Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV29039, Date: 2023-04-25 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV29039    Hearing Date: April 25, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT

On August 6, 2021 Plaintiff Lenin Quinones (“Quinones”) and Madison Barbosa (“Barbosa”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed this action against defendants Ruben Anaya, Ruben’s Towing Service, J & H Tire, Josue Paniagua, Isaac Verduzco, and Kevin Guevara Carranza for damages arising from a motor vehicle accident.  Trial is currently set for February 3, 2023. 

Plaintiffs now each move for an order substituting Ruben Anaya, Jr. (“Anaya, Jr.”) for Decedent Ruben Pulido Anaya (“Decedent”) as a defendant in this action.  The motions are unopposed. 

Plaintiffs provide that Decedent passed away on March 4, 2022, and that Anaya, Jr. is Decedent’s personal representative in that he is the duly appointed, qualified and acting executor of decedent's estate (Los Angeles Superior Court Case No. 22STPB07071).  Plaintiffs each assert that they filed a Creditor’s Claim in compliance with Probate Code § 9370 on January 3, 2023, and that because the claims were not rejected within 30 days of filing, the claims are deemed rejected. 

CCP § 377.40 provides: “Subject to Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims, a cause of action against a decedent that survives may be asserted against the decedent's personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent's successor in interest.”

Further, CCP § 377.41 states: “On motion, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding against the decedent that does not abate to be continued against the decedent's personal representative or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent's successor in interest, except that the court may not permit an action or proceeding to be continued against the personal representative unless proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made.”

“An action may not be commenced against a decedent's personal representative on a cause of action against the decedent unless a claim is first filed as provided in this part and the claim is rejected in whole or in part.”  (Prob. Code § 9351.)  Thus, in general, a claim may not be pled against a decedent’s estate, and a pending lawsuit against a decedent at time of death cannot be continued against the estate, unless the plaintiff has filed a claim creditor's claim in the probate proceedings.  (Prob. Code § 9000 et seq.) 

The claims requirements in such cases are set forth in Probate Code Section 9370, which states:

(a) An action or proceeding pending against the decedent at the time of death may not be continued against the decedent's personal representative unless all of the following conditions are satisfied:

(1) A claim is first filed as provided in this part.

(2) The claim is rejected in whole or in part.

(3) Within three months after the notice of rejection is given, the plaintiff applies to the court in which the action or proceeding is pending for an order to substitute the personal representative in the action or proceeding. This paragraph applies only if the notice of rejection contains a statement that the plaintiff has three months within which to apply for an order for substitution.

Here, Plaintiffs each represent that they filed a Creditor’s Claim on January 3, 2023.  Plaintiffs did not receive notice of rejection of the claim within 30 days of filing their claims, such that their claims have been deemed rejected.  (Prob. Code § 9256 [“If within 30 days after a claim is filed the personal representative or the court or judge has refused or neglected to act on the claim, the refusal or neglect may, at the option of the creditor, be deemed equivalent to giving a notice of rejection on the 30th day.”].)  Plaintiffs, thus, have each satisfied the requirements of Probate Code § 9370. 

Plaintiffs’ motions to for an Order substituting Ruben Anaya, Jr. as a party defendant for Decedent are granted.  Plaintiffs are ordered to serve Anaya, Jr. pursuant to Code. 

Plaintiff Quinones is ordered to give notice. 

PLEASE TAKE NOTICE:

• Parties are encouraged to meet and confer after reading this tentative ruling to see if they can reach an agreement.
• If a party intends to submit on this tentative ruling, the party must send an email to the court at sscdept31@lacourt.org with the Subject line “SUBMIT” followed by the case number.  The body of the email must include the hearing date and time, counsel’s contact information, and the identity of the party submitting.  
• Unless all parties submit by email to this tentative ruling, the parties should arrange to appear remotely (encouraged) or in person for oral argument.  You should assume that others may appear at the hearing to argue.  
• If the parties neither submit nor appear at hearing, the Court may take the motion off calendar or adopt the tentative ruling as the order of the Court.  After the Court has issued a tentative ruling, the Court may prohibit the withdrawal of the subject motion without leave. 

Dated this 25^th day of April 2023