Judge: Michelle C. Kim, Case: 21STCV30404, Date: 2023-09-19 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 21STCV30404    Hearing Date: September 19, 2023    Dept: 31

SUPERIOR COURT OF THE STATE OF CALIFORNIA  

FOR THE COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES - CENTRAL DISTRICT 

 

ESTATE OF JOAQUIN TRETO and DAVID TRETO, 

Plaintiff(s), 

vs. 

 

AMELIA ELIZABETH FREMBLING, ET AL., 

 

Defendant(s). 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

) 

      CASE NO: 21STCV30404 

 

ORDER DENYING MOTION FOR JUDGMENT ON THE PLEADINGS  

  

Dept. 31 

1:30 p.m. 

September 19, 2023 

 

I. Background 

On August 17, 2021, Plaintiff, Estate of Joaquin Treto and David Treto (“Plaintiffs”) filed this action against Defendant Amelia Elizabeth Frembling (“Defendant”) for damages arising from an automobile collision, wherein Joaquin Treto (“Decedent”) passed away as a result of the collision. Decedent’s surviving heirs and the Estate of Decedent bring a wrongful death claim against Defendant.  

Defendant, at this time, moves for judgment on the pleadings.  Plaintiffs oppose the motion. Defendant did not file a reply.   

 

II. Request for Judicial Notice 

Defendant requests the Court take judicial notice of a screen caption of a case search for “Joaquin Treto” on the Los Angeles County Superior court’s online services website, queried on August 22, 2023, resulting in “No records were found matching the information you provided.”  The request is denied. 

 

III. Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings 

  1. Legal Standard 

A defendant may move for judgment on the pleadings when the “complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against that defendant.”  (C.C.P. §438(b)(1) and (c)(1)(B)(ii).) 

“A motion for judgment on the pleadings may be made at any time either prior to the trial or at the trial itself. [Citation.]”  (Ion Equipment Corp. v. Nelson (1980) 110 Cal.App.3d 868, 877.)  “A motion for judgment on the pleadings performs the same function as a general demurrer, and hence attacks only defects disclosed on the face of the pleadings or by matters that can be judicially noticed. Presentation of extrinsic evidence is therefore not proper on a motion for judgment on the pleadings.”  (Cloud v. Northrop Grumman Corp. (1998) 67 Cal.App.4th 995, 999 (Citations Omitted).)  The standard for ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings is essentially the same as that applicable to a general demurrer, that is, under the state of the pleadings, together with matters that may be judicially noticed, it appears that a party is entitled to judgment as a matter of law.  (Bezirdjian v. O'Reilly (2010) 183 Cal.App.4th 316, 321-322 (citing Schabarum v. California Legislature (1998) 60 Cal.App.4th 1205, 1216).)   

 

  1. Discussion 

Here, Defendant argues that the Complaint states that the Estate of Joaquin Treto has a probate estate pending, but that there is currently no probate matter pending. Defendant contends Plaintiff’s counsel has made no attempt to name a personal representative or successor-in-interest for the Estate of Joaquin Treto pursuant to CCP § 377.60, and that the Estate of Joaquin Treto itself lacks the capacity to sue. Additionally, Defendant avers the complaint fails to state Plaintiff David Treto’s relationship to constitute a cause of action against Defendant.  

In opposition, Plaintiffs declare that a declaration under Section 377.60 will be prepared and filed prior to the hearing on the instant motion, attesting under oath that Plaintiff David Treto is Decedent’s father and legal successor-in-interest for the purposes of this lawsuit. Plaintiffs contend that the standing issue will be moot and that Defendants may commence discovery thereafter.  

Defendant’s motion for judgment on the pleadings is statutorily restricted to two grounds: either the Court has no jurisdiction of the subject of the cause of action alleged in the complaint, or the complaint does not state facts sufficient to constitute a cause of action against defendant. (CCP § 438(c)(1)(B).) In ruling on a motion for judgment on the pleadings, the Court is limited to considering the face of the complaint or any matter judicially noticeable.  

The complaint provides, in relevant part: “On or about said date, Plaintiff was lawfully traveling through the subject location when suddenly and without warning, Defendant, Amelia Elizabeth Frembling, and each of them negligently and carelessly managed, maintained, monitored, and/or operated their vehicle in a manner that caused a collision that resulted in the demise of Joaquin Treto” and “Plaintiffs surviving heirs and Estate of decedent bring this wrongful death claim against defendants for the death of decedent Joaquin Treto.” (Compl. at p. 5.) Accordingly, David Treto, as one of the Plaintiffs in this action, is alleged to be a surviving heir of decedent, and there are sufficient facts to constitute a cause of action for general negligence against Defendant. 

Defendant argues that judgment on the pleadings is appropriate because Defendant cannot proceed to trial against an Estate without a personal representative or successor-in-interest. Defendant cites to the dissent in O’Flaherty v. Belgum (2004) 115 Cal.App.4th 1044, 1095 which, directly quotes from Weil and Brown, Cal. Practice Guide: Civil Procedure Before Trial (The Rutter Group 2003), ¶ 2:6, p. 2–2: “An estate or trust is not a legal entity, and therefore has neither capacity nor standing to sue[.] Title to estate or trust assets is held by the executor, administrator or trustee, on behalf of the beneficiaries. Thus, as to claims held by an estate or trust, the executor, administrator or trustee is the real party in interest. Such fiduciary has the right to sue[.]”  

 Defendant argues that because there is no personal representative or successor in on behalf of the Estate, the action is not at issue. While not stated explicitly, Defendant appears to argue that the Court lacks jurisdiction.  However, unless the decedent's personal representative is made a party, a judgment should not be rendered for or against a decedent, nor for or against the representative. (See¿Sacks v. FSR Brokerage, Inc.¿(1992) 7 Cal.4th 950, 957;¿Sellery v. Cressey¿(1996) 48 Cal.4th 538, 541, fn. 2.)  Defendant does not cite to any authority which addresses the situation presented here before the Court, where a personal representative or successor-in-interest has not yet been appointed for the Estate of Decedent, nor is there any authority to suggest that this issue may be resolved upon a motion for judgment on the pleadings.    

 

Accordingly, Defendant’s motion is DENIED. 

 

Moving party 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 18th day of September 2023 

 

  

 

 

Hon. Michelle C. Kim 

Judge of the Superior Court