Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV11646, Date: 2024-10-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV11646    Hearing Date: October 7, 2024    Dept: 45

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

 

 

PETER STEPHAN,

 

                             Plaintiff,

 

                              vs.

 

GOLDEN MALIBU HOLDINGS, LLC, ANDREW HARRISON BARNES; and DOES 1 through 20, inclusive,

 

                              Defendants.

 

Case No.:  21STCV11646

DEPARTMENT 45

 

 

 

[TENTATIVE] RULING

 

 

 

Action Filed: 03/25/2021

Trial Date: TBD

 

 

 

Hearing date:              10/07/2024 08:30 AM

Moving Party:             Peter Stephan (Plaintiff)

Responding Party:      None; No opposition

 

Motion for Substitution of Deceased Plaintiff

 

The court has considered the moving papers.  

            As such, the motion for substitution is GRANTED.

Background

On March 25, 2021, Plaintiff Peter Stephan (Decedent) filed suit against Defendants Golden Malibu Holdings, LLC; and Andrew Harrison Barnes (Defendants).

Decedent, by and through Xiaolan Huang Stephen (Stephen), moves to substitute Decedent with Stephen on the grounds that Stephen is Decedent’s successor-in-interest. Stephen moves pursuant to Code of Civil Procedure section 377.31 (Section 377.31) and 377.11 (Section 377.11).

Legal Standard

Section 377.31 provides that “[o]n 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”. “ ‘[D]ecedent’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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.) The beneficiary of the decedent’s estate, in turn, means “[i]f the decedent died leaving a will, the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under the decedent's will.” (Code Civ. Proc., §377.10, subd. (a).)

In the case of a pending proceeding, the person who seeks to continue the pending action must execute and file an affidavit which contains, in relevant part:

 

(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.” . . . (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.”

(Code Civ. Proc., §377.32 subd. (a).)

Discussion

            Here, Stephen’s declaration complies with the requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. She has demonstrated grounds for substitution. She declares that Decedent died while flying from Paris, France to the United States. Due to the onboard death, the plane was diverted to Portugal. Decedent’s death certificate—attached to Stephan’s declaration with a translation—issued from Portugal. (Stephn Decl., ¶2, Ex. 1 [Death Certificate].) She declares she is the residuary beneficiary under Decedent’s will and no proceeding is pending for the administration of decedent’s estate. (Stephen Decl., ¶4.) She declares that no person has a superior right to her and makes the declaration under penalty of perjury. (Stephen Decl., ¶5.)

            As such, the motion for substitution is GRANTED.

It is so ordered.

 

Dated: October 7, 2024

 

_______________________

MEL RED RECANA

Judge of the Superior Court