Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV35762, Date: 2023-03-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV35762    Hearing Date: March 29, 2023    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT

            Defendant Chatrem, Inc. moves for summary judgment of the claims of Plaintiffs Lynda LeBlanc and James LeBlanc. 

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 no connection to the product at issue.  Plaintiffs alleged Lynda LeBlanc was exposed to asbestos from the 1950s to the 2000s from talcum powder from Defendant.  (Undisputed Material Fact (“UMF”) 3.)  Defendant asserts it never made, sold or distributed any talcum powder products that Plaintiffs claim LeBlanc was exposed to.  (UMF 7.)  However, Defendant failed to present any evidence of those facts.  In support of this assertion in UMF 7, Defendant cites Exhibit 2, which was Plaintiffs’ Preliminary Fact Sheet.  (Defendant’s Appendix, Ex. 2.)  The Preliminary Fact Sheet states LeBlanc was exposed to asbestos-containing talc from Chattem, Inc. from the 1950s to the 2000s.  (Id. at p. 3.)  It does not contain evidence that Defendant had no connection to, and never made, sold or distributed, any talcum powder products to which LeBlanc was exposed.

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.