Judge Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case Number: 21SMCV00992, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Lisa K. Sepe-Wiesenfeld, Case: 21SMCV00992, Date: 2025-05-02 Tentative Ruling

Defendant Keya Morgan (“Defendant”) requests judicial notice of records relating to Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. XCNBA477677-01 (People v. Morgan) and Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. BA477677-01 (People v. Morgan). Defendant’s request is GRANTED pursuant to Evidence Code section 452, subdivision (d).

The purpose of a motion for summary judgment or summary adjudication “is to provide courts with a mechanism to cut through the parties’ pleadings in order to determine whether, despite their allegations, trial is in fact necessary to resolve their dispute.” (Aguilar v. Atl. Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 843.)

“On a motion for summary judgment, the initial burden is always on the moving party to make a prima facie showing that there are no triable issues of material fact.” (Scalf v. D. B. Log Homes, Inc. (2005) 128 Cal.App.4th 1510, 1519.) A defendant moving for summary judgment or summary adjudication “has met his or her burden of showing that a cause of action has no merit if the party has shown that one or more elements of the cause of action . . . cannot be established, or that there is a complete defense to the cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (p)(2).) “Once the defendant . . . has met that burden, the burden shifts to the plaintiff . . . to show that a triable issue of one or more material facts exists as to the cause of action or a defense thereto.” (Ibid.) “If the plaintiff cannot do so, summary judgment should be granted.” (Avivi v. Centro Medico Urgente Med. Ctr. (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 463, 467.)

“Code of Civil Procedure section 437c, subdivision (c), requires the trial judge to grant summary judgment if all the evidence submitted, and ‘all inferences reasonably deducible from the evidence’ and uncontradicted by other inferences or evidence, show that there is no triable issue as to any material fact and that the moving party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.” (Adler v. Manor Healthcare Corp. (1992) 7 Cal.App.4th 1110, 1119.) “[T]he court must consider all of the evidence set forth in the papers (except evidence to which the court has sustained an objection) . . . in the light most favorable to the party opposing summary judgment.” (Avivi, supra, 159 Cal.App.4th at p. 467; see also Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c).)

Defendant moves for summary judgment or adjudication as to Plaintiff Joan Celia Lee, as Successor-in-Interest to, and heir and interested party to the Estate of, Decedent Stan Lee (“Plaintiff”)’s three causes of action against him for financial elder abuse, breach of fiduciary duty, and conversion on the ground there is no triable issue of material fact as to any of these claims.

(3) Takes, secretes, appropriates, obtains, or retains, or assists in taking, secreting, appropriating, obtaining, or retaining, real or personal property of an elder or dependent adult by undue influence, as defined in Section 15610.70.

In the complaint, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant misappropriated autograph proceeds, artwork, personal property, jewelry, and cash, and failed to return the same after demands to do so. (Compl. ¶ 59.) Defendant provides evidence that he did not take or retain any of Decedent Stan Lee (“Decedent”)’s property for wrongful use, and he argues there is no evidence of autograph proceeds, artwork, personal property, jewelry, and cash being taken by him. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 12-17.) Plaintiff stated in her deposition that she did not personally observe Defendant take such items, she does not know who stole autograph fees, artwork, personal property, jewelry, and she only knew that Defendant had access to Decedent’s home to do so. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 19, 20, 26-29, 31, 32, 34, 37.) This allows Defendant to shift the burden to Plaintiff to show that there is a triable issue as to the claim for financial elder abuse.

In opposition, Plaintiff argues that circumstantial evidence shows that Defendant took personal property, autograph proceeds, and money from Decedent. Plaintiff provides evidence that Defendant did not want anyone in Decedent’s home without him present, he prevented Plaintiff from visiting Decedent, Decedent’s staff were instructed by Defendant not to allow Decedent to speak with Plaintiff on the phone, Defendant had the locks changed at Decedent’s home, Defendant directed Decedent’s daily activities, Defendant would close himself in rooms in the home and walk out with boxes to take to his car, Defendant was witnessed taking what appeared to be paintings from the home, Defendant was paid cash for autograph signings so others would not see how much he was paid, and Decedent’s executive assistant did not timely receive cash or checks. (Pl.’s UMF Nos. 12-17, 29, 34.)

Here, Plaintiff’s evidence raises a triable issue because inferences can be made from her evidence (Code Civ. Proc., § 437c, subd. (c)) that Defendant misappropriated autograph proceeds, artwork, personal property, jewelry, and cash, and failed to return the same after demands to do so, i.e., the trier of fact could conclude, based on the evidence provided by both parties, that circumstantial evidence shows that Defendant is liable for financial elder abuse. Accordingly, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to the first cause of action for financial elder abuse.

“The elements of a cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty are the existence of a fiduciary relationship, breach of fiduciary duty, and damages.” (Oasis West Realty, LLC v. Goldman (2011) 51 Cal.4th 811, 820.)

In the second cause of action, Plaintiff alleges that Defendant entered into a relationship of trust with Decedent that created a fiduciary duty owed by Defendant to Decedent and his estate by controlling Decedent’s personal and financial affairs. (Compl. ¶ 67.) Plaintiff argues that he was not a fiduciary to Decedent, as Decedent always had his own business manager, accountants, bankers, and attorneys, and there is no evidence that Defendant stole anything. (Def.’s UMF Nos. 40-48.) As to the first fact, Defendant’s role is disputed by Defendant’s own statement of facts in which he states that the evidence, specifically his own declaration, establishes that Defendant was a business partner, manager, and “chief of staff” to Decedent. (Def.’s UMF No. 2.) Moreover, for the same reasons stated above, there is a triable issue as to whether Defendant stole anything from Decedent. For those reasons, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is DENIED as to the second cause of action for breach of fiduciary duty.

“Conversion is the wrongful exercise of dominion over the property of another. The elements of a conversion claim are: (1) the plaintiff’s ownership or right to possession of the property; (2) the defendant’s conversion by a wrongful act or disposition of property rights; and (3) damages.” (Lee v. Hanley (2015) 61 Cal.4th 1225, 1240.)

In the third cause of action, Plaintiff again alleges that Defendant exercised wrongful control and possession over autograph proceeds, artwork, personal property, jewelry, and cash, and failed to return the same after demands to do so. (Compl. ¶¶ 75-78.) Defendant relies on the same evidence that he did not steal anything from Decedent, and for the same reasons stated above, the Court finds that Plaintiff’s circumstantial evidence raises a triable issue because inferences can be made from her evidence that Defendant converted autograph proceeds, artwork, personal property, jewelry, and cash. Thus, Defendant’s motion for summary adjudication is also DENIED as to the third cause of action for conversion, and Defendant Keya Morgan’s Motion for Summary Judgment or in the Alternative Summary Adjudication is DENIED in its entirety.