MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al.

25CV030956: MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

reporter from the Court’s Approved Official Reporter Pro Tempore list. Once the form is signed it must be filed with the clerk. If a litigant has been granted a fee waiver and requests a court reporter, the party must submit a Request for Court Reporter by a Party with a Fee Waiver (CV/E-211) and it must be filed with the clerk at least 10 days prior to the hearing or at the time the proceeding is scheduled if less than 10 days away. Once approved, the clerk will be forward the form to the Court Reporter’s Office and an official reporter will be provided

***NOTICE: EFFECTIVE APRIL 13, 2026, THIS DEPARTMENT HAS MOVED TO THE TANI G. CANTIL-SAKAUYE COURTHOUSE LOCATED AT 500 G. ST. SACRAMENTO, CA. ALL MOTIONS NOTICED FOR DEPARTMENT 25 WILL BE HEARD IN DEPARTMENT 8D OF THE NEW COURTHOUSE. ALL PAPERS FOR THIS DEPARTMENT MUST BE FILED AT THIS NEW LOCATION AND WILL NOT BE ACCEPTED AT THE HALL OF JUSTICE. ALL HEARINGS WILL TAKE PLACE AT THIS NEW LOCATION****

TENTATIVE RULING

Defendant’s Notice of Motion does not provide notice of the Court’s tentative ruling system, as required by Local Rule 1.06(D). Defendant’s counsel is directed to contact opposing counsel forthwith to advise counsel of Local Rule 1.06 and the Court’s tentative ruling procedure. If Defendant’s counsel is unable to contact opposing counsel prior to the hearing, Defendant’s counsel shall be available at the hearing, in person or remotely (telephonically or by video conference via Zoom as stated in the introductory notice to today’s tentative rulings), in the event opposing counsel appears without following the procedures set forth in Local Rule 1.06(B).

Defendant ATI Restoration, LLC’s (“Defendant”) Demurrer to Plaintiffs Veronica Mwathi, Margaret Junker, and Michael Junker’s (“Plaintiffs”) First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) is ruled upon as follows.

Factual Background

This product liability action arises out of a product identified as Sentinel 522 Odor Destroyer Block (“Sentinel 522”). Plaintiffs’ complaint alleges that Sentinel 522 “contains chemical substances that are listed in the U.S. Environmental Protection Agency’s Toxic

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030956: MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Substances Control Act Inventory and are assigned an ‘Immediate (Acute) Health Hazard’ under ‘SARA Section 311/312 Hazard Classes.’” (FAC, ¶ 12.) The FAC further alleges that the warning label for Sentinel 522 fails to warn about potential risks which might result from the chemical contained in the product. (FAC, ¶ 21.) On or around April 27-28, 2025, Defendant used Sentinel 522 at the Regents of the University of California DBA UC Davis Health Cardiology Outpatient Services (“UCD”), resulting in prolonged exposure to Plaintiffs Margaret Junker and Veronica Mwathi, and subsequent injuries. (FAC, ¶¶ 23-30.)

Plaintiffs’ FAC alleges causes of action for: (1) strict product liability – manufacturing defect; (2) strict product liability – design defect; (3) strict product liability – failure to warn; (4) negligence – product liability; (5) negligence; (6) negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention; and (7) loss of consortium.

Defendant now demurs to Plaintiffs’ complaint on the ground that Plaintiffs’ causes of action fail to state sufficient facts to constitute causes of action. The Court notes that while Defendant’s notice of motion states only that “Plaintiffs fail to assert viable causes of action against ATI Restoration, LLC, as Plaintiffs do not give sufficient factual grounds to provide fair notice as to the basis of their claims,” but does not identify any specific causes of action at issue, Defendant’s memorandum of points and authorities states that Defendant demurs to the causes of action for negligence, negligent hiring, and loss of consortium. Defendant’s notice of motion does not comply with California Rules of Court, rule 3.1320(a). Defendant’s counsel is admonished to ensure that notices of motion comply with this section in the future.

Plaintiffs oppose.

Legal Standard

The function of a demurrer is to test the sufficiency of the pleading it challenges by raising questions of law. (Salimi v. State Comp. Ins. Fund (1997) 54 Cal.App.4th 216, 219; Nordlinger v. Lynch (1990) 225 Cal.App.3d 1259, 1271.)

A demurrer “tests the pleadings alone and not the evidence or other extrinsic matters.” (SKF Farms v. Superior Court (1984) 153 Cal.App.3d 902, 905.) The purpose of a demurrer is to test the legal sufficiency of a claim. (Donabedian v. Mercury Ins. Co. (2004) 116 Cal.App.4th 968, 994.) For the purpose of determining the effect of a complaint, its allegations are liberally construed, with a view toward substantial justice. (Code Civ. Proc. §452; Amarel v. Connell (1988) 202 Cal.App.3d 137, 140-141;

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030956: MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Quelimane Co. v. Stewart Title Guaranty Co. (1998) 19 Cal.4th 26, 43, fn. 7.) In this respect, the Court treats the demurrer as admitting all material facts properly pleaded, but not contentions, deductions or conclusions of fact or law, and considers matters which may be judicially noticed. (Blank v. Kirwan (1985) 39 Cal.3d 311, 318; Poseidon Development, Inc. v. Woodland Lane Estates, LLC (2007) 152 Cal.App.4th 1106, 1111- 1112.) A general demurrer does not admit contentions, deductions, or conclusions of fact or law alleged in the complaint; facts impossible in law; or allegations contrary to facts of which a court may take judicial notice. (Blank, supra, 39 Cal.3d at p. 318; William S. Hart Union High School Dist. v. Regional Planning Com. (1991) 226 Cal.App.3d 1612, 1616, fn. 2.)

A demurrer may be sustained only if the complaint lacks any sufficient allegations to entitle the plaintiff to relief. (Financial Corp. of America v. Wilburn (1987) 189 Cal.App.3d 764, 778.) “Plaintiff need only plead facts showing that he may be entitled to some relief . . . we are not concerned with plaintiff's possible inability or difficulty in proving the allegations of the complaint.” (Highlanders, Inc. v. Olsan (1978) 77 Cal.App.3d 690, 696-697.) “[Courts] are required to construe the complaint liberally to determine whether a cause of action has been stated, given the assumed truth of the facts pleaded.” (Picton v.

Anderson Union High School Dist. (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 726.) A demurrer admits the truth of all material facts properly pled and the sole issue raised by a general demurrer is whether the facts pled state a valid cause of action – not whether they are true. (Serrano v. Priest (1971) 5 Cal.3d 584, 591.)

Discussion

Fifth Cause of Action for Negligence

Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s claim for negligence fails to state sufficient facts, because it does not sufficiently “suggest that ATI breached any duty owed to Plaintiffs and failed to exercise reasonable care which actually or proximately caused Plaintiffs’ injuries” and that the FAC relies entirely on conclusory allegations. (Mtn., p. 6:25-27.) In opposition, Plaintiffs cite to FAC paragraphs 11-22 as alleging sufficient facts to give rise to a cause of action for negligence.

“The elements of a cause of action for negligence are well established. They are ‘(a) a legal duty to use due care; (b) a breach of such legal duty; [and] (c) the breach as the proximate or legal cause of the resulting injury.’” (Ladd v. County of San Mateo (1996) 12 Cal.4th 913, 917.) In Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc., (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71, the California Supreme Court established the specific framework for pleading causation

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030956: MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

in chemical exposure cases. The court held that a plaintiff must allege: (1) exposure to each toxic material claimed to have caused the illness; (2) identification of each product that caused the injury; (3) that as a result of the exposure, the toxins entered the body; (4) a specific illness and that each toxin was a substantial factor in bringing it about; and (5) that each toxin was manufactured or supplied by a named defendant. (Bockrath v. Aldrich Chemical Co., Inc., supra, 21 Cal.4th at p. 80.)

Importantly, the court held that “plaintiffs may, and should, allege the foregoing facts succinctly, and may do so in a conclusory fashion if their knowledge of the precise cause of injury is limited,” consistent with Code of Civil Procedure section 425.10's requirement of “ordinary and concise language.” (Ibid; See also Jones v. ConocoPhillips Co. (2011) 198 Cal.App.4th 1187 [the court found causation adequately pleaded where a plaintiff alleged exposure to specific, named chemical products that were a substantial factor in causing specific identified diseases].)

The FAC alleges: (1) that Plaintiffs Margaret Junker and Veronica Mwathi were exposed to Sentinel 522 (FAC, ¶¶ 24-27); (2) that the chemical at issue here is Sentinel 522, as well as the specific risks related to this chemical (FAC, ¶¶ 11-26); (3) that as the result of Plaintiffs Margaret Junker and Veronica Mwathi’s exposure, toxins entered their bodies (FAC, ¶¶ 27-30); (4) the specific symptoms suffered by Plaintiffs Margaret Junker and Veronica Mwathi as the result of this exposure (FAC, ¶¶ 29-31); and (5) that Sentinel 522 was manufactured by Defendant Sentinel Products, Inc. (FAC, ¶ 2).

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have sufficiently alleged facts to constitute a cause of action for negligence against Defendant. Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to Plaintiffs’ fifth cause of action.

Sixth Cause of Action for Negligent Hiring, Training, Supervision, and Retention

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ fail to state a claim for negligent hiring, training, supervision, and retention, as “there are no factual allegations to suggest that ATI knew or should have known that it hired and retained persons who were unqualified or unfit to perform their duties and, similarly, Plaintiffs do not allege any factual basis as to inadequate training or supervision as to work performed. And there are no allegations concerning how ATI’s employees lacked the qualifications and fitness necessary to perform cleaning duties.” (Mtn., p. 8:18-22.)

“California case law recognizes the theory that an employer can be liable to a third person for negligently hiring, supervising, or retaining an unfit employee.” (Doe v.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030956: MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

Capital Cities (1996) 50 Cal.App.4th 1038, 1054.) “Negligence liability will be imposed on an employer if it ‘knew or should have known that hiring the employee created a particular risk or hazard and that particular harm materializes.’” (Phillips v. TLC Plumbing, Inc. (2009) 172 Cal.App.4th 1133, 1139.)

The FAC alleges that Defendant negligently failed to:

 hire qualified personnel to apply chemical agents;  train workers in the selection, application, release and dispersal of chemical products, including Sentinel 522;  follow reasonable and necessary industry standards relating to the safe use of chemical products, including Sentinel 522;  implement safe odor-remediation procedures, including but not limited to, containment of areas, ventilation, quantity restrictions, and/or warning and removal of persons in affected areas.

(FAC, ¶ 64.)

Plaintiffs argue that the allegations of the FAC, when taken as a whole are sufficient to show that Defendant knew or should have known that its employee created a particular risk or hazard.

The Court finds that while the FAC alleges facts which show that use of Sentinel 522 improperly created a hazard, it does not allege that Defendant knew or should have known that its employees were using the product in such a way that would cause risks to individuals such as Plaintiffs Margaret Junker and Veronica Mwathi.

Accordingly, Defendant’s demurrer to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action is SUSTAINED, with leave to amend.

Seventh Cause of Action for Loss of Consortium

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ cause of action for loss of consortium must fail, because such a claim is dependent on a valid cause of action which forms the basis for the loss of consortium. Defendant argues that because Plaintiffs’ claims for negligence and negligent hiring fail, so must the cause of action for loss of consortium.

As the Court has overruled Defendant’s demurrer as to Plaintiffs’ claim for negligence,

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF SACRAMENTO

25CV030956: MWATHI, et al. vs SENTINEL PRODUCTS, INC., et al. 06/01/2026 Hearing on Demurrer to Plaintiff's First Amended Complaint in Department 8D

this argument fails. As Defendant presents no other ground for demurrer as to this cause of action, the demurrer is OVERRULED.

Disposition

Based on the foregoing, Defendant’s demurrer is OVERRULED as to Plaintiffs’ fifth and seventh causes of action; and SUSTAINED as to Plaintiffs’ sixth cause of action.

Plaintiff may file and serve an amended complaint no later than June 11, 2026. Although not required by statute or court rule, Plaintiff is directed to present the clerk a copy of this ruling at the time of filing the Third Amended Complaint. Defendant may file and serve a response within 30 days of service of the Third Amended Complaint, 35 days if served by mail.

The minute order is effective immediately. No formal order pursuant to California Rules of Court, rule 3.1312 or further notice is required.