Judge: Katherine Chilton, Case: 19STCV34317, Date: 2022-10-17 Tentative Ruling
If you desire to submit on the tentative ruling, you may do so by e-mailing Dept. 25 at the Spring Street Courthouse up until the morning of the motion hearing. The e-mail address is SSCdept25@lacourt.org. The heading on your e-mail should contain the case name, number, hearing date, and that you submit. The message should indicate your name, contact information, and the party you represent. Please note, the above e-mail address is to inform the court of your submission on the tentative ruling. All other inquiries will not receive a response.
Due to overcrowding concerns of COVID-19, all parties shall make every effort to schedule a remote appearance via LACourtConnect (https://my.lacourt.org/laccwelcome) for their next hearing. The parties shall register with LACourtConnect at least 2 hours prior to their scheduled hearing time. **Please note we no longer use CourtCall**
Case Number: 19STCV34317 Hearing Date: October 17, 2022 Dept: 25
PROCEEDINGS: MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST
MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff’s
Successor in Interest, Tia Stewart
RESP. PARTY: None
MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE SUCCESSOR IN
INTEREST
(CCP §§ 377.31, 377.32, et seq.)
TENTATIVE RULING:
Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Tia Stewart as Successor in
Interest to Deceased Plaintiff Ciara Steadman is GRANTED.
SERVICE:
[
] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule
3.1300) OK
[ ]
Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK
[ ] 16/21 Court
Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK
OPPOSITION: None filed as of October
12, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
REPLY: None filed as
of October 12, 2022 [ ] Late [X] None
ANALYSIS:
I.
Background
On September 25, 2019, Plaintiff Ciara
Steadman (“Plaintiff”) filed a complaint against Defendants David Service
Station, Inc. (“David”), Nam Chung (“Nam”), and Eung K. Chung (“Eung”),
(collectively “Defendants”) for general negligence and premises liability,
arising out of an alleged slip and fall accident. On March 4, 2020, Defendants, collectively,
filed an Answer to the Complaint denying all allegations in the Complaint.
On March 15, 2021, Plaintiff filed
an Ex Parte Application to Substitute Estate of Ciara Steadman for Deceased
Plaintiff Ciara Steadman. The Court
denied Plaintiff’s Ex Parte Application.
(3-15-21 Minute Order.)
On September 27, 2021, the Court
granted Defendants’ Motion to Reclassify the case as a limited civil case,
filed on August 12, 2021. (9-27-21
Minute Order.)
On July 25, 2022, Plaintiff filed
the instant Motion to Substitute Tia Stewart, As Successor in Interest, to Deceased
Plaintiff Ciara Steadman (“Motion”). On
August 19, 2022, the Court, on its own motion, continued the hearing on the
Motion to September 14, 2022. (8-19-22
Minute Order.)
On September 14, 2022, the Court
found that the Motion contained several deficiencies and continued the hearing
to allow Plaintiff to cure the deficiencies.
(9-14-22 Minute Order.) On
September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed additional papers.
No opposition has been filed.
II.
Legal Standard
“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.” (Code Civ. Proc.
§ 377.31.)
Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32 provides the following:
(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:
(1) 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 (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.
(c) A
certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the
affidavit or declaration.
III.
Discussion
On September 14,
2022, the Court found that the Motion had several deficiencies and did not
comply with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32. First, the Declaration of Tia Stewart was not
submitted under penalty of perjury.
Second, it contained statements irrelevant to the instant case,
including “I, Dominique Watson, declare, as follows,” “I am the successor of
interest to Plaintiff Kentha McDowell” and others. (Stewart Decl.) Furthermore, Exhibit 1 – Certificate of Death
for Ciara Ve Jon Steadman was not attached to the Declaration as stated. (Ibid. at ¶ 2.) The declaration of counsel was not submitted
under penalty of perjury, either.
Finally, Plaintiff had not submitted a proper Proof of Service of the
moving papers. (Mot. p. 6.)
On
September 26, 2022, Plaintiff filed an updated declaration, Notice of Motion,
Motion, and Proof of Service.
The
declaration of Plaintiff’s successor in interest, Tia Stewart, is signed and
submitted under penalty of perjury. (See
9-26-22 Stewart Decl.) It states that
the decedent, Ciara Steadman, died on August 19, 2020. (Ibid. at ¶¶ 2-3.) A certified copy of decedent’s Certificate of
Death is attached. (Ibid. at ¶ 2,
Ex. 1.) Stewart’s declaration states
that “[n]o proceeding is now pending in the State of California for the
administration of the estate of CIARA STEADMAN.
My daughter died intestate, and I am her successor in interest.” (Ibid. at ¶ 5.) Stewart declares that she is “the successor
of interest to Plaintiff CIARA STEADMAN” and succeeds “to decedent’s interest” in the instant
action. (Ibid. at ¶ 6.) She is “the only successors [sic] in interest
to act on behalf of decedent Plaintiff CIARA STEADMAN” and she is “authorized
by all other successor in interest to act on decedent’s behalf” in the instant
action. (Ibid. at ¶ 5[1].) Finally, “[n]o other person has a superior
right to be substituted for CIARA STEADMAN in the above-entitled
proceeding.” (Ibid. at ¶ 6.)
Plaintiff’s
attorney, John Rofael Esq. has also submitted a sworn declaration. (9-26-22 Mot. p. 6.)
Finally,
Plaintiff has filed Proof of Service indicating that defense counsel was served
with all documents. (Ibid. at p.
7.)
The
Court finds that successor in interest, Tia Stewart, has complied with all
statutory requirements for the instant Motion.
The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Tia Stewart as
Successor in Interest to Deceased Plaintiff Ciara Steadman.
IV.
Conclusion
& Order
For the foregoing reasons,
Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Tia Stewart as Successor in
Interest to Deceased Plaintiff Ciara Steadman is GRANTED.
Moving
party is to give notice.
[1] The
Court notes that the paragraphs in Tia Stewart’s Declaration are numbered
incorrectly as ¶¶ 5 and 6 appear twice.