on preemption, defendants assert that all counts of the complaint should be dismissed due to plaintiffs failure to allege that he suffered any damage as a proximate result of his use of Terminate. The court agrees. Each cause of action set forth in plaintiffs complaint is based on allegations that Terminate was not effective as represented by defendants; yet nowhere in his complaint does plaintiff allege, other than eon-clusorily, either that the product actually failed to perform in the manner represented or that he suffered any damage as a consequence of his use of Terminate. Plaintiff does broadly allege that he “has incurred damages proximately caused by defendants’ misconduct and concealment ... including] ... monies paid for TERMINATE and damages a 8, 63 Cal.Rptr.2d 762 (1997) (<HOLDING>); Verb v. Motorola, Inc., 284 Ill.App.3d 460,
holding that to establish tort liability in a negligence action there must be a legal duty on the part of the defendant to plaintiff holding that second restatement  302 does not establish per se that a doctor owes a duty to the plaintiff it only describes the manner in which he may be negligent if he owed that duty holding that under georgia law the duty of good faith cannot be breached apart from an express contractual term holding that question of whether defendant breached duty under applicable safety statutes was not one for experts holding that in the absence of a product malfunction a plaintiff cannot establish that a defendant breached any duty owed