REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al.

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON (Defendant) + CRS# 671169719286 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/02/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON, PECOS RIVER TALC LLC on 06/26/2026 is Granted in Part.

I.

Background

Kevin M. Reikes and Tina L. Reikes (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on December 5, 2025 bringing claims against Defendants Johnson & Johnson and Pecos River Talc, LLC (“Defendants”), among others, alleging that Mr. Reikes was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powders including products retailed by Defendant – in particular, Johnson & Johnson brand baby powder, among other exposures.

Plaintiffs identify Johnson’s Baby Powder (“JBP”) as among the products Mr. Reikes personally used from about 1976-2025. (UMF No. 2.) Mr. Reikes was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2025.

Defendants move for summary adjudication on Plaintiff’s fraud cause of action, which alleges theories based on fraudulent misrepresentation, fraudulent concealment, conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. Defendant argues that Plaintiff do not have, and cannot reasonably obtain, evidence sufficient to establish these claims.

II. Legal Standard “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action . . . [or] one or more claims for damages . . . if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit . . . [or] that there is no merit to a claim for [punitive damages] . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1).) “A defendant . . . has met [their] 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 25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON (Defendant) + CRS# 671169719286 in Department 18 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).) “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 moves for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ fraud claim.

Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action alleges four distinct fraud-based causes of action: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation; and (4) conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment.

“The elements of a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) with knowledge of its falsity, (3) with the intent to induce another's reliance on the misrepresentation, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.” (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1166.) “[A] cause of action for misrepresentation requires an affirmative statement, not an implied assertion.” (RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1089, 1092.)

"The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact." (Hambrick v.

Healthcare Partners Med. Grp., Inc. (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 124, 162.) When there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties, “a duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual agreement.” (Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187.)

The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are: (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy; and (2) damage resulting to plaintiff; (3) resulting from a wrongful act done in furtherance of the common design. (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062.)

The court finds Plaintiffs’ Response to SROG No. 3 (Defendants’ “state all evidence” SROG) factually devoid as to some elements of Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims. The Response contains no statement of a specific affirmative misrepresentation of material fact made to anyone who reasonably relied thereon to Plaintiffs’ detriment and no particularized facts tending to show that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy with anyone. The response asserts that various employees

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON (Defendant) + CRS# 671169719286 in Department 18 for Defendant J&J knew or learned of potential hazards of asbestos and its potential presence in talc products beginning in 1969. (See, e.g., Def’s Exhibit 6, at 6:15-7:18.) However, none of these alleged facts constitute misrepresentations or concealments. Similarly, Plaintiffs’ response to SROG 3 includes facts regarding Defendant’s receipt of test results showing the presence of amphibole and serpentine. (Id. at 8:12-10:19; 15-22-17:6.)

Plaintiffs also assert that Defendant never warned end users of the potential presence of asbestos in JBP. Plaintiffs’ response to SROG 3 also includes alleged facts seeking to establish that Defendant pressured Societa Talco E Grafite Val Chisone (“SVC”), which releases an Italian-language guide to recognition of impurities in talc, not to publish its guide in 1974, and researchers and doctors at Mt. Sinai to withdraw a paper containing analysis showing the presence of chrysotile asbestos in Defendant’s products. (Id. at 26:27-27:25.)

An author of this study, Dr. Pooley, allegedly stated that he withdrew the paper because “he was subjected to personal and professional pressures and industry harassment.” (Id. at 27:23-27:25.)

Nevertheless, the response to SROG 3 does not contain facts stating that Defendant made any affirmative misrepresentation upon which Plaintiff or those similarly situated relied. Similarly, while Plaintiffs supply some facts tending to show that Defendant J&J applied pressure to others to withhold information implicating their products, there are no allegations that Defendants engaged in a conspiracy. Plaintiffs’ response to SROG 3 also contains no facts tending to establish that Defendant owed a duty of disclosure to Plaintiff, but in response to certain of Defendant’s Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts, Plaintiffs cite the testimony of Mrs. Reikes, who recalled seeing advertisements in newspapers and magazines, which could create a triable issue of fact as to whether J&J owed a duty to disclose. (See Plf’s response to UMFs 17-19.)

The burden thus shifts to Plaintiffs to set forth affirmative evidence as to fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment. Plaintiffs’ affirmative evidence fails to do so. Plaintiffs rely primarily on Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony. None establishes that Defendant made any affirmative misrepresentation upon which Plaintiffs relied to their detriment, nor do they offer any evidence that Defendant engaged in conspiracy. While Mrs. Reikes testifies to having seen J&J advertisements, her testimony does not describe any affirmative misrepresentations. (See UMFs 17-24 and Plf’s response; PAMFs 12, 14-16.) Thus, Defendant’s MSA is GRANTED as to Plaintiffs’ fraudulent misrepresentation, conspiracy to commit fraudulent misrepresentation, and conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment claims.

With respect to Plaintiffs’ fraud/concealment claim, Plaintiffs’ response to SROG 3, discussed above, alleges facts that a reasonable jury could find support a fraudulent concealment claim. For instance, Plaintiffs assert that Defendant received test results beginning as early as the 1950s, and continuing through the 2010s, showing the presence of asbestos or asbestiform fibers in its talc products or that talc from the mines supplying Defendant were contaminated. (Id. at 8:12- 18:28.) Moreover, Mrs. Reikes testified at deposition that she saw Defendants’ advertisements in magazines and newspapers, stating that “they were everywhere.” (PAMF No. 12; Forbes-King

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOHNSON & JOHNSON (Defendant) + CRS# 671169719286 in Department 18 Decl., Exh. 3 (Tina Reikes Tr.) at 49:2-49:17.) Upon being shown Defendants’ advertisements at deposition, she stated that the advertisements looked familiar and that she trusted the brand. (PAMF No. 15; Id. at 131:9-132:15.) Mrs. Reikes also testified that she felt safe using JBP because the packaging suggested that it was safe to use on a baby. (PAMF No. 16; Id. at 111:13- 113:25.)

These facts, if proven, could give rise to a reasonable inference that Defendant owed Plaintiffs a duty to disclose the potential dangers of asbestos from use of its products. Plaintiffs also testified that they would not have used JBP had they known of the dangers. (PAMF Nos. 18, 21.) These facts, taken together with the detailed facts alleged in response to SROGS 3 establishing J&J’s knowledge of the dangers of asbestos, are sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to fraudulent concealment.

This satisfies the elements of Hambrick, supra. Denial of Defendant’s MSA as to the claim for fraudulent concealment is therefore warranted.

For the foregoing reasons, the court GRANTS Defendants’ MSA as to fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conspiracy theories and DENIES Defendants’ MSA as to Plaintiffs’ fraud/concealment claim.

Defendants’ reply objections are OVERRULED.

IV. Orders The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED as to Defendants’ MSA as to fraudulent misrepresentation and fraudulent conspiracy theories and DENIED as to Defendants’ MSA as to Plaintiffs’ fraudulent concealment claim.

CONTESTING THE TENTATIVE RULING: If the parties do not contest the tentative ruling, it will be adopted. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must notify the court by email at Dept18@alameda.courts.ca.gov, and notify all opposing counsel or unrepresented parties by 4pm the day before the hearing.