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 SPECIALTY MINERALS INC. (Defendant) CRS# 938332215921 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/10/2026 Patrick McKinney

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

Specially appearing defendants Specialty Minerals Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “SMI”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) is DENIED.

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

Defendant is a subsidiary corporation of defendant Mineral Technologies Inc. (“MTI”). Defendant 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 MTI in this Court with respect to Defendant’s and MTI’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 cause of action against Defendant for Negligent Undertaking.

Defendant’s primary argument is that Plaintiffs cannot prove their Negligent Undertaking Cause of Action because Plaintiffs cannot show that Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty of care with respect to Defendant’s alleged negligent testing of Barretts talcs as a matter of law.

“To establish a duty of care to a third person based on the negligent undertaking doctrine, a plaintiff must show: (1) the defendant undertook to render services to another; (2) the services were of the kind the defendant should have recognized as necessary for the protection of third persons; and (3) either (a) the defendant's failure to exercise reasonable care increased the risk of harm beyond what existed without the undertaking, (b) the undertaking was to perform a duty owed by the other to the third persons, or (c) a harm was suffered because the other or third persons relied on the undertaking.” (Barenborg v. Sigma Alpha Epsilon Fraternity (2019) 33 Cal. App.5th 70, 83-84.

Defendant contends that Plaintiffs cannot make any of three showings (a, b. or c) required to establish element No.

3. However, the Court finds triable issues of material fact regarding both 3.a and 3.b.

Defendant and MTI have admitted in their respective dispositive motions that they and Barretts all came into existence in 1992. In its Motion for Summary Judgment, MTI’s position was that 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by SPECIALTY MINERALS INC. (Defendant) CRS# 938332215921 in Department 18 the evidence was undisputed that the alleged negligent testing was conducted solely by SMI’s Analytical Services Group (“ASG”) testing lab.

Moreover, by 1992, the possibility of asbestos contamination in cosmetic talcs was widely known throughout the cosmetic talc products industry and a jury could reasonably find that Defendant should have recognized that Barretts’ talcs would not have been marketable unless the testing undertaken by Defendant showed the talcs were not contaminated with asbestos. The Tomaino Deposition transcript attached as exhibits numerous letters written by Gary Tomaino, the longtime Group Leader of Defendant’s ASG, to various of Barretts talc purchasers, including Vi-Jon, whom Plaintiffs present evidence produced many of the cosmetic talc products to which Plaintiffs allege Mrs.

Menor was exposed, representing apparently on behalf of each and all of MTI, Defendant and Barretts that Barretts talcs did “not contain detectable regulated asbestiform minerals.” (Stewart Dec. Exh. 10 at pp. BMI 00048695, 48804, 37221, 49120 and 49670.)

The Tomaino letters state in relevant part that the “asbestos evaluation is accomplished through a combination of: Transmission Electron Microscopy [TEM]: ASTMD-5756-08 modified.” (Ibid.) However, Plaintiffs present evidence that the modification to this TEM standard was modified to only treat as “asbestiform fibers” fibers having an aspect ratio of 20:1 or greater, rather than 5:1 in the standard, even though ASG’s own internal document entitled “Asbestos Analysis Procedure” dated “December 1997” states that a 5:1 aspect ratio or greater should be used for TEM analysis. (See Plaintiffs’ Additional Material Facts (“PAMF”) Nos. 84-100 and Stewart Dec. Exh. 10 at pp. BMI 00042530-42537.)

Mr. Tomaino submitted a declaration in which he declares in cursory fashion that Barretts chose the testing protocols that it wanted ASG to perform. (Tomaino Dec. ¶ 3.) However, ASG was not an independent testing lab, instead it was a part of Defendant, Barretts’ parent corporation. Plaintiffs present evidence from Mr. Tomaino’s deposition that MTI has quality management systems and quality policies that applied not only to MTI, but also all of its subsidiaries, including Defendant and Barretts. However, the referenced documents regarding which Mr. Tomaino was testifying are not part of the record and the testimony alone does not create a reasonable inference that testing policies for asbestos in Barretts talc was set by MTI rather than Barretts as claimed by PAMF No.

83. However, Plaintiffs’ evidence creates triable issues of material fact that SMI tested talcs sold by Barretts when it knew or reasonably should have known that testing was inadequate if it did not report as “asbestiform” those fibers with an aspect ratio between 5:1 and 20:1, which Defendant’s own documents state should be treated as asbestiform fibers. A jury could reasonably find contrary to Defendant’s arguments that placing this asbestos-containing talc on the market increased the risk of harm if it were to find that the talcs would not have otherwise been sold to consumers.

Plaintiffs also present evidence that Defendant, MTI and/or Barretts provided to customers brochures that contain Defendant’s and MTI’s logos and also 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).” (Stewart Dec. Exh. 9 at p. 0958 at § 11.B.) A jury

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by SPECIALTY MINERALS INC. (Defendant) CRS# 938332215921 in Department 18 could reasonably infer from these documents that MTI, Defendant and Barretts were acting in a coordinated way to connect Barretts talcs to all three corporations for the purpose of suggesting to customers that all three corporations were behind and representing the purity and lack of asbestos contamination of Barretts talcs.

Defendant makes several other arguments the Court does not find persuasive. Defendant argues that its alleged negligent testing did not increase the risk of harm from Barretts allegedly asbestos-contaminated talcs. However, as stated above a reasonable jury could find that Barretts would not have been able to market and sell its talcs starting in 1992 without undertaking testing and advising its customers that the talcs had been tested by competent testing laboratories and found to be asbestos and asbestiform fiber free.

Defendant also argues that Plaintiffs could not have relied on Defendant’s negligent testing because Plaintiffs had no knowledge of Defendant’s existence before Mr. Maricich was diagnosed with mesothelioma. This argument is unpersuasive because a jury could find that Vi- Jon relied on Defendant’s negligent testing in choosing to purchase Barretts talcs rather than from another supplier. It is unlikely that Plaintiffs knew of Vi-Jon’s existence before they filed suit. Instead, Plaintiffs relied on the fact that there were no warnings on the finished products Mrs.

Menor or her family members purchased that the products might be contaminated with asbestos and might cause malignant mesothelioma if used in reasonably foreseeable ways. Instead, everyone in the chain of production after Barretts ultimately relied on Defendant’s testing results stating that Barretts talc was free from asbestos and asbestiform minerals.

Defendant argues that it did not assume Barretts obligation to ensure the safety of Barretts talcs. However, the Tomaino letters and the MSDS show that both Defendant and MTI identified themselves as entities responsible for testing Barretts’ talc and publishing results reflecting that Barretts’ talcs were not contaminated with asbestos or asbestiform minerals. A reasonable jury could find that Defendant’s and MTI’s provision of the Tomaino letter and the MSDS were “services” they provided on behalf of Barretts.

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. Having found that the negligent undertaking claim must be tried to a jury, the punitive damages claim shall also proceed.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by SPECIALTY MINERALS INC. (Defendant) CRS# 938332215921 in Department 18 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.