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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALGREEN CO., individually and as successor-in-interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of WALGREEN LABORATORIES, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 280057605994 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by WALGREEN CO., individually and as successor-in-interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of WALGREEN LABORATORIES, INC. on 06/12/2026 is Granted.

Please note: If this tentative ruling is contested, arguments will be heard on Friday, August 28, 2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Department 18

I.

Background

Jovy Menor and Bernard Menor (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on January 2, 2026 bringing claims against Defendant Walgreen Co. (“Walgreens” or “Defendant”), among others, alleging that Ms. Menor was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powders including products retailed by Defendant, among other exposures. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 5, 2026.

Plaintiffs identify Johnson’s Baby Powder, Vaseline Baby Powder, Baby Magic Baby Powder, Target Baby Powder, Longs Baby Powder, Albertsons Baby Powder, and Equate Baby Powder as among the products Ms. Menor applied to her sons during diaper changes between 1993-2000. (UMF No. 15.) Ms. Menor recalled purchasing these products from retailers in Stockton, California including Defendant as well as Albertsons, Walmart, Target, and Safeway, and Walgreens and CVS after 2010. (UMF Nos. 17, 22 and Plaintiff’s response.)

Ms. Menor also testified that, after moving to Stockton, she used numerous talc powder products – baby powders, body powders, foot powders, and cosmetic products – which she purchased from at least thirteen retailers including Defendant. (UMF No. 20.) Specific to Defendant, Ms. Menor recalled purchasing and Walgreens Baby Powder, Dr. Scholl’s Foot Powder, CoverGirl pressed powder and eyeshadow, L'Oreal pressed powder and eyeshadow, and Maybelline pressed powder and eyeshadow. (UMF No. 22.) Ms. Menor was able to recall purchasing these products at two Walgreens location in Stockton. (UMF No. 23.)

In its MSJ, Walgreens argues that Plaintiff’s responses showed that Plaintiff lacked evidence that Ms. Menor was exposed to asbestos-containing talcum powder products purchased at Walgreens. Walgreens also argues that Plaintiff’s discovery responses showed that Plaintiffs lacked evidence that any asbestos-containing powder products purchased from Walgreens were a substantial factor in causing Ms. Menor’s injury.

Walgreens moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the causes 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALGREEN CO., individually and as successor-in-interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of WALGREEN LABORATORIES, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 280057605994 in Department 18 of action for strict products liability, negligence, fraud, loss of consortium, and Plaintiffs’ request for punitive damages.

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 disposes of a cause of action . . . [or] a claim for damages . . . .” (§ 437c(f)(1).)

III.

Discussion

Defendant’s reply objections are OVERRULED.

A. Motion for Summary Judgment “In the context of a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant’s defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a ‘legal cause’ of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982–83.)

The Court GRANTS the motion for summary judgment.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALGREEN CO., individually and as successor-in-interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of WALGREEN LABORATORIES, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 280057605994 in Department 18 Threshold Exposure

Defendant seeks to meet its burden of production by pointing to Plaintiffs’ purportedly factually devoid responses to Defendant’s comprehensive discovery requests. The court finds that the special interrogatories (SROGS) propounded on Plaintiffs are sufficiently comprehensive in that they request all facts pertaining to Defendant’s alleged liability and Ms. Menor’s exposure to talc products purchased at Defendant’s stores. Plaintiffs’ response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 alleges numerous facts as to Walgreens’s purported knowledge of the dangers of asbestos and the sources of the talc used in its store-brand products, but does not identify any brands Ms.

Menor purchased at Walgreens stores and alleges exposure to. (Def’s Compendium, Exh. 16 at 4:12- 25:11; UMF Nos. 42-44.) However, Ms. Menor testified that she purchased Walgreens brand baby and foot powders, and Dr. Scholls foot powder beginning in about 2010. (Menor Tr. at 465:9-465:11; 533:21-25; & 534:1-535:8.) However, Ms. Menor’s testimony states that she only began shopping at Walgreens around 2010 and does not provide any facts as to frequency in contrast to her frequent purchases from numerous other retailers.

Neither Plaintiffs’ discovery responses nor Ms. Menor testimony alleges facts tending to establish that any of the products Ms. Menor purchased from Walgreens and used or was exposed to were contaminated with asbestos.

The court finds that Plaintiffs’ discovery responses are factually devoid as to whether Ms. Menor was exposed to products purchased at Walgreens. While Ms. Menor testifies that she purchased Walgreens baby powder and Dr. Scholls foot powder products at Walgreens starting in 2010, this is fairly late in her exposure period. Ms. Menor’s testimony does not demonstrate that she made these purchases at Walgreens with any frequency. Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony and discovery responses therefore do not establish threshold exposure to products for which Walgreens may bear liability. The court thus finds that Defendant shifted the burden to the extent that Plaintiffs’ discovery responses and deposition testimony are factually devoid as to threshold exposure.

Plaintiffs do not submit affirmative evidence on the issue of threshold exposure; instead, they submit expert declarations seeking to establish that the products Ms. Menor used or was exposed to contained asbestos. As this evidence does not create a triable issue of fact as to threshold exposure, summary judgment is warranted.

For the reasons stated above, Walgreen Co.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Because the court grants Defendant’s MSJ, its alternative MSA is denied as moot.

REQUEST FOR CONTINUANCE

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALGREEN CO., individually and as successor-in-interest, parent, alter ego and equitable trustee of WALGREEN LABORATORIES, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 280057605994 in Department 18 Plaintiffs’ request for a CCP § 437c(h) continuance is DENIED AS MOOT based on the representations of counsel for Merck & Co. and Plaintiffs at the August 13, 2026 Case Management Conference that Defendant Merck & Co. has resolved Plaintiffs’ claims in this action.

IV. Orders The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as moot.

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.