Judge: Mark A. Young, Case: 21STCV13774, Date: 2025-04-03 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV13774    Hearing Date: April 3, 2025    Dept: M

CASE NAME:           Melinkovich v. Patel, et al.

CASE NO.:                21STCV13774

MOTION:                  Motion to Substitute Plaintiff for Successors-In-Interest

HEARING DATE:   4/3/2025

Legal Standard

“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.” (CCP § 377.31.) “A pending action or proceeding does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survives.” (CCP § 377.21; see Aghaian v. Minassian (2021) 64 Cal.App.5th 603, 607 [decedents’ two surviving children could bring suit for “unjust enrichment and money had and received” against a person who conspired “to steal their parents’ properties and defraud them out of tens of millions of dollars”].)

A “decedent’s successor in interest” means the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.” (CCP § 377.11.) “A person who acts as a decedent’s successor in interest, ‘steps into [the decedent’s] position,’ as to a particular action.” (Exarhos v. Exarhos (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 898, 905.) CCP § 377.32 outlines the requirements for an affidavit or declaration of the successor in interest that is to be filed with the motion. 

ANALYSIS

Plaintiff Neil Melinkovich moves for an order substituting himself with his successors-in-interest, Marc Farrell Melikovich, Georgyn J. Hittelman and Denise M. Bonner. The moving parties demonstrate that on November 12, 2023, Plaintiff passed away. (See Decl., Ex. 2 [death cert.].) Counsel had difficulties finding Plaintiff’s successors and did not locate them until September 20, 2024. The moving parties each present a declaration which meets the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. Thus, they meet their burden to justify substitution.

Accordingly, the motion is GRANTED.