Judge: Michelle Williams Court, Case: 21STCV38528, Date: 2023-08-03 Tentative Ruling

Please notify Dept. 1’s courtroom staff by email (SMCDept1@lacourt.org) or by telephone (213-633-0601) no later than 8:30 a.m. the day of the hearing if you wish to submit on the tentative ruling rather than argue the motion.  If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify the other side that you will not appear at the hearing.  If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motion.  Please keep in mind that appearing at the hearing and simply repeating the arguments set forth in the papers is not a good use of the court’s time or the parties’ time.

 

Case Number: 21STCV38528    Hearing Date: August 3, 2023    Dept: 1

21STCV38528           JONATHAN HEMPHILL vs ANDREA RISER-ZANDERS

Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Denial of Relatedness

TENTATIVE RULING:  Plaintiff’s Motion for Reconsideration of Court’s Denial of Relatedness is GRANTED.  Department 1 relates civil law case 21STCV38528 with probate law case 21STPB04878 and orders the civil law case reassigned to probate law Department 67 of the Stanley Mosk Courthouse for all purposes. All hearings currently set in civil law case 21STCV38528 are hereby advanced and vacated.

Moving party to give notice.

DISCUSSION

Jonathan Hemphill filed a new petition in the probate action after Department 1’s initial ruling on the Notice of Related Case. The two cases now involve the same parties and the same claims. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(1).) In both the civil case and the probate case, Jonathan Hemphill, Administrator of the Estate of Eunice Hemphill, asserts claims for fraud Probate Code section 13110, restitution Probate Code section 13111, wrongful taking- attorney fees and costs Probate Code section 859, conversion, and intentional misrepresentation related to the same $24,636.98 allegedly taken from decedent Eunice Hemphill’s bank account without authorization. The civil case and the recently filed probate petition are largely identical, and therefore arise from the same transactions, incidents, or events requiring the determination of the same questions of law or fact. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(2).) Given the relationship between the parties and the identical issues raised, there will be a substantial duplication of judicial resources if the cases are heard by different judges. (Cal. R. Ct., rule 3.300(a)(4).)

The Court finds the cases are related within the meaning of California Rules of Court, rule 3.300.

In opposition, Defendant Riser-Zanders contends “Plaintiff should only be allowed to pursue either his civil complaint or his probate petition . . . [and] requests that the Court dismiss or at a minimum, stay the other action.” (Opp. at 3:9-12.) These requests are not properly made in opposition to a motion to relate the two cases and must be raised with the judicial officer assigned to the parties’ cases.