Judge: Mel Red Recana, Case: 21STCV44155, Date: 2024-10-29 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV44155 Hearing Date: October 29, 2024 Dept: 45
Hearing date: October
29, 2024
Moving Party: Brian
Phapornchai, Administrator of the Estate of Chuleeporn Phapornchai
Responding
Party: Defendant Allen Kiatthavee Phapornchai
Motion
for Leave to Amend Complaint
The Court
considered the moving papers and notice of non-opposition.
The
motion is GRANTED.
Background
On
December 3, 2021, Plaintiff Chuleeporn Phapornchai filed the instant action
(“Plaintiff” or “Decedent”) against Defendants Allen Kiatthavee Phapornchai
(“Defendant”); all persons unknown, claiming any legal or equitable right,
title, estate, lien, or interest in the property described in the complaint
adverse to plaintiff’s title, or any cloud upon plaintiff’s title thereto; and
Does 1 through 20, inclusive. Based on the allegations of the complaint,
Defendant is one of Plaintiff’s three sons, also including Brian Phapornchai
and Paul Phapornchai.
Plaintiff’s
Complaint alleges causes of action for (1) declaratory relief, (2) quiet title,
(3) cancellation of instrument, (4) financial elder abuse, and (5) constructive
trust.
On
May 23, 2022, the Court issued a Minute Order scheduling jury trial for this
case on November 6, 2023.
However, on
August 2, 2023, the Court heard Defendant’s Ex Parte Application to Continue
Trial. Defendant submitted such application because Plaintiff Chuleeporn
Phapornchai died on November 6, 2022. The Court issued a new Minute Order
vacating the previously set Jury Trial.
On January 31,
2024, Plaintiff Decedent’s Counsel submitted a Notice of Related Case,
indicating that a probate administration case was opened to allow Brian
Phapornchai, one of Decedent’s sons, to maintain the lawsuit on behalf of his
mother’s estate against his brother, Defendant.
On May 23, 2024,
Brian Phapornchai, as administrator of the estate of Decedent, filed the
instant motion for leave to amend the complaint to allow Brian Phapornchai to
prosecute this action on behalf of Decedent.
On July 24,
2024, Defendant filed a notice of non-opposition to the motion.
Legal
Standard
“Every
action must be prosecuted in the name of the real party in interest, except as
otherwise provided by statute.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 367.) Pursuant to Code of
Civil Procedure § 369 and Probate Code § 58(a), an administrator of a person’s
estate may prosecute an action on such person’s behalf, even without joining
such person as a party to the action. (Code Civ. Proc. § 369(a)(1).)
“The court may,
in furtherance of justice, and on any terms as may be proper, allow a party to
amend any pleading or proceeding by adding … the name of any party …. The court
may likewise, in its discretion, after notice to the adverse party, allow, upon
any terms as may be just, an amendment to any pleading or proceedings in other
particulars ….” (Code Civ. Proc. §473(a)(1).)
The California
Supreme Court has held that trial court’s may permit the amendment of a case’s
pleadings, in the interest of justice, to allow the administrator of a decedent
plaintiff’s estate to prosecute the action on the decedent’s behalf, so long as
such amendment does not change the theory of liability for the defendant, nor
change the relief sought. (Klopstock v. Super. Ct. (1941) 17 Cal.2d 13,
20; cf. Dupree v. CIT Bank, N.A. (2023) 92 Cal.App.5th 142, 160-62
(Holding that CCP § 473 provides trial courts wide discretion in considering
“amendments changing parties, adding new parties, and correcting
erroneous names. … It is for reasons of equity and convenience, and not because
it is without power to proceed, that the court often should not proceed with a
case where it determines that an ‘indispensable’ party is absent and cannot be
joined. [Citation.]”) (emphasis in original).)
Discussion
Here,
the Court finds adequate evidence that leave to amend to allow Brian
Phapornchai, administrator of Decedent’s estate, to prosecute this action on
Decedent’s behalf is in the interest of justice.
On April 12, 2024, the Superior Court of California, County of Los
Angeles executed a Letter of Administration appointing Brian Phapornchai as
administrator of Decedent’s estate with full authority to represent Decedent’s
estate, and limited authority, requiring court approval, “to (1) sell or
exchange real property or (2) grant an option to purchase real property or (3)
borrow money with the loan secured by an encumbrance upon real property[].”
(Mink Decl., ¶ 2, Exh. 1, §§ 2-3.) Plaintiff contends that this Letter of
Administration provides the Court proper basis to exercise its broad discretion
to allow amendments to pleadings to add new parties to proceedings, including
administrators of a decedent’s estate, in the interest of justice.
On July 24, 2024, Defendant submitted its non-opposition to Brian
Phapornchai’s motion for leave to amend, as well as the memorandum of points
and authorities and declaration of Decedent’s counsel filed in support of such
motion.
Accordingly, and finding no opposition to the contrary, the Court finds
that it is in the interest of justice to allow leave to amend the Plaintiff’s
Complaint and permit Brian Phapornchai, as administrator of Plaintiff’s estate,
to prosecute the case on Plaintiff’s behalf.
Therefore, the Court GRANTS Plaintiff’s Motion for Leave to Amend
Complaint.
It
is so ordered.
Dated: October 29, 2024.
_______________________
MEL RED RECANA
Judge of the
Superior Court