GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al.

25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Defendant HP Inc. CRS# 473310687418) in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/10/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment filed by HEWLETT-PACKARD COMPANY on 05/01/2026 is Granted.

I. BACKGROUND Plaintiffs Judith Sjoberg, individually and as successor-in-interest to Paul C. Goodley, deceased (“Plaintiff”), filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on December 23, 2025 following the passing of decedent Paul Goodley on November 29, 2025. The FAC alleges that decedent was exposed to asbestos fibers which caused his mesothelioma diagnosis. (FAC, ¶ 7.) Plaintiff contends that from 1965-1980, decedent worked with gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers attributable to HP, Inc. (“Defendant” or “HP”) which contained asbestos. Decedent worked for HP from 1980-1999. Plaintiff contends that decedent was exposed to asbestos when working in the vicinity of other workers who were removing, scraping, and installing asbestos-containing rope gasketing materials and asbestos-cement Marinite. (UMF No. 8.)

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s claims are barred by the Workers’ Compensation exclusivity doctrine, codified at Labor Code section 3600 et seq. In the alternative, Defendant moves for summary adjudication as to Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages.

II. Legal Standard “A party may move for summary adjudication as to one or more causes of action within an action . . . [or] one or more claims for damages . . . if the party contends that the cause of action has no merit . . . [or] that there is no merit to a claim for [punitive damages] . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(f)(1).) “A defendant . . . has met [their] burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action, even if not separately pleaded, cannot be established . . . .” (§ 437c(p)(2); see also Collin v.

CalPortland Co. (2014) 228 Cal. App. 4th 582, 587 (“A defendant moving for . . . summary adjudication need not conclusively negate an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. Instead, the defendant may show through factually devoid discovery responses that the plaintiff does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain needed evidence.”).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action . . . .

The plaintiff . . . shall not rely upon the allegations or denials of its pleadings to show that a triable issue of material fact exists but, instead, shall set forth the specific facts showing that a triable issue of material fact exists as to the cause of action . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(p)(2).) “A motion for summary adjudication shall be granted only if it completely disposes of a cause of action . . . [or] a claim for damages . . . .” (§ 437c(f)(1).) 25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Defendant HP Inc.

CRS# 473310687418) in Department 18

III. DISCUSSION

Defendant’s objections the evidence proffered by Plaintiff in support of PAMF Nos. 12 and 16 are OVERRULED.

Motion for Summary Judgment

The court grants Defendant’s MSJ.

Defendant moves for summary judgment on the grounds that Plaintiff’s alleged injuries for which Defendant is liable are preempted by the Workers’ Compensation exclusivity doctrine. The parties do not dispute that decedent worked for Defendant from at least 1980-1999. (UMF No. 5.) Defendant has sufficiently shown that decedent’s asbestos-related injury occurred in part during his 1980-1999 employment with HP. Defendant cites persuasively to McAllister v. Workmen’s Compensation Appeals Bd. (1968) 69 Cal.2d 408, which held that there was a reasonable probability that a fireman’s death from lung cancer was caused arose out of his employment, despite the fact that he had smoked cigarettes from 42 years.

Similarly, Melendrez v. Ameron Internat. Corp. (2015) 240 Cal.App.4th 632, an asbestos case, held that, for purposes of workers’ compensation exclusivity, it is sufficient to demonstrate that a substantial contributing cause of an employee’s injury arose in the course of employment. (Id. at 642.)

Plaintiff opposes the MSJ on the grounds that decedent was exposed to asbestos attributable to Defendant’s products from 1965-1980, prior to his employment with HP. While Plaintiff submits evidence in support of this contention, it is largely irrelevant so long as there is evidence that decedent was sufficiently exposed to asbestos during his HP employment to conclude that this exposure was a substantial factor in his mesothelioma diagnosis. Plaintiff’s own response to SROG 1 (HP’s “state all facts” interrogatory) states that decedent’s job duties included designing gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers, coupled to become a product in the marketplace, and that the gas chromatographs he worked with were HP-brand. (Def’s Exhibit F, at 4:22-4:25.)

Plaintiff’s response also states that decedent “worked with laboratory ovens at HP every day the same as he did before. Paul worked with GCs every day and MS’s every day in substantially the same manner as he described previously.” (Id. at 5:1-5:3.) Previously in her response to SROG 1, Plaintiff stated that decedent “regularly opened the ‘oven’ portion of the gas chromatograph in order to change the columns in the chromatograph and in order to vent the heat out of the chromatograph to return it to ambient temperature.

Plaintiff contends that as a result of this work, [decedent] was exposed to asbestos.” (Id. at 2:4-2:9.) Plaintiff also states that decedent “worked in close proximity to others as they maintained and repaired gas chromatographs manufactured by Hewlett-Packard as they removed, scraped, cut, and installed asbestoscontaining parts and materials including, but not limited to, asbestos-cement Marinite board and asbestos-containing rope gasketing material which Plaintiff contends was manufactured and marketed by Hewlett-Packard for use in its gas chromatographs.” (Id. at 2:10-2:15.)

Plaintiff

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV145867: GOODLEY vs AECOM, et al. 08/11/2026 Hearing on Motion of Summary Judgment/Adjudication Defendant HP Inc. CRS# 473310687418) in Department 18 also described decedent’s work with gas chromatographs and mass spectrometers as involving gaskets which would periodically break down, which the oven fan would “blow particles out” when changing them, which decedent needed to do from time to time. (Id. at 3:13-3:17.) Plaintiff described the mass spectrometers has having heating components with “lots of insulation on all of them” and “wrapped with insulating material and much of it was asbestos tape.” (Id. at 4:2-4:4.)

Plaintiff’s contention in opposition that Defendant did not supply evidence that decedent’s work while employed at HP involved asbestos is unpersuasive in light of the myriad specific facts described in SROG 1 and Plaintiff’s own contention that decedent “worked with GCs every day and MS’s every day in substantially the same manner as described previously.” (Id. at 5:1-5:3.) Thus, the court finds that Defendant has established that decedent’s exposure to asbestos while employed with HP was a sufficient factor in his mesothelioma diagnosis that workers’ compensation exclusivity applies. On that basis, Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.

IV. Order Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED. Defendant’s alternative motion for summary adjudication is DENIED AS MOOT.

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.