Asbestos in California

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

That testimony actually states that if there is any asbestos in a product like Cashmere Bouquet, it can be dangerous to someone using it. (Gurien Decl., Ex. D at p. 653.) It does not state that the product actually had asbestos in it, Defendant knew the product contained asbestos, or that Defendant knew the product was dangerous to consumers.

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 74-79.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 45.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

s product were asbestos-containing brake linings while here, plaintiff?s own deposition testimony demonstrates that defendant?s product(s) at issue did not require asbestos to function nor was asbestos always used in conjunction with defendant?s product(s) at issue. If a hearing is requested, it will be at 9:45am. A court reporter will not be provided by the court.

As to evidence of the asbestos content of the subject product, Plaintiffs point to alleged evidence that the mines where the subject product were sourced included asbestos during the relevant period. (PRDSS ¶ 74-79.) With respect to the subject product, Plaintiff claims that those products were all homogenous and all contained asbestos due to the "geologically similar" mines where they were sourced. (Id.)

s machines were used on asbestos-containing brakes. It is the asbestos content of a product that makes it inherently dangerous. (Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564.) Defendant?s machines are more analogous to the stove in Garman. As in that case, it was a defect in the product of another which proximately caused the injury. The only alleged defect in Hennessy?s machines is that they caused another defective product to injure the decedent.

Brockway to respirable asbestos fibers since the product was wet when applied. With respect to the caulking product, Sherwin-Williams contends that there is no evidence that such product manufactured by DAP was asbestos-containing or that Mr. Brockway's use of the product exposed Mr. Brockway to respirable asbestos fibers. However, these issues are moot as Plaintiffs do not assert liability against Sherwin-Williams based on any Sherwin-Williams paint product or DAP caulking product. (PRDSS ¶ 4.)

Eaton Corporation Defendant Eaton Corporation filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs William Gaborko and Mary Gaborko cannot show exposure to a product from Defendant containing asbestos. Plaintiffs did not file an opposition. Defendant served a special interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the claim that Defendants products exposed the decedent to asbestos.

(2019) 42 Cal.App.5th 630, the court affirmed a grant of summary judgment involving allegations of asbestos exposure from a shave talc product. The plaintiff had used four to six containers of the shave talc between 1959 and 1962. ( Id. at p. 632.) The plaintiffs expert stated the talc was sourced from mines contaminated with asbestos, FDA tests in 1972 and 1976 showed the shave talc product contained asbestos, and his tests of samples of the shave talc product revealed asbestos. ( Id.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Robertshaw product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Robertshaw product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Robertshaw product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Robertshaw product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Robertshaw product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Robertshaw product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

He concludes that even assuming that trace amounts of asbestos occur at times in the source mines, no expert could determine that any particular shipment of talc contained asbestos or that any particular product made with the talc contained asbestos. ( Id. at pp. 12-13.) He also reviewed product formulation and product testing information, which he concludes shows only a single finding of possible asbestos in a batch of talc intended for Cashmere Bouquet. ( Id. at p. 15.)

This interrogatory asks for the identity of each product that exposed Roberto Sotomayor to asbestos and the name of the manufacturer of the product if the manufacturer is not a named defendant. Plaintiff objected that the request seeks attorney-client privileged and work product information. The objection is baseless. Whether some product exposed Plaintiff to asbestos does not require the disclosure of any privileged information.

Runne was exposed to an asbestos-containing Highland product. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Runne was exposed to an asbestos-containing Highland product. (Id. ¶ 6.)

Parker-Hannifin further contends that Plaintiffs cannot show that Parker-Hannifin is a successor-in-interest to Rockwell, as Plaintiffs seek to hold Parker-Hannifin liable for an unspecified Rockwell product. Parker-Hannifin contends that the product for which Rockwell was known for selling did not contain asbestos.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Flowserve product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Flowserve product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Flowserve product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

Sisk was ever in the vicinity of an asbestos-containing Flowserve product, or evidence that Mr. Sisk was ever present when respirable asbestos fibers were released from any Flowserve product that he breathed, or any evidence that Mr. Sisk's exposure from any Flowserve product was a substantial contributing factor to the development of his mesothelioma. Mr.

He also states he reviewed a March 16, 2004 affidavit, based on which I am informed that asbestos was removed as a component part of DAPs entire product line by the end of 1978. ( Id. , ¶ 14.) Gottesfeld concludes that the DAP acoustical sealant used by Mr. Chaney in 1978, which was sold or supplied by [Defendant], contained asbestos because, prior to the end of 1978, the product was manufactured with chrysotile asbestos. ( Id. , ¶ 26.)

The court held this fact pattern was different than the facts in Lyon because the plaintiff in Lyon used the product regularly over 20 years, there was no evidence of other sources of asbestos, and the plaintiffs expert concluded all Cashmere Boutique product contained significant concentrations of asbestos. ( Id. at p. 636.)

He concluded that even assuming that trace amounts of asbestos occur at times in the source mines, no expert could determine that any particular shipment of talc contained asbestos or that any particular product made with the talc contained asbestos. ( Id. , ¶ 43.) He also reviewed product formulation and product testing information, which he concluded shows only a single finding of possible asbestos in a batch of talc intended for Cashmere Bouquet. ( Id., ¶ 54.)

In response to Standard Interrogatory No. 18 asking for a description of each product (including trade name, product type, asbestos content, packaging, and manufacturer) that exposed Plaintiff to asbestos, Plaintiff responded that she was exposed to asbestos and asbestos-containing products due to her proximity to her husbands home remodeling and construction work, automotive repair and maintenance, and clothing coated with asbestos-containing dust between the 1950s and the 1980s. (Defendants Index, Ex.

s machines were used on asbestos-containing brakes. It is the asbestos content of a product that makes it inherently dangerous. (Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Co. (2009) 171 Cal.App.4th 564.) Defendant?s machines are more analogous to the stove in Garman. As in that case, it was a defect in the product of another which proximately caused the injury. The only alleged defect in Hennessy?s machines is that they caused another defective product to injure the decedent.

Sanchez states: “In my expert opinion, the talc from the source mines used to manufacture Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder was free of asbestos. Absent testing of an actual product, there is currently no scientific methodology and no available data for any expert to prove or otherwise conclude that any particular product manufactured with talc contained asbestos.” (Sanchez Decl., at ¶53.)

Longs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff request, among other things, that Plaintiff provide: (1) all evidence that any talcum powder product sold by Longs exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (2) all talcum powder products that Plaintiff claims were obtained from Longs and purportedly exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (3) all instances where a talcum powder product was purchased from Longs to which Plaintiff was exposed; (4) all stores where anyone purchased any talcum powder product that allegedly exposed

Longs' Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff request, among other things, that Plaintiff provide: (1) all evidence that any talcum powder product sold by Longs exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (2) all talcum powder products that Plaintiff claims were obtained from Longs and purportedly exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (3) all instances where a talcum powder product was purchased from Longs to which Plaintiff was exposed; (4) all stores where anyone purchased any talcum powder product that allegedly exposed

Further, Whittaker contends that Plaintiff cannot show that "it is more likely than not that the talc product [used by Plaintiff] was contaminated with asbestos during the time the plaintiff used it." (LAOSD Asbestos Cases (2020) 44 Cal. App. 5th 475, 489 ["The material issue in a talc asbestos case is not the plaintiff's exposure to the product, but the plaintiff's exposure to asbestos through use of a talc product not designed to contain [asbestos]."].)

It does not identify the product from Defendant that Defendant claims was misused or altered. It does not state how the product was misused or altered. It does not say who misused or altered the product. It does not present evidence that the misuse or modification was highly extraordinary and not reasonably foreseeable. The response is factually-devoid. Plaintiffs shifted the burden.

Longo concluded that Plaintiff was exposed to asbestos from J&J's Baby Powder product at levels that were substantial and well above any background or ambient levels of airborne asbestos. (Id.) Plaintiff also provides the declaration of expert geologist, Dr. Krekeler, who concluded that asbestos was present in the talc source mines for the Baby Powder product. (Krekeler Dec. ¶¶ 1-50.)

The color of the asbestos-containing mineral core in Ceco doors was off-white or milky white, and was not dark in color. (Id. ¶ 29.) The texture of the asbestos-containing core in Ceco doors was granular in nature as it was essentially a ceiling tile product seen in office buildings but adapted for use as a core in doors. (Id. ¶ 30.)

Case Number: 21STCV23911 Hearing Date: February 9, 2023 Dept: 15 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiff Martha Ramos alleges Jesse Ramos was exposed to asbestos supplied by Defendant Calaveras Asbestos, Ltd. Defendant moved for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiff has no evidence of exposure from a product containing its asbestos. Plaintiff did not file an opposition.

Rockwell states there is no evidence the equipment Bobby Williams worked with contained asbestos because he never tested it and it did not contain the word asbestos on it. (Motion at p. 15.) The fact that Williams did not first test a product for asbestos before he used it is not unusual. It is hard to imagine how he was supposed to test a product when he was working on an elevator. Defendant did not show that Plaintiffs cannot reasonably obtain evidence that Bakelite contained asbestos.

in the product in the 1970s, Defendant was working on changing the restrictions on asbestos, and at some point Defendant placed warnings on the product.

And there is little difference between saying asbestos-containing product and product containing asbestos or product that had asbestos in it or product made with ingredients that contained asbestos. The motion is denied. Defendants MIL Re Disclosure of Witness and Exhibits Defendant Merle Norman Cosmetics moves to exclude all evidence not disclosed 72 hours in advance. This is not a proper motion in limine.

He concluded that even assuming that trace amounts of asbestos occur at times in the source mines, no expert could determine that any particular shipment of talc contained asbestos or that any particular product made with the talc contained asbestos. ( Id. , ¶ 39.) He also reviewed product formulation and product testing information, which he concluded show only a single finding of possible asbestos in a batch of talc intended for Cashmere Bouquet. ( Id., ¶ 50.)

No California case has held that a plaintiff in an asbestos-related cancer case must produce any specific form of epidemiological study in order to meet the burden of proving that exposure to a defendant's product was a substantial fact in causing the illness. In Rutherford, medical testimony (offered by Dr.

In this action, Plaintiff alleges that she was exposed to asbestos in the Cashmere Bouquet talcum powder manufactured by Colgate. Plaintiffs contend that Colgate improperly limited certain interrogatories to its Cashmere Bouquet product line even though those interrogatories go to the broader context of Colgate's knowledge of the hazards of asbestos.

However, Plaintiffs do not present substantial evidence that a JBP product contained asbestos during the time periods in which Plaintiff was exposed nor meaningfully link that JBP product purchased by or for Plaintiff to asbestos sourced from mines that may contain asbestos. Plaintiffs rely on the declaration of Dr. Cohen to which Defendants’ object on the basis of hearsay and foundation. A review of Dr.

Defendant has shifted the burden of proof in that plaintiff's response to defendant's "state all facts" interrogatories does not provide a basis for linking plaintiff to an asbestos product supplied by defendant. In response, plaintiff's declaration is more precise. It provides evidence that defendant supplied transite pipe, pipe containing asbestos, in the 1960's and 1970's where plaintiff worked installing sprinkler systems. In doing so, plaintiff cut the pipe.

(2017) 16 Cal.App.5th 463, because the plaintiff in Lyon used the product regularly over 20 years, there was no evidence of other sources of asbestos, and the plaintiffs expert concluded all Cashmere Boutique product contained significant concentrations of asbestos. ( Id. at p. 636.)

In response to Special Interrogatory No. 1, Plaintiffs stated Wendell Montgomery was exposed to asbestos from Defendant when he worked for Burke Construction between 1983 and 1987, Defendants representative admitted Defendant knew asbestos caused mesothelioma and one of Defendants products contained asbestos, and Defendant did not warn its customers about the risk and did not put warnings on the product. (Defendants Index, Ex. T at pp. 2-6.)

Defendant has failed to demonstrate that plaintiff is unable to prove its case of exposure to a Leslie product containing asbestos placed on the product by Leslie. Decedent's testimony related to the Ranger creates a reasonable inference that the Leslie product was original equipment and the record reflects evidence that Leslie valves contained asbestos.

from any product supplied by Familian (id. at Material Fact No. 53).

Defendant served an interrogatory asking Plaintiffs for all facts supporting the contention that Anthony Adams was exposed to asbestos from a product from Defendant. (Ex. C at p. 2.) Plaintiffs responded that he was exposed to asbestos through working in close proximity to Defendants workers who were handling asbestos-containing insulation. (Ex. I at p. 2.) The response does not identify evidence supporting this contention that Anthony Adams worked near Defendants workers.

Summary Judgment Defendant propounded interrogatories asking Plaintiffs to describe each asbestos-containing product Olivas was exposed to. (Ex. 3 at p. 9.) Plaintiffs responded he worked in Los Angeles for about four months each year from about 1970 to 1975, he worked with joint compound products doing construction, and Kaiser Gypsum, Kelly-Moore Paint Company, John K. Bice Co., Pfizer, Soco West, and Union Carbide sold the products or supplied the asbestos for the products he worked with.

Plaintiff’s response provide a long list of facts, but none of these facts show that Defendant knew that its asbestos product could potentially expose family members of an individual working around that product to asbestos- related diseases during the 1980s. (Response to Interrogatory No. 27 (Defendant’s Ex. 6).) Therefore, Defendant has shifted the burden. Plaintiff has not shown there is a triable issue on this claim.

The alleged exposure to asbestos in Defendants product occurred in California while Plaintiff lived in California. Defendants allegedly wrongful conduct selling an asbestos-containing product occurred in California.

(*delete this ¶) THE MOTION This motion for new trial is based solely on the alleged grounds that on October 18, 2019, nine days post-verdict in this case, the FDA reported finding asbestos in Johnson’s Baby Power and then advised consumers to stop using the product. Defendant recalled the specific batch of the product.

Even if the burden had shifted, however, Gibson has demonstrated a material triable issue that Hamilton drywall mud contained asbestos, that Gibson was exposed to asbestos by virtue of his use of that product on numerous occasions, and that Sherwin-Williams failed to warn consumers and end users that this product contained asbestos. It is a reasonable inference that a product manufacturer has actual knowledge of the constituent ingredients of its products.

Plaintiffs argue Defendant supplied raw asbestos fiber to Gusmer Enterprises, Inc. (Gusmer), who produced mats and sold them to Defendant to be used for producing the Defendants product. Defendant then provided the mats to Decedent for use in producing Defendants final product. (Opposition at pp. 2-3.) Because Decedent obtained the mats from Defendant in the course of his employment and not from an independent third person, the dual capacity exception does not apply.

Plaintiff's discovery responses and decedent's deposition testimony demonstrate that plaintiff possesses evidence of a single exposure to defendant's product. The declaration of Gary Austin demonstrates that Victor made thousands of gaskets and seals, only some of which contained asbestos. Special interrogatory responses 2, 4, 8, 12 and 19 demonstrate that plaintiff has no evidence that the Victor product identified by decedent contained asbestos.

In their reply, Defendant argues that Plaintiffs discovery responses did not identify Donald Durham Rock Hard putty as a product containing Defendants talc. (Reply at p. 2.) That is not correct. The response to Standard Interrogatory No. 18 identified that product. Also, in the depositions, the parties asked a lot of questions about that putty product, and the wife stated many times that Gonzalez used the product. (See, e.g., Ex. 6 at pp. 115, 120, 126, 127, 215, 290, 291, 295.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs have no evidence that Manns used any product containing Pfizer talc that contained asbestos, pointing to Plaintiffs interrogatory responses as factually devoid. (Motion at p. 7.) Special Interrogatory No. 1 asked for all facts supporting the contention that the asbestos came from a Pfizer product. (Undisputed Material Fact UMF) 3.)

The discussion in Johnson & Johnson about general causation does not support Defendants assertion that general causation is about whether a specific product, such as an adhesive, causes mesothelioma. Rather the court in Johnson & Johnson discusses whether talc-based products and talc in general, not a specific product, causes cancer. Thus, the question here is whether asbestos-based products or asbestos in general may cause mesothelioma, which Defendant does not dispute.

Defendant also presents evidence that there are currently no sales records showing that it sold asbestos-containing materials to PG&E at any time. (Beard Dec.) Finally, Defendant presents evidence that once its molding compound came out of a molder as a finished product, one could not visually determine whether the molding compound used to make the finished product was manufactured by Defendant or another molding compound manufacturer. (DUMF Nos. 6, 4.)

Plaintiff responded that Defendant was a member of various groups, including one that took a position on OSHA asbestos regulations, and therefore knew about the dangers of exposure to asbestos. Yet Defendant did not warn its customers. (Ex. B at pp. 18-24.) This is not a factually devoid response. This is not a case where the alleged asbestos was not intentionally added to the product (such as in a talc case) or was enclosed within a product (like with brakes).

The evidence in (i) is insufficient to establish that Decedent was not exposed to an asbestos-containing product of Goodloe; at most it indicates that Decedent could not, through his own testimony, show that the "Tuff-Bond" product he used contained asbestos. The evidence in (ii) above is also insufficient to affirmatively show the absence of any exposure; all it shows is that Plass and Plaintiff Gertrude Denyer had no personal knowledge of such exposure (a fact which is not surprising).

Exposure/Causation Authority: A threshold issue in asbestos litigation is exposure to defendant’s product, on which plaintiff bears the burden of proof. McGonnell v. Kaiser Gypsum Company, Inc. (2002) 98 Cal.App.4th case is two-prong and requires plaintiff to prove (1) exposure to the defendant’s asbestos-containing product, and (2) that exposure was, in reasonable medical probability, a substantial factor in causing the injury. Rutherford v.

In response to Defendants Special Interrogatory No. 1 asking for all evidence supporting Plaintiffs contention that she was exposed to asbestos-containing talcum powder sold by Defendant, Plaintiff responded, Plaintiff Ruth Martin developed malignant mesothelioma as a result of exposure from Defendants asbestos, asbestos-containing products and/or equipment solely designed to be used with asbestos-containing products or asbestos-containing products supplied by Defendant (Defendants Products), including: STATER

Summary Judgment Defendant Foster Wheeler LLC argues Plaintiff cannot prove Jesse Ramos was exposed to an asbestos-containing product from Defendant. Defendant cites to Plaintiffs response to an interrogatory asking for all facts supporting the contention that Jess Ramos was exposed to an asbestos containing product from Defendant. (Bugatto Decl., Ex. C at p. 4.)

In Strobel the court reversed a grant of summary judgment in a case involving asbestos in Johnson & Johnsons baby powder because the plaintiff used the baby powder his entire life from 1951 until 2014 and was not exposed to asbestos from any other source, and there was expert testimony that the product contained asbestos. ( Strobel, supra , 70 Cal.App.5th at pp. 801, 807.)

For example, that defense employees, representatives, and experts used the product does not prove anything about its asbestos content. Darren Metcalf and a lot of other people also used the product, but that does not prove the product did or did not contain asbestos. Likewise, that they used the product is not evidence that Defendants did not know about asbestos contamination.

Lynn Papworth did not know if the bowling balls contained asbestos or if Defendant made an Ez-Slide product he used for bowling. (UMF 14-16.) Also, Defendants former employees, Chuck Hostad and Joseph Beryle, declare that Defendants bowling bowls did not contain any asbestos. (UMF 21; Galdo Decl., Ex. E at ¶¶ 6-8; Id. , Ex. F at ¶ 5.)

Case Number: 19STCV35344 Hearing Date: November 16, 2022 Dept: 15 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT Plaintiffs allege William Gaborko was injured as a result of exposure to asbestos-containing products, including from Defendant Erricsson Inc. On September 1, 2022, Defendant filed a motion for summary judgment on the ground that Plaintiffs cannot prove Defendant supplied any asbestos-containing product to which Gaborko was exposed.

Plaintiffs responded that Decedent was exposed to asbestos-containing pumps attributable to Defendant when he served in the U.S. Navy as a boiler tender from 1951 to 1955. (UMF 9; Index, Ex. E at p. 5.)

That case was not about asbestos in talcum powder causing mesothelioma. Here, Plaintiffs do not allege Chanels product caused ovarian cancer. Rather Plaintiffs allege asbestos in the talc caused Plaintiffs mesothelioma. It is not disputed that asbestos causes mesothelioma. The motion summary adjudication is DENIED. The moving party is to give notice.

The court held this fact pattern was different than the facts in Lyon because the plaintiff in Lyon used the product regularly over 20 years, there was no evidence of other sources of asbestos, and the plaintiffs expert concluded all Cashmere Boutique product contained significant concentrations of asbestos. ( Id. at p. 636.)

Plaintiffs point out that Kirk testified he understood the July 1972 OSHA regulation would apply not just in the plant where asbestos was being used but also to "product containers that contained asbestos." (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that the creation of a label to comply with the July 1972 OSHA regulation was the first time the Kaiser Gypsum product would be labeled to indicate it contained asbestos. (Id.)

Defendant does not cite law that lack of complaints about a product requires the inference that a product is not defective. Defendant argues the masks were approved by government agencies and therefore could not have been defective. ( Ibid. ) Again, Defendant does not cite law that compliance with government standards is a complete defense to a product defect claim.

Defendant argues Plaintiffs have no evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Defendants products. (Motion at pp. 5, 10.) Defendant cites Plaintiffs responses to the special interrogatories asking Plaintiffs to state all facts supporting the contention that Decedent breathed asbestos fibers from Defendants products. (Undisputed Material Facts (UMF) 8.) Plaintiffs responded Decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S.

The response to interrogatory No. 6 is factually devoid and does not identify any specific evidence that Hector Apodaca was exposed to asbestos in a product from Defendant. Plaintiffs also the depositions of Hector Apodacas children and step daughter will be taking place, but Plaintiffs do not state that those witnesses have knowledge of the products from Defendant that exposed Hector Apodaca to asbestos.

Defendant's Moving MPA at p. 12-16 asserts that it used only processed vermiculite and that its understanding is that finished product users would not have been exposed to asbestos. However, the Martinez Dec., cited to for this point, does not support this point, and Defendant provides no other evidence that "processed" vermiculite constitutes less of an asbestos risk than raw vermiculite.

The evidence proffered by Plaintiffs creates disputed issues of material fact about Defendants knowledge of the hazards of asbestos and the need to minimize exposure, and whether Defendant took appropriate steps or refrained from replacing the asbestos-containing product with a new product due to costs. The court cannot conclude that no reasonable jury could find clear and convincing proof of malice, fraud, or oppression.

Evidence that Defendant used an ingredient that contained asbestos to manufacture the fertilizer used by the decedent is relevant to Plaintiffs claims. That Defendants employees allegedly were exposed to asbestos while manufacturing the product could be relevant to prove that the fertilizer contained asbestos and to notice and knowledge. The motion is denied.

The fact that asbestos is not listed as an ingredient does not necessarily mean that there was no asbestos in the talc used in the product. The evidence does not establish that the fact that the talc met certain standards necessarily meant that there was no asbestos in the talc. Defendant also cites its own responses to interrogatories as evidence of its sources for and manufacturing of the power. (UMF 10, 14, 15.)

any product supplied by Bell (id. at Material Fact No. 59).

His testing confirmed asbestiform tremolite in the product. ( Id. at ¶¶ 24, 42.) The Fitzgerald declaration shows the existence of a disputed issue concerning the existence of asbestos in the DryDex Phillip Payne used. Defendant then argues, citing its own experts analysis, that the use of DryDex did not generate any significant amount of asbestos fibers in the air and therefore could not have caused harm to Phillip Payne. (Motion at pp. 13-14.)

In those portion, Hayden testified he did not know of anyone at Defendant who thought using gun plastic cement in the field presented a health hazard, none of the companies supplying the asbestos said that making a product from it could be hazardous, he does not know of anyone claiming they were injured from the product before 1973, and he received a letter saying there was nothing wrong with the product. (Levonyan Decl., Ex. B at pp. 84, 87, 88, 91.) Exhibit B attaches a letter from 1970.

Plaintiffs point out that Kirk testified he understood the July 1972 OSHA regulation would apply not just in the plant where asbestos was being used but also to "product containers that contained asbestos." (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that the creation of a label to comply with the July 1972 OSHA regulation was the first time the Kaiser Gypsum product would be labeled to indicate it contained asbestos. (Id.)

MOTION TO COMPEL In this action, Plaintiff asserts that she was exposed to asbestos, asbestiform fibers, and/or asbestiform talc from her use of Johnson & Johnson's Baby Powder product, which caused her mesothelioma. Plaintiff has asserted claims of strict liability, negligence, negligent failure to warn, fraudulent concealment and misrepresentation, and punitive damages. Plaintiff now seeks discovery relating to Johnson & Johnson's defense that its product never contained asbestos.

The witnesses had no knowledge or information that decedent was ever exposed to asbestos from any Honda brand product. That lack of knowledge encompasses replacement parts purchased by decedent.

Plaintiffs point out that Kirk testified he understood the July 1972 OSHA regulation would apply not just in the plant where asbestos was being used but also to "product containers that contained asbestos." (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that the creation of a label to comply with the July 1972 OSHA regulation was the first time the Kaiser Gypsum product would be labeled to indicate it contained asbestos. (Id.)

Plaintiffs point out that Kirk testified he understood the July 1972 OSHA regulation would apply not just in the plant where asbestos was being used but also to "product containers that contained asbestos." (Id.) Plaintiffs assert that the creation of a label to comply with the July 1972 OSHA regulation was the first time the Kaiser Gypsum product would be labeled to indicate it contained asbestos. (Id.)

Arlo Haupt described in detail contact with defendant's product; defendant made products with asbestos and has failed to demonstrate that the products described by plaintiff do not contain asbestos. =(302/PJM/xJL)

Lay fails to demonstrate that he does not know and cannot remember the number designation for the Henry's wet patch product at issue. Defendant also failed to sustain its burden of presenting evidence to negate an essential element of plaintiffs' claims. The declaration of Lori Angelo is insufficient to demonstrate that the Henry's wet patch product at issue was more likely than not a non-asbestos-containing product. Plaintiffs' objections to the declaration of Lori Angelo are overruled.

The nub of plaintiffs' complaint is that their decedent, Darrel Parsey, was exposed to various products containing asbestos in the course of his working life and that as a result of repeated exposure to asbestos he developed asbestosis, asbestos pleural disease and cancer. Plaintiffs allege that Mr. Parsey died from these conditions in April 2016.

"Factors relevant to assessing whether such a medical probability exists include frequency of exposure, regularity of exposure and proximity of the asbestos product to [Whitmire]." (Weber, supra, 143 Cal.App.4th at p. 1438.)

Plaintiffs cite Defendants interoffice memos and correspondence to the City of Los Angeles in the 1970s about Defendant developing asbestos-free products because of regulations against asbestos products and the higher costs of such alternative products. (Plaintiffs Index, Exs. 10-14.) In its reply, Defendants argue its attempts to develop an alternative formula for gun plastic cement were to manufacture a better, less expensive product. (Reply at p. 5.)

Defendant argues Plaintiffs have no evidence that Decedent was exposed to asbestos from Defendants products. (Motion at pp. 6-7, 10.) Defendant cites Plaintiffs responses to the special interrogatories asking for all facts supporting the contention that Decedent breathed asbestos fibers from Defendants products. (Motion at p. 3; Undisputed Material Facts (UMF) 8.) Plaintiffs responded Decedent was exposed to asbestos while serving in the U.S.

Plaintiffs identify Bendix brand brakes as the only asbestos-containing product purchased from Allied Auto. (Id.) In opposition, Plaintiffs clarify that Allied previously had a store a mile away between 1970 and 1989, and claim that Bendix and Bosch asbestos-containing brakes were sold by Allied in the 1970s and 1980s, and that Decedent purchased such products from that store. (Rose Dec., Exs. A, F, H-L.)

Defendant argues that Plaintiffs have no evidence of exposure to asbestos from Defendant. Plaintiffs identified Mark Gaborko as the only product identification witness. (Undisputed Material Fact UMF 6, 7, 9, 10.) Defendants Interrogatory No. 4 asked Mark Gaborko to state all facts supporting the contention that William Gaborko was exposed to asbestos from Defendant. (Warfield Decl., Ex. F at p. 6.)

The evidence also shows disputed issues about whether the reference to ANSI B7.1 on the product was enough to give users warning about asbestos dust. Accordingly, motion for summary adjudication for punitive damages is denied. The motion is GRANTED as to the third and fourth causes of action and DENIED as to the request for punitive damages.

Brady from arguing that Hernandezcueva was not exposed to asbestos because a prior jury determined he was exposed from a product installed by E.F. Brady. Plaintiffs argue the 2013 trial resulted in an answer to a special verdict question finding that Hernandezcueva was exposed to asbestos released from a product installed by E.F. Company.

Vons' Special Interrogatories, Set One, to Plaintiff request, among other things, that Plaintiff provide: (1) all evidence that any talcum powder product sold by Vons exposed Plaintiff to asbestos; (2) all talcum powder products that Plaintiff claims were obtained from Vons and purportedly exposed her to asbestos; (3) all instances where a talcum powder product was purchased from Vons to which Plaintiff was exposed; (4) all stores where anyone purchased any talcum powder product that exposed Plaintiff to asbestos

Case Number: 20STCV12435 Hearing Date: August 31, 2023 Dept: 15 [TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY JUDGMENT [ERICSSON] Defendant Ericsson Inc. moves for summary judgment, and in the alternative, summary adjudication, of Plaintiffs Tad Inferrera and Mary Inferreras claims that Tad Inferrera was exposed to an asbestos-containing product from Defendant.

Also, one defendant (for example a retailer) can successfully move for summary judgment of the claims against it based on a particular product, and a different defendant (for example a manufacturer) can remain in the case regarding claims against that second defendant for the same product. Thus, the grant of summary judgment as to one defendant does not necessarily mean that a particular product is entirely out of the case. The motion is denied without prejudice to objections at trial.