Source: s3://data.kl3m.ai/documents/govinfo/USCOURTS/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06507/USCOURTS-cand-5_06-cv-06507-5/pdf.json

Nature of Suit Code: 365
Nature of Suit: Personal Injury - Product Liability
Cause of Action: 28:1332 Diversity-Personal Injury

---

t

2

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

L4

15

t6

T7

1B

L9

20

21,

22

23

24

25

26

27

cRArG NBEDIÍAM (SBN s2010)

IüRSTEN FiSIr (SB #217940)

NEEDHAM, DÀVIS, KTPNER, &YOUNG' LLP

1960 Ths Alameda, Suite 210

Sart Jose, CA95l26 Tel: G}B\244-2166 Fax; (qoe)zq+-lats

TTNSMAN & SCIANO,INC.

DAf IIELJ.T. SCIANO (AdnrittedPro Hac Více)

1 0107 McAllister FreewaY

San Antoirio, Texas 7 82L6

TeleÞlrone ; (21Ð 225 -3 I2l

Fax:- (210) 225-6235

Attonreys for Pløíntíffs, JEREMY .(AMES

EHART IWSTY EIIART, andSTEVEN

RYAN MCCLANÅTTAN

T{ TTIE UNITED STATBS DISTRICT COURT

FOR T}IE NORTITERN DISTRICT OF CALIFOR}TIA

SANÍOSEDIVISION

.IEREMY JAMES EI-IART, IßISTY

EHART, aud S|IEVBN RYAI{

MoCLANAÌTAN,

PlaÍntifß,

vs.

GHILTIE SUITS.COM INC.; TODD

MUIRTIEAD ; NETV YORI( FIRB.SHELD

iNCORPORATED; I4IACKBNIIUT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED; THB

V/ACI(3NIÍUT CORPORATION; ard

DOESl-50,inolusive,

No, 5:06-CV-6507-IïV

STIPULATTON Ar{D IPROPOSDDI ORDER

BOR T'ILING OF'tr'IRST AMENDED

COMPLAINT T'OR DAJT,IAGES

Defendants,

ff IS HBREBY STIPIILATED by and bstween tho pætios hereto, tlu'ough their respective

attorneys of reoord, that the Plaintiffs rnay fïle their Fitst Amended Complaint for Damages, a copy

of which ís attached hereto,

STIPULAT¡ON FOR FIL¡NG ÁMBNDED COMPLA¡NT CASB NO. 5 r06-CV.6507-JYr'

-1- UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

NORTHERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORN

I

A

IT IS SO ORDERED

AS MODIFIED

Judge James Ware

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 1 of 36
1

2

J

4

)

6

7

B

I

10

11,

12.

13

L4

l5

16

t7

18

L9

zo

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

Resp ectfrtlly submÍttqd,

Dated:

Dated: By:

Axd

NnoptlAn¿, Dlvts, I(urNnn & Yout'tc, LLP

By:

CraigNeedham

"Attoruoys for Plaintiffs JEREITAí JAIVIES

EHAR.T,ICRJSTY EFÍAR:T and STEVEN

RYA}T MCCLANAT{AN

MANNINC & I\4[ATDER, I(ASS, ELLNOU'

R¿¡UTNNZLLP

Mike Smith

Attorueys for Defendarts'!ÍACT(EM{UT

SEBI¿ICES, INCORPOR.AÏBD aud TIIE

IMACI(ENIIUT C ORPORATION

SELMÂI.¡BREITUINLLP

By:

Paul Steplrau

Attomeys for Defeudants GHILLIE

SUUS.COM INC, anclTODD MUiRIIBAD

AncuunNonrus

ur, .sflt nC¿ø? ol l.

Sharon CollÍer

Attoruoyo for Defêndant NEIY YORI( EIRESHTELD INCORPOR.ATBD

Darerr:fi/e@

STTFULATION FOR FIL¡NG AMENDEÐ COMFLAINT CASE N(). 5¡06-CV-6507-JW

-2-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 2 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

l1

12

i3

L4

t5

16

77

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Respectfully submitted,

TINSMAN & Sclnuo, Itlc.

Dated¡

Dared:å'$B'ü8

Dated:

Daniol J.1. Scia¡ro

By:

CraÍg

Attornoys for

YouNc, LLP

JBREIVTY TAtr4ES

BHARÎ, I(RISTY EHART and STEVEN

RYAT{MCCLAT{A,TTA.N

MANNING & MARDE& I(ASS, ELLROD,

R¿NfiNUZLLP

MÍke Smith

Attouroys for Ðsfendants WACIçEM:ruT

SBRVICES, INCORPOI{ATBÐ aud TI{E

IüACI(BNTTUT CORP ORATION

Sor,uruBRr¡mMÀNLI-P

Paul Stophan

Attorneys .for Defend ants Gï:IILLIE

SUITS.COM, INC, a¡rd TODD MTJIRI{EAD

ARCI.IPRNORRIS

Sharou Collier

Attoureys for Defendatrt NEIV YORI( FIRE.

STIIBLD INCORPORATED

STIPULATION FORFIL¡NO ÂMBNDBD COMPLA¡NT CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-J$/

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 3 of 36
I

2

3

4

,.5

6

7

I

I

10

11

12

13

14.

16

10

17

18

19

2A

21

22

23

24

26

26

27

Rospectfttlly submitted,

TnYsrlAÌ{ & Scnno, Itrc.

Daniol J. T. Sciano

Anal

Nnuluau, IlAvrs, tr(orNDR & Youvc, LLP

ClaigNeedham

Attornoye for Plaintiffs JERBMY JAÌvIES

EI{ART, KRISTYEIIART and STEVEN

RYAI\TMCCLA.I.{ATTAN

SDLMA¡¡BRETTDIANLLP

Paul Stophan

Attorneys for Defenda¡ts GFÛ-LIE

SUITS.COM, INC, and TODD MUIRI{EAÐ

STIPITLAIION 8OR PILING A¡VÍBNDEDCO¡¡ÍPINNT CASE NO. 5:06-CV,6507.¡W

-2-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 4 of 36
1

2

3

4

..5

6

7

I

I

10

11

12

13

14

15

16

.17

l8

19

20

z'.|.

22

23

24

25

26

27

Datsd:

Dated:

By:

Respectfrrlly submiútedn

TnSMAN & Sq¿¡'ro,INc.

Daniel J. T. Sciano

And

Nnnouruvr, Dlvrs, I(EpNEn & Youlre, LLP

By:

CraigNeedham

Aitorneys for Plaintiffs JBREMY JAI\4ES

EHART, KRTSTYEI{ART aud STB\IEN

RYAN MCCLA}IAI{AN

By:

MANND.Tc & I!ûrnonn, Kess, DLLRoD,

R¡¡mnzLLP

MikeSmith

Attomoys for Dofendants TilACKENHUT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED and THE

IVACKENHUT CORP ORATION

SUITS.COM INC, and TODD MUIRIIEAD

Dared: fuJt{

STIPULATION POR ¡tr,ING AMENDBD COMPLAINT CASE NO. 5:06.CV-6507-JÌV

-2-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 5 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

I

10

l1

12

13

t4

15

L6

17

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

ÍPROPOSEpT OApEIt

Purerrant to tlro Stipulafion abovq Plaíntiffs nâ.y file theír Firet Amendod Complalnt for

Damageo,

TTIS SOORDERED

TIIE HONOR.ABLB TANTES ïTARB

STtpUt IT'ON FgR F¡JNO 

^MB,¡DBD 

ClrCMpIÁtNT CÂ88 Ì.1O. S:{Xt CV-650?-JIV

:3-

Plaintiffs shall file their First Amended Complaint for 

Damages within ten (10) days from the date of this Order as 

a separate docket entry. March 4, 2008

JAMES WARE 

United States District Judge

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 6 of 36
I

2

J

4

)

6

1

8

9

10

11

12

13

l4

15

16

L7

18

19

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

cRArG NEEDHAM (SBN 52010)

KTRSTEN FISH (SB #217940)

NEEDHAI\{, DAYTS, KEPNER, & YOUNG, LLP

1960 The Alameda, Suite 210

San Jose, CA95L26 Tel: (408)244-21'66

Fax: (408)244-7815

TINSMAN & SCIAI\O, rNC.

DANIEL J.T. SCIANO (AdmittedPro Hac Vice)

101 07 McAllister Freeway

San Antonio, Texas 78216

Teleplrone: (210) 225 -3 lzl

Fax: (210) 225-6235

Attomeys for Pløíntffi, IEREMY JAMES

EHART, ß,RISTY EHART, ANd STEWN

RYAN MCCLANAHAN

IN TIIE UNITED STATES DISTRICT COURT

FOR THE NORTTTERN DISTRICT OF CALIFORNIA

SANJOSE DIVISION

JEREMY JAMES EHART, I(RISTY

EHART, and STEVEN RYAI'I

McCL,{I.trAHAN,

Plaintiffs,

vs.

GHILLIE SUITS.COM INC.; TODD

MUIRHEAD; NEW YORK FIRE.SHIELD

INCORP ORATED ; WACIGNHUT

SERVICES, INCORPORATED; TTTE

WACKENHUT CORPORATION; and

DOESl-50,inclusive,

No. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

PLAINTIFFNS FIRST A]VIENDED

COMPLAINT F'ORDAMAGES

DEMANDJIORJURY TRIAL

Defendants.

Plaintifß, JEREMY JAMES EHART, KRISTY EHART, aud STEVEN RYAN

MçCLANAHAN (refened to collectively as "Plaintiffs") complain of Defendants, GHILLIE

SUITS.COM nlc., D/B/A AlllD NWL GHILLIE SUITS.COM (refeued to as "Glúllie

Suits.com"); TODD MUIRHEAD (refened to as "Muirhead"); NEW YORK FIRE-SHIELD

CASE NO. 5:06.CV'6507'JW

ft"

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES

EXHIBIT

-1-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 7 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

1,4

15

16

t7

18

t9

20

¿t

22

23

24

25

26

27

INCORPORATED, D/B/A AND A/IVA N.Y. FIRE-SHIELD, INC. and DlBlA AND A/IVA NEW

YORK FIRE-SHIELD, INC. (refened to as'T[ew York Fire-Shield"); IVACKENHUT SERVICBS,

INCORPORATED (refen'ed to as "Waclcenhut"); GARLAND COMPANY INC., D/B/A and/or

NWA FIRE SHIELD WEST, and/or FIRE SHIELD WEST as a division of GARLAND

COMPAIIIY, n{C. (refened to as "Fite Shield ÏVest) formerþ designated as DOE 6; GARY B.

CROSSLAND, individually (referred to as "Crossland") formerly desiguated as DOE 7; and

Defendants whose names are unknown and are given the fictitious name of DOES 1-5 and DOES 8-

50 (collectively referred to as "Defendants") as follows:

GENERAL ALLEGATIONS

1. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff JEREMY JAMES EIIART is an individual

oitizen and resident of the County of Reno, State of lGnsas.

2. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff I(RISTY EHART is an individual citizen and

resident of the County of Reno, State of l(ansas.

3. At all times mentioned herein, Plaintiff STEVEN RYAN MoCLANAHAN is an

individual citizen and resident of the County of Summers, State of West Virginia.

4. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant GHILLIE SUITS.COM INC., D/B/A Al.tD

NIAA GHILLIE SUITS.COM is a oorporation duly orgærized and existing under the laws of the

State of Georgra, with its principle place of business in the State of Georgia. At all times mentioned

herein, Defendant GHILLIE SUITS.COM INC., D/BiA AND A/IIA GHILLIE SUITS.COM

engaged in substantial, continuous aud systematic activities in the State of Califomia. By

advertising for sale and selling its products in the State of Califonria via its interactive commercial

website, said defendant entered into repeated sales conhacts with the residents of the State of

California knowing that it would receive commercial gain and therefore purposefully availed itself

of the privilege of conducting activities in the State of California. Said defeudant has taken

deliberate actions within the State of California and has created obligations to residents in the State

of California tluougir sales of its products on its website. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of or resulted

FIRST AMENDBD COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

:2-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 8 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

11

12

13

T4

15

t6

t7

18

L9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

from said defendant's conduct of selling its products in the State of California.

5. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant TODD MUIRHEAD is an individual

citizen and resident of the State of Georgia. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant TODD

MUIRHEAD is the registered patent owner of the ghillie suit product at issue. By advertising for

sale and selling said products in the State of Califonria via his iuteractive comnrercial website, said

defendant entered into repeated sales contracts with the residents of the State of Califomia knowing

that he would receive commeroial gain and therefore purposefully availed himself of the privilege of

conducting activities.in the State of Califomia. Said defendant has talcen deliberate actions within

the State of Califomia and has created obligations to residents in the State of California tluough

sales of its products on its website. Plaintifß' claims arose out of or resulted from said defendant's

conduct of selling its products in the State of California.

6. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant NEW YORK FIRE-SHIBLD

INCORPORATED, D/B/A A-l.lD A/IIA N.Y. FIRE-SHIELD, INC. and D/B/^ AÌ{D A/M NEW

YORK FIRE-SHIELD, INC. is a corporation duly organized and existing urder the laws of the State

of New York, with its prinoipal place of business in the State of New Yot'k. At all tirnes mentioned

herein, Defendant NEW YORI( FIRE-SHIELD INCORPORATED, DIB/A Al'{D A/M N.Y.

FIRE-SHIELD, INC. and D/B/A Al.{D M(/A NEIV YORI( FIRE-SHIELD, INC. engaged in

substantial, continuous and systematio activities in the State of Califonria. By advertising for sale

and selling its products in the State of Califomia via its interactive comrnercial website, said

defendant entercd into repeated sales contracts with the residents of the State of California larowing

that it would receive commercial gain and therefore purposefully availed itself of the privilege of

conducting activities in the State of Califomia. Said defendant has taken deliberate actions within

the State of California and has created obligations to residents in the State of Califomia through

sales of its products on its website. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of or resulted frorn said defendant's

conduct of selling its products in the State of California.

7. At all times mentioned herein, Defendant ïVACKENHUT SERVICES,

INCORPORATED is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAÍNT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO, 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-3-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 9 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

1,3

L4

15

16

t7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

Florida, with its principal place of business in the State of Florida. At all times mentioned herein,

Defendant WACKENHUT SERVICES, INCORPORATED engaged in substantial, continuous and

systematic activities in the State of California. By advertising for sale and selling its products and

seryices in the State of California via its interactive commercial website, said defendant entered into

sales and service contracts with the residents of the State of California lorowing that it would receive

commercial gain and therefore purposefirlly availed itself of the privilege of conducting activities in

the State of California. Said defendant has talcen deliberate actions within the State of Califomia

and has created obligatious to residents in the State of Califonria tluough sales of its services on its

website. Plaintiffs' claims arose out of or resulted from said defendant's conduct of selling its

seryices in the State of California.

8. Upon the discovery of the true name of DOE 6, at all times mentioned herein

substitutes the fictitious name of DOE 6 for Defendant GARLAND COMPANY INC., D/3/A

aud/or NIAA FIRE SHIELD WEST, and/or FIRE SHIELD WEST as a division of GARLAND

COMPANY, INC., is a corporation duly organized and existing under the laws of the State of

Texas, with its principal place of business in the State of Texas. At all times mentioned herein,

Defendant GARLAND COMPAiVY INC., D/B/A and/or NI<IA FIRB SHIF.LD WEST, and/or

FIRE SHIELD WEST as a division of GARLAND COMPANY, NC. engaged in substantial,

continuous and systematic activities in the State of Califomia. Furthermore, Defendant engaged in

acts and/or consumrnated transactions by which they purposefrrlly availed themselves of the

privilege of conducting activities in the fonrm State of California. By engaging in business

activities, there was a reasonable expectation that the product at issue would enter into the sheam of

commerce and either directly or indirectly reach its ultimate users, includiug Plaintifß. Plaintifß'

clairns against said Defendant arise out of and/or result from said Defendants' fonrrn-related

activities; therefore the exercise of such jurisdiction is reasonable.

9. Upon the discovery of the true name of DOE 7, at all times mentioned herein

substihrtes the fictitious name of DOE 7 for Defendant GARY B. CROSSLAND, individually, is an

individual residing in the State of Texas, who, by his actiotts, engaged in strbstantial, continuous and

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAOES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-4-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 10 of 36
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

1t

t2

15

i6

L7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

13

L4

25

26

27

systematic activities in the State of Califomia. Furthermore, Defendant GARY B. CROSSLANID,

individually, engaged in acts and/or consummated hansactions by which he purposefully availed

himself of the privilege of couducting activities in the forum State of Califomia. By engaging in

þusiness activities, there was a reasonable expectation that the product at issue would enter into the

stream of conrmerce and either directly or indirectly reach its ultimate usel's, including Plaintiffs.

Plaintifß' claims against said Defendant arise out of and/or result fionr said Defendant's forumrelated activities; therefore the exercise of such jurisdiction is reasonable.

10. The true names and/or capacities, whether individual, partnership, cotporate,

associate, or otherwise of Defendants, DOES 1 tluough 5 aud 8 tluough 50, inclusive, are unlotown

to Plaintiffs, who thereforc sue said Defendants by such fictitious names and will aslc leave to

amend this complaint to show their true names and capacities when the same have been ascertained.

Plaintiffs are informed and believe, and on such information and belief, allege that each of the

Defendants designated herein as DOE is responsible in some rnaluter for the events and happenings

he¡ein referred to, and that there is now due, owing and unpaid from said Defendants, and each of

them, to Plaintiffs, the sums which are hercinafter alleged.

11. At all relevant times, each of the Defendants was the agent, principal, seraut,

master, employee, employer, partner, joint venturer, alter ego, aider and abettor, co-conspirator,

enterprise, fi'anchisee and/or franchisor of each of the other Defendants. At all relevant times, and

with regard to all relevant tortuotts conduot herein alleged, each of said Defendants was acting

withi¡ the course and scope and in furtheranoe of the object of said agency, selice, employment,

partnership, joint venhlre, conspiracy, enterprise, and/or fi'anclúse. At all tirnes herein mentioned,

each of the Defendants was the agent, servant, employee, parlne¡ joint venhrrer, and/or fi'anchisee

of each of the remaining Defendants herein, and were at all tirnes acting within the purpose and

scope of said agency, service, employment, partnership, joint venture, and/or û'anchise.

JIruSDICTION

12. Plaintiffs refer to paragraphs 1 - 1 1 as set forth above and by this reference incorporate

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5 :06-CV-6507-JW

-5-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 11 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

L4

15

t6

t7

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

the same herein as though set forth in frrll.

13. This Court has jurisdiction of the subject matter of this action pursuant to 28 U.S.C.

$1332 based on the diversity of the parties' citizenship and the amount in controvelsy, which

exceeds $75,000, exclusive ofinterest and costs.

VENUE

14. Venue is proper in this District pursuant to 28 U.S.C. $1391 iu that the clairn arose in

this District.

INTRADISTRICT ASSIGNMENT

15. Pursuant to Local Rule 3-2(e), tlús case is properþ assigned to the San Jose Division

in that the claim arose in the County of Monterey, State of Califon:ia.

FACTUAL ALLEGATIONS

16. Plaintifß refer to paragraphs 1-15 as set forth above and by this reference incorporate

the same herein as though set forth in full.

17. Severe burn injuries occurred to Plaiutiff Jeremy Ehart, a Lance Corporal in the

United States Marine Corps, and Plaintiff Steven R. McClanahan, a Cor¡roral in the United States

Marine Corps, on October 28,2004 while participating in a rnilitaly exercise at Fort Hunter Liggett,

located in the City of Jolon, County of Monterey, State of Califomia.

18. Approximately twenty-five Marines r¡vere assigned to participate in Exercise Pacific

Patriot at Fort Hunter Liggett, sponsored by the Deparlment of Energy (.'D.O.E."), fiom October 5,

2004 to November 5,2004. The D.O.E. provided all gear, equipment and weapons for the exercise.

19. Defendalrt Wackenhut was involved iu the acquisition of the gear and equipment

used dru'ing Exercise Pacific Patriot, including the acquisitiou of 15 commercial ghillie suits

purchased fr'om Defendants Todd Muirhead and Ghillie Suits.corn. Said ghillie suits consisted of a

blouse and pair of trousers and were Desert Storm era desert utilities with jute fabric sewn onto

FIRST AM ENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES C:ASE NO, 5;06-CV-ó507-JW

-6-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 12 of 36
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

T4

15

16

t7

18

19

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

them.

20. Defendants Muirhead and Ghillie Suits.con: provided thirty 8-ounce bottles of

"Inspecta-Shield" Class "A'" fire ¡etatdant with the ghillie suits.

21. The "Inspecta-Shield" fire retardant is manufactu'ed by Defendant New York FireShield. The smallest bottle of fue retardant that New York Fire-Shield rnanufactures is a 32-ounce

l¡ottle.

22. New York Fire-Shield sold "Inspecta-Slúeld"fire retardatrt to Defendant Fire Shield

'West and/or Defendant Gary Crcssland.

23. The product was then distributed and sold to Muirhead and Gliillie Suits.com.

24. No specific on-product directions were provided frorn Muirhead and Ghillie

Suits.conr on how to properly apply the fire retardant. Further no separate wdtten insùuctions were

supplied by Muirhead and Ghillie Suits.com on how to properly apply the fire retardant.

25. There were no on-product instructions provided by Defendants Muir'head and Ghillie

Suits,corn on how frequently to reapply the fïre retaldant or under what conditions the fire retardant

would be degraded. Further, no separate written instructions were supplied by Muir'head and Ghillie

Suits.com on how freqtrently to reapply the fire retardant or under what conditions th'e fire retardant

would be degtaded.

26. No specific instructions were provided by Defendant 'Waclcenhut's insh'ttctors,

conhollers or coordinators regarding the application of the fire retardant to the ghillie suits.

27. The tluee marines applied the fire retardant to all of the ghillie suits approximately

two weeks priol to any training being conducted.

28. Defendant 'Waclcenhut was involved in the acquisition of the weapons used during

Ex ercise Pacific P atriot.

29. Defendant 'TVackenhut obtained M-240 machine guls as specified in the OPFOR

plan; however, there were not enough M-240s in inventory to fulfrll the qtrota for the exercise;

therefore, Defendant'Wackenhut also obtained M-60 machine guns.

30. A greater concentration of the PEGSI (Propellant Exhaust Gas Secondary lgnition) is

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

1

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 13 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

L4

15

l6

17

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

associated with the operation of the M-60 machine gun as opposed to the M-240, thus increasing the

risk to the operator.

31. All haining with weapons was blank fire.

32. Defendant Wackenhut provided Certified Armorers for Exercise Pacific Patriot who

were designated to maintain the filearms used in the exelcise.

33. Another responsibility of Defendant'Wackenhut's Certified Annorers was to inspect

the fireanns used in the exercise to ensure that the fireatms met the inspection specifications.

34, One of the purposes for Defendant Wackenhut's Armoters to inspect the firearms

used in the exercise was to ensure the safety of such firearms.

35. Following the incidents made the basis of tlús lawsuit, the rnachine gun involved was

i¡spected by several certified annorers which consisted of Jinlny Hudlow, Robert Gee, Mark

Brown and Sgf. James Vaca.

36. Armorers Robert Gee and Mark Brown found that the machine gun contained a loose

and musluoorned blærk firing attachment/adaptor, a receiver whioh was sliglrtly bent, and a broken

firing pin spring.

37. Sgf. James Vaca found that the machine guu contained a loose gas plug and that the

stripper lug had a loss of radius.

38. The following inadequacies did not meet the Inspection Criteria for the M-60

rnachine gun: a loose and rnushroomed blank firing attaclunent/adaptor, a teceiver which was

slightly bent, a broken firing pin spring, a loose gas plug, and the stripper lug with a loss of radius .

39. Defendant'Waclcenhut provided several controllers, Operational Readiness Training

(ORT) instnrctors, coordinators and others who were responsible for the Marjnes' safety.

40. These conüollers, Operational Readiness Training (ORT) inshuctors, coordinators

and otherc provided by Defendant TV'ackenhut werc also responsible for the safety of the gear,

equipment, and weapons provided for the exercise.

4I. The controllers, instructors and coordinators, sorne of which also taught firearms

safety courses to the Marines involved in Exercise Pacific Patriot, did not appreciate the hazards of

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-8-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 14 of 36
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

I

I

10

11

T2

13

t4

15

L6

t7

18

I9

2Q

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

cornbining the use of a Machine gun with a ghillie suit.

42. According to the NNSA (National Nuclear Security Administration) Type B

Investigation report, the Board found a dichotomy between the rigor applied to the safety measures

associated to the Federal Agent aotivities and processes as compared to those associated with the

Opposition Force (OPFOR) which consisted of the Madnes.

43. On the rnoming of October 28, 2004, Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and Steven

McClanahan anived at their figlrting positions. There was apprcxirnately 40-meters distance

between Plaintiff Steven McClanahan's fighting position and Plaintiff Jererny Ehart's fighting

position. Both Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart and Steven McClanahan were wearing the ghillie suits that

were purchased from Muirhead and Glúllie Suits.com.

44. At approxirnately 11:05 on October 28,2004, Plaintiff Jererny Ehart engaged D.O.E.

agents in a convoy fiom their fighting positions. Plaintiff Jererny Ehart was using an M60 machine

grur at the tirne of the incident. At approximately 11:06 on October 28, 2004, Plaintiff Jeremy

Ehart's glúllie suit caught on fire. Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart rose from his fighting position and ran

towards Plaintiff Steven McClanahan while calling for help. Plaintiff Steven MoClanahan, afrer

removing the blouse portion of his ghillie suit, attempted to put out the flames on Plaintiff Jeremy

Eharl by smothering the flames and attempting to get Plaintiff Ieremy Ehart to roll on the grourd.

45. In the process of attempting to rescue Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart, Plaintiff Steven

McClanahan's glúllie suit also caught on fire. A paramedic anived within two to th¡ee minutes of

the rnayday call and used a fire extinguisher to put out the flames burning Piaintiff Ehart. An

unidentified individual used a fire extinguisher to put out the flames buning Plaintiff McClanahan.

46, In addition to airway swelling and lung injury, Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart sustained 50-

6QYo tatal body surface area burns, including both ftill thiclaress and partial thiclsress burns. His

legs, from the groin to the area above the top of this boots, sustained ñlll thiclaress bums. His right

ann from the shoulder down and his left arm ûom the rnid-bicep down sustained a rnix of fi¡ll aud

partial tlúckness burns. His face sustained full thicloress bums. Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart was not able

to retum to full active duty as a result of the catashophic injuries sustained. On the 28th day of

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

:9-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 15 of 36
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

T6

t7

18

t9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

April, 2006, Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart was rnedically discharged frorn the United States Marine Corps

due to the physical conditions sustained in the occurrence made the basis of this lawsuit.

47. Plaintiff McClanahan sustained 20-30% total body surface area burns on his legs and

back. The burns varied from second degree partial thiclaress burns to third degree firll thiclcness

bums.

48. As a result of said injuries, Plaintifß have received, and will in the future continue to

receive, medical and hospital care and h'eatment provided by and tlu'ough the United States of

Arnerica. The Plaintifß, for the sole use and benefit of the United States of America, rurder the

provisious of 42 U.S.C. $$ 2651-2653 et seq. and 10 U.S,C. $1095, and with its express consent,

assert a clairn for the cost of said medical and lrospital care and treatment and the value of future

care.

COUNT ONE

(Strict Liability - Design Defect - Against Muirhead, Ghillie Suits.com and Does I through 5)

AS AND FOR A FIRST COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs Jererny Eharl and

Steven MoClanahan allege against Defendauts Muirhead, Ghillie Suits.com and Does 1 through 5 as

follows:

49. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 tluough 4S as if fully set forth

herein.

50. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said Defendants, at all

tinres herein rnentioned, were in the business of manufacfiring, researching, designing, assembling,

testing, producing, constructing, assembling, inspecting, distributing, malketing, and advertising for

sale and selling to and for the use of the general public ghillie suits, or components of it

manufactured by said Defendants, which is the subject matter of this Cornplaint. Said Defendants

ale responsible in some manner for placing said product or causing it to be placed into the strearn of

commerce, such that Plaintiffs' iqiuries as hereinafter alleged were legally caused by the acts of said

Defeudants, and each of them.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-10-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 16 of 36
1

2

J

4

)

6

7

I

9

10

11

L2

13

14

15

t6

T7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

51. At the time said Plaintifß used said ghillie suits, the suits were substantially the same

as when they left the possession of said Defendants. Any chauges made to the suits after they left

said Defendants' possession, such as the application of fire retardant spray to said suits, were

reasonably foreseeable to said Defendants.

52. Said ghillie suits did not perfonn as safely as an ordinary consurner would have

expected at the tirne of use, in that the suits were highly flærmable despite the fire retaldant sprayed

on them. The suits were used in away that was reasonably foreseeable to said Defendants.

53. Said Defendants, by way of advertisement and tluough their website, made certain

representations and misrepresentations concerning the character or quality of the ghillie suits and

fire retardant sold by said Defendants. The purchaser of the ghillie suits relied upon the

misrepresentation made by said Defenclants and passecl on the ghillie suits aud fire retardaut, which

gave rise to the physical injuries to Plaintiffs as set out above and below.

54. While utilizing said ghillie suits in the manner intended, said Plaintifß were injured

in their health, sh'ength, and activit¡ and sustained injury to their body and shock and tqjury to their

nervous system and persons, all of which have caused and continue to cause them great mental,

pþsical, and nelotrs pain and suffering. These injruies will result in some permanent disability to

said Plaintiffs, all to their general damage. The flan:mability of said ghillie suits and failule to

pelfonn safely was a sul¡stantial factor in causing Plaintifß' hatm.

55. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendants, and each of them, said

Plaintiffs were lequired to and did employ physicians, surgeons and nurses for examination,

treatment and care, and incurred and will continue to incur additional medical and incidental

expenses, the exact amourt of which is unlmo'wn to said Plaintifß at this time.

56. As a fufthel legal result of the conduct of said Defendants and because of Plaintiffs'

injuries, said Plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, prevented fi'orn working in their

occupations. The amount of earnings which will be lost to said Plaintifß is unknown at this time.

Plaintifß are informed and believe that their inability to work and/or reduction in their earning

capacity will continue in the fuhre, thereby causing a fi¡rther loss of ear:rings and/or earning

FIRST AIVIENDED COMPLAIN'T FOR DAMAGES C:ASE NO. 5:06-CV-ó507JW

-11-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 17 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

IJ

L4

15.

16

17

18

T9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

capacity, the exact amount of which is unknown to said Plaintiffs at this time.

As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendants, said Plaintiffs have incurred damages iu

an asceftainable economic value, as hereinbefore alleged, and thus Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment iúerest on said damages pursuant to Civil Code $3287 and/or $3288.

COUNT TWO

(Strict Liability - Design Defect - AgaÍnst New York Fire-Shield and Does 8-10)

AS AND FOR A SECOND COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants New York Fire-Shield and Does 8-10 as follows:

57. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs 1 tluough 56 as if fully set

forth herein.

58. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said Defendants, at all

times herein mentioned, were in the business of manufachrdng, researching, designing, assembling,

testing, producing, constructing, assembling, inspecting, distributing, marketing, and advertising for

sale and selling to and for the use of the general public Inspecta-Shield fire retardant, or components

of it manufactured by said Defendants, which is the subject matter of this Conrplaint. Said

Defendants are responsible in some manner for placing said product or causing it to be placed into

the strearn of commerce, such that Plaintifß' injuries as hereinafter alleged were legally caused by

the acts of saicl Defendants, and each of them.

59. At the tirne Plaintifß used said fire retardant, the product was substantially the sarne

as when they left the possession of said Defendants.

60. Said fire retardant did not perform as safely as ær oldinary collstuner would have

expected at the time of use, in that the ghillie suits wom by Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and Steven

McClanahan as described above were highly flammable despite the fire retardant being sprayed on

them. The frre retardant was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to said Defendants.

61. Said Defendants, by way of advefiisernent and/or tluough their website, made certain

representations and misrepresentations conceming the character or quality of the fire retardant sold

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-J\ry

-12-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 18 of 36
I

2

J

4

)

6

7

8

I

10

11

t2

13

t4

i5

T6

17

18

19

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

by and supplied to Ghillie Suits.com. Ghillie Suits.corn relied upon the misrepresentation made by

Defendant New York Fire-Shield and Does 8-10, and passed on the fire retardant, which gave rise to

the physical injuries to said Plaintiffs as set out above aud below.

62. While utilizing said fïre retardaut in the manner iutendeci, said Plaintifß were iqjured

in their health, strength, and activity, and sustained injury to their body and shoclc and injury to their

newous system and persons, all of which have caused and continue to cause thern great mental,

physical, and nervous pain and suffering. These iurjulies will result in some pennanent disability to

said Plaintifß, all to theil general damage. The flamrnability of said ghillie suits despite the use of

fire retaldant spray and the failure ofsaid spray to perfonn safely \ryas a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs' hann.

63. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendants, said Plaintifß were

required to and did employ physicians, surgeons and nurses for exarnination, treatment and care, and

Ïncurred and will continue to incur additional medical aud incidental expenses, the exact arnount of

which is unknown to said Plaintiffs at this time.

64. As a ftuther legal result of the conduct of said Defendants and because of Plaintiffs'

injruies, said Plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, prevented ñom working in their

occupations. The amount of eamings which will be lost to said Plaintifß is unknown at this time.

Plaintifß are informed and believes that their inability to work and/or reduction in his earning

capacity will continue in the future, thereby causing a further loss of eamings and/or earning

capacity, the exact amount of which is unknown to said Plaintiffs at this time.

65. As a ñlither legal result of the conduct of said Defendants, said Plaintifß have

incured damages in an asceftainable economic value, as hereinbefole alleged, and thus Plaiutifß

ale entitled to pre'judgment interest on said darnages pursuant to Civil Code $3287 and/or $3288.

COUNÎ THREE

(Strict Liability - Design Defect - Against Garland Company, Inc., also kúown as and/or

doing business as Fire Shield West, and/or Fire ShÍeld West as a division of Garland

FIRST AMENDED COMPLATNT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-13-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 19 of 36
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

T2

13

14

15

16

l7

18

1,9

2Q

27

22

23

24

25

26

27

Company,Inc.)

AS AND FOR A THIRD COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendant Garland Company, Inc., also lanown as and/or doing

business as Fire Shield 'West, and/or Fire Shield 'West 

as a division of Garland Cornpany, lnc.,

fonnerly designated as DOE 6 as follows:

66. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate pal'agraphs 1 tllough 65 as if fully set

forth herein.

67. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thereon allege that said Defendant, at all

times herein mentioned, were in the business of manufachrring, resealching, designing, assembling,

testing, producing, constructing, assembling, inspecting, distributing, wholesaling, retailing, retail

distributing, marketing, and/or advertising for sale and/or selling to and for the use of the general

public Lrspecta-Shield fire retardant, or conlponents of it by said Defendant, which is the subject

matter of this Complaint. Said Defendant is responsible in some marrrrer for placing said product or

causing it to be placed into the strearn of commerce, such that Plaintifß' injuries as hereinafter

alleged were legally caused by the acts of said Defendant,

68. At the time Plaintiffs used said fire retardant, the product was substantially the same

as when they left the possession of said Defendant.

69. Said fire retardant did not perfonn as safely as an ordiuary consuller would have

expected at the tirne of use, in that the ghillie suits worn by Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and Steven

McClanahan as described above were highly flammable despite the fire retardant being sprayed on

them. The fire retardant was used in a way that was rcasonably foreseeable to said Defendant.

70. Said Defendant, by way of advertisement and/or sales, made ceftain representations

and misrepresentations concerning the character or quality of the fire retardant sold by and supplied

to Ghillie Suits.com. Ghillie Suits.com relied upon the misrcpresentations rnade by Defendant

Garland Company, hrc., also lcnown as and/or doing business as Fire Shield 'West, and/or Ffue Slúeld

West as a division of Garland Company, Inc., formerly designated as DOE 6, and passed on the fire

retardant, which gave rise to the physical injuries to said Plaintifß as set out above and below.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES C:ASE NO. 5:0ó-CV-6507-JW

-14-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 20 of 36
I

2

a

J

4

)

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

14

i5

16

T7

18

T9

20

27

22

23

24

25

26

27

7I. TVhile utilizing said fire reta¡dant in the manner intended, said Plaintifß were injured

in their health, strength, and activity, and sustained injury to their body and shock and injury to their

nelvons system and persons, all of which have caused and continue to cause them great mental,

physical, and nervous pain and suffering. These injuries will result in some pennanent disability to

said Plaintiffs, all to their general damage. The flarnmability of said ghillie suits despite the use of

fire retardant spray and the failure of said spray to perfonn safely was a substantial factor in causing

Plaintiffs' harm.

72. As a frrrther legal result of the conduct of said Defendant, said Plaintiffs were

required to and did employ physicians, surgeons and nurses fol examination, treatment and care, and

incurred aud will continue to incur additional medical and incidental expenses, the exact amount of

which is unlarown to said Plaintiffs at this time.

73. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendant and because of Plaintiffs'

injuries, said Plaintiffs have been, and will continue to be, prevented fiom working in their

occupations. The amount of eaurings which will be lost to said Plaintiffs is unlerown at this time.

Plaintifß are infonned and believes that their inability to work aud/or reduction in his earning

capacity will continue in the future, thereby causing a further loss of eamings and/or earning

capacity, the exact amount of wlúch is unknown to said Plaintiffs at this tirne.

74. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendant, said Plaintifß have

incured damages in an asceúainable economic value, as hereinbefore alleged, and thus Plaintiffs

are entitlecl to pre-judgment iuterest on said damages pursuant to Civil Cocle $3287 and/or $3288.

COTJNT FOÏJR

(Strict LÍability - Design Defect - Against Gary B. Crossland, individually)

AS AND FOR A FOIJRTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendant Gary B. Crossland, individually, former'ly designated

as DOE 7 as follows:

75. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate paragraphs I tluough T3 as if fully set

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-15-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 21 of 36
1

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

i1

t2

13

t4

15

1,6

T7

18

T9

20

21

22

¿5

24

25

26

27

forth herein.

76. Plaintiffs are informed and believe and thercon allege that said Defendant, at all

tirnes herein nentioned, was in the business of manufacturing, researching, designing, assembling,

testing, producing, constntcting, assembling, inspecting, distributing, wholesaling, retailing, retail

distlibuting, marketing, and/or advertising for sale and/or selling to and for the use of the general

public Inspecta-Shield fire retardant, or components of it by said Defendant, wlúch is the subject

matter of this Complaint. Said Defendant is responsible in some manner for placing said product or

causing it to be plaoed into the stream of commelce, such that Plaintiffs' ir{uries as hereinafter

alleged were legally caused by the acts of said Defendant.

77. At the tirne Plaintifß used said fire retardant, the product was substautially the same

as when they left the possession of said Defendant.

78, Said fire retardant did not perform as safely as an ordinary consumer would have

expected at the time of use, in that the ghi[ie suits wom by Plaintiffs Jeremy Bhart and Steven

McClanahan as described above were highly flamrnable despite the fire retardant being sprayed on

them. The fire reta¡dant was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to said Defendant.

79. Said Defendant, by way of advertisement and/or sales, made ceúain replesentations

and misrepresentations conceming the character or quality of the fire retardant sold by and supplied

to Ghillie Suits.com. Glúllie Suits.com relied upon the misrepresentations made by Defendant Gæy

Crossland, individually, formerly designated as DOE 7, and passed on the fire retardant, which gave

rise to the physical it{uries to said Plaintifß as set out above and below.

80. While utilizing said fire retardant in the manner intended, said Plaintifß were injured

in theil health, strength, and activity, and sustaiued injury to their body aud shock and iqjury to their

nervous system and persons, all of which have caused and continue to cause them great mental,

physical, and nelous pain and suffering. These i4jru'ies will result in some permanent disability to

said Plaintiffs, all to their general damage. The flammability of said ghillie suits despite the use of

fire retardant spray and the failwe of said spray to perfonn safely was a substautial factor in causing

Plaintiffs' harm.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA¡NT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-J\{

-16-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 22 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

I

I

9

10

11

L2

13

t4

15

16

L7

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

81. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendant, said Plaintifß were

required to and did employ physicians, surgeons and nurses for examination, treatment and care, and

incuned and will continue to incur additional medical and incideutal expenses, the exact amourt of

which is unlarown to said Plaintiffs at this time.

82. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defendant and because of Plaintifß'

injuries, said Plaintiffs have been, aud will continue to be, prevented from worlcing in their

occupations. The arnount of earnings which will be lost to said Plaintifß is rrrrlorown at this time.

Plaintifß are informed and believes that their inability to work and/or reduction in his eaming

capacity will continue in the fuhue, thereby causing a fuither loss of eamings and/or earning

capacity, the exact afnount of which is unlcrown to said Plaintifß at this tirne.

As a fuither legal result of the conduct of said Defendært, said Plaintifß have incurred damages iu

an asceftainable economic value, as hereinbefore alleged, and thus Plaintiffs are entitled to prejudgment interest on said damages pursuant to Civil Code $3287 aud/or'$3288.

COUNT trTYE

(Strict Liability - Design Defect - Against Wackenhut and Does 11 through 15)

AS AI.ID FOR A FIFTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants'Wackenhut and Does 1I tluough 15 as foliows:

83. Plaintiffs hereby re-allege and incorporate palagaphs 1 tluough 32 as if ftilly set

foÍh herein.

84. Plaintiffs are informed a¡rd believe and thereon allege that said Defendants, at all

times herein rnentioned, were in the business of manufacturiug, researching, designing, assembling,

modifying, testing, produoing, constructing, assembling, inspecting, rnaintaining, distributing and/or

supplying for use machine guns or cornponents of machine guns used duing Exercise Pacific

Patriot. Said Defendants are responsible in some manner for placing said product or causing it to be

placed iuto the stream of commerce, sttch that Plaintiffs' injuries as hereinafter alleged were legally

caused by the acts of said Defendants, and each of them.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLA¡NT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JllV

-t7-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 23 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

t4

15

16

t7

18

19

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

85. At the time Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart used said machine guu, the product was

substantially the sarne as when they left the possession of said Defendants.

86. Said rnachine gun did not perfonn as safely ", r, ordinary consumer would have

expected at the time of use, in that the amount of muzzle flash and receiver signature on said gun

was not normal. The machine gun ïvas used in a way that was reasouably foreseeable to said

Defendants.

87. While utilizing said machine gun in the manner intended, said Plaintifß were iqjured

in theil health, strength, and activit¡ and sustained i4jury to theil body and shock and iqjury to their

nervous systern and persons, all of which have caused and continue to cause them gteat mental,

physical, and nervous pain and suffering. These iqjuries will result in sorne permanent disability to

said Plaintifß, all to their general damage. The abnonnal arnount of muzzle flash and receiver

signature on the gun was a substantial factor in causing Plaintifß' harm.

88. As a fi¡r{rer legal result of the conduct of said Defendants, said Plaintiffs were

required to and did employ physiciærs, surgeons aud nurses for examination, treahnent and care, ærd

incuned and will continue to incur additional medical aud incidental expeuses, the exact arnount of

which is unlsroriln to said Plaintiffs at this time.

89. As a finther legal result of the conduct of said Defendants, and because of Plaintifß'

irfuries, said Plaintifß have been, and will continue to be, prevented fr'orn worlcing in their

occupations, The amount of eamings which will be lost to said Plaiutiffs is wrlorown at this time.

Plaintiffs are informed and believes that their inability to work and/or reduction in his eanring

capacity will continue in the flrhue, thereby causing a fuithel loss of earnings and/or eaming

capacity, the exact amount of which is unknown to said Plaintiffs at this tirne.

90. As a further legal result of the conduct of said Defeirdants, said Plaintifß have

incurred damages in an ascertainable economic value, as hereinbefore alleged, and thus Plaintifß

are entitled to pre-judgment interest on said damages pursuant to Civil Code $3287 ærd/or $3288.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-18-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 24 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

.7

I

9

10

11

L2

i3

t4

15

I6

L7

18

t9

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COUNT SIX

(Strict Liability - Failure to Warn - Against Muirhead, Ghillie Suits.com and

Does 1 through 5)

AS AND FOR A SIXTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants Muirhead, Ghillie Suits.com and Does 1 tlu'ough 5 as

follows:

9t. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incotporateparagraphs I thlough 90 as if fully set forth

herein.

92. The ghillie suits that were involved iu the subject incident had been distributed,

mallceted and sold by said Defendants without adequate wanrings and/or instructions.

93. Said ghillie suits had potential risks that were lorown or knowable by the use of

scientific knowledge at the time of manufacture, distributiou and/or sale, in that said suits were

lúghly flammable despite the fire retardant sprayed on them.

94. The potential risks of said ghillie suits presented a substantial danger to users of the

product. Ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential risks described above.

95. Said Defendants failed to adequately warn a¡rd/or instruct of the potential dsks as

described above. Said Defendants also did not provide proper instructious on how to apply the

"hrspecta-Shield" fire retardant, nor did they provide an adequate quantity of fire retardant after

lepackaging it in srnaller quærtities than sold by the manufacturer. The instructions provided by

said Defendants with the 8-ounce bottles of fire retaldant were minimal, and therefore, the amount

of retardant applied to the suits was inadequate to prevent ær instantaneous and catastrophic fire.

The fire-resistant treatment reconnnended by said Defendants was not sufficient to adequately alter

the flanunability and fire performance characteristics of the ghillie suit.

96. Said ghillie suits were used in a \¡/ay that was reasonably foreseeable to said

Defendants.

97. While utilizing said ghillie suits in the manner intended by said Defendants, said

Plaintifß were injured as set forth above. The lack of sufficient instructions and/or warnings \ryas a

FIRST AM ENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-1,9-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 25 of 36
1

2

a

J

4

6

7

8

9

10

11

12

13

L4

15

1,6

l7

18

19

20

2l

22

23

24

25

26

27

substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' hann.

COUNT SEVEN

(Strict Liability - Failure to'Warn - Against New York Fire-Shield and Does 8-10)

AS AND FOR A SE\IENTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaiutifß Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants New Yolk Fire-Shield and Does 8-10 as follows:

98. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorpolate paragraphs I thlougli 97 as if ftilly set forlh

herein.

99. The Inspecta-Shield fue retardant that was involved in the subject incident had been

distributed, marketed and sold by said Defendants without adequate wamings and/or instructions.

100. Said fire retardant had potential risks that were known or larowable by the use of

scientific knowledge at the time of manufacture, distribution and/or sale, in that said fire retardant, if

not applied proper'ly, resulted in material that was highly flammable despite the fire retardant being

sprayed on the matedal.

101. The potential risks of said fire retardant presented a substantial dangel to users of the

fire retardant product. Ordinary consumers would not have recoguized the potential risks described

al¡ove.

I02. Said Defendants failed to adequately wam and/or instruct of the potential dsks as

described above. Said Defendants also did not provide proper instructions on how to apply the

"Inspecta-Shield" fire retardant or inshuctions regarding how much firc retardant was needed to

adequately alter the flammability and fire performance characteristics of the matedal on which it

was being applied. Said fire retardant was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to said

Defendants.

103. While utilizing said fire retardant in the manner intendecl by said Defendants, said

Plaintifß were iqjured as set forth above. The laclc of sufficient instnrctions aud/or wamings was a

substantial factor in causing Plaintifß' harm.

I

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAfNT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-20-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 26 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

11

L2

13

T4

15

16

T7

18

t9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

COIINT EIGHT

(Strict Liability - Failure to ïVarn - AgaÍnst Garland Company, Inc., also hnown as and/or

doing business as Fire Shield West, and/or Fire Shield \ilest as a division of Garland

Company,Inc.)

AS AND FOR AN EIGHTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendant Garland Company, Inc., also lflrown as and/or doing

business as Fire Shield 'West, and/or Fire Shield West as a division of Garland Compan¡ Ino.

fonnerly desigrated as DOE 6, as follows:

104. Plaintifß hereby reallege and iucorporate paragraphs 1 tluough l03 as if fully set

forth herein.

105. The Inspecta-Shield fire retardant that was involved in the subject incident had been

dishibuted, marketed and/or sold by said Defendant without adequate war:rings and/or instructions.

106. Said fire retardant had potential risks that were known.or lorowable by the use of

scientific knowledge at the tirne of manufacture, dishibution and/or sale, in that said fire retardant, if

not applied ploperly, resulted in rnaterial that was highly flammable clespite the fïre retardant being

sprayed on the material.

I07. The potential risks ofsaid fire retardant presented a substantial danger to users ofthe

fïr'e retardant product. Ordinary consumers would not have recogrrized the potential risks described

above.

108, Said Defendant failed to adequately wam and/or inshuct of the potential risks as

described above. Said Defendant also did not provide proper instructions on how to apply the

"Inspecta-Shield" fire retardant or instructions regarding how much firc retardant was needed to

adequately alter the flammability and fire performance characteristics of the material on which it

was being applied. Said fire retardant was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to said

Defendant.

109. While utilizing said fire retardant iu the Írallner intended by said Defendant, said

Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above. The lack of sufficient instructions and/or wanrings was a

FIRST AMENDED COMPIAINT FOR DAM]{,GES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-Jw

-2tCase 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 27 of 36
1

2

J

4

)

6

7

8

9

10

11

t2

13

T4

15

1,6

l7

18

t9

20

2L

22

23

24

25

26

27

substantial factor in causing Plaintifß' hann.

COUNT NINE

(Strict Liability - Failure to Warn - Against Gary B. Crossland)

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart

and Steven McClanahan allege against Defendant Galy B. Crossland fonnedy desiguated as DOE 7,

as follows:

110. Plaintiffs hereby rcallege and incotporateparugraphs 1 tlu'ough 109 as if fully set

forth herein.

111. The Inspecta-Shield fire retardant that was involved in the subject incident had been

distributecl, marketed and/or sold by said Defendant without adequate wamings and/ol inshuctions.

1,12. Said fire retardant had potential risks that were lcnown or knowable by the use of

scientific lorowledge at the time of manufacture, distribution and/or sale, in that said fire retardant, if

not applied proper'ly, resulted in material that was highly flamrnable despite the fire retardant being

sprayed on the material.

113. The potential risks ofsaid fire retardant presented a substantial danger to users ofthe

fire rctardant product. Ordinary consumers would not have recognized the potential dsks described

above.

ll4. Said Defendant failed to adequately wam and/or insh'nct of the potential risks as

described above. Said Defendant also did not prrrvide proper inshuctions on how to apply the

"Inspecta-Shield" fire retardant or instruotions regalding how much fire retardant was needed to

adeqtrately alter the flammability and fire performance charactedstics of the material on which it

was being applied. Said fire retardant was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to said

Defendant.

115. While utilizing said fire retardant in the manner intended by said Defendant, said

Plaintifß were injured as set forth above. The lack of sttfficient instnrctions and/or warnings was a

substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-J\{

-22-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 28 of 36
I

¿

3

4

5

6

1

I

9

10

11

t2

13

t4

15

76

T7

18

L9

2Q

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

COUNT TEN

(Strict Liability - Failure to \üarn - Against \ilackenhut and Does l1 through 15)

AS AND FOR A TENTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and

Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants 'Wackenhut and Does 11 tluough l5 as follows:

116. Plaintifß hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 tluough ll4 as if fully set

forth hereiu.

117, The rnachine gun that was involved in the subject incidents had been distributed,

modified, and/or supplied for use by said Defendants without adequate wamings and/or instructions.

Said machine gun had potential risks that were known or larowabie by the use of scientific

knowledge at the time of distribution, modification and/or inspection in that the amount of muzzle

flash and receiver signature on said gun rtras abnormal.

118. The potential rislcs of said machine gun presented a substantial danger to users of the

product. Ordinary consuuters would not have recognized the potential rislcs described above.

119. Said Defendauts failed to adequately wanr and/or instntct of the potential risks as

described above.

120. Said machine gun was used in a way that was reasonably foreseeable to said

Defendants.

I2l. While utilizing said machine gun in the rnanner intended by said Defendants, said

Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above. The lack of sufficient instl'uctions and/or wamings was a

substantial factor in causing said Plaintifß' haun.

COIINT ELEVEN

(Negligence - Against Muirhead, Ghillie Suits.com and Does 1 through 5)

AS AND FOR AN ELEVENTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAJNT, Plaintiffs JETEMY EITATT

ancl Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants Mt¡irhead, Ghillie Suits.cot:r and Does 1 tluottgh

5 as follows:

122. Plaintiffs hereby reallege and incorporate pangraphs I through l20 as if fully set

FÍRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-J\¡Y

-23-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 29 of 36
I

2

a

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

l0

11

L2

t3

T4

15

16

17

18

79

20

21

22

23

24

25

26

27

forth hereiu.

I23. Said Defendants were negligent in desigrúng, manufactruing, supplying, and

inspecting the ghillie suits worn by Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and Steveu McClanahan. Said

Defendants werc also negligent in failing to use reasonable care to v/alr or instruct al¡out the

product's dangerous condition or about facts that made the prodnct lilcely to be daugerous. Said

Defendants were also negligent in failing to test the products they sold. Said Defendants knew or

reasonably should have known that the ghillie suits were dangerous or were likely to be dangerous

when used in a reasonably foreseeable marurer.

124. Said Defendants knew or rcasonably should have known that users would not realize

the clangers of said ghillie suits.

125. Said Defendants failed to adequately \ryarn of the danger or instruct on the safe use of

said product. Said Defendants did not provide proper inshuctions on how to apply the "InspectaShield" file retardant, nor did they provide an adequate quantity of fire retatdant after tepackaging it

in srnaller quantities than sold by the manufachrer. The inshuctions provided by said Defendants

were minimal, aud thercfore, the amount of retardant applied to the suits was inadequate to prevent

an instantaneous and catastrcphic fire. The fire-resistant h-eahnent r-ecomrnended by said

Defendants was not sufficient to adequately alter the flarnmability and fire petformance

characteristics of the ghillie suit.

L26. A reasonable manufachuer, dishibutor or seller under sarne or similar cilcumstances

would have wamed of said foreseeable dangers or instnrcted on the safe use of the product.

127. Wrile utilizing said ghillie suits in the marurer iutended by said Defendants, said

Plaintiffs wele injured as set forth above. Said Defendauts' failure to wam or instruct was a

substantial factor in causing Plaintifß' harm.

COUNT TWELVE

(Negligence - Against New York Fire-Shield and Does 8-10)

AS AND FOR A TWELFTH COIINT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jererny

FIRST AMENDED COMPLATNT FOR DAMACES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-24-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 30 of 36
1

2

J

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

i3

L4

15

t6

t7

18

t9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

Ehart and Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants New York Fire-Shield and Does 8-10 as

follows:

128. Plaintiffs hereby

forth herein.

129. Said Defendants

inspecting the Inspecta-Shield

reallege and incorporate paragraphs I tluough T26 as if fully set

wele negligent in designiug, manufacturing, supplying, and

fïr'e retardant used by Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and Steven

McClagahan. Said Defendants were also negligent in failing to use reasonal¡le care to wam or

instruct about the product's dangerous condition or about facts that made the product likely to be

dangerous. Said Defendants lcrew, or reasonably should have known, that the fire retardant was

dangerous or was likely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable manner.

130. Said Defendants knew or reasonably should have known that users would not realize

the dangers ofsaid Inspecta-Shield fire retardant.

131. Said Defendants failed to adequately wam of the danger or instruct on the safe use of

said product. Said Defendants did not provide adequate waurings and instructions for use on how to

apply the "Inspecta-Shield" fire retardant, nor did they provide an adequate quantity of fire reta¡dant

to distributors and sellers or monitor how said fïr'e retaldant was being repackaged once it was sold

by the manufachrrer to distributors and sellers.

132. A reasonable malufaoturer, distributor, or seller', under the same or sirnilar

cir-cumstances, would have war:red of said foreseeable dangers and provided adecluate instructions

for the.safe use of the product.

133. While utilizing said fire retardant spray in the manner intended by said Defendants,

said Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above. Said Defendants' failure to wam or instruct lvas a

substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm.

COUNT THIRTEEN

(Negligence - AgaÍnst Garland Companyr Inc., also known as and/or doing business as Fire

Shield'West, and/or Fire Shield \üest as a division of Garland Company, Inc.)

FIRS'T AMENDED COMPLA¡NT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-Jìù/

-25-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 31 of 36
I

2

3

4

5

6

7

8

9

10

11

L2

13

L4

15

L6

t7

18

L9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

AS AND FOR A THIRTEENTH COIJNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintiffs

Jeremy Ehart and Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants Garlancl Cornpany, Inc., also

known as and/or doing business as Fire Shield 'West, and/or Fire Shield West as a division of

Garla¡rd Company, Inc. formerly designated as DOE 6, as follows:

134. Plaintifß hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 tluough l33 as if frrlly set

forth herein.

135. Said Defendant was negligent in desigring, manufacturing, supplying, ærd/or

inspecting the hrspecta-Shield fire retardant used by Plaintiffs Jererny Ehart and Steven

McClanahan. Said Defendant was also negligent in failing to use reasonable care to wam or inshuct

about the product's dangerous condition or about facts that rnade the product likely to be dangerous.

Said Defendant knew, or reasonably should have known, that the fire retatdant was dangerous or

was likely to be dangerous when used in areasonably foreseeable manner.

136. Said Defendant knew or reasonably should have known that users would not realize

the dangers of said Inspecta-Shield fire retatdant.

137. Said Defendant failed to adequately wam of the danger or instntct on the safe use of

said product. Said Defendant did not provide adequate warnings aud instmctions for use on how to

apply the "hrspecta-Shield" fire retardant, nor did they provide au adequate quantity of fire retardant

to dishibutors, sellers and retailers or monitor how said fire retardant was being repackaged once it

was sold to dish'ibutors, sellers and retailers.

i38. A reasonable manufacturer, dish'ibutor or seller, urder the same or similar

circumstærces, would have warned of said foreseeable dangers and plovided adequate instructions

for the safe use ofthe product.

139. \ilhile utilizing said fire retardant spray in the marurer intended by said Defendant,

said Plaintiffs were injwed as set fofih above. Said Defendant's failure to wam or instruct rù/as a

substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' hann.

FIRST AM ENDED COMPLAÍNT FOR DAMAGES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-26-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 32 of 36
I

2

â

J

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

1l

t2

13

L4

15

r6

t7

18

19

2Q

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

COI]NT FOURTEEN

(Negligence - Against Gary B. Crossland)

AS AND FOR A FOURTEENTH COLINT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß

Jeremy Ehart and Steven McClanahan allege against Defendant Gary B. Crossland formerly

desigrrated as DOE 7, as follows:

I40. Plaintifß hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs 1 thlough 138 as if fully set

forth herein.

l4I. Said Defendant was negligent in designing, manufacturing, supplying, and/or

inspecting the Inspecta-Shield fire retardant used by Plaintiffs Jerenry Ehart and Steven

McClanahan. Said Defendant was also negligent in failing to use rcasonable care to waur or inshuct

about the produot's dangerous condition or about facts that made the product likely to be dangerous.

Said Defendant knew, or reasonably should have lcnown, that the fire retardant was dangerous or

was lilcely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably foreseeable lnanner.

I42. Said Defendant lmew or reasonably should have lcnown that users would not realize

the dangers ofsaid lnspecta-Shield fire retardant.

143. Said Defendært failed to adequately warn of the danger or instruct on the safe use of

said product. Said Defendant did not provide adequate warnings and inshuctions for use on how to

apply the "Inspecta-Shield" fire retardant, nor did he provide an adequate quantity offire retardant

to distribtrtors, sellers and retailers or monitor how said fir.e retardant was being repackaged once it

was sold to distribtrtors, sellets and retailers.

L44, A reasonable rnanufacturer, dishibutor ol seller, undel the salne or similar

circurnstances, would have warned of said foreseeabie dangels and provided adequate instructions

for the safe use of the product.

145. While utilizing said fire reta¡dant spray in the rnanner intended by said Defendant,

said Plaintiffs were injured as set forth above. Said Defendant's failure to warn or instruct was a

strbstantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm.

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMACES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-27-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 33 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

7

I

9

10

11

T2

13

t4

15

16

17

18

L9

20

2t

22

23

24

25

26

27

COUNT FIFTEEN

(Negligence - Against Wackenhut and Does 11 through 15)

AS AND FOR A FIFTEBNTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintifß Jeremy Ehart

and Steven McClanahan allege against Defendants Waclcenhut and Does 11 tluough 15 as follows:

146. Plaintifß hereby reallege and incorporate paragraphs I tluough l45 as if fully set

forth herein.

147. Said Defendauts were negligent in desiguing, modifying, snpplying for use,

rnaintaining and/or inspecting the machine gun used by Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart at the time and place

described above. Said Defendants were also negligent in failiug to use reasonable care to w¿un or

instnrct about the product's dangerous condition or about facts that made the product likeþ to be

dangerous. Additionally, said Defendærts were negligent in failiug to test the nrachine gun at issue

in coqiurction with the ghillie suit. Said Defendants lcnew or teasonably should have lsrown that

the machine gun at issue was dangerous or \ilas lilcely to be dangerous when used in a reasonably

foreseeable maûner.

148. Said Defendants lmew or reasonably should have lcnown that users would not realize

the dangers of said machine gun.

L49. Said Defendants failed to adequately warn of the danger or instruct on the safe use of

saicl machine gun when combined with the use of a ghillie suit.

150. A reasonable rnodifier, distributor, supplier or inspector under salne or sirnilar

circumstances would have wamed of said foreseeable dangers or inshucted on the safe use of the

product.

149. While utilizing said machine gun in the rnanner intended by said Defendants, said

Plaintiffs Jeremy Ehart and Steven McClanahan were injured as set forth above. Said Defendants'

failue to wam or instruct was a substantial factor in causing Plaintiffs' harm.

COUNT SIXTEEN

(Loss of Consortium - Against All Defendants)

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAM/\GES (:ASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-28-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 34 of 36
I

2

J

4

5

6

8

9

i0

11

T2

13

1.4

15

16

t7

18

L9

20

2T

22

23

24

25

26

27

AS AND FOR A SD(TEENTH COUNT TO THIS COMPLAINT, Plaintiff Iftisty Ehart

alleges against Defendants, and each of them, as follows:

150. Plaintiff hereby realleges and incorporates paragraphs 1 tluough 149 as if ftilly set

forth herein.

151. At all times herein mentioned Plaûrtiff Iûisty Ehart and Plaiutiff Jeremy Ehart were

husband and wife, respectively. By reason of the injuries to Plaintiff Jeremy Ehart as described

herein, Plaintiff IQisty Ehart has been deprived of the consofiiun of Plaintiff .Teremy Ehaft.

DEN4AI.{D FOR JURY TRIAL

Plaintifß hereby demand a jury for all claims which a jury is pemritted.

PRAYER

WHEREFORE, Plaintifß pray for judgnent against Defendants, and each of them,

follows:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

For general damages according to proof;

For medical and incidental expenses according to proof;

For loss of earnings and eaming capacity accotding to proof;

For prejudgment intercst on all general and special damages accotding to law;

For costs of suit herein; and,

For such other and ftiither relief as the court deems just aud proper.

Dated: LØ¿o(Ofl NEEDITAM, DAVIS, KEPNER & YOIING, LLP

FIRST AMENDED COMPI."AÍNT FOR DAMACES CASE NO. 5:06-CV-6507-JW

-29-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 35 of 36
C, ERTIFICATION OT'INTERESTED ENTITÏES OR PERSONS

Pr¡rsuant to Civil L.R. 3-16, the undorsigned certifies that as of this date, other than the

named parties, there is no such interest to report.

Dated: Z lz6l oy NEEDHAM, DAVIS, KEPNER & YOUNG, LLP

By:

Attorneysþr Plaínttffs

FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR DAMAGBS CASE NO. 5:06-CV{507.IW

,30-

Case 5:06-cv-06507-JW Document 86 Filed 03/05/08 Page 36 of 36