REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al.

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NUGGET MARKET, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 306898693649 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/24/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Judgment/Adjudication filed by NUGGET MARKET, INC. on 07/01/2026 is Denied.

I.

Background

Kevin M. Reikes and Tina L. Reikes (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on December 5, 2025 bringing claims against Defendant Nugget Market, Inc. (“Defendant”), among others, alleging that Mr. Reikes was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powders including products retailed by Defendant – in particular, Johnson & Johnson brand baby powder, among other exposures.

Plaintiffs identify Johnson’s Baby Powder (“JBP”) and Gold Bond as the products Mr. Reikes personally used beginning around 1976 or 1977. (UMF Nos. 8, 10.) Mr. Reikes testified that he used JBP until he was diagnosed with mesothelioma in 2025. (UMF No. 11.) Mr. Reikes recalled purchasing JBP from Defendant’s stores beginning around 2003 or 2004. (UMF No. 14.) His main recollection was that he purchased travel-sized bottles of JBP at Defendant’s stores. (UMF No. 15.) Mr. Reikes recalled shopping at Nugget stores in Davis and Woodland California. (UMF No. 18.) Mr. Reikes referred to himself and his wife as “habitual Nugget shoppers.” (Plf response to UMF No. 20.)

In its MSJ, Defendant argues that Plaintiff’s responses showed that Plaintiff lacked evidence that Mr. Reikes was exposed to asbestos-containing talcum powder products purchased at Nugget stores. Defendant also argues that Plaintiff’s discovery responses showed that Plaintiffs lacked evidence that any asbestos-containing powder products purchased from Nugget were a substantial factor in causing Mr. Reikes’s injury.

Defendant moves for summary judgment or, alternatively, summary adjudication of the causes of action for strict products liability and negligence.

II. Legal Standard “A party may move for summary judgment in an action or proceeding if it is contended that the action has no merit . . . .” (Cal. Civ. Proc. Code § 437c(a)(1).) “A defendant . . . has met that party’s 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 25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NUGGET MARKET, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 306898693649 in Department 18 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).) “The motion for summary judgment shall be granted if all the papers submitted show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to a judgment as a matter of law.” (§ 437c(c).) “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).)

III.

Discussion

Defendant’s reply objections are OVERRULED.

The court denies Defendant’s MSJ.

A. Motion for Summary Judgment “In the context of a cause of action for asbestos-related latent injuries, the plaintiff must first establish some threshold exposure to the defendant’s defective asbestos-containing products, and must further establish in reasonable medical probability that a particular exposure or series of exposures was a ‘legal cause’ of his injury, i.e., a substantial factor in bringing about the injury.” (Rutherford v. Owens-Illinois, Inc. (1997) 16 Cal. 4th 953, 982–83.)

The Court DENIES the MSJ.

Threshold Exposure

Defendant seeks to meet its burden of production by pointing to Plaintiffs’ purportedly factually devoid responses to Defendant’s comprehensive discovery requests. The court finds that the special interrogatories (SROGS) propounded on Plaintiffs are sufficiently comprehensive in that they request all evidence pertaining to Defendant’s alleged liability and Mr. Reikes’s exposure to talc products purchased at Defendant’s stores. Plaintiffs’ response to Special Interrogatory No. 1 refers to Mr. Reikes’s deposition testimony to contend that he was exposed to asbestos through his use of Gold Bond talc powder from 2021-2025. (Def’s Exhibit 11, at 2:27-3:11.) However, Plaintiffs state that their opposition is based on Mr. Reikes’s alleged exposure to JBP, not Gold

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NUGGET MARKET, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 306898693649 in Department 18 Bond. Plaintiffs’ responses to SROG 1 do not otherwise state facts as to threshold exposure to products purchased at Nugget markets. Mr. Reikes’s deposition testimony establishes that he “tended to buy [JBP] from Nugget because there was a location down the street from where he played golf. (Iola Decl., Exhibit 1 at 67:6-67:15; 182:18-183:2.)

He identified the Mace location, Covell location, and Woodland location on Main Street. (Id. at 245:18-245:23.) Mrs. Reikes testified that she recalled purchasing larger bottles of JBP, which Mr. Reikes sometimes used. (Iola Decl., Exh. 2 at 45:3-45:8.) She also recalled purchasing JBP at Nugget market or Safeway. (Id. at 46:13-46:21.) Mrs. Reikes referred to herself and her husband as “habitual Nugget shoppers.” (Id. at 115:24-115:25.) Mrs. Reikes also testified that she has been shopping at Nugget stores for 20 years and continues to shop there now. (Id. at 119:19-120:2.)

The court finds that Plaintiffs’ deposition testimony is therefore not factually devoid as to whether Mr. Reikes was exposed to JBP products purchased at Defendant stores. However, while Plaintiffs’ response to SROG No. 1 offers a lengthy narrative regarding Defendant’s purported knowledge of the dangers of asbestos-containing talc products, the narrative is largely conclusory. In addition, none of Plaintiffs’ discovery responses or deposition testimony tends to establish that any of the JBP products purchased at Nugget stores contained asbestos.

Thus, the court finds Plaintiffs’ responses to discovery factually devoid as to whether Mr. Reikes was exposed to asbestos-containing products for which Defendant is liable, shifting the burden to Plaintiffs to set forth affirmative evidence sufficient to establish a triable issue of fact as to threshold exposure.

Plaintiffs submit the Declaration of R. Mark Bailey, geologist, an expert on asbestos-related geological and mineralogical issues. Mr. Bailey’s declaration sets forth his knowledge and study of talc mines around the world and that talc tends to form alongside tremolite, actinolite, anthophyllite, and chrysotile asbestos minerals. (PAMF Nos. 10, 11.) Mr. Bailey opines that, to a reasonable degree of scientific certainty, neither selective mining nor talc processing can keep asbestos out of processed talc. (PAMF No. 12.)

He also opines that, if an ore mine supplying talc for consumer products consistently contains asbestos, the finished talc product will as well. (PAMF No. 15.) Previous Johnson & Johnson representatives have stated that the talc for their products mostly came from the Hammondsville, Argonaut, Rainbow, and Hamm mines in Vermont from 1966-2003, mines in Guangxi China from 2003-2009, and a mine in Zhizhua from 2009 to the present. (PAMF No. 16.) Dr. Bailey opines that Johnson & Johnson products sourced from the Vermont and Guangxi mines either consistently or more likely than not contained asbestos. (PAMF No. 22.)

Plaintiffs also submit the Declaration of Steven A. Haber M.D., F.A.C.P., F.C.C.P. Mr. Haber observes that consumer talcum products are used in a manner that creates respirable dust in the vicinity of a user, and that visible dust from asbestos-containing products contains large quantities of asbestos fibers, which then travel to a user’s peritoneum, where they can cause mesothelioma. (PAMF Nos. 29, 30.) Dr. Haber ultimately opines that, to a reasonable degree of medical certainty, Mr. Reikes’s cumulative exposures from use of talcum powder products caused his mesothelioma. (UMF NO. 34.)

The court finds that Plaintiffs’ affirmative evidence is sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

25CV157993: REIKES, et al. vs BLOCK DRUG COMPANY, INC., et al. 08/25/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Judgment filed by NUGGET MARKET, INC. (Defendant) CRS# 306898693649 in Department 18 to whether Mr. Reikes was exposed to asbestos-containing products purchased at Defendant’s stores, warranting denial of Defendant’s MSJ.

MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Because Defendant’s MSA as to strict products liability and Plaintiffs’ negligence claim are based on the threshold exposure argument analyzed above, the MSA is DENIED as to these causes of action. Defendant’s MSA as to Plaintiffs’ loss of consortium claim is also DENIED, as loss of consortium is derivative of these claims.

With respect to Defendant’s MSA as to Plaintiffs’ negligent failure to warn, this claim is included as a theory of liability within Plaintiffs’ second cause of action for negligence. Because MSA is denied as to the claim on the grounds of threshold exposure, the court need not determine whether the specific theory of failure to warn is viable at this stage.

IV. Orders The motion for summary judgment is DENIED. The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

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.