MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al.

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 564161538117 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/10/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC., SPECIALTY MINERALS INC. on 06/17/2026 is Denied.

Specially appearing defendants Mineral Technologies Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “MTI”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) is DENIED.

Defendant’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) of plaintiffs Jovy Menor’s (“Mrs. Menor”) and Bernard Menor’s (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) punitive damages claim is DENIED.

Defendant is the parent corporation of defendant Specialty Minerals, Inc. (“SMI”). SMI is the parent corporation of defendant Barretts Minerals, Inc. (“Barretts”). Barretts has filed for bankruptcy protection. However, the bankruptcy court has ordered that Plaintiffs may pursue claims against Defendant and SMI in this Court with respect to Defendant’s and SMI’s alleged negligence in conducting testing of Barretts’ raw and refined talc, which testing failed to discover the alleged presence of asbestos and/or asbestiform fibers in Barretts’ talc.

ANALYSIS OF MSJ

Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges a single cause of action against Defendant for Negligent Undertaking.

Defendant’s moving Separate Statement exclusively attempts to show that Plaintiffs cannot prove their Negligent Undertaking Cause of Action against Defendant because the evidence is undisputed that the alleged negligent testing was conducted solely by SMI’s Analytical Services Group testing lab. Defendant presents affirmative evidence to make this showing, and Plaintiffs’ Opposition evidence, specifically the deposition testimony of Gary Tomaino, confirms that any testing of Barretts talc was conducted by SMI’s Analytical Services Group (“ASG”) or by RJ Lee Group, a contractor apparently hired by ASG. (See Stewart Dec. Exh. 10.)

For reasons that are unclear, Plaintiffs do not present evidence presented on previous similar motions tending to support a finding that Defendant made negligent representations regarding the lack of asbestos or asbestiform fibers in Barretts talc. On Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons, Plaintiffs cite to Material Safety Data Sheets (“MSDS”) that state on every page “Prepared by the MTI Environmental, Health and Safety Services Department,” which MSDS represent that Barretts talc is “Not classifiable as a Human Carcinogen (containing no asbestos fibers).” (See Exh. 6 to 7/15/2026 Stewart Declaration in Opposition to Defendant’s Motion to Quash Service of Summons; see also Stewart Dec.

Exh. 7 on present motion.) The Court will consider this evidence as part of the existing record in this action but admonishes Plaintiffs’ 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) + CRS# 564161538117 in Department 18 counsel it may elect not to do so in the future.

The Court finds that the general allegations of Plaintiffs’ Operative First Amended Complaint are broad enough to incorporate allegations that Defendant and its subsidiaries routinely made representations that information regarding the safety of Barretts talcs were being made by Defendant, rather than merely Barretts or SMI, in order to support reliance on representations that the talc was free of asbestos and asbestiform minerals. (Lindberg Dec. Exh. B at p. 8:7-17 [inaccurately cited in the moving Separate Statement].)

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s MSJ.

ANALYSIS OF MSA

Defendant’s MSA of Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim is DENIED.

Defendant presents no evidence, either affirmative or pursuant to Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 106-107 (Plaintiffs’ factually devoid responses to Defendant’s sufficiently comprehensive written and deposition discovery), to meet its initial burden of production on summary adjudication of the punitive damages claim.

The Court OVERRULES all objections to evidence.

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.