Judge: Robert B. Broadbelt, Case: 18STCV04560, Date: 2022-10-28 Tentative Ruling

Tentative rulings are sometimes, but not always, posted. The purpose of posting a tentative ruling is to to help focus the argument. The posting of a tentative ruling is not an invitation for the filing of additional papers shortly before the hearing.

Case Number: 18STCV04560    Hearing Date: October 28, 2022    Dept: 53

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles – Central District

Department 53

MOVING PARTY:                 The court, on its own motion

RESPONDING PARTY:       Plaintiff Rick Foster aka Eric Rubenstein  

Order to Show Cause Why the Court Should Not, on Its Own Motion, Grant a Motion for Judgment on the Pleadings

The court considered the Response of Plaintiff re Court’s Motion re Judgment on the Pleadings, filed by Plaintiff on October 7, 2022.

BACKGROUND

Plaintiff Rick Foster aka Eric Rubenstein (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against defendant Laura Rubenstein-Meadows, individually, as trustee of the Edith Rubenstein Trust, and as executor of the estate of Edith Rubenstein (“Defendant”) on November 9, 2018.  Plaintiff’s Complaint asserts four causes of action for (1) breach of fiduciary duty, (2) conversion, (3) unjust enrichment, and (4) accounting.

On August 11, 2022, the court issued a minute order setting an Order to Show Cause re: why the court should not, on its own motion, grant a motion for judgment on the pleadings on the ground that the court does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the causes of action alleged in the complaint or, alternatively, why the case should not be reassigned to the probate division. 

Plaintiff filed his response on October 7, 2022.

DISCUSSION

The court finds that it does not have jurisdiction over the subject matter of Plaintiff’s Complaint because the causes of action alleged are subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the probate court.  The court therefore grants its own motion for a judgment on the pleadings.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subds. (b)(2), (c)(3)(B)(i).)

Plaintiff alleges the following pertinent facts in his Complaint.  Plaintiff and Defendant’s mother, Edith Rubenstein (“Decedent”) died on September 28, 2016.  (Compl., ¶¶ 7, 11.)  Plaintiff is a beneficiary of the trust and an heir of Decedent’s estate.  (Compl., ¶¶ 20-21.)  A portion of Decedent’s assets were held through a revocable trust, for which Defendant served as its sole trustee.  (Compl., ¶ 12.)  A portion of Decedent’s assets may have been owned outside the trust and therefore are part of Decedent’s estate, of which Defendant was named sole executor.  (Compl., ¶¶ 13, 15.)  Plaintiff alleges that (1) he is entitled to 50 percent of the assets in the trust and the estate; (2) Defendant breached her fiduciary duties by failing to provide Plaintiff with his share of the assets in the trust and estate; and (3) Defendant misappropriated and converted trust and estate assets by taking Plaintiff’s shares of the assets for her own benefit.  (Compl., ¶¶ 16, 22, 29, 23, 30, 38.)

The court finds that Plaintiff’s causes of action implicate the jurisdiction of the probate court.  

“Technically, California does not have ‘probate courts.’”  (In re Michael R. (2006) 137 Cal.App.4th 126, 131, fn. 1.)  “Rather, probate jurisdiction is vested in the superior court.”  (Probate Jurisdiction and Venue, Cal. Prac. Guide Probate Ch. 3-B, § 3:34.)  “The term ‘probate court’ is but a convenient way of expressing the concept of a superior court sitting in exercise of its probate jurisdiction.”  (Copley v. Copley (1978) 80 Cal.App.3d 97, 107.)  The probate departments have, pursuant to state statute, exclusive jurisdiction over certain types of actions, including jurisdiction to probate and interpret a will, and over proceedings concerning the internal affairs of trusts.  (Capra v. Capra (2020) 58 Cal.App.5th 1072, 1083.)

As set forth above, Plaintiff principally alleges that Defendant has breached her fiduciary duties by misappropriating or converting trust and estate assets, and that Plaintiff is entitled to 50 percent of Decedent’s assets in the trust or Decedent’s estate.  (Compl., ¶ 17.)  The probate court has exclusive jurisdiction over proceedings “concerning the internal affairs of the trust….”  (Prob. Code, § 17200, subd. (a).)  Proceedings concerning the internal affairs of a trust include, inter alia, proceedings that are for the purpose of compelling a trustee to account to the beneficiary; compelling redress of a breach of the trust by any available remedy; modifying trust terms; exercising authority over the trustee’s actions; and administering a trust’s financial arrangements.  (Prob. Code, § 17200, subds. (b)(7)(C), (b)(12); Estate of Bowles (2008) 169 Cal.App.4th 684, 695.)  The court finds that Plaintiff’s claims and requests for relief relating to Defendant’s breaches of her duties as a trustee concern “the internal affairs of the trust” since Plaintiff, as beneficiary, seeks to compel redress of a breach of the trust by any available remedy, and seeks administration of the financial arrangements of Decedent’s trust.  These matters must be heard by the probate court.  (Prob. Code, § 17200, subd. (b)(12); Estate of Bowles, supra, 169 Cal.App.4th at p. 696 [the proceeding seeking to redress breaches of trust “concerns the internal affairs of the trusts”].)

Further, Plaintiff alleges that he is an heir of Decedent’s estate and is entitled to 50 percent of the estate assets.  (Compl., ¶¶ 21, 17.)  “[T]he probate court has exclusive jurisdiction to probate and interpret a will, determine entitlement to distribution, and administer and distribute a decedent’s estate.”  (Capra, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 1082.)  Plaintiff’s claims relating to Decedent’s estate request the court to determine Plaintiff’s entitlement of assets in Decedent’s estate, and consequently, to administer and distribute Decedent’s estate. 

The court finds that Plaintiff’s claims “concern[] the internal affairs of” Decedent’s trust and request the court to “administer and distribute” Decedent’s estate, over which the probate court has exclusive jurisdiction.  (Prob. Code, § 17200, subd. (a); Capra, supra, 58 Cal.App.5th at p. 1082.)  The court therefore finds that it does not have jurisdiction of the subject of the causes of action alleged in Plaintiff’s complaint in this civil action and, on its own motion, grants a motion for judgment on the pleadings.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(i).)

The burden is on the plaintiff “to articulate how it could amend its pleading to render it sufficient.”¿ (Palm Springs Villas II Homeowners Assn., Inc. v. Parth (2016) 48 Cal.App.4th 268, 290.)¿ To satisfy that burden, a plaintiff “must show in what manner he can amend his complaint and how that amendment will change the legal effect of his pleading.”¿ (Goodman v. Kennedy (1976) 18 Cal.3d 335, 349.)¿ The court finds that Plaintiff has not met his burden of establishing how he could amend his Complaint to bring it within the jurisdiction of this court.  The court therefore grants the motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend.

ORDER

The court, on its own motion, grants a motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend as to plaintiff Rick Foster aka Eric Rubenstein’s Complaint.  (Code Civ. Proc., § 438, subd. (c)(3)(B)(i).)

The court orders defendant Laura Rubenstein-Meadows, individually, as trustee of the Edith Rubenstein Trust, and as executor of the estate of Edith Rubenstein to serve and lodge a proposed judgment of dismissal within 10 days from the date of this order.  

The court vacates the trial set for March 8, 2023, and the Final Status Conference set for February 17, 2023. 

The court sets an Order to Show Cause re dismissal (after granting motion for judgment on the pleadings without leave to amend) for hearing on ________________, 2023, at 11:00 a.m. 

The court orders defendant Laura Rubenstein-Meadows, individually, as trustee of the Edith Rubenstein Trust, and as executor of the estate of Edith Rubenstein to give notice of this order.

IT IS SO ORDERED.

DATED:  October 28, 2022

_____________________________

Robert B. Broadbelt III

Judge of the Superior Court