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 TARGET CORPORATION (Defendant) CRS# 824326303998 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/17/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by TARGET CORPORATION 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 Target Corporation (“Defendant” or “Target”) 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 Target brand baby powder, Johnson & Johnson Baby Powder and Dr. Scholl’s.

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). However, defense counsel submitted defendant Walmart, Inc.’s (“Walmart”) written discovery requests and Plaintiffs’ responses thereto in both the filed copy and the paper courtesy copy of Target’s Motion. Defendant Target cannot meet its initial burden of production with another corporate entity’s written discovery Responses and Plaintiffs’ responses thereto.

Target filed 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/18/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by TARGET CORPORATION (Defendant) CRS# 824326303998 in Department 18 Amended papers on 7/30/2026, but the Court elects not to consider them, as not properly noticed.

Further, DUMF No. 41 states that Plaintiffs’ Special Interrogatory (“SROG”) Responses 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 present 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 she purchased from Target 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 cannot meet its initial burden under Andrews, supra, based on Plaintiff’s Responses to another corporate entity defendant’s written discovery requests.

Further, Defendant’s Moving Separate Statement incorporates by reference in the sections devoted to the Fraud Cause of Action and the Punitive Damages DUMF No. 41, 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 Church etc. (2020) 49 Cal.App.5th 506, 521 [italics in original].)

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

The Court OVERRULES 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

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 TARGET CORPORATION (Defendant) CRS# 824326303998 in Department 18 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.