nob MEANS COOLER SOE 30s ul 12 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 oy 22 4 25 26 27 28 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP 11999 San Vicente Blvd., Suite 345 D Los Angeles, CA.90049° Tel: (424) 832-1677 ALAMEDA COUNTY Fax: (424) 832-7702 sep 97 2017 Daniel K. Balaban, SBN 243652 Andrew J. Spielberger, SBN 120231 ‘Vanessa L. Loftus-Brewer, SBN 265213 KABATECK BROWN KELLNER LLP ‘Engine Company No. 28 Building 644 South Figueroa Street, Los Angeles, CA 90017 ‘Tel: (213) 217-5000 Fax: (213) 217-5010 Brian S, Kabateck, SBN 152054 Attomeys for Plaintifts SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF ALAMEDA HEATHER POOLE, MARIE VALENZUELA, TRACEY SILVER-CHARAN, PATTI WILSON, ANTOINETTE PRICE, TYUANA GREEN, PATRICIA STACK, BETH MILES, MARGUERITE D' AMICO, ELIZABETH. ELLISON, BONNIE DUBBS, MARGARET ‘COOK, JOANNE CHINO-MALONEY, DIANA BENTON, ROBIN ADAMS, VIRGINIA A TE Ce SUMMERS, TROY’ LIM, CATHLEEN RUSK | 3: NEGUIGEN DELRIO, SHIRLEY MOK, ELIZABETH TR SENCE HENRY, JAYEONG YOO, LUCINDA YAPP, ALLISON WOOD, JONNA WILLIS, JUAN DEI VELEZ, KAREN VARLEY, AMALIA VALLE | SURY TRIAL DEMANDED REBAZA, CAROL TARANTO, BYRON SUTHERLAND, PETER SNEDDON, ISABELLE SMITH, NANCY SCHNEIDER , VICKI'SCHALLER, KLEVIS SATA, BRENDA. SABBATINO, DONNA ROGERS, MARIA. : BY FAK RODRIGUEZ, KAZIA ROBICHAUD, JOAN QUILICO, MEGAN POSET, LINDA PENBERTHY, SUZANNE PATTILLO, LINDA OSTROWSKI, ALICIA OLSON, LAURIE NUNEZ, KIM NIEPOKY, LAURIE NIEDOMYS, JULIE MOSTELLER, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL, LISA MENDEZ, MARTHA MASLA, REBECCA LESIEUTRE. | RG17876798 | 1 ‘COMPLAINTBALABAN & SPIELBERCER LLP 10 i 12 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 aa 24 25 26 a7 28 ‘TRACY KOZO, BENITA KILCREASE, ROSLYN KIRTON, KATHLEEN KELLY, CLAUDIA JACKSON, VICKIE ISAAC, CASE HURST, NANCY HUENERGARDT, STACEY HENRY, TERRI HEGWALD, SANDRA HAYEN, WHITNEY HEDMAN, MARYANNE HALAMA, LORRAINE GROSSI, JACQUELINE FRANK, CAROL FREEMAN, NANCY FLEMER, LISSETTE FIGUEROA, RITA DIZ, CAMILLE DAYEKH, TERRI CRIBBS, LORI COOCEN, JANET CONROY, CANDY CAHILL, HOLLY BOOKER, GLORIA . BARNETT, RHONDA MCELRATH, MICHAEL ZEITZ, DEBRA JONES, MEGAN CARAWAY, AMANDA WHITEHOUSE- DUCKETT, SANDRA BURNELL, LIRON SHENKAR, MELISSA McCULLOUGH, MARILYN GONZALEZ, MARY BARNES, KRISTEN WRIGHT, GRETCHEN STUDIER, SARA BEITTER, APRIL TESTER, FRANCINE WASKOWICZ, ALLISON BOLLMANN, CATHERINE ULRICH, NANCY SIMPSON, DEBORAH MARCANTONIO, JAZTON KENNEDY, SHAWN DAVIS. Plaintifis, | vs. TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC; | a California corporation, TAILORED BRANDS. PURCHASING, LLC; DOES 1 THROUGH 100 Defendant(s) : COMES NOW, Plaintiffs, HEATHER POOLE, MARIE VALENZUELA, TRACEY SILVER-CHARAN, PATTI WILSON, ANTOINETTE PRICE, TYUANA GREEN, PATRICIA STACK, BETH MILES, MARGUERITE D’AMICO, ELIZABETH ELLISON, BONNIE DUBBS, MARGARET COOK, JOANNE CHINO-MALONEY, DIANA BENTON, ROBIN ADAMS, VIRGINIA SUMMERS, TROY LIM, CATHLEEN RUSK DELRIO, SHIRLEY MOK, ELIZABETH HENRY, JAYEONG YOO, LUCINDA YAPP, ALLISON WOOD, JONNA WILEIS, JUAN VELEZ, KAREN VARLEY, AMALIA VALLE REBAZA, CAROL TARANTO, BYRON SUTHERLAND, PETER SNEDDON, {SABELLE SMITH, NANCY SCHNEIDER, VICKISCHALLER, KLEVIS SATA, BRENDA SABBATINO, DONNA ROGERS, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, KAZIA. 2 ‘COMPLAINTBALABAN & SPLELBERCER LLP TOS ANGELES CALIFORNIA S004 ewe ae 10 1 i2 13 14 15 16 7 18 19 20 2 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 ROBICHAUD, JOAN QUILICO, MEGAN POSET, LINDA PENBERTHY, SUZANNE PATTILLO, ‘LINDA OSTROWSKI, ALICIA OLSON, LAURIE NUNEZ, KIM NIEPOKY, LAURIE NIEDOMYS, JULIE MOSTELLER, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL, LISA MENDEZ, MARTHA. MASLA, REBECCA LESIEUTRE, TRACY KOZO, BENITA KILCREASE, ROSLYN KIRTON, KATHLEEN KELLY, CLAUDIA JACKSON, VICKIE ISAAC, CASEY HURST, NANCY HUENERGARDT, STACEY HENRY, TERRI HEGWALD, SANDRA HAYEN, WHITNEY HEDMAN, MARYANNE HALAMA, LORRAINE GROSSI, JACQUELINE FRANK, CAROL FREEMAN, NANCY FLEMER, LISSETTE FIGUEROA, RITA DIZ, CAMILLE DAYEKH, TERRI CRIBBS, LORI COOCEN, JANET CONROY, CANDY CAHILL, HOLLY BOOKER, GLORIA BARNETT, RHONDA MCELRATH, MICHAEL ZEITZ, DEBRA JONES, MEGAN CARAWAY, | AMANDA WHITEHOUSE-DUCKETT, SANDRA BURNELL, LIRON SHENKAR, MELISSA McCULLOUGH, MARILYN GONZALEZ, MARY BARNES, KRISTEN WRIGHT, GRETCHEN ‘STUDIER, SARA BEITTER, APRIL TESTER, FRANCINE WASKOWICZ, ALLISON |BOLLMANN, CATHERINE ULRICH, NANCY SIMPSON, DEBORAH MARCANTONIO, JAZTON KENNEDY, SHAWN DAVIS, (“Plaintiffs”) for causes of action against defendants, TWIN HILL ACQUISITION COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter “TWIN HILL”); TAILORED BRANDS PURCHASING, LLC (hereinafter “TAILORED BRANDS”); and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, complains and alleges as follow: GENERAL ALLEGATIONS , ly Atall times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs HEATHER POOLE, MARIE VALENZUELA, TRACEY SILVER-CHARAN, PATTI WILSON, ANTOINETTE PRICE, TYUANA GREEN, PATRICIA STACK, BETH MILES, MARGUERITE D'AMICO, ELIZABETH ELLISON, BONNIE DUBBS, MARGARET COOK, JOANNE CHINO-MALONEY, DIANA BENTON, ROBIN ADAMS, VIRGINIA SUMMERS, TROY LIM, CATHLEEN RUSK DELRIO, SHIRLEY MOK, were, and currently are, residents of the State of California. 2. Atall times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs ELIZABETH HENRY, JAYEONG YOO, LUCINDA YAPP, ALLISON WOOD, JONNA WILLIS, JUAN VELEZ, KAREN VARLEY, AMALIA VALLE REBAZA, CAROL TARANTO, BYRON SUTHERLAND, PETER SNEDDON, 3 ‘COMPLAINTa0 NACA A douteeany Sorte as 10 il 12 2B 4 15 16 18 19 20 2 22. 23 24 25 26 2 28 ISABELLE SMITH, NANCY SCHNEIDER , VICKI SCHALLER, KLEVIS SATA, BRENDA, SABBATINO, DONNA ROGERS, MARIA RODRIGUEZ, KAZIA ROBICHAUD, JOAN QUILICO, MEGAN POSET, LINDA PENBERTHY, SUZANNE PATTILLO, LINDA OSTROWSKI, ALICIA OLSON, LAURIE NUNEZ, KIM NIEPOKY, LAURIE NIEDOMYS, JULIE MOSTELLER, CHRISTOPHER MICHAEL, LISA MENDEZ, MARTHA MASLA, REBECCA LESIEUTRE, TRACY KOZO, BENITA KILCREASE, ROSLYN KIRTON, KATHLEEN KELLY, CLAUDIA JACKSON, VICKIE ISAAC, CASEY HURST, NANCY HUENERGARDT, STACEY HENRY, TERRI HEGWALD, SANDRA HAYEN, WHITNEY HEDMAN, MARYANNE: HALAMA, LORRAINE GROSSI, JACQUELINE. FRANK, CAROL FREEMAN, NANCY FLEMER, LISSETTE FIGUEROA, RITA DIZ, CAMILLE DAYEKH, TERRI CRIBBS, LORI ‘COOCEN, JANET CONROY, CANDY CAHILL, HOLLY BOOKER, GLORIA BARNETT, RHONDA MCELRATH, MICHAEL ZEITZ, DEBRA JONES, MEGAN CARAWAY, AMANDA WHITEHOUSE-DUCKETT, SANDRA BURNELL, LIRON SHENKAR, MELISSA McCULLOUGH, MARILYN GONZALEZ, MARY BARNES, KRISTEN WRIGHT, GRETCHEN STUDIER, SARA BEITTER, APRIL TESTER, FRANCINE WASKOWICZ, ALLISON BOLLMANN, CATHERINE ULRICH, NANCY SIMPSON, DEBORAH MARCANTONIO, JAZTON KENNEDY, SHAWN DAVIS, were, and currently are, residents of states or nations other thai the State of California. 3. _Atall times mentioned herein, defendant TWIN HILL ACQUISTIION COMPANY, INC. (hereinafter “TWIN HILL”) was, and is a corporate entity incorporated in the State of California and doing business at 6100 Stevenson Boulevard, Fremont, California 94538-2490. 4, Atall times mentioned herein, defendant TAILORED BRANDS PURCHASING, LLC (hereinafter “TAILORED BRANDS”) was and is.a Texas corporation doing business:in the State of California and Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times mentioned hereiri, defendant TWIN HILL is a fully owned Subsidiary of defendant TAILORED BRANDS. 5. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, corporate, associate or otherwise of defendants DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, are unknown to Plaintiffs, who therefore sue said defendants by such fictitious names. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and 4 COMPLAINTto uw 12. 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 24 22 23 24 25 26 a 28 thereupon allege, that each defendant fictitiously named herein as 2 DOE was legelly responsible, negligently or in some other actionable manner, for the events and happenings hereinafter referred to and proximately thereby caused thé injuries and damages'to Plaintiffs as hereinafter alleged, Plaintifis ‘will sk leave of court to amend the complaint to insert the true names end/or capacities of such ficttiously named defendants when the-same have been ascertained, 6. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times mentioned. ‘herein, defendants, and each of them, including DOES 1 through 100, inclusive,and each of them, ‘were the agents, servants, employees and/t joint venturets of thei co-defendants and were, a8 such, acting within the course, scope:and authority of said agency, employment and/or venture and that each and every defendant, as aforesaid, when acting as a principal, was negligent inthe selection and hiring of cach’ and every other defendant as an agent, employee and/or joint venturer. 7. Atal times mentioned herein, Plaintiffs are/and were actual employess of American Aitlines Ine. oF of commuter airline companies that had working relationships with American Airlines, Inc: (Hereinafter collectively referred to as “American Airlines employees"), 8. In of about September 2016, American Airlines Inc. implemented a change of uniforms for its worldwide workforee, inchuding but not limited to flight attendants, pilots, ground crews, maintenance orews-and service agents, These uniforms (hereinafter “UNIFORMS") were and are manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant TWIN HILL, and/or TAILORED BRANDS and DOES. 1-100: On information and belief, TWIN HILL, TATLORED BRANDS, and DOES 1-100 shipped approximately 1.4 million garments and accessories to more than’ 65,000 American Airlines employees worldwide. These UNIFORMS were reveived by various American Airlines employees at vaions tint conimencing manly in ot ound September 2016 ai theca, 9, Asmore fully alleged below, these UNIFORMS, manufactured and/or distributed by Defendant TWIN HILL and/or TAILORED BRANDS, AND DOES 100, are dangerously defective as they created and create an unreasonable risk of physical harm to those who wear them and to those Who are exposed!to them, 10. Since the introduction of these UNIFORMS into the workforce, people wearing these UNIFORMS andlor or those exposed to these UNIFORMS have-expetienced a plethors of health 5 ‘COMPLAINTco SLAG PURI, problems, including, but not limited to: dermatological injury, respiratory injury, neurologic injury arid allergenic/immunological injuties:including, but not limited to, skin-rashes, allergenic skin ‘reactions, ear, nose and throat irritation and inflammation, nerve injuries, allergenic and immunological hypersensitivity, auto-immune dysfunction and injuries and numerous other syitiptoms involving the dermatological, respiratory, neurological and immunological systems. I. ‘The UNIFORMS have been-tested by entities hired by TWIN HILL.and by American Airlines and the test results show the presence of synthetic materials which contain, but are not limited. ‘to, at least the following: formaldehyde, pentachlorophenol, monochlorophenols, tetrachlorophenols, trichlorophenols, toluene, cobalt, cadmium, captafol, chromium, copper, nickel, antimony, benzyl benzoate, hexyl cinnamic aldchyéle, benzaldehyde, 12.~ "The aforementioned chemicals can caus injury to human beings ether alone or in combination with each other, 13. All Plaintiffs mentioned herein have experienced adverse health consequences as. a result of wearing or being exposed to the mandated UNIFORMS, which, were manufactured, distributed and provided by TWIN HILL, and/or TAILORED BRANDS, and DOES 1-100. to: Plaintifis. . 14. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that TWIN HILL and/or TAILORED BRANDS, and DOES 1-100 manufactured and distributed the UNIFORMS to Plaintiffs. 1S. ‘TWIN HILL and/or TAILORED BRANDS, and DOES 1-100 did cause adverse health conditions to Plaintiffs by providing UNIFORMS to the Plaintiffs that were negligently manufactured ‘so as to cause-adverse health consequences and did cause such adverse health consequences. 16. Plaintiff's are further informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the Defendants did not have adequate safety. mechanisms in the manufacturing and distribution of the UNIFORMS so as to reasonably ensure the safety of Plaintiffs. 17, Asaresultthe Defendants’ defective products, Plaintiffs suffered severe and permanent injuries while weating and/or being exposed to the UNIFORMS. MW Mh ‘COMPLAINT5E aawa on 10 il 12 13 14 15 16 yn 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 a7 28 18. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that the UNIFORMS. ‘manufactured by TWIN HILL wete designed, maitufactured, and distributed by TWIN HILL, and/or | ‘TAILORED BRANDS, and DOES 1-100. EIRST CAUSE OF ACTION STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY (Against All Defendants; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive) 19, Plait allege as though lyst forth at length, and incorporate herein by reference, | ail of the allegations and statements contained in paragraphs 1 through 18, inclusive, of the General Allegations, above. 20. Plaintiffs ate informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times herein, mentioned, defendants TWIN HILL and/or TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them, by and through their officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents, were the manufacturers, febricators, designers, assemblers, testers, distributors, sellers, inspectors, marketers, warrantors,lessors, renters, suppliers, modifiers, providers and/or advertisers of the UNIFORMS, which contained design and/or manufachiring defects, and every component part thereof, and which was capable of causing, and in fact, did cause personal injuries to the users and consiumers and bystanders thereof, including Plaintiffs, while being used in a manict reasonably foreseeable, thereby rendeting the UNIFORMS unsafe and dangerous for use by the consumer, user and/orbystander. Defendants TWIN HILL and/or TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, by and through their officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents, also failed to provide adequate warnings to consumers and users of the UNIFORMS conceming the significant dangers associated with the UNIFORMS, orto instnict consumers and users regarding the use and dangers of the UNIFORMS, and wamed or failed to warn, and instructed or failed to instruct, anticipated users of the UNIFORMS, concerning use and dangerousness of the UNIFORMS. 21, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that a all times mentioned herein, the UNIFORMS were defective when placed on the market by defendants TWIN HILL and/or TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, and each of them, and was: of such a nature that the defects would not be discovered in the normal course.of inspection and operation and use by users 1 COMPLAINTthereof, At all times relevant herein, the UNIFORMS were in substantially the same condition as they ‘were when they were originally placed into the stream of commerce by defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES '1 through 100, inclusive and each of them. 22. Defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, 5 |] inclusive, and each of them, by and through their officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents, designed, tested, manufactured, and distributed garments and accessoriés, including the UNIFORMS, to their retailers and customers. The UNIFORMS, contained design and manufacturing defects, including design characteristics and materials which increased the likelihood of a serious injury or death from the chemicals found inthe UNIFORMS when the UNIFORMS were being used in a reasonably foreseeable manner. 23. Prior to the distribution of the UNIFORMS to the American Airlines employees, including but not limited to plaintiffs, the officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusiverand each of them, were aware of the danger of the UNIFORMS aid the severity of the risk of injary or death to consumers, bytanders and users of the UNIFORMS "24. Specfall, prior ote dstsbution ofthe UNIFORMS tothe AmeticanAieines ‘employees, including but not limited to the: plaintiffs, the officers, directors, employees and/or ‘managing agents of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them, were'aware that the UNIFORMS at issue herein, were dangerous in their: design and manufacture, and that these UNIFORMS were dangerous when used-in @ reasonably foreseeable fashion, and that the UNIFORMS lacked proper iispections and guard mechanisms to ‘ensure the materials utilized in the production of the UNIFORMS were safe for Plaintiffs. The aforementioned UNIFORMS were designed and manufactured in such a way that an unreasonable risk of injury Was posed by the presence of chenticals in the UNIFORMS when ised in reasonable foreseeable manne. 25. ‘The production of the UNIFORMS as well as the UNIFORM distribution lacked such. sonable protective measures 40 prevent injury ftom dangerous chemicals bonding to the UNIFORMS, despite the fact that FWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; end DOES'I through 8 ‘COMPLAINTRCE Eas, 100, inclusive, and each of them, were aware of the importance of preventing injury from potentially | dangerous chemicals used in the production process and émbedded in the UNIFORMS, were aware of the importarice of the proper safety mechanisms, such as inspections and proper manufacturing oversight, and despite’the fict that it would have been practical and relatively inexpensive for defendants TAILORED: BRANDS and TWIN HILL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, to incorporate alternative designs and/or chemicals into UNIFORM production, including additional and appropriate safety mechanisms ’and inspections that would have reasonably protected conswitiets and users of the UNIFORMS ftom tnreasonable risk: of injury. 26. Prior to’the subject incident, the officers, directors, employees and/or managing eis of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them, knew, or should have known, that the UNIFORMS, were substandard and dangerous and ‘would not provide reasonable safety to consumers during foreseeable use, causing the users or bystanders to suffer setious injury during foreseeable use, Moreover, TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents, knew-or should have known, that the UNIFORMS, were extremely dangerous and defective with the likely result of serious bodily, injury to the users and consumers of such UNIFORMS. The officers, directors, employees and/or ‘managing agents of defendants TAILORED BRANDS and TWIN HILL; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and each of them, knew, prior to the distribution of the UNIFORMS to the American Airlines employees including but not limited to Plaintiffs and even prior to the manufacture of the UNIFORMS, of the availability of safer, affordable alternative designs and manufacturing processes for the production, inspéction, and distribution of the UNIFORMS, which would have reduced or eliminated the risk of severe injuries to its consumers, users and bystanders. 27: — Despite this knowledge, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and ‘DOES f through 100, inclusive and each of them, by and through their officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents, failed to recall and/or replace the UNIFORMS, issue safety bulletins to the public, advise or warn purchasers or potential users, such as Plaintiffs, by providing warhings of the severe risk of injury from'use of the UNIFORMS. Although the officers, directors, employees and/or mandging agents of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, 9 ‘COMPLAINT10 nh 2 13 “4 5 16 7 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25 26 20 28 inclusive and each of them, were aware of the need to recall and/or replace these garments, including the UNIFORM, issue public safety bulletins, and/or provide adequate warnings and inspections, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, through the decisions of their officers, directors, employees and/or managing agents, acted in conscious disregard of the rights and safety of consumers, users andlor bystanders, by failing to utilize:available safer alternative / materials, designs, adequately wam of the hazards, and/or replace or recall these UNIFORMS, prior to the distribution of the UNIFORMS to American. Airlines employees including but not limited to Plaintiffs, 28. Atall times mentioned herein, the officers, directors, and/or managing agents of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES through 100, inclusive and each of them, authorized and/or ratified the conduct oftheir employees, who knew or should have known of the growing number of serious injuries to consumers, users, and bystanders resulting from the defective condition of the UNIFORMS, designed and distributed by defendants, and the ned for‘an alternative design, altemative matetials, lack of injurious chemicals, and use of safety devices, inspections, and different chemical process, and edditional warnings, 29, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thercupon allege, that on or about the time of, the use.of the UNIFORMS, the UNIFORMS weré being used in'a reasonably foresceable manner; As addirect and-proximate result of the defective condition of the UNIFORMS, and the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL, and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive and each of thet, the UNIFORMS seriously injured Plants wile weating’or being enposed tothe UNIFORMS ina reasonably foreseeable manner, causing injury to-the Plaintiffs asset forth below. 30. As adirect and proximate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and ‘TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES ! through 100, inclusive, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs were injured and hurt in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to their bodies, and shock and injury to their nervous system and person, all of which said injuries have-caused.and continue to cause the Plaintiffs great physical, mental and nervous pain arid suffering, Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that said injuries will result in some permanent disability, 10 ‘COMPLAINTee 10. iW 12 3 4 15 16 17 18. 19 20 24 2 23 24 25 26 27 28 all to their general damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code-of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. 31, Asa direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and ‘TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES | thtough’100, inclusive, and cach of them, PlaintiffS have been ‘compelled fo employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons; nurses'and the’ like, to care for ‘and treat them, and have incurred! hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiffs ate informed and believe and thereupon allege that by reason of their injuries, Plaintiffs will necessarily incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the future the exact artiount of which expenses.will be stated according to proof, purstant to Califomia Code of Civil Piovedure Section 425.10. 32 Asadirect and proximate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs ‘were prevented from attending to their usual océupation, and Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that they will thereby be prevented from attending to:their usual occupation for @ period of time in the future, and thereby will also-sustain a loss of earning capacity, in addition to lost camnings, past, present and future; the exact amount of such losses is unknown to Plaintiffs at this. time; Plaintiffs allege said amounts according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. ~ SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS LIABILITY ‘(Against all Defendants; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive) 33. Plaintifis allege:as though fully setiforth at length, and incorporate herein by reference, all ofthe allegations and statements contained in paragraphs 1 through 32, inclusive, of the General Allegations and the First Cause of Action, 34. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times mentioned herein, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of inanuifacturing, fabricating, designing, assembling, distributing, buying, selling, inspecting, testing, analyzing, servicing, repairing, marketing, u ‘COMPLAINT23 24 25, 26 27 28 ‘warranting, maintaining, modifying, altering, controlling, installing, fiting, entrusting, managing, advertising, supervising the use of making representations about afd/or warning of defects in, or dangers associited with the use ofthe said UNIFORMS, including all component parts thereof, and hhad a duty to manufacture, fabricate, design, synthesize, assemble, distribute, buy, sell, inspec, test, analyze, service, repair, market, warrant, maintain, modify, alter, contol, install, ft; entrust, manage, advertise, provide training forthe use of, supervise the use of, make representations about and/or warn of defects in, or dangers associated with the use of, the said product, including all component parts and chemicals thereof, ina reasonable manner. Defendants knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have known; the UNIFORMS would be used without inspection by constimérs and/or bystanders for defects or dangers: 35, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege, that at all times mentioned hetein, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, breached their above-mentioned duties by negligently, recklessly, and/or carelessly ‘manufacturing, fabricating, designing, synthesizing, assembling, distiibuting, buying, selling, inspecting, testing, analyzing, servicing, repairing, marketing, warranting, maintaining, modifying, altering, controlling installing, fitting, entrusting, managing, advertising, supervising and/or filing to supervise the use of, filing to train for the use of, making representations about, waming and/or failing to warn of defects in, or dangers associated with the use of, the UNIFORMS, including all or some component parts thereof, thereby rendering the said product unsafe and dangerous for use by ‘consumers, users and bystanders, which proximately caused the injuries and damages to Plaintiff, as alleged herein, 36. Asa direct and proxiniate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through. 100, inclusive, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs ‘were injured and hurtin their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to their bodies, and shock and injury to their nervous'systems and persons, all of which seid injuries have caused and continue'to cause the Plaintiffs great physical, mental and nervous pain and suffering. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that said injuries will result in some permanent disability, tit 2 COMPLAINT10 u 12 13 4 Is 16 " 18 19 20 a 2 23 24 26 27 28 allo their general damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) which will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10, 37. Asa direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been compelled to employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and the like, to care for and treat them, and have incurred hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaistiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that by reason of theit injuries, Plaintifis will necessarily incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time in the futute, the exact amount of which expenses will be stated according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. 38, Asa direct and proximate result ofthe conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs ‘were prevented fiom attending to their usual occupation, and Plaintfis ae informed and believe and thereupon allege that they will thereby be prevented from attending to their usual occupation for a period of time in the future, and thereby will also sustain a loss of earning capacity, in addition to lost ‘earnings, past, present and fiture; the exact amount of such losses is unknown to Plaintiffs at this time, Plaintiffs allege said amounts according to proof, pursuant to Califomia Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. ‘THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION NEGLIGENCE (Against All Defendants; and DOES 1 through 100 inclusive) 39, Plaintiffs reallege as though fully set forth at length, and incorporate herein by reference, all ofthe allegations and statements contained in paragraphs 1 thovgh 38, inclusive, ofthe General Allegations as well as the First and Second Causes of Action, 40. Plaintiffs ore informed and believe, and thereupon allege, tht at all times mentioned herein, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES | through 100, inclusive, and each of them, were engaged in the business of manufacturing, fabricating, designing, essembling and producing the UNIFORMS, as well as inspecting, selling, distributing, servicing, marketing, 13 COMPLAINTBow WW 12 13 i4 15. 16. 7 18 19 20 ai 22, 23 24 25 26 2 28 ‘warranting, atoring, controlling, fiting, entrusting, managing, advertising, buying and trading the UNIFORMS, including using various chemicals to manufacture and make the UNTFORMS, and had a duty to provide proper training, supervision and warning for their employees, any independent contractors, bystanders or anyone else expected to wear andlor be around the UNIFORMS to ensure safe chemicals were being ullized in the manufacturing, production and/or distribution ofthe ‘UNIFORMS. Defendants futher had a duty to wam of any defects in, or dangers associated: with the use of the said UNIFORMS and/or any component pars thereof, in-a reasonable manner. Defendants ‘also had a daty not to alter ot modify the UNIFORMS so as to create a dangerous product. 41. Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon allege that at all times mentioned herein, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and cach of them, breached their above-mentioned duties by negligently, recklessly, and/ot carelessly failing to properly train; supervise and warn their employees, independent contractors andlor other foreseeable users of the risks associated with the use of the UNIFORMS. 42, Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and thereupon further allege, that at all imes mentioned herein, defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, breached their above-mentioned duties by negligently, recklessly, andlor carelessly altering, removing, modifyisig and/ot replacing component parts of the UNIFORMS, including altering, removing, modifying snd or soplacing safety guards and/or inspections thereby rendering the UNIFORMS dangerous for use by users and/or bystanders including Plaintiffs. (43, Asa direct and-proximate result of the conduct of deferidants TWIN'HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and:each of them,.as aforesaid, Plaintiffs ‘were injured and burt in their health, strength and activity, sustaining injuries to their bodies, and shock and injury to their nervous systems.and persons, all of which said injuries have caused’ and continue to cause Plaintiffs great physical, mental and-nervous pain and suffering, Plaintiffs are ‘informed and believe and thereupon allege that sti injuries will resut in some permanent disability, all to theie general damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000.00) which will be stated according to proof, pufsuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10, a 14 ‘COMPLAINTz x Soma aun un W i2 13 4 15 16 7 18 19 20 21 23 a 25 26 27 28 44, Asa direct and proximate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 through 100, inclusive, and each of them, Plaintiffs have been compelled to-employ the services of hospitals, physicians, surgeons, nurses and the like, o care for and treat them, and have incurred hospitdl, medical, professional and incidental expenses, and Plaintiffs are informed and'betieve and thereupon allege that by reason of their injuries, Plaintiffs will necessarily incur additional like expenses for an indefinite period of time inthe future, the exsict amount of which expenses will be stated acoording to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425:10. 45, As adireot and proximate result of the conduct of defendants TWIN HILL and TAILORED BRANDS; and DOES 1 througl 100, inclusive, and each of them, as aforesaid, Plaintiffs were prevented from attending to their usual occupation, and Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereupon allege that they will thereby be prevented fiom attending to their usual occupation for a period of time in the future, and thereby will also sustain @ loss of caming capacity, in addition to lost earings, past, presentand future; the exact amount of such losses is unknown to Plaintifis at this time, Plai ffs alleges said amounts according to proof, pursuant to California Code of Civil Procedure Section 425.10. PRAYER FOR RELIEF . WHEREFORE, Plaintiffs pray judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows: FOR THE FIRST CAUSE.OF ACTION FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY: 1. For genefal damages in excess of Fifty Thotisand Dollars ($50,000.00), according to proof; 2. Forhospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, according to proof, 3, For loss of eamings and loss of earning capacity, according o proof; 4, For prejudgment interest, according to proof; 5. For punitive and exemplary damages; 6. For cosis of suit incurred herein; and 7. For’such other and further felief as the court shay deem just and proper. 15 ‘COMPLAINTFOR THE SECOND AND THIRD CAUSES OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENT PRODUCTS. LIABILITY AND NEGLIGENCE: 1, For general damages in excess of Fifty Thousand Dollars ($50,000:00), according to proof, 2. ~~ For hospital, medical, professional and incidental expenses, according to proof; 3. For lossof eamings and loss of earning capacity, according to proof, 4, For prejudgment interest, according to proof, 5, For costs of suit inouted herein and. 6. For such other and further reliefias the court may deem just and proper. DATED: September'26, 2017 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP y Brian Kabateck, BO Attornieys for Plaintif V6 COMPLAINTasl Salt nau wand: suphe 345 10 u 12 13 14 16 a 19 20 ar 22 2a 24 25 26 27 28, DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiffs hereby demand a jury trial DATED: September 26, 2017 DATED: September 26,2017 BALABAN & SPIELBERGER, LLP Vanessa L, Loftus-Brewer, Esq, i for Plaintifis RWN, KELLNER, LLP Attomeys for Plaintiffs, i ‘COMPLAINT