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

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 559001108075 in Department 18

Tentative Ruling - 08/31/2026 Patrick McKinney

The Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR, JOVY MENOR on 06/18/2026 is Granted.

I.

Background

Jovy Menor and Bernard Menor (“Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint on January 2, 2026 bringing claims against Defendant Calvin Klein Cosmetics Corporation (“CK” or “Defendant”), among others, alleging that Ms. Menor was diagnosed with mesothelioma caused by exposure to asbestos-containing talcum powders including products manufactured and marketed by Defendant, among other exposures. Defendant initially appeared on February 25, 2026. Plaintiffs filed a First Amended Complaint (“FAC”) on May 5, 2026. Defendant filed an answer to the FAC on June 9, which included forty-two (42) affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs initially moved for summary adjudication as to all of Defendant’s affirmative defenses. In reply, Plaintiffs represent that they seek summary adjudication as to twelve of Defendant’s affirmative defenses, specifically Defendant’s second (statute of limitations), third (laches), thirteenth (employer negligence), seventeenth (employer and union sophistication), eighteenth (sophisticated user), twenty-first (conformity with scientific and medical knowledge), twenty-second (no knowledge, not knowable), twenty-third (conformity with statutes and regulations), twenty-sixth (government specifications), twenty-ninth (failure to mitigate damages), thirty-fourth (res judicata), and fortieth (another action pending).

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 26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 559001108075 in Department 18 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).)

When a plaintiff moves for summary adjudication on an affirmative defense, the court shall grant the motion “only if it completely disposes” of the defense. (CCP § 437c(f)(1).) The plaintiff bears the initial burden to show there is no triable issue of material fact as to the defense and that he or she is entitled to judgment on the defense as a matter of law. In so doing, the plaintiff must negate an essential element of the defense or establish the defendant does not possess and cannot reasonably obtain evidence needed to support the defense. (See’s Candy Shops, Inc. v. Superior Court (2012) 210 Cal.App.4th 889, 900.)

“Under general rules of civil procedure, an answer must contain the general or specific denial of the material allegations of the complaint controverted by the defendant and a statement of any new matter constituting a defense. The phrase ‘new matter’ refers to something relied on by a defendant which is not put in issue by the plaintiff. Thus, where matters are not responsive to essential allegations of the complaint, they must be raised in the answer as ‘new matter.’”

“Such ‘new matter’ is also known as ‘an affirmative defense.’ Affirmative defenses must not be pled as terse legal conclusions, but rather as facts averred as carefully and with as much detail as the facts which constitute the cause of action and are alleged in the complaint. A party who fails to plead affirmative defenses waives them.” (Quantum Settlement Agreement Cases (2011) 201 Cal.App.4th 758, 812, 813 [internal citations omitted]; Dept. of Finance v. City of Merced (2019) 33 Cal.App.5th 286, 294.)

III.

Discussion

Based on Plaintiffs’ representation in reply that it only seeks summary adjudication of the twelve affirmative defenses identified above, the court DENIES Plaintiffs’ motion as to the remaining affirmative defenses.

Plaintiffs move for summary adjudication as to the following affirmative defenses on the grounds that Defendant’s responses to comprehensive discovery seeking all evidence supporting these defenses are “factually devoid.” Defendant contends in opposition that Plaintiffs’ motion must be denied, at least in part, because discovery remained open at the time Plaintiffs filed this motion and Plaintiffs’ reliance on the allegation that Defendant’s initial discovery responses were “factually devoid” is insufficient to shift the burden of production. Defendant’s contention has merit to the extent that it can submit affirmative evidence with its opposition, but the court notes that trial in this preference matter is imminent, Defendant has had the opportunity to supplement or amend its discovery responses to assert additional facts, and ruling on Plaintiffs’ motion at this stage is warranted to narrow the issues for trial.

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 559001108075 in Department 18

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED; as described below, Defendant’s responses to discovery offer only conclusory contentions, no facts in support of the affirmative defenses, and do not describe the facts Defendant expects to ascertain through ongoing fact and expert discovery.

1. Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense – Statute of Limitations

Defendant’s responsive separate statement refers to its responses to Form Interrogatory (“FROG”) No. 15.1 and Request for Production No. 22, which sought all facts and documents pertaining to their affirmative defenses. The response to FROG 15.1 contains only conclusory contentions and no affirmative facts tending to support an affirmative defense that Plaintiffs’ claims are barred by any applicable statute of limitations. The response to FROG 15.1 only states that discovery is ongoing and further discovery may reveal such facts. This response is thus factually devoid, shifting the burden to Defendant to submit affirmative facts sufficient to create a triable issue of fact. Similarly, Plaintiffs contend that Defendant produced no documents as to this affirmative defense in response to RFPD No. 22, and Defendant does not meaningfully dispute this contention.

Defendant’s affirmative separate statement in opposition similarly refers only to the possibility that facts supporting this cause of action may be revealed in the course of fact and/or expert discovery. The only potentially relevant material fact asserted by Defendant is that Plaintiffs’ purported smoking history may establish comparative negligence or assumption of the risk. This does not create a triable issue of fact as to whether a statute of limitations defense may apply.

Plaintiffs’ MSA is therefore GRANTED as to Defendant’s Second Affirmative Defense.

2. Defendant’s Third Affirmative Defense – Laches

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense.

Defendant’s laches affirmative defense relies on the same discovery responses and material facts and thus suffers from the same fatal flaws as its statute of limitations defense; namely, neither its discovery responses nor the evidence submitted in opposition put forth any evidence sufficient to create a triable issue of fact as to this affirmative defense.

3. Defendant’s Thirteenth Affirmative Defense – Employer Negligence

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 559001108075 in Department 18 not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

4. Defendant’s Seventeenth Affirmative Defense – Employer and Union Sophistication

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

5. Defendant’s Eighteenth Affirmative Defense – Sophisticated User

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

6. Defendant’s Twenty-First Affirmative Defense – Conformity with Scientific and Medical Knowledge/State of the Art

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

7. Defendant’s Twenty-Second Affirmative Defense – No Knowledge/Not Knowable

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

8. Defendant’s Twenty-Third Affirmative Defense – Compliance with Statutes and Regulations

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 559001108075 in Department 18 defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

9. Defendant’s Twenty-Sixth Affirmative Defense – Government Specifications

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

10. Defendant’s Twenty-Ninth Affirmative Defense – Failure to Mitigate Damages

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

11. Defendant’s Thirty-Fourth Affirmative Defense – Res Judicata

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

12. Defendant’s Fortieth Affirmative Defense – Another Action Pending

Plaintiffs’ MSA is GRANTED as to this affirmative defense. Defendant’s discovery responses are again factually devoid in that they do not allege any facts supporting this affirmative defense. Defendant’s evidence in opposition merely states that discovery is ongoing, but does not attempt to describe any evidence Defendant expects to obtain from ongoing discovery that may be germane to this affirmative defense.

IV. Orders The motion for summary adjudication is GRANTED IN FULL. The affirmative defenses addressed in this order and Plaintiffs’ reply are DISMISSED from this action. Affirmative

SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA COUNTY OF ALAMEDA

26CV162809: MENOR, et al. vs CHANEL, INC., et al. 09/01/2026 Hearing on Motion for Summary Adjudication filed by BERNARD MENOR (Plaintiff) + CRS# 559001108075 in Department 18 defenses not addressed in this order are unaffected.

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.