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 WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 424263186071 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by WALMART INC. on 06/12/2026 is Denied.

If the following Tentative Ruling is timely contested, THE HEARING WILL BE CONDUCTED on Friday, 8/28/2026 at 10:00 a.m. in Dept.

18.

Defendant Walmart, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Walmart”) Motion for Summary Judgment (“MSJ”) is DENIED.

Defendant’s alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) is DENIED.

Plaintiffs’ Request for a CCP § 437c(h) continuance is DENIED as moot.

Plaintiffs allege that between 1991 and approximately 2019, plaintiff Jovy Menor (“Mrs. Menor”) was exposed to respirable asbestos from asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talcum powder products she purchased at Defendant’s retail stores in California, including among others Walmart’s Equate brand baby and foot powders, Johnson’s Baby Powder and Dr. Scholl’s foot powder.

ANALYSIS OF MSJ

No portion of the moving Separate Statement is addressed to the MSJ. Instead, the Separate Statement only addresses the alternative MSA, which if granted in its entirety would result in summary judgment in favor of Defendant.

ANALYSIS OF MSA

1. MSA of Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action for Negligence, Strict Liability and Loss of Consortium.

Defendant’s MSA of the Negligence and Strict Liability Causes of Action focus solely on Plaintiff’s ability to prove that the talcum powder products Plaintiffs alleged they purchased at Defendant’s retail stores in California were contaminated with asbestos.

Defendant attempts to meet its initial burden on summary adjudication pursuant to Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 106-107 (plaintiff’s “factually devoid” responses to defendant’s sufficiently comprehensive written and deposition discovery). The Court finds that Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 1, 2 and 5-7, seeking inter alia, all facts and identification of all witnesses and documents regarding threshold exposure and the negligence and strict liability causes of action, constitute sufficiently comprehensive written 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 424263186071 in Department 18 discovery.

Plaintiffs provide the same response to each of SROG Nos. 1, 2 and 5-7. The Court finds Plaintiffs’ Response to SROG No. 1 is factually devoid as to threshold exposure. Although the Response implicitly indicates that Mrs. Menor was exposed to Equate brand baby and foot powders and Johnson’s Baby Powder, the Response does not identify the periods she used these products or any other talcum powder products Plaintiffs’ may have purchased from Defendant or which Walmart stores in California where Plaintiffs purchased the products. Further, the Response provides no facts at all tending to show that these products were more likely than not contaminated with asbestos during the periods of Mrs. Menor’s alleged exposures. Instead, the Response also exclusively focuses on facts relevant to Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim, which none of SROG Nos. 1, 2 or 5 seek information regarding.

Defendant presents evidence from Mrs. Menor’s deposition in this action that she testified she purchased from Defendant Equate foot and baby powders, Johnson’s Baby Powder, Dr. Scholl’s foot powder, Mennen Baby Magic Powder, Cashmere Bouquet, Covergirl cosmetic powders, Maybelline cosmetic powders, and L’Oreal cosmetic powders between 1991 to the present. (Defendant’s Undisputed Material Facts (“DUMF”) Nos. 9-10 and Plaintiffs’ Responses thereto.)

Further, DUMF No. 42 states that in their Response to SROG No. 1 Plaintiffs state that they will present expert witness testimony to establish that Mrs. Menor’s use of cosmetic talcum powder products exposed her to asbestos. Defendant presents no evidence to meet its initial burden of production that Plaintiffs’ expert witnesses will not be able to present admissible evidence at trial tending to show that any of the cosmetic talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos between 1991 to 2019.

The Court therefore finds that Defendant has not met its initial burden of production on summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ Negligence, Strict Liability and Loss of Consortium Causes of Action.

Wherefore, Defendant’s MSA of Plaintiffs’ Negligence, Strict Liability and Loss of Consortium Causes of Action is DENIED.

1. MSA of Plaintiff’s Fraud Cause of Action and Punitive Damages Claim.

Defendant’s MSA of Plaintiff’s Fraud Cause of Action and Punitive Damages Claim is summarily DENIED.

Defendant’s Moving Separate Statement incorporates by reference in the sections devoted to the Fraud Cause of Action and the Punitive Damages DUMF No. 42, discussed above. “Include only those facts which are truly material to the claims or defenses involved because the separate statement effectively concedes the materiality of whatever facts are included. Thus, if a triable issue is raised as to any of the facts in your separate statement, the motion must be denied!” (Nazir v. United Airlines, Inc. (2009) 178 Cal.App.4th 243, 252; Insalaco v. Hope Lutheran

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 WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 424263186071 in Department 18 Church etc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506, 521 [italics in original].) Further, the Court does not find Plaintiffs’ Response to SROG No. 1 “factually devoid” as to the punitive damages claim.

Plaintiffs’ request for a CCP § 437c(h) continuance is DENIED AS MOOT.

The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s Opposition Objections Nos. 1-2. There is no evidence that the 2/19/2026 Kremers deposition transcript is admissible against Plaintiffs pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 1291-1292, and the portion of the transcript provided contains no foundation that Kremers has personal knowledge of facts she testified to. In fact, the Kremers Declaration shows that she does not have personal knowledge and is relying on Defendant’s business records that are not attached to her declaration. In any event, her declaration in another action is inadmissible because declarations must be case specific to be admissible in evidence. (North Beverly Park Homeowners Assn. v. Bisno (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-779.)

The Court OVERRULES Defendant’s Reply Objections as moot.

The Court OVERRULES all of Defendant’s Reply Objections 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.