On May 1, 2015, plaintiff Atlas Ferrera, 37, a makeup artist, worked at Larchmont Beauty Supply, in Larchmont Village, Los Angeles. The neighboring business was being fumigated to address a roach infestation. Ferrera claimed that the pesticide migrated through a wall shared by the two businesses, into the restroom of his business, and poisoned him. Ferrera sued the fumigator’s employer, Terminix International Inc. Ferrera alleged that the fumigator was negligent in the application of pesticides and negligently failed to warn about the products prior to applying them. Ferrera’s counsel contended that the pesticide products being applied contained pyrethrins, pesticides found naturally in chrysanthemum flowers; pyrethroids, a group of man-made pesticides similar to the naturally occurring pyrethrins; and neonicotinoids, a new class of insecticides chemically related to nicotine. Counsel argued that the fumigator negligently applied the pesticides without inspection and without warning. Counsel also argued that the fumigator failed to record what pesticides were applied, where they were applied and how much was applied, all in violation of state law. Ferrera’s counsel contended Terminix also claimed to have lost its investigation report concerning the incident. Terminix’s counsel maintained that Terminix followed all applicable regulations and product manufacturer instructions and guidance. Counsel denied that the products applied at the business location contained pyrethrins, pyrethroids or neonicotinoids. Counsel also denied that Ferrera was exposed to anything and denied that Terminix was negligent., Ferrera claimed that he suffered exposure symptoms immediately after the incident and took himself to an emergency room. He claimed that he developed acute respiratory symptoms and suffered a complete and permanent loss of smell and taste, known as anosmia and ageusia. He also claimed he began to suffer chronic migraines. Ferrera sought recovery of damages for past and future pain and suffering. Defense counsel denied that Ferrera suffered any . Defense counsel filed numerous motions in limine, arguing that Ferrera’s experts’ testimony lacked foundation and was speculative, based on the Supreme Court’s decision in “Sargon Enterprises v. USC.” The motions were denied. The defense’s expert witnesses opined that none of the components of the materials applied were capable of causing Ferrera’s alleged permanent loss of smell or taste. The experts also opined that Ferrera’s alleged symptoms and findings on diagnostic tests were inconsistent and physiologically impossible.