Los Angeles Superior Court denies motion to quash in Gordon v. Alticor Inc. — believed to be the first time a California court has retained personal jurisdiction over CSI
On August 27, 2026, Judge Bruce G. Iwasaki of the Los Angeles Superior Court (Dept. 14) denied Cosmetic Specialties, Inc.’s motion to quash service of summons and complaint for lack of personal jurisdiction in Carole E. Gordon v. Alticor Inc., et al., Case No. 26STCV17591, coordinated under J.C.C.P. No. 4674. The Court adopted its tentative ruling in full after argument and ordered CSI to file a responsive pleading within twenty days.
To The Lanier Law Firm’s knowledge, this is the first time a California court has maintained personal jurisdiction over Cosmetic Specialties, Inc., a New Jersey corporation that has successfully resisted jurisdiction in California cosmetic talc litigation in the past.
Background
Carole Gordon, a lifelong California resident, filed suit on June 4, 2026, alleging she developed malignant mesothelioma from non-occupational exposure to asbestos-contaminated cosmetic talc. Her deposition testimony established that she used Merle Norman sheer face powder daily beginning in 1956, purchasing it from Merle Norman representatives and stores in California.
CSI moved to quash on July 31, 2026, arguing it had not purposefully availed itself of California and that Ms. Gordon’s claims did not arise out of or relate to any California contacts. The Court rejected both arguments.
“Carole Gordon has lived her whole life in California, bought this product in California, and was diagnosed in California. Every witness and every document connected to her injury is here. Asking her to chase a supplier to another state would have turned due process on its head.”
—Reed S. Horowitz, Lanier Law Firm Attorney
What the Court Held
- Purposeful availment: The Court found that CSI intentionally directed its product to California, relying substantially on CSI’s own verified interrogatory responses from an earlier case, in which CSI acknowledged selling cosmetic talc to Merle Norman between October 1998 and January 2008 that was shipped to a Long Beach, California, warehouse for customer pickup. The Court found CSI sold and shipped talc into California, where it was picked up by a California manufacturer — specifically, the manufacturer of the product at issue. Ms. Gordon’s opposition also pointed to CSI’s decade-long Long Beach distribution presence and its own published advertising offering talc from its Long Beach distribution centers.
- Relatedness: Applying Ford Motor Co. v. Montana Eighth Judicial District Court (2021) 592 U.S. 351, the Court emphasized that the inquiry is not strictly causal. Merle Norman’s corporate representative supplied a declaration, supported by business records, establishing that the company’s headquarters and sole manufacturing facility are in Los Angeles and that the talc grades used in its sheer face powder — 1625 Talc BC and, from 2013, 3355 USP/EP/JP Talc — were supplied by IMI Fabi LLC and CSI. Formula cards spanning 1991 to 2021 confirmed those grades in the product. The Court concluded that CSI “systematically served a market” in California for the very product alleged to have caused injury.
- Fair play and substantial justice: The Court noted that while CSI disputed reasonableness, it offered no specific argument or evidence. Weighing California’s interest in adjudicating an injury sustained in the state, the presence of other California defendants, and efficiency, the Court found the exercise of jurisdiction reasonable.
Why the Ruling Matters
CSI had previously obtained an order quashing service in an earlier Merle Norman talc case, and asked the Court to take judicial notice of that order and of the subsequent denial of reconsideration. The Court took judicial notice of the orders’ existence only, holding that the findings and the truth of statements within them were not judicially noticeable and that the prior decision was not binding.
The ruling also underscores an evidentiary point with practical consequences for plaintiffs litigating supplier jurisdiction. The Court sustained hearsay objections to prior discovery deposition testimony from CSI’s corporate representative under Berroteran v. Superior Court (2022) 12 Cal.5th 867. Jurisdiction was nevertheless established — through the manufacturer’s declaration and business records under Evidence Code section 1271, and through the defendant’s own verified discovery responses. Where discovery depositions from prior cases may not survive a hearsay challenge, contemporaneous corporate records and a defendant’s own sworn discovery admissions can carry the burden.
“The principle here is not complicated. A company that builds a distribution operation in California, sells into that market, and hands its product to a California manufacturer can be asked to answer in California when a Californian is injured. That is what the Court recognized, and as far as we know it is the first time any California court has said it about this defendant.”
—Darron E. Berquist, Managing Attorney, Asbestos Litigation Team
Ms. Gordon is represented in her Los Angeles mesothelioma litigation by Reed S. Horowitz and Darron E. Berquist of The Lanier Law Firm. The case is set for trial on December 7, 2026.