Judge Daniel M. Crowley, Case Number: 22STCV34320, Date: 2025-05-19 Tentative Ruling

All parties are urged to meet and confer with all parties concerning this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreed-upon resolution of their matter.  If you are able to reach an agreement, please notify the courtroom staff in advance of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion by notifying the court by e-mailing the court at: SMCDEPT71@lacourt.org. Do not click on the email address, either copy and paste it or type it into your email. Include the word "SUBMITS" in all caps and the Case Number in the Subject line. In the body of the email, please provide the date and time of the hearing, your name, your contact information, the party you represent, and whether that party is a plaintiff, defendant, cross-complainant, cross-defendant, claimant, intervenor, or non-party, etc.

            Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may still appear at the hearing and argue the matter, and the court could change its tentative based upon the argument.  Unless you receive a submission from all other parties in the matter, you should assume that others might appear at the hearing to argue. If you submit, but still intend to appear, include the words "SUBMITS, BUT WILL APPEAR" in the Subject line.

            If you elect to argue your matter, you are urged to do so remotely, via Court-Connect. If the moving party fails to appear and/or submit to the Court’s tentative ruling, the Court will take the matter off calendar.

            Note that once the Court has issued a tentative, the Court has the inherent authority not to allow the withdrawal of a motion and to adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the court.

If you submitted a courtesy copy of your papers containing media (such as a DVD or thumb drive), unless you request the return of the media in your papers, the court will destroy it following the hearing of your matter.

Plaintiff Markella Thanou’s unopposed motion for an order to substitute Plaintiff’s daughter, Amalia Thanou, in place and stead of Plaintiff Markella Thanou is granted.

Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center’s motion to dismiss Plaintiff Markella Thanou’s complaint is denied as moot.

Plaintiff Markella Thanou (“Markella”) (“Plaintiff”) moves unopposed for an order granting her daughter, Amalia Thanou (“Amalia”), be substituted in as Plaintiff in place and stead of Markella. (Notice Motion Appoint, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §§337.10 et seq., 377.41.) Plaintiff moves on the grounds that Markella died during the pendency of this action, Amalia is Markella’s successor-in-interest, and Markella’s action against Defendant Cedars-Sinai Medical Center (“CSMC”) (“Defendant”) survives her death. (Notice Motion Appoint, pg. 2.)

Defendant moves for an order dismissing Plaintiff Markella’s complaint on the following grounds: (1) the named plaintiff is deceased and therefore lacks standing to maintain this wrongful death action against CSMC; and (2) deceased Plaintiff’s wrongful death action sought damages for the loss of her relationship with her deceased husband, and therefore, her action for wrongful death is personal to her and cannot be maintained on behalf of her estate or any heir. (Notice Motion Dismiss, pgs. 1-2; C.C.P. §581.)

Plaintiff and Amalia filed their initial complaint on October 25, 2022. Thereafter, Plaintiff did not prosecute the case and this Court dismissed it on or about October 26, 2023.

On March 6, 2024, this Court granted a motion to set aside/vacate the dismissal to Plaintiff’s complaint.

CSMC then filed a series of demurrers and motions to strike, which were granted. On or about August 1, 2024, this Court granted CSMC’s Demurrer and Motion to Strike Plaintiff’s operative First Amended Complaint (“FAC”). The only remaining cause of action in the FAC was Plaintiff’s claim for the alleged wrongful death of her husband; Amalia was not named as a Plaintiff in the matter and was therefore dismissed, leaving only Plaintiff to prosecute the FAC.

On December 8, 2024, Plaintiff passed away. (See Decl. of Amalia ¶9, Exh. 101.)

On January 3, 2025, CSMC filed its motion to dismiss. Plaintiff filed her opposition on April 7, 2025. As of the date of this hearing no reply has been filed.

On March 19, 2025, Plaintiff filed her motion to appoint Amalia her successor-in-interest. As of the date of this hearing no opposition has been filed.

On April 17, 2025, this Court continued Defendant’s motion to be heard on the same day as Plaintiff’s motion.

C.C.P. §377.32 provides the following information is required for a statement from a successor in interest:

(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:

(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.

(A) “The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) 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 (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) 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.”

(b) Where more than one person executes the affidavit or declaration under this section, the statements required by subdivision (a) shall be modified as appropriate to reflect that fact.

Amalia executed and filed an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following: (1) the decedent’s name (Decl. of Amalia ¶5); (2) the date and place of the decedent’s death (see id. at ¶9, Exh. 101); (3) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate” (id. at ¶12); (5A) “The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding” (id. at ¶¶4-5); (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” (see id. at ¶10); and (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” (id. at pg. 9).

Plaintiff submitted a certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate to her declaration per C.C.P. §377.32(c). (See Decl. of Amalia ¶9, Exh. 101.)

Plaintiff’s unopposed motion is granted. Amalia is substituted into this action as the Plaintiff.

C.C.P. §581 authorizes the court to dismiss a case when the dismissal is made pursuant to provisions of C.C.P. §583.110 et seq. (C.C.P. §§581(b)(4), (g).) C.C.P. §581(m) provides that “[t]he provisions of this section shall not be deemed to be an exclusive enumeration of the court’s power to dismiss an action or dismiss a complaint as to a defendant.” (C.C.P. §581(m).)

the real party in interest, except as otherwise provided by statute.” (C.C.P. §367.)

Plaintiff notified Defendant on December 19, 2024, that Plaintiff passed away. Shortly thereafter, Defendant filed the instant motion to dismiss Plaintiff’s complaint. Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest on March 19, 2025.

In light of the Court’s ruling on Plaintiff’s motion to appoint a successor-in-interest, Defendant’s motion is denied as moot.

Hon. Daniel M. Crowley

Judge of the Superior Court