BAKER, et al. vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al.

26CV185752: BAKER, et al. vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by IMI FABI (USA) INC. (Defendant) CRS# 847174616717 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/30/2026 Patrick McKinney

This Tentative Ruling addresses the respective Motions to Quash Service of Summons based on lack of personal jurisdiction brought by each of specially appearing defendants (1) IMI Fabi (USA), Inc. (“IF USA”), IMI Fabi, LLC (“Fabi LLC”), and IMI Fabi (Diana), LLC (“Diana LLC”) (IF USA, Fabi LLC and Diana LLC are collectively “Defendants”).

The Court ORDERS THE PARTIES TO APPEAR for the hearings on the Motions to Quash. In order to direct discussions at the hearing, the Court provides the following substantive tentative ruling.

Specially appearing Defendants’ three respective Motions to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Motion to Quash”) are GRANTED.

APPLICABLE LAW

“When a defendant challenges jurisdiction through a motion to quash, the plaintiff bears the burden to demonstrate facts, as to each nonresident defendant, justifying the exercise of jurisdiction by a preponderance of evidence.” (Strasner v. Touchstone Wireless Repair & Logistics, LP (2016) 5 Cal.App.5th 215, 221-222.)

“The plaintiff must do more than merely allege jurisdictional facts. It must present evidence sufficient to justify a finding that California may properly exercise jurisdiction over the defendant. The plaintiff must provide affidavits and other authenticated documents in order to demonstrate competent evidence of jurisdictional facts. Allegations in an unverified complaint are insufficient to satisfy this burden of proof. Declarations cannot be mere vague assertions of ultimate facts, but must offer specific evidentiary facts permitting a court to form an independent conclusion on the issue of jurisdiction.” (In re Automobile Cases I & II (2005) 135 Cal.App.4th 100, 110 [internal citations omitted.])

A defendant’s “minimum contacts” with California can establish the Court’s personal jurisdiction over the defendant in two ways: generally (i.e., as to all claims and causes of action) or specifically (i.e., as to causes of action related to the contacts themselves). (See Bristol- Meyers Squibb Co. v. Superior Court of California (2017) 137 S.Ct. 1773, 1779-1780.)

To afford general jurisdiction to a state’s courts, a defendant’s contacts with the state must be so systematic and extensive that the corporation is “fairly regarded as at home” in the state. (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137-139.) The paradigm examples of corporations at home in California include those which are incorporated here or have their principal place of business within the state. (Daimler AG, supra, 571 U.S. at p.137; Goodyear Dunlop Tires Ops., S.A. v. Brown (2011) 564 U.S. 915, 923-924.) 26CV185752: BAKER, et al. vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by IMI FABI (USA) INC. (Defendant) CRS# 847174616717 in Department 18

A state court can constitutionally exercise “specific” specific personal jurisdiction over an outof-state corporate defendant as to causes of action or claims when: (1) the defendant purposely established contacts with the forum state; (2) a plaintiff’s cause of action “arises out of” or is “related to” the defendant’s contacts with the forum state; and (3) the forum’s exercise of personal jurisdiction in the particular case comports with “fair play and substantial justice.” (Burger King Corp. v.

Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 477-478.) “In order for a court to exercise specific jurisdiction over a claim, there must be an ‘affiliation between the forum and the underlying controversy, principally, [an] activity or an occurrence that takes place in the forum State.’” (Bristol-Meyers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p.1781.) “When there is no such connection, specific jurisdiction is lacking regardless of the extent of a defendant’s unconnected activities in the State.” (Ibid.) Further, “specific jurisdiction is confined to adjudication of issues deriving from, or connected with, the very controversy that establishes jurisdiction.” (Bristol-Meyers, supra, 137 S.Ct. at p. 1780.)

Plaintiff has the burden of production of evidence on the first two elements of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis stated above. (LG Chem, Ltd. v. Sup.Ct. of San Diego County (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 348, 361.) "It is [plaintiff's] burden to prove this second prong of the specific jurisdictional analysis, and he must do that with “‘competent evidence of jurisdictional facts.’” (80 Cal.App.5th at 365, quoting Rivelli v. Hemm (2021) 67 Cal.App.5th 380, 393.) "In the sphere of specific jurisdiction, the phrase ‘relate to’ incorporates real limits, as it must to adequately protect defendants foreign to a forum.” (80 Cal.App.5th at 367, quoting Ford Motor Co. (2021) 141 S.Ct. 1017, 1026.) “[T]he plaintiff must establish the purposeful availment and relatedness requirements by a preponderance of the evidence.” (L.W. v.

Audi (2025) 108 Cal.App.4th 95, 108; but see Yamashita v. LG Chem, Ltd. (9th Cir. 2023) 62 F.4th 496, 502, stating in relevant part, “Where the defendant's motion is based on written materials rather than an evidentiary hearing, the plaintiff need only make a prima facie showing of jurisdictional facts to withstand the motion to dismiss.”)

Merely selling a product that ends up being used in California is insufficient to create specific personal jurisdiction unless the sale was purposefully targeted to California. (Bombardier Recreational Prods., Inc. v. Dow Chem. Canada ULC (2013) 216 Cal.App.4th 591, 603-604; see also World-Wide Volkswagen Corp. (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 297 [presence of defendant’s product in forum state, even if foreseeable, is insufficient if the defendant did not direct it there].)

ANALYSIS OF MOTION TO QUASH

The Court GRANTS each of Defendants’ respective Motions to Quash.

Plaintiffs Rebecca Baker (“Mrs. Baker”) and Stephen Baker (collectively “Plaintiffs”) in Opposition fail to meet their burden of production on the first two elements of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis described above.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV185752: BAKER, et al. vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by IMI FABI (USA) INC. (Defendant) CRS# 847174616717 in Department 18 In the moving papers, Defendants presents evidence that Fabi LLC was originally a North Carolina limited liability company under a different name, was merged into a West Virginia limited liability company on 1/1/2020 and has since 1/1/2020 had its principal place of business in Benwood, West Virginia. (Fabi Dec. 1-4.)

Defendants present evidence that Diana LLC is a North Carolina corporate entity with principal place of business in New York state, it came into existence on 1/23/2001, and it ceased to manufacture cosmetic, pharmaceutical and food grade talc on 12/31/2004. (Wood Dec. Exh. H.) Defendants claim that Diana LLC is a subsidiary of Fabi LLC, but do not cite to evidence on this issue.

Defendants claim that IF USA is a Delaware corporation and a holding company that conducts no business but is the owner of all of FABI LLC’s membership interest. Defendants cite to no evidence in support of these claims. However, on a motion to quash for lack of personal jurisdiction, the plaintiff bears the burden of presenting evidence to support a finding of the trial court’s jurisdiction.

Plaintiffs claim that Mrs. Baker was exposed in California to Defendants’ “Talc 141” cosmetic talcum powder that was incorporated into unidentified Cover Girl and Revlon brand cosmetics during an unspecified time period. However, Plaintiffs present no evidence to make a prima facie showing that Mrs. Baker was exposed to any specific Cover Girl or Revlon products in California at any specific time. Plaintiffs cannot rely on the allegations of their Complaint, because their Complaint does not identify any specific products or any specific exposure periods.

Further, Plaintiffs conflate all of the Defendants in this action and the Opp. MPA is unclear when each of Fabi LLC and Diana LLC sold cosmetic talc to their sole customer Cosmetic Specialties, Inc. (“CSI”). The Complaint contains conclusory alter ego allegations, which the Court may find sufficient to allow Plaintiffs to conduct jurisdictional discovery from Defendants. (See below.) Further, the moving papers appear to admit that Diana LLC sold cosmetic talc from approximately 1/23/2001 to 12/31/2024 and that Fabi LLC sold cosmetic talc from 1/1/2025 to at least 2022.

This Court requires plaintiffs opposing a motion to quash for lack personal jurisdiction to submit prima facie evidence of the plaintiff’s exposures to a specific product(s) in California during a specific time period(s) in order to meet the plaintiff’s burden of production on the first two elements of the specific personal jurisdiction analysis and also as a condition to allow the plaintiff to conduct narrowly focused jurisdictional discovery regarding the specific products and time periods evidenced by the plaintiff.

The Court will generally not grant plaintiffs’ leave to conduct whatever jurisdictional discovery they choose because plaintiffs will typically seek much broader discovery than what their exposure evidence reasonably supports. In most circumstances, no one would know better than the plaintiffs themselves what products they were exposed to and when those exposures occurred.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV185752: BAKER, et al. vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by IMI FABI (USA) INC. (Defendant) CRS# 847174616717 in Department 18 Plaintiffs’ counsel herein has not frequently appeared in this Court and may not be aware of the evidentiary showing this Court requires in asbestos torts actions based on the Court’s reading of the relevant law. Therefore, if Plaintiffs believe they can present prima facie evidence regarding Mrs. Baker’s exposures to specific talcum-powder containing Cover Girl and Revlon cosmetic products and the periods when she used those products, Plaintiffs may request a briefing schedule at the hearing pursuant to which they may present that evidence to the Court and also to specify the narrowly focused jurisdictional discovery (at this time, only special interrogatories and requests for production of documents may be authorized) they wish to conduct in light of the products identified by Plaintiffs and the time periods of Mrs.

Baker’s exposures thereto, and for Defendants to respond to Plaintiffs’ supplemental evidence and briefing regarding jurisdictional discovery.

Plaintiffs present evidence that the contracts between Fabi LLC and CSI provide for a territory in which CSI would be exclusive distributor of Fabi LLC’s cosmetic talcs. That territory consists of 16 United States jurisdictions, one of which is California. (Morse Dec. Exhs. 15-16.) Thus, the parties’ distribution agreements reflect the parties’ intent that Fabi LLC’s talcs would be sold in or into California by CSI.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendants’ Reply Objections Nos. 2, 4, 8, 10, 12 and 18-21 to Plaintiffs’ Opposition evidence. None of the documents is properly authenticated by the Morse Declaration.

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Reply Objections Nos. 1, 3, 11, 13, 14. Defendant’s Berroteran objections are frivolous: Berroteran regards admissibility of prior testimony at trial, and properly sworn declarations and properly authenticated deposition transcripts are admissible on motion practice. Defendants’ PMQ deposition testimony in prior actions is admissible as admissions against interest, an exception to the hearsay rule. Defendants’ Evid. Code § 1291 objections are frivolous in the context of depositions of their own persons most qualified where Defendants necessarily had the opportunity to appear at and defend the depositions. The Court finds that Defendants have waived any objections as to authentication of these deposition transcripts by failing to raise them in their Reply Objections.

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Reply Objections Nos. 6, 9, 16 and 17. The Court finds Defendants have waived all objections not stated in Defendant’s Reply Objections.

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Reply Objections Nos. 7 and 15 pursuant to Evid. Code § 1291. Plaintiffs have presented no evidence that Defendants were parties to the actions in which the depositions were taken and thereby had the opportunity to examine these third-party deponents.

Defendants’ Reply Objections do not contain an Objection No.

5.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV185752: BAKER, et al. vs JOHNSON & JOHNSON, et al. 07/30/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Service of Summons filed by IMI FABI (USA) INC. (Defendant) CRS# 847174616717 in Department 18 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.