Motion for Summary Judgment; Motion for Summary Adjudication
25CV107703: LADD vs AUTOZONE WEST, LLC, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PEP BOYS, MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA LLC (Defendant) CRS# 002548142478 in Department 18
Tentative Ruling - 05/26/2026 Patrick McKinney
The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by PEP BOYS, MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA LLC on 05/14/2026 is Granted in Part.
Defendant Pep Boys Manny Moe & Jack of California LLCs (Defendant) Motion for Summary Judgment (MSJ) is DENIED.
Defendants alternative Motion for Summary Adjudication of plaintiff Gene Ladds (Plaintiff) punitive damages claim is GRANTED.
Plaintiff alleges that he was exposed to respirable asbestos from asbestos-containing automotive friction products (brake and clutches) he purchased at Pep Boys automotive retail stores at various locations in California between the late 1950s and the 1970s.
ANALYSIS OF MSJ
Defendants MSJ is DENIED.
The moving Separate Statement establishes that Plaintiff testified at deposition that he bought automotive friction products from Pep Boys stores in or around Orange County in the 1960s and Solano County in the 1970s. Plaintiffs Supplemental SROG Responses indicate he may also have lived in Stockton and Livermore during the relevant period. However, the record is lacking in any specifics as to when Plaintiff lived in any of these locations.
All of the evidence presented by Defendant is designed to cast doubt on the credibility of Plaintiffs deposition production identification testimony. However, the credibility of witness testimony is to be determined by the jury at trial, not by the Court on Summary Judgment.
For example, Defendant presents a misleading and inadmissible declaration from its person most qualified Stuart Rosenfeld. The Rosenfeld declaration is inadmissible because it is clearly not based on his personal knowledge but rather on what other people told him or his review of Defendants corporate records, none of which are attached to the declaration. (See LAOSD Asbestos Cases (Ramirez) (2023) 87 Cal.App.5th 939, 947.) Moreover, the declarations attempt to show at ¶¶ 5-15 that there no Pep Boys stores in or around Orange County prior to 1992 or in or around Solano County prior to 1994 is misleading because the declaration does not so declare.
Moreover, there is no foundation for the completeness of Defendants corporation records regarding any stores it may have operated in or around Orange County in the 1960s or in or Solano County in the 1970s. The moving partys evidence is strictly construed on summary judgment. (Saelzler v. Advanced Group 400 (2001) 25 Cal.4th 763, 768.) 25CV107703: LADD vs AUTOZONE WEST, LLC, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PEP BOYS, MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA LLC (Defendant) CRS# 002548142478 in Department 18
Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities
Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”
Further, Defendant presents no evidence to support a finding that the automotive friction products it sold in the late 1950s to 1970s period.
ANALYSIS OF MSA
Defendants MSA challenges solely Plaintiffs punitive damages claim. For unknown reasons, Plaintiffs Opp. MPA contains arguments regarding Plaintiffs Causes of Action for False Representation (Restatement 2nd of Torts § 402B) and Intentional Torts (Fraud).
The Court finds Plaintiffs Response to Defendants Special Interrogatory No. 4, seeking all facts regarding Plaintiffs punitive damages claim, factually devoid within the meaning Andrews v. Foster Wheeler LLC (2006) 138 Cal.App.4th 96, 106-107. Plaintiffs Response contains no specific facts or citations to specific evidence to support the punitive damages claim. Instead, internal features of the response indicate that it is a boilerplate response in which counsel plugged in a list of names associated with Defendant in a repetitive manner. (See Defendants Index of Exhibits (DIOE) Exh. C at e.g., pp. 17:3, 19:25, 20:3 and 22:1.)
The Court finds that Defendant meets its initial burden of production pursuant to Andrews, supra, and that the burden to produce evidence sufficient to create triable issues of material fact under a clear and convincing evidentiary standard shifts to Plaintiff. (Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1118-1119, Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158-1159.)
Plaintiff in Opposition presents insufficient evidence to support a finding that Defendant acted towards Plaintiff or persons similarly situated to Plaintiff with malice, oppression or fraud. In addition to Plaintiffs testimony that he never saw any asbestos warnings on the automotive friction parts he purchased from Defendants stores, Plaintiff must also present evidence that Defendant had actual knowledge of the asbestos hazards faced by Plaintiff and persons similarly to Plaintiff from working with the products in reasonably foreseeable ways during the period of Plaintiffs alleged exposures to create triable issues of material fact regarding Defendants malice, oppression or fraud. Plaintiff presents no such evidence.
Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Defendants MSA of Plaintiffs punitive damages claim.
The Court OVERRULES all of Plaintiffs Opposition objections to the Gunther Declaration. The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiffs objections to the Rosenfeld Declaration.
The Court has no record that any Reply papers were successfully filed or that courtesy copies were provided to Dept.
18. Defendant may contest this Tentative Ruling and raise whatever reply arguments it wishes to make at the hearing.
SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA
25CV107703: LADD vs AUTOZONE WEST, LLC, et al. 05/28/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by PEP BOYS, MANNY MOE & JACK OF CALIFORNIA LLC (Defendant) CRS# 002548142478 in Department 18 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.