ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al.

24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant County of El Dorado's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (or in the Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Fourth Amended Complaint); filed by COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA (Defendant) CRS# 108360995910 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/28/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Demurrer filed by COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA on 07/06/2026 is Sustained without Leave to Amend.

Defendant County of El Dorado’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ Fifth Amended Complaint, or in the alternative, motion for judgment on the pleadings as to Plaintiffs’ Fourth Amended Complaint, is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND.

I.

Background

George and Chrstine Arsenith (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on August 28, 2024 against Defendant County of El Dorado (“Defendant”), among others. Following George Arsenith’s passing, Christy Arsenith was named as George’s successor-in-interest and Merriann Cassidy and George Arsenith, Jr. were also added as plaintiffs. Plaintiffs filed the currently operative Fourth Amended Complaint (“FOAC”) on April 10, 2026. The FOAC alleges that George Arsenith developed mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos “through his own work as a laborer and pipe installer for T & S Construction, as well as through his father George Macedo Arsenith’s work for T & S Construction, in the central and northern California area during the course of his life”, among other sources. (FOAC, ¶ 19.)

Specific to Defendant, the FOAC alleges that Defendant was liable “for dangerous condition of public property holding premises in a dangerous condition with asbestos and asbestoscontaining products, including but not limited to, asbestos-cement pipe, asbestos-containing construction products, and asbestos-containing equipment, including but not limited to, pumps, valves, and asbestos-containing component parts including but not limited to, gaskets, packing, and insulation[.]” (FOAC, ¶ 21.)

As to Defendant, the FOAC alleges without specificity that decedent’s injury took place at the following projects/locations: El Dorado Hills Business Park Phases 1 A/D in around 1984; the El Dorado Hills Business Park Phase II that took place in around 1985, and the Ridgeview Unit 5A A/D project from around 1985. (FOAC, ¶ 194.c.) Plaintiffs further generally allege that decedent and/or his father, George Macedo Arsenith were exposed to asbestos at this worksite due to Defendant’s negligence without explaining how decedent or his father were exposed. (Id. at ¶ 194.e.)

The FOAC also asserts that decedent performed work installing pressure pipe and tying it into Defendant’s existing asbestos cement pipe. (Id. at ¶ 195.o.) 24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant County of El Dorado's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (or in the Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Fourth Amended Complaint); filed by COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA (Defendant) CRS# 108360995910 in Department 18 Defendant filed a demurrer, or in the alternative, motion for judgment on the pleadings, as to the FOAC on July 6. 2026.

II.

Legal Standard

A party may demur to a complaint if it “does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action” or is “uncertain.” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 430.10(e), (f); see also § 425.10(a)(1) (A complaint must contain “[a] statement of the facts constituting the cause of action, in ordinary and concise language.”).) The grounds for the demurrer must “appear[] on the face thereof, or from any matter of which the court is required to or may take judicial notice.” (§ 430.30(a).)

III.

Discussion

Defendant’s demurrer is sustained without leave to amend.

Sixth Cause of Action - Dangerous Condition of Public Property

Defendant contends that the allegations against it in the FOAC remain insufficient to support this cause of action. “[B]ecause under the Tort Claims Act all governmental tort liability is based on statute, the general rule that statutory causes of action must be pleaded with particularity is applicable. Thus, ‘to state a cause of action against a public entity, every fact material to the existence of its statutory liability must be pleaded with particularity.’” (Lopez v. Southern Cal. Rapid Transit Dist. (1985) 40 Cal.3d 780, 795 (additional citations omitted).)

Under Government Code section 835, “a public entity is liable for injury caused by a dangerous condition of its property if the plaintiff establishes that the property was in a dangerous condition at the time of the injury, that the injury was proximately caused by the dangerous condition, that the dangerous condition created a reasonably foreseeable risk of the kind of injury which was incurred, and either (a) a negligent or wrongful act or omission of an employee of the public entity within the scope of his employment created the condition; or (b) the public entity had actual or constructive notice of the dangerous condition a sufficient time prior to the injury to have taken measures to protect against the dangerous condition.” (Gov.

Code § 835.)

The court previously sustained Defendants’ demurrer to this cause of action because the SAC did not allege facts tending to establish that decedent worked on the listed project, did not include specific facts as to how his alleged exposure occurred, specify which allegedly asbestoscontaining materials decedent worked on or in the vicinity of to cause his exposure, or establish Defendant’s actual or constructive notice of the allegedly dangerous condition. The allegations

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant County of El Dorado's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (or in the Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Fourth Amended Complaint); filed by COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA (Defendant) CRS# 108360995910 in Department 18 the court previously found insufficient remain. The FOAC seeks to remedy the issues the court identified by alleging additional facts as to decedent’s alleged work on installing pressure pipe and tying it into asbestos-containing cement pipe on Defendants’ property. (FOAC at ¶¶ 194.o.)

These additional facts, even when considered alongside the existing allegations, are too vague, speculative, and conclusory to place Defendant on notice of the claims against it, particularly in light of the heightened pleading standard applicable to statutory claims against public entities. The additional facts seek to establish that decedent worked with or in the vicinity of “over 15,750 linear feet of asbestos cement pipe” on the Phase I project and “over 15,400 linear feet” of asbestos cement pipe on the Phase II project. (Ibid.)

Plaintiffs contend decedent worked under Defendant’s standards and specifications. There is no specific allegation establishing that decedent ever performed this work, only a conclusory allegation that he “worked on the County of El Dorado project for years.” (Ibid.) The location of the property, land, or project(s) are not identified other than another conclusory allegation that it was “land owned by [Defendant]” and there is only a bare, conclusory allegation that the asbestos-containing pipe was a concealed hazard known to Defendants. (See Brenner v.

City of El Cajon (2003) 113 Cal.App.4th 434, 440; Brown v. Poway Unified School Dist. (1993) 4 Cal.4th 820, 829-830.) These allegations, without more, also do not amount to actual or constructive notice or establish the existence of a dangerous condition, as Plaintiffs do not reference any facts or evidence tending to establish that Defendants knew of the dangerous condition. (See Restivo v. City of Petaluma (2025) 111 Cal.App.5th 267, 275.)

Because the court finds that the FOAC fails to state a claim for dangerous condition of public property in the first instance, it need not determine whether the Privette doctrine applies.

Because the court sustains Defendants’ demurrer to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action, Defendant’s demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ request for loss of consortium, a derivative damages claim, is sustained as well since it cannot survive without a predicate cause of action. Plaintiffs have now amended their complaint several times but failed to sufficiently plead these claims as to these defendants and do not request further leave to amend. Therefore, the court declines to grant leave to amend.

IV. Orders Defendant County of El Dorado’s demurrer or in the alternative, motion to for judgment on the pleadings as to the FOAC is SUSTAINED WITHOUT LEAVE TO AMEND as to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action and claim for loss of consortium. The defendant is dismissed from this action with prejudice.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

24CV089313: ARSENITH, et al. vs 3M COMPANY F/K/A MINNESOTA MINING AND MANUFACTURING COMPANY, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Demurrer Defendant County of El Dorado's Notice of Demurrer and Demurrer to Plaintiff's Fifth Amended Complaint (or in the Alternative Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings to Fourth Amended Complaint); filed by COUNTY OF EL DORADO, CA (Defendant) CRS# 108360995910 in Department 18 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 8. Select Proceed.