendants provided false and misleading

have suffered, infuture and the suffer in injury will fact ( As To All Plaintiffs and Defendants) TEN conduct is ongoingAs continuing. is and Plaintiff such, conduct CAUSE OF ACTION OF CAUSE TH Public Nuisanc Public - allege incorporateand by

. Code § 3479–80. . Code

referenceevery allegation

nnocent bystanders , J.K. , asmore fully , COMPLAINT H.H. , s

Sara Sara seek

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 the Plaintiffs experience finally discovered Defendants’ carelessness, negligence, recklessness, deception, and concealment, specially injurious to the Plaintiffs Sara Schneider because they fear that Defendants’ mental and deception, experience ThePlaintiffsuish concealment. to emotionalang and continue H.H. specially injurious to to injurious specially to fraudulent statements, deceptive practices and the concealment and suppression of material facts, including but not limited innocent bystanders in motor vehicle crashes. safety, public and welfaregeneral tothe tes constitu unreasonablean interference with the exercise of common the rights of health, the a public nuisance. Defendants’ carelessness, negligence, recklessness, deception, and concealment to cause long nature. continuing of and Defendants’ constant a ac harm, bysta death and toinjury, innocent continuepeople to to inhale abuseand UltraDust endangered thereby byallowingmore of health general the and the safety the public members of danger, inhalant deter preventedfromhasagent” to real and has a the knowingof abuse, public the foreseeable misuse of UltraDuster, and failure todisclose Ultrathat Duster lacked bystanders in to limited vehiclemotor not innocent crashes. unreasonably endangers the safety and healthof the members of thegeneral p Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page62of67 Sara Schneider Sara , and 321. 320. 317. 319. 318. 3:20 - cv - - Defendants’ carelessness, negligence, recklessness, deception, and concealment was Defendants’ carelessness, negligence, recklessness, deception, and con At all material and relevant times, Defendants’ actions and omissions have created Defendants’ carelessness, negligence, recklessness, deception, and concealment is Defendants’ failure to inform thepublic about the risks and dangers associated with lasting effects on members of the general public, including, but not limited to to limited including, not but public, effectsmembers general lasting the on of 06942 , had been thevictims ofDefendants’ carelessness, negligence, recklessness,

J.K.’s d mental and emotional anguish because d mental emotionalanguish and concealments and misrepresentations identified herein and above. were killed were driverDuster. bya whoabused and inhaled Ultra , H.H. ’s, ’s,

and their personal enjoyment of life in that when personal the enjoyment that of in their and life Plaintiffs Sara Schneider

carelessness, negligence, recklessness, deception, and nders in motor vehicle crashes. , and has maintained or permitted a condition which which condition maintained a permitted , and or has

er, resulting in increasedan risk dangerand of - ’s health personaland enjoyment J.K. of as life

tions undoubtedly tions and will continue omissions

ones, lovedtheir

ublic, including, butublic, including, J.K.

cealment was the “bittering COMPLAINT

, H.H.

, and and ,

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 throughout States. thethroughout United damages, asmore fully described herein. public dangerousproduct,J.K. of unreasonably an design,manufacture, distribution, sale and their concealment,and deception, of and recklessness, but public,including, bysta of general to limited the not innocent continue causeif aninterference unabated, will to public unreasonable with ofrights members the associated with Ultra Duster. benefits faroutweighed the crashesUltraDuster to motordue innocent into vehicle bystanders concealment Case No. Case No. compensable against Defendants. damages expenses, and costs,funeral burial to and prior other associated medical treatment, expense of and hospitalization, anxiety, and fear ofexpectancy, life, loss andof of mentaland capacity the anguish suffering,loss enjoyment of shortened life, life conduct, Estate of J.K. inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifsetherein fully forth as at length. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page63of67

ture will suffer permanent and substantial losses, harms and losses, substantial and harms will suffer fu permanent and have the ture suffered,in and

328. 327. 326. 325. 324. 323. 322. 3:20 ( J.K. As t As - cv

will continue to harm and kill other innocent bystanders in California,Wisconsin, continueother in and harmwill to bystanders innocent kill and

, bring this claim Cal. to Civ. Code §377.30. pursuant - suffered damages, including, but not but limitedsuffered damages, to, including, physicalbodily severe injury, pain o Plaintiffs By reason ofBy reason foregoing, the Plai of Defendants’ and proximateresult direct a as and, offoregoing, By the reason Plaintiffs Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley Plaintiffsrepeat, reiterate, As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ ca manufacture,Defendants’ marketing, design, distribution, of and UltraD sale At all material and relevant tim 06942

Brian Kelley, Robin Kelley,

ACTION ENTHOF ELEV CAUSE

Survival Action Survival

re , - allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation H.H. - ntiffs Brian Kelley and Robin Kelley claim damages es, the foreseeable risks of injury, harm, foreseeable of the risks deathand es, injury,

63 ,

- Sara Schneider

and All Defendants and All and J.O.

, as General Co

nders in motor vehicle crashes. , theirfamilies

J.K. relessness, negligence, - Administrators of the ’ s death. , and the general the , and COMPLAINT

)

uster,

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 H.H. injuries inpreviouscontained the paragraphsifset herein fully forth as at length. Case No. Case No. Defendants. damages expenses,and costs,funeral burial to and prior other associated med treatment, expenseical of hospitalization, anxiety, and fear life, and of expectancy,life loss and pain mentalphysical and anguish suffering,loss of capacity ofenjoyment of shortened the life, conduct, conduct, Interest to compensable against Defendants. Representatives and General Co associated costs, funeral and burial expenses, and other damages expenses,and costs,funeral burial to and prior other associated expectancy, medical treatment, expense ofand hospitalization, lossof feanxiety, and life, ar andof mentaland capacity the anguish suffering,loss enjoyment of shortened life, life Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page64of67 Sara Schneider Sara and 336. 335. 333. 332. 331. 330. 329. onNov 3,2018. ember 3:20 334. H.H. Sara Schnei the Estate of Sara Schneider - cv

(As to Plaintiffs Robin Kelley and Brian Kelley -

By reason ofBy reason foregoing, the Plaintiff J.O. Plaintiff Robin Kelley was present during and witnessed Decedent Plaintiffs repeat, reiterate, re By reason offoregoing, the Plaintiff J.O. of Defendants’ and proximateresult direct a as and, offoregoing, By the reason direct a as and, offoregoing, By the reason Plaintiff RobinKelley, and Kelley Plaintiffs Brian offoregoing, By the reason 06942 suffered damages, including, butsuffered damages, limited including, not to, bodilysevere injury, painphysical

der J.O. , claims damages compensable against Defendants.

suffered damages, including, but not limited to, bodily injury, severe severe injury, bodily but to, limited suffered damages,not including, NegligentInfliction of Emotional Distress as TWELFTH TWELFTH Successor -

Administrators of theEstate of Decedent J.K. , bring theseclaims - in CAUSE - - allegeincorporate and by reference every allegation Interest to -

OF ACTIONOF

the Estate of H.H. as Successor

claims damages compensable against pursuant Cal.to Civ.Code §377.30. pursuant

and proximate result of Defendants’ and proximateresult and All Defendants All and

- in

- Interestto the Sara Schneider H.H.

and asSuccessor ’ s death. , claim damages )

COMPLAINT J.K.

Estates ’ Personal s death. ’s fatal’s -

in of of -

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 and mental to and anguish, continues suffer damages. ongoing Plaintiff Kelley has Brian suffered and continues to suffer emotional severe and/or physical distress distress and/or physical distress and mental anguish. Plaintiffvehicle, has Brian sufferedKelley to emotional continues severe and suffer and shock and/or di emotionaldistress physical to continues severe suffer and shock unsuccessful attempts by paramedics to revive J.K. physicalmen distressand anguish.and/or tal Plaintiff Brian Kelley has suffered and continues tosuffer shock and severe emotional distress injuries and mentalto and anguish, continues suffer damages. ongoing Plaintiff RobinKelley has suffered and continues tosuffer severeemotional and/or physical distress distress and/or physical distress and mental anguish. emotional severe and to sufferedcontinues suffer has shock Kelley and Plaintiffvehicle, Robin anguish.emotional distressand/or mental distress and physical to revive J.K. physicalmental distressand anguish.and/or Plaintiff Robin Kelley has suffered and continues to suffer shock and severe emotional distress Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page65of67 345. 344. 343. 342. 341. 340. 339. 338. 337. on November 3,2018. 3:20 - cv , Plaintiff Robin Kelley has suffered and continues continues and sufferto suffered severe and has shock RobinKelley , Plaintiff - As a direct and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct, acts and/or omissions, actsand/or ofconduct, result Defendants’ proximate and As direct a J.K. when Decedent danger of zone the ofin being As result a As aresult of attempting to revive J.K. As a result of witnessing the tragic and fatal injury of J.K. Plaintiff Brian Kelley was present during and witnessed Decedent As adirect and proximate result of Defendants’ conduct the ofin being As result a As a result of witnessing unsuccessful attempts by both Brian Kelley and paramedics As a result of witnessing the tragic and fatal injury of J.K. 06942

zone of danger when Decedent J.K. when Decedent danger ofzone

, Plaintiff Brian Kelley has suffered and

himself, aswell asfrom witnessing

stress and mental anguish. , her nine , her , his nine his , , actsand/oromissions,

was struck bya was struck was struck bya was struck - - year year COMPLAINT J.K - - old child,old old child,old .’ s fatal

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 as described herein judgment against Defendantsjudgment against Guardian Litem,ad through byand his , deceased, SCHNEIDER JUDY SCHNEIDER deceased; Plaintiff, and child, J.O. ESTATE OF Personal Representatives and General Co

Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page66of67 2. 1. 7. 6. 5. 4. 8. 3. WHEREFORE, WHEREFORE, 3:20 - cv - b. a. For injunctive relief: of- Seventy Awarding Plaintiffs damages against Defendants in an amount reasonably in excess Awarding Plaintif damages; PlaintiffsAwarding punitive Awarding Plaintiffs their reasonable costs and disbursements; Awarding Plaintiffs pre c. Awarding such additional relief as additional reliefas such Awarding the may Court deemequitable. and just Duster; a Ordering 06942 H.H.

, as follows: , as

, deceased, and asSuccessor

difluoroethane per consumdifluoroethane per manufactured, and by distributed, sold containing Defendants designed, more saleofspray ofprohibiting the than can one dusting by difluoroethane sold and containing Defendants minors; to ofprohibiting the dustingspr sale physical mechanism or chemical composition to deter to mechanisminhalant deter physical abuse. chemicalcomposition or withouteffective dustingsprayscontainingan difluoroethane selling and manufacturing, distributing, fromprohibiting Defendants designing, Plaintiffs, Plaintiffs, n abatement of the ongoing public nuisance conditions nuisance causedn public abatementofongoing byUltra the Five Thousand Dollars ThousandFive ($75,000.00); Dollars for their wrongful,oppr malicious,

fs c fs , KELLEY BRIAN PRAYER FOR RELIEF FOR PRAYER

osts of investigation and and attorney'sostsreasonable of fees investigation ; a minor,a - judgment post and - Administrators of - Individually, Individually,

66 er within a 30

in and and - Interest to THEOF SARA to ESTATE Interest ays designed, ays designed, manufactured, distributed -

judgment interest; , KELLEY ROBIN and and

THE ESTATE OF J.K. THE ESTATE

day periodday of time; essive, andall essive, fraudulentconduct, as Successor

Individually, and as and Individually, - in - InterestTHE to

COMPLAINT , their, minor , pray for, pray

ROBINS KAPLAN LLP ATTORNEYS AT LAW OS NGELES

L A 28 27 26 25 24 23 22 21 20 19 18 17 16 15 14 13 12 11 10 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 DATED: Case No. Case No. Case 4:20-cv-06942-DMRDocument1Filed10/05/20Page67of Plaintiffs hereby demand atrial by jury asto all issues so triable. 3:20 October 5,2020 October - cv - 06942

DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL JURY FOR DEMAND By: LLP KAPLAN ROBINS Attorneys for Plaintiffs -

67 /s/ David Martinez

Tara Sutton ( Sutton Tara No. Martinez,StateBar David 193183 Rashanda Bruce ( Jason DePauw ( Philip Sieff Bar Wilson,No. State 139358 Gary -

( pro hac vice hac pro pro hac vic hac pro

pro hac vice hac pro pro hac vice

e to be submitted) be to e to be submitted) be to

to be submitted) be to to be submitted) be to COMPLAINT