Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case 19STCV35322 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Daniel M. Crowley, Case: 19STCV35322, Date: 2022-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19STCV35322 Hearing Date: December 14, 2022 Dept: 28

Cadoris Reid’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Cadoris Reid as Successor in Interest

Having considered the moving, opposing and reply papers, the Court rules as follows.

BACKGROUND

On October 2, 2019, Plaintiff Michelle Lynette Buckley (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority (“LACMTA”) and Transdev Services, Inc. (“Transdev”) for motor vehicle negligence and general negligence.

On November 21, 2019, Defendants filed an answer.

On October 28, 2022, Cadoris Reid (“SII”) filed a Motion for Leave to Substitute Cadoris Reid as Successor in Interest for Plaintiff to be heard on December 14, 2022. On December 1, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition. On December 8, 2022, Plaintiff filed a reply.

Trial is scheduled for March 3, 2023.

PARTY’S REQUESTS

SII requests the Court substitute Cadoris Reid as the successor in interest in place of Plaintiff, who passed away after commencing the action.

Defendants request the Court deny the motion.

LEGAL STANDARD

Code of Civil Procedure §377.31 states “On motion, after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor-in-interest.”

Code of Civil Procedure §377.32 states, in pertinent part: “(a) The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent* s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under. the laws of this state stating all of the following: (I) The decedent's name. (2) The date and place of the decedent's death. (3) No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent's estate (4) If the decedent's estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent's cause of action to the successor in interest (5) Either of the following, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof: a. The affiant or declarant is the decedent's successor in interest and succeeds to the decedent's interest in the action or proceeding. b. The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent's successor in interest with respect to the decedent's interest in the action or proceeding. (6) No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding. (7) The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct. (c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.”

DISCUSSION

Plaintiff passed away on August 28, 2021, after commencing this action. At the time her passing, Plaintiff was married to Victor Williams (“Williams”) and had one son, SII. Williams would be the proper successor in interest but has renounced his right to be named successor for this litigation. SII is the appropriate successor under CCP § 377.11.

Defendants incorrectly argue that CCP § 336.1 bars SII from bringing forward this motion. CCP §336.1 states that, should the rightful plaintiff die before the expiration of an applicable status of limitations, the successor in interest may bring it either within that statute of limitations or six months after the person’s death. This is wholesale irrelevant, as the action was commenced by Plaintiff prior to her death. CCP §336.1 only applies when an action has yet to be commenced.

Defendants also argue that the attached declaration is insufficient—the Court disagrees. The affidavit establishes that SII is a proper successor, establishes the familial connection, and explains why no other party is better suited to act as successor. The Court grants the motion.

CONCLUSION

Cadoris Reid’s Motion for Leave to Substitute Cadoris Reid as Successor in Interest is GRANTED. The Court deems the Cadoris Reid as substituted for Plaintiff.

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling.

Moving Party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.

The parties are directed to the header of this tentative ruling for further instructions.