Judge: Stephen I. Goorvitch, Case: 23STCV09361, Date: 2023-11-14 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 23STCV09361    Hearing Date: March 4, 2024    Dept: 39

Deni Hoffman v. Patricia Lynn Reyes

Case No. 23STCV09361

Motion for Summary Judgment

BACKGROUND

            Plaintiff Deni Hoffman (“Plaintiff”) filed this action against the executors of the Estate of Melvin M. Hoffman (“Hoffman”) and as successor trustees to his trust (collectively, “Defendants”).  Plaintiff is Hoffman’s ex-wife, and Defendants are Melvin Hoffman’s children.  Plaintiff alleges as follows:

            Plaintiff and Hoffman were divorced on December 30, 2011, following a ten-year marriage.  (Complaint, ¶ 5.)  Afterwards, Plaintiff continued to live with Hoffman until late 2013.  (Ibid.)  After Plaintiff vacated Hoffman’s residence, he continued to ask her to move back into his house and to care for him.  (Ibid.)  Between 2014 and Hoffman’s death, Plaintiff provided personal care, specifically, she checked his vital signs, ordered his medications, made his appointments, and took him to the doctor/hospital when necessary.  (Id., ¶ 6.)  In October 2015, Hoffman was diagnosed with cancer, and Plaintiff accompanied him to the hospital and stayed with him for days at a time.  (Id., ¶¶ 7-8.)  Plaintiff also accompanied him to his chemotherapy appointments and took care of him.  (Id., ¶¶ 13-19.)  In 2017, on several occasions, Hoffman promised Plaintiff that she would receive his house and four vacant lots when he died.  (Id., ¶¶ 10-11.)  Hoffman also showed her at least one deed that was signed but not notarized.  (Id., ¶ 20.)  However, Hoffman did not deliver the deed or change his will/trust to leave Plaintiff the properties at issue.  (Id., ¶ 23.) 

            Defendants now move for summary judgment, which Plaintiff opposes.  The motion is granted.

PROCEDURAL HISTORY

            Defendants initiated a probate case—Case Number 20SPTB02367—after Hoffman passed.  (Complaint, ¶ 25.)  There also was a case relating to Hoffman’s trust, which Plaintiff initiated: Deni Hoffman v. Patricia Lynn Reyes, et al., Case Number 20STPB04342.  (Id., ¶ 26; see also Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. #1.)  On January 29, 2021, Plaintiff filed and severed timely Creditor’s Claims for $955,200 in both cases.  (Complaint, ¶¶ 25, 26.)  Defendants rejected the claims.  (Id., ¶ 27.)  Plaintiff then filed this case on April 26, 2023.  Defendants filed a motion for summary judgment on June 27, 2023.  In the reply brief, Defendants argued that this action is barred under the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel by the probate proceedings.  Because this argument was raised in the reply brief, the Court continued the hearing and ordered supplemental briefings.  (See Court’s Minute Order, dated November 14, 2023.)

EVIDENTIARY ISSUES

            Defendants request judicial notice of certain pleadings from the probate cases.  The Court grants the request for judicial notice under Evidence Code section 452(d) to the extent those exhibits are referenced in this order. 

LEGAL STANDARD

“[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears the burden of persuasion that there is no triable issue of material fact and that he is entitled to judgment as a matter of law[.] There is a triable issue of material fact if, and only if, the evidence would allow a reasonable trier of fact to find the underlying fact in favor of the party opposing the motion in accordance with the applicable standard of proof.”  (Aguilar v. Atlantic Richfield Co. (2001) 25 Cal.4th 826, 850.)  “[T]he party moving for summary judgment bears an initial burden of production to make a prima facie showing of the nonexistence of any triable issue of material fact; if he carries his burden of production, he causes a shift, and the opposing party is then subjected to a burden of production of his own to make a prima facie showing of the existence of a triable issue of material fact.”  (Ibid.)  

DISCUSSION

            This action is barred by the principles of res judicata and collateral estoppel because the dispositive issues were previously litigated in the probate court.  Plaintiff alleges that Hoffman promised on multiple occasions to leave her “the Burbank residence and four vacant lots after his death” and “[i]n reliance on that promise, she continued to go out of her way to care for [Hoffman] until his death . . . .”  (Complaint, ¶¶ 11, 12, 22.)  The probate court resolved that issue against Plaintiff in granting summary judgment.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. 11.) 

            Now, Plaintiff seeks to convert her claim for the properties into one for unpaid wages.  There are several problems with this claim.  As an initial matter, Plaintiff is not entitled to minimum wage and overtime because the provisions of the Labor Code “shall not apply to personal attendants.”  (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11150, subd. (1)(B).)  For purposes of the Labor Code, a personal attendant is “any person employed by a private householder . . . to supervise, feed, or dress a child or person who by reason of advanced age, physical disability, or mental deficiency needs supervision.”  (Cal. Code Regs., tit. 8, § 11150, subd. (2)(J).)  This was Plaintiff’s alleged work for Hoffman. 

            Nor is it clear that Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages is timely.  Plaintiff filed a “Verified Complaint on Rejected Creditor’s Claim for Earned but Unpaid Wages.”  In fact, Plaintiff did not file a creditor’s claim before the probate court for unpaid wages; she only sought a transfer of properties (which the probate court rejected).  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exhs. 2-4.)  To the extent this is a new claim, it appears to be untimely.  Plaintiff alleges that she was not paid for her services between October 2015 and February 2020.  (See Complaint, ¶ 25.)  Even assuming there was an oral employment agreement, the statute of limitations is two years.  (See Code Civ. Proc., § 339.)  This action was filed on April 26, 2023.  Even if Plaintiff had raised this claim before the probate court, the complaint still would be untimely.  Probate Code section 9353 requires a lawsuit to be filed within 90 days of notice of the rejection of a claim.  (See Prob. Code, § 9353.)   

            Regardless, Plaintiff’s claim for unpaid wages is untenable.  There was no employment relationship between Plaintiff and Hoffman, so Plaintiff must proceed under a promissory estoppel theory.  The elements are as follows: (1) There was a promise that was clear and unambiguous in its terms; (2) The plaintiff relied on the promise; (3) The plaintiff’s reliance was reasonable and foreseeable; and (4) The plaintiff was injured by her reliance.  (See Jones v. Wachovia Bank (2014) 230 Cal.App.4th 935, 945.)  In this case, there was no promise to pay Plaintiff an hourly wage.  Nor was there reliance on any promise by Hoffman.  The probate court has already resolved this issue.  (See Request for Judicial Notice, Exh. #11, p. 9.)  There is collateral estoppel with respect to this issue.  At heart, this is nothing more than an attempt to relitigate issues that have already been resolved by the probate court.    

CONCLUSION AND ORDER

            Based upon the foregoing, the Court orders as follows:

            1.         Defendant’s motion for summary judgment is granted.

            2.         Defendant’s counsel may lodge a proposed judgment if necessary.

            3.         Defendant’s counsel shall provide notice and file proof of such with the Court.