Judge Laura A. Seigle, Case 20STCV13372 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 20STCV13372, Date: 2023-01-13 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV13372 Hearing Date: January 13, 2023 Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION

Defendant 3M Company moves for summary adjudication of Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim. Defendant argues Plaintiffs do not have clear and convincing evidence of oppression, fraud or malice by an officer, director, or managing agent of Defendant.

A. Objections

Defendant’s Objections

Nos. 1, 2, 3: The court did not rely on this evidence.

B. Summary Adjudication

A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.” (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.) To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.” (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.) “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action. The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence – as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.” (Id. at p. 855.) A plaintiff’s deposition testimony that the plaintiff has no knowledge of any exposure to the defendant’s products may be sufficient to shift the burden to the plaintiff to demonstrate the existence of triable issues of fact. (McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Co., Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th 1098, 1103-1104.) The plaintiff’s deposition testimony that he did not recall ever working with a product manufactured by the defendant may not be sufficient to shift the burden if the plaintiff is able to prove his case by another means. (Weber v. John Crane, Inc. (2006) 143 Cal.App.4th 1433, 1439.) “ ‘If plaintiffs respond to comprehensive interrogatories seeking all known facts with boilerplate answers that restate their allegations, or simply provide laundry lists of people and/or documents, the burden of production will almost certainly be shifted to them once defendants move for summary judgment and properly present plaintiff’s factually devoid discovery responses.’” (Id. at p. 1440.)

When the motion targets a request for punitive damages, a higher standard of proof is at play. “Although the clear and convincing evidentiary standard is a stringent one, ‘it does not impose on a plaintiff the obligation to “prove” a case for punitive damages at summary judgment [or summary adjudication.’ [Citations.] Even so, ‘where the plaintiff’s ultimate burden of proof will be by clear and convincing evidence, the higher standard of proof must be taken into account in ruling on a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication, since if a plaintiff is to prevail on a claim for punitive damages, it will be necessary that the evidence presented meet the higher evidentiary standard.’ [Citation.]” (Butte Fire Cases (2018) 24 Cal.App.5th 1150, 1158-1159.) “Summary judgment or summary adjudication ‘ “ ‘on the issue of punitive damages is proper’ only ‘when no reasonable jury could find the plaintiff’s evidence to be clear and convincing proof of malice, fraud or oppression.’ ” ’. [Citation.]” (Id. at p. 1159.)

“ ‘[I]ntentionally marketing a defective product knowing that it might cause injury and death is ‘highly reprehensible.’ [Citation.]” (Bankhead v. ArvinMeritor, Inc. (2012) 205 Cal.App.4th 68, 85.) Punitive damages may be available when a defendant knows the dangers of asbestos, took action to protect its own employees from the hazard, knew that its products were likely to pose a danger to users, and did not warn them. (Pfeifer v. John Crane, Inc. (2013) 220 Cal.Ap.4th 1270, 1300.) Such evidence “was sufficient to show malice, that is, despicable conduct coupled with conscious disregard for the safety of others.” (Id. at pp. 1300-1301.) On the other hand, a defendant’s knowledge of trace amounts of asbestos in talc does not necessarily mean that the defendant knew the asbestos in talc “would cause a high probability of injury.” (McNeal v. Whittaker, Clark & Daniels, Inc. (2022) 80 Cal.App.5th 853, 873.) There must be evidence of knowledge that exposure to talcum powder would cause mesothelioma. (Id. at p. 874.)

Defendant points to Plaintiffs’ responses to special interrogatories asking for all facts and evidence and all witnesses supporting Plaintiffs’ punitive damages claim against Defendant. (Motion at p. 2; Undisputed Material Fact “UMF” 11, 12.) In response, Plaintiffs stated Ernest Cornejo used respiratory protection when doing projects around the house, there were 3M products in his garage, the respirators did not work properly, Defendant represented to the general public that 3M masks would protect Ernest Cornejo from asbestos but those representations were false, and Defendant knew its products failed to protect from asbestos. (Index, Ex. I at pp. 2-3.) In the interrogatory response, Plaintiffs cited to deposition testimony that 3M knew its masks were being misused with asbestos but did not provide a warning. (Id. at p. 5.) Defendant also points to Plaintiffs’ testimony that they saw Ernest Cornejo wear masks while working round the house and the masks looked similar to 3M masks. (Motion at p. 4.)

Defendant argues there is no evidence Ernest Cornejo used 3M masks. (Motion at p. 9.) However, the deposition testimony of Plaintiffs cited by Defendant that he wore masks, the masks looked like 3M masks, and 3M masks were found in Cornejo’s garage is sufficient to allow an inference that Defendant used 3M masks.

Defendant argues there is no evidence 3M engaged in malice, oppression or fraud because Plaintiffs testified they and Cornejo had no communications with 3M, there is no evidence Cornejo ever read any 3M materials, and there is no evidence anyone responsible for 3M corporate policy had the requisite state of mind. (Motion at pp. 10-11.) However, Defendant ignores the evidence and deposition testimony cited in Plaintiffs’ responses to special interrogatories that Defendant knew its masks were being misused around asbestos and did not provide warnings. (Index, Ex. I at p. 5.) This interrogatory responses weew not factually devoid. Therefore Defendant did not shift the burden.

The motion for summary adjudication of the punitive damages claim is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.