Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00156/USCOURTS-caed-1_05-cv-00156-2/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 360
Nature of Suit: Other Personal Injury
Cause of Action: 28:1441 Petition for Removal- Personal Injury

---

1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 1 -

STIPULATION RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

CONTINUING COMPLETION DATES AND ORDER THEREON

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD G. TARLOW

23679 Calabasas Road, Suite 543

Calabasas, CA 91302

Tel: (818) 222-1030

Fax: (818) 222-6152

LAW OFFICES OF LYLE F. GREENBERG

6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1400 - Trillium Tower East

Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2562 

Tel: (818) 884-5100 

Fax: (818) 884-5288

RICHARD G. TARLOW, ESQ.

STATE BAR NO.: 72889

LYLE F. GREENBERG

STATE BAR NO.: 110620

Attorneys for Plaintiff, DONALD BUCKNER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD BUCKNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS and

COMPANY; BULWARK PROTECTIVE

APPAREL; AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM

SERVICES; and DOES 1 to 100, Inclusive,

Defendants.

____________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTION

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00156-AWI-SMS

(Complaint filed December 7, 2004)

STIPULATION AND ORDER RE:

-FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT,

-CONTINUING INSPECTION COMPLETION

DAT E , D E S T R U C T I VE TESTI N G

COMPLETION DATE

-SCHEDULING CONFERENCE ORDER

The parties participated in a telephonic conference call with the Honorable Magistrate Judge

Sandra M. Snyder on July 13, 2005, at 1:15 p.m. regarding the matters set forth herein.

IT IS HEREBY STIPULATED by and between Plaintiff DONALD BUCKNER and

Defendants and Cross-Parties VF IMAGEWEAR, INC. formerly known as BULWARK

PROTECTIVE APPAREL; AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC. dba AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 1 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 2 -

STIPULATION RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

CONTINUING COMPLETION DATES AND ORDER THEREON

SERVICES, and Cross-Party and SPRINGFIELD LLC by and through their designated counsel as

follows:

1. Plaintiff may amend his complaint. The Original First Amended Complaint which

Plaintiff shall file is attached hereto and incorporated herein by reference. The First

Amended Complaint adds WASHING SYSTEMS, LLC; SYSWA

INCORPORATED formerly known as WASHING SYSTEMS, INC.; and

SPRINGFIELD LLC as named Defendants in this action;

2. The Inspection Completion date currently scheduled for August 15, 2005 is hereby

continued to December 15, 2005, to allow the newly added parties sufficient time to

comply and participate; 

3. The Destructive Testing Completion date currently scheduled for August 15, 2005

is hereby continued to December 15, 2005, to allow the newly added parties

sufficient time to comply and participate; and

4. The present Scheduling Conference Order will be provided to counsel for SYSWA

INCORPORATED formerly known as WASHING SYSTEMS, INC.; WASHING

SYSTEMS, LLC, who will be required to file their comments to that Order with the

Court and all other counsel. 

Dated: August 22, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD G. TARLOW

BY: /s/ Richard G. Tarlow

Richard G. Tarlow

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Dated: August 22, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYLE F. GREENBERG

BY: /s/ Lyle F. Greenberg

Lyle F. Greenberg

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 2 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 3 -

STIPULATION RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

CONTINUING COMPLETION DATES AND ORDER THEREON

Dated: August 12, 2005 FORD, WALKER, HAGGERTY & BEHAR

BY: /s/ DeAnn Flores Chase

James D. Savage, Esq.

DeAnn Flores Chase, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant VF Imagewear, Inc.

formerly Bulwark Protective Apparel

Dated: August 16, 2005 ACKER, KOWALICK & WHIPPLE

BY: /s/ Stephen Acker

Stephen Acker, Esq.

Attorneys for Defendant Ameripride Services,

Inc. dba Ameripride Uniform Services

Dated: August 16, 2005 MUHAR, ROBERTS, FAMA, KRAMER & MONTY

BY: /s/ George Muhar

George Muhar, 

Attorneys for Cross-Defendant 

Springfield, LLC

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 3 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 4 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD G. TARLOW

23679 Calabasas Road, Suite 543

Calabasas, CA 91302

Tel: (818) 222-1030

Fax: (818) 222-6152

LAW OFFICES OF LYLE F. GREENBERG

6320 Canoga Avenue

Suite 1400 - Trillium Tower East

Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2562 

Tel: (818) 884-5100 

Fax: (818) 884-5288

RICHARD G. TARLOW, ESQ.

STATE BAR NO.: 72889

LYLE F. GREENBERG

STATE BAR NO.: 110620

Attorneys for Plaintiff, DONALD BUCKNER

UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

EASTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

DONALD BUCKNER,

Plaintiff,

v.

E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS and

COMPANY (no longer a party); VF

IMAGEWEAR, INC. formerly known as

BULWARK PROTECTIVE APPAREL;

AMERIPRIDE SERVICES, INC. dba

AMERIPRIDE UNIFORM SERVICES;

SYSWA INCORPORATED formerly known

as WASHING SYSTEMS, INC.; WASHING

SYSTEMS, LLC; and SPRINGFIELD LLC

Defendants.

____________________________________

AND RELATED CROSS-ACTIONS

____________________________________

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

)

CASE NO. 1:05-CV-00156-AWI-SMS

(Complaint filed December 7, 2004)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR

PERSONAL INJURIES FOR:

(1) GENERAL NEGLIGENCE;

(2) NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION;

(3) STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY;

(4) BREACH OF EXPRESS

WARRANTY; and

(5) BREACH OF IMPLIED

WARRANTY

COMES NOW Plaintiff, DONALD BUCKNER, and for himself and himself alone, alleges:

PRELIMINARY ALLEGATIONS

(COMMON TO ALL CAUSES OF ACTION)

1. At all relevant times, plaintiff Donald Buckner was and is a resident of the County

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 4 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 5 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

of Kern, State of California and within this Court’s jurisdiction.

2. Defendant E.I. du PONT de NEMOURS and COMPANY has been dismissed from

this action and the allegations herein do not pertain to said Defendant.

3. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon that each of the defendants

designated herein is responsible in some form or manner for the events and happenings hereinafter

referred to. Said defendants negligently or tortiously caused the injuries and damages to plaintiff,

as alleged herein, either through defendants’ own conduct or through the conduct of their agents,

servants or employees; or, due to said defendants’ importation, design, creation, installation,

ownership, possession, supervision, maintenance, management, manufacture, repair, inspection,

construction, entrustment, distribution and/or sale, use, furnishing, creating, manufacturing, control,

design, laundering, dry cleaning, advertising, failure to adequately inspect and provide all necessary

and appropriate safeguards, failure to warn of product shortcomings, limitations or life span of the

laboratory coat plaintiff was wearing and the other equipment and devices herein, all of which led

to, caused or contributed to plaintiff’s injuries, as hereinafter set forth. 

4. At all times herein mentioned, said defendants were acting with the knowledge,

permission, consent, authority, acquiescence, subsequent ratification and acceptance of the acts,

omissions, failure to warn and/or misconduct of each of the other defendants, and within the course

and scope of their position as agents, servants, representatives or employees of each other. 

5. At all times herein mentioned, each defendant was the agent, servant or employee of

the other defendants, and of each other, and was acting at the time within the purpose or scope of

said agency or employment, and with the express or implied knowledge, permission, consent or

ratification of the remaining defendants. 

6. All defendants herein, are duly organized and existing under and by virtue of the laws

of the State of California or are authorized to do business within said State. Said defendants were

and are authorized to do business, are doing business, and have regularly conducted business in

California. Plaintiff alleges that at all times herein mentioned said defendants and each of them were

and are engaged in business and/or activities which relate to all of the other defendants by designing,

planning, manufacturing, distributing, constructing, supervising, engineering, repairing, laundering,

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 5 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 6 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

dry cleaning and/or being involved in some aspect of the manufacturing, advertising, designing, and

distribution, cleaning, refurbishing, and sale of the products or equipment which was used by

plaintiff to protect him while working in the laboratory at Kern Oil & Refining Co. and while testing

hazardous products. 

7. At all times herein mentioned defendants, and each of them, had a duty of care to

provide safe and appropriate work clothes and protective apparel which would, without possibility

of ever being compromised, provide flame-resistant protection to the wearer, such as plaintiff. Such

garment should provide a measure of protection to plaintiff such that in the event of an inadvertent

spill or accident within the laboratory wherein plaintiff worked, or some other inadvertent exposure

to flame that plaintiff would be protected therefrom by virtue of the inherent flame-resistant

capabilities and characteristic of the fibers of the material. Further, that such product, in the event

that it did burn, would allow quick, easy and safe removal from the wearer such as to not exacerbate

burn injuries, such as those sustained by plaintiff. Moreover, the protective garment plaintiff was

wearing when injured was designed in such a manner as to be flame-resistant, to resist ignition, and

to not continue to burn when removed from the ignition source, for its useful life. The said garment

was regularly cleaned and maintained by defendants herein and was designed, manufactured,

advertised, wholesaled, retailed and sold and thereafter cleaned and refurbished by defendants herein

such as to give plaintiff and plaintiff’s employer a false sense of security as to the garment’s flameresistant capabilities and characteristics and therefore its suitability and safety as a lab coat.

8. At all times herein mentioned, WASHING SYSTEMS, LLC and/or SYSWA

INCORPORATED formerly known as WASHING SYSTEMS, INC., (in the aggregate referred to

as “WSI”) were and are in the business of representing themselves as experts and consultants in the

area of the care, cleaning, and maintenance of industrial protective wear including but not limited

to the Nomex lab coat that plaintiff was wearing at the time he was injured. Said defendants would

and did advise, consult with, recommend and provide what they felt and represented were the

appropriate chemicals, solvents, cleaning materials, and amounts thereof, as well as the methodology

for appropriate care and maintenance of garments worn by individuals such as plaintiff including the

lab coat that he was wearing when so badly burned. 

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 6 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 7 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

9. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon, that as a result of the work,

efforts, recommendations, and representations by defendants WSI and Ameripride, that the garment

he was wearing when burned, was rendered more susceptible to damage and therefore the wearer

more likely to sustain burn injuries; and, that his lab coat, said to be flame resistant, did not offer

the protection intended and plaintiff was seriously injured thereby. Said defendants knew or

reasonably should have known, for a period of some months prior to plaintiff’s injuries, that the

methods and substances that they were recommending and using were not effective in cleaning the

Nomex garment plaintiff would wear and that as a result the garment was rendered less effective and

less flame resistant, all to plaintiff’s detriment. 

10. Plaintiff is informed and believes and alleges thereon, that defendant SPRINGFIELD,

LLC (hereinafter “SPRINGFIELD”) played a role in the manufacturing process of the fabric and the

component parts that made up the lab coat that plaintiff was wearing when so badly injured. Said

defendant knew or reasonably should have known of the importance and significance of the

garment’s alleged protective capabilities to the user and ultimately which was used by plaintiff,

with said coat having the following characteristics and qualities:

1. That the said lab coat be made of 100% Nomex and no other fabric;

2. That the closure system of said garment, which was to be used in a potentially

hostile work environment, with flammable chemicals nearby, be such as to

allow rapid and easy removal of said garment in the event of fire;

3. That the materials and methodology of the closure system be of the highest

and best possible materials and design so as to allow the wearer of the said

lab coat the ability to rapidly remove it in the event of fire;

4. That any owner, maintainer, user or wearer of the lab coat be advised of the

absolute need when cleaning and maintaining said garment to fully and

completely remove any potentially flammable residue from the said garment

during the cleaning process.

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 7 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 8 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

11. On June 3, 2004, and while working as a laboratory technician, with almost five

years experience thereat, plaintiff was involved in an incident whereat his lab coat ignited and

plaintiff was severely burned thereby. As a result of the nature and manner in which said lab coat

had been cleaned and/or maintained, and also the manner in which it had been designed, constructed,

manufactured, wholesaled, advertised and sold into the market, without inspection for defects, and

as advertised to plaintiff’s employer, Kern Oil & Refining Co., plaintiff was severely injured, as

follows:

a. Third degree burns over approximately 40% of his body;

b. Severe burn above and into the right clavicle;

c. Severe burn and injury to the right arm and associated area;

d. Severe burn to the head;

e. Complete loss of the right ear due to burns;

f. Partial hearing loss, right side;

g. Associated collateral burns on hands, arms, and trunk of body, as well as

associated donor sites for grafting; and

h. Severe scarification of right arm, such that there is partial loss of use of right

(dominant) arm. 

FIRST CAUSE OF ACTION FOR NEGLIGENCE

AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

12. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each cause of action of this complaint as though fully

set forth herein, as well as paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, of this First Amended Complaint.

13. The conduct and incident giving rise to this lawsuit occurred at plaintiff’s place of

employment, Kern Oil & Refining Co., located at 7724 E. Panama Lane, Bakersfield, CA 93307-

9210. The said address is located within the County of Kern, State of California and within the

judicial district of the Kern County Superior Court. All of the conduct giving rise to this lawsuit

occurred while plaintiff was on the job in the laboratory at said refinery.

14. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that:

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 8 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 9 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

a. Defendant Springfield LLC was the manufacturer of the fabric which was

used to make the laboratory coat which the plaintiff was wearing at the time

of his injuries and/or designed, manufactured, advertised and introduced the

laboratory coat which the plaintiff was wearing at the time of his injuries into

the commercial market without inspection for defect. 

b. Defendant VF Imagewear, Inc. formerly known as Bulwark Protective

Apparel designed, manufactured, advertised and introduced the laboratory

coat which the plaintiff was wearing at the time of his injuries into the

commercial market without inspection for defect.

c. Defendant Ameripride Services, Inc. dba Ameripride Uniform Services

ordered and purchased the laboratory coat which the plaintiff was wearing at

the time of his injuries from Defendant VF Imagewear, Inc. formerly known

as Bulwark Protective Apparel and then leased it to plaintiff’s employer,

Kern Oil & Refining Co. 

d. Defendant Ameripride Services, Inc. dba Ameripride Uniform Services was

responsible for cleaning, laundering, repairing and maintaining the laboratory

coat which the plaintiff was wearing at the time of his injuries, and

subcontracted with Washing Systems, LLC and/or SysWa Incorporated

formerly known as Washing Systems, Inc. to provide said services or to

consult regarding said services.

15. The laboratory coat which the plaintiff was wearing at the time of his injuries is

believed to have been in service and had been utilized by plaintiff for a period of in excess of one

year, or more, and at or about the time of his injuries the lab coat was regularly serviced, cleaned,

maintained, dry cleaned, washed and degreased by Ameripride Services, Inc. dba Ameripride

Uniform Services and/or by Washing Systems, LLC and SysWa Incorporated formerly known as

Washing Systems, Inc., defendants herein. 

16. The particular lab coat which plaintiff was wearing was designed and equipped with

a five button front closure, with such buttons being made of either plastic, bone or a similar hard

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 9 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 10 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

material and designed to tuck or fit into five opposing slits on the opposite jacket front. Such

garment was designed to be flame-resistant and was advertised by defendants as being made from

flame-resistant fabrics and components that would resist ignition and would not continue to burn

when removed from the ignition source. Said garment was designed for continuous wear for an

indefinite period of time. The garment was designed to be machine washable and represented to be

constructed of a 100% Nomex IIIa aramid fabric and was made in Honduras.

17. On or about June 3, 2004, and while performing tests on petroleum products in the

laboratory wherein plaintiff was employed, an incident occurred wherein plaintiff was caught on fire

while wearing defendant’s lab coat, thereby leading to and causing the injuries hereinabove set forth.

As a result thereof, plaintiff is permanently scarred and injured, and psychologically scarred and has

lost his right ear, as well as diminished hearing capability, among other things.

18. On or about June 3, 2004, while performing laboratory tests of petroleum products

as part of his normal job duties, plaintiff was completely engulfed in flame while wearing a

laboratory coat designed, manufactured, distributed, advertised and/or cleaned and maintained by

defendants, and each of them. Said laboratory coat was designed to be and was advertised and held

out to the world as being flame-resistant and that it would resist ignition and would not continue to

burn when removed from the ignition source. While not specifically set forth, the said garment

purported to have an indefinite life cycle. 

19. As a result of the severe, permanent and disabling burn injuries sustained by plaintiff,

and the complete and total failure of flame resistance as set forth within the garment that plaintiff

was wearing, plaintiff asserts on the basis of information and belief that the said lab coat, and the

components thereof, and the inherent characteristics and capabilities of the material thereof, and its

closure system, and the manner in which it was to be maintained and cleaned, were all so negligently

designed, manufactured, implemented, carried out, engineered, supervised, maintained, inspected,

constructed, furnished, advertised, wholesaled and retailed to the general public, without inspection

for defect that a dangerous condition had been created by said defendants, and each of them. These

defects and dangers were known to defendants, or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should

have been known to defendants, to cause a dangerous and abnormally hazardous condition for

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 10 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 11 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

workers such as plaintiff, who worked within a laboratory utilizing hazardous and flammable

substances.

20. Defendants, and each of them, were negligent in failing to warn of said hazards, and

were further negligent in failing to provide appropriate and necessary safeguards for a user such as

the plaintiff, who would be working in a laboratory with flammable petroleum products.

Defendants, and each of them, were possessed of special knowledge with regard to the capabilities

and/or limitations of the fabric from which plaintiff’s lab coat was made and which was supposed

to be flame-resistant, among other things. In spite ofsuch knowledge, defendants and each of them,

failed to take adequate or appropriate precautions, or to give appropriate, adequate or necessary

safeguards or warnings to a user of such product, such as the plaintiff.

21. Defendants, and each of them, knew or in the exercise of reasonable diligence, should

have known, that plaintiff, a member of the general public, had no knowledge of the limitations or

capabilities ofthe lab coat which was designed, invented, marketed, cleaned and sold by defendants,

and each of them. Said defendants also knew, or in the exercise of reasonable care should have

known, that said dangerous or unguarded condition represented an unreasonable risk of harm to

persons, including plaintiff, who would utilize such a product without inspection for defect.

22. Notwithstanding the facts alleged above, defendants failed to correct said dangerous

condition, representing to the public, including plaintiff, that the lab coat he was wearing was, in

fact, flame-resistant and would resist ignition and not continue to burn when removed from an

ignition source, and further that the 5-button closure would allow rapid and complete removal of the

lab coat in the event of fire.

23. Such claims were false and negligently portrayed and represented the lab coat and its

capabilities and characteristics.

24. As a direct and proximate result of the tortious acts, omissions, representations and

conduct of defendants, and each of them, plaintiff has sustained severe and permanent scarring and

loss of use of limb, as well as loss of bodily parts due to his severe and disabling burn injuries.

Plaintiff has sustained injuries which are now permanent, and is certain to sustain and have the need

for future medical care and damages, as well. These injuries include, but are not necessarily limited

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 11 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 12 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

to, past and future medical expenses, past and future wage loss, and impact to plaintiff’s ability to

earn, extreme psychological disability, as well as scarring and disfigurement, and such other and

further injuries and damages as will be proven at time of trial herein.

SECOND CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

FOR STRICT PRODUCTS LIABILITY

25. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each cause of action of this First Amended Complaint

as though fully set forth herein, as well as paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, of this First Amended

Complaint.

26. Plaintiff is informed and believes and thereon alleges that defendants, and each of

them, are or were engaged in the business of designing, inventing, creating, engineering,

manufacturing, testing, wholesaling, supplying, distributing, assembling, warning, cleaning,

marketing, selling, modifying, placing in the stream of commerce that certain product known and

generally described as a flame-resistant lab coat for use in an area such as the laboratory facility at

Kern Oil & Refining Company, where plaintiff works.

27. Such coat was sold, designed and distributed as a flame-resistant garment with builtin to the material capability to resist flame and resist ignition and to not continue to burn when

removed from the source of ignition.

28. Defendants and each of them failed to mention in the labeling of the said product

what its useful life is, its shelf life, if any, and the effect of repeated machine washing and/or dry

cleaning with chemicals attendant thereto.

29. At all times herein mentioned, defendants and each of them knew and intended that

such products would be purchased for use in the process of workers working in a laboratory setting,

and that such lab coat would be used by such consumers as the plaintiff, without inspection for defect

and for use in concert with petro chemicals. 

30. The said lab coat, at the time that it was placed into the stream of commerce by the

defendants, and each of them, was defective in its design, assembly and manufacture, and unsafe for

its intended purpose in that the said product and the component parts thereof, including its closure

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 12 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 13 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

system, and its alleged flame-resistant capability, all failed to afford plaintiff the protection from,

or a reasonable amount of safety from, harm and foreseeable risk, including fire in a laboratory,

which was inherent in the use of such products. In addition, the said product was further defective

in that it failed to warn the user, or those who would maintain it or clean it, of either its useable shelf

life, use life, or condition which could degrade or limit its performance in terms of its flame

resistance. 

31. Defendants, and each of them, knew that by failing to inform individuals such as

plaintiff of the limitations of the said lab coat, or its useful life, or safeguards to be employed when

cleaned, or dry cleaned, or chemicals which should not be employed in regard thereto, or the

limitations imposed by virtue of the closure system of the said coat that it was inherently dangerous

when used in the context of a laboratory setting where contact with petrol chemicals and other

flammable subjects was commonplace.

32. Said defendants, and each of them knew, or reasonably should have known that the

lab coat which was manufactured, advertised, designed, sold, invented and/or cleaned by them, and

put into the market without inspection for defect would not provide members of the general public,

such as plaintiff, who would use said coat for its alleged protective capabilities the degree or level

of protection which he was led to believe that said lab coat possessed. 

33. As a result thereof, and on June 3, 2004, plaintiff was severely burned and

permanently scarred with third degree burns over 40% of his body and, among other things, the loss

of an ear, all because of the failure of the said lab coat to perform as it was intended and as plaintiff

was led to believe it would. Moreover, as a result of the closure system on the said lab coat plaintiff,

who was engulfed in flame could not readily and easily extricate himself from the lab coat which

burned with such severity that the area above and to and including his right clavicle was also burned.

34. As a direct and proximate result of the defects of the said product, as aforesaid, and

as a direct result of it being placed into the stream of commerce by said defendants, and thereafter

maintained and cleaned by them, plaintiff has sustained permanent injuries and damages as herein

set forth.

///

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 13 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 14 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

///

///

THIRD CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

FOR NEGLIGENT MISREPRESENTATION

35. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each cause of action of this First Amended Complaint

as though fully set forth herein, as well as paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, of this First Amended

Complaint.

36. Defendants VF Imagewear, Inc. formerly known as Bulwark Protective Apparel and

Ameripride Services, Inc. dba Ameripride Uniform Services represented to members of the general

public, and to plaintiff’s employer and an individual such as and including plaintiff, that the said lab

coat could and would protect its user from the hazards of inadvertent spill or accident or contact with

flame by virtue of the inherent flame-resistant capabilities and characteristics of the fibers of the

materials from which the lab coat was made. Said defendants further represented that in the event

that the fabric did burn, it would allow quick, easy and safe removal from the wearer such as not to

exacerbate such burn injuries; and, that the protective garment plaintiff was wearing when injured

was designed in such a matter as to be flame-resistant, resist ignition and to not continue to burn

when removed from the ignition source for all of its useful life.

37. Further, said defendants represented that the said garment was designed with an

appropriate and safe closure system such that it could be rapidly removed in the event of inadvertent

accident and contact with flame such that the wearer, an individual such as plaintiff, could rapidly

remove the said lab coat if it became engulfed in flame.

38. Defendants VF Imagewear, Inc. formerly known as Bulwark Protective Apparel and

Ameripride Services, Inc. dba Ameripride Uniform Services, further represented that the said lab

coat would have an indefinitie useful life, or shelf life, and that it could be readily cleaned or dry

cleaned without any aspect of its protective capabilities being degraded thereby.

39. Said representations in fact were not true in that on June 3, 2004, when plaintiff

accidentally became fully involved in a laboratory accident wherein his lab coat caught on fire, he

was completely engulfed in flame; and, his lab coat caught fire and remained on fire, with plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 14 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 15 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

being unable to open said coat. In the area immediately above the right clavicle the said coat superheated and burned through the material and into plaintiff’s right clavicle causing severe and disabling

injuries, including the loss of plaintiff’s right ear, among other things.

40. As a direct and proximate result of said negligent misrepresentations plaintiff

sustained permanent and disfiguring burn injuries and damages as herein set forth.

FOURTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

FOR BREACH OF EXPRESS WARRANTY

41. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each cause of action of this First Amended Complaint

as though fully set forth herein, as well as paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, of this First Amended

Complaint.

42. At all times herein relevant defendants, and each of them, expressly warranted that

each of the products and their component parts, and that the cleaning and dry cleaning process that

they would subject the subject lab coat to were of merchantable quality and safe for use in the

ordinary, intended and foreseeable and expected use; and that such use would not cause the herein

described harm and injuries which plaintiff sustained. Said product and its component parts and

ingredients and fabric and closure system were not of merchantable quality and were not as

warranted by said defendants, and each of them, and as a direct result of plaintiff’s reliance upon said

warranties, and the breach of said expressed warranties bydefendants, plaintiff sustained the injuries

and damages as alleged herein.

FIFTH CAUSE OF ACTION AGAINST ALL DEFENDANTS

FOR BREACH OF IMPLIED WARRANTY

43. Plaintiff repeats and realleges each cause of action of this First Amended Complaint

as though fully set forth herein, as well as paragraphs 1-11, inclusive, of this First Amended

Complaint.

44. At all times herein mentioned defendants, and each of them, impliedly warranted that

the lab coat and its components parts, fabric and closure system, and ingredients were of

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 15 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

- 16 -

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT

merchantable quality and was safe for use in its ordinary, intended foreseeable and expected use and

that such use would not cause the injuries and harm described herein.

45. Said product and its component parts, fabric, closure system, and ingredients were

not of merchantable quality and were not as warranted by defendants, and each of them, and as a

direct result of plaintiff’s reliance upon said warranties and the breach of said implied warranties by

defendants, plaintiff sustained the injuries and damages as alleged herein.

WHEREFORE, plaintiff prays judgment against defendants, and each of them, as follows:

1. For general damages in a sum in excess of the jurisdictional limits of this Court all

according to proof at time of trial;

2. All medical and incidental expenses, past and future, according to proof at time of

trial;

3. Past and future loss of wages and impairment to earning capacity according to proof

at time of trial;

4. General damages for scarring and disfigurement according to proof at time of trial;

5. Interest as allowable by law pursuant to California Civil Code §§3288 and 3291; and

6. Such other and further relief as the Court deems just and proper in the premises.

Dated: July 29, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF RICHARD G. TARLOW

BY: BY: /s/ Richard G. Tarlow

Richard G. Tarlow

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

 Dated: August 29, 2005 LAW OFFICES OF LYLE F. GREENBERG

BY: /s/ Lyle F. Greenberg

Lyle F. Greenberg

 Attorneys for Plaintiff

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 16 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

 ) ss.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not

a party to the within action; my business address is 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1400 - Trillium

Tower East, Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2562. I am a member of the bar of this court, and I have

directed the service of this document in this manner.

On August 30, 2005, I served a document described as FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT on the

interested parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed

envelope as follows.

 X X (By Mail)I am familiar with this office's business practice for collection and processing of

correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business,

correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, on the same day that it is placed

for collection and processing, in a mail box located at 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1400 -

Trillium Tower East, Woodland Hills, CA.

I placed this/these sealed envelope(s) addressed as described below, for collection and processing

on following ordinary business practices:

James D. Savage, Esq.

DeAnn Flores Chase, Esq.

Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar

One World Trade Center, 27th Floor

Long Beach, California 90831-2700

Stephen Acker, Esq.

Leslie Anne Burnet, Esq.

Acker, Kowalick & Whipple, A Prof. Corp.

600 North Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90012

William T. Helms, Esq.

State Compensation Insurance Fund

9801 Camino Media, Suite 102

Bakersfield, California 93311-1303 

George Muhar, Esq.

Muhar, Roberts, Fama, Kramer & Monty

One Front Street, # 500

San Francisco, California 94111

XX (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court

at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on August 30, 2005, at Woodland Hills, California

/s/ Michael M. Hernandez

Michael M. Hernandez

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 17 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

PROOF OF SERVICE

STATE OF CALIFORNIA )

 ) ss.

COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES )

I am employed in the County of Los Angeles, State of California. I am over the age of 18 and not

a party to the within action; my business address is 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1400 - Trillium

Tower East, Woodland Hills, CA 91367-2562. I am a member of the bar of this court, and I have

directed the service of this document in this manner.

On August 30, 2005, I served a document described as STIPULATION AND ORDER RE: 

-FILING OF FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, -CONTINUING INSPECTION

COMPLETION DATE,DESTRUCTIVE TESTING COMPLETION DATE on the interested

parties in this action by placing a true and correct copy thereof enclosed in a sealed envelope as

follows.

 X X (By Mail)I am familiar with this office's business practice for collection and processing of

correspondence for mailing with the U.S. Postal Service. In the ordinary course of business,

correspondence is deposited with the U.S. Postal Service, on the same day that it is placed

for collection and processing, in a mail box located at 6320 Canoga Avenue, Suite 1400 -

Trillium Tower East, Woodland Hills, CA.

I placed this/these sealed envelope(s) addressed as described below, for collection and processing

on following ordinary business practices:

James D. Savage, Esq.

DeAnn Flores Chase, Esq.

Ford, Walker, Haggerty & Behar

One World Trade Center, 27th Floor

Long Beach, California 90831-2700

Stephen Acker, Esq.

Leslie Anne Burnet, Esq.

Acker, Kowalick & Whipple, A Prof. Corp.

600 North Grand Avenue

Los Angeles, California 90012

William T. Helms, Esq.

State Compensation Insurance Fund

9801 Camino Media, Suite 102

Bakersfield, California 93311-1303 

George Muhar, Esq.

Muhar, Roberts, Fama, Kramer & Monty

One Front Street, # 500

San Francisco, California 94111

XX (Federal) I declare that I am employed in the office of a member of the bar of this Court

at whose direction the service was made.

Executed on August 30, 2005, at Woodland Hills, California

/s/ Michael M. Hernandez

Michael M. Hernandez

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 18 of 19
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

28

ORDER

Pursuant to the Stipulation of the Parties and Good Cause Appearing therefor,

IT IS SO ORDERED.

Dated: 9/12/2005 

 /s/ Sandra M. Snyder 

Honorable Sandra M. Snyder

United States District Court Magistrate Judge

-4-

STIPULATION RE: FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT, 

CONTINUING COMPLETION DATES AND ORDER THEREON

Case 1:05-cv-00156-AWI -SMS Document 54 Filed 09/13/05 Page 19 of 19