Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 21STCV07734, Date: 2024-06-04 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV07734    Hearing Date: June 4, 2024    Dept: 32

PLEASE NOTE:   Parties are encouraged to meet and confer concerning this tentative ruling to determine if a resolution may be reached.  If the parties are unable to reach a resolution and a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the Court at sscdept32@lacourt.org indicating that party’s intention to submit.  The email shall include the case number, date and time of the hearing, counsel’s contact information (if applicable), and the identity of the party submitting on this tentative ruling.  If the Court does not receive an email indicating the parties are submitting on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may place the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  If all parties do not submit on this tentative ruling, they should arrange to appear in-person or remotely.  Further, after the Court has posted/issued a tentative ruling, the Court has the inherent authority to prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion and adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court. 

TENTATIVE RULING

MOTIONS

On February 26, 2021, Plaintiff Maria Cabriales (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendant Smart & Final Stores, LLC (“Defendant”) based on an alleged slip and fall.

Plaintiff moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.31, substituting Lourdes Cabriales, Plaintiff’s daughter, as the deceased Plaintiff’s successor in interest. Defendant opposes. No reply has been filed.   

ANALYSIS

California Code of Civil Procedure section 377.31 provides that the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, the decedent’s successor in interest may continue a decedent’s pending action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.30; see Adams v. Superior Court (2011) 196 Cal.App.4th 71, 78-79.) A successor in interest is the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of the cause of action. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.) Section 377.33 provides that the court in which an action is continued may make any order concerning parties that is appropriate to ensure proper administration of justice, including the appointment of the decedent’s successor in interest as a special administrator or guardian ad litem. 

Section 377.32 provides that a person who seeks to commence or continue such an action as the decedent’s successor in interest must file an affidavit or declaration providing certain information, including the decedent’s name, date and place of decedent’s death, and statements regarding whether the estate has been administered and that the affiant or declarant is the successor in interest on decedent’s claim. (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.32(a).) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate must also be attached to the affidavit or declaration. (Id., § 377.32(c).)

            The complaint was filed on February 26, 2021. Plaintiff passed away on March 14, 2022. Lourdes Cabriales (“Cabriales”) has filed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that she is the daughter, next of kin, and successor in interest to Plaintiff’s interest in this action. (Cabriales Decl. ¶ 4–7.) Plaintiff was not survived by a husband. No other person has a superior right to be substituted in this action and no proceeding is pending for the administration of Plaintiff’s estate. (Id. ¶ 8–10.) Cabriales has attached Plaintiff’s death certificate to her declaration.

            However, in opposition, Defendant asserts that before Plaintiff died, she testified in a deposition that she had four living sons and two living daughters. (Ulwelling Decl. ¶ 3, Exh. A, Pl. Depo. 13:17–15:13.) Defendant argues the remaining children are indispensable parties to this action. It also asserts that Cariales is listed as the informant on the death certificate and is not necessarily the only next of kin.

            The Court finds that the declarations in support of this motion do not refer to Plaintiff’s remaining children, or explain why they are not seeking to be substituted in this matter. Plaintiff also have not filed a reply responding to Defendant’s argument. As a result, the Court finds that there is dispute as to whether Cabriales is Plaintiff’s sole successor in interest, as she declares. (See Cabriales Decl. ¶ 10.)  

Therefore, the motion to substitute is denied.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court DENIES the Motion to Substitute Lourdes Cabriales in Place of Deceased Plaintiff.

Moving Party shall give notice of the Court’s orders, and file a proof of service of such.