Judge: Anne Hwang, Case: 23STCV30181, Date: 2024-06-10 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV30181    Hearing Date: June 10, 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

Plaintiff Edward Casillas (“Plaintiff”) moves for an order pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.31, appointing Theresa Casillas, Plaintiff’s mother, in her capacity as successor in interest to the deceased Plaintiff.

Plaintiff originally filed this as an ex parte application. However, the Court on its own, set this matter as a motion. (Min. Order, 6/5/24.) No opposition 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 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. (Id., § 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).)

            Plaintiff filed the complaint on December 11, 2023. Plaintiff passed away on January 8, 2024. A certified copy of Plaintiff’s death certificate has been attached. (Casillas Decl. ¶ 4–5, Exh. 1.) The Court finds that Theresa Casillas has filed a declaration, under penalty of perjury, that she is Plaintiff’s successor in interest to Plaintiff’s interest in this action. Therefore, the motion to substitute is granted.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Therefore, the Court grants the motion to appoint Theresa Casillas as successor in interest to Edward Casillas, deceased.

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

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

BACKGROUND

On December 11, 2023, Plaintiff Edward Casillas (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants Joseph Sandoval, Globe Life Insurance Agency, Inc., Globe Life Liberty National Division, Liberty National Life Insurance Company, and Does 1 to 100 for negligence surrounding a motor vehicle accident.

Specially Appearing Defendant Globe Life Insurance Agency, Inc. (“Defendant”) now moves to quash service of the summons under Code of Civil Procedure section 418.10, arguing the Court lacks jurisdiction. No opposition has been filed.

LEGAL STANDARD

“A defendant . . . may serve and file a notice of motion for one or more of the following purposes:¿ (1) To quash service of summons on the ground of lack of jurisdiction of the court over him or her. . . .”¿(Code Civ. Proc., § 418.10(a).)¿“[C]ompliance with the statutory procedures for service of process is essential to establish personal jurisdiction. [Citation.]”¿(Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1444.)¿“[T]he filing of a proof of service creates a rebuttable presumption that the service was proper” but only if it “complies with the statutory requirements regarding such proofs.”¿(Id. at 1441-1442.)¿When a defendant moves to quash service of the summons and complaint, the plaintiff has “the burden of proving the facts that did give the court jurisdiction, that is the facts requisite to an effective service.”¿(Coulston v. Cooper (1966) 245 Cal.App.2d 866, 868.)¿ 

California’s long-arm statute authorizes California courts to exercise jurisdiction on any basis not inconsistent with the Constitution of the United States or the Constitution of California.¿(Code Civ. Proc., section 410.10.) Accordingly, a California court’s assertion of personal jurisdiction over a non-resident defendant who has not been served with process within the State comports with the requirements of the due process clause of the United States Constitution if the defendant has such minimum contacts with the State that the assertion of jurisdiction does not violate traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice. (Vons Companies, Inc. v. Seabest Foods, Inc. (1996) 14 Cal.4th 434, 444-45; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310, 316.) 

California recognizes two ways in which the constitutional “minimum contacts” requirement may be satisfied. General jurisdiction exists when a defendant’s contacts with the forum state are so systematic and so continuous as to make it consistent with traditional notions of fair play and substantial justice to subject the defendant to the jurisdiction of the forum, even if the cause of action is unrelated to the contacts.¿(Vons, supra, 14 Cal.4th at 445-46; International Shoe Co. v. Washington (1945) 326 U.S. 310; Worldwide Volkswagen Corp. v. Woodson (1980) 444 U.S. 286, 291.)  

The relevant period for determining the existence of minimum contacts justifying the exercise of jurisdiction is that which existed when the cause of action arose. (Boaz v. Byle & Co. (1995) 40 Cal.App.4th 700, 717.) “For an individual, the paradigm forum for the exercise of general jurisdiction is the individual’s domicile.” (Daimler AG v. Bauman (2014) 571 U.S. 117, 137.) A domicile is the place where one resides with the intent to remain indefinitely. (DeYoung v. DeYoung (1946) 27 Cal.3d 521, 524.) Due to the intent requirement, a person may only have one domicile at a time. (Marriage of Tucker (1991) 226 Cal.App.2d 1249, 1258.) 

A nonresident may be subject to specific jurisdiction if: (1) the nonresident has purposefully availed itself of the benefits and protections of the state’s laws; (2) the controversy arises out of the nonresident’s contacts with the state; and (3) it would be fair and just to assert jurisdiction. (Burger King Corp. v. Rudzewicz (1985) 471 U.S. 462, 472; Pavlovich v. Superior Court (2002) 29 Cal.4th 262, 268.) 

A court may consider factors including: 

1.      The extent to which the lawsuit relates to defendant’s activities or contacts with California 

2.      The availability of evidence and the location of witnesses 

3.      The availability of an alternative forum in which the claim could be litigated  

4.      The relative costs and burdens to the litigants of bringing or defending the action 

5.      State policy in providing a forum for this particular litigation 

Where personal jurisdiction is challenged, “the burden shifts to the plaintiff to demonstrate by a preponderance of the evidence that all necessary jurisdictional criteria are met. (Thomas J. Palmer, Inc. v. Turkiye Is Bankasi A.S., 105 Cal.App.3d 135, 148.) The burden is established by competent evidence in affidavits and authenticated documentary evidence.” (Ziller Electronics Lab Gmbh v. Superior Court (1988) 206 Cal.App.3d 1222, 1232-1233; Dill v. Berquist Construction Co. (1994) 24 Cal.App.4th 1426, 1439–1440.) 

DISCUSSION

Defendant argues it is a Texas corporation with its principal place of business in Texas. (Zorn Decl. ¶ 2.) Defendant argues it does not maintain any employees or offices in California, does not own or lease any vehicles in California, and does not contract with individual sales agents who reside in California. (Id. ¶ 2–5.)

Because Defendant challenges personal jurisdiction, Plaintiff has the burden to show the jurisdictional criteria are met. Plaintiff does not oppose this motion and therefore has failed to meet his burden.

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion to quash service of the summons is GRANTED.

Specially appearing Defendants shall provide notice of the Court’s ruling and file a proof of service of such.