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# 049741167560 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 09/02/2026 Patrick McKinney

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

I.

Background

Jovy Menor and Bernard Menor (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on January 2, 2026 bringing claims against Defendant Tarte, Inc. (“Tarte” or “Defendant”), among others, alleging that Ms. Menor was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powders including products manufactured and marketed by Defendant, among other exposures. Defendant initially appeared on February 25, 2026. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 5, 2026. Defendant filed an answer to the FAC on June 9, which included forty-four (44) affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs initially moved for summary adjudication as to all of Defendant’s affirmative defenses. In reply, Plaintiffs represent that Defendant has, or will, withdraw its second, fifth, tenth, seventeenth, thirty-first, thirty-second, and forty-third affirmative defense. Defendant’s response to Plaintiffs’ separate statement so states. Plaintiff also represents that Defendant referred to eight more affirmative defenses as “immaterial.” (Defendant’s twenty-fifth, twentysixth, twenty-seventh, twenty-eighth, thirty-eighth, thirty-ninth, fortieth, and forty-second affirmative defenses.)

Defendant so states in its separate statement response, but goes on to dispute some of Plaintiffs’ material facts. Finally, Plaintiffs ask the court to strike, as traverses that are not affirmative defenses, Defendant’s first, sixth, eleventh, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-forth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth, thirty-third, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, thirty-seventh, fortyfirst, and forty-fourth affirmative defenses), and grant MSA as to the remaining fifteen affirmative defenses.

II. Legal Standard “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.” (Cal.

Civ. Proc. Code § 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.) 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/03/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by JOVY MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 049741167560 in Department 18

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. Superior Court (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.)

III.

Discussion

Based on Defendant’s representation that it will withdraw its second (personal jurisdiction), fifth (statute of limitations and laches), tenth (estoppel), seventeenth (indispensable parties), thirtyfirst (sophisticated user), thirty-second (misjoinder), and forty-third (forum non conveniens) affirmative defenses, Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to these affirmative defenses.

With respect to the “immaterial” affirmative defenses, the court agrees with Plaintiffs that Defendant’s twenty-fifth, twenty-sixth, twenty-seventh, and twenty-eighth affirmative defenses were asserted as to Plaintiffs’ now-dismissed punitive damages request and are thus no longer material, warranting summary adjudication. Defendant’s dispute of certain of Plaintiffs’ material facts only asserts that the claim has been dismissed. Similarly, Defendant’s thirty-eighth, thirtyninth, fortieth, and forty-second affirmative defenses concern Plaintiffs’ now-dismissed fraud cause of action. Summary adjudication as to these affirmative defenses is warranted for the same reasons.

Defendant contends that summary adjudication of its other affirmative defenses is unwarranted because Plaintiffs’ motion was premature and relied on premature discovery requests. While Defendant makes a valid point, trial in this matter is imminent and Defendant’s opposition was filed on August 18. Defendant has been free to amend or supplement its responses to discovery

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# 049741167560 in Department 18 to allege facts in support of its affirmative defenses, but has not done so. Defendant’s response to Form Interrogatory 15.1 only states objections. Similarly, Defendant’s response to the companion request for production, RFPD No. 22, states objections and identifies no documents. Thus, the court finds that Defendant’s discovery responses are factually devoid as to every affirmative defense raised, shifting the burden to Defendant set forth affirmative evidence sufficient to create a triable issue fact as to the defenses.

The court finds that Defendant fails to do so. Defendant’s opposition papers mostly focus on the purported prematurity of the motion and set forth only contentions that the products Plaintiff used did not contain asbestos. No affirmative evidence is presented. As noted above, Defendant’s responses to discovery offer only objections, no facts in support of the affirmative defenses, and do not describe the facts Defendant expects to ascertain through ongoing fact and expert discovery.

Defendant’s Affirmative Defenses 1, 6, 11, 20, 21, 24, 29, 30, 33, 35-37, 41, and 44

Plaintiff contends that these are not proper affirmative defenses, in that they are attacks on the pleadings or denials of Plaintiffs’ claims. The court agrees, but since Defendant fails to offer affirmative evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of material fact in support of any of these affirmative defenses/contentions, summary adjudication is warranted in any event.

Plaintiffs’ MSA is therefore GRANTED as to Defendant’s first, sixth, eleventh, twentieth, twenty-first, twenty-forth, twenty-ninth, thirtieth, thirty-third, thirty-fifth, thirty-sixth, thirtyseventh, forty-first, and forty-forth affirmative defenses.

Defendant’s Alternative Exposure defenses (7-9, 13, 23)

These affirmative defenses all essentially contend that someone other than Defendant was responsible for Plaintiff’s injuries. Defendant’s seventh affirmative defense contends that Plaintiff’s illnesses were caused solely by the fault of third parties for which Defendant is not responsible. Defendant’s eighth affirmative defense asserts that Plaintiff’s injuries were contributed by the fault of third parties for which Defendant is not responsible. Defendant’s ninth affirmative defense seeks indemnity and contribution in accordance with apportionment of fault, and Defendant’s thirteenth affirmative defense contends that Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused by an unforeseeable, independent, intervening and/or superseding event beyond the control of Defendant.

Plaintiff’s MSA is DENIED as to these affirmative defenses. As Defendant notes in its responsive separate statement, Plaintiffs testified at length about their use of talcum powder

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# 049741167560 in Department 18 products for which Defendant is not liable, which might have contributed to Ms. Menor’s injuries. While Defendant does not offer affirmative evidence that each of these other products were contaminated with asbestos, this testimony creates a triable issue of fact as to whether other products or events contributed to Ms. Menor’s injuries, warranting denial of MSA. Moreover, the Court is aware the Plaintiffs continue to pursue claims against numerous Defendants for assertedly asbestos-related injuries so adjudication of these defenses is premature.

Defendant’s twenty-third affirmative defense contends that Plaintiff’s injuries were proximately caused or contributed to by her unforeseeable idiosyncratic condition, unusual susceptibility, or hypersensitive reactions for which Defendant is not liable.

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. While Defendant notes that the deposition of Dr. Joel Neal was incomplete at the time its opposition was filed, it still offered no affirmative evidence to create a triable issue of fact as to this affirmative defense.

Defendant’s Remaining Affirmative Defenses (3, 4, 12, 14, 15, 16, 18, 19, 22, 34)

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to these affirmative defenses as well. Defendant’s responsive separate statement reiterates the same prematurity argument and contentions as to its products’ asbestos content.

IV. Orders The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED IN PART. The affirmative defenses addressed in this order and Plaintiffs’ reply are DISMISSED from this 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.

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# 049741167560 in Department 18