Judge Ronald F. Frank, Case 22TRCV00041 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Judge: Ronald F. Frank, Case: 22TRCV00041, Date: 2023-01-12 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 22TRCV00041 Hearing Date: January 12, 2023 Dept: 8

Tentative Ruling

HEARING DATE: January 12, 2023

CASE NUMBER: 22TRCV00041

CASE NAME: Timena Jones, et al v. Rebecca Puga, et al

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff, Timena Jones

RESPONDING PARTY: Defendants, Rebecca Puga and Felicia Vidro

TRIAL DATE: None

MOTION: (1) Motion to Substitute the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard Puga

Tentative Ruling: (1) GRANT

I. BACKGROUND

A. Factual

On January 20, 2022, Plaintiff, Timena Jones, Nawell Papalii, a minor by and through his Guardian Ad Litem, Timena Jones, Vaialofi Papalii, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Timena Jones, Mulan Luster, a minor by and though her Guardian Ad Litem, Timena Jones, Moana Luster, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Timena Jones, and Manaia Luster, a Manaia Luster, a minor by and through her Guardian Ad Litem, Timena Jones (collectively “Plaintiffs”) filed a complaint against Rebecca Puga, Richard Puga, Felicia Vidro, as Trustee of the Rebecca C. Puga Family Trust UA 2/24/2; and DOES 1 through 20 inclusive. The Complaint alleged causes of action for: (1) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.4; (2) Statutory Breach of the Warranty of Habitability (Civil Code §§ 1941, 1941.1, and 1942.4); Tortious Breach of the Warranty of Habitability; (4) Private Nuisance; (5) Violation of Business & Professional Code § 17200, et seq.; (6) Negligence; (7) Breach of Covenant of Quiet Enjoyment; (8) Violation of Civil Code § 1942.5; (9) Intentional Infliction of Emotional Distress; and (10) Wrongful Eviction.

Richard Puga (hereinafter “Decedent”) is a deceased individual named as a defendant in the instant motion. Decedent passed testate on January 1, 2021 in Los Angeles County, California. Prior to his death, Plaintiff claims that Decedent was the joint owner of the real property located at 15004 S. Raymond Avenue, Gardena, CA 90247, which contains Plaintiffs’ backhouse unit. Plaintiffs have asserted that given Decedent’s death, Plaintiffs are presently unable to proceed with properly prosecuting each of their aforementioned claims against Decedent. Accordingly, Plaintiffs have requested to substitute Rebecca Puga, the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard C. Puga, into the pending action.

B. Procedural

On December 8, 2022, Plaintiffs filed this motion to substitute the personal representative of the estate of Richard Puga in the pending action. On December 29, 2022, Defendants filed an opposition. On January 4, 2023, Plaintiffs filed a reply brief.

II. ANALYSIS

A. Legal Standard

Under Code of Civil Procedure § 377.40, “a cause of action against a decedent that survives may be asserted against the decedent’s personal representative.” Code of Civil Procedure § 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” so long as Plaintiff shows “proof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims is first made.”¿¿Code of Civil Procedure § 377.41 provides that, “[o]n 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 . . . 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.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.41.)¿¿

Probate Code § 9370 provides that an action against a decedent’s personal representative cannot be maintained unless: “(1) A [creditor’s] claim is first filed was provided in this part [against the Estate;] (2) The claim is rejected in whole or in part[; and] (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.”¿¿

“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.” (Probate Code § 9256.)

B. Discussion

Plaintiffs move to substitute Rebecca Puga, the Personal Representative of the Estate of Richard C. Puga, into the pending action. On January 1, 2021, Decedent passed away. On January 20, 2022, Plaintiffs brought this action. Plaintiffs contend that Rebecca Puga was appointed personal representative of the estate of Richard Puga and in accordance with Probate Code § 8400(a), she obtained full legal authority to act on behalf of the Estate of Richard Puga.

Additionally, Plaintiffs assert that all requirements of Probate Code § 9370(a) have been met. Plaintiffs filed a Creditor’s claim against Decedent’s estate on October 28, 2021 for damages arising from the causes of action present in the complaint. Plaintiffs state that the Creditor’s claim was served on Rebecca Puga on November 7, 2022 and that she failed to act on the claim within the 30 days of receiving the same, and thus in accordance with § 9256, the claim is to be deemed rejected. Lastly, Plaintiffs note that this Motion has been brought within three months of of the rejection of the creditor’s claim. As such, Plaintiffs argue that each of the statutory requirements set forth under Probate Code § 9370(a) have been satisfied by plaintiffs such to proceed with substituting Rebecca Puga as the personal representative of the estate of Richard Puga.

Defendants assert that Plaintiffs have failed to identify which of the asserted causes of action have not abated with Decedent’s death. Additionally Defendants assert that Plaintiffs’ motion fails to apprise the Court that Plaintiffs are not entitled to punitive or exemplary damages as pled in their complaint. Defendants have requested that this Court strike all requests and allegations regarding punitive or exemplary damages from Plaintiffs’ Complaint.

III. CONCLUSION

The Motion to Substitute personal representative has merit and is GRANTED. As noted in the Reply brief, plaintiffs have specified that every cause of action is being pursued as against the Estate of the Decedent. The Reply makes no mention of the Opposition’s raising of the punitive damages issue, but the Court disagrees with Defendants that the Court has authority to deny the motion to substitute based on the alleged pursuit of punitive damages against all defendants, including the Estate. The legal question as to the propriety of a claim of punitive damages against a decedent’s estate can be addressed by stipulation, motion in limine, or jury instructions.