Judge: Joel L. Lofton, Case: 24NNCV00238, Date: 2024-07-15 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 24NNCV00238    Hearing Date: July 15, 2024    Dept: X

   Tentative Ruling

Judge Joel L. Lofton, Department X

HEARING DATE:      July 15, 2024                                                  TRIAL DATE: No date set.

CASE:                         MICHAEL CERDA, et al. v. PASADENA MEADOW NURSING CENTER L.P..  

CASE NO.:                 24NNCV00238

(1) MOTION TO APPOINT YVETTE SALAZAR AS SPECIAL ADMINISTRATOR;

(2) MOTION TO REDESIGNATE RONALD CERDA AS A PLAINTIFF

MOVING PARTY:               (1) Plaintiff Yvette Salazar

                                                (2) Nominal Defendant Ronal Cerda

RESPONDING PARTY:     (1) Cross-Complainants and Nominal Defendants Gregory Cerda, Ernest Cerda, and Yvonne Mejia

                                                (2) None

SERVICE:                              (1)/(2) Filed June 17, 2024

OPPOSITION:                      (1) Filed July 1, 2024

RELIEF REQUESTED

             (1) Plaintiff Yvette Salazar seeks to be appointed the special administrator to prosecute Decedent Ruben Cerda’s survival claims in the instant action.

            (2) Nominal Defendant Ronald Cerda seeks to be re-designated as a plaintiff in this action and for leave to amend complaint so that the caption and allegations reflect his designation as a plaintiff.

BACKGROUND

             This case arises out of the death of Ruben Armando Cerda (“Decedent”). Plaintiffs Michael Cerda and Yvette Salazar, individually and as heirs and successors in interest to Decedent, initiated this action on March 13, 2024 against Pasadena Meadows Nursing Center, LP dba Huntington Post Acute; Pasadena Hospital Association, LTD, Climb Inc., and Melissa Ung (collectively, “Defendants”). Gregory Cerda, Ronald Cerda, Ernest Cerda, and Yvonne Mejia are identified as nominal defendants. The Complaint asserts the following causes of action: (1) Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect (Survival Action); (2) Negligence/Professional Negligence (Survival Action); (3) Wrongful Death; (4) Statutory Violations/Breach of Resident Rights (Health & Safety Code § 1430(b); and (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress.

            On May 15, 2024, Cross-Complainants Gregory Cerda, Ernest Cerda, and Yvonne Mejia, individually and as successors in interest to Decedent Ruben Armando Cerda, (collectively, “Cross-Complainants”) filed a cross-complaint against Defendants, asserting the following causes of action: (1) Elder/Dependent Adult Abuse/Neglect (Survival Action); (2) Negligence/Professional Negligence (Survival Action); (3) Wrongful Death; (4) Statutory Violations/Breach of Resident Rights (Health & Safety Code § 1430(b); (5) Negligent Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (6) Request for Declaratory Relief to be Named as Successor-in-Interest to Decedent. The Cross-Complaint identifies Michael Cerda and Yvette Salazar as nominal cross-defendants.

            On June 17, 2024, Plaintiff Yvette Salazar filed the instant motion to be appointed as special administrator of Decedent Ruben Cerda’s survival claims pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 377.33. Cross-Complainants oppose the instant motion.

            On June 17, 2024, Nominal Defendant Ronald Cerda seeks to be re-designated as a plaintiff in this action and leave to file an amended complaint so that the caption and allegation reflect this new designation.

TENTATIVE RULING

            (1) Plaintiff Yvette Salazar’s motion to be appointed special administrator pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.33 is GRANTED.

            (2) Nominal Defendant Ronald Cerda motion to be re-designated as a plaintiff is GRANTED.

DISCUSSION

I.         Motion to be Appointed Special Administrator

            Plaintiff Yvette Salazar (“Salazar”) moves to be appointed special administrator Decedent Ruben Cerda’s survival claims pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure § 377.33.

            “The court in which an action is commenced or continued under this article may make any order concerning parties that is appropriate to ensure proper administration of justice in the case, including appointment of the decedent's successor in interest as a special administrator or guardian ad litem.” (Code Civ. Proc. § 377.33.)

            Here, Salazar argues that she should be appointed special administrator of Decedent Ruben Cerda’s survival claims because she is the person most knowledgeable regarding the events that gave rise to this lawsuit. In particular, Salazar attests she: (1) was her brother’s emergency contact at all of the defendant facilities (Salazar Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6); (2) was regularly in contact with Defendant Climb Inc.’s personnel (Id. at ¶ 4); (3) participated in her late-brother’s quarterly Individual Program Plan (Ibid.); (4) spoke and interacted with her late-brother frequently (Id. at ¶¶ 5, 9); (5) communicated with hospital staff regarding her late-brother’s condition and provided informed consent for all necessary procedures (Id. at ¶ 16.) Salazar reasons that, because the plaintiffs and cross-complainants have competing wrongful death claims and discovery will likely be protracted, it would be appropriate to appoint a special administrator for the survival claims in order to streamline the discovery process. (Motion re: Special Administrator at pg. 4.) Furthermore, Salazar argues that all of the siblings would benefit from her appointment because they would be relieved of the burden of proving the survival claims and each would receive an equal share of the proceeds that would be awarded to Decedent’s estate. (Ibid.)

            In opposition, Cross-Complainants first argue that it would be inappropriate Salazar to serve as a special administrator through her attorney because there is a conflict of interest amongst the Plaintiffs and Cross-Complainants. (Opposition at pg. 4.) However, this argument is not persuasive because Salazar seeks to be the special administrator over Decedent’s survival claims only. These claims do not belong to either Plaintiffs or Cross-Complainants because they are separate and distinct from their wrongful death claims and remaining individual claims. (Code of Civ. Proc. §§ 377.30; 377.62.) Instead, because Decedent died intestate, the siblings would be entitled to an equal share of any settlement or judgment award. (Prob. Code § 6402(b),(c).) Thus, Cross-Complainants’ concern that Salazar and her counsel would reach a settlement that is more favorable to them is unwarranted. (See Opposition at pg. 4.)

            Second, Cross-Complainants argue that they are distrustful of the representation that Salazar’s counsel will provide based on pre-litigation statements made to them. (Id. at pg. 5; Mejia Decl. ¶ 12-21; Gregory Cerda Decl. ¶¶ 11-21; Ernest Cerda Decl. ¶¶ 11-21.) Also, Cross-Complainants do not wish to be associated with Ronald Cerda and Salazar for personal reasons. (Id. at pp. 4-5; Mejia Decl. ¶¶ 7-11; Gregory Cerda Decl. ¶¶ 6-10; (Ernest Cerda Decl. ¶¶ 6-10.) Based on the representations made from Salazar’s counsel, it appears that any distrust that was formed was likely due to miscommunication or misunderstanding. (See Reply, Francis Decl. ¶¶ 1-19.) While there appears to be a rift amongst siblings, Cross-Complainants desire not to be associated with Salazar is insufficient to preclude her appointment as special administrator of Decedent’s survival claims. Furthermore, this argument is undermined by the fact that Cross-Complainants proposed Gregory Cerda act as a co-special administrator alongside Salazar. (See Opposition at pg. 3.) Moreover, the only support as to why Gregory Cerda should be appointed as a special administrator is because he is the second oldest sibling. (See Mejia Decl. ¶ 22; Ernest Decl. ¶ 20.) Notably, Cross-Complainants do not set forth any evidence to suggest Salazar is not the best person to represent Decedent’s survival claims.

            Accordingly, because of Salazar’s close relationship with Decedent and due to the likelihood that she is the person who possesses the most knowledge regarding the events that gave rise to this action, Salazar’s motion to be appointed special administrator is granted.

            //

            //

            //

II.        Motion for Re-Designation

            Nominal Defendant Ronald Cerda (“Ronald”) seeks to be re-designated as a plaintiff in this action because he believes that his interests as a wrongful death heir would be best served by participating in this action as a plaintiff. (Motion re: Re-Designation at pg. 1; Cerda Decl. ¶¶ 2-3.) As one of Decedent Ruben Cerda’s siblings and statutory heirs, Ronald was named as a nominal defendant because he did not seek to participate in the action. (Id. at pg. 1; Cerda Decl. ¶¶ 1-2; Code Civ. Proc. § 377.60(a); Probate Code § 6402(b),(c); Ruttenberg v. Ruttenberg (1997) 53 Cal.App.4th 801, 808.) Because Ronald was named a nominal defendant, he is for practical purposes a plaintiff. (See Ruttenberg, supra, 53 Cal.App.4th at pg. 808 [“An heir named as a nominal defendant in a wrongful death action is, in reality, a plaintiff.”].) Therefore, it follows that he has claims that arise out same series of occurrences as the other plaintiffs and that are adverse to the named defendants. (See Code Civ. Proc. § 378(a).) Consequently, Ronald may formally join in this action as a plaintiff.

            Accordingly, Ronald’s motion to be re-designated as a plaintiff is granted. Plaintiffs are permitted to file an amended complaint solely for the purpose that the caption and allegations reflect this re-designation. 

CONCLUSION

            Plaintiff Yvette Salazar’s motion to be appointed special administrator pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.33 is GRANTED.

            Nominal Defendant Ronald Cerda’s Motion to be Re-Designated as a Plaintiff is GRANTED. Plaintiffs are permitted to file an amended complaint solely for the purpose that the caption and allegations reflect this re-designation. 

            Moving Parties to give notice.

Dated:   July 15, 2024                                     ___________________________________

                                                                                    Joel L. Lofton

                                                                                    Judge of the Superior Court

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the court indicating their

intention to submit.  alhdeptx@lacourt.org