IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA



Similar documents
THE STATE OF MINNESOTA TO THE ABOVE-NAMED DEFENDANTS: the Complaint which is herewith served upon you within twenty (20) days after the service of

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE NO. Defendant

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT KENOSHA COUNTY BRANCH CASE NO. Plaintiff,

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE NINTH JUDICAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR ORANGE COUNTY FLORIDA. Case No.

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA. Case No.: of record, asserting claims against the Defendant, Chipotle Mexican Grill, Inc.

existing under the laws of the State of Delaware. Chipotle, together with its subsidiaries

STATE OF MICHIGAN IN THE CIRCUIT COURT FOR THE COUNTY OF CALHOUN

STATE OF WISCONSIN CIRCUIT COURT FOND DU LAC COUNTY BRANCH

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF COOK COUNTY, ILLINOIS LAW DIVISION, THIRD DISTRICT

DISTRICT COURT CLARK COUNTY, NEVADA

COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

2:12-cv SFC-RSW Doc # 1 Filed 07/06/12 Pg 1 of 8 Pg ID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MICHIGAN SOUTHERN DIVISION

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA BROWARD DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No.: COMPLAINT

Case 3:14-cv P Document 1 Filed 06/30/14 Page 1 of 9 PageID 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF UTAH. Plaintiffs, COMES NOW the plaintiffs, REBECCA BUSICO and CHRISTOPHER BUSICO,

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA LOS ANGELES COUNTY CENTRAL DISTRICT STANLEY MOSK COURTHOUSE

Filing # Electronically Filed 12/29/ :48:06 PM

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE 7 TH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR VOLUSIA COUNTY, FLORIDA COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF HORRY COUNTY STATE OF SOUTH CAROLINA COMPLAINT

Case 3:10-cv PK Document 1 Filed 04/13/2010 Page 1 of 8

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA ORLANDO DIVISION COMPLAINT FOR DISABILITY INSURANCE BENEFITS

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF SOUTH CAROLINA GREENVILLE DIVISION

How To Sue Fig & Olive

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 01/21/15 Page 1 of 5 PageID #:1

COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURIES, WRONGFUL DEATH AND LOSS OF CONSORTIUM

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT CENTRAL DISTRICT OF ILLINOIS PEORIA DIVISION

Complaint as permitted by Case Management Order # 4 and Implementing Order PARTIES, JURISDICTION AND VENUE

IN THE THIRD JUDICIAL DISTRICT COURT, SALT LAKE COUNTY STATE OF UTAH. Case No. : Judge:

GRAY, L.L.C. 760 ROUTE 10 WEST, SUITE 203 WHIPPANY, NEW JERSEY PH: F: Attorneys for Plaintiff Henry Kent

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT THE PARTIES

Case 2:10-cv SSV-DEK Document 27 Filed 12/07/10 Page 1 of 17 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF LOUISIANA

No. Plaintiff Kelvin Bledsoe ( Plaintiff ), by his undersigned counsel, brings claims

CASE NO.: COMPLAINT. Plaintiff, [PLAINTIFF S NAME], by and through her parent and natural guardian

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

COMPLAINT. Plaintiff [PLAINTIFF] hereby sues the Defendants, [DEFENDANT #1], [DEFENDANT INTRODUCTION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF VIRGINIA LYNCHBURG (CHARLOTTESVILLE) DIVISION. Plaintiff, Case No. v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN DIEGO

vs. JURY TRIAL DEMANDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR JURY TRIAL Plaintiff JAMES SCHAIRER, by and through undersigned counsel, hereby sues

Case 2:12-cv SRC-CLW Document 1 Filed 11/14/12 Page 1 of 5 PageID: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF NEW JERSEY

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

Case 3:10-cv DRD Document 31 Filed 05/05/11 Page 1 of 9

Case No.: CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF WORKMANSHIP AND HABITABILITY. Plaintiffs,

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MASSACHUSETTS. ) IATRIC SYSTEMS, INC., ) ) ) Civil Action No. 1:14-cv ) v. ) ) FAIRWARNING, INC.

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

CAUSE NO. JULIE TORBERT, as next friend of IN THE DISTRICT COURT PHILIP ORMSTON V. DENTON COUNTY, TEXAS

Ctu 1 FiRib00l&em8 P&ryd 6fd 9

CAUSE NO. JUSTIN GROGG IN THE DISTRICT COURT OF Plaintiff, vs. DALLAS COUNTY, TEXAS

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI

4. Whole Foods Market, Inc. is a Texas Corporation whose principal office in

BNSF RAILWAY COMPANY as Successor in Interest to the ATCHISON, TOPEKA & SANTA FE RAILWAY COMPANY, C O M P L A I N T

Baltimore, MD * The Corporation Trust Inc 351 West Camden Street * Baltimore, MD KATHLEEN WARD, M.D South Hanover Street *

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR NORTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS DALLAS DIVISION

Case 1:13-cv UNA Document 1 Filed 01/04/13 Page 1 of 11 PageID #: 1 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF DELAWARE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) CA No. COMPLAINT FOR PATENT INFRINGEMENT

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

No. 45TH. Plaintiff EDGEWOOD INDEPENDENT SCHOOL DISTRICT files its Original Petition

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE STATE OF OREGON FOR THE COUNTY OF MULTNOMAH ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA

Plaintiff Carol Parker ( Plaintiff ), residing at 32 Coleman Way, Jackson, NJ 08527, by her undersigned counsel, alleges the following upon personal

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

Plaintiff, by and through its attorneys, The Law Firm of Michael Levine, P.C.,

Case: 1:15-cv Document #: 1 Filed: 11/04/15 Page 1 of 10 PageID #:1

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF THE FIFTEENTH JUDICIAL CIRCUIT IN AND FOR PALM BEACH COUNTY, FLORIDA CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT

SUPERIOR COURT OF WASHINGTON FOR THURSTON COUNTY

Liability Concerns for Farmers Involved in Direct Marketing of Farm Products

Case 2:12-cv TSZ Document 4 Filed 09/11/12 Page 2 of 11. metal insert, 36 mm ID, 52 mm OD, lot # ; a 10.5 mm small stature AML stem, lot

IN THE STATE COURT OF COBB COUNTY STATE OF GEORGIA VERIFIED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY DAMAGES AND DEMAND FOR TRIAL BY JURY

AMENDED CLASS ACTION COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT WESTERN DISTRICT OF WASHINGTON AT SEATTLE ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) )

IN THE CIRCUIT COURT OF GREENE COUNTY, MISSOURI

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS MARSHALL DIVISION ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) ) COMPLAINT

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT MIDDLE DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TAMPA DIVISION COMPLAINT. COMES NOW, the Plaintiff, JOSEPH DELFRATE, and sues the Defendant,

1. STRICT PRODUCT LIABILITY; 2. NEGLIGENCE; 3. BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY OF MERCHANTABILITY; AND 4. NEGLIGENT INFLICTION OF EMOTIONAL DISTRESS

Attorney for Plaintiff SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA SAN BERNARDINO COUNTY CIVIL DIVISION. MARIA GODINEZ, an individual,

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF COLORADO THE UNIVERSITY OF COLORADO HOSPITAL AUTHORITY,

PREVIEW. 1. The following form may be used to file a personal injury lawsuit.

CUSTOMER LIST PURCHASE AGREEMENT BY AND BETWEEN RICHARD PENNER SELLER. and S&W SEED COMPANY BUYER

JEFFERSON CIRCUIT COURT JUDGE DIVISION. MELISSA ROWE, Individually and as Mother and Next Friend of E.R

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS LUFKIN DIVISION. v. Case No. COMPLAINT AND JURY DEMAND

CASE NO.: CIVIL DIVISION COMPLAINT. through undersigned counsel, and hereby sues Defendant, Winn-Dixie Stores, Inc., a Florida GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1416-CV Plaintiff is a resident of Jackson County, Missouri and is the biological mother of

COMPLAINT. Plaintiffs, Dileida Vizcaino and Norma Vizcaino, as Co-Personal Representatives of the

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA IN AND FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN BERNARDINO

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS TYLER DIVISION

NC General Statutes - Chapter 99B 1

3:14-cv JFA Date Filed 05/02/14 Entry Number 1 Page 1 of 12

Case: 4:15-cv Doc. #: 1 Filed: 09/10/15 Page: 1 of 8 PageID #: 1 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT EASTERN DISTRICT OF MISSOURI EASTERN DISTRICT

Case 2:07-cv LED Document 1-1 Filed 10/09/2007 Page 1 of 5

Case 2:10-cv NBF Document 1 Filed 09/17/10 Page 1 of 10 IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE WESTERN DISTRICT OF PENNSYLVANIA

Broadband Graphics - infringement of Patent Law and Procedure

Case 4:15-cv RH-CAS Document 1 Filed 03/17/15 Page 1 of 19 UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF FLORIDA TALLAHASSEE DIVISION

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF TEXAS HOUSTON DIVISION. v. JURY DEMANDED COMPLAINT THE PARTIES

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT SOUTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

FILED: NEW YORK COUNTY CLERK 01/17/2014 INDEX NO /2014 NYSCEF DOC. NO. 1 RECEIVED NYSCEF: 01/17/2014

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT NORTHERN DISTRICT OF GEORGIA ATLANTA DIVISION

Transcription:

IN THE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT FOR THE DISTRICT OF MINNESOTA WILLIAM R. SIEBEN, as guardian ad litem for STEPHANIE SMITH, an incapacitated person, Case No.: Plaintiffs, COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES JURY TRIAL DEMANDED against CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP., a foreign corporation, Defendant. COME NOW the above-named plaintiffs, by and through their attorneys of record, hereby asserting claims against the defendant, CARGILL MEAT SOLUTIONS CORP., and to state and allege as follows: I. PARTIES 1. The plaintiff William R. Sieben is the duly appointed legal guardian of plaintiff Stephanie Smith, who is an incapacitated adult. Mr. Sieben is a resident of Hastings, Minnesota, and Ms. Smith is a resident of Cold Spring, Minnesota. The plaintiffs are, as a result, citizens of the State of Minnesota. 2. The defendant Cargill Meat Solutions Corp. (hereinafter Cargill ) is a foreign corporation organized and existing under the laws of the State of Delaware, and registered as a corporation in the State of Kansas. Also, Cargill s corporate headquarters is located in Wichita, Kansas. Accordingly, the defendant is not a citizen of Minnesota.

3. At all times relevant to this lawsuit, Cargill was authorized to engage in, and did engage in, business in the State of Minnesota. II. JURISDICTION AND VENUE 4. This Court has jurisdiction over the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 USC 1332(a) because: (a) the amount in controversy exceeds $75,000, exclusive of costs; (b) the lawsuit is between citizens of different states; and (c) the defendant has certain minimum contacts with the State of Minnesota such that maintenance of the suit in this district does not offend traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. 5. Venue in the United States District Court for the District of Minnesota is proper pursuant to 28 USC 1391(a)(3) because the defendant was subject to personal jurisdiction in this judicial district at the time of the commencement of the action. III. GENERAL ALLEGATIONS The Cargill Outbreak 6. On October 6, 2007, the United States Department of Agriculture Food Safety and Inspection Service (USDA-FSIS) announced the recall of approximately 845,000 pounds of ground beef manufactured by the defendant Cargill between August 9 and August 17, 2007, due to contamination by E. coli O157:H7. 7. The multi-state public health investigation that occurred in response to the outbreak and recall identified outbreak cases i.e., people infected with E. coli O157:H7 from eating contaminated ground beef subject to the recall from multiple states. 8. On November 3, 2007, the USDA-FSIS announced an additional recall of approximately 1,084,384 pounds of Cargill ground beef products due to contamination by E. coli O157:H7. Stephanie Smith s Illness 2

9. On or about September 22, 2007, Stephanie Smith consumed ground beef that had been manufactured by Cargill, and was labeled American Chef s Angus Beef Patties. The ground beef that Stephanie consumed on this date was contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, a deadly pathogen, and was later included in the USDA-FSIS announced recall, described above. Leftover ground beef from the same box of Cargill ground beef patties that infected Stephanie on September 22, 2007, later tested positive for the same strain of E. coli O157:H7 that was involved in the national Cargill outbreak, described above. 10. Stephanie fell ill on or about Thursday, September 27, 2007. Her initial symptoms included fever, chills, and diarrhea. Stephanie s symptoms quickly grew worse, requiring admission to St. Cloud Hospital on September 28, 2007. 11. At St. Cloud Hospital, Stephanie s condition worsened dramatically. She soon developed hemolytic uremic syndrome (HUS), which is a potentially fatal complication of E. coli O157:H7 infection. 12. Stephanie s condition continued to worsen during her stay at St. Cloud Hospital. Her kidneys failed, she was unable to breathe on her own, and she began to suffer from severe, persistent seizures all as a result of the HUS illness. In fact, in an attempt to control the amount of damage being done to Stephanie s brain as a result of her persistent seizures, Stephanie s doctors at St. Cloud Hospital placed her in a druginduced coma on or about October 7, 2007. Stephanie was thereafter transferred to the Mayo Clinic, St. Mary s Hospital, for further care. 13. At St. Mary s Hospital, Stephanie received dialysis throughout the month of October and most of November 2007. She remained in the drug-induced coma until 3

December 10, 2007, as a prophylactic measure against the damaging effects of her persistent seizures. 14. When the drug-induced coma was finally withdrawn after more than two months, it was immediately apparent that Stephanie had suffered a severe brain injury. She had very little, if any, feeling in her legs; she was unable to walk; and she had lost control of her bowel and bladder function. 15. Stephanie Smith remained hospitalized at St Mary s through February 27, 2008, at which point she was discharged to continue her rehabilitation at St. Cloud Hospital. She would remain hospitalized at St. Cloud Hospital for intensive inpatient rehabilitation through April 17, 2008. 16. After discharge from St. Cloud Hospital, Stephanie Smith underwent additional inpatient rehabilitation at Bethesda Hospital s brain injury unit. She remained at Bethesda through June 18, 2008, before being discharged home to continue her intensive rehabilitation therapies. Stephanie has since continued her rehabilitative efforts in inpatient and outpatient settings. 17. As a result of her E. coli O157:H7-induced HUS illness, Stephanie Smith has suffered severe and permanent injuries. These injuries include, but are not limited to, a neurological injury that has caused global cognitive impairment, an inability to control her bowels and bladder, and that will prevent Stephanie from functionally walking ever again. Stephanie also suffered a kidney injury so severe that she will require kidney transplantation during her lifetime for survival. 18. Stephanie has already incurred in excess of $1,800,000 in medical costs, and faces far more medical costs in the future as a result of her severe injuries. IV. CAUSES OF ACTION 4

Strict Liability Count I 19. At all times relevant hereto, the defendant was a manufacturer and seller of the adulterated meat product that is the subject of this action, and the defendant was in the business of manufacturing and selling like products. 20. The adulterated meat product that the defendant manufactured and sold was, at the time it left the defendant s control, defective and unreasonably dangerous for its ordinary and expected use because it contained E. coli O157:H7, a harmful and potentially lethal foodborne pathogen. 21. The adulterated meat product that the defendant manufactured and sold was delivered to the plaintiff Stephanie Smith without change in its defective condition. The plaintiff Stephanie Smith thereafter used the product in a reasonably foreseeable manner by consuming it. 22. Stephanie Smith s illness and associated legal injuries occurred as a direct and proximate result of the defective and unreasonably dangerous condition of the adulterated meat product that the defendant manufactured and sold. Negligence Count II 23. The defendant owed to the plaintiff Stephanie Smith a duty to use reasonable care in the manufacture, distribution, handling, and sale of its meat products, the observance of which duty would have prevented or eliminated the risk that the defendant s products would be or become contaminated with E. coli O157:H7, and that the plaintiff Stephanie Smith would become infected with E. coli O157:H7 as a proximate result of consuming the defendant s meat products. The defendant breached this duty and is negligent as a result. 5

24. The defendant owed to the plaintiff Stephanie Smith a duty to comply with all applicable statutes, laws, regulations, or safety codes pertaining to the manufacture, distribution, handling, and sale of its meat products. The defendant failed to observe this duty and was therefore negligent. 25. The plaintiff Stephanie Smith was among the class of persons intended to be protected by the statutes, laws, regulations, and safety codes referenced above that pertain to the manufacture, distribution, handling, and sale of similar food products. 25. The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff Stephanie Smith to properly supervise, train, and monitor its employees, and to ensure that its employees complied with all applicable statutes, laws, regulations, or safety codes. The defendant failed to observe this duty and was therefore negligent. 26. The defendant owed a duty to the plaintiff Stephanie Smith to use constituent materials, ingredients, and supplies, which were reasonably safe, wholesome, and free of defects and that otherwise complied with applicable federal, state, and local laws, ordinances, and regulations, and that were clean, free from adulteration, and safe for human consumption. The defendant failed to observe this duty and was therefore negligent. 27. Stephanie Smith s E. coli O157:H7 illness and other related injuries occurred as a direct and proximate result of defendant s breach of duties discussed above. 6

Negligence Per Se Count III 28. The defendant had a duty to comply with all applicable state and federal regulations intended to ensure the purity and safety of its food products, including the requirements of the Federal Meat Inspection Act (21 U.S.C. 601, et seq.), and all codes, statutes, regulations, and policies promulgated pursuant to it. 29. The defendant failed to comply with such provisions of law identified in the preceding paragraph and was, as a result, negligent per se with regard to manufacture, distribution, and sale of the subject meat products. 30. Stephanie Smith s E. coli O157:H7 illness and associated legal injuries occurred as a direct and proximate result of conduct by the defendant that constituted negligence per se. V. DAMAGES 31. The plaintiffs are entitled to receive just compensation for the following: (a) the pain and suffering that Stephanie Smith incurred by reason of defendant s fault and several breaches of duty, including its negligent acts and omissions, past present and future; (b) (c) all related medical expenses and costs incurred, past, present, and future; the physical harm that the plaintiff Stephanie Smith suffered by reason of defendant s fault and several breaches of duty, including its negligent acts and omissions, past, present, and future; (d) the emotional suffering and distress that the plaintiff Stephanie Smith suffered by reason of defendant s fault and several breaches of duty, including its negligent acts and omissions, past, present, and future; and 7

(e) the loss of enjoyment of life that each of the plaintiff Stephanie Smith sustained, past present, and future; and all other ordinary, incidental or consequential damages that could be reasonably anticipated to arise under the circumstances, including, but not limited to, loss of earning capacity. PRAYER FOR RELIEF WHEREFORE, the plaintiffs pray for judgment against the defendant as follows: A. Judgment against the defendant for just compensation in a fair and reasonable amount for all general, special, incidental and consequential damages suffered by the plaintiff as a result of defendant s conduct; and B. Judgment in a fair and reasonable amount for expenses and legal injuries incurred, in a fair and reasonable amount for the damages suffered; and C. Such additional and/or further relief, including interest, costs, and reasonable attorney fees, as this Court deems just and equitable. Dated: December, 2009. MARLER CLARK L.L.P., P.S. William D. Marler MARLER CLARK, LLP PS 701 5 th Avenue, Suite. 6600 Seattle, WA 98104 (206) 346-1888 8