Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV04868, Date: 2024-02-22 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV04868    Hearing Date: February 22, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT (JAFRA)

On February 4, 2022, Plaintiffs Justin Baylis, Garret Baylis, and Jennifer Galloway filed this action alleging that Lorie Baylis developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos in Defendant Jafra Cosmetics International, Inc.’s products.  Plaintiffs did not file an opposition.

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.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs have no evidence that Lorie Baylis was exposed to asbestos from Defendant.  (Motion at p. 8.)  Defendant served an interrogatory asking for all facts and witnesses supporting Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant.  (Separate Statement of Undisputed Material Facts (“UMF”) 3.)  Plaintiffs responded that Baylis used Defendant’s cosmetic talcum powder products in or around the early 1990s.  (Defendant’s Index, Ex. B at p. 4.)  The responses do not contain evidence that products from Defendant contained asbestos.  (Id. at pp. 4-6.)  Plaintiffs listed themselves and unnamed individuals as having knowledge supporting the claims. (Id. at p. 8.)  In response to requests for all documents supporting Plaintiffs’ claims against Defendant, Plaintiffs did not list specific documents showing exposure to asbestos-containing products from Defendant.  (UMF 8, 9.) 

            Garret Baylis testified he recalled Lorie Baylis using Avon and Revlon makeup products but not Jafra products.  (Defendant’s Index, Ex. E at pp. 107, 113.)  Jennifer Baylis testified she recalled Jafra Cosmetics but no other specifics.  (Id., Ex. F at pp. 174, 176.)  Justin Baylis could not recall Lorie Baylis using a specific Jafra brand.  (Id., Ex. D at pp. 142-143.)  Richard Baylis remembers Lorie Baylis buying Avon products.  (Id.. Ex. G at p. 179.)

These discovery responses show a lack of evidence that Lorie Baylis was exposed to asbestos-containing products from Defendant, and thus, were sufficient to shift the burden.  Because Plaintiffs did not file an opposition, they did not show the existence of a disputed fact.

The motion for summary judgment is GRANTED.  Defendant is to file a proposed judgment within five days.

The moving party is to give notice.