Judge: Michael C. Kelley, Case: 19AVCV00672, Date: 2022-08-02 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 19AVCV00672    Hearing Date: August 2, 2022    Dept: A15

Background

This action is one of four related cases involving multiple vehicle collisions. On the morning of September 8, 2017, Steven Hutchings was riding his motorcycle on Avenue R, near its intersection with Janus Drive, in the city of Palmdale. After changing lanes, Hutchings collided with the vehicle being driven by Fernando Contreras. Decedent Simeon Dewayne Bradford (“Decedent”) was driving down Avenue R when he noticed the collision and pulled his vehicle over to assist. Meanwhile, Brian Watt, a security guard working at a nearby construction site, had also approached the scene to assist.

While driving down Avenue R, Georgia Preasmyer noticed the accident and recognized Mr. Hutchings. Ms. Preasmyer therefore parked her vehicle and walked over. Then, Timothy Konrad parked his pickup truck in an attempt to help, but left his headlights on. Nanci Haro, also driving down Avenue R, was unable to see through the glare of the headlights and accidentally struck Decedent’s vehicle. The force of the collision caused Decedent’s vehicle to then strike Decedent, Mr. Watt, and Ms. Preasmyer.

This particular action was filed on September 9, 2019 by Decedent against Watt, Preasmyer, Hutchings, Contreras, Haro, and Konrad. Decedent dismissed Watt, Preasmyer, and Konrad from the action on December 17, 2020. Defendant Contreras filed an answer in propia persona to Decedent’s complaint on February 11, 2021. Decedent dismissed Contreras from the action on June 2, 2021. He dismissed Haro from the action on November 24, 2021.

Defendant Haro filed an answer to Decedent’s complaint on January 19, 2021, as well as a cross-complaint against Decedent, Hutchings, Contreras, and Konrad. Decedent filed an answer to Haro’s cross-complaint on February 8, 2021. Contreras filed his answer to Haro’s cross-complaint on September 9, 2021. Haro dismissed her entire cross-complaint on November 12, 2021.

Defendant Hutchings filed an answer to Decedent’s complaint on June 22, 2021, and a cross-complaint against Contreras, Haro, Konrad, Jazmin Roman, and Kerns Inc. Contreras and Roman filed an answer to Hutchings’s cross-complaint on September 9, 2021. Kerns Inc. filed an answer to Hutchings’s cross-complaint on September 29, 2021. The Court dismissed Konrad and Haro from this cross-complaint on December 8, 2021, because Hutchings failed to serve them.

Currently, the status of the pleadings is as follows: Decedent’s complaint remains as to Hutchings, only. Hutchings’s cross-complaint remains as to Contreras, Roman, and Kerns Inc., all of whom have answered.

Decedent’s surviving spouse, Tammy Bradford (“Mrs. Bradford”), filed the instant Motion to Substitute Successor-in-Interest for Deceased Plaintiff on June 14, 2022. The motion is unopposed.

Analysis

Standard for substituting successor-in-interest – “A pending action or proceeding does not abate by the death of a party if the cause of action survives.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.21.)  A cause of action survives a party’s death unless “otherwise provided by statute.” (Id., § 377.20.)

“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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.) The “successor in interest” essentially steps into the decedent's position as to a particular action. (Exarhos v. Exarhos (2008) 159 Cal.App.4th 898, 905.)

The decedent’s successor-in-interest is “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” is defined as either “the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries” in accordance with the decedent’s will; or, in the absence of a will, “the sole person or all of the persons who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under Sections 6401 and 6402 of the Probate Code . . . .” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.10.)

Section 6401 of the Probate Code governs intestate succession when a decedent is survived by a spouse, as is the case here. It provides that, if the decedent is survived by a spouse, but not any issue, parent, brother, sister, or issue of a deceased brother or sister, then the surviving spouse inherits half of the decedent’s separate property.  (Prob. Code, § 6401, subd. (c).) But if the decedent leaves a surviving child, issue of a deceased child, parent, or issue of a parent (i.e., a sibling), the estate is divided with them, with the proportions depending on the circumstances. (Ibid.)

Here, Decedent filed an action for motor vehicle negligence. Negligence causes of action generally survive a plaintiff’s death. (See, e.g., Daniels v. Sunrise Senior Living, Inc. (2013) 212 Cal.App.4th 674, 677–678 [daughter as successor-in-interest for her mother brought negligence claim against nursing home]; Casey v. Perini Corp. (2012) 206 Cal.App.4th 122 [wife as successor-in-interest for original plaintiff continued plaintiff’s negligence suit against contractor].)

Mrs. Bradford presents evidence that Decedent died on August 15, 2020, in a manner unrelated to the current action. (Mot. Substitute Successor-in-Interest at Decl. Matin ¶¶ 3-4 & Exs. A-B.) She also presents evidence that she was Decedent’s wife. (Id., ¶ 5, Exs. A-B.) Therefore, she moves to replace Decedent as the plaintiff in this action.

In her memorandum, Mrs. Bradford represents that Decedent “died with no surviving spouse, issue, or surviving parent . . . other than Tammy Bradford.” (Mot. Substitute Successor-in-Interest at 5.) She does not, however, specify in her memorandum or in either of the declarations whether Decedent left a will; nor does she specify whether he left a surviving brother, sister, issue of a deceased brother or sister, or issue of a deceased child. Under Probate Code section 6401, these individuals would be potential intestate heirs. Because Code of Civil Procedure section 377.10 defines a successor-in-interest as either the sole beneficiary or all of the beneficiaries of a decedent’s intestate estate or a decedent’s will, this information is material to whether Mrs. Bradford is the only successor-in-interest, or if others share a right to Decedent’s cause of action.

Thus, while the Court agrees that Mrs. Bradford has established that no other person has a “superior right” to be substituted for Decedent, she has not sufficiently proved that she is Decedent’s only successor-in-interest; and if there are additional successors-in-interest, they must either be named in the action or disclaim their interest.

Conclusion