MATTHEW S. BRADY (SBN 245957)
`mbrady@grsm.com
`JOHN P. KATERNDAHL (SBN 127646)
`jkaterndahl@grsm.com
`LUIS A. BARBA (SBN 238693)
`lbarba@grsm.com
`HOLLY C. BEAL (SBN 192501)
`hbeal@grsm.com
`ALYSSA M. GARCIA (SBN 346184)
`amgarcia@grsm.com
`GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`Irvine, CA 92614
`Telephone: (949) 255-6950
`Facsimile: (949) 474-2060
`Attorneys for Defendant CHANEL, INC.
`
`ELECTRONICALLY
`F I L E D
`
`Superior Court of California,
`County of San Francisco
`12/21/2023
`Clerk of the Court
`BY: ANNIE PASCUAL
`Deputy Clerk
`
`SUPERIOR COURT OF CALIFORNIA
`FOR THE COUNTY OF SAN FRANCISCO
`
`Case No. CGC-23-277164
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S
`ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR
`PERSONAL INJURY
`
`Complaint Filed: September 29, 2023
`Trial:
`None set.
`
`BARBARA PERKINS,
`Plaintiff,
`
`vs.
`BARRETTS MINERALS, INC.; BAYER
`HEALTHCARE, LLC; BRENNTAG
`SPECIALTIES, LLC f/k/a BRENNTAG
`SPECIALTIES, INC., as a successor-in-interest
`to MINERAL PIGMENT SOLUTIONS, INC.,
`as a successor-in-interest to WHITAKER,
`CLARK & DANIELS, INC.; BRISTOL-
`MYERS SQUIBB COMPANY (sued
`individually and as successor-in-interest to
`CHARLES OF THE RITZ, JEAN NATE, and
`ALEXANDRA DE MARKOFF); CHANEL,
`INC.; CHARLES B. CHRYSTAL COMPANY,
`INC.; COLOR TECHNIQUES, INC.;
`COSMETIC SPECIALTIES, INC.; ESTEE
`LAUDER, INC.; FISONS CORP.; GSK
`CONSUMER HEALTH, INC. (sued
`individually and as successor-in-interest to
`NOVARTIS PHARMACEUTICALS
`CORPORATION); JANSSEN
`PHARMACEUTICALS, INC., individually and
`as successor in interest to JOHNSON &
`JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.; JOHNSON &
`JOHNSON; JOHNSON & JOHNSON
`HOLDCO (NA) INC.; KENVUE INC.,
`individually and as successor in interest to
`
`-1-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`
`

`

`JOHNSON & JOHNSON CONSUMER, INC.;
`L'OREAL USA, INC. (sued individually and as
`successor-in-interest to CHARLES OF THE
`RITZ INC., LANVIN-CHARLES OF THE
`RITZ, JEAN NATE, ALEXANDRA DE
`MARKOFF, and for its L'OREAL AND
`MAYBELLINE PRODUCTS); L'OREAL USA
`PRODUCTS, INC. (sued individually and as
`successor-in-interest to CHARLES OF THE
`RITZ INC., LANVINCHARLES OF THE
`RITZ, JEAN NATE, and ALEXANDRA DE
`MARKOFF); LONGS DRUG STORES
`CALIFORNIA, L.L.C. (sued individually and as
`successor-in-interest to LONGS DRUG
`STORES CALIFORNIA, INC. f/k/a LONGS
`DRUG STORES, INC.); LTL MANAGEMENT
`LLC (sued individually and as successor-in-
`interest to JOHNSON & JOHNSON
`CONSUMER INC. and JOHNSON &
`JOHNSON BABY PRODUCTS COMPANY);
`MAYBELLINE, LLC, as a subsidiary of
`L'OREAL USA INC. FOR ITS MAYBELLINE
`BRAND OF PRODUCTS; MERCK & CO.,
`INC.; NOVARTIS CORPORATION (sued
`individually and as a successor-in-interest to
`CIBA-GEIGY CORPORATION and its
`subsidiaries CIBA CONSUMER
`PHARMACEUTICALS and CIBA
`SELFMEDICATION, INC.); PFIZER, INC.;
`PRESPERSE CORPORATION d/b/a
`PRESPERSE INTERNATIONAL
`CORPORATION; REVLON CONSUMER
`PRODUCTS CORPORATION (individually
`and as successor-in-interest to CHARLES OF
`THE RITZ and ALEXANDRA DE
`MARKOFF); SCHOLL'S WELLNESS CO.;
`SPECIALTY MINERALS INC.; THE ESTEE
`LAUDER COMPANIES, INC. (sued
`individually and for LEN-RON
`MANUFACTURING CO., INC.);
`WALGREEN, CO.; and DOES 1 through 400
`Inclusive,
`
`Defendants.
`
`Defendant CHANEL, INC. (hereinafter referred to as "Chanel" or “Defendant”) hereby
`answers Plaintiff’s Complaint ("Complaint") filed by BARBARA PERKINS ("Plaintiff"), as
`follows:
`/ / /
`
`-2-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`GENERAL DENIAL
`Pursuant to Section 431.30(d) of the Code of Civil Procedure, Defendant denies,
`generally and specifically, each and every allegation in the Complaint. Defendant further denies,
`generally and specifically, that Plaintiff has been injured in any sum alleged therein, and that
`Plaintiff is entitled to damages or any other relief whatsoever by reason of any act or omission on
`Defendant's part.
`
`AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSES
`Without waiving or excusing the burden of proof on Plaintiff’s causes of action, or
`admitting that Defendant has any burden of proof, Defendant hereby asserts the following
`affirmative defenses:
`
`FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to State a Cause of Action)
`Plaintiff’s Complaint fails to state a cause of action upon which relief may be
`
`SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Asbestos-Containing Product)
`Defendant has never manufactured, sold, or distributed an asbestos-containing
`
`1.
`granted.
`
`2.
`product.
`
`3.
`
`THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Statute of Limitations)
`Defendant alleges on information and belief that:
`A.
`Plaintiff’s Complaint is barred by the applicable statute of limitations
`under Code of Civil Procedure sections 335.1 et seq. 337, 337.1(a)(3), 337.15(a)(1)-(2), 338,
`338(a), 338(b), 339, 339(1) 340, 340(a), 340.2, 340.2(a)(1), 340.2(a)(2), 340.2(c)(1),
`340.29(c)(2), 340.8(a), 343, 353, 353.1, 361, 474, 583.210(a), 583.210(b), 583.250(a)(1)(2),
`583.250(b), 583.310, 583.410(a), 583.410(a), 583.410(b), 583.420(a)(1), 583.420(a)(2)(A)(B),
`583.420(a)(3)(A)(B)(C), 583.420(b) and California Commercial Code section 2725,
`2725(1)(2)(3)(4); or
`
`-3-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`The causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint arose outside the State of
`B.
`California, while Plaintiff was a non-resident, under the applicable statutes of limitation or
`statutes of repose where Plaintiff was then residing or working, and Plaintiff’s Complaint is
`barred by the provisions of those statutes and by section 361 of the California Code of Civil
`Procedure.
`
`FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Assumption of Risk)
`Defendant alleges on information and belief that Plaintiff voluntarily and
`4.
`knowingly assumed the alleged risks and hazards incident to the alleged operations, acts, and
`conduct at the times and places alleged in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and Plaintiff’s acts proximately
`caused and contributed to Plaintiff’s alleged injuries and damages, if any.
`FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to Follow Warnings)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff was advised, informed, and warned of any
`5.
`potential hazards or damages associated with the normal or foreseeable use, handling, and
`storage of the products, substances, and equipment described in Plaintiff’s Complaint, and
`Plaintiff failed to follow the warnings.
`SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Comparative Negligence)
`Defendant alleges upon information and belief that:
`A.
`At the time and places mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Plaintiff was
`careless and negligent, and this carelessness and negligence caused and contributed to any
`injuries and damages allegedly sustained by Plaintiff.
`B.
`In the event of any judgment or verdict in favor of Plaintiff, the judgment
`or verdict must be reduced in direct proportion to Plaintiff’s carelessness and negligence, if any.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`6.
`
`-4-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Conduct of Others)
`Defendant alleges that any loss, injury, or damage to Plaintiff was proximately
`7.
`caused or contributed to by the negligent or other tortious acts, omissions, or fault of third parties
`that Defendant neither controlled nor had the right to control, and that no particular damages of
`Plaintiff were caused by Defendant's acts or omissions.
`EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Not a Successor-in-Interest)
`Defendant alleges that it has no liability for the acts, omissions or otherwise of
`8.
`any other defendant or any other entity because Defendant did not become legally responsible for
`the acts of any such defendant or entity given the facts and circumstances of the pertinent
`transactions and never was, nor is, a successor-in-interest, a successor-in-liability or an alternate
`entity for, any other user, manufacturer, supplier, seller, distributor or premises holder relating to
`asbestos or asbestos-containing products.
`NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Proposition 51)
`Defendant alleges that there are other persons, parties or defendants who are at
`9.
`fault and whose conduct proximately caused Plaintiff’s injuries, if any. If Defendant is found
`responsible to Plaintiff, which Defendant expressly denies, Defendant is only liable for its
`proportionate share of non-economic damages as set forth in Civil Code section 1431.2.
`TENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Modification or Alteration of Product)
`Defendant alleges the products that allegedly injured Plaintiff were altered,
`10.
`changed, or otherwise modified by parties, individuals, or entities other than Defendant, and
`these modifications, changes or alterations were a proximate cause of any damages alleged by
`Plaintiff.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-5-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`ELEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Misuse and Abuse)
`Before and at the time of the alleged injuries, on information and belief,
`11.
`Defendant alleges that the products which allegedly injured Plaintiff were misused and abused
`and were not being used in their intended manner. This misuse and abuse caused and contributed
`to the Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any.
`TWELFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Not a Substantial Factor)
`Defendant denies that any product for which Defendant is responsible was a
`12.
`substantial factor in causing Plaintiff’s damages.
`THIRTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Exposure)
`Defendant denies Plaintiff was exposed to any product manufactured or sold by
`13.
`Defendant, but if she was, the exposure was so minimal as to be incapable of causing the injury,
`damage, or loss complained of.
`FOURTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to Mitigate Damages)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff failed to mitigate her losses, injuries, or damages
`14.
`and is barred from recovering any damages that could have been avoided by reasonable
`mitigation efforts.
`
`FIFTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Lack of Notice)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has failed to give reasonable, timely, sufficient,
`15.
`and adequate notice to Defendant of the alleged liability, damage, or injury, if any.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-6-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`SIXTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Laches)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff has unreasonably delayed filing this case without
`16.
`good cause. This delay has directly resulted in prejudice to Defendant, and this action is barred
`by laches.
`
`SEVENTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unclean Hands)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff is precluded from maintaining any cause of action
`17.
`against Defendant because Plaintiff’s actions preclude equitable relief under the doctrine of
`unclean hands.
`
`EIGHTEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Warranty)
`Defendant gave no warranties, either express or implied, to Plaintiff, and neither
`18.
`Plaintiff nor anyone else ever notified Defendant of any claim of breach of warranty that resulted
`in Plaintiff’s alleged injuries.
`NINETEENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Lack of Privity)
`At all times and places mentioned in Plaintiff’s Complaint, Defendant alleges that
`19.
`Plaintiff was not in privity of contract with Defendant and are therefore barred from asserting a
`warranty claim against Defendant.
`TWENTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Vagueness of Defect Standards)
`The State of California's judicially created definitions of "manufacturing" and
`20.
`"design defects" and the standards for determining whether there has been an actionable failure
`to warn are unconstitutional in that, among other things, they are void for vagueness and place an
`undue burden upon interstate commerce. They also constitute an impermissible effort to regulate
`in an area that has previously been preempted by the federal government.
`/ / /
`
`-7-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`TWENTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Market Share or Enterprise Liability)
`Defendant alleges that each and every cause of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint
`21.
`fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action under Sindell v. Abbott Labs (1980) 26
`Cal.3d 588, for "market share" or any theory of enterprise liability. Defendant further alleges that
`Plaintiff has failed to join as defendants in this action the producers of a substantial market share
`of the product or products which allegedly injured Plaintiff.
`TWENTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(State of the Art)
`The state of the medical, scientific, and industrial knowledge and practices was, at
`22.
`all material times, such that Defendant neither breached any alleged duty owed to Plaintiff nor
`knew, or could have known, that the product it allegedly distributed presented a foreseeable risk
`of harm to Plaintiff in its normal and expected use. Any products, substances, or equipment
`manufactured, formulated, sold, or distributed by Defendant were made consistent with the state
`of the art applicable to the products, substances, or equipment at the time of their manufacture,
`sale, formulation, or distribution.
`TWENTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Applicable Law)
`Defendant alleges that as between Plaintiff and Defendant, the law applicable to
`23.
`this action is the law as it existed during the period Defendant engaged, if at all, in the
`distribution or sale of the product which Plaintiff claims caused injury. It is unlawful,
`inequitable, and in violation of Defendant's contractual, statutory, and constitutional rights to
`apply principles of law other than or in a manner different from those, which existed for the
`period in which Defendant sold or distributed the products in issue.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-8-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`TWENTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Offset)
`Defendant is entitled to an offset for the total amount of all settlements entered
`24.
`into, or to be entered into by Plaintiff and any person or entity, including Defendants, relating to
`Plaintiff’s claims and allegations in this proceeding.
`TWENTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Failure to Join Indispensable Parties)
`Defendant alleges Plaintiff failed to join indispensable parties under the Code of
`25.
`Civil Procedure section 389.
`TWENTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Punitive Damages — Failure to State a Cause of Action)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint in its entirety, and each cause of
`26.
`action, fails to state a cause of action against Defendant for punitive or exemplary damages.
`TWENTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unconstitutionality of Punitive Damages)
`Defendant alleges that, to the extent that it seeks exemplary or punitive damages
`27.
`under California Civil Code section 3294, Plaintiff violates Defendant's right to procedural due
`process under the Fourteenth Amendment of the United States Constitution and Article I, section
`7, of the California State Constitution and therefore fails to state a cause of action that either
`punitive or exemplary damages can be awarded.
`TWENTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Punitive Damages — Excessive Fines)
`Defendant alleges that, to the extent that Plaintiff seeks punitive or exemplary
`28.
`damages under California Civil Code section 3294, they violate Defendant's right to protection
`from "excessive fines" as provided in the Eighth Amendment of the United States Constitution
`and Article I, section 17 of the Constitution of the State of California, and violates Defendant's
`right to substantive due process as provided in the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments of the
`
`-9-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`30.
`
`United States Constitution and the Constitution of the State of California, and therefore fails to
`state facts sufficient to support an award of either punitive or exemplary damages.
`TWENTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Violation of Commerce Clause)
`Defendant alleges that the Commerce Clause of the United States Constitution,
`29.
`U.S. Const. art. I, section 8, cl. 3, precludes the application of a state statute to commerce that
`takes place wholly outside of a state's borders, whether or not the commerce has effects within
`the state, and protects against inconsistent legislation arising from the projection of one state
`regulatory regime into the jurisdiction of another state.
`THIRTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Pleas in Abatement)
`Defendant alleges as pleas in abatement:
`A.
`That another action is pending between the Plaintiff and the same or
`similar defendants on the same transactions and occurrences; and
`B.
`That Plaintiff have improperly joined parties in this action.
`THIRTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unconstitutional Taking of Private Property for Public Use Without Just Compensation)
`31.
`Each cause of action in the Complaint that is based upon a lack of identification
`of the manufacturer of, or the contractor using or disturbing, the alleged injury-causing product,
`fails to state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action because Plaintiff has asserted claims
`for relief which, if granted, would constitute the taking of private property for public use without
`just compensation in contravention of the Fifth and Fourteenth Amendments to the United States
`Constitution and by Article I, Sections 7 and 19, of the Constitution of the State of California,
`and the applicable California statutes.
`THIRTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Uncertainty)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s Complaint and all purported causes of action are
`32.
`vague, ambiguous and uncertain.
`
`-10-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`THIRTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Forum Non Conveniens)
`Defendant alleges on information and belief that substantial justice requires that
`33.
`this action be dismissed or stayed under Section 410.30 of the Code of Civil Procedure because
`the facts alleged in the Complaint occurred outside of California, and California is thus not the
`appropriate forum for the action.
`THIRTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Choice of Law)
`Defendant alleges on information and belief that all of some of the claims or legal
`34.
`issues raised in the Complaint are governed by the substantive laws of another state or foreign
`country.
`
`THIRTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Estoppel)
`Defendant alleges that because of the acts, conduct, or omissions of Plaintiff or
`35.
`her agents, each cause of action presented in the Complaint is barred by the Doctrine of Estoppel.
`THIRTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Compliance with Statutes)
`Defendant alleges that all of its conduct and activities as alleged in the Complaint
`36.
`conformed to statutes, government regulations, and industry standards based upon the state of
`knowledge existing at all relevant times.
`THIRTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Due Care and Diligence)
`Defendant alleges that it exercised due care and diligence in all of the matters
`37.
`alleged in the Complaint, and no act or omission by it was the proximate cause of any damage,
`injury or loss to Plaintiff.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-11-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`THIRTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Contribution/Equitable Indemnity)
`Defendant alleges that in the event it is held liable to Plaintiff, which liability is
`38.
`expressly denied, and any other co-defendants are likewise held liable, Defendant is entitled to a
`percentage contribution of the total liability from the co-defendants in accordance with the
`principles of equitable indemnity and comparative contribution.
`THIRTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Unusual Susceptibility)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s injuries and damages, if any, were proximately
`39.
`caused or contributed
`to by Plaintiff’s unforeseeable
`idiosyncratic condition, unusual
`susceptibility, or hypersensitive reactions for which Defendant is not liable.
`FORTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Good Faith)
`Defendant alleges that Plaintiff’s claim for punitive damages is barred because
`40.
`Defendant at all times and places mentioned in the Complaint acted reasonably and in good faith,
`and without malice or oppression towards Plaintiff.
`FORTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Concert of Action)
`There is no concert of action between Defendant and any of the other named
`41.
`defendants. Defendants are not joint tortfeasors and accordingly, Defendant may not be held
`jointly and severally liable with the other named defendants.
`FORTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Fraud, Oppression or Malice)
`Defendant alleges that the Complaint does not state sufficient facts to constitute
`42.
`"fraud," "oppression," or "malice," as these terms are used in Civil Code section 3294.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-12-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`FORTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Punitive Damages — Failure to State a Cause of Action)
`Defendant alleges that the Complaint in its entirety, and each cause of action, fails
`43.
`to state a cause of action against Defendant for punitive or exemplary damages.
`FORTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Spoliation of Evidence)
`On information and belief, Defendant alleges that Plaintiff and/or her agents
`44.
`negligently or intentionally failed to preserve, and permitted the spoliation of, material evidence,
`including but not limited to the products which Plaintiff allege give rise to Plaintiff’s Complaint.
`Such conduct bars Plaintiff’s action and/or gives rise to liability on the part of Plaintiff for
`damages payable to Defendant.
`FORTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Res Judicata/Collateral Estoppel)
`Defendant alleges that the causes of action in Plaintiff’s Complaint are barred in
`45.
`whole or in part by res judicata and/or collateral estoppel.
`FORTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Liability for Products of Others)
`Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff for products manufactured, distributed, or
`46.
`supplied by third parties. (Taylor v. Elliott Turbomachinery Company, Inc. (2009) 171
`Cal.App.4th 564.)
`
`FORTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Preemption)
`Defendant alleges that it presently has insufficient knowledge or information on
`47.
`which to form a belief as to whether it may have additional, as yet unstated, defenses available.
`Defendant reserves the right to assert additional defenses in the event that they would be
`appropriate.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-13-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`FORTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Improper Use of Product)
`If Plaintiff suffered injuries attributable to the use of any product associated with
`48.
`Defendant, which is expressly denied, the injuries were solely caused by and attributable to the
`unreasonable, unforeseeable, and inappropriate purpose and improper use of the product.
`FORTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Intervening and/or Superseding Event)
`Plaintiff’s alleged injuries, if any, were proximately caused by an unforeseeable,
`49.
`independent, and/or superseding event beyond the control, and unrelated to any conduct, of
`Defendant. Defendant’s actions, if any, were superseded by the negligence and wrongful conduct
`of others.
`
`FIFTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Waiver)
`As a results of the acts, conduct and/or omissions of Plaintiff and her agents, or
`50.
`any of them, each cause of action presented in the Complaint has been waived.
`FIFTY-FIRST AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Compliance with Specifications)
`The products, if any, for which Defendant may have any legal responsibility, were
`51.
`manufactured, packaged, distributed or sold in accordance with specifications imposed by co-
`defendants, U.S. Government, Plaintiff’s employers, or by third parties yet to be identified.
`FIFTY-SECOND AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Workers’ Compensation Exclusive Remedy)
`The Complaint is barred by the exclusivity provisions of the California Workers’
`52.
`Compensation laws, including, but not limited to, California Labor Code §3600, et seq. To the
`extent that Plaintiff’s injuries, if any were a result of her employment, Plaintiff’s remedies are
`limited to workers’ compensation benefits.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-14-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`FIFTY-THIRD AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Alter Ego Liability)
`Defendant has no liability for the acts of any other defendant or any other entity
`53.
`named in the Complaint because Defendant and/or any alleged predecessor in interest of
`Defendant treated any such defendant or entity as a separate and distinct corporate entity.
`FIFTY-FOURTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Sophisticated User)
`Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s employers were sophisticated users of Defendant’s
`54.
`products. Plaintiff and/or Plaintiff’s employers were knowledgeable and sophisticated users and
`were in a better position to warn Plaintiff of the alleged risk associated with using products.
`Thus, any and all claims and causes of action are barred by the “sophisticated user” doctrine
`pursuant to Johnson v. American Standard (2008) 43 Cal.4th 56.
`FIFTY-FIFTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Lack of Jurisdiction)
`This Court lacks jurisdiction over this action and/or personal jurisdiction over
`
`55.
`Defendant.
`
`FIFTY-SIXTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Duty to Plaintiff)
`Defendant is not liable to Plaintiff as a matter of law as it owed no duty of care or
`56.
`duty to warn to Plaintiff.
`FIFTY-SEVENTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Misrepresentation – Intentional Failure to Warn)
`Defendant did not make any knowingly false representations of fact or conceal or
`57.
`fail to disclose any known facts regarding the safety of any of Defendant’s product to which
`Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-15-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`FIFTY-EIGHTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Justifiable Reliance – Intentional Failure to Warn)
`Plaintiff did not justifiably rely upon any representations of Defendant regarding
`58.
`the safety of any Defendant’s product to which Plaintiff was allegedly exposed.
`FIFTY-NINTH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(Opinions Not Actionable – Intentional Failure to Warn)
`Any statement made by Defendant about any products to which Plaintiff was
`59.
`allegedly exposed and which Plaintiff allegedly relied upon were statements of opinion and not
`fact.
`
`SIXTIETH AFFIRMATIVE DEFENSE
`(No Manufacturing or Design Defect)
`Defendant denies that any talcum powder product that it manufactured and/or sold
`60.
`was defectively manufactured or designed, because the specifications for Defendant’s products
`did not contain asbestos.
`
`WHEREFORE, having fully responded to the subject complaint, answering defendant
`
`prays:
`
`That Plaintiff takes nothing;
`1.
`For judgment in favor of Defendant and against Plaintiff on each and every cause
`2.
`of action of Plaintiff’s Complaint;
`3.
`That Defendant be awarded its costs of suit, including its attorneys' fees;
`4.
`That Defendant be awarded appropriate credits and setoffs arising out of any
`payment of workers' compensation settlements as alleged above; and
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`/ / /
`
`-16-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`5.
`equitable.
`
`That Defendant be awarded any other relief the Court may deem proper and
`
`DATED: December 21, 2023
`
`GORDON REES SCULLY MANSUKHANI, LLP
`
`By: __________________________________
`MATTHEW S. BRADY
`JOHN P. KATERNDAHL
`LUIS A. BARBA
`HOLLY C. BEAL
`ALYSSA M. GARCIA
`Attorneys for Defendant CHANEL, INC.
`
`-17-
`DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`

`

`PROOF OF SERVICE
`Barbara Perkins v. Barretts Minerals, Inc., et al.
`San Francisco Superior Court Case No. CGC-23-277164
`STATE OF CALIFORNIA, COUNTY OF ORANGE
`I am employed in the County of Orange, State of California. I am over the age of 18 years and
`am not a party to the within action; my business address is Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP,
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100, Irvine, CA 92614. On December 21, 2023, I served the following
`document(s) described as DEFENDANT CHANEL, INC.’S ANSWER TO PLAINTIFFS’
`FIRST AMENDED COMPLAINT FOR PERSONAL INJURY on the interested parties in
`this action as follows:
`BY ELECTRONIC SERVICE: By transmitting a copy of the foregoing document(s)
`
`via internet/electronic mail to File & ServeXpress (formerly LEXIS/NEXIS) for service on the
`recipients designated on the Transaction Receipt located on the LexisNexis File and Serve
`website:
`[SEE TRANSACTION RECEIPT ON FILE & SERVEXPRESS WEBSITE]
`
`I declare under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is
`true and correct.
`Executed on December 21, 2023, at Irvine, California.
`
`Michelle M. Chavez
`
`1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9
`
`10
`11
`12
`13
`14
`15
`16
`17
`18
`19
`20
`21
`22
`23
`24
`25
`26
`27
`28
`
`Gordon Rees Scully Mansukhani, LLP
`
`5 Park Plaza, Suite 1100
`
`Irvine, CA 92614
`
`