AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al.

25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U-POL US, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 765633195879 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/13/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by U-POL US, INC. on 05/20/2026 is Granted.

BACKGROUND Plaintiff Amir Azar (“Plaintiff”) alleges that he contracted malignant mesothelioma due to his exposure to asbestos through his years of work at autobody shops. Specific to this motion, Plaintiff worked at American Eagle Body Shop from 2007-2009 and again from 2010-2013. (PDMF No. 3.) He contends that he spent substantial time in the shop areas, receiving parts deliveries, checking the status of cars, and showing vehicles to appraisers and adjusters. (PDMF No. 4.) Plaintiff contends that he was exposed to products such as finishing glazes and putties that were applied as part of paint jobs. (PDMF No. 5.)

Plaintiff asserts that he breathed dust generated from these putties after they were mixed, applied, and sanded. (PDMF No. 6.) He also contends that the dust landed on clothing, hair and the bodies of people in the vicinity of this work. (PDMF Nos. 7, 8.) Plaintiff contends that he carried the dust home on his work clothes. (PDMF Nos. 9, 10.)

One of the putties Plaintiff contends was used in his vicinity is Dolphin putty, which was manufactured by Defendant U-Pol US, Inc. (“Defendant”). Plaintiff alleges that Dolphin putty contained asbestos-contaminated talc. Plaintiff contends that exposure to this contaminated talc was a substantial factor in causing his mesothelioma. Defendant moves for summary judgment (“MSJ”) on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that he was exposed to asbestos-containing products attributable to Defendant. Defendant also moves in the alternative for summary adjudication (“MSA”) as to Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages. Defendant’s moving papers also sought summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ concealment and false representation claims, but Plaintiff dismissed those claims as to Defendant on June 26, 2026.

LEGAL STANDARD “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action . . . [or] one or more claims for damages . . . if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit . . . [or] that there is no merit to a claim for [punitive damages] . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1).) “A defendant . . . has met [their] burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established . . . .” (§ 437c(p)(2); see also Collin v.

CalPortland Co. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 582, 587 (“A defendant moving for . . . summary adjudication need not conclusively negate an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. Instead, the defendant may show through factually devoid discovery responses that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.”).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material 25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U-POL US, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 765633195879 in Department 18 facts exists as to the cause of action . . . .

The plaintiff . . . shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action . . . [or] a claim for damages . . . .” (§ 437c(f)(1).)

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff’s request for judicial notice of “relevant excerpts” of 29 CFR Parts 1910 and 1926, Occupational Exposure to Asbestos, Tremolite, Anthophyllite, and Actinolite, Final Rules (1986) is GRANTED. (Evid. Code, § 452, subd. (d).) However, the Court does not take judicial notice of the truth of any of the facts asserted in the matters noticed. (See Fogel v. Farmers Group, Inc. (2008) 160 Cal.App.4th 1403, 1413 n. 7; Lockley v. Law Office of Cantrell, Green, Pekich, Cruz & McCort (2001) 91 Cal.App.4th 875, 882.)

Plaintiff’s objections to excerpts of the McGoldrick and Tuttle Declarations are OVERRULED. Defendant’s objections to excerpts of the depositions of Plaintiff and Ali Azar are OVERRULED. Defendant’s objections to excerpts of the Krekeler and Garza Declarations are OVERRULED.

Summary Judgment

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks and cannot reasonably obtain evidence necessary to establish threshold exposure attributable to Defendant’s products. Specifically, Defendant contends that Plaintiff cannot establish that any of its products that Plaintiff may have been exposed to actually contained asbestos, and even if he could, he cannot show that he was exposed to a sufficient quantity of respirable fibers to establish that Defendant’s products were a substantial factor in his mesothelioma diagnosis. Defendant served comprehensive discovery in the form of Form and Special Interrogatories and Requests for Production of Documents on March 26, 2026. Plaintiff served responses on May 1, 2026.

To establish that Plaintiff lacks evidence of threshold exposure, Defendant notes that Plaintiff does not claim to have worked directly with automotive refinishing products such as those Defendant manufactured; only that he was in the vicinity of other workers using them while repairs were performed. (Wood Decl., Exh. 4 at pp. 2:7-4:19.) However, Plaintiff’s response to Form Interrogatory No. 17.1 notes that he “did a lot of detailing and often showed detailers how to properly detail a car before delivering it to a customer.” (Id. at 4:11-4:12.)

Defendant also points out that Plaintiff only spent a bit more than a quarter of his time in the shop; the rest was spent in an office across the street. (UMF Nos. 2, 3.) In addition, Defendant contends that the American Eagle autobody shop Plaintiff worked for did not begin purchasing or using Defendant’s products until January 2013. (UMF Nos. 6-9.) Plaintiff left his employment at American Eagle in September 2013. (UMF No. 10.) Defendant also highlights Plaintiff’s

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U-POL US, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 765633195879 in Department 18 deposition testimony, wherein he states that Defendant’s Dolphin putty product was used less often than other brands and only used for a “finishing job or a smaller job” on small dents. (UMF No. 17.)

In opposition, Plaintiff contends that he was exposed to asbestos attributable to Defendant’s products as a bystander, both as a consequence of being in the autobody shop while others worked with Dolphin glaze or putty, and because, even after Plaintiff left his employment at American Eagle, he shared a residence with his brother Ali, who would come home wearing clothes covered in dust likely to contain asbestos until 2018. (PDMF Nos. 21-24.) Defendant objects to Plaintiff’s apparently novel theory that he was subjected to take-home exposure.

Defendant also submits sales records from American Eagle’s exclusive distributor, Mac’s Distributing Company, which appear to show that American Eagle only bought one bottle of Dolphin putty between 2012 and 2018, and the purchase happened in 2016 after Plaintiff departed American Eagle. (Wood Reply Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1 at p. 34.) Defendant also submits testimony from Plaintiff’s expert, Barry Horn, in which he states that Plaintiff’s exposures to asbestos from mid-2015 forward did not contribute to his risk of developing mesothelioma. (Id. at ¶ 3, Exh. 2 at 110:13-110:18.)

To support its contention that the products Plaintiff was exposed to did not contain asbestos, Defendant submits the Declaration of Cameron McGoldrick, who was Quality Systems Manager for Defendant from July 2022 to September 2025 and Research and Development Chemist from 2017 to July 2022. Mr. McGoldrick testifies that Defendant received Safety Advisory Documents from its talc supplier which stated that its Dolphin putty and glaze products did “not contain asbestos fibres or asbestiform minerals when analysed by conventional methods.

All batches of these products are tested in the UK by certified independent laboratories and no quantifiable concentrations have been detected to date.” (McGoldrick Decl., ¶ 7; Wood Decl., Exh. 8.) Defendant also submits the Declaration of Kelly S. Tuttle, Ph.D., a Senior Technological Fellow in Toxicology and Industrial Hygiene. Ms. Tuttle opines that the dust created by the sanding and smoothing processes described by Plaintiff would be limited by multiple factors. (Tuttle Decl., ¶ 14.) Tuttle also states that Plaintiff likely had “little to no, much less significant” exposure to asbestos as a consequence of his presence in the vicinity of Defendant’s products and exposure would be below threshold levels for causation of mesothelioma. (Id. at ¶¶ 22-24.)

Plaintiff offers affirmative evidence in opposition to Defendant’s showing in the form of the Declaration of Mark Krekeler, Ph.D., geologist and minerologist. Mr. Krekeler refers to a “comprehensive expert report” he prepared in 2024 regarding China-sourced talc. The parties agree that the talc used in Defendant’s Dolphin putty products was sourced to mines in Guangxi, China. (UMF No. 24.) His report concludes that “[i]t is scientifically more probable than not that asbestos occurred in talc ores from China talc mines. (Krekeler Decl., Exh. B. at p. 2.) The report contains substantial discussion of mines in Guangxi, China as well. However, the report does not conclusively negate the testing results cited by Defendant (indicating no asbestos) in

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U-POL US, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 765633195879 in Department 18 that it does not offer evidentiary proof that the particular talc from the particular mine from which the talc in Defendant’s products was sourced was more likely than not to be asbestoscontaminated.

The court finds that Plaintiff’s evidence of threshold exposure is too speculative to create a triable issue of material fact. The evidence tends to show that American Eagle did not carry Defendant’s products until 2013 and that it may have purchased only one bottle of the Dolphin product at issue after Plaintiff had left employment and at a point when Plaintiff’s own expert opined that, even if he was exposed to asbestos from that product, it would not have contributed to his risk of developing mesothelioma.

Moreover, Plaintiff left employment at American Eagle in September 2013, long before the bottle was purchased. Dr. Tuttle’s testimony also tends to show that, even if Plaintiff had regularly been in the vicinity of Defendant’s products, and they contained asbestos, it is unlikely that his exposure to asbestos fibers was sufficient to be a substantial factor in his diagnosis. Plaintiff’s opposition does not set forth evidence refuting this showing. Plaintiff and Ali Azar’s deposition testimony and Plaintiff’s discovery responses discuss Dolphin putty in generalities, but do not establish threshold exposure.

Having found no triable issue of fact as to threshold exposure, the court need not determine whether Defendant’s product contained asbestos.

Summary Adjudication

Because the court grants Defendant’s motion for summary judgment, Defendant’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is DENIED AS MOOT.

ORDERS

Defendant P.E. O’Hair & Co.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is DENIED AS MOOT.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing and identify the issues you wish to argue through the following steps.

1. Log into eCourt Public Portal - https://eportal.alameda.courts.ca.gov 2. Case Search 3. Enter the Case Number and select Search 4. Select the Case Name 5. Select the Tentative Rulings Tab 6. Select Click to Contest this Ruling 7. Enter your Name and Reason for Contesting

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV155599: AZAR vs 3M COMPANY, et al. 07/14/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by U-POL US, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 765633195879 in Department 18 8. Select Proceed.