Judge: Teresa A. Beaudet, Case: 20STCV10828, Date: 2022-09-07 Tentative Ruling

Case Number: 20STCV10828    Hearing Date: September 7, 2022    Dept: 50

Superior Court of California

County of Los Angeles

Department 50

Background

            On March 18, 2020, Plaintiff John A. Carr filed this action against a number of defendants. On July 28, 2020, Plaintiff filed an amendment to the Complaint naming Eric Walker (“Walker”) in place of “Doe 4.” The operative Second Amended Complaint (“SAC”) was filed on October 13, 2020 and asserts causes of action for (1) quiet title and (2) cancellation of deed.

            On May 20, 2021 Walker filed a “Crossclaim” against (1) M.J. Carr; (2) Urban Realty Acquisition Group 2019, Inc.; (3) Ronald Perlstein, Trustee of the Ronald Perlstein Money Purchase Pension Plan, Entrust IRA # 10393; (4) Lucy M. Johnson, Trustee of the Johnson Family Irrevocable Trust Dated 8/01/19; (5) Danco Inc.; (6) Western Fidelity Associates, LLC, and (7) “All Persons Unknown, Claiming Any Legal or Equitable Right, Title, Estate, Lien, or Interest in the Property Described in the Crossclaim Complaint Adverse to Crossclaim Plaintiff’s title thereto, or Any Cloud on Crossclaim Plaintiff’s Title Thereto.” Walker’s cross-complaint

asserts two causes of action for quiet title. 

            Walker now moves for an order substituting Patrick Carr and Rose Carr as Co-Executors of the Estate of John A. Carr in place of “Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant” John A. Carr.

Walker also moves to substitute the Estate of Lucy Maxine Johnson in place of thirteen parties.

No opposition to either motion was filed.

Discussion

“Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Party”

Walker’s first motion was filed on March 7, 2022 and is captioned “Counterclaim Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Party.” The motion requests that the Court issue an order substituting Patrick Carr and Rose Carr as Co-Executors of the Estate of John A. Carr in place of “Plaintiff/Counterclaim Defendant” John A. Carr.

Code of Civil Procedure section 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 or, to the extent provided by statute, against the decedent’s successor in interest, 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.”

In the first motion, Walker notes that on January 27, 2022, John A. Carr’s counsel filed a declaration indicating that John A. Carr passed away on July 7, 2021. (Simoneaux-Cuaso Decl., ¶ 4.) Ms. Simoneaux-Cuaso also indicates that “Rose M. Carr and Patrick E. Carr, two (2) of Plaintiff’s seven (7) children, filed a Petition for Probate of Plaintiff’s Will in the San Diego County Superior Court.” (Simoneaux-Cuaso Decl., ¶ 6.)  

As an initial matter, the Court notes that Walker appears to seek to substitute Patrick Carr and Rose Carr in place of John A. Carr as cross-defendants in Walker’s Cross-Complaint. However, John A. Carr does not appear to have been named as a Cross-Defendant in the cross-complaint Walker filed on May 20, 2021.

Moreover, even if John A. Carr had been named as a cross-defendant, Walker has not provided any evidence indicating that Patrick Carr and Rose Carr have been appointed as

John A. Carr’s personal representatives. In addition, Walker does not discuss whether “[p]roof of compliance with Part 4 (commencing with Section 9000) of Division 7 of the Probate Code governing creditor claims” has been made. (See Code Civ. Proc., § 377.41.)  Other than referencing the Simoneaux-Cuaso declaration, Walker has not proffered any declarations in support of his motion.

“Motion to Substitute Parties”

Walker’s second motion was filed on July 25, 2022. In this motion, Walker indicates that he “moves to substitute the Estate of Lucy Maxine Johnson in place of thirteen parties (including

himself).” (Mot. at p. 2:2-4.)

            Walker appears to seek to substitute the “Estate of Lucy Maxine Johnson” in place of thirteen defendants named in John A. Carr’s SAC in this action, as he states, “[b]ecause the thirteen Walker family parties named by the Carr Complaint have an interest in the Subject Property only through inheriting it, and because the Estate represents their interests to the extent they will inherit, the Estate is the proper party in lieu of the Walker family parties.”

(Mot. at p. 5:11-14.) The Court notes that Walker has not cited to any legal authority under which he may move to substitute a party for defendants named in another party’s complaint. In fact, the motion does not cite to any legal authority at all. This motion also is not supported by any declarations.   

Conclusion

Based on the foregoing, Walker’s motions are denied. 

The Court orders Walker to give notice of this ruling.

DATED:  September 7, 2022                        

________________________________

Hon. Teresa A. Beaudet

Judge, Los Angeles Superior Court