Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 20STCV39983, Date: 2023-11-28 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 20STCV39983 Hearing Date: November 28, 2023 Dept: 27
Tentative Ruling
Judge Lee S. Arian, Department 27
HEARING DATE: November
28, 2023 TRIAL DATE: December 19, 2023
CASE: Johnnie Valencia and Evelia Valencia v. Los Angeles World
Airports, et al.
CASE NO.: 20STCV39983
MOTION
FOR SUBSTITUTION OF SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST
MOVING PARTY: Petitioner
Evalia Valencia
RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants Los
Angeles World Airports; Roderick W. Hammer; DOES 1-10
I. BACKGROUND
On October 19, 2020, Evalia Valencia (“Evalia”) and Johnnie
Valencia (“Johnnie”) (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendants
Los Angeles World Airports (“LAWA”), Roderick W. Hammer (“Hammer”), and DOES
1-10 (collectively “Defendants”), for injuries and damages Plaintiffs allegedly
sustained because of Defendants’ alleged negligent acts.
On January
3, 2021, Plaintiff Johnnie Valencia passed away.
On October
2, 2023, Petitioner Evelia Valencia filed this motion for an order to
substitute herself as Johnnie’s successor in interest. Defendants Roderick W. Hammer and the City of
Los Angeles oppose, but only on the basis that they need more time to conduct
discovery.[1]
II. LEGAL STANDARD
“A
pending action or proceeding does not abate by the death of a party if the
cause of action survives.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.21.) “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.)
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 shall execute and
file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of
this state stating: (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, (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,” and (7) the statements are true, under penalty of
perjury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32.)
A
certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the
affidavit or declaration.¿ (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (c).)
III. DISCUSSION
Petitioner seeks an order
substituting herself as Plaintiff’s successor in interest. In support, Petitioner submits a declaration
that complies with Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. Petitioner declares that she is Plaintiff’s
widow.[2]
Citing
Code of Civil Procedure section 377.33, which states in part that “the court in
which an action is commenced or continued under this article may make any order
concerning parties that is appropriate to ensure property administration of
justice in the case,” Defendants argue that after the Successor in Interest has
been appointed and the supplemental complaint is responded to, that the matter
be scheduled for a Trial Setting Conference to ensure that Defendants have the
necessary discovery to prepare for trial or hearing. Section 377.33 does
not bar Petitioner’s motion. Accordingly,
with no real opposition, the Motion is appropriately granted.
In light of Defendants’ request to have
the trial in this case continued and discovery continued as well, the Court
will hear from the parties at the hearing on this matter regarding that issue.
IV.
CONCLUSION
The Motion for Substitution of Successor In Interest of
Deceased Plaintiff is GRANTED. The
parties are to appear at the hearing to discuss discovery and trial dates.
Moving party to give notice.
Dated: November 28,
2023 ___________________________________
Lee
S. Arian
Judge
of the Superior Court
.
[1] Defendants Hammer and City of Los
Angeles have no opposition to Plaintiff
Evelia being appointed the successor of interest of Plaintiff Johnnie Valencia.
However, they argue that they were not served until April 2022 for the City and
August 2022 for Hammer, so they did not have time to conduct sufficient
discovery. Thus, they request a trial setting conference if this motion is
granted since the trial is 21 days out.
[2] Petitioner attached a copy of Plaintiff’s death certificate
to her declaration.
A certified copy of the decedent’s
death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.¿ (Code
Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (c).) Plaintiff’s passing does not appear to
be a contested issue.