Judge Lee S. Arian, Case Number: 23STCV15977, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lee S. Arian, Case: 23STCV15977, Date: 2024-12-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV15977 Hearing Date: December 2, 2024 Dept: 27

Hon. Lee S. Arian, Dept 27

MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION

Hearing Date: 12/2/24¿

CASE NO./NAME: 23STCV15977 DOUGLAS KING, AN INDIVIDUAL vs LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY et al.

Moving Party: Plaintiff

Responding Party: Defendant LOS ANGELES COUNTY METROPOLITAN TRANSPORTATION AUTHORITY

Notice: Sufficient

Ruling: MOTION FOR SUBSTITUTION IS GRANTED

Background

On July 10, 2023, Plaintiff and Decedent Douglas King filed the present action, alleging that he was injured while boarding Defendant Los Angeles County Metropolitan Transportation Authority’s (“LACMTA”) bus near 5th Street and Wall Street. On July 2, 2024, Plaintiff passed away. Kiana King Mathis and Jamalia Jones, Decedent’s nieces, move the Court to succeed to Decedent’s interest in this case.

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,

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,” 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).)

Discussion

The requirements of Code of Civil Procedure § 377.32 have been met. The declaration provides the decedent’s name, the date and place of the decedent’s death, and states that no proceeding is currently pending in California for the administration of the decedent’s estate. The declaration also affirms that the declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest, no other person has a superior right to commence or be substituted in the action, and a copy of the death certificate is provided.

Defendant filed an opposition arguing that Plaintiff’s motion is procedurally defective. However, Defendant’s arguments are without merit.

First, Defendant contends that § 377.31 does not permit multiple successors in interest. This is incorrect, as the language of § 377.32(b) expressly allows for multiple successors. Specifically, it states: “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.”

Second, Defendant argues that the submitted declarations fail to state whether Mr. King’s estate was administered and do not include a final order distributing Mr. King’s cause of action to either Ms. Mathis or Ms. Jones, as required by § 377.32(a)(4). However, the declaration explicitly states that “No proceeding is now pending for administration of Decedent’s estate.” (Jones Decl. ¶ 10.) Subsection § 377.32(a)(4) does not apply when there is no administration of the decedent’s estate.

Third, Defendant cites § 377.32(c), which requires that “A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration,” and argues that the motion includes a redacted copy of the death certificate stamped “not a valid document to establish identity.” However, the bottom of the document clearly indicates that it is a certified copy of the vital record with the health officer’s signature. Only irrelevant information, such as the Social Security number and the names of non-related third parties, such as the embalmer, has been redacted. The Court finds that the submitted death certificate substantially complies with § 377.32(c).

Defendant then cites Cal. Code Civ. Proc. § 583.130, which states that it is the policy of the state that a plaintiff shall proceed with reasonable diligence in prosecuting an action and that all parties shall cooperate in bringing the action to trial or other disposition. However, Defendant has not provided any legal authority explaining how § 583.130 intersects with § 377.31, nor has Defendant cited any authority suggesting that diligence is a requirement for substitution under § 377.31.

Moreover, and in any event, Plaintiff’s filing of the motion four months after the decedent’s death is not untimely. The death certificate was issued on September 18, 2024, meaning the motion was filed approximately one month after the certificate became available. Given these circumstances, the timing of the motion was not merely reasonable, it was expedient.

Additionally, there is an overriding policy favoring the resolution of cases on their merits.

For the foregoing reasons, the motion is granted.

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling,¿the party must send an email to the court at¿sscdept27@lacourt.org¿with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.¿The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.

Unless¿all¿parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.¿You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.

If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.¿ After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion.