Rimadyl Case

Following is a copy of the actual lawsuit filed in 1999.

CLASS ACTION LAWSUIT AGAINST MAKERS OF RIMADYL Case No. 99-CP-25-353

	HAMPTON COUNTY IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA JEAN TOWNSEND on behalf of Case No. 99-CP-25-353 herself and all others similarly situated Summons in a Civil Case Jury Trial Demanded Plaintiff, V. Pfizer Incorporated, 235 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10017 Defendant ____________________________________ TO THE DEFENDANT ABOVE NAMED: YOU ARE HEREBY SUMMONED and required to answer the Complaint in this action of which a copy is herewith served upon you, and to serve a copy of your Answer on the subscriber at his office, Post Office Box 685, Hampton, South Carolina, 29924, within thirty (30) days after the service hereof, exclusive of the day of such service; and if you fail to answer the Complaint within the time aforesaid, the Plaintiff will apply to the Court for the relief demanded in the Complaint. SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN Marion C. Fairey Amanda G. Steinmeyer Robert N. Hill 200 Jackson Avenue East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, SC 29924 (803) 943-4444 Toll free number 1-800-348-3805 By:_ _____________________ ATTORNEY FOR THE PLAINTIFF October 12, 1999 Hampton, South Carolina IN THE STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA IN THE COURT OF COMMON PLEAS COUNTY OF HAMPTON JEAN TOWNSEND on behalf of Case No. _99-CP-25-353______ herself and all others similarly situated Class Action Complaint Plaintiff, V. Jury Trial Demanded Pfizer Incorporated, 235 East 42nd Street New York, New York 10017-5755 Defendant. __________________________________

		TO THE ABOVE NAMED DEFENDANT AND YOUR ATTORNEYS: YOU WILL PLEASE TAKE NOTICE THAT THE Plaintiff, Jean Townsend, brings this action on behalf of itself and all others similarly situated as a voluntary class action under Rule 23 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure, and alleges: PARTIES 1. The Plaintiff, Jean Townsend, is a resident of the State of South Carolina. 2. The above-named defendant, Pfizer Incorporated, (hereinafter "Pfizer") is a foreign corporation, company or other business entity which has been and/or is now engaged in the business of manufacturing, selling and/or distributing an animal drug called Rimadyl�. 3. The class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a result of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl� with the exception of those identified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint. 4. The class does not include (1) the defendant; and (2) any active Magistrate Judge for the State of South Carolina, any Judge of the South Carolina Circuit Court, the South Carolina Court of Appeals, the South Carolina Supreme Court or the United States Supreme Court. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE 5. The Plaintiff is an individual who resides within the State of South Carolina, owns property within the State of South Carolina and has suffered property damage within the State of South Carolina. 6. The Defendant has used the ports of South Carolina or the roads and other means of transportation in the State of South Carolina to transport their products, including Rimadyl�, into the State of South Carolina where they sold and/or distributed their products to South Carolina residents or entities in South Carolina. 7. The Defendant is subject to the jurisdiction of this court in that Defendant transacted and continues to transact business in this state, has committed and continues to commit tortuous acts in whole or in part in this state, and/or has produced, manufactured or distributed goods with the reasonable expectation that those goods would be used in this state and the goods were used in this state. 8. The Defendant has caused or will cause, and all class members have suffered or will suffer, property damage as a result of the acts or omissions of this defendant. 9. The amount in controversy exceeds one hundred ($100.00) dollars for each member of the class, and some class members have suffered and will suffer less than seventy-five thousand dollars ($75,000.00) in damages. 10. Venue of this action is governed by S. C. Code Anno. �15-7-30 (1998) and is appropriate as designated by the Plaintiff in this Complaint because the Defendant is a foreign corporation that does not reside in any county in South Carolina and does not maintain a registered agent within South Carolina. CLASS ACTION ALLEGATIONS 11. The class of plaintiffs consists of and includes all persons, corporations, partnerships, unincorporated associations or other entities in the United States which own any animal that has suffered or will suffer death or injury as a result of consuming or ingesting the animal drug Rimadyl� with the exception of those identified in paragraph 4 of this Complaint. 12. The class is sufficiently numerous that joinder of all members is impracticable. Upon information and belief, more than 1000 pets and animals have suffered injury or death as a direct and proximate result exposure to Rimadyl�. 13. Plaintiff will fairly and adequately protect the interests of the class. The interests of the class representative are coincident with, and not antagonistic to, those of the other class members and plaintiff is represented by experienced and able counsel who have previously litigated class actions and similar types of cases. 14. There are questions of law and fact common to the class. Common questions of law include the liability of defendant for manufacturing, producing, selling and/or distributing Rimadyl�. Common questions of fact include, but are not limited to, the available scientific and technical knowledge when Rimadyl� was manufactured and sold; the Defendant's knowledge or reason to know of the health hazards or adverse side effects of Rimadyl�; the Defendant's failure to test or adequately test Rimadyl� prior to marketing the drug; and the Defendant's failure to warn class members of such hazards. 15. Plaintiff's claims are typical of the class members' claims and derive from a common nucleus of operative facts in that the Defendant's Rimadyl� was prescribed, ingested and caused harm to the Plaintiff's dog George. The Plaintiff and all similarly situated class members have suffered and will continue to suffer property damage as a result of the Defendant's actions. 16. Upon information and belief, the named Plaintiff not only represents a large number of class members whose pets and animals have been harmed or killed, but also, due to the defendant's failure to adequately warn of the potential dangers of Rimadyl�, Plaintiff represents an even larger number of class members who have yet to discover that their pets and animals have been or will be injured. For these reasons, a class action is especially appropriate to promote judicial efficiency and to protect class members' interests and rights. 17. Each class member has been or will be similarly injured by this defendant's acts and omissions in manufacturing, marketing, selling, designing, and/or supplying Rimadyl�. 18. Class treatment is a superior method for the fair and efficient adjudication of the issues in dispute because it permits a large number of injured parties, joinder of whom is impracticable, to prosecute their common claims in a single forum simultaneously. In addition, it does not infringe upon the rights of those class members who wish to opt-out and litigate their claims separately. The class action provides an efficient method whereby the relative rights of the class members and defendant can be fairly managed. SUBSTANTIVE ALLEGATIONS 19. The Plaintiff owned a pet chocolate brown Labrador Retriever named George. 20. Sometime during 1997, the Plaintiff's dog George showed signs of arthritis. After initial treatment that did not seem to help, the Plaintiff requested her vet to prescribe Rimadyl�. This request was made because the Plaintiff had read brochures in her Veterinarian's office and seen ads on television and in magazines touting Rimadyl� as a "miracle" drug for canine arthritis. 21. In September of 1997, the Plaintiff began administering Rimadyl� to George exactly as she had been directed to give it. 22. After taking Rimadyl� for several weeks, a number of symptoms and health problems suddenly began to occur in George. These symptoms included, but were not limited to, loss of appetite, vomiting, diarrhea and bloody stool. 23. The Defendant was notified of George's adverse reaction to Rimadyl� on or about October 13, 1997 . 24. As a result of the symptoms described in this Complaint and others that were discovered during a Necropsy, it was clear that George was suffering to the point that he had to be euthanized. ACTS AND OMISSIONS OF THE DEFENDANT 25. The Defendant designed, manufactured, marketed, sold, marketed and/or placed into the stream of commerce Rimadyl� knowing that it would given to pets and animals. 26. The Defendant has sought to suppress, conceal, misrepresent and/or obscure data on the adverse side effects of Rimadyl�. 27. The Defendant was aware or should have been aware of studies and data linking Rimadyl� and its constituents with disease in animals, but nevertheless continued to design, produce, manufacture, market, distribute and/or sell Rimadyl� without any warnings as to potential health hazards or detrimental side effects associated with Rimadyl�. 28. Despite its actual knowledge of the detrimental side effects of Rimadyl�, the Defendant failed to warn or adequately and sufficiently warn the Plaintiff and other class members, the public, governmental bodies and the Veterinary and Medical community of the harmful and detrimental side effects of Rimadyl�. 29. The Defendant failed to test or adequately test Rimadyl�, prior to manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl�. 30. The Defendant published false and/or misleading information about the safety and potential adverse side effects of Rimadyl�. COUNT I: NEGLIGENCE 31. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 32. At all times material hereto, the Defendant was the designer, developer, manufacturer, marketer, deliverer and/or seller of Rimadyl�. 33. At all times material hereto, the Defendant knew or should have known that Rimadyl� would be used on pets and animals owned by the Plaintiff and class members. 34. At all times material hereto, the Defendant designed, developed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and/or sold Rimadyl� which the Defendant knew, or through the exercise of reasonable care, should have known was defective and would damage the Plaintiff's and class members' pets and animals. 35. Defendants failed to warn, or adequately or sufficiently warn, either directly or indirectly, the foreseeable users of the potential hazards and costs associated with the use of Rimadyl� 36. The Defendant failed to test or adequately test Rimadyl�. 37. The Defendant systematically failed to represent accurately to the Plaintiff and class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl� and its constituents can pose a health hazard and injure pets and animals or that Rimadyl� was defective. 38. The Defendant systematically failed to monitor and investigate reported instances of injury or death to pets and animals that resulted from the use of Rimadyl�. 39. The Defendant systematically failed to train, warn or educate, or inadequately trained, warned or educated the Plaintiff, class members or their Veterinarians of the signs and symptoms of adverse reactions to the use of Rimadyl� in pets and animals or that animals on Rimadyl� should be carefully observed for signs or symptoms of adverse reaction, even though it had a duty to do so. 40. The Defendant systematically failed to acknowledge responsibility for animal deaths and adverse side effects caused by Rimadyl�, thereby contributing to the false impression cultivated by the Defendant that Rimadyl� is safe. 41. The Defendant failed to represent accurately to Plaintiff and class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl�, used for its ordinary and intended purpose, can pose a health hazard and/or injure pets and animals, whereby class members were induced to purchase and utilize such products. 42. The Defendant at all times has failed and continues to fail to perform its duties to warn and recall. 43. The Defendant's actions, as alleged, constitute violations of statutory and regulatory provisions. 44. All Defendant's acts and omissions complained of in this count were committed by them with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff and other class members and were carried out to maximize the sale and use of Rimadyl�. 45. As a direct and proximate result of defendant's conduct, plaintiff and class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damage. COUNT II: STRICT LIABILITY 46. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph of this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 47. The Defendant has been and is engaged in the business of designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl�. 48. Rimadyl�, as used by the Plaintiff and class members was defective and unreasonably dangerous, unfit for its intended use because of the deleterious, highly harmful and deadly effects it causes to the Plaintiff's and other class members' pets and animals. 49. The Defendant reasonably expected Rimadyl� to be used by animal owners such as the Plaintiff and other class members. 50. The Plaintiff and other class members used Rimadyl� in the manner in which was intended and expected by the Defendant. At the time of such use, Rimadyl� had not been changed from the time it was designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold by the Defendant. 51. As a direct and proximate cause of the Plaintiff and class members using the Defendant's defective and unreasonably dangerous product, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered and will continue to suffer damages to their pets and animals. COUNT III: BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTIES 52. Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 53. The Defendant failed to represent accurately to class members, either directly or indirectly, that Rimadyl� is unfit and unsafe to pets and animals. 54. The Defendant intended that Rimadyl� be used on pets and animals, and impliedly warranted through the sale, advertising, and/or marketing of Rimadyl� that it was fit for these normal and foreseeable uses. 55. The Plaintiff and class members, as foreseeable and intended users of Defendant's product, relied upon Defendant's representations, skill, expertise and judgment in assuming that Rimadyl� would not only perform its basic functions as warranted, but was safe, and would not cause injury and death to pets and animals. 56. The Defendant breached these implied warranties in that Rimadyl� as designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed or sold is toxic, deleterious, and highly harmful, and can and does injure and kill pets and animals. 57. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's breach of implied warranties of good and merchantable quality and fitness for a particular purpose and for their intended use, the Plaintiff and other class members have suffered and will continue to suffer direct and material harm and injury. COUNT IV: FRAUD 58. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 59. The Defendant at all times in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and selling Rimadyl� knew that this product was and is hazardous and/or potentially hazardous to pets and animals, and knew that it causes disease, injury, and death. 60. At all times relevant in marketing their Rimadyl�, the Defendant falsely and fraudulently represented expressly or impliedly to plaintiff, class members, the public and the market that Rimadyl� was safe. The Defendant suppressed and concealed facts that Rimadyl� could be harmful, dangerous and deleterious to the health of pets and animals. The Defendant knew of these dangerous propensities when it designed, manufactured, marketed, distributed and sold Rimadyl� . 61. The Defendant at all times had a continuing duty to disclose the dangerous propensities of their product to the Plaintiff, class members, the public, and the market, and the suppression of these facts constituted misleading and fraudulent misrepresentations because Defendant published and disseminated information such as "testimonials," "success stories" and " fluff articles" publicly and in special interest publications which represented Rimadyl� was well-suited, safe and highly effective for its intended use, and which were likely to mislead for want of communication of suppressed facts, including the hazardous nature and dangerous propensities of Rimadyl� 62. The misrepresentations, suppressions, and failures to disclose information were made by the Defendant with the intent to induce Plaintiff, class members, the public and the market to purchase and use Rimadyl� . 63. The Plaintiff and class members relied on the Defendant's misrepresentations as well as the absence of adverse information in purchasing and using Rimadyl� on their pets and animals. 64. The Defendant has continued at all times relevant to falsely and fraudulently misrepresent, suppress, and fail to disclose the dangerous propensities of Rimadyl�, including the fact that Rimadyl� has dangerous and deleterious effects on pets and animals. 65. The Plaintiff and class members, at the times these failures to disclose and suppressions of fact occurred, and at the time of purchase and use of the product, were ignorant of the existence of the facts which defendant misrepresented, suppressed and failed to disclose. If the Plaintiff and class members had been aware of the existence of the facts misrepresented or not disclosed by the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members would not have purchased or used Rimadyl�, and would have not suffered the damages and injuries alleged herein. 66. As a direct and proximate result of Defendant's suppression of facts and failure to disclose, and the continued manufacture, sale and marketing of Rimadyl�, the Plaintiff and class members were or will be directly and materially harmed and injured. 67. All Defendant's acts and omissions complained of in this count were committed by them with indifference to the rights of the Plaintiff and other class members and were intentionally carried out to maximize the sale and use of Rimadyl�. COUNT V: UNFAIR TRADE PRACTICES 68. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 69. The Defendant has engaged in unlawful and deceptive trade practices that have injured the Plaintiff as described herein and upon information and belief, these unlawful and deceptive trade practices were committed willfully and knowingly by the Defendant. 70. The Defendant has engaged, or has had the potential to engage in similar unlawful and deceptive trade practices that either have or potentially could have injured other persons or entities. 71. The Defendant's unlawful and deceptive trade practices committed during the operation of its business as described in this Count violated statutory law. 72. The unlawful and deceptive trade practices of the Defendant impact the public interest in that they are capable of repetition, and upon information and belief, have been repeated against other persons or entities as alleged in this Complaint. 73. Because of the unlawful and deceptive trade practices of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer damages. 74. The Defendant's willful and knowing commission of multiple unlawful unfair and deceptive acts in designing, manufacturing, marketing, distributing and/or selling Rimadyl�, have caused injury to the Plaintiff and class members. COUNT VI: EXPRESS WARRANTY 75. The Plaintiff hereby incorporates by reference each paragraph in this Complaint, as if fully set forth herein. 76. At all times relevant, the Defendant, in order to induce the Plaintiff and class members to purchase and use Rimadyl�, warranted and represented that its product was safe for its intended use in dogs. 77. The Plaintiff and other class members purchased and used Rimadyl� on their pets and pets and animals in reliance on the Defendant's above- mentioned warranties and representations. 78. The Rimadyl� distributed, sold and/or delivered by the Plaintiff and class members were not of a character as stated by the Defendant, but on the contrary, were defective and deficient. 79. The Defendant has received due and proper notice from the Plaintiff and other class members about the defective and deficient character in Rimadyl�, and the Plaintiff herein provides the Defendant with additional notice of the same. 80. As a result of the defective and deficient nature of Rimadyl�, which is contrary to the warranties and representations of the Defendant, the Plaintiff and class members have suffered and continue to suffer damage to their pets and animals. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, plaintiff demands a jury trial and prays that: A. The Court certify a voluntary opt-out class under Rule 23 of the South Carolina Rules of Civil Procedure with specific appropriate common questions that address the liability of the Defendant as alleged herein on a class-wide basis; B. The Plaintiff and other class members recover the general and special compensatory damages determined to have been sustained by each of them respectively; C. The Plaintiff and other class members recover any attorneys fees, witness fees and other costs of this suit as may be appropriate; D. The Court grant such other, further or different relief as may be just and proper. Respectfully submitted, SPEIGHTS & RUNYAN Marion C. Fairey, Jr . Amanda G. Steinmeyer Robert N. Hill 200 Jackson Avenue East Post Office Box 685 Hampton, South Carolina 29924 (803) 943-4444 Toll free number 1-800-348-3805 By: ATTORNEYS FOR THE PLAINTIFF Hampton, South Carolina October 12, 1999.




			HAPPY SIXTH YEAR AT THE BRIDGE GEORGE WITH LOVE, YOUR MOM AND AUNT SANDY