GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al.

25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETHLEHEM APPARATUS COMPANY (Defendant) CRS# 078804880489 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/10/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETHLEHEM APPARATUS COMPANY on 06/05/2026 is Granted.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Judith Sjoberg, individually and as successor-in-interest to Paul C. Goodley, deceased (“Plaintiff”) filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 23, 2025 following the passing of decedent Paul Goodley on November 29, 2025. The FAC alleges that decedent was exposed to asbestos fibers which caused his mesothelioma diagnosis. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff contends that Defendant Bethlehem Apparatus Co. (“Defendant” or “Bethlehem”) supplied asbestos fiber to codefendant Van Waters & Rogers and/or VWR International, LLC (“VWR”), which were then incorporated into other products to which decedent was exposed. Specifically, Plaintiff asserts that decedent’s career working with laboratory equipment included use of asbestos tape and asbestos-containing gloves supplied by VWR and Defendant. (Opp. at 1:7:1:10.)

Decedent worked at General Cable, a Monsanto research center, Abbott Laboratories, and Hewlett-Packard. His work involved using, cutting, and manipulating asbestos-containing materials because he worked with materials that were heated to extreme temperatures. Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks evidence that decedent worked with asbestos-containing materials for which it is liable.

II. Legal Standard “A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(a)(1).) “A defendant . . . has met that party’s 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 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).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (§ 437c(c).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely 25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETHLEHEM APPARATUS COMPANY (Defendant) CRS# 078804880489 in Department 18 disposes of a cause of action . . . [or] a claim for damages . . . .” (§ 437c(f)(1).)

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s objections to the deposition testimony of Paul Goodley, Christine Miller, and Harold Hughes are OVERRULED.

The court grants Defendant’s MSJ.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff does not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence establishing a triable issue of fact as to threshold exposure to its products. Defendant asserts that Plaintiff’s responses to its comprehensive discovery and deposition testimony are “factually devoid” as to threshold exposure and/or substantial factor causation. (See Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 107.) The court finds that Defendant propounded sufficiently comprehensive discovery requests on Plaintiff, particularly Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (“SROGs”).

Plaintiff’s response to Defendant’s SROG No. 1 alleges that Defendant was a major supplier of asbestos fibers to VWR, which were then incorporated into products decedent would use, manipulate, disturb, and cut on a daily basis during his work as a laboratory scientist. Decedent’s work with these products would create visible dust that decedent breathed. (Def’s Exhibit D at 2:17-2:21.) Plaintiff’s response to SROG 1 also references decedent’s deposition testimony, in which he testified that while working for Monsanto he would obtain rolls of asbestos tape, including from VWR, from the stockroom or order it from supply houses. (Id. at 3:11-3:15.)

He also testified that he would need to change asbestos wrapping on tubes he used while working at Abbott Laboratories beginning in 1972. (Id. at 3:26-4:4.) Plaintiff’s response to SROG No. 1 also indicated that decedent used insulating gloves during his work at Hewlett Packard starting in 1980, which decedent believed to be asbestos-containing. (Id. at 4:12-4:16.) Decedent also testified that he ordered asbestos gloves, asbestos tape, and oven gaskets from supply houses including VWR. (Id. at 4:21-4:25.)

Plaintiff’s discovery responses are not factually devoid to the extent that they establish that decedent worked with asbestos-containing materials during his career as a laboratory technician and ordered these supplies from VWR. However, neither Plaintiff’s discovery responses nor decedent’s deposition testimony establish that these products were supplied to VWR by Defendant.

Plaintiff’s response to SROG 1 also included factual allegations regarding Defendant’s purported role as a supplier of asbestos to VWR. Plaintiff refers to the testimony of Richard Dykman, who worked for VWR from about 1956-1992. However, none of Plaintiff’s references to Mr. Dykman’s testimony establish that Bethlehem supplied asbestos to VWR. Plaintiff’s assertions on this topic are entirely conclusory. Plaintiff’s response to SROG 1 also refers to Defendant’s discovery responses in an earlier asbestos litigation. While these responses appear to establish that various asbestos-containing products including tape, braided tubing, and gloves from the early 1960s through 1984, they again fail to establish a connection between Defendant and

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by BETHLEHEM APPARATUS COMPANY (Defendant) CRS# 078804880489 in Department 18 VWR. (See id., 4:26-7:2.) The court thus finds that Plaintiff’s discovery responses are factually devoid as to whether decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing fibers for which Defendant is responsible. The burden shifts to Plaintiff to submit evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact.

Plaintiff submits affirmative evidence in the form of the deposition of Harold D. Hughes, taken on January 3, 2005 in an earlier Alameda County Superior Court asbestos case, Case No. RG03116885. This testimony establishes that Mr. Hughes worked for VWR from 1963-1989 and was its purchasing director from about 1972 through his retirement in 1989. Mr. Hughes states that VWR purchased its asbestos-containing gloves only from an entity named Holcomb. (Plf’s Exhibit C at 42:19-43:2.) He testified that VWR purchased laboratory pads from either Boekel or Bethlehem from the 1960s-1980s. (Id. at 44:20-45:2.)

He also testified that VWR purchased asbestos in “small quantities” from Bethlehem and that he thought Bethlehem were suppliers of asbestos-containing tapes and cord. (Id. at 68:19-69:2; 69:8-69:17; 89:19-90:1.) However, he testified he had “no idea” as to quantities of asbestos supplied by Bethlehem. (Id. at 90:7-90:13.) While this testimony tends to establish that Bethlehem supplied at least some asbestos or asbestos-containing products to VWR, it does not show that Bethlehem was a “major supplier” as Plaintiff asserts or that there was a likelihood that decedent worked with Bethlehemsupplied asbestos or asbestos-containing products.

The court finds Plaintiff’s affirmative evidence far too speculative to create a triable issue of fact as to threshold exposure.

IV. Order Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

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.