RICHARD IRWIN v. 3M COMPANY, et al.

(Spring Street Courthouse: Dept. 14) September 4, 2026 DEPARTMENT 14 LAW AND MOTION RULINGS

STATE OF CALIFORNIA¿ ¿ FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT 14 ¿ ¿ RICHARD IRWIN, Plaintiff,¿ v. 3M COMPANY, et al. Defendants.¿¿ | Case No. 24STCV24321 ¿¿¿¿ Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Time: 9:00 a.m. ¿ [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: ¿ AUTOZONE WEST, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION | I.

Background

On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff Richard Irwin filed his complaint for personal injury alleging he developed malignant mesothelioma through his work in the oil, auto repair, and construction industries beginning in the 1970s.

On June 11, 2026, Defendant Autozone West, LLC ("Defendant" or "Autozone") filed its motion for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication arguing that Plaintiff cannot prove exposure to asbestos from a product sold, supplied, or distributed by Autozone. Autozone also moves for summary adjudication of the cause of action for intentional concealment and the demand for punitive damages.

On August 14, 2026, Plaintiff opposed, arguing that triable issues of material fact remain as to whether he was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which Autozone is responsible.

On August 24, 2026, Autozone replied, reiterating arguments from its moving papers.

Autozone failed to meet its initial burden to provide affirmative evidence negating an essential element of Plaintiff's claims against Autozone. Autozone's motion for summary judgment is denied.

Plaintiff did not oppose Autozone's motions for summary adjudication. Autozone's motions for summary adjudication of the cause of action for intentional concealment and the demand for punitive damages are granted.

II. Evidentiary Objections

Plaintiff's Objections

Plaintiff objects to excerpts from the deposition of Allen Berger taken in Ruiz v. 3M Company, et al., LASC Case No. 23GDCV005 I 6, on November 22, 2023. This testimony is hearsay. Autozone fails to identify a valid hearsay exception to support the admissibility of this prior testimony. Autozone fails to rebut the general rule against the admissibility of former deposition testimony. (Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867, 895 ["The party urging admission of deposition testimony bears the burden of rebutting the general rule by submitting appropriate information justifying the admission of designated deposition testimony."].)

Autozone offers no evidence or argument to support the admissibility of this deposition and do not address whether this deposition was intended to serve as a trial preservation transcript, whether a subsequent agreement was made to use the deposition as trial testimony, or that any of the Berroteran factors bear in favor of the admissibility of the deposition. The objections are sustained.

Defendant's Objections

Autozone objects to evidence Plaintiff submitted with his opposition. Because Autozone failed to meet its initial moving burden, the court need not determine whether the evidence submitted by Plaintiffs in opposition to Autozone's motion was admissible.

III.

Discussion

A.

Legal Standard

A defendant seeking summary judgment must "conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff's case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial." (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)

To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing "that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence." (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)

"The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff's cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence - as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing." (Id. at p. 855.)

" 'If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses.' " (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1440.)

B. Causation

In asbestos litigation, a plaintiff is required to show causation. A plaintiff must show "some threshold exposure to the defendant's defective asbestos-containing products" and must further establish to a "reasonable medical probability" that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a "legal cause" of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury. (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal.4th 953, 982.)

Where a plaintiff's allegations pertain to asbestos as an intended ingredient of a product the plaintiff was exposed to occupationally, the plaintiff is required to present evidence "defendant's product was definitely at his work site and that it was sufficiently prevalent to warrant an inference that plaintiff was exposed to it..." (Turley v. Familian Corp. (2017) 18 Cal.App.5th 969, 980 [Citing Lineaweaver, supra, 31 Cal.App.4th at p. 1420.].)

Where a defendant manufactures similar products, some of which contained asbestos and some of which did not, a plaintiff must present evidence from which the court can reasonably infer that it was more likely than not that the plaintiff was exposed to an asbestos-containing variety of the defendant's product. (See Collin v. CalPortland Co. ¿(2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 582, 593.)

1. Defendant's Burden: Affirmative Evidence

Autozone moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff has no evidence that he worked with an asbestos-containing product for which it was responsible. (Motion at p. 11 ["Here, there is no evidence that Autozone West supplied a product that contained asbestos that Mr. Irwin worked with or around. (SSUF No.'s 1 - 19). There is no evidence that he was ever exposed to any asbestos from work with or around an Autozone West product, let alone exposure with sufficient frequency and regularity so as to show a reasonable medical probability that this exposure was a factor in causing his injury."].)

A defendant moving for summary judgment normally submits either (1) the plaintiff's factually devoid discovery responses, which support an inference that the plaintiff lacks and cannot reasonably obtain evidence to support a cause of action against the defendant, or (2) affirmative evidence that negates an element of the plaintiff's case or demonstrates that no triable issue of material fact remains in the case. (It may, of course, offer both.)

Autozone elected option two. Autozone argues here that its affirmative evidence shows that Autozone was not liable for Plaintiff's injuries. Specifically, Autozone argues that Plaintiff could not have been exposed to an asbestos-containing Autozone part in 1987 because its predecessor, Chief Auto Parts, Inc. ("Chief" or "Chief Auto Parts") was established in 1988, did not sell asbestos-containing parts, and did not become Autozone until 1997. (Id. at p. 7 ["As further detailed herein, Chief Auto Parts, Inc. was established in 1988 and ultimately became Autozone West, LLC...Autozone West did not exist until 1997...Chief Auto Parts, Inc. did not sell any asbestos brakes, clutches, or gaskets...The Autozone stores in California were previously Chief Auto stores that were converted...

Thus, there is no evidence that the Autozone store sold an asbestos containing product...Autozone West has submitted affirmative evidence it did not sell an asbestos containing product....Thus, Autozone West has no liability in this matter and is entitled to summary judgment in this matter."].)

Autozone reiterates arguments from its moving papers in the reply.

i.

Analysis

Autozone moves for summary judgment on the grounds that its affirmative evidence establishes that Plaintiff could not have been exposed to an asbestos-containing Autozone part, negating an essential element of Plaintiff's claim against it. Autozone alleges that Chief was not established until 1988, a year after Plaintiff's alleged visit to a Chief store in Oxnard. Additionally, Autozone alleges Chief never sold asbestos-containing parts.

Autozone directs the court's attention to Plaintiff's deposition testimony wherein he testified that he had no memory of ever going to an Autozone store in California before 1987. (UMF No. 11, Barba Decl., Exh. 7 at 741:3-741:6 ["Q: Do you have a memory of ever going to an Auto Zone - in the state of California prior to the year of 1987? A: No.].)

Plaintiff also testified that he visited a Chief Auto Parts store, Autozone's predecessor, in his late 20s to purchase parts. (Id., Exh. 6 at 758:19-759:5 ["Q: Okay. The Oxnard location, did you personally ever purchase any parts from that Chief Auto Parts location, or was it just your dad? A: With my dad. That was it. Q: Okay. And you would have gone there as a kid then, I take it? A: No. I wasn't that young. I was probably in my late 20s...Q: Okay. Late 20s like 27, 28? A: Yep."].) Plaintiff was born in 1959. (Id., Exh. 6 at 138:16-17.)

Autozone provides this evidence to show that Plaintiff visited Chief stores between 1986 and 1987 and had not visited an Autozone store before 1987. Autozone provides the prior deposition testimony of Allen Berger, its corporate representative, from an unrelated case to show that Chief Auto Parts was established in 1988, did not sell asbestos-containing parts, and eventually became part of Autozone in 1997. (UMF Nos. 13-15, Barba Decl., Exh. 8.)

However, the court sustained Plaintiff's objections to this evidence. There is no other evidence that Chief Auto Parts was established in 1988 or that it never sold asbestos-containing parts. Accordingly, Autozone fails to meet its burden to negate an essential element of Plaintiff's claim against it. The motion for summary judgment is denied.

C. Summary Adjudication

Autozone also moves for summary adjudication of the cause of action for intentional concealment and the demand for punitive damages. Plaintiff did not oppose the motion as to the demand for punitive damages and did not address intentional concealment. Accordingly, the motions for summary adjudication are granted as unopposed.

IV.

Conclusion

Autozone failed to meet its initial burden to provide affirmative evidence negating an essential element of Plaintiff's claims against Autozone. Autozone's motion for summary judgment is denied. Plaintiff did not oppose Autozone's motions for summary adjudication. Autozone's motions for summary adjudication of the cause of action for intentional concealment and the demand for punitive damages are granted. Autozone to give notice.

.......

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA¿ ¿ FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES DEPARTMENT 14 ¿ ¿ RICHARD IRWIN, Plaintiff,¿ v. 3M COMPANY, et al. Defendants.¿¿ | Case No. 24STCV24321 ¿¿¿¿ Hearing Date: September 4, 2026 Time: 9:00 a.m. ¿ [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE: ¿ HENRY COMPANY, LLC'S MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT OR IN THE ALTERNATIVE SUMMARY ADJUDICATION | I.

Background

On September 19, 2024, Plaintiff Richard Irwin filed his complaint for personal injury alleging he developed malignant mesothelioma through his work in the oil, auto repair, and construction industries beginning in the 1970s.

On June 11, 2026, Defendant Henry Company, LLC ("Henry" or "Defendant") moved for summary judgment or, in the alternative, summary adjudication on the grounds that Plaintiff lacks and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that he was exposed to an asbestos-containing product for which it was