Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV19760, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 22STCV19760 Hearing Date: March 29, 2023 Dept: 15
[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT
Defendant
Sanofi-Aventis U.S. LLC moves for summary judgment of the claims of Plaintiffs
Kevin Barlia and David Barlia.
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.)
Defendant takes the
option of attempting to conclusively negate a necessary element of Plaintiffs’
case, arguing it never made or sold the product at issue. Plaintiffs alleged Louis Barlia was exposed
to asbestos from 1947 to the 2000s from Desenex talc from Defendant. (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 6, 4.) Defendant asserts it never made, sold or
distributed Desenex, and its predecessor Aventis Pharmaceuticals had no
connection with Desenex from the 1960s to the 2000s. (UMF 9, 10.)
However, Defendant failed to present any evidence of those facts. Because Defendant did not submit any
evidence, it failed to “present evidence that conclusively negates an element
of the plaintiff’s cause of action.” (Aguilar,
supra, 25 Cal.4th at p. 855.)
The motion is DENIED.
The moving party is to
give notice.