Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 19STCV46925, Date: 2022-12-23 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV46925    Hearing Date: December 23, 2022    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

            Defendant Laguna Clay Co., individually and as successor in interest to Westwood Ceramics Supply Co. (“Defendant”) filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs Michele Hoff, Daniel Couch, Michael Marotta, and Nicole McNiel cannot show Jacqueline Marotta (“Decedent”) was exposed to a product from Defendant containing asbestos or that Laguna Clay assumed liabilities of Westwood Ceramics.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

            Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendant’s products exposed Decedent to asbestos.  Plaintiffs responded that from 1975 through 1978 Decedent and her husband owned ceramic businesses and purchased clay from Westwood Ceramics until late 1977 or early 1978; Laguna Clay purchased Westwood Ceramics; and Laguna Clay assumed all liabilities with respect to persona injuries occurring on or after the closing.  (Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 16, 17; Ex. L at pp. 3, 2, 5, 6.)  Decedent testified she never heard of Laguna Clay or Westwood Ceramics and did not work around products from Laguna Clay or Westwood Ceramics.  (UMF 27, 28; Ex. N at pp. 339-341.)  None of the family members knows whether Decedent used products from Laguna Clay or Westwood Ceramics.  (UMF 24, 36, 39, 43.)  Defendant submits evidence that Laguna Clay Co. was incorporated in 1979 and assumed Westwood Ceramic’s liabilities only for personal injuries occurring on or after the closing in 1991.  (UMF 19, 20, 45, 47; Ex. G at p. 4.) 

This evidence establishes Plaintiffs do not have and cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Laguna Clay or Westwood Ceramics.  And even if Plaintiffs could show Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Westwood Ceramics’ products, Laguna Clay did not assume those liabilities when it later purchased Westwood Ceramics.  This evidence is sufficient to shift the burden to Plaintiffs.  Because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of any disputed issue of material fact.

            Therefore, Defendant Laguna Clay Co.’s motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

            The moving party is to give notice.