DecisionDepot
California legal research
All cases
CGC26277387·sf·Civil·Asbestos
Hearing about 2 months agoCONTINUED

TINA M. BROWN ET AL VS. BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. ET AL

MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS

Hearing date
Jun 30, 2026
Department
502
Judge
Prevailing
N/A
Next hearing
Aug 4, 2026

Motion type

Browse all Motion to Quash rulings statewide →

Parties

PlaintiffTINA M. BROWN
DefendantBLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC.
DefendantMINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC.
DefendantSPECIALTY MINERALS INC.

Ruling

SF Superior Court - Asbestos Law & Motion - CGC26277387 - June 30, 2026 Hearing date: June 30, 2026 Case number: CGC26277387 Case title: TINA M. BROWN ET AL VS. BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. ET AL Case Number: | | CGC26277387 | Case Title: | | TINA M. BROWN ET AL VS. BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC. ET AL | Court Date: | | 2026-06-30 09:00 AM | Calendar Matter: | | MOTION TO QUASH SERVICE OF SUMMONS OR STAY OR DISMISS | Rulings: | | On Asbestos Law and Motion Calendar for Tuesday June 30, 2026, in Department 502, Line 2.

Specially-Appearing Defendants Minerals Technologies Inc. and Specialty Minerals Inc.'s Motions to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction are CONTINUED from June 30, 2026 to August 4, 2026 per stipulation. Oppositions, if any, are due by July 22, 2026. Replies, if any, are due by July 28, 2026. Any party wishing to contest the tentative ruling must email contestasbestostr@sftc.org by 4:00 p.m. the day before the hearing and state their intention to contest. If a hearing is requested, it will be on June 30, 2026, at 4:00 p.m in Department 502.

Attorneys may appear in person or remotely via zoom: Meeting ID 161 9575 2444; Passcode: 145616. =(SKF/502) | |

Cited authorities

Extracting citations from the ruling text…
Verify against the source PDF — LLM extraction may miss or mis-normalize citations.

Looking for case law or statutes not cited here? Search published authorities

Ask about this ruling

Examples: “Why did the court rule this way?” · “What were the procedural grounds?” · “Is appearance required?”

Answers reference only this ruling's text. Not legal advice — always verify against the source PDF.

Find similar rulings

Source

Share