Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV11602, Date: 2023-10-18 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV11602    Hearing Date: January 9, 2024    Dept: 68

Wendy Viridiana Solano-Claustro, et al. vs. ADB Global Trade, LLC, et al.; 23STCV11602

MOVING PARTY: Defendant Dal-Tile Distribution, Inc.

RESPONDING PARTIES: Plaintiffs Wendy Viridiana Solano-Claustro, et al.

Motion to Strike

I. BACKGROUND

            Plaintiffs are the family members of Decedent Jose Raul Garcia-Leon (Decedent). Plaintiffs have alleged that Defendant Dal-Tile Distribution (Defendant) and the other Defendants in this case are fabricators of “toxic” stone products that the Decedent worked with throughout his career in the construction industry from 1996 to 2022. Plaintiffs allege that the Decedent developed silicosis and other injuries from which he died on February 16, 2023, and that the silicosis was a result of working with the stone products.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Motion to Strike

Defendant has moved for the Court to strike the statement on Page 21, line 25 of Plaintiffs’ complaint, which says “And other stone products to be identified during the course of discovery.”

Defendant argues that this statement is not pled in accordance with Bockrath v. Adlrich Chemical Company, Inc. (1999) 21 Cal.4th 71. That case requires plaintiffs in toxic injury cases to plead specific facts regarding causation of the injuries because of “complicated and possibly esoteric medical causation issues.” (Id. at 79.) Defendant argues that Bockrath requires plaintiffs to plead each product that allegedly caused the injury. (Id. at 80.) Bockrath states that “the law cannot tolerate lawsuits by prospecting plaintiffs who sue multiple defendants on speculation that their products may have caused harm over time through exposure to toxins in them, and who thereafter try to learn through discovery whether their speculation is well founded." (Id.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have undermined the requirements of Bockrath and should be required to specifically identify the product(s) at issue for each defendant in the case.

In their opposition, Plaintiffs point to a section of Bockrath which state that “[i]n conformity with the rule that a complaint in a personal injury case is a statement of the facts constituting the cause of action in ordinary and concise language, plaintiffs may, and should, allege the…facts succinctly, and may do so in a conclusory fashion if their knowledge of the precise cause of injury is limited.” (Id. at 80.) Also, the Bockrath court held that “[i]f the plaintiff does not believe the requisite evidence exists, but does actually believe that it is likely to be discovered later, ‘after a reasonable opportunity for further investigation or discovery’ (Code Civ. Proc., § 128.7, subd. (b)(3)), the complaint must so state.” (Id. at 82.)

Preceding the line “And other stone products to be identified during the course of discovery,” Plaintiffs’ complaint lists several products which Defendant manufactures and which Decedent was exposed to during his work, including concrete, granite, limestone, marble, etc. (FAC, p. 21, lines 3-23.) Those are the products which Plaintiffs know that Defendant manufactures and to which Decedent was exposed. By adding “And other stone products to be identified during the course of discovery,” Plaintiffs are allowing for the possibility that Defendant may manufacture more stone products beyond those that Plaintiffs are aware of and/or Decedent may have been exposed to more stone products than those which Plaintiffs currently know about.

This statement appears to be written in conformity with Bockrath. Plaintiffs have identified specific stone products that Defendant manufactures. They were not using “And other stone products” as a catch-all phrase for Defendant’s products. They are using it as Bockrath intended, which is to indicate that further stone products may be discovered later.

The Court denies Defendant’s motion to strike.

III. ORDER

1.    Defendant’s motion to strike is DENIED.