Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 21STCV03365, Date: 2022-09-12 Tentative Ruling
Case Number: 21STCV03365 Hearing Date: September 12, 2022 Dept: 39
Daniel Mellinkoff
v. Al L. Mizrahie, et al.
Case No.
21STCV03365
Motion to
Substitute Plaintiff
Plaintiff
Daniel Mellinkoff, as Trustee of the Daniel Mellinkoff Trust, dated June 9,
1995 (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against Plaintiff and Defendants Al L.
Mizrahie and Alma R. Mizrahie, doing business as “McGibbons Body & Repair”
(collectively, “Defendants”). The
complaint alleges that the parties entered into a lease on or about December
31, 2018. The complaint alleges that
Defendants breached the lease and owed a sum in excess of $100,000, as of
November 1, 2020. Now, Plaintiff seeks
to substitute Otter Lake Farm, LLC (“Otter”) as the plaintiff in this
matter.
Per Code
of Civil Procedure section 368.5, if an interest in a lawsuit is transferred,
the action may continue in the name of the original party, or the court may
allow the person to whom the transfer is made to be substituted. (Code
Civ. Proc., § 368.5.) The instant motion
seeks to substitute Otter as the plaintiff because the property at issue was
sold to Otter on or about January 4, 2022.
This is not a sufficient basis to substitute a new plaintiff. The complaint asserts a breach of contract,
and Plaintiff and Defendants are the parties to the lease, and therefore, they
are the real parties in interest. (See Fladeboe
v. American Isuzu Motors Inc. (2007) 150 Cal.App.4th 42, 54-55.) Absent evidence of an assignment of
Plaintiff’s right of action against Defendants, there is no basis to substitute
a new plaintiff. Regardless, there is no
admissible evidence that Plaintiff has sold the property, as a declaration from
counsel lacks personal knowledge on this issue.
(See Evid. Code, § 702.)
Based
upon the foregoing, the motion to substitute a new plaintiff is denied without
prejudice. Plaintiff’s counsel shall
provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.