Dept. A-L Assigned rte. FILED 1 STUART PURDY, CA Bar No. 183151 4 Superior Court of California CONOR NIDEFFER, CA BAR No. 253931 County of I_os Annoles 2 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P. C. SEP 0 5 2018 3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 540 3 Long Beach, California 90806 Sherri R. • w^^irrt,'ierk of Court By Deputy fem. Telephone (562) 590-3400 4 Facsimile (562) 590-3412 j;Wy Smith
5 JOHN M. CARON, Esq., CA Bar No. 130633 THE LAW OFFICE OF WORTHINGTON & CARON, P. C. 6 273 W. 7th Street San Pedro, California 90731 7 Telephone (310) 221-8090 Facsimile (310) 221-8095 8 Attorneys for Plaintiff 9
10
11 SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA
12 FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES
13 C 7 2 01 3 14 LINDA ZIMMERMAN, Case No. B
15 Plaintiff, COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY- ASBESTOS (NEGLIGENCE; STRICT LIABILITY) 16 vs. 17 AUTOZONE, INC.; 18 AUTOZONE WEST LLC f/k/a AUTOZONE WEST, INC. (sued 19 individually and as successor-in-interest to CHIEF AUTO PARTS); 20 AVON PRODUCTS, INC.; 21 BARRETTS MINERALS INC.; BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, 22 INC. (sued individually and as successor- in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT 23 SOLUTIONS, INC. and as successor-in- 24 interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.); 25 BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC. f/k/a MINERAL PIGMENT 26 SOLUTIONS, INC. (sued individually 27 and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, 28 INC.);
C'
COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY (sued individually and as 2 successor-in-interest to CHARLES OF 3 THE RITZ); CHANEL, INC.; 4 CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL. COMPANY, INC.; 5 CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS 6 COMPANY (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to 7 AMERICAN TALC COMPANY, METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and 8 CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and 9 SIERRA TALC COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY); 10 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY a/k/a NAPA; 11 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, 12 INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. (sued as successor-in-interest to BENDIX 13 CORPORATION); IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. 14 (sued individually and as successor-in- 15 interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS 16 INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and 17 METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.); 18 JOHNSON & JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON 19 CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON; 20 MACY'S INC. (sued individually and as 21 successor-in-interest to ROBINSONS- MAY successor-in-interest to J. W. 22 ROBINSONS, and as successor-in- interest to BULLOCKS and 23 BROADWAY STORES, INC.); 24 PNEUMO ABEX LLC (sued as successor-in-interest to ABEX 25 CORPORATION); RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY, a 26 subsidiary of THE KROGER 27 COMPANY; REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS 28 CORPORATION;,
2 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 RITE AID CORPORATION (sued individually and for its subsidiary 2 THRIFTY PAYLESS HOLDINGS, INC. 3 d/b/a THRIFTY DRUGS); THRIFTY PAYLESS INC., a subsidiary 4 of RITE AID CORPORATION formerly d/b/a THRIFTY DRUGS; 5 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION; 6 WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; and 7 DOES 1-450 INCLUSIVE,
8 Defendants. 9 GENERAL ALLEGATIONS
10 COMES NOW Plaintiff, LINDA ZIMMERMAN (hereinafter "Plaintiff'), and
11 complains and alleges as follows:
12 1. The true names and capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate,
13 governmental or otherwise of Defendant DOES 1 through 450, inclusive, are unknown to
14 Plaintiff at this time, who therefore sues said Defendants by such fictitious names. When the
15 true names and capacities of said Defendants have been ascertained, Plaintiff will amend this
16 Complaint accordingly. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges, that each
17 Defendant designated herein as a DOE is responsible, negligently or in some other actionable
18 manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to, and caused injuries and damages
19 proximately thereby to the Plaintiff, as hereinafter alleged.
20 2. At all times herein mentioned, each of the Defendants were the agent, servant,
21 employee and/or joint venture of its Co-Defendants and each of them, and at all said times
22 each Defendant was acting in the full course and scope of said agency, service, employment
23 and/or joint venture. Plaintiff is informed and believes, and thereon alleges that at all times
24 herein mentioned, Defendants AUTOZONE, INC., AUTOZONE WEST LLC f/k/a AUTOZONE WEST, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to CHIEF AUTO
PARTS); AVON PRODUCTS, INC., BARRETTS MINERALS INC., BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to MINERAL
PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK &
3 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 DANIELS, INC:), BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC. f/k/a MINERAL PIGMENT
2 SOLUTIONS, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK
3 & DANIELS, INC.), BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY (sued individually and as
4 successor-in-interest to CHARLES OF THE RITZ), CHANEL, INC., CHARLES B.
5 CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC., CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY (sued
6 individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY,
7 METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC
8 COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY), GENUINE PARTS COMPANY a/k/a
9 NAPA; HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. (sued as
10 successor-in-interest to BENDIX CORPORATION), IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC.
11 (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-
12 interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS COMPANY and WINDSOR MINERALS,
13 INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.), JOHNSON & JOHNSON, JOHNSON &
14 JOHNSON CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON, MACY'S INC.
15 (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to ROBINSONS-MAY successor-in-interest to
16 J. W. ROBINSONS, and as successor-in-interest to BULLOCKS and BROADWAY
17 STORES, INC.), PNEUMO ABEX LLC (sued as successor-in-interest to ABEX
18 CORPORATION), RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY, a subsidiary of THE KROGER
19 COMPANY, REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS CORPORATION, REVLON, INC.,
20 RITE AID CORPORATION (sued individually and for its subsidiary THRIFTY PAYLESS
21 HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a THRIFTY DRUGS), THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., a subsidiary of
22 RITE AID CORPORATION, formerly d/b/a THRIFTY DRUG STORES, INC., UNION
23 CARBIDE CORPORATION, WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC., and DOES 1-
24 450 inclusive were individuals, corporations, partnerships and/or unincorporated associations
25 organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws of the State of California, or the laws of
26 some other state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said Defendants, and each of them, were and
27 are authorized to do and are doing business in the State of California, or the laws of some other
28 state or foreign jurisdiction, and that said Defendants have regularly conducted business in the
4 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 County of Los Angeles, State of California.
2 3. Plaintiff alleges herein that she developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of
3 exposure to asbestos from Defendants' asbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and
4 grades, and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment
6 requiring and/or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or
7 products designed to cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to
8 be used with asbestos-containing products including: AUTOZONE, INC. (as a supplier of
9 asbestos-containing friction products); AUTOZONE WEST LLC f/k/a AUTOZONE WEST,
10 INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to CHIEF AUTO PARTS) (as a supplier
11 of asbestos-containing friction products); AVON PRODUCTS, INC. (for asbestos-
12 containing Avon Unforgettable talcum powder); BARRETTS MINERALS INC. (as a
13 supplier of asbestos-containing talc); BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. (sued
14 individually and as successor-in-interest to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. and as
15 successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC.) (as a supplier of
16 asbestos-containing talc); BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC. f/k/a MINERAL PIGMENT
17 SOLUTIONS, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to WHITTAKER CLARK
18 & DANIELS, INC.) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc); BRISTOL-MYERS
19 SQUIBB COMPANY (sued individually and as successor-in-interest to CHARLES OF THE
20 RITZ) (for asbestos-containing Jean Nate talcum powder); CHANEL, INC. (for asbestos-
21 containing Chanel No. 5 talcum powder); CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY, INC.
22 (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc); CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY
23 (sued individually, doing business as, and as successor to AMERICAN TALC COMPANY,
24 METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. and CHARLES MATHIEU INC. and SIERRA TALC
25 COMPANY and UNITED TALC COMPANY) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc);
26 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY a/k/a NAPA (as a supplier of asbestos-containing friction
27 products); HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. f/k/a ALLIED-SIGNAL, INC. (sued
28 as successor-in-interest to BENDIX CORPORATION) (for asbestos-containing Bendix
5 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 Brakes); IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. (sued individually and as successor-in-interest
2 to LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. successor-in-interest to CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL
3 MINERALS COMPANY and WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. and METROPOLITAN TALC
4 CO. INC.) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc); JOHNSON & JOHNSON (for
5 Johnson's Baby Powder and Shower-to-Shower talcum powder); JOHNSON & JOHNSON
6 CONSUMER INC., a subsidiary of JOHNSON & JOHNSON (for Johnson's Baby Powder
7 and Shower-to-Shower talcum powder); MACY'S INC. (sued individually and as successor-
8 in-interest to ROBINSONS-MAY successor-in-interest to J. W. ROBINSONS, and as 9 successor-in-interest to BULLOCKS and BROADWAY STORES, INC.) (as a supplier of
10 asbestos-containing talcum powder products); PNEUMO ABEX LLC (sued as successor-in-
11 interest to ABEX CORPORATION) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing friction products);
12 RALPH'S GROCERY COMPANY, a subsidiary of THE KROGER COMPANY (as a
13 supplier of asbestos-containing talcum powder products); REVLON CONSUMER
14 PRODUCTS CORPORATION (for asbestos-containing Jean Nate talcum powder);
15 REVLON, INC. (for asbestos-containing Jean Nate talcum powder): RITE AID
16 CORPORATION (sued individually and for its subsidiary THRIFTY PAYLESS
17 HOLDINGS, INC. d/b/a THRIFTY DRUGS) (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talcum
18 powder products); THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC., a subsidiary of RITE AID CORPORATION,
19 formerly d/b/a THRIFTY DRUG STORES, INC. (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talcum
20 powder products); UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION (as a supplier of asbestos fibers);
21 and WHITTAKER CLARK & DANIELS, INC. (as a supplier of asbestos-containing talc)..
22 FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION 23 (Negligence) 24 PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS AND DOES 1-450, THEIR . 25 "ALTERNATE ENTITIES", AND EACH OF THEM AND FOR A CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS: 26 4. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth herein, the 27 general allegations set forth above. 28
6 °"' COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 5. At all times herein mentioned, each of the named Defendants and DOES 1
2 through 450 were the successor, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line or a portion
3 thereof, parent, subsidiary, wholly or partially owned by, or the whole or partial owner of or
4 member in an entity researching, studying, manufacturing, fabricating, designing, modifying,
5 labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, supplying, selling,
6 inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing, marketing, warranting,
7 re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging and advertising asbestos, and/or raw asbestos
8 fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-
9 containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder
10 products, and/or equipment requiring and/or calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-
11 containing products, and/or products designed to cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or
12 equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-containing products including, but not
13 limited to, those products identified in paragraph 3 above. Said entities shall hereinafter
14 collectively be called "alternate entities." Each of the herein named Defendants is liable for
15 the tortious conduct of each successor, successor-in-business, successor-in-product line or a
16 portion thereof, assign, predecessor in product line or a portion thereof, parent, subsidiary,
17 whole or partial owner, or wholly or partially owned entity, or entity that it was a member of
18 or funded that researched, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others
19 and advertised asbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or
20 asbestos-containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or other finished and
21 unfinished asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment requiring and/or
22 calling for the use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or products designed to
23 cut, saw, or otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-
24 containing products. The following Defendants, and each of them, are liable for the acts of
25 each and every "alternate entity", and each of them, in that there has been a virtual destruction
26 of Plaintiff's remedy against each such "alternate entity"; Defendants, and each of them, have
27 acquired the assets, product line, or a portion thereof of each such "alternate entity";
28 Defendants, and each of them, have caused the destruction of Plaintiffs remedy against each
7 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 such "alternate entity"; each such Defendant has the ability to assume the risk-spreading role
2 of each such "alternate entity"; and that each such Defendant enjoys the goodwill originally
3 attached to each such "alternate entity."
4 DEFENDANT ALTERNATE ENTITY 5 AUTOZONE WEST, INC. CHIEF AUTO PARTS, INC. CHIEF AUTO PARTS 6 AUTOZONE WEST, INC.
7 BRENNTAG NORTH AMERICA, INC. MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC 8 WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC.
9 BRENNTAG SPECIALTIES, INC. MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC. WHITTAKER, CLARK & DANIELS, INC. 10
11 BRISTOL-MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY CHARLES OF THE RITZ CYPRUS AMAX MINERALS COMPANY SIERRA TALC COMPANY 12 UNITED TALC COMPANY 13 METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC. CHARLES MATHIEU INC. 14 AMERICAN TALC COMPANY
15 GENUINE PARTS COMPANY NATIONAL AUTOMOTIVE PARTS ASSOCIATION 16 NAPA RAYLOC BRAKES 17 HONEYWELL INTERNATIONAL, INC. ALLIED SIGNAL, INC. 18 BENDIX CORPORATION STROMBERG CARBURETOR 19 MERGENTHALER LINOTYPE COMPANY 20 IMERYS TALC AMERICA, INC. LUZENAC AMERICA, INC. 21 CYPRUS INDUSTRIAL MINERALS 22 COMPANY WINDSOR MINERALS, INC. 23 METROPOLITAN TALC CO. INC.
24 JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER INC. JOHNSON & JOHNSON 25 MACY'S INC. ROBINSONS-MAY 26 J. W. ROBINSONS BULLOCKS 27 BROADWAY STORES, INC. 28
8 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 PNEUMO ABEX CORPORATION ABEX CORPORATION PNEUMO ABEX LLC 2 RALPH'S GROCERY STORE THE KROGER COMPANY 3 REVLON, INC. REVLON CONSUMER PRODUCTS 4 CORPORATION
5 RITE AID CORPORATION THRIFTY PAYLESS HOLDINGS, INC. THRIFTY DRUGS 6 THRIFTY PAYLESS, INC. RITE AID CORPORATION 7 THRIFTY DRUG STORES, INC.
8 UNION CARBIDE CORPORATION THE DOW CHEMICAL COMPANY UNION CARBIDE CHEMICALS AND 9 PLASTICS COMPANY, INC. 10' UNION CARBIDE AND CARBON CORPORATION 11 LINDE AIR PRODUCTS COMPANY NATIONAL CARBON CO., INC. 12 PREST-O-LITE CO., INC. 13 UNION CARBIDE COMPANY CARBIDE AND CARBON CHEMICALS 14 CORPORATION BAKELITE CORPORATION 15 UNION CARBIDE CONSUMER 16 PRODUCTS CO.. UNION CARBIDE MINING AND 17 METALS DIVISION UNION CARBIDE ELECTRONICS 18 DIVISION 19 UNION CARBIDE HYDROCARBONS DIVISION 20 UNION CARBIDE FERROALLOYS DIVISION 21 JENNAT CORPORATION 22 AMERCHOL CORPORATION UOP 23 UCAR CARBON COMPANY UNION CARBIDE INDUSTRIAL GASES 24 INC. 25 PRAXAIR, INC. POLIMERI EUROPA S.r.l. 26 ASIAN ACETYLS COMPANY, LTD. EQUATE PETROCHEMICAL COMPANY 27 6. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each.of 28
,..,..w 9 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 them were and are engaged in the business of researching, manufacturing, fabricating,
2 designing, modifying, labeling, assembling, distributing, leasing, buying, offering for sale, 3 supplying, selling, inspecting, servicing, installing, contracting for installation, repairing,
4 renting, marketing, warranting, re-branding, manufacturing for others, packaging, and
5 advertising asbestos, and/or raw asbestos fiber of various kinds and grades, and/or asbestos-
6 containing products, and/or asbestos-containing talc and/or other finished and unfinished
7 asbestos-containing talcum powder products, and/or equipment requiring and/or calling for the
8 use of asbestos and/or asbestos-containing products, and/or products designed to cut, saw, or 9 otherwise manipulate, and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-containing
10 products (hereinafter referred to as "Defendants' Products").
11 7. At all times herein mentioned, Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of
12 them singularly and jointly, negligently and carelessly researched, manufactured, fabricated,
13 specified, designed, modified, tested or failed to test, abated or failed to abate, warned or failed
14 to warn of the health hazards, failed to recall and/or retrofit, labeled, assembled, distributed,
15 leased, bought, rented, offered for sale, supplied, sold, inspected, serviced, installed, contracted
16 for installation, repaired, marketed, warranted, re-branded, manufactured for others, packaged,
17 and advertised Defendants' Products including, but not limited to, those products identified in
18 paragraph 3 above, in that Defendants' Products were unreasonably dangerous because they
19 released respirable asbestos fibers which resulted in personal injuries to users, consumers,
20 workers, bystanders, and others including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN herein (hereinafter
21 collectively called "exposed persons"). Defendants' Products were used at all times in a 22 manner that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, their "alternate entities" and each of
23 them, thereby rendering Defendants' Products unsafe and dangerous for use by "exposed
24 persons". Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN herein alleges that she was exposed to asbestos
25 that was caused to be released as a result of exposure to Defendants' Products including, but C) 26 not limited to, those products identified in paragraph 3 above, which were a substantial
27 contributing factor in the development of her malignant mesothelioma, and therefore
28 proximately caused Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN's injuries.
10 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 8. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them, had a duty to exercise
2 reasonable care while engaging in the activities mentioned above and each Defendant breached
3 said duty of reasonable care in that Defendants, and each of them, failed to safely and
4 adequately design, manufacture and/or sell Defendants' Products; failed to test Defendants'
5 Products; failed to recall and/or retrofit; failed to investigate the hazards of Defendants'
6 Products; failed to warn "exposed persons", including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and
7 her son, Steven Zimmerman, of the health hazards of using and being exposed to Defendants'
8 Products; failed to disclose the known or knowable dangers of using and being exposed to 9 Defendants' Products; failed to warn of the harmful exposures caused by use of Defendants'
10 Products; failed to obtain suitable alternative materials to asbestos when such alternatives were
11 available; and as otherwise stated herein.
12 9. Defendants' Products were and are hazardous to the health and safety of
13 Plaintiff, and others in Plaintiffs and her son's positions personally using, working with,
14 handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants' Products,
15 and since on or before 1930, the hazards and dangerous propensities of Defendants' Products
16 were both known and knowable to the Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them,
17 through the use of medical and/or scientific data and other knowledge available to Defendants,
18 their "alternate entities", and each of them, at the time of Defendants' manufacture,
19 distribution, sale, research, study, fabrication, design, modification, labeling, assembly,
20 leasing, buying, offering for sale, supply, inspection, service, installation, contracting for
21 installation, repair, marketing, warranting, re-branding, re-manufacturing for others, packaging
22 and advertising of Defendants' Products, which clearly indicated the hazards and dangerous
23 propensities of asbestos presented a substantial danger to users of and bystanders to
24 Defendants' Products, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son through the
25 intended and reasonably foreseeable use of said products.
26 10. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them knew, or reasonably
27 should have known, that Defendants' Products were dangerous and were likely to be
28 dangerous when used in their intended and reasonably foreseeable manner.
11 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 11. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them knew, or reasonably
2 should have known that Defendants' Products would be personally used, worked with, mixed,
3 swept, or otherwise disturbed in their ordinary, intended and foreseeable use, resulting in the
4 release of airborne hazardous and dangerous asbestos fibers, and that through such activity,
5 "exposed persons," including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN herein, would be exposed to
6 hazardous and dangerous asbestos fibers. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of
7 them knew, or reasonably should have known that users such as Plaintiff LINDA
8 ZIMMERMAN, her son, and others in their positions personally using, working with,
9 handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants' Products
10 would not realize or know the dangers. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them
11 negligently failed to adequately warn or instruct of the dangers of Defendants' Products and
12 failed to recall and/or retrofit Defendants' Products. A reasonable designer, manufacturer,
13 distributor, seller, installer, buyer or supplier, under the same or similar circumstances, would
14 have warned of the dangers to avoid exposing others to a foreseeable risk of harm. The
15 negligent failure of Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them to warn was a
16 substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN.
17 12. Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son personally used, worked with,
18 handled, applied, were in close proximity to, and/or were otherwise exposed to asbestos from
19 Defendants' Products referred to herein in a manner that was reasonably foreseeable to
20 Defendants, and each of them. Plaintiffs exposure to. Defendants' Products occurred at
21 various locations set forth in Exhibit "A" which is attached hereto and incorporated by
22 reference herein.
23 13. As a direct and proximate result of the conduct of the Defendants, their
24 "alternate entities", and each of them as aforesaid, Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN's
25 exposure to asbestos from the use of Defendants' Products caused severe and permanent injury
26 to the Plaintiff, the nature of which along with the date of Plaintiffs diagnosis and the date she
27 learned such injuries were attributable to exposure to Defendants' Products are set forth in
28 Exhibit "B", which is attached hereto and incorporated by reference herein. Plaintiff is
12 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 informed and believes, and thereon alleges that progressive lung disease, cancer and other
2 serious diseases are caused by inhalation of asbestos fibers without perceptible trauma and that
3 said disease results from exposure to Defendants' Products over a period of time.
4 14. Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN suffers from malignant pleural mesothelioma
5 caused by exposure to asbestos from Defendants' Products including those identified in
6 paragraph 3 above. Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN was not aware at the time of exposure
7 that Defendants' Products presented any risk of injury and/or disease.
8 15. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of Defendants, their
9 "alternate entities" and each of them, Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN has suffered and will
10 continue to suffer permanent injuries and future injuries to her person, body and health
11 including, but not limited to, pain, discomfort, loss of weight, loss of appetite, fatigue,
12 somnolence, lethargy, dyspnea, dysphagia, and other physical symptoms, and the mental and
13 emotional distress attendant thereto, as Plaintiff's malignant mesothelioma progresses, all to
14 her general damage in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of a limited civil case.
15 16. As a direct and proximate result of the aforesaid conduct of the Defendants, their
16 "alternate entities" and each of them, Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN has incurred, is
17 presently incurring, and will incur in the future liability for physicians, surgeons, nurses,
18 hospital care, medicine, hospices, X-rays and other medical treatment, the true and exact
19 amount thereof being presently unknown to Plaintiff, subject to proof at trial.
20 17. As a further direct and proximate result of the said conduct of the Defendants,
21 their "alternate entities" and each of them, Plaintiff has incurred and will incur loss of income,
22 wages, profits and commissions, a diminishment of earning potential, and other pecuniary
23 losses, the true and exact amount thereof being presently unknown to Plaintiff, subject to proof
24 at trial.
25 18. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of
26 them also engaged in the following wrongful acts:
27 (a) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them suppressed from all
28 consumers and individuals, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son, medical
13 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 and scientific information concerning the health hazards associated with inhalation of asbestos,
2 including the substantial risk of injury or death therefrom. Although Defendants, and each of
3 them knew of the substantial risks associated with exposure to asbestos, they willfully and
4 knowingly concealed such information from the users of and individuals exposed to
5 Defendants' Products in conscious disregard of the rights, safety and welfare of "exposed
6 persons", including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN;
7 (b) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them belonged to, participated
8 in, and financially supported industry organizations including, but not limited to, the Cosmetic
9 Toiletry and Fragrance Association (now Personal Care Products Council), the Gypsum
10 Association, Asbestos Information Association, 'Industrial Hygiene Foundation and others,
11 which for and on behalf of Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them actively
12 promoted the suppression of information about the dangers of asbestos to users of and
13 individuals exposed to the aforementioned Defendants' Products, thereby misleading Plaintiff
14 LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son as to the safety of Defendants' Products. Through their
15 participation and association with such industry organizations, Defendants and each of them
16 knowingly and deliberately concealed and suppressed the true information regarding asbestos
17 and its dangers, and propagated misinformation intended to instill in users of and individuals
18 exposed to Defendants' Products a false security about the safety of Defendants' Products.
19 The Dust Control Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee of the
20 Asbestos Textile Institute, was specifically enlisted to study the subject of dust control.
21 Discussions in this committee were held many times regarding the dangers inherent in asbestos
22 and the dangers, which arise from the lack of control of dust, and such information was
23 suppressed from public dissemination from 1946 to a date unknown to Plaintiff LINDA
24 ZIMMERMAN at this time;
25 (c) Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at Asbestos and
26 Thetford Mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of the workers at Raybestos-Manhattan
27 plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, Defendants, their "alternate entities", and
28 each of them knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection
14 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated
2 through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other Defendants, 3 their "alternate entities", and each of them herein. Between 1942 and 1950, the Defendants,
4 their "alternate entities", and each of them failed to provide this information to consumers;
5 (d) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them failed to warn Plaintiff
6 LINDA ZIMMERMAN, her son, and others of the nature of Defendants' Products which were
7 dangerous when breathed and which could cause pathological effects without noticeable
8 trauma, despite the fact that Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them possessed 9 knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that Defendant's Products were dangerous and a
10 threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith;
11 (e) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them failed to provide Plaintiff
12 LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son with information concerning adequate protective masks
13 and other equipment devised to be used when personally using, working with, handling,
14 applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants' Products and those of
15 their "alternate entities", and each of them, despite knowing that such protective measures
16 were necessary, and that they were under a duty to disclose that Defendants' Products were
17 dangerous and would result in injury to Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and others when
18 personally using, working with, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise
19 exposed to Defendants' Products;
20 (f) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them knew and failed to
21 disclose that Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and anyone similarly situated, upon inhalation
22 of asbestos would, in time, have a substantial risk of developing irreversible conditions of
23 pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma and/or cancer;
24 (g) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them failed to provide
25 information of the true nature of the hazards of Defendants' Products and that exposure to
26 Defendants' Products would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the
27 public, including buyers, users, and physicians employed by Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN r....,:• 28 so that said physicians could not examine, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff and others who were
15 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 exposed to asbestos, despite the fact that Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of
2 them were under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading.
3 19. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them, and their officers,
4 directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified,
5 and had full knowledge of, or should have known of, each of the acts set forth herein.
6 Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them are liable for the oppressive and
7 malicious acts of their "alternate entities", and each of them, and each Defendant's officers,
8 directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified,
9 and had full knowledge of, or should have known of the acts of each of their "alternate
10 entities" as set forth herein.
11 20. The herein-described conduct of Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each
12 of them was and is willful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and
13 indifference to the safety and health of "exposed persons," including Plaintiff LINDA
14 ZIMMERMAN, in that Defendants, and each of them continued to manufacture, market and/or
15 sell Defendants' Products known to cause asbestos to be released and to cause severe,
16 permanent injuries and death, despite possessing knowledge of the substantial hazards posed
17 by use of Defendants' Products, in order to continue to profit financially therefrom.
18 Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them engaged in such conduct so despicable,
19 contemptible, base, vile, miserable, wretched and loathsome as to be looked down upon and
20 despised by ordinary people and justifies an award of punitive and exemplary damages
21 pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294. Plaintiff, for the sake of example and by way of
22 punishing Defendants, seeks punitive damages according to proof.
23 21. Defendants, and each of them, engaged in conduct which was intended by
24 Defendants, and each of them to cause injury to the Plaintiff, and despicable conduct which
25 was carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety
26 of others, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN.
27 22. Defendants, and each of them engaged in the despicable conduct described
28 herein that subjected persons, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN, to cruel and unjust
16 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 hardship in the form of severe, debilitating and fatal diseases like asbestosis, lung cancer and
2 mesothelioma, in conscious disregard of those persons' rights.
3 23. As a direct and proximate result of such intentional conduct by Defendants, their
4 "alternate entities", and each of them, Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN sustained the injuries
5 and damages alleged herein.
6 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, their "alternate
7 entities", and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
8 SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION (Strict Liability) 9
10 AS AND FOR A SECOND, SEPARATE, FURTHER AND DISTINCT CAUSE OF ACTION FOR STRICT LIABILITY, PLAINTIFF COMPLAINS OF DEFENDANTS DOES 1- 11 450, THEIR "ALTERNATE ENTITIES" AND EACH OF. THEM, AND ALLEGES AS FOLLOWS: 12 24. Plaintiff incorporates herein by reference, as though fully set forth therein, each 13 and every one of the general allegations and the allegations contained in the First Cause of 14 Action herein. 15 25. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them sold the aforementioned 16 Defendants' Products, which were defective in that they failed to adequately warn or instruct 17 of the known and knowable dangers and risks of the ordinary, intended, and foreseeable use of 18 Defendants' Products, which dangers and risks would not have been and were not recognized 19 by ordinary consumers and individuals of Defendants' Products, including Plaintiff LINDA 20 ZIMMERMAN and her son, and the lack of sufficient instructions and/or warnings was a 21 substantial factor in causing harm to Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and others in her and 22 her son's positions who were personally using, working with, handling, applying, in close 23 proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants' Products. 24 26. Defendants' Products were defective and unsafe for their intended purpose and 25 foreseeable use in that when personally used, worked with, handled, removed, mixed, swept or 26 otherwise disturbed, Defendants' Products would result in the release, and therefore inhalation 27 of hazardous and dangerous asbestos fibers by exposed persons, including Plaintiff LINDA
ZIMMERMAN. The defect existed in all of Defendants' Products when they left the 17 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 possession of the Defendants, their "alternate entities" and each of them. At the time
2 Defendants' Products were used by Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son, and others
3 in their positions personally using, working with, handling, applying, in close proximity to,
4 and/or otherwise exposed to, Defendants' Products were substantially the same as when they
5 left the possession of the Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them, and/or any
6 changes made to Defendants' Products after they left the possession of Defendants, their
7 "alternate entities", and each of them were reasonably foreseeable to Defendants, their
8 "alternate entities" and each of them. Defendants' Products were used by Plaintiff LINDA 9 ZIMMERMAN, her son, and others in their positions personally using, working with,
10 handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants' Products in
11 a way that was reasonably foreseeable to Defendants and each of them. The defect in
12 Defendants' Products was a substantial factor in causing harm and personal injuries to Plaintiff
13 LINDA ZIMMERMAN, including malignant mesothelioma, while being used in a reasonably
14 foreseeable manner, thereby rendering Defendants' Products defective, unsafe, and
15 unreasonably dangerous for their ordinary and intended use.
16 27. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and conduct outlined herein,
17 Defendants' Products were defective in that they failed to perform as safely as an ordinary
18 consumer would have expected in that Defendants' Products, and each of them caused
19 respirable asbestos fibers to be released during their ordinary and intended use, and such
20 hazardous exposures lacked any perceptible qualities to the human body, yet they cause severe
21 and fatal diseases including asbestosis, lung cancer, mesothelioma and other cancers in
22 humans. Plaintiff further alleges that "exposed persons", including Plaintiff LINDA
23 ZIMMERMAN, were unaware of the harmful effects of asbestos and further unaware of the
24 harmful exposures to Defendants' Products when such exposures occurred, and thus the failure
25 of Defendants' Products to perform as safely as Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN had reason to G D 26 expect was a substantial factor in causing her injuries. Moreover, Defendants' Products were 27 also defective in their design under the "risk/benefit test" of design defect because the risks of 28 Defendants' Products outweighed their benefits.
18 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 28. As a direct and proximate result of the actions and conduct outlined herein,
2 Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN has suffered the injuries and damages alleged herein.
3 29. Plaintiff further alleges that Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of
4 them also engaged in the following wrongful acts:
5 (a) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them suppressed from all
6 consumers, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son, medical and scientific
7 information concerning the health hazards associated with inhalation of asbestos, including the
8 substantial risk of injury or death therefrom. Although Defendants, and each of them knew of
9 the substantial risks associated with exposure to asbestos, they willfully and knowingly
10 concealed such information from the users of and bystanders to Defendants' Products in
11 conscious disregard of the rights, safety and welfare of "exposed persons", including Plaintiff
12 LINDA ZIMMERMAN;
13 (b) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them belonged to, participated
14 in, and financially supported industry organizations including, but not limited to, the Cosmetic
15 Toiletry and Fragrance Association (now Personal Care Products Council), the Gypsum
16 Association, Asbestos Information Association, Industrial Hygiene Foundation and others,
17 which, for and on behalf of Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them actively
18 promoted the suppression of information about the dangers of asbestos to users and bystanders
19 of the aforementioned Defendants' Products, thereby misleading Plaintiff LINDA
20 ZIMMERMAN and her son as to the safety of Defendants' Products. Through their
21 participation and association with such industry organizations, Defendants, and each of them
22 knowingly and deliberately concealed and suppressed the true information regarding asbestos
23 and its dangers, and propagated misinformation intended to instill in users of and bystanders to
24 Defendants' Products a false security about the safety of said products. The Dust Control
25 Committee, which changed its name to the Air Hygiene Committee of the Asbestos Textile
26 Institute, was specifically enlisted to study the subject of dust control. Discussions in this
27 committee were held many times regarding the dangers inherent in asbestos and the dangers
28 which arise from the lack of control of dust, and such information was suppressed from public
19 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 dissemination from 1946 to a date unknown to Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN at this time;
2 (c) Commencing in 1930 with the study of mine and mill workers at Asbestos and
3 Thetford Mines in Quebec, Canada, and the study of the workers at Raybestos-Manhattan
4 plants in Manheim and Charleston, South Carolina, Defendants, their "alternate entities", and
5 each of them knew and possessed medical and scientific information of the connection
6 between the inhalation of asbestos fibers and asbestosis, which information was disseminated
7 through the Asbestos Textile Institute and other industry organizations to all other Defendants,
8 their "alternate entities", and each of them herein. Between 1942 and 1950, the Defendants,
9 their "alternate entities" and each of them, failed to provide this information to consumers;
10 (d) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them, failed to warn Plaintiff
11 LINDA ZIMMERMAN, her son, and others of the nature of Defendants' Products which were
12 dangerous when breathed and which could cause pathological effects without noticeable
13 trauma, despite the fact that Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them possessed.
14 knowledge and were under a duty to disclose that Defendants' Products were dangerous and a
15 threat to the health of persons coming into contact therewith;
16 (e) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them failed to provide Plaintiff
17 LINDA ZIMMERMAN and her son with information concerning adequate protective masks
18 and other equipment devised to be used when personally using, working with, handling,
19 applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to Defendants' Products, their
20 "alternate entities", and each of them, despite knowing that such protective measures were
21 necessary, and that they were under a duty to disclose that Defendants' Products were
22 dangerous and would result in injury to Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and others personally
23 using, working with, handling, applying, in close proximity to, and/or otherwise exposed to
24 Defendants' Products; 25 (f) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them knew and failed to
26 disclose that Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN and anyone similarly situated, upon inhalation
27 of asbestos would in time have a substantial risk of developing irreversible conditions of
28 pneumoconiosis, asbestosis, mesothelioma and/or cancer;
20 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 (g) Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them failed to provide
2 information of the true nature of the hazards of Defendants' Products and that exposure
3 Defendants' Products would cause pathological effects without noticeable trauma to the public
4 including buyers, users, and physicians employed by Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN, so that
5 said physicians could not examine, diagnose, and treat Plaintiff and others who were exposed
6 to asbestos, despite the fact that Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them were
7 under a duty to so inform and said failure was misleading.
8 30. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them, and their officers, 9 directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified,
10 and had full knowledge of or should have known of each of the acts set forth herein.
11 Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each of them are liable for the oppressive and
12 malicious acts of their "alternate entities", and each of them, and each Defendant's officers,
13 directors, and managing agents participated in, authorized, expressly and impliedly ratified,
14 and had full knowledge of, or should have known of the acts of each of their "alternate
15 entities" as set forth herein.
16 31. The herein-described conduct of Defendants, their "alternate entities", and each
17 of them was and is willful, malicious, oppressive, outrageous, and in conscious disregard and.
18 indifference to the safety and health of "exposed persons," including Plaintiff LINDA
19 ZIMMERMAN, in that Defendants, and each of them continued to manufacture, market and/or
20 sell dangerous products known to cause severe, permanent injuries and death, despite
21 possessing knowledge of the substantial hazards posed by use of Defendants' Products, in
22 order to continue to profit financially therefrom. Defendants, their "alternate entities", and
23 each of them engaged in such conduct so despicable, contemptible, base, vile, miserable,
24 wretched and loathsome as to be looked down upon and despised by ordinary people and
25 justifies an award of punitive and exemplary damages pursuant to Civil Code Section 3294.
26 Plaintiff, for the sake of example and by way of punishing said Defendants, seeks punitive
27 damages according to proof.
28 32. Defendants, and each of them engaged in conduct which was intended by
21 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 Defendants, and each of them to cause injury to the Plaintiff, and despicable conduct which
2 was carried on by the Defendants with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety
3 of others, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN.
4 33. Defendants, and each of them engaged in the despicable conduct described
5 herein that subjected persons, including Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN, to cruel and unjust
6 hardship in the form of severe, debilitating and fatal diseases like asbestosis, lung cancer and
7 mesothelioma, in conscious disregard of those persons' rights.
8 34. As a direct and proximate result of such intentional conduct by Defendants, their
9 "alternate entities", and each of them, Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN sustained the injuries
10 and damages alleged herein.
11 WHEREFORE, Plaintiff prays for judgment against Defendants, and their "alternate
12 entities", and each of them, as hereinafter set forth.
13 Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN:
14 1. For Plaintiff's general damages according to proof;
15 2. For Plaintiffs loss of income, wages, household services, and earning
16 potential according to proof;
17 3. For Plaintiffs medical and related expenses according to proof;
18 4. For Plaintiffs cost of suit herein;
19 5. For exemplary or punitive damages according to proof;
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
22 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 6. For such other and further relief as the Court may deem just and proper,
2 including costs and prejudgment interest as provided in C.C.P. Section 998,
3 C.C.P. Section 1032, and related provisions of law.
4
5
6 DATED: September 5, 2018 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C. 7
8
9 Bv: Stuart Purdy 10 Conor Nideffer 11 And 12
13 JOHN M. CARON, Esq., CA Bar No. 130633 THE LAW OFFICE OF WORTHINGTON & CARON, 14 P.C. 273 W. 7t' Street 15 San Pedro, California 90731 Telephone (310) 221-8090 16 Facsimile (310) 221-8095
17 Attorneys for Plaintiff 18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
23 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL
2 Plaintiff hereby demands trial by jury as to all issues so triable. 3
4 DATED: September 5, 2018 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, P.C.
5
6 By:
7 Conor Nideffer 8 And 9 JOHN M. CARON, Esq., CA Bar No. 130633 10 THE LAW OFFICE OF WORTHINGTON & CARON, P. C. 11 273 W. 7th Street San Pedro, California 90731 12 Telephone (310) 221-8090 Facsimile (310) 221-8095 13 Attorneys for Plaintiff 14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
24 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 EXHIBIT "A"
2 Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN's exposure to asbestos and asbestos-containing products
3 occurred at various locations within the States of Illinois and California including, but not
4 limited to:
5 Location of Exposure Job Title Exposure Date(s)
6 Personal residences in Personal use of talcum powder products; Approximately Litchfield, Illinois; Los 1952 - 2018 7 Angeles, California; Woodland Hills, California; Use of talcum powder products on infant Approximately 8 Canoga Park, California; children 1970-1972 and Simi Valley, California; 1974-1976 9 Carpinteria, California.
10
11 EXPOSURE THROUGH SON, STEVEN ZIMMERMAN
12 Location of Exposure Job Title Exposure Date(s) 13 Personal residences in Repair and maintenance of personal Approximately 14 Canoga Park, California vehicles 1986-1992
15 Sid's Chevron Station, Laborer and Automotive mechanic Approximately Canoga Park, California 1987-1990 16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
G'D 27
28
25 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS 1 EXHIBIT "B"
2 Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN's exposure to Defendants' Products caused
3 severe and permanent injury to Plaintiff LINDA ZIMMERMAN including, but not limited to,
4 mesothelioma. Plaintiff was diagnosed with mesothelioma on or about June 16, 2018.
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
27
28
26 COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY - ASBESTOS ^i h)( 3 ,Jtltr' 0 9 S
.5 $Y !, pC''J A f) .: 6
7 SUF?RIOR COURT OF THE STP.T£ OF LFOP..tiI? a FOR. THE COUNTY O' LOS ANGEL2S 9
10 In re L*•s -Engel es P.sbestcs ) too, C 700000 11 Licicati.on • General Orders ) FIPST k1i£NDED CEN£RkL ORDER NO, 1
13
14 T h-,Court, having conducted a hearing on its own motion,
15 i ssues the O rde,5 as hereafter set for:),
16 IT IS -EP r3Y ORDERED. that. all actions currently pending and. i7 hereafter filed in t'r,e above-entitled Court alleging personal
18 o r wr ongful .ds _^th due to ?l^O:i^,'.re to an
19 containing product (hereafter "lr.,s P-geles P.sbes: Liti; tic "
20 are determined to be comple), .• litigation within the meaning of
21. Cal i_`orni'a Rules of 1'ourt, Appendix., Division 1, Standards -of
2 2: ^r,;dicial Adnrinist=a=ion Recommended :y tn_ Judicial Council
(hereafter "Standards of audic.ixl, Administration"), Section 19,
IT IS cUR'fl. EP OP,I7?'RLD that all Loa P.sbestos .
Iaicigation actions shall continue, td lt'a filed in the Cent: al
t4,strict cf-the above-entitl'=d court both before and after the hr distribution of such cases into the Central Di'strict's
Irrdebendent Cal=_ndaring courts,. The gertificate. of.
assignor_nt for each Los Pr,ge2es Asbestos Litigationcrae shall
i^I •` -1- •i II ;tt r_c,n,-3in LY:e - fvI1cwi ,g linS!t.; e "e .led _:, Cti1= r=Ctia. D i 5Cr,_C: pu_"SUBTi: to Fl'rsC L.m=r,c 1 General Or_^,_1 No. 1 C:,ilLal:1°_.I _:1 L.he aer,eral ord_r file, File N. C 100000.11 .. 1
n '"^ 7 r 7 .^^'
mv"CE E MITCHELL Commissionarof "_he supericr Court CM-010 ATTORNEY OR PARTY WITHOUT ATTORNEY (Name, Scare aarnumbe,number,and ad FOR COURT USE ONLY Nideffer SBN: 253931 SIMON GREENSTONE PANATIER, RC. 3780 Kilroy Airport Way, Suite 540, Long Beach, CA 90806 TELEPHONE NO.: 562-590-3400 FAX NO.: 562-590-3412 FILED ATTORNEY FOR (Name): LINDA ZIMMERMAN Superior Court of California SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES County of I op Ar)nn_Ing STREET ADDRESS: III North Hill Street MAILING ADDRESS: 111 North Hill Street SEP 05 2018 CITY AND ZIP CODE: Los Angeles, 90012
BRANCH NAME: Stanley Mosk Courthouse on Hill St. ur, CASE NAME: LINDA ZIMMERMAN vs. AUTOZONE, INC., et al. y
CASE NUMBER: CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Complex Case Designation ® Unlimited Limited BC 720153 (Amount (Amount El Counter E] Joinder demanded demanded is Filed with first appearance by defendant JUDGE: exceeds $25,000) $25,000 or less) (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.402) DEPT: Items 1-6, below must be completed (see instructions on page 2). 1. Check one box below for the case type that best describes.this case: Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation Auto (22) Breach of contract/warranty (06) (Cal. Rules of Court, rules 3.4004.403) Uninsured motorist (46) Rule 3.740 collections (09) LI Antitrust/Trade regulation (03) Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/Property Other collections (09) Construction defect (10) Damage/Wrongful Death) Tort Insurance coverage (18) LI Mass tort (40) ® Asbestos (04) 0 Other contract (37) Securities litigation (28) Product liability (24) Real Property Environmental/Toxic tort (30) Medical malpractice (45) Eminent domain/Inverse 0 Insurance coverage claims arising from the U Other PI/PD/WD (23) condemnation (14) above listed provisionally complex case types (41) Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort Wrongful eviction (33) L_J Business tort/unfair business practice (07) 0 Other real property (26) Enforcement of Judgment Civil rights (08) Unlawful Detainer Enforcement of judgment (20) Defamation (13) Commercial (31) Miscellaneous Civil Complaint Fraud (16) Residential (32) RICO (27) Intellectual property (19) Drugs (38) Other complaint (not specified above) (42) Professional negligence (25) Judicial Review Miscellaneous Civil Petition Other non-PI/PD/WD tort (35) U Asset forfeiture (05) Partnership and corporate governance (21) Employment Petition re: arbitration award (11) 0 Other petition (not specified above) (43) Wrongful termination (36) Writ of mandate (02) 0 Other employment (15) Other judicial review (39) 2. This case is is not complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court. If the case is complex, mark the factors requiring exceptional judicial management: a. ® Large number of separately represented parties d. Large number of witnesses b. ® Extensive motion practice raising difficult or novel e. Coordination with related actions pending in one or more courts issues that will be time-consuming to resolve in other counties, states, or countries, or in a federal court c. ® Substantial amount of documentary evidence f. Substantial postjudgment judicial supervision 3. Remedies sought (check all that apply): a.® monetary b. L non monetary; declaratory or injunctive relief c. punitive 4. Number of causes of action (specify): 5. This'case LI is ® is not a class action suit. 6. If there are any known related cases, file and serve a notice of related case. (You m^.y use form 115.) Date: September 5, 2018 Conor Nideffer ' (TYPE OR PRINT NAME) (SIGNA SRE OIj PARTY OR ATTORNEY FOR PARTY) NOTICE • Plaintiff must file this cover sheet with the first paper filed in the action or proceeding (except small claims cases or cases filed under the Probate Code, Family Code, or Welfare and Institutions Code). (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.220.) Failure to file may result in sanctions. • File this cover sheet in addition to any cover sheet required by local court rule. tai • If this case is complex under rule 3.400 et seq. of the California Rules of Court, you must serve a copy of this cover sheet on all other parties to the action or proceeding. • Unless this is a collections case under rule 3.740 or a complex case, this cover sheet will be used for statistical purposes only. ageiof2 Form Adopted for Mandatory Use Cal. Rules of Court, rules 2.30, 3.220, 3.400-3.403, 3.740; Judicial Council of California CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET Cal. Standards of Judicial Administration, std. 3.10 CM-010 [Rev. July 1, 2007) www.courtinfo.cagov Westtaw Doc & Form Builder CM-010 INSTRUCTIONS ON HOW TO COMPLETE THE COVER SHEET To Plaintiffs and Others Filing First Papers. If you are filing a first paper (for example, a complaint) iri a civil case, you must complete and file, along with your first paper, the Civil Case Cover Sheet contained on page 1. This information will be used to compile statistics about the types and numbers of cases filed.. You must complete items 1 through 6 on the sheet. In item 1, you must check one box for the case type that best describes the case. If the case fits both a general and a more specific type of case listed in item 1, check the more specific one. If the case has multiple causes of action, check the box that best indicates the primary cause of action. To assist you in completing the, sheet, examples of the cases that belong under each case type in item 1 are provided below. A cover sheet must be filed only with your initial paper. Failure to file a cover. sheet with the first paper filed in a civil case may subject a party, its counsel, or both to sanctions under rules 2.30 and 3.220 of the California Rules of Court. To Parties in Rule 3.740 Collections Cases. A "collections case" under rule 3.740 is defined as an action for recovery of money owed in a sum stated to be certain that is not more than $25,000, exclusive of interest and attorney's fees, arising from a transaction in which property, services, or money was acquired on credit. A collections case does not include an action seeking the following: (1) tort damages, (2) punitive damages, (3) recovery of real property, (4) recovery of personal property, or (5) a prejudgment writ of attachment. The identification of a case as a rule 3.740 collections case on this form means that it will be exempt from the general time-for-service requirements and case, management rules, unless a defendant files a responsive pleading. A rule 3.740 collections case will be subject to the requirements for service and obtaining a judgment in rule 3.740. To Parties in'Complex Cases. In complex cases only, parties must also use the Civil Case Cover Sheet to designate whether the case is complex. If a plaintiff believes the case is complex under rule 3.400 of the California Rules of Court, this must be indicated by completing the appropriate boxes in items 1 and 2. If a plaintiff designates a case as complex, the cover sheet must be served with the complaint on all parties to the action. A defendant may file and serve no later than the time of its first appearance a joinder in the plaintiff's designation, a counter-designation that the case is not complex, or, if the plaintiff has made no designation, a designation that the case is complex. CASE TYPES AND EXAMPLES Auto Tort Contract Provisionally Complex Civil Litigation (Cal. Auto (22)-Personal Injury/Property Breach of Contract/Warranty (06) Rules of Court Rules 3.400-3.403) . Damage/Wrongful Death Breach of Rental/Lease Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) Uninsured Motorist (46) (if the Contract (not unlawful detainer Construction Defect (10) case involves an uninsured or wrongful eviction) Claims Involving Mass Tort (40) motorist claim subject to Contract/Warranty Breach-Seller Securities Litigation (28) arbitration, check this item Plaintiff (not fraud or negligence) Environmental/Toxic Tort (30) instead of Auto) Negligent Breach of Contract/ Insurance Coverage Claims Other PI/PD/WD (Personal Injury/ Warranty (arising from provisionally complex Property Damage/Wrongful Death) Other Breach of Contract/Warranty case type listed above) (41) Tort Collections (e.g., money owed, open Enforcement of Judgment - Asbestos (04) book accounts) (09) Enforcement of Judgment (20) Asbestos Property Damage Collection Case-Seller Plaintiff Abstract of Judgment (Out of Asbestos Personal Injury/ Other Promissory Note/Collections County) Wrongful Death Case Confession of Judgment (non- Product Liability (not asbestos or Insurance Coverage (not provisionally domestic relations) toxic/environmental) (24) complex) (18) Sister Slate Judgment Medical Malpractice (45) Auto Subrogation Administrative Agency Award Medical Malpractice- Other Coverage (not unpaid taxes) Physicians & Surgeons Other Contract (37) Petition/Certification of Entry of Other Professional Health Care Contractual Fraud Judgment on Unpaid Taxes Malpractice Other Contract Dispute Other Enforcement of Judgment Case Other PI/PD/WD (23) Real Property Premises Liability (e.g. , slip Eminent Domain/Inverse Miscellaneous Civil Complaint and fall), Condemnation (14) RICO (27) Intentional Bodily Injury/PD/WD Wrongful Eviction (33) Other Complaint (not specified above) (42) (e.g., assault, vandalism) Other Real Property (e.g ., quiet title) (26) Intentional Infliction of Declaratory Relief Only Writ of Possession of Real Property Injunctive Relief Only (non- Emotional Distress Mortgage Foreclosure Negligent Infliction of harassment) Quiet Title Mechanics Lien Emotional Distress Other Real Property (not eminent Other Commercial Complaint Other PI/PD/WD domain, landlord/tenant, or Case (non-tort/non-complex) Non-PI/PD/WD (Other) Tort foreclosure) Other Civil Complaint Unlawful Detainer Business Tort/Unfair Business (non-tort/non-complex) Commercial (31) Practice (07) Miscellaneous Civil Petition Civil Rights (e.g., discrimination, Residential (32) Partnership and Corporate false arrest) (not civil Drugs (38) (if the case involves illegal Governance (21) harassment) (08) drugs, check this item; otherwise, Other Petition (not specified Defamation (e.g., slander, libel) report as Commercial or Residential) above) (43) (13) Judicial Review Civil Harassment Fraud (16) Asset Forfeiture (05) Workplace Violence Intellectual Property (19) Petition Re: Arbitration Award (11) Elder/Dependent Adult Professional Negligence (25) Writ of Mandate (02) Abuse Legal Malpractice Writ-Administrative Mandamus Election Contest Other Professional Malpractice. Writ-Mandamus on Limited Court Petition for Name Change (not medical or legal) Case Matter Petition for Relief From Late Other Non-PI/PD/WD Tort (35) Writ-Other Limited Court Case Claim Employment Review Other Civil Petition Wrongful Termination (36) Other Judicial Review (39) Other Employment (15) Review of Health Officer Order Notice of Appeal-Labor Commissioner Appeals CM-010 [Rev. July 1 , 20071 Page 2 of 2 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET SHORT TITLE: LINDA ZIMMERMAN vs. AUTOZONE, INC., et al. CASE NUMBER BC 17 2
CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION (CERTIFICATE OF GROUNDS FOR ASSIGNMENT TO COURTHOUSE LOCATION)
This form is required pursuant to Local Rule 2.3 in all new civil case filings in the Los Angeles Superior Court.
Step 1: After completing the Civil Case Cover Sheet (Judicial Council form CM-010), find the exact case type in Column A that corresponds to the case type indicated in the Civil Case Cover Sheet.
Step 2: In Column B, check the box for the type of action that best describes the nature of the case.
Step 3: In Column C, circle the number which explains the'reason for the court filing location you have chosen.
Applicable Reasons for Choosing Court Filing Location (Column C)
1. Class actions must be filed in the Stanley Mosk Courthouse, Central District. 7. Location where petitioner resides. 2. Permissive filing in central district. 8. Location wherein defendant/respondent functions wholly. 3. Location where cause of action arose. 9. Location where one or more of the parties reside. 4. Mandatory personal injury filing in North District. 10. Location of Labor Commissioner Office. 11. Mandatory filing location (Hub Cases - unlawful detainer, limited 5. Location where performance required or defendant resides. non-collection, limited collection, or personal injury). 6. Location of property or permanently garaged vehicle.
A B C Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Applicable Reasons - Category No. (Check only one) See Step 3 Above
Auto (22) q A7100 Motor Vehicle - Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death 1, 4, 11
Uninsured Motorist (46) q A7110 Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death - Uninsured Motorist 4, 11
q A6070 Asbestos Property Damage 1, 11 Asbestos (04) ® A7221 Asbestos - Personal Injury/Wrongful Death 1, 11
Product Liability (24) q A7260 Product Liability (not asbestos or toxic/environmental) 1 , 4, 11
El A721 0 Medical Malpractice - Physicians & Surgeons 1, 4, 11 Medical Malpractice (45) q A7240 Other Professional Health Care Malpractice 1 4 11
q A7250 Premises Liability (e.g., slip and fall) Other Personal 1 , 4, 11 q A7230 Intentional Bodily Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death (e.g., Injury Property 1 4 11 Damage Wrongful assault, vandalism, etc.) Death (23) q A7270 Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress 1, 4, 11 1, 4, 11 q A7220 Other Personal Injury/Property Damage/Wrongful Death
( .) LACIV 109 (Rev 2/16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 1 of 4 SHORT TITLE: LINDA ZIMMERMAN vs. AUTOZONE, INC., et al. CASE NUMBER
A B C Applicable Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above
Business Tort (07) q A6029 Other Commercial/Business Tort (not fraud/breach of contract) 1, 2, 3
Civil Rights (08) q A6005 Civil Rights/Discrimination 1 , 2, 3
Defamation (13) q A6010 Defamation (slander/libel) 1 , 2, 3
Fraud (16) q A6013 Fraud (no contract) 1, 2,3
q A6017 Legal Malpractice 1, 2, 3 Professional Negligence (25) q A6050 Other Professional Malpractice (not medical or legal) 1 , 2, 3
Other (35) q . A6025 Other Non-Personal Injury/Property Damage tort 1, 2, 3
Wrongful Termination (36) q A6037 Wrongful Termination 1, 2, 3
q A6024 Other Employment Complaint Case 1, 2, 3 Other Employment (15) q A6109 Labor Commissioner Appeals 10
q • A6004 Breach of Rental/Lease Contract (not unlawful detainer or wrongful eviction) 2, 5 Breach of Contract/ Warranty 2, 5 (06) q A6008 Contract/Warranty Breach -Seller Plaintiff (no fraud/negligence) 1, 2, 5 (not insurance) q A6019 Negligent Breach of Contract/Warranty (no fraud) 1, 2, 5 q A6028 Other Breach of Contract/Warranty (not fraud or negligence)
U q A6002 Collections Case-Seller Plaintiff 5, 6, 11 Collections (09) q 0 A6012 Other Promissory Note/Collections Case 5, 11 0 q A6034 Collections Case-Purchased Debt (Charged Off Consumer Debt 5, 6, 11 Purchased on or after January 1 2014
Insurance Coverage (18) q A6015 Insurance Coverage (not complex) 1, 2, 5, 8
q A6009 Contractual Fraud 1, 2, 3, 5 Other Contract (37) q A6031 Tortious Interference 1, 2, 3, 5 q A6027 Other Contract Dispute(not breach/insurance/fraud/negligence) 1, 2, 3, 8, 9
Eminent Domain/Inverse q A7300 Eminent Domain/Condemnation Condemnation (14) Number of parcels 2, 6
Wrongful Eviction (33) q A6023 Wrongful Eviction Case 2, 6
q A6018 Mortgage Foreclosure 2, 6 Other Real Property (26) q 'A6032 Quiet Title 2, 6 q A6060 Other Real Property (not eminent domain, landlord/tenant, foreclosure) 2, 6
Unlawful Detainer-Commercial q A6021 Unlawful Detainer-Commercial (not drugs or wrongful eviction) (31) 6, 11
Unlawful Detainer-Residential q 32 A6020 Unlawful Detainer-Residential (not drugs or wrongful eviction) 6, 11 Unlawful Detainer- q A6020FUnlawful Detainer-Post-Foreclosure Post-Foreclosure (34) 2, 6, 11
Unlawful Detainer-Drugs (38) q A6022 Unlawful Detainer-Drugs 2, 6, 11
Cry LACiV 109 (Rev 2/16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEM ENT OF LOCATION Page 2 of 4 SHORT TITLE: LINDA ZIMMERMAN vs. AUTOZONE, INC., et al. CASE NUMBER
A . B C Applicable Civil Case Cover Sheet Type of Action Reasons - See Step 3 Category No. (Check only one) Above
Asset Forfeiture (05) q A6108 Asset Forfeiture Case 2, 3, 6
Petition re Arbitration (11) q A6115 Petition to Compel/ConfirmNacate Arbitration 2, 5
q A6151 Writ - Administrative Mandamus 2, 8 Writ of Mandate (02) q A6152 Writ - Mandamus on Limited Court Case Matter 2 q A6153 Writ - Other Limited Court Case Review 2
Other Judicial Review (39). q A6150 Other Writ /Judicial Review 2,8
Antitrust/Trade Regulation (03) q A6003 Antitrust/Trade Regulation 1 , 2, 8
Construction Defect (10) q A6007 Construction Defect 1,2,3
q Claims Involving Mass Tort A6006 Claims Involving Mass Tort 1, 2, 8 (40)
Securities Litigation (28) q A6035 Securities Litigation Case 1, 2, 8
Toxic Tort q A6036 Toxic Tort/Environmental 1, 2, 3, 8 Environmental (30)
Insurance Coverage Claims q A6014 Insurance Coverage/Subrogation (complex case only) 1, 2, 5, 8 from Complex Case (41)
q A6141 Sister State Judgment 215,11 q A6160 Abstract of Judgment 2, 6 q 2, 9 Enforcement A6107 Confession of Judgment (non-domestic relations) of Judgment (20) q A6140 Administrative Agency Award (not unpaid taxes) 2, 8 q A6114 Petition/Certificate for Entry of Judgment on Unpaid Tax 2, 8 q A6112 Other Enforcement of Judgment Case 2,8,9
RICO (27) q A6033 Racketeering (RICO) Case 1, 2, 8
q A6030 Declaratory Relief Only 1,2,8 q 2, 8 Other Complaints A6040 Injunctive Relief Only (not domestic/harassment) (Not Specified Above) (42) q A6011 Other Commercial Complaint Case (non-tort/non-complex) 1, 2, 8 q A6000 Other Civil Complaint (non-tort/non-complex) 1, 2, 8
Partnership Corporation q A6113 Partnership and Corporate Governance Case 2, 8 Governance (21)
q A6121 Civil Harassment 2, 3, 9 q A6123 Workplace Harassment 2, 3, 9 q A6124 Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse Case 2,3,9 Other Petitions (Not Specified Above) (43) q A6190 Election Contest 2
q A61 10 Petition for Change of Name/Change of Gender 2,7 q A6170 Petition for Relief from Late Claim Law 2,3, 8 q A6100 Other Civil Petition 2,9
LACIV 109 (Rev 2/16) CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 3 of 4 SHORT TITLE: LINDA ZIMMERMAN vs. AUTOZONE, INC., et al. CASE NUMBER
Step 4: Statement of Reason and Address: Check the appropriate boxes for the numbers shown under Column C for the type of action that you have selected. Enter the address which is the basis for the filing location, including zip code. (No address required for class action cases).
ADDRESS: REASON: 818 W. 7th Street 01.02.03.04.05.06.07. 08.0 9.010.011.
CITY: STATE ZIP CODE: Los Angeles CA 90017
Step 5: Certification of Assignment: I certify that this case is properly filed in the Central District of the Superior Court of California, County of Los Angeles [Code Civ. Proc., §392 et seq., and Local Rule 2.3(a)(1)(E)].
Dated: September 5, 2018
PLEASE HAVE THE FOLLOWING ITEMS COMPLETED AND READY TO BE FILED IN ORDER TO PROPERLY COMMENCE YOUR NEW COURT CASE:
1. Original Complaint or Petition. 2. If filing a Complaint, a completed Summons form for issuance by the Clerk. 3. Civil Case Cover Sheet, Judicial Council form CM-01 0.
4. Civil Case Cover Sheet Addendum and Statement of Location form, LACIV 109, LASC Approved 03-04 (Rev. 02/16). 5. Payment in full of the filing fee, unless there is court order for waiver, partial or scheduled payments. 6. A signed order appointing the Guardian ad Litem, Judicial Council form CIV-010, if the plaintiff or petitioner is a minor under 18 years of age will be required by Court in order to issue a, summons. 7. Additional copies of documents to be conformed by the Clerk. Copies of the cover sheet and this addendum must be served along with the summons and complaint, or other initiating pleading in the case.
LACiV 1 09 (Rev 2/16 CIVIL CASE COVER SHEET ADDENDUM Local Rule 2.3 LASC Approved 03-04 AND STATEMENT OF LOCATION Page 4 of 4