MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al.

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Personal jurisdiction; filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) CRS# 797150723050 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 07/24/2026 Patrick McKinney

This Tentative Ruling addresses the respective Motions to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction brought by each of specially appearing defendants Mineral Technologies Inc.’s (“MTI”) and Specialty Minerals Inc. (“SMI”) (MTI and SMI are collectively “Defendants”)

Defendants’ respective Motions to Quash Service of Summons for Lack of Personal Jurisdiction (“Motion to Quash”) are DENIED.

Defendants’ Motions to Quash are the most recent of several similar Motions to Quash brought by Defendants in prior asbestos torts actions. (See Stewart Dec. Exhs. 14-17. The Court incorporates by reference herein Stewart Dec. Exhs. 14, 16 and 17. See also the Court’s 7/2/2026 Order in Bene v. Chattem, Inc., Alameda Sup.Ct. Case No. 25CV162527 and the Court’s 7/9/2026 Order in Farahmand v. Chanel, Inc., Alameda Sup.Ct. Case No. 25CV162159.)

Because much of the evidence presented by Defendant in the moving papers and by Plaintiffs in Opposition has been addressed by Exhs. 14, 16 and 17 to the Stewart Declaration, the Court will limit its summary of this evidence to the following.

In the moving papers Defendants assert that they are both Delaware corporations with principal place of business in New York State. Plaintiffs in Opposition do not contest these facts.

Defendants assert that SMI is a wholly owned subsidiary of MTI, and Barretts Minerals Inc. (“Barretts” or “BMI”) is a wholly owned subsidiary of SMI and thus an indirect subsidiary of MTI. Plaintiffs in Opposition present no evidence, nor do they allege, that either SMI or MTI was ever in the chain of production of the cosmetic talcum powders that Barretts mined in China and Montana and then sold to defendant PTI Union, who blended Gold Bond cosmetic talcum powder (“talc”) products, and to defendant Vi-Jon, who manufactured various store brand talcum powders including Walmart’s Equate, with respect to which Plaintiffs in Opposition present evidence that Mrs. Menor used most frequently in California during the 1999 to 2017 period when Vi-Jon contract manufactured this product using Barretts talcs. (Stewart Dec. Exh. 1.)

Instead, the only involvement Defendants are alleged to have had with respect to Barretts’ cosmetic talcs was testing by a division of SMI known as Analytical Services Group and also the production of material safety data sheets (“MSDS”), which were apparently distributed by Barretts to purchasers of Barretts talcs, but which bear parent corporation MTI’s logo and some of which state they were prepared by the “MTI Environmental, Health and Safety Services Department.” Defendants assert that the relevant testing occurred solely in Pennsylvania and that the test results from testing of Barretts’ talcs was transmitted by Defendants only to Barretts principal offices in Montana. Plaintiffs in Opposition present no evidence that such testing ever 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Personal jurisdiction; filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) CRS# 797150723050 in Department 18 occurred in California or that anyone in California was ever provided with Defendants’ reports regarding that testing.

The examples of Barretts’ MSDS provided in the Stewart Declaration at Exh. 6 show that Barretts’ talcs incorporated into products sold in California required a California Prop 65 warning because talc is a “chemical” known to be carcinogenic and/or to cause developmental toxicity and/or reproductive toxicity, without regard to whether any such talc is or is not contaminated with trace amounts of asbestos. MSDS dated 8/14/2007, 8/20/2008, 7/9/2009 and 9/11/2012 expressly state at Section 8(b) that dust from the talc is “containing no asbestos.” A Talc Safety Data Sheet (“TSDS”), apparently also prepared by MTI or SMI dated 4/13/2015 does not reference asbestos, but a TSDS dated 5/9/2016 implicitly suggests at Section 11.1 that Barretts talcs are “talc not containing asbestos or asbestiform fibers.” (Stewart Dec. Exh. 6.)

Defendants present evidence that Barretts is not a party to this action because Barretts is presently under bankruptcy court protection. Further, that bankruptcy court entered an Order, currently still in effect, that stayed all actions

“that in any way relate to or arise out of the talc mined, beneficiated, processed, or sold by BMI as against Minerals Technologies Inc. ("MTI"), Specialty Minerals Inc. ("SMI"), and any other non-debtor subsidiaries of MTI [but that claims] against MTI and SMI seeking recovery from MTI and/or SMI solely on account of such entity's purported actions in connection with any alleged inadequacy of testing of talc mined, beneficiated, and/or sold by BMI (a "Testing Claim") is not be stayed at this time.” (Gage Dec. Exh. 5.)

Thus, Plaintiffs’ claims in this action are solely against Defendants based on allegations that Defendants negligently tested Barretts’ talcs for asbestos contamination and actions taken by Defendants in connection with that testing. Plaintiffs have not and may not assert any claims against Defendants regarding Barretts’ mining, milling, selling or distributing its talcs, while Barretts’ bankruptcy proceedings are pending.

Plaintiffs present evidence that defendant Vi-Jon’s person most qualified testified at deposition in a prior action that Vi-Jon relied on the representations that MTI and/or SMI made in the MSDS and TSDS and that Vi-Jon has produced in a prior action the MSDS and TSDS attached as Exhibit 5 to the Stewart Declaration. (Stewart Dec. Exh. 5.)

The Prop 65 warnings referenced in the MSDS/TSDS evidence Defendants’ understanding that products incorporating Barretts talcs would be sold nationally including specifically in California and support a finding that Defendants intended Barretts talcs to be incorporated into products sold in California by providing the Prop 65 warnings related to talc as a carcinogen or hazardous substance under California law that Defendants asserted would be necessary to sell the purchaser’s products incorporating Barretts talcs in California. Barretts was required to provide its customers with MSDS and TSDS pursuant to 29 C.F.R. § 1910.1200, and production of the MSDS and TSDS was a service Defendants provided to Barretts, inferentially in connection with

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Personal jurisdiction; filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) CRS# 797150723050 in Department 18 SMI’s testing of Barretts talcs. As stated above, Barretts talcs purchaser Vi-Jon testified that it relied upon the representations contained in the MSDS and TSDS in choosing to purchase Barretts talcs for incorporation into Vi-Jon’s products. The MSDS and TSDS indicate an intent by Defendants and Barretts to market, sell and distribute Barretts talcs nationally, including in California, or at least sell Barretts talcs to customers who they knew and intended would distribute Barretts talc-containing products into California.

Although Barretts may have been responsible for distributing the MSDS/TSDS, the MSDS/TSDS on their face indicate that Defendants were the ones making the representations contained therein to Barretts’ customers.

Defendants present new evidence in the form of a Declaration of Kyle Ledbetter, MTI’s Environmental, Health & Safety Director. He declares as follows:

“The MSDSs for BMI talc did not target California or any particular jurisdiction. Rather, the MSDSs for BMI talc were drafted to apply to every jurisdiction in the United States. The MSDS typically accompanies the delivery of the product at issue-here, BMI talc-and the form of the MSDS is the same regardless of the State to which the talc is delivered.

“Section 15 of the MSDSs for BMI talc summarized the federal and state regulations that governed BMI talc and its components. Although the MSDSs for BMI talc reference California's Proposition 65, they also identify seven states that regulate either talc or quartz as a hazardous substance.” (Ledbetter Dec. ¶¶ 2, 4.)

The admission that the MSDS were drafted to apply to every jurisdiction in the United States necessarily includes California. The fact that the MSDS include warning information required by seven other states in addition to California’s Prop 65 requirements supports a finding only that Defendants intended Barretts talcs to be sold in at least eight states including California or to be sold to customers that would sell their own products incorporating Barretts talcs in those eight states.

In sum, the Ledbetter Declaration supports a finding that Defendants intended Barretts talcs or the products that incorporated Barretts talcs to be distributed throughout the United States, including intro California.

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs’ Complaint does not adequately allege Defendants’ production of the MSDS/TSDS in addition to the testing conducted by SMI in Pennsylvania. However, the Court finds that p. 8:7-17 and 103:13-25 of the First Amended Complaint adequately alleges for pleading purposes that Defendants rendered services to Barretts that included both the testing and also the production of the MSDS/TSDS containing representations regarding the results of the testing SMI conducted. The Bankruptcy Court’s relevant Orders exclude from the bankruptcy stay allegations against Defendants of “actions in connection with any alleged inadequacy of testing of talc,” which is broader than solely the testing. This Court finds that production of the MSDS/TSDS were actions by Defendants in connection with any alleged inadequacy of testing

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Personal jurisdiction; filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) CRS# 797150723050 in Department 18 of talc.

Defendants sought a writ on this Court’s Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Quash in the Maricich Action, which the Court of Appeal denied. (Stewart Dec. Exh. 15.) Defendants present no evidence that they have sought and received clarification or a further order from the Bankruptcy Court addressing the specific claims in Defendants’ Motion to Quash in the Maricich Action (and in the present action) in spite of the fact that Defendants have had sufficient time to do so since this Court entered its 8/19/2025 Order denying Defendants’ Motion to Quash in the Maricich Action. (Stewart Dec. Exh. 14.)

The Court finds that Plaintiffs have presented prima facie evidence of the facts necessary to establish this Court’s specific personal jurisdiction. There is prima facie evidence that Defendants and Barretts enabled Barretts to distribute its talcs or products incorporating Barretts talcs into every jurisdiction in the United States, including California, and that Defendants made representations about that testing that contributed to the at-issue products reaching California, where Plaintiffs allege the at-issue products injured them and their Decedent.

At this stage of the proceedings, Plaintiffs need not present evidence that Barretts talcs were contaminated with trace amounts of asbestos or that Defendants knew or should have known this fact at the time they made representations in the MSDS/TSDS that Barretts talcs contained no asbestos, because Plaintiffs need not prove these basic allegations of their Complaint at this stage of the proceedings. (Bader v. Avon Products, Inc. (2020) 55 Cal.App.5th 186, 198.)

Wherefore, the Court DENIES Defendant’s Motion to Quash.

The Court also notes that the parties and the Court would be better served by the filing of joint evidentiary submissions where more than one motion has been filed concurrently relying on the same or overwhelmingly the same evidence. It was difficult and time-consuming for the Court to review the number and volume of the documents submitted on these motions, and the Court did not receive complete paper courtesy copies of all of the moving papers on the two Motions to Quash, as required by Local Rule 3.30(c).

The Court advises defense counsel to read Weil & Brown, Rutter Guide: Cal. Civ. Proc. before Trial, § 9:64:12 (2026 Ed.) The Court notes that it is unable to fit 37 lines per 11” by 8.5” page using 1.5 spacing in Word using the font styles and size authorized by CRC Rules 2.104 and 2.105.

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

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 07/28/2026 Hearing on Motion to Quash Personal jurisdiction; filed by MINERALS TECHNOLOGIES INC. (Defendant) CRS# 797150723050 in Department 18 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.