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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 552572000637 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR on 06/18/2026 is Granted in Part.

Because this Tentative Ruling is being published after 3:00 p.m., the parties shall have until 5:00 p.m. on Monday, 9/1/2026 to timely contest the Tentative Ruling.

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) of defendant Estee Lauder Companies, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “ELC”) Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-75 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD Nos. 2-20, 22-24, 26, 27, 31, 32, 35, 37, 41, 49, 47, 54-56, 59-64 and 71.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD Nos. 1, 21, 25, 28-30, 33, 34, 36, 38-40, 42-46, 48, 50-53, 57, 58, 65-70 and 72-75.

Plaintiffs allege that plaintiff Jovy Menor (“Mrs. Menor”) developed malignant mesothelioma to Defendant’s asbestos-contaminated talc-incorporating cosmetic products.

STANDARDS FOR 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. (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900.)

“Under general rules of civil procedure, an answer must contain the general or specific denial of 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 552572000637 in Department 18 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

Defendant in Opposition states that it is withdrawing its Affirmative Defenses (“AD”) Nos. 2-20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 35, 47, 54-56 and 59-64.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA with respect to AD Nos. 2-20, 23, 24, 26, 31, 32, 35, 47, 54-56 and 59-64.

In Reply, Plaintiff withdraws its MSA of AD Nos. 1, 21, 25, 28-30, 33, 34, 36, 38-40, 42-46, 48, 50-53, 57, 58, 65-70 and 72-75.

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MSA with respect to AD Nos. 1, 21, 25, 28-30, 33, 34, 36, 38-40, 42-46, 48, 50-53, 57, 58, 65-70 and 72-75.

This leaves AD Nos. 22, 27, 37, 41, 49 and 71 in dispute and requiring judicial resolution.

The Court finds Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) No. 15.1, seeking all facts and identification of all witnesses and documents regarding each affirmative defense, to constitute sufficiently comprehensive written discovery regarding each affirmative.

With respect to AD No. 22 for “raw materials supplier defense”/”bulk supplier defense,” it is unclear to the Court whether there is any such cognizable affirmative defense or the claimed theory supporting this defense. To the extent that it asserts the talcs used to make Defendant’s cosmetics were not contaminated with asbestos, it is not an affirmative defense, because Plaintiffs bear the burden at trial to prove that the products Mrs. Menor was exposed to attributable to Defendant were contaminated with asbestos.

To the extent that this defense seeks to assert that Defendant was not negligent because it reasonably relied on its talc suppliers’ representations that the talcs were not contaminated with asbestos, it is not an affirmative defense, because Plaintiffs at trial bear the burden of proving each element of their negligence cause of action including that Defendant knew or reasonably should have known, notwithstanding its talc suppliers’ representations regarding the talc, the talcs could be contaminated with trace amounts of asbestos.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 552572000637 in Department 18

Because the Court does not understand what AD No. 22 seeks to allege as an affirmative defense, the Court finds the response “factually devoid.” Therefore, the burden of production shifts to Defendant to create triable issues of material fact with respect to AD No.

22.

In Response to Plaintiff’s Undisputed Material Fact (“PAMF”) No. 150, Defendant states that its Person Most Qualified has authenticated documents showing that Defendant received certificates of analysis showing that the Defendant’s talc suppliers represented that the talc was asbestosfree. It is unclear what affirmative defense this evidence is intended to support. If the evidence will be offered to show that the talcs were, in fact, not contaminated with asbestos, then this evidence is admissible at trial without an affirmative defense to justify it, because after Plaintiffs attempt to meet their initial burden to show that the talcs were contaminated with asbestos, Defendant may present such evidence as rebuttal evidence.

Similarly, Defendant’s Response to PAMF No. 150 states that Defendant will present specifically identified expert witnesses who will present expert testimony that the talcs did not contain asbestos and did not cause or contribute to Mrs. Menor’s disease. Defendant does not require an affirmative defense to present such expert witness testimony at trial because Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving both threshold exposure and substantial factor causation.

Defendant’s repetitive responses to the remaining PAMF in support of the MSA of AD No. 22 only identify this same evidence. Defendant does not require an affirmative defense to present this evidence at trial to rebut Plaintiffs’ case in chief.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD No. 22 or alternatively STRIKES AD No. 22 on the grounds that it is not an affirmative defense for which Defendant would bear the burden of proof at trial.

With respect to AD No. 27 that Defendant’s activities were in accordance with the applicable standards of care under the applicable federal and state laws and regulations, Defendant provides exactly the same Response to FROG 15.1(a) as it did for AD No.

22. Similarly, Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ PAMF in support of the MSA to AD No. 27 identify the same evidence described above. Defendant does not require an affirmative defense to present this evidence at trial to rebut Plaintiffs’ case in chief.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD No. 27 or alternatively STRIKES AD No. 27 on the grounds that it is not an affirmative defense for which Defendant would bear the burden of proof at trial. Further, Defendant’s opposition papers identify no federal or state laws or regulations Defendant’s compliance therewith would provide a complete defense to Plaintiffs’ claims in this action, nor does Defendant cite to any other legal authority that such a defense exists.

With respect to AD No. 37, that Defendant’s products were modified or altered, presumably after

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 552572000637 in Department 18 they left Defendant’s possession, custody or control, Defendant’s response to FROG No. 15.1 is nonresponsive to this AD. The Response is the same as with respect to AD Nos. 22 and 27, which do not state facts or cite to evidence to support a finding that someone altered Defendant’s products after they left Defendant’s possession, custody or control such that they could cause malignant mesothelioma.

Similarly, Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ PAMF in support of the MSA to AD No. 37 identify the same evidence described above with respect to AD Nos. 22 and 27. Defendant does not require an affirmative defense to present this evidence at trial to rebut Plaintiffs’ case in chief. Further, Defendant presents no evidence to support a finding that anyone modified its products after they left Defendant’s possession, custody or control such that they could cause Mrs. Menor’s alleged malignant mesothelioma.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of AD No.

37.

With respect to Defendant’s AD No. 41 that the benefits of the product outweigh the risks, Defendant provides the same non-responsive, boilerplate response provided for the other remaining challenged AD. Similarly, Defendant’s Responses to Plaintiffs’ PAMF in support of the MSA to AD No. 41, identify the same evidence described above with respect to AD Nos. 22, 27 and 37 above. Defendant does not require an affirmative defense to present this evidence at trial to rebut Plaintiffs’ case in chief.

Further, Defendant presents no evidence to support a finding that anyone modified its products after they left Defendant’s possession, custody or control such that they could cause Mrs. Menor’s alleged malignant mesothelioma. Finally, Defendant’s papers contain no evidence or citation to legal authority for the proposition that the benefits of cosmetic talcum powder products to Mrs. Menor outweighed the alleged risk that it caused her to develop an invariably fatal and extremely painful form of cancer.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of AD No.

41.

The Court summarily GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of AD Nos. 49 (no injury) and 71 (state of the art). Defendant provides the same boilerplate response to FROG No. 15.1(a) and the Court will not expend any further judicial resources reviewing Defendant’s more than 900-page Responsive Separate Statement.

Defendant’s decision to take AD Nos. 22, 27, 37, 41, 49 and 71 to hearing is a misuse of the Court’s limited judicial resources and the supporting argument raises questions regarding good faith. For example, pp. 15:3-16:3, stating in relevant at p. 15:6-7:

“Several challenged defenses are not affirmative defenses at all: they function as denials or traverses. Section 437c permits summary adjudication only of an affirmative defense.”

This argument begs the questions: (1) why are these “traverses” and “denials” alleged as affirmative defenses in Defendant’s Answer; and (2) why did Defendant take any such “not affirmative defenses at all” (AD Nos. 37 and 71) to hearing instead of withdrawing them as soon as Plaintiffs challenged them? If the defense counsel listed in the caption of Defendant’s papers

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 552572000637 in Department 18 make a similar frivolous argument in the future, they should reasonably anticipate that the Court may in its considered discretion issue an Order to Show Cause re: Monetary Sanctions.

Defendant’s request for a CCP § 437c(h) continuance is DENIED. Defendant presents no evidence regarding the additional discovery it needs to create triable issues of material fact regarding AD (or “not affirmative defenses at all”) Defendant had no good faith basis to plead at the time Defendant filed its Answer and still has no good faith basis to assert on the eve of trial in this preference action.

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.