In April of 2009, Don Stagg filed a lawsuit against the manufacturer of Phospho-Soda.  It sounds like Mr. Stagg had a very bad experience with Phospho-Soda:

41. On September 25, 2007, Dr. Luttrell performed a colonoscopy on Mr. Stagg.

42. Two days following the colonoscopy exam, Mr. Stagg began to exhibit symptoms of acute renal failure including nausea, vomiting, dehydration, headache and fatigue.

43. On October 1, 2007, Mr. Stagg presented to St. Vincent's Hospital Emergency Room where he was diagnosed with acute renal failure secondary to Fleet Phospho-Soda.

A week after using the product, Mr. Stagg was diagnosed with acute renal failure.  What should have been a routine colonoscopy turned into a life-changing procedure.  If you or someone you know has been diagnosed with kidney problems after using Fleet Phospho-Soda, contact me and I’ll put you in touch with a Phospho-Soda attorney who will investigate your case.

Plaintiff, Don Stagg, by and through his attorneys, alleges as follows:

I. STATEMENT OF JURISDICTION AND VENUE

1. Plaintiff, Don Stagg, is a resident and citizen of Birmingham, Alabama and is over the age of nineteen.

2. Upon information and belief, Defendant C.B. Fleet Company, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business in that state.

3. Upon information and belief, Defendant C.B. Fleet Holding Company, Inc., is a corporation existing under the laws of Virginia with its principal place of business in that state.

4. This Court has subject matter jurisdiction pursuant to 28 U.S.C. §1332 (Diversity) in that the state of citizenship of the Plaintiff is different from the state of citizenship of the Defendants, and Plaintiff resides within this district.

5. Plaintiff alleges an amount in controversy in excess of $75,000.00 exclusive of interest and costs.

6. Venue is proper pursuant to 28 U.S.C. § 1391. The Defendants have sufficient minimum contacts with Alabama or otherwise intentionally availed themselves of the consumer markets within Alabama through the promotion, sale, marketing and/or distribution of its products in the state to render the exercise of jurisdiction by the Alabama courts permissible under traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice.

7. At material times hereto, the Defendants C.B. Fleet Company, Inc. and C.B. Fleet Holding Company, Inc. (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “Fleet”):

(a) were, and are, engaged in the business of the design, development, manufacture, production, processing, compounding, formulating, testing, sale, marketing, labeling, packaging, dosing, advertising, promotion, supply, releasing and/or distribution of Fleet Phospho-soda (“hereinafter “FPS” or “Phospho-soda”) in the United States and Alabama either directly or indirectly through third-parties or related entities;

b. were, and are, in the business of profiting from the design, development, manufacture, production, processing, compounding, formulating, testing, sale, marketing, labeling, packaging, dosing, advertising, promotion, supply, releasing and/or distribution of FPS;

c. conducted continuous and substantial business in the state of Alabama and,

d. acted and gained knowledge itself and by and through its various agents, servants, employees, and/or ostensible agents.

II. FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

8. This action arises out of the manufacture, distribution, and sale for profit of an over-the-counter bowel cleansing drug known as FPS, which contains sodium phosphate.

9. Fleet promoted, distributed, and sold FPS as a “laxative, for the relief of occasional constipation” and “purgative, for use as part of a bowel cleansing regimen in preparing for surgery, x-ray, or endoscopic examination.”

10. A single forty-five (45) mL dose of FPS has long been used as a laxative to alleviate occasional constipation.

11. Forty-five (45) mL of FPS contains 8.1g of dibasic sodium phosphate and 21.6g of monobasic sodium phosphate.

12. The ingredients of FPS are absorbed into the blood stream and use of FPS can cause soft tissue calcification, primarily in the kidneys, heart, blood vessels, cornea, lungs, and gastric mucosa.

13. Bowel cleansers that work with smaller amounts of dibasic and monobasic sodium phosphates are commercially available.

14. Bowel cleansers which better control and ensure proper hydration are commercially available.

15. Safe alternative bowel cleansers which are not absorbed into the blood stream are commercially available.

16. The United States Food & Drug Administration (hereinafter “FDA) Tentative Final Monograph (hereinafter “TFM”) for Laxative Products provides for a maximum oral dose of 7.56g of dibasic sodium phosphate and 20.2g of monobasic sodium phosphate in 24-hours.

17. In and before September 2007, Fleet promoted the use of FPS as a safe and effective bowel cleansing regimen in preparation for colonoscopy and other medical procedures.

18. Fleet has sought but failed to obtain an amendment of the TFM for Laxative Products to include a dosing regimen of FPS consisting of two 45mL doses separated by less than 24 hours.

19. FDA has repeatedly advised Fleet that the data upon which the company relied in seeking to amend the TFM for oral saline laxatives was insufficient to demonstrate the safety of the proposed change.

20. FDA has never amended the TFM for oral saline laxatives to include any dosing regimen of FPS greater than 45mL in a 24 hour period.

21. On December 11, 2008, FDA advised that due to the dangers of acute phosphate nephropathy, FPS should not be used for bowel cleansing.

22. On December 11, 2008, Fleet issued a voluntary recall of the FPS products.

23. All the information and data upon which FDA issued its December 11, 2008 advisory was known to Fleet in and before September 2007.

24. Since the 1990's, Fleet has received numerous reports of serious injury, including acute phosphate nephropathy, acute renal failure, and chronic kidney disease following the use of FPS.

25. At all relevant times, Fleet knew or should have known that the ingestion of FPS could cause serious physical injury, including acute renal failure and chronic kidney disease, in persons such as Plaintiff.

26. Fleet has at all relevant times suppressed and/or downplayed the risks of acute phosphate nephropathy, acute renal failure, and chronic kidney disease following the use of FPS.

27. Fleet has at all times relevant falsely reassured physicians that taking FPS provided for safe bowel cleansing.

28. Fleet, having placed the FPS purchased by Plaintiff in the stream of commerce, was under a duty of reasonable care to give adequate warning of any dangers which were known to them, or should have been known to them, and which an ordinary FPS user would not readily or reasonably discover.

29. Prior to September 2007, Fleet was aware that doctors were routinely directing patients, such as Plaintiff, to use FPS in accordance with Fleet's recommended bowel cleansing regimen.

30. Prior to September 2007, the relevant entries in the Physician's Desk Reference failed to adequately warn of the health risks of acute phosphate nephropathy, acute renal failure, chronic kidney disease, or any other risk of serious injury which Plaintiff suffered as a result of the ingestion of FPS as directed.

31. Fleet, through their promoting, labeling, and selling of FPS falsely, deceptively, and materially misrepresented to Plaintiff that FPS was a safe product when it was not.

32. Fleet expressly misrepresented to Plaintiff that “[w]hen taken as directed [FPS]'s laxative action is gentle, virtually free from the likelihood of gastrointestinal discomfort, or irritation, and safe for the age groups intended.”

33. Plaintiff was in one of the “indicated” FPS age groups at the time the FPS was ingested.

34. Despite the knowledge of the unsafe and dangerous nature of FPS, Fleet recklessly, negligently, and knowingly failed to provide the necessary, adequate, and accurate information regarding the health hazards of FPS to those such as Plaintiff who would reasonably and foreseeably use the product.

35. Fleet failed to advise Plaintiff of the proper amount of water or other liquids to drink after taking FPS and otherwise failed to advise of the health risks and hazards associated with the use of FPS.

36. Fleet intended consumers, including Plaintiff, to rely of their omissions and misrepresentations regarding FPS.

37. Fleet's omissions and representations were negligently, recklessly, or knowingly false and misleading as to Plaintiff and were made with the intent of inducing Plaintiff, and other consumers, to purchase and use FPS.

38. Plaintiff reasonably believed and justifiably relied upon Fleet's omissions and representations and was induced into purchasing and ingesting FPS as directed.

39. On or about September 24, 2007, Plaintiff purchased and ingested the FPS to prepare for a scheduled colonoscopy.

40. The packages of FPS purchased by Plaintiff contained no warnings regarding health risks, including the health risks of acute phosphate nephropathy, acute renal failure, chronic kidney disease, or any other risk of serious injury which Plaintiff suffered as a result of the ingestion of FPS as directed.

41. On September 25, 2007, Dr. Luttrell performed a colonoscopy on Mr. Stagg.

42. Two days following the colonoscopy exam, Mr. Stagg began to exhibit symptoms of acute renal failure including nausea, vomiting, dehydration, headache and fatigue.

43. On October 1, 2007, Mr. Stagg presented to St. Vincent's Hospital Emergency Room where he was diagnosed with acute renal failure secondary to Fleet Phospho-Soda.

44. Mr. Stagg's BUN was 72 and his creatinine was 5.1. This was over five times his baseline creatinine level.

45. After a 10 day hospitalization, Mr. Stagg was released from St. Vincent's Hospital. Despite the medical treatment, Mr. Stagg's creatinine level on discharge, 3.2, remained over three times his normal baseline level.

46. Following discharge, Mr. Stagg was treated at St. Vincent's at least ten times through the end of December 2007. Unfortunately, Mr. Stagg's renal function never returned to normal.

47. On November 6, 2007, Dr. Harry Giles, nephrologist, diagnosed Mr. Stagg with acute phosphate nephropathy.

48. On February 14, 2008, Dr. Giles diagnosed Mr. Stagg with Stage III chronic kidney disease.

49. To this day, Mr. Stagg continues treatment for Stage III kidney disease. His life is forever changed as a result of Fleet Phospho-Soda. Had Mr. Stagg been aware of Fleet's dangerous propensity, he would have never used it.

50. Plaintiff has suffered and will continue to suffer physical pain and mental anguish.

51. Plaintiff has incurred and will continue to incur substantial medical bills and has lost wages and earnings opportunities.

52. As a direct and proximate result of the acts and omissions of Defendants, the Plaintiff has been prevented from pursuing normal activities and employment, has experienced severe pain and suffering and mental pain, anguish, lost wages and earning opportunities, medical bills past and future and has been deprived of his ordinary pursuits and enjoyments of life.

53. Fleet knew of the dangers of FPS when used in accordance with the bowel cleansing regimen that Fleet falsely promoted as safe; but through their negligent, reckless, and fraudulent conduct, they concealed and failed to advise consumers, including Plaintiff, of the dangers and health risks associated with FPS.
III. CLAIMS FOR RELIEF

COUNT I (AEMLD)

54. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations and averments as if set out fully herein.

55. Defendants are engaged in the business of manufacturing, producing, distributing and selling products, including the Recalled FPS, to the public at large for profit in Alabama.

56. The Plaintiff ingested the Recalled FPS.

57. Defendants placed the FPS in the stream of commerce for human consumption, with said product being purchased and consumed by Plaintiff.

58. The FPS was in a defective condition when it reached the Plaintiff.

59. Such condition was unreasonably dangerous to the Plaintiff as the ultimate consumer, as defined by the Alabama Extended Manufacturer's Liability Doctrine.

60. The Defendants knew that the FPS was intended for human consumption and Defendants knew or should have known that the FPS would be consumed without inspection by the ultimate consumer, such as the Plaintiff.

61. Defendants failed to adequately inspect the FPS or warn about the health hazards which Plaintiff suffered and which Defendants knew or reasonably should have known about prior to Plaintiffs ingestion of the FPS.

62. Plaintiff consumed and ingested the FPS as directed and indicated and suffered the above described injuries and damages as a proximate result of ingesting the FPS in its defective and unreasonably dangerous condition.

WHEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants for a sum of money to be determined by a jury which fairly and adequately compensates the Plaintiff based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter plus interest and costs.

COUNT II (BREACH OF WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY)

63. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations and averments as if set out fully herein.

64. When Defendants placed the FPS into the stream of commerce, they knew that it would be used by the Plaintiff as indicated and promoted.

65. Plaintiff reasonably relied upon the expertise, skill, judgment and knowledge of the Defendants and upon the express and/or implied warranty that FPS was of merchantable quality and safe and fit for its intended use.

66. In fact, FPS was not of merchantable quality and was not safe or fit for its intended use because it was unreasonably dangerous and unfit for the ordinary purposes for which it was used, in that FPS caused serious injuries and damages to the Plaintiff. Defendant breached the warranties because FPS was unduly dangerous in its expected use and did cause undue injuries to the Plaintiff.

67. As a proximate consequence of the Defendants' breach of the warranties of merchantability, both express and implied, the Plaintiff was caused to suffer injuries and damages as stated above and incorporated herein.

WHEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants for a sum of money to be determined by a jury which fairly and adequately compensates the Plaintiff based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter plus interest and costs

COUNT III (NEGLIGENCE/WANTONNESS)

68. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations and averments as if set out fully herein.

69. Directly or indirectly, Defendants negligently and /or wantonly designed, developed, manufactured, tested, produced, labeled, inspected, packaged, dosed, distributed, promoted, marketed, advertised, released, or sold the FPS in the stream of commerce, when it knew, or in the exercise of ordinary care, should have known that the drug posed a significant risk to the health, well-being and safety of the Plaintiff, which risk was not known to Plaintiff.

70. At all times material hereto, Defendants had a duty to the Plaintiff to exercise reasonable care in the design, development, manufacture, production, inspection, testing, labeling, packaging, distribution, promotion, marketing, supplying, advertisement, distribution or sale of FPS.

71. Defendants breached their duty and were negligent and/or wanton in their actions, misrepresentations, and omissions toward Plaintiff, in that the Defendants:

a. failed to use reasonable care to design, develop, manufacture, produce, test, inspect, label, package, dose, promote, market, advertise, distribute, release or sell FPS that was safe for its intended and foreseeable uses, not defective, and not unreasonably dangerous;

b. sold, released, produced, and distributed FPS without making proper and sufficient tests to determine the drug's strength/dose;

c. failed to use reasonable care to adequately warn foreseeable users such as Plaintiff of the dangers of ingesting FPS;

d. failed to use reasonable care to make reasonable tests and inspections, and/or evaluations necessary to discover such defects and unreasonably dangerous conditions associated with the FPS;

e. failed to comply with and/or to use reasonable care to comply with standards of good manufacturing, production, inspection and testing practices, including accepted industry standards, FDA recommendations, government regulations and statutes, in the design, development, manufacture, testing, inspecting, dosing, labeling, and otherwise production, distribution and release of FPS;

f. failed to use reasonable care to timely remove and/or recall from the market, and/or otherwise prevent the continued contact of Plaintiff with such defects and unreasonably dangerous conditions of FPS;

g. failed to use reasonable care to investigate and/or use known and/or knowable reasonable alternative, manufacturing, production, testing and inspection processes for the FPS;

h. failed to use reasonable care to warn Plaintiff of dangers known and/or reasonably suspected to Defendants to be associated with the FPS;

i. failed to use reasonable care to make the FPS safe;

j. negligently represented that the FPS was safe for use for its intended purpose, when, in fact, it was not;

k. failed to use reasonable care to make reasonable tests, inspections and/or evaluations necessary to discover such defects and unreasonably dangerous conditions associated with the FPS;

1. failed to timely use reasonable care to discover the dangerous conditions or character of the FPS and recall it; and,

m. failed to use reasonable care to timely conduct a recall of the FPS, and when the recall was implemented, it failed to use reasonable care to implement the recall and inform the medical community, and the public, including the Plaintiff of all relevant information such that the chance of harm was minimized to the fullest extent possible.

72. Defendants knew or should have known that FPS caused unreasonably dangerous risks and serious side-effects, including death, of which Plaintiff would not be aware. Defendants nevertheless advertised, marketed, supplied, released, sold and distributed the drug knowing that there were safer products.

73. As a proximate consequence of the Defendants' said negligence and/or wantonness, the Plaintiff ingested the FPS as directed and was caused to suffer the injuries and damages as stated above and incorporated herein.

WHEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants for a sum of money to be determined by a jury which fairly and adequately compensates the Plaintiff based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter plus interest and costs.

COUNT VI (FRAUD, MISREPRESENTATION AND SUPPRESSION)

74. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations and averments as if set out fully herein.

75. Defendants fraudulently, intentionally and/or negligently misrepresented to Plaintiff, Plaintiffs physician, the FDA, and general public, the safety of FPS and/or fraudulently, intentionally and/or negligently concealed material information including adverse information regarding the safety of the FPS.

76. Defendants made misrepresentations and actively concealed adverse information at a time when the Defendants knew, or should have known, that FPS had defects, dangers, and characteristics that were other than what the Defendants had represented to the FDA, and the consuming public, including the Plaintiff and his physician. Specifically, the Defendants misrepresented to Plaintiff, his physician, the FDA, and the consuming public that FSP was safe for its intended use when Fleet knew and/or should have known that FPS was not fit for its intended use in that Fleet's recommended oral dose exceeded that approved by the FDA.

77. Forty-five (45) mL of FPS contains 8.1g of dibasic sodium phosphate and 21.6g of monobasic sodium phosphate.

78. The United States Food & Drug Administration (hereinafter “FDA) Tentative Final Monograph (hereinafter “TFM”) for Laxative Products provides for a maximum oral dose of 7.56g of dibasic sodium phosphate and 20.2g of monobasic sodium phosphate in 24-hours.

79. Fleet has sought but failed to obtain an amendment of the TFM for Laxative Products to include a dosing regimen of FPS consisting of two 45mL doses separated by less than 24 hours.

80. FDA has repeatedly advised Fleet that the data upon which the company relied in seeking to amend the TFM for oral saline laxatives was insufficient to demonstrate the safety of the proposed change.

81. FDA has never amended the TFM for oral saline laxatives to include any dosing regimen of FPS greater than 45mL in a 24 hour period.

82. Despite Fleet's failure to obtain an amendment of the TFM for Laxative Products and Fleet's knowledge of the danger associated with doses exceeding those recommended and approved by the FDA, Fleet continued to misrepresent to Plaintiff, his physician, the FDA, and the consuming public that Fleet's recommended dose was safe, effective and fit for its intended use.

83. Defendant knew or should have known that these misrepresentations were false and the Plaintiff and his physician would rely on them, leading to the use of the FPS. Defendant knew that physicians had been told the same false and fraudulent information about the FPS and that Plaintiff and his prescribing physicians would be relying on information, advertisements and statements made by Defendant about the use, safety and efficacy of the FPS.

84. At the time of Defendants' fraudulent misrepresentations and active concealment, Plaintiff and his physician were unaware of the falsity of the statements being made and believed them to be true.

85. Plaintiff and his physician justifiably relied on and/or were induced by the misrepresentations made by Defendants of the safety and use of the FPS, and in fact, used FPS as recommended.

86. Defendants intentionally concealed the truth from Plaintiff, his physician, and the consuming public about the real safety and risks of the FPS.

87. The misrepresentations and active concealment by the Defendants constitutes a continuing tort against Plaintiff.

88. As a proximate consequence of the Defendants' wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff ingested the FPS and was caused to suffer the injuries and damages as stated above and incorporated herein.

WHEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants for a sum of money to be determined by a jury which fairly and adequately compensates the Plaintiff based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter plus interest and costs.

COUNT VII (STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY)

89. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations and averments as if set out fully herein.

90. At all relevant times, Defendants were the designers, developers, manufacturers, producers, makers, dosers, processors, compounders, forumlaters, labelers, packagers, testers, inspectors, distributor, marketers, promoters, suppliers, releasors and sellers of the FPS, which, at all relevant times, was defective and unreasonably dangerous to consumers.

91. At all relevant times, the FPS was defective in its design, manufacture and production in that it was not reasonably fit, suitable or safe for its intended purpose and/or its foreseeable risks exceed the benefits. The FPS was defective in design, manufacture and production in that it posed a greater likelihood of injury than other properly-dosed Laxative medicines and similar drugs on the market, including properly dosed FPS and was more dangerous than ordinary consumers can reasonably foresee.

92. At all relevant times, the defective condition of the FPS rendered it unreasonably dangerous, and the FPS was in this defective condition at the time it left the hands of the Defendants. The FPS was expected to and did reach consumers, including Plaintiff, without substantial change in the condition in which it was designed, developed, manufactured, labeled, dosed, produced, sold, distributed, marketed, promoted, supplied and otherwise released into the stream of commerce.

93. At all relevant times, Plaintiff was unaware of the significant hazards and defects in the FPS. The FPS was unreasonably dangerous than would be reasonably contemplated by the ordinary user. During the period that Plaintiff was taking the FPS, the medication was being utilized in a manner that was intended by the Defendants. At the time Plaintiff received and consumed the FPS, it was represented to be safe and free from latent defects.

94. At all relevant times, Defendants knew or should have known of the danger associated with the use of the FPS, as well as the defective nature of the FPS, but continued to manufacture, sell, distribute, label, package, market, promote, release and/or supply the FPS so as to maximize sales and profits at the expense of the public health and safety and to maintain the FPS brand integrity, in conscious disregard of the foreseeable harm caused by the FPS.

95. At all relevant times, the FPS was in a defective and unreasonably dangerous condition which would not be recognized or contemplated by a reasonable person among the expected users and consumers at the time it left the control of the Defendants.

96. At all relevant times, the FPS was defective and unreasonably dangerous when used in reasonably expectable ways of handling and/or consumption.

97. At all relevant times, the FPS was expected to reach, and did reach, the ultimate user or consumer, including Plaintiff, without substantial change in the condition in which it was sold, supplied, manufactured, produced, and/or distributed by Defendants.

98. At all relevant times, the FPS was defective and unreasonably dangerous.

99. Defendants are strictly liable to Plaintiff for manufacturing, producing and placing into the stream of commerce a product which was defective and unreasonably dangerous for its reasonably foreseeable uses at the time it left the control of Defendants.

100. As a proximate consequence of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff ingested the FPS and was caused to suffer the injuries and damages as stated above and incorporated herein.

WEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants for a sum of money to be determined by a jury which fairly and adequately compensates the Plaintiff based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter plus interest and costs.

COUNT VII (FAILURE TO WARN)

101. Plaintiff hereby alleges and incorporates by reference all of the foregoing allegations and averments as if set out fully herein.

102. The FPS was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the possession of the Defendants in that it contained labeling, packaging and warnings insufficient to alert consumers, including the Plaintiff, of the dangerous risks and reactions associated with the FPS including but not limited, failing to warn that the FPS contained a dose of Laxative exceeding the dose approved by the FDA.

103. The FPS was defective and unreasonably dangerous when it left the possession of the Defendants in that it contained labeling, packaging and warnings insufficient to alert consumers, including the Plaintiff, of the dangerous risks and reactions associated with the FPS including but not limited, failing to warn that the FPS could cause serious and life threatening kidney damage and disease.

104. The Plaintiff was recommended to use and did use FPS for its intended purpose.

105. The Plaintiff could not have discovered any defect in the FPS through the exercise of reasonable care.

106. The Defendants, as designers, developers, manufacturers, producers, suppliers, inspectors, testers, distributors, releasors or sellers of the subject FPS, a prescription drug, are held to the level of knowledge of an expert in the field.

107. The label, warnings and dosing information that were given by the Defendants with the FPS were not accurate, clear and/or were ambiguous.

108. The label, warnings and dosing information that were given by the Defendants failed to properly warn physicians, the Plaintiff, and the public the FPS contained a dose not approved for use in humans and thus ingestion risked serious injuries, side effects and/or death.

109. The Plaintiff, individually and through his prescribing physician, reasonably relied upon the skill, superior knowledge and judgment of the Defendants.

110. The Defendants had a continuing duty to warn the Plaintiff of the dangers associated with the FPS.

111. Had the Plaintiff received adequate warnings or information regarding the dose of FPS and/or information regarding the risks of ingesting the FPS, they would not have used it.

112. As a proximate consequence of the Defendant's wrongful conduct, the Plaintiff ingested the FPS and was caused to suffer the injuries and damages as stated above and incorporated herein.

WHEREFORE, THE ABOVE PREMISES CONSIDERED, the Plaintiff claims compensatory and punitive damages against the Defendants for a sum of money to be determined by a jury which fairly and adequately compensates the Plaintiff based upon the facts and circumstances in this matter plus interest and costs.
PRAYER FOR RELIEF

WHEREFORE, Plaintiff demands judgment against Defendants for damages including exemplary damages if applicable to which he is entitled by law, as well as all costs of this action, to the full extent of the law including:

1. judgment for Plaintiff and against Defendants;

2. damages to compensate Plaintiff for injuries sustained as a result of the FPS use;

3. physical pain and suffering of the Plaintiff;

4. pre and post judgment interest at the lawful rate;

5. reasonable attorneys' fees and costs and expert fees;

6. restitution of all purchase costs of the FPS;

7. exemplary and punitive damages in an amount in excess of the jurisdictional limits, trebled on all applicable Counts;

8. a trial by jury on all issues of the case; and

9. for any other relief as this court may deem equitable and just.
VIII. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED

Plaintiff demands that all issues of fact of this case be tried by a struck jury.