GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., et al.

AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 of action or an affirmative defense.” (Ibid.)

Further, the paper courtesy copy of the Defendant’s 767-page Index of Exhibits (“DIOE”) is not properly bound in violation of CRC Rules 3.1110(e), lacks exhibit tabs in violation of Rule 3.1110(f)(3) and is not limited to relevant pages of submitted deposition transcripts in violation of 3.1116(b). This paper courtesy copy thus necessarily violates Local Rule 3.30(c). The failure to provide paper courtesy copies of this volume in conformance with the requirements of the CRC and Local Rule 3.30(c) is an adequate ground to deny summarily Defendant’s Motion in this trial preference action with an impending 7/27/2026 trial date.

Nevertheless, the Court elects to consider this motion on the merits. However, the Court admonishes defense counsel that in the future the Court will almost certainly summarily deny any motion they file on behalf of a client that contains substantially similar defects to the present motion and where an impending trial date will not allow for a reasonable continuance to provide conforming papers.

The Court finds that Defendant’s Special Interrogatories (“SROG”) Nos. 1-13, seeking all facts and identification of all witnesses and documents regarding threshold exposure, each cause of action pleaded by Plaintiffs and Plaintiff’s punitive damages claims, to be sufficiently comprehensive written discovery as to these claims and causes of action. Plaintiff’s Response to SROG No. 1 is incorporated by reference as Plaintiff’s response to each of SROG Nos. 2-13.

The Court finds that Plaintiff’s Response to SROG No. 1 is factually devoid with respect to threshold exposure because it contains no evidence that any of the talc used to manufacture the cosmetic talcum powder that Mrs. Godina and her family members used contained asbestos. The Response does not state that Plaintiffs’ intend to present expert witness opinion testimony to establish that the relevant talcs were contaminated with asbestos.

SROG No. 1 identifies only Mrs. Godina’s unnamed family members. Mrs. Godina admitted in deposition she had no personal knowledge whether any cosmetic talcum powder products she purchased at Walmart contained asbestos. SROG No. 1 identifies many specific documents but makes no attempt to link any specific document to any specific fact stated in the response.

Thus, the Court finds that Defendant meets its initial burden of production on summary judgment and that the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to present evidence that the talcum powder products Mrs. Godina purchased from Defendant’s stores were contaminated with asbestos.

Plaintiffs present no admissible evidence regarding the source of the talcs for the Walmart Equate brand baby powder during the 1995 to 2016 period when Mrs. Godina used this product or the Dr. Scholl’s foot powder and Gold Bond powder her husband used and purchased at Walmart, presumably from 1995 to 2013. (See Rulings on objections below; see also DUMF Nos. 10, 22.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 Plaintiffs present no evidence regarding how often they purchased talcum powder products from Walmart between 1995 to 2016, as opposed to the other three retailers she identified at deposition. She could not recall how often she or her family members purchased talcum powder products.

She specifically recalled the name of “Equate” at her deposition suggesting she purchased this Walmart product more than once. She testified that she used the cosmetic talc after showering before work until she retired in 2016, creating a reasonable inference she used cosmetic talc on herself approximately five times a week during the 1995-2016 period. Further, she testified that her husband used Dr. Scholl’s or Gold Bond as foot powder every day before work. (DUMF No. 12; Plaintiffs’ Additional Material Facts (“PAMF”) Nos. 73-97.)

Plaintiffs present the declaration of expert witness Dr. William Longo, Ph.D. There is no foundation in the Longo Declaration regarding his “understanding” as to the sources of talc for the products identified at deposition by Mrs. Godina. As stated above, Plaintiffs present no admissible evidence of the source of the talcs for the products she used.

Dr. Longo cites to testing he performed on the relevant products. He tested one bottle of Gold Bond Foot Powder produced by an asbestos torts plaintiff who filed suit in this Court in 2024. Dr. Longo declares he found amphibole asbestos (tremolite) and another abestiform mineral (richterite) in the sample tested. (Longo Dec. ¶ and Exh. 6.)

Dr. Longo also tested nine bottles of Dr. Scholl’s foot powder. The first seven were reportedly purchased on eBay. Dr. Longo declares that the powder in the bottles came from the 1940s through the early 2000s. However, the Longo Declaration contains no foundation for this claim or any statement regarding how many of the bottles of Dr. Scholl’s foot powder were produced in or after 1995, although the eBay posts for the products indicate that three of them pre-dated 1970. Dr. Longo declares that his testing found amphibole asbestos (tremolite) or richterite in all seven samples and that six of the seven samples tested positive for chrysotile asbestos. (Longo Dec. ¶ 25 and Exh. 7.)

The second two bottles of Dr. Scholl’s were produced by the asbestos torts plaintiff who provided the bottle of Gold Bond foot powder. These bottles appear roughly contemporaneous with two of the bottles of Dr. Scholls foot powder referenced in the preceding paragraph. Dr. Longo declares and the relevant report indicates that one of the two samples tested positive for chrysotile asbestos and neither of the two samples tested positive for amphibole asbestos or richterite. (Id. at ¶ 26 and Exh. 8.)

Dr. Longo declares that he tested a bottle of Walmart Equate talcum powder produced by a different asbestos torts plaintiff who filed suit in this Court in 2025. His declaration and testing report state that the sample tested positive for chrysotile asbestos but did not test positive for amphibole asbestos. However, ATEM analysis identified additional “fibrous talc” in the sample. (Id. at § 27 and Exh. 9.)

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18

The Court finds that Dr. Longo has an adequate foundation for an expert opinion that it is more likely than not that any individual bottle of Dr. Scholls Foot Powder, Gold Bond Foot Powder and Walmart Equate talcum powder contained asbestos or other asbestiform minerals because five of the six roughly contemporaneous bottles of these products Dr. Longo tested positive for asbestos or asbestiform minerals. Further, based on the evidence of Mrs. Godina’s regular and routine use of these body powders between 1995-2016 and Mr.

Godina’s use from 1995 to 2013, a reasonable jury could find that Plaintiffs purchased at least two bottles of each of the three products from Walmart over the relevant approximately twenty-year period. Thus, a reasonable jury crediting the witness testimony and granting Plaintiffs all reasonable inferences could find that Mrs. Godina was exposed to respirable asbestos or asbestiform minerals in talc from cosmetic talc products purchased from Defendant.

Plaintiffs also present the Declaration of Ronald Dodson, Ph.D., a biology professor, who has held faculty positions at a medical school and as Chief of the Dept. of Cell Biology and Experimental Pathology at a University Health Center. He cites to the World Health Organization’s International Agency for Research of Cancer (IARC), which has since 1987 considered asbestiform talc to be carcinogenic because of its similarity to asbestos. (Dodson Dec. ¶ 9.) Further, Dr. Dodson cites a study he and another person conducted that was later published in a 2020 scientific journal article in which they performed a tissue burden analysis on samples from two individuals who had been exposed to talc while working in the tile industry.

They found ferruginous bodies in the workers’ lung tissue as well as elongated talc fibers/ribbons and elevated numbers of “noncommercial amphiboles,” presumably meaning asbestiform minerals other than the six minerals designated as “asbestos” based on their common use in past industry. However, a copy of the scientific journal article is not attached as an exhibit to the Dodson Declaration. (Id. at ¶ 13.) He also cites to two articles by a Dr. Andrew Churg, who reported on studies showing that the cores of asbestos bodies found in women are more likely to consist of tremolite and anthophyllite asbestos while men are more likely to have cores that consist of amosite and crocidolite, and conjectured that the asbestos bodies in women could be attributable to use of talcum powder products, which have a history of tremolite and anthophyllite contamination. (Id. at ¶ 14.)

Dr. Dodson also declares that he has conducted tissue digestion analysis of samples from asbestos torts plaintiffs who alleged that their mesothelioma was caused by talc exposures and found particles consistent with cosmetic talc including fibrous talc, platy talc, talc ribbons, mica aluminum silicates and cummingtonite. (Id. at ¶ 15-17.) He ultimately opines that Mrs. Godina’s exposures to asbestos and asbestiform fibers in cosmetic talc is the most likely cause of her mesothelioma. (Id. at ¶ 20.)

The Court finds that there is adequate foundation for Dr. Dodson’s expert opinion.

The Court therefore finds that if a jury were to credit Plaintiffs’ experts’ testimony at trial, a jury could find that Defendant was exposed Plaintiff to respirable asbestos or asbestiform talc and that these exposures contributed to her likelihood of developing mesothelioma.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s MSJ.

ANALYSIS OF MSA

1. MSAs of Plaintiffs’ Negligence, Strict Liability and Loss of Consortium Causes of Action.

The Court summarily DENIES Defendant’s respective MSAs of Plaintiffs’ Causes of Action for Negligence, Strict Liability and Loss of Consortium. The Court has found above that Plaintiffs’ Opposition evidence is sufficient to create triable issues of material fact regarding threshold exposure.

To the extent that Defendant contends that Plaintiff has failed to present evidence showing substantial factor causation, Defendant fails to meet its initial burden of production to show that Plaintiff has no evidence to support a finding of substantial factor causation. The Moving Separate Statement does not cite to any specific discovery requests seeking all facts and identification of all witnesses and documents in support of Plaintiffs’ substantial factor causation claim.

2. MSA of Plaintiffs’ Fraud Cause of Action and Punitive Damages Claim.

Plaintiffs’ Cause of Action alleges four distinct fraud-based causes of action: (1) intentional misrepresentation; (2) fraudulent concealment; (3) conspiracy to commit intentional misrepresentation; and (4) conspiracy to commit fraudulent concealment.

“The elements of a cause of action for intentional misrepresentation are (1) a misrepresentation, (2) with knowledge of its falsity, (3) with the intent to induce another's reliance on the misrepresentation, (4) actual and justifiable reliance, and (5) resulting damage.” (Daniels v. Select Portfolio Servicing, Inc. (2016) 246 Cal.App.4th 1150, 1166.) “[A] cause of action for misrepresentation requires an affirmative statement, not an implied assertion.” (RSB Vineyards, LLC v. Orsi (2017) 15 Cal.App.5th 1089, 1092.)

"The required elements for fraudulent concealment are (1) concealment or suppression of a material fact; (2) by a defendant with a duty to disclose the fact to the plaintiff; (3) the defendant intended to defraud the plaintiff by intentionally concealing or suppressing the fact; (4) the plaintiff was unaware of the fact and would not have acted as he or she did if he or she had known of the concealed or suppressed fact; and (5) plaintiff sustained damage as a result of the concealment or suppression of the fact." (Hambrick v. Healthcare Partners Med. Grp., Inc. (2015) 238 Cal. App. 4th 124, 162.) When there is no fiduciary relationship between the parties, “a duty to disclose may arise from the relationship between seller and buyer, employer and prospective employee, doctor and patient, or parties entering into any kind of contractual

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 agreement.” (Hoffman v. 162 North Wolfe LLC (2014) 228 Cal.App.4th 1178, 1187.)

The elements of an action for civil conspiracy are: (1) formation and operation of the conspiracy; and (2) damage resulting to plaintiff; (3) resulting from a wrongful act done in furtherance of the common design. (Rusheen v. Cohen (2006) 37 Cal.4th 1048, 1062.)

To be entitled to an award of punitive damages, a plaintiff must show by clear and convincing evidence that the defendant is guilty of malice, oppression or fraud. (Cal. Civ. Code § 3294(a).) The definition of “malice” includes “despicable conduct which is carried on by the defendant with a willful and conscious disregard of the rights or safety of others.” (§ 3294(c).) “Despicable conduct” is conduct that is so vile, base, or contemptible that it would be looked down on and despised by reasonable people. (See CACI 3946.)

A finding of malice does not require an actual intent to cause harm. “Conscious disregard for the safety of another may be sufficient where the defendant is aware of the probable dangerous consequences of his or her conduct and he or she willfully fails to avoid such consequences. Malice may be proved either expressly through direct evidence or by implication through indirect evidence from which the jury draws inferences.” (Pfiefer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.App.4th 1270, 1299.)

Further, a defendant’s “prolonged failure” to take adequate measures to protect people who worked with its products against a known hazard to their health and safety may justify a conclusion that the conduct was malicious, fraudulent, or oppressive. (Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68, 86.) However, the Cal. Supreme Court has stated that by addition of the word “despicable” to Civ. Code § 3294(c), “the statute plainly indicates that absent an intent to injure the plaintiff, “malice” requires more than a “willful and conscious” disregard of the plaintiffs' interests. The additional component of ‘despicable conduct’ must be found.” (College Hospital, Inc. v. Sup.Ct. (1994) 8 Cal.4th 704, 725.)

A clear and convincing evidentiary standard applies to evidence presented by a plaintiff in opposition to a motion for summary adjudication of punitive damages claims. (Basich v. Allstate Ins. Co. (2001) 87 Cal.App.4th 1112, 1118-1119.) However, the clear and convincing evidentiary standard “does not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to ‘prove’ a case for punitive damages at summary [adjudication].” (Pacific Gas and Electric Co. v. Sup.Ct. (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158-1159.) “Summary adjudication ‘on the issue of punitive damages is proper’ only ‘when no reasonable jury could find the plaintiff’s evidence to be clear and convincing proof of malice, fraud or oppression.’ ” (Ibid.)

Further, a defendant moving for summary adjudication must still make an initial prima facie showing that no disputed issues of material fact exist such that defendant is entitled to summary adjudication as a matter of law in order to shift the burden of production to plaintiff to present

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 clear and convincing evidence of malice, oppression or fraud. (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal. 4th 826, 850.)

The Court finds Plaintiffs’ Response to SROG No. 1 factually devoid as to some elements of Plaintiffs’ fraud-based claims and Plaintiff’s punitive damages claim. The Response contains no statement of a specific affirmative misrepresentation of material fact made to anyone who reasonably relied thereon to Plaintiffs’ detriment, no particularized facts tending to show that Defendant engaged in a conspiracy with anyone, and no particularly facts tending to show that Defendant knew that any of the talcum powder products it sold were contaminated with asbestos during the 1995 to 2016 period when Plaintiffs used cosmetic talc products purchased from Defendant.

The response largely focuses on what Defendant learned about the possibility of cosmetic talc products being routinely contaminated with trace amounts of asbestos in and after 2016, the year Plaintiffs ceased using the products. These facts, even if proven at trial, have little relevance in showing that Defendant acted with malice, oppression or fraud towards Plaintiffs.

Defendant also presents evidence that Mrs. Godina lacks personal knowledge to support Plaintiffs’ fraud and punitive damages claims.

The Court finds that Defendant has met its initial burden of production and that the burden shifts to Plaintiffs to present evidence to create triable issues of material fact regarding any of its fraudbased claims or their punitive damages claim.

Plaintiffs present evidence of a 2008 MSDS sheet Defendant received from supplier Perrigo regarding Equate Athlete’s Foot Powder Spray, a product for which there is no evidence in the record Plaintiffs ever used. (Stewart Dec. Exh. 8 at Exh. 14.) The MSDS sheet implicitly states that the talc in this product is not subject to California Prop 65 labeling requirements, thereby implicitly asserting that the talc did not contain asbestos fibers. (Id. at Exh. 14 at p. 7/8.) The last page of the MSDS sheet contains a general disclaimer pursuant to which Perrigo asserts that the information provided therein is correct to the best of Perrigo’s knowledge, information and belief as of the date of publication. The disclaimer also states that the representations in the MSDS sheet should not be considered a warranty or quality specification. (Id. at Exh. 14 at p. 8/8.)

Plaintiffs also present a 2014 MSDS sheet Defendant received from supplier Vi-Jon for baby powder. The MSDS sheet expressly represents that the product contains “Talc (containing no asbestos)” and is “not classifiable as to Carcinogenicity in Humans.” (Stewart Dec. Exh. 8 at Exh. 16 at pp. 2/8 and 5/8.) However, the MSDS sheet states in Section 11. “Toxicological Information for Industrial Settings” that there is no data available for the product with respect to inhalation or ingestion. (Id. at p. 5/8.) The MSDS sheet states that the product is not subject to Prop 65 labeling requirements. This MSDS sheet contains the same general disclaimer as the 2008 Perrigo MSDS sheet and also a second disclaimer stating that Vi-Jon made no representations as to the completeness or accuracy of the MSDS sheet and that the product is

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 supplied on the express condition that customers will be required to make their own determination as to its suitability for their purposes prior to use. It further states that Vi-Jon will not be liable for damages based on reliance on the information contained therein.

Finally, the MSDS sheet provides that Vi-Jon makes no representations or warranties regarding merchantability or of any other nature and that ultimate compliance with federal, state or local regulations concerning use of the product rests solely upon the purchaser. (Id. at p. 8/8.) Defendant’s person most qualified testified at deposition in a prior action that Defendant understood that the MSDS sheets were provided to satisfy Defendant’s expectation that the product was unadulterated and safe and that Defendant relied upon the MSDS as such in accordance with the terms of Defendant’s seller agreements with these suppliers. (See Evidence in support of PAMF No. 53.)

Plaintiffs present evidence that Defendant internally discussed in May 2016 a $55 million judgment in a talcum baby powder judgment cancer action against Johnson & Johnson. (PAMF No. 52.) In 2016, Vi-Jon advised Defendant that Vi-Jon would cease to manufacture and supply talc containing products due to “consumer perception” and Defendant internally discussed Vi- Jon’s decision on 6/15/2016. (PAMF No. 60.) On 5/5/2017, Defendant internally circulated a newspaper article regarding a $37M judgment in a talc lawsuit against Johnson & Johnson (“ J & J”).

Defendant subsequently learned of other judgments against J & J and a drop in J & J’s stock price following reporting on J & J internal documents tending to show that J & J’s talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos. However, Defendant did not discuss discontinuing sale of Johnson’s baby powder. In 2019, Defendant learned that the FDA had found asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Powder. However, Defendant never conducted any testing to determine whether the talcum powder products it sold might be contaminated with asbestos. (PAMF Nos. 51-70.)

There is no evidence in the record that Plaintiffs purchased Johnson’s Baby Powder from Defendant.

Plaintiffs present evidence that Defendant was first named as a defendant in an asbestos talc action in 2016 and first sued regarding alleged asbestos contamination in Equate brand talcum powder in 2018. (PAMF No. 43.) However, Defendant continued to sell Equate powder incorporating talc as late as 2019. (Evidence in support of PAMF No. 51.) Plaintiffs present no evidence that Defendant ever made a specific affirmative misrepresentation of material fact that anyone reasonably relied on to Plaintiffs’ detriment or that Defendant engaged in a conspiracy with anyone else.

The Court finds that Plaintiffs’ Opposition evidence is insufficient to create triable issues of material fact that Defendant knew, as of the 2016 date when Plaintiffs may last have purchased a cosmetic talcum powder product from Defendant, that any of its talcum powder products were contaminated with asbestos. Defendant may have been negligent or even grossly negligent in failing to conduct its own testing of the talcum powder products it sold within a reasonable of time after it received MSDS sheets from Perrigo in 2008 and Vi-Jon in 2014 expressly

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 disclaiming the accuracy of the representations made therein; or within a reasonable time after May 2016 when it learned that a civil jury had found it more likely than not that Johnson’s baby powder was contaminated with asbestos. However, the evidence is insufficient to create a reasonable inference that Defendant knew the products its sold were contaminated with asbestos when its suppliers were unambiguously representing that the products did not contain asbestos.

Wherefore, the Court GRANTS Defendant’s MSAs of Plaintiffs’ Fraud Cause of Action and Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim.

Plaintiffs’ request for a CCP § 437c(h) continuance is DENIED AS MOOT based on Plaintiffs’ counsel’s representation at the July 16, 2026 Case Management Conference that Defendant Merck & Co. has resolved Plaintiffs’ claims in this action.

The Court SUSTAINS Plaintiff’s Opposition Objections Nos. 1-2. There is no evidence that the 2/19/2026 Kremers deposition transcript is admissible against Plaintiffs pursuant to Evid. Code §§ 1291-1292, and the portion of the transcript provided contains no foundation that Kremers has personal knowledge of facts she testified to. In fact, the Kremers Declaration shows that she does not have personal knowledge and is relying on Defendant’s business records that are not attached to her declaration. In any event, her declaration in another action is inadmissible because declarations must be case specific to be admissible in evidence. (North Beverly Park Homeowners Assn. v. Bisno (2007) 147 Cal.App.4th 762, 778-779.)

The Court SUSTAINS Defendant’s Reply Objections Nos. 41, 85 and 86 pursuant to CCP § 2030.410.

The Court summarily OVERRULES all of Defendant’s 107 other objections. The Court refers counsel to Demps v. San Francisco Housing Authority (2007) 149 Cal.App.4th 564, 578 fn 6, regarding the practice of filing "blunderbuss objections to virtually every item of evidence submitted" and whether it constitutes effective advocacy. (See also Reid v. Google, Inc. (2010) 50 Cal.4th 512, 532-533) If there are particularly pertinent pieces of evidence that are critical to the dispositive issues in this tentative decision, the Court encourages counsel to draw those discrete pieces of evidence to the Court's attention by filing focused objections at the hearing.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV161701: GODINA, et al. vs MERCK & CO., INC., SUED INDIVIDUALLY, AS ALTER-EGO OF, AND AS SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST TO SCHOLL, INC. AND SCHERING-P..., et al. 07/21/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by WALMART INC. (Defendant) CRS# 777905707572 in Department 18 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.