Judge: Lisa R. Jaskol, Case: 21STCV00166, Date: 2023-12-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV00166    Hearing Date: December 14, 2023    Dept: 28

Having considered the moving papers, the Court rules as follows.  

BACKGROUND 

On January 4, 2021, Plaintiff Abraham Macias Garcia (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Defendants Marcel Fernando Ruiz (“Ruiz”), Kevork Hosep Keurjikian (“Keurjikian”), Lyft, Inc. (“Lyft”), and Does 1-100 for negligence, negligent entrustment, and negligent hiring, supervision, and retention. 

On February 8, 2022, Keurjikian filed an answer. On February 16, 2021, Lyft filed an answer.   

On February 24, 2021, Ruiz filed an answer and a cross-complaint against Keurjikian and Roes 1-10 for equitable indemnity, comparative fault and declaratory relief.  

On October 18, 2023, Plaintiff’s counsel filed a motion to substitute Charan Macias, in his capacity as successor in interest of Abraham Macias Garcia, deceased, as Plaintiff in Abraham Macias Garcia’s place under Code of Civil Procedure section 377.11.  The motion is set to be heard on December 14, 2023. 

Trial is currently scheduled for April 30, 2024. 

REQUEST 

Plaintiff’s counsel requests that the Court substitute Charan Macias, in his capacity as Abraham Macias Garcia’s successor in interest, as Plaintiff in Abraham Macias Garcia’s place. 

LEGAL STANDARD 

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.31 provides: “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 decedent's personal representative or, if none, by the decedent's successor-in-interest.” 

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 provides:

“(a) 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 under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following: 

“(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.' 

“(7) 'The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.' 

“(b) 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. 

“(c) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.” 

(Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32.) 

DISCUSSION 

Plaintiff passed away on May 6, 2023, after filing this action.  Charan Macias is Plaintiff's son.  Charan Macias’s declaration satisfies the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32.  The Court grants the motion. 

CONCLUSION 

The Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s counsel’s motion for leave to substitute Charan Macias, in his capacity as successor in interest to his deceased father Abraham Macias Garcia, for Plaintiff. 

Moving party is ordered to give notice of this ruling. 

Moving party is ordered to file the proof of service of this ruling with the Court within five days.