Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani San Francisco Partner Christopher Strunk and Associate Brikk Bralley secured summary judgment on behalf of the firm’s client, a global retailer of personal care and beauty products, in a “contaminated talc” case pending in Los Angeles County Superior Court.
The plaintiffs, a husband and wife, alleged that the wife developed malignant mesothelioma after two decades of exposure to asbestos-contaminated talc in pressed powder cosmetic products sold by several retailers, including GRSM’s client. The complaint raised claims of negligence, strict liability, fraud, and loss of consortium, arguing that the wife’s use of these products was a significant factor in the development of her disease and that GRSM’s client should be held liable.
After efforts to obtain a voluntary dismissal failed, GRSM filed a summary judgment motion. The motion argued that all of the evidence adduced to date, including deposition testimony and written discovery responses, was devoid of any admissible evidence that the product sold by the firm’s client contained talc, much less that the product was “contaminated” with asbestos. The GRSM team further argued that the firm’s client could not be liable for a third-party product purchased inside one of the retailer’s locations and highlighted that the plaintiffs offered only assumptions without any expert evidence or testing of the product.
Bralley emphasized these points at oral argument, where the court granted GRSM’s motion, adopting the arguments advanced by GRSM in its moving papers and finding no dispute of material fact that GRSM’s client was entitled to summary judgment.
The court’s ruling upholds the well-established principle that, once the burden shifts, speculative and conjectural allegations are insufficient to stave off summary judgment. Instead, competent, admissible evidence is required to permit a claim to proceed before a jury.