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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/21/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR, JOVY MENOR on 06/17/2026 is Granted in Part.

Plaintiffs Jovy Menor’s (“Mrs. Menor” or “Plaintiff”) and Bernard Menor’s (collectively “Plaintiffs”) Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) of defendant Conopco, Inc.’s (“Defendant”) Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-62 is GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART.

Plaintiffs apparently allege that Mrs. Menor was exposed to respirable asbestos by her use of asbestos-containing talcum powder products, including without limitation White Shoulders body powder, Vaseline Intensive Care baby powder, and Calvin Klein body powder, attributable to Defendant.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-16, 18-21, 24, 28-32, 35-37, 40-47, 49-52, 55, 56, 60 and 62.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 22, 25, 26 and 61.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses Nos. 17, 23, 27, 33, 34, 38, 39, 48, 53, 54 and 57-59 for the reasons stated below.

STANDARDS FOR MOTIONS FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION (“MSA”) OF AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES

“A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action, one or more affirmative defenses, one or more claims for damages, or one or more issues of duty, if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit, that there is no affirmative defense to the cause of action, that there is no merit to an affirmative defense as to any cause of action, that there is no merit to a claim for damages . . ., or that one or more defendants either owed or did not owe a duty to the plaintiff or plaintiffs.” (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action, an affirmative defense, a claim for damages, or an issue of duty.” (Id.)

When a plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on an affirmative defense, the court shall grant the motion “only if it completely disposes” of the defense. (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) The plaintiff bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the defense and that he or she is entitled to judgment on the defense as a matter of law. In so doing, the plaintiff must negate an essential element of the defense or establish the defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support the defense. (See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18 (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900.)

“Under general rules of civil procedure, an answer must contain the general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant and a statement of any new matter constituting a defense. The phrase ‘new matter’ refers to something relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff. Thus, where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of the complaint, they must be raised in the answer as ‘new matter.’”

“Such ‘new matter’ is also known as ‘an affirmative defense.’ Affirmative defenses must not be pled as terse legal conclusions, but rather as facts averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint. A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.” (Quantum Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812, 813 [internal citations omitted]; Dept. of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294.)

ANALYSIS OF MSA

As an initial matter, Defendant’s 62 Affirmative Defenses (“AD”) are excessive. A number of them appear improperly repetitive, or they improperly plead as affirmative defenses matters for which Plaintiffs bear the burden of production at trial. Further, with several of the Affirmative Defenses, it is unclear exactly what affirmative defenses Defendant is attempting to plead.

Plaintiffs attempt to meet their initial burden of production on summary adjudication of Defendant’s challenged AD pursuant to Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 106-107 (Defendant’s “factually devoid” responses to Plaintiff’s sufficiently comprehensive written and deposition discovery). The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) No. 15.1 seeking all facts and identification of all witnesses and documents regarding each of Defendant’s AD constitutes sufficiently comprehensive written discovery regarding Defendant’s challenged AD.

The Court finds Defendant’s Response to FROG No. 15.1 factually devoid as to all of the challenged AD. Defendant’s Response states no specific facts as to each challenged AD, identifies no witnesses with personal knowledge to support any of the challenged AD and identifies no documents containing evidence that supports any of the challenged AD. Instead, Defendant’s Response states that its Affirmative Defenses are “pled as a matter of right and to preserve Concopco’s interest.” However, this is not a permissible basis on which to propound affirmative defenses under the law set forth above. Instead, a defendant must be aware of facts supporting each affirmative defense at the time it is pleaded or must have a good faith belief based on facts then known to it that discovery is reasonably likely to produce evidence to support each pleaded affirmative defense.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have met their initial burden of production as to all 62 of Defendant’s AD and the burden therefore shifts to Defendant to produce evidence sufficient to

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18 create triable issues of material fact as to each AD.

Defendant states in its Opp. MPA at p. 3:8-10 that it has withdrawn its AD Nos. 2-6, 9-12, 16, 18-20, 24, 28-32, 36, 40-42, 44, 45, 50, 52, 60 and 62. However, for reasons that are unclear, Defendant’s Opp. Separate Statement addresses each of these AD over well more than 400 pages. The Court elects to credit Defendant’s written statement that it is withdrawing these AD.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of each of AD Nos. 2-6, 9-12, 16, 18-20, 24, 28-32, 36, 40-42, 44, 45, 50, 52, 60 and 62.

Defendant contends that it has evidentiary support for its remaining AD.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 1 (Plaintiffs’ Complaint and each Cause of Action therein fail to state a cause of action). The time for Defendant to challenge the adequacy of Plaintiffs’ operative pleadings by Demurrer, Motion to Strike or Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings has passed. Further, the Court may not properly consider supplemental discovery responses served after the filing of a dispositive motion. Instead, the Motion is decided by the relevant operative discovery responses as of the date of filing of the dispositive motion. The above ruling notwithstanding, if Plaintiffs fail to present evidence sufficient to establish each element of their claims at trial, Defendant may avail itself of the appropriate remedies when Plaintiffs have concluded their case in chief.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 7 (Plaintiff’s Failure to Mitigate Damages). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts supported by citation to evidence creating triable issues of material facts that Plaintiffs failed to mitigate their alleged damages.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 8 (Plaintiff’s injuries were the result of pre-existing medical conditions, lifestyles, exposures, accidents and/or other causes unrelated to acts of omissions of Defendant). Defendant presents no evidence in Opposition to support such an AD. In any event, however, Plaintiff bears the burden at trial of proving that Defendant’s products and/or conduct exposed her to respirable asbestos fibers and that those exposures increased the likelihood of her developing malignant mesothelioma.

Therefore, Defendant will not be barred at trial from presenting previously disclosed expert witness testimony in response to Plaintiff’s threshold exposure and substantial factor causation evidence or previously disclosed expert witness testimony regarding alternative causes of Plaintiff’s malignant mesothelioma, provided that such expert witness testimony has a proper foundation and is admissible in evidence.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 13 (products alleged by Plaintiff to have caused injury were manufactured, installed, used or distributed in compliance with third party specifications and/or in compliance with applicable health and safety statutes or regulations). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

13. This ruling does not affect Plaintiffs’ initial

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18 burden at trial to prove all elements of its fraud-based or punitive damages claims.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 14 (lack of foreseeability of injury). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

14.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 15 (Defendant’s lack of notice of potential hazard). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

15. This ruling does not affect Plaintiffs’ initial burden at trial to prove all elements of its fraud-based or punitive damages claims.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 17 (Plaintiffs’ recovery barred or diminished by their inability to identify products or prove toxic contamination). Plaintiffs at trial bear the burden of establishing product identification and to prove that the identified products were contaminated with asbestos. Thus, Defendant’s AD No. 17 is not a proper affirmative defense because it is not new matter for which Defendant bears the burden of production. Further, Defendant’s General Denial is sufficient to contest Plaintiff’s ability to prove these issues at trial.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 21 (sophisticated users). In Opposition, Defendant presents no evidence that either of Plaintiffs were sophisticated users of Defendant’s allegedly asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talcum powder products or that Plaintiffs’ employers were both sophisticated with respect to cosmetic talc products and required Plaintiffs to use cosmetic talc products as a term of their employment.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No.

22. As the Court reads AD No. 22, it appears to be seeking Prop 51 apportionment of damages among the defendants named in Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint. Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint alleges that multiple defendants were responsible for cumulative asbestos exposures that increased the likelihood of Plaintiffs’ indivisible asbestos torts injury, malignant mesothelioma. Thus, Defendant is entitled to Prop 51 apportionment, which, in this Court’s opinion, should not be required to be pleaded as an affirmative defense in the context of a multi-defendant asbestos torts action, because the defense necessarily applies.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 23 (Complaint fails to state a cause of action for “market share liability” or “enterprise liability”). Plaintiffs’ operative Complaint does not reasonably plead such theories, and Defendant in Opposition cites to no authority for the proposition that such claims are applicable to asbestos torts actions. Moreover, the time to challenge Plaintiffs’ pleading in this action has passed.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s MSA of AD No. 25 (Civ. Code § 1431.2 apportionment of noneconomic damages). Although this does not appear to be a proper affirmative defense because it raises solely an issue of law and not of fact in the present case, it is indisputable that the present action is a personal injury action in which Plaintiffs allege multiple defendants contributed to a

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18 single, indivisible asbestos torts injury. Thus, Civ. Code § 1431.2 applies, and the Court will allow Defendant to allege this AD.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s MSA of AD No. 26 (negligence or fault of others). Plaintiffs allege that multiple defendants contributed to Plaintiffs’ indivisible asbestos torts injury.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 27 (Complaint fails to state facts sufficient to allege a claim for punitive damages). The time for Defendant to challenge the pleadings has past, and Plaintiffs at trial bear the burden of burden of proving the elements of their punitive damages claim.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 33 (no successor in interest liability). Plaintiff bears the burden of proof at trial that Defendant has successor in interest liability for any product attributable to an alleged predecessor in interest. (See FAC at p. 5:20-7:13.)

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 34 (Defendant lacked market share such that Plaintiffs cannot establish substantial factor causation). This is a frivolous affirmative defense. Defendant’s Form Interrogatory Responses admit that Mrs. Menor testified to using specific products, for which she alleges Defendant is legally responsible and which were allegedly contaminated with asbestos. (Clancy Dec. Exh. B at 3:5-14.) Moreover, Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving substantial factor causation at trial.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 35 (Plaintiffs’ misuse of products). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No. 35, i.e., that either of Plaintiffs misused the cosmetic talcum powder products allegedly attributable to Defendant.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 37 (superseding, intervening cause). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

37.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 38 (no substantial factor causation). Plaintiffs bear the burden at trial on substantial factor causation.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 39 (no product defect based on state of the art). Plaintiffs bear the burden at trial to prove product defect (i.e., Defendant’s cosmetic talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos). Plaintiffs also bear the burden of production at trial to prove the element of their negligence cause of action that Defendant reasonably should have known its products were contaminated with asbestos and their fraud and punitive damages claims that Defendant reasonably knew the products were or might reasonably be contaminated with asbestos and sold them anyway without warnings. Any claim that Defendant could not reasonably have known its products were or might be contaminated with asbestos is a defense raised by Plaintiffs’ FAC and Defendant’s General Denial, not an affirmative defense.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 43 (Federal Food, Drug and Cosmetics Act preemption). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

43.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 46 (Plaintiffs’ employers’ responsibility under law). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

46.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 47 (Defendant’s conduct was lawful). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

47. Plaintiffs also bear the burden at trial of proving their tort claims.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 48 (Defendant not liable for product it did not manufacture, sell or distribute). Plaintiffs at trial bear the burden of proving that products legally attributable to Defendant, including by successor liability, exposed Mrs. Menor to respirable asbestos.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 49 (FDA’s primary jurisdiction). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

49.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 51 (Plaintiffs’ injury caused by independent means). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

51. Moreover, Plaintiffs bear the burden at trial to prove both threshold exposure and substantial factor causation.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 53 (no warranty). Plaintiffs’ FAC does not allege a breach of warranty cause of action against Defendant. The FAC alleges Causes of Action against Defendant for Negligence, Strict Liability, Fraud based theories and Loss of Consortium premised on the other Causes of Action.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 54 (no privity of contract). Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not allege either a breach of contract or a breach of warranty claim against Defendant.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD No. 55 (reliance on suppliers’ representations). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

55. Moreover, Plaintiffs at trial bear the burden to prove all necessary elements of their Negligence, Fraud and punitive damages claims, and reasonable reliance is not a defense to a strict liability cause of action.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD No. 56 (no design defect because manufacturing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18 specifications did not include asbestos). The Opp. Separate Statement contains no facts with citations to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to AD No.

56. Further, Plaintiffs bear the burden of trial of proving that Defendant knew or reasonably should have known the talcs it incorporated into its products were contaminated with asbestos.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 57 (state of art was such that Defendant could not reasonably have known of possible asbestos contamination). Plaintiffs bear the burden of production at trial on all elements of their negligence and fraud-based causes of action, and AD No. 57 is unduly repetitive of AD No. 39, which the Court strikes above.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 58 (no substantial factor causation). Plaintiffs bear the burden of production at trial on substantial factor causation. Moreover, AD No. 58 is unduly repetitive of AD No. 38, which the Court strikes above.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 59 (wrongful taking if judgment granted where Plaintiffs cannot prove Defendant’s liability). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving that the products to which Mrs. Menor testified she was exposed are both legally attributable to Defendant and were contaminated with asbestos.

The Court DENIES Plaintiff’s MSA of AD No. 61 (laws of another jurisdiction apply). Defendant presents evidence that Plaintiffs testified to use of at least some of Defendant’s products outside of the State of California, specifically in Guam. Although this AD should have been raised early in the case as a Motion to Apply Foreign Law or a Motion in Limine, rather than an affirmative defense because the Court, rather than the jury, would make any determination regarding the applicability of any foreign to law to Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, the Court will allow AD No.

61.

The Court admonishes defense counsel that frivolous pleadings resulting in unnecessary motion practice that misuses the Court’s limited judicial resources is an adequate grounds for an Order to Show Cause re: Monetary Sanctions, particularly where counsel has been previously so admonished.

The Court likewise admonishes Plaintiffs that where they have received a preferential trial setting but elect to bring motions like the present motion, they should anticipate that, although trial proceedings may commence on the date designated in the trial setting order, a jury is unlikely to be selected or seated until all motions brought by Plaintiffs have been fully adjudicated, unless the Court in its discretion elects to summarily deny such motions as misuses of the Court’s limited judicial resources.

CONTESTING TENTATIVE ORDERS

Notify the Court and all other parties no later than 4:00 pm the day before the scheduled hearing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 749038184395 in Department 18 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.