Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV38543, Date: 2025-04-24 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV38543    Hearing Date: April 24, 2025    Dept: 27

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

Background

The current lawsuit arises from a motor vehicle incident that allegedly occurred on October 16, 2018, over six years ago. On October 6, 2020, Plaintiff filed this case and served Defendants Nicole Hanhan and Evon Hanhan on December 14, 2020. On August 16, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel informed Defendants’ counsel that Plaintiff, John Williams Edwards II, had passed away and that counsel was attempting to appoint a successor in interest. Despite repeated meet and confer attempts from Defendants’ counsel seeking updates on the appointment, Plaintiff has not appointed a successor in interest in the year and a half since Plaintiff’s death. The Court has continued trial at least three times due to this issue. To date, the question of substitution remains unresolved. Defendants now move for dismissal.  Plaintiff filed a late opposition that, in its discretion, the Court considers.

Legal Standard

A court has discretion to dismiss an action for delay in prosecution. (Code Civ. Proc., §§ 583.410(a), 583.420(a)(2)(A); Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1340.) Under these provisions, the Court may dismiss an action if it has not been brought to trial or conditionally settled within two years after the action was commenced against the defendant. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1340.)

Dismissal under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.420, subdivision (a)(2)(A), may be granted when three years have passed since the action was commenced against the defendant.

In determining whether to exercise its discretion to dismiss, the Court must consider all relevant factors, including:

1.  The court’s file in the case and the declarations and supporting data submitted by the parties, and, where applicable, the availability of the moving party and other essential parties for service of process;

2.  The diligence in seeking to effect service of process;

3.  The extent to which the parties engaged in any settlement negotiations or discussions;

4.  The diligence of the parties in pursuing discovery or other pretrial proceedings, including any extraordinary relief sought by either party;

5.  The nature and complexity of the case;

6.  The law applicable to the case, including the pendency of other litigation involving a common set of facts or issues determinative of the case;

7.  The nature of any extensions of time or other delay attributable to either party;

8.  The condition of the court’s calendar and the availability of an earlier trial date if the matter was ready for trial;

9.  Whether the interests of justice are best served by dismissal or trial of the case; and

10.               Any other fact or circumstance relevant to a fair determination of the issue.
(Cal. Rules of Court, rule 3.1342(e).)

The Court’s discretion to dismiss for want of prosecution is broad, but not unlimited. Discretion is abused when the Court exceeds the bounds of reason, considering all the circumstances before it. (Denham v. Superior Court (1970) 2 Cal.3d 557, 566.)

Discussion

This is a motor vehicle accident case that is not high in complexity, involving one Plaintiff and two Defendants. The only issue currently before the Court is the substitution of a successor in interest. Plaintiff passed away in August 2023. It has now been over a year and a half since Plaintiff’s death, and no substitution has been made.

As a result of this issue, the Court has continued trial on October 11, 2023, April 8, 2024, and December 6, 2024, based on the parties’ stipulations due to Plaintiff’s death and Plaintiff’s counsel’s continued inability to locate and appoint a successor in interest. Defendants’ argument that they have been prejudiced is well taken. The underlying incident occurred over six years ago. There is an increased likelihood that witnesses may become unavailable, memories may fade, and relevant evidence may be lost or rendered unreliable. This kind of prolonged uncertainty frustrates Defendant’s ability to prepare an effective defense. Further, this case, filed in 2020, is now approaching the five-year statutory deadline under Code of Civil Procedure section 583.310.

Plaintiff filed an opposition asserting that the delay in prosecution is justified. Plaintiff’s counsel states that Plaintiff’s wife died one month after him, and she may have had children from a prior relationship, further complicating succession. Plaintiff is believed to have had six children, including one reportedly incarcerated and another whose whereabouts are currently unknown. Plaintiff’s counsel declares that “At the time of this filing, we have secured the consent forms from all but one of the potential successors that we are aware of, and we are continuing our efforts to locate the remaining individual. We anticipate filing a petition to appoint the successors in interest within the next two to three weeks.”

However, the declaration fails to provide any specific detail identifying who the missing successor is, where that individual may be located, or what concrete efforts have been undertaken to locate the individual in the year and a half since Plaintiff’s passing. Critically, counsel does not clarify how close they are to locating this individual, such as whether they have identified an address but failed to make contact, or whether the individual's whereabouts remain entirely unknown. No documentation has been submitted to substantiate counsel’s claim of diligence as to the final successor.

On April 22,2025, two days before this hearing, Plaintiff filed a motion to appoint a successor in interest. In support of the motion, Plaintiff’s counsel stated that he and the proposed successors in interest “have thus far been unable to establish any communication with the two surviving siblings, John William Edwards III and Steven Lavon Edwards.” Despite this, the remaining four successors in interest submitted declarations stating that “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.” However, this assertion appears unfounded, as the two other known successors have not been contacted. Without establishing communication or conducting sufficient inquiry into whether those individuals disclaim or assert a right, the declarants cannot credibly affirm that no superior right exists.

Further, because there are multiple successors in interest, Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32, subdivision (a)(5)(B), requires the declarant to affirmatively state that they are “authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.” No declaration to such an effect has been provided.

Accordingly, the motion to dismiss is granted.

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SSCDEPT27@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit on the tentative as directed by the instructions provided on the court’s website at www.lacourt.org.  Please be advised that if you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the matter.  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 the Court does not receive emails from the parties indicating submission on this tentative ruling and there are no appearances at the hearing, the Court may, at its discretion, adopt the tentative as the final order or place the motion off calendar.