Judge: Douglas W. Stern, Case: 23STCV00203, Date: 2023-03-17 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV00203    Hearing Date: March 17, 2023    Dept: 68

Shalana Beard vs. SBS Trust Deed Network, Case No. 23STCV00203

Motion to Substitute Successor in Interest for Plaintiff Shalana Beard

Moving Party – Brittany Gray, daughter of Plaintiff Shalana Beard

Responding Party – None

Positions

            This action was filed in order to collect money owed to Shalana Beard from the judgment in Shalana Beard vs. Lonnie Flowers, et al., LASC 19STCV42560. In that case, Ms. Beard recovered a judgment of $650,514.50 against Flowers. (Motion at p. 1.) Funds that should have been distributed to Ms. Beard’s counsel from a trustee’s sale of Flowers’ property were never distributed and have apparently vanished. (Motion at p. 1.) This action was filed to recover those funds. However, Ms. Beard died recently. (Gray Declaration, ¶ 6, Ex. A.) Her daughter, Brittany Gray, filed this motion as Ms. Beard’s successor in interest in order to continue pursuit of the action.

            No opposition has been filed as of March 15, 2023.

Analysis

            “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 the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor in interest.” (CCP § 377.31.) “A pending action or proceeding does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survives.” (CCP § 377.21; see Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 607 (finding that the decedents’ two surviving children could bring suit for “unjust enrichment and money had and received” against a person who conspired “to steal their parents’ properties and defraud them out of tens of millions of dollars”).)

            A “decedent’s successor in interest” means 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 a cause of action.” (CCP § 377.11.) More generally, “[a] person who acts as a decedent’s successor in interest, ‘steps into [the decedent’s] position,’ as to a particular action.” (Exarhos v. Exarhos (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 898, 905, as modified on denial of reh’g (Feb. 7, 2008).) CCP § 377.32 outlines the requirements for an affidavit or declaration of the successor in interest that is to be filed with the motion.

            In this case, Brittany Gray is Ms. Beard’s successor in interest because she is Ms. Beard’s daughter. The declaration of Ms. Gray that was included with the motion complies with the requirements of CCP § 377.21. Further, this type of action, one that seeks money damages, is one in which it appropriate for the successor in interest to pursue the action.

            Accordingly, Brittany Gray’s motion to substitute successor in interest for Plaintiff Shalana Beard is GRANTED.