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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 302000745275 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/01/2026 Patrick McKinney

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

Plaintiffs’ Motion for Summary Adjudication (“MSA”) of defendant Ulta Salon, Cosmetics & Fragrance,, Inc.’s (“Defendant” or “Ulta”) Affirmative Defenses Nos. 1-69 are GRANTED IN PART and DENIED IN PART, as set forth below.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD Nos. 2-15, 17-19, 21, 22, 25-27, 29, 30, 32-35, 37- 42, 44, 45, 47-51, 53-59, 61, 62, 64, 68 and 69.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MSA of AD No.

43.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD Nos. 1, 16, 20, 23, 24, 28, 31, 36, 46, 52, 60, 63, 65-67.

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 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 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 302000745275 in Department 18 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. 2-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 29, 42, 49-51 and 54-59.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA with respect to AD Nos. 2-7, 9-11, 14, 15, 18, 19, 25, 26, 29, 42, 49-51 and 54-59.

Further, at Opp. MPA pp. 14:11-15:18 argues and concedes that AD Nos. 1, 16, 24, 26, 31, 36, 46, 47, 63 and 65-67 “do not legally operate as [affirmative defenses] and are instead denials of the allegations contained in Plaintiff’s Complaint. Yet, Defendant’s Answer already contains a General Denial that effectively denies all of the allegations of Plaintiff’s Complaint including every element where Plaintiffs will bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial.

Wherefore, the Court STRIKES AD Nos. 1, 16, 24, 26, 31, 36, 46, 47, 63 and 65-67 as unnecessarily duplicative of Defendant’s Answer’s General Denial.

The Court again reminds Defendant’s counsel that taking admittedly “not affirmative defenses” to hearing on an MSA of Affirmative Defenses is a misuse of this Court’s limited judicial resources and may result in an Order to Show Cause re: monetary sanctions if they do so or make this legally frivolous argument in the future.

This leaves AD Nos. 8, 12, 13, 17, 20-23, 27, 28, 30, 32-35, 37-41, 43-45, 48, 52, 53, 60-62, 64, 68 and 69 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.

The Court finds Defendant’s Response to FROG No. 15.1 factually devoid as to all of the remaining challenged AD.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 8 (Failure to join indispensable parties). Defendant’s Opp. Separate Statement does not address Plaintiffs’ alleged failure to join

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 302000745275 in Department 18 indispensable parties or present any evidence to support AD No.

8. Moreover, an allegation that Plaintiffs are unable to prove threshold exposure or substantial factor causation is not an affirmative defense regarding which Defendant bears the burden of production.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 12 (failure to join bankrupt entities as indispensable parties). In the Opposition Separate Statement, Defendant cites to evidence from Mrs. Menor’s deposition that she used Morphe brand cosmetic talcum powder, which Defendant claims “on information and belief” was manufactured by a bankrupt entity. However, Defendant presents no evidence to create triable issues of this purported “information and belief,” i.e., alleged without evidence, fact.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 13 (Plaintiffs’ fraud causes of action not pleaded with sufficient particularity). The time for Defendant to challenge the adequacy of the pleading of Plaintiffs’ Complaint has passed, no motion for judgment on the pleadings as to these Causes of Action is pending, and Defendant has had adequate opportunity to conduct discovery regarding Plaintiffs’ fraud claims, and, if appropriate, bring a dispositive motion challenging them. Plaintiffs will also bear the burden of production on every element of their Fraud claims, Defendant’s frivolous AD notwithstanding.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 17 (raw materials supplier/bulk supplier defense). The only evidence identified by Defendant in the Opp. Separate Statement is anticipated expert witness testimony that Defendant’s products did not contain asbestos and did not cause or contribute to Mrs. Menor’s disease. These are both issues regarding which Plaintiffs bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial, rather than the bases for an affirmative defense.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 20 (Defendant’s Denial that it is a successor in interest or alter ego of any other entity liable to Plaintiffs). Although Plaintiffs’ operative First Amended Complaint contains alter ego and successor in interest allegations, it does not appear to make such allegations with respect to Defendant Ulta. Thus, it appears that Plaintiffs would need to seek leave to amend their FAC to allege alter ego or successor in interest liability with respect to Defendant for this to be raised at trial, and in that event, Plaintiffs will bear the burden of production on alter ego or successor in interest liability.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 21 (Defendant’s activities were in accordance with applicable standards of care and federal and state regulations). The only evidence identified by Defendant in the Opp. Separate Statement is anticipated expert witness testimony that Defendant’s products did not contain asbestos and did not cause or contribute to Mrs. Menor’s disease. These are both issues regarding which Plaintiffs bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial, rather than the bases for an affirmative defense.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 22 (Defendant did not breach any duty/state of the art/then prevailing industry standard). Plaintiffs bear the burden of proving at

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 302000745275 in Department 18 trial every element of their Negligence Cause of Action, including duty and breach. Further, the only evidence identified by Defendant in the Opp. Separate Statement is anticipated expert witness testimony that Defendant’s products did not contain asbestos and did not cause or contribute to Mrs. Menor’s disease. These are both issues regarding which Plaintiffs bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial, rather than the bases for an affirmative defense.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 23 (no defect or negligence in connection with the products). This is a denial of Plaintiffs’ allegations, not an affirmative defense.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 27 (asbestos is a naturally occurring mineral). It is unclear whether this is cognizable affirmative defense to an asbestos torts claim. Moreover, the only evidence identified by Defendant in the Opp. Separate Statement is anticipated expert witness testimony that Defendant’s products did not contain asbestos and did not cause or contribute to Mrs. Menor’s disease. These are both issues regarding which Plaintiffs bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial, rather than the bases for an affirmative defense.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 28 (Plaintiff’s injuries/damages not proximately caused by Defendant’s negligence or malicious conduct). Plaintiffs at trial bear the burden of production and proof of all elements of their Negligence, Fraud and punitive damages claims.

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 30 (Mrs. Menor’s pre-existing conductions or idiosyncratic reactions). The only evidence identified by Defendant in the Opp. Separate Statement is anticipated expert witness testimony that Defendant’s products did not contain asbestos and did not cause or contribute to Mrs. Menor’s disease. These are both issues regarding which Plaintiffs bear the burden of production and persuasion at trial, rather than the bases for an affirmative defense. Further, the Opp. Separate Statement contains no evidence regarding pre-existing condition or idiosyncratic reaction of Mrs. Menor’s that would the basis of any expert medical witness regarding alternative causation of Mrs. Menor’s malignant mesothelioma.

The Court summarily GRANTS Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD Nos. 32-35 and 37-41, 44, 45, 48, 53, 61, 62, 64, 68 and 69 or, in the alternative, STRIKES these AD as denials of Plaintiffs’ allegations rather than affirmative defenses. If Defendant contends that any of these AD are true affirmative defenses and that the Opp. Separate Statement contains citation to evidence creating triable issues of material fact as to any of these AD, Defendant may contest this Tentative Ruling and make its arguments to the Court, subject to the admonishment above.

The Court DENIES Plaintiffs’ MSA of Defendant’s AD No. 43 (Prop 51 apportionment based on comparative fault). Plaintiffs’ Complaint alleges that multiple defendants are responsible for and contributed to Plaintiff’s indivisible alleged asbestos torts injury.

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 52 (offset based on other defendant’s settlements). A

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) CRS# 302000745275 in Department 18 right to offset pursuant to CCP § 877 does not need to be pleaded as an affirmative defense. (Knox v. County of Los Angeles (1980) 109 Cal.App.3d 825, 834; Wade v. Schrader (2008) 168 Cal.App.4th 1039, 1048, stating in relevant part: “it is clear that the credit does not need to be raised as an affirmative defense in the pleadings since the settlement may not occur until long after the pleading stage is completed.”)

The Court STRIKES Defendant’s AD No. 60 as unduly repetitive of AD No.

43.

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.