Judge: Laura A. Seigle, Case: 22STCV29076, Date: 2024-02-29 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22STCV29076    Hearing Date: February 29, 2024    Dept: 15

[TENTATIVE] ORDER RE MOTION FOR SUMMARY ADJUDICATION 

On September 7, 2022, Plaintiffs Richard Tree and Leah Sanford filed this action alleging Richard Boetsch developed mesothelioma as a result of exposure to asbestos from Defendant Ford Motor Company’s products.  Defendant filed a motion for summary adjudication as to Plaintiffs’ wrongful death claim.  

A defendant seeking summary judgment must “conclusively negate[] a necessary element of the plaintiff’s case, or . . . demonstrate[] that under no hypothesis is there a material issue of fact that requires the process of trial.”  (Guz v. Bechtel Nat. Inc. (2000) 24 Cal.4th 317, 334.)  To show that a plaintiff cannot establish an element of a cause of action, a defendant must make the initial showing “that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 854.)  “The defendant may, but need not, present evidence that conclusively negates an element of the plaintiff’s cause of action.  The defendant may also present evidence that the plaintiff does not possess, and cannot reasonably obtain, needed evidence – as through admissions by the plaintiff following extensive discovery to the effect that he has discovered nothing.”  (Id. at p. 855.) 

Defendant argues Plaintiffs, the adult children of Richard Boetsch, do not have standing to bring a wrongful death claim because Boetsch’s parental rights were terminated when the children were adopted by their stepfather.  (Calfo Decl., Exs. G and H.)  Defendants cite deposition testimony that Plaintiffs had minimal contact with Decedent after the adoption.  (Undisputed Material Fact 10.)

Civil Code section 377.60, subdivision (a) states that individuals with standing to bring a wrongful death claim include “[t]he decedent's surviving spouse, domestic partner, children, . . .”  Probate Code section 6451 governs the effect of an adoption on the parent-child relationship and states, in pertinent part: “(a) An adoption severs the relationship of parent and child between an adopted person and a natural parent of the adopted person unless both of the following requirements are satisfied: (1) The natural parent and the adopted person lived together at any time as parent and child, or the natural parent was married to or cohabiting with the other natural parent at the time the person was conceived and died before the person’s birth; (2) The adoption was by the spouse of either of the natural parents or after the death of either of the natural parents.”

Richard Boetsch is the natural parent of Plaintiffs.  (Calfor Decl., Ex. E at p. 10; Ex. F at p. 10.)  Plaintiffs were born in 1965 and 1967.  (Id., Ex. E at p. 10; Ex. F at p. 10)  Plaintiffs’ parents divorced in 1976.  (Id., Ex. E at p. 10)  Plaintiffs lived with Boetsch until the divorce.  (Id., Ex. E at p. 25; Ex. F at pp. 11-12.)  Gary Russell Tree is the spouse of Plaintiffs’ natural parent, Jeannine Fisher Tree.  (Id., Ex. D at p. 27.)  Based on these facts, Plaintiffs’ adoption did not sever the relationship of Boetsch and Plaintiffs under section 6451.  Therefore, Defendant did not shift the burden.

The motion for summary adjudication is DENIED.

The moving party is to give notice.