Judge Thomas D. Long, Case Number: 24STCV02961, Date: 2024-07-11 Tentative Ruling

On February 5, 2024, Plaintiff Blake Grabowski filed this action against Defendants Better Earth Inc. and others.

On April 23, 2024, this case and other cases were consolidated with Nicholas Leinbach v. Better Earth, Inc., et al. (Case No. 24STCV02800), with Leinbach designated as the lead case. The Court ordered that all future documents be filed under Case No. 24STCV02800, and case numbers on all subsequent filings should be reflected under the lead case.

On June 6, 2024, Plaintiff filed a motion for order to appoint Amanda Grabowski as successor-in-interest for Plaintiff, who is now deceased. (Defendants’ evidentiary objections are overruled.)

The motion was properly filed in Case No. 24STCV02800, but the hearing reservation was made in Case No. 24STCV02961. All future documents and hearing reservations must be in Case No. 24STCV02800 or else the Court will strike the filings or take the motions off calendar.

“A cause of action that survives the death of the person entitled to commence an action or proceeding passes to the decedent’s successor in interest . . . and an action may be commenced by the decedent’s personal representatives or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.30.) After the death of a plaintiff, the court, on motion, shall allow a pending action that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or successor-in-interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.)

The person who seeks to commence or continue a pending action as the decedent’s successor in interest shall execute and file an affidavit or declaration that includes (1) the decedent’s name; (2) the date and place of decedent’s death; (3) “No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate”; (4) a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor-in-interest, if the decedent’s estate was administered; (5) either the declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest or the declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest, with facts in support thereof; (6) “No other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding”; and (7) that the statements are true, under penalty of perjury. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (a).) The affidavit or declaration must attach a certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (c).)

Amanda Eve Grabowski declares that Plaintiff was pronounced dead on May 4, 2024, in Detroit, Michigan. (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 2.) Plaintiff had no significant other and no children. (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 3.) He lived with Amanda for nine months after returning to Michigan, and they remained close until his passing. (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 3.) Plaintiff had no living will. (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 4.) His immediate family consists of his father (Andrew Grabowski), brother (Andrew Grabowski), and Amanda. (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 4.) According to Amanda, “Decedent’s family has appointed me as successor in interest due to my close relationship with Blake throughout his life.” (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 4.) She declares that she is “the decedent’s successor in interest and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding,” and she is “authorized to handle, manage, and dispose of any and all property belonging to the estate of the decedent.” (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶ 3 [sic].) According to Amanda, “[n]o other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding,” and “[n]o proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.” (Amanda Grabowski Decl. ¶¶ 5-6.)

Plaintiff’s father “understand[s] that as Blake’s father [he] would be the decedent’s successor in interest in this action or proceeding following California’s intestate laws.” (Andrew Grabowski Decl. ¶ 4.) However, he declares that “Decedent’s family, including myself, have instead appointed Amanda Grabowski as successor in interest due to her close relationship with Blake throughout his life.” (Andrew Grabowski Decl. ¶ 4 [sic].) Plaintiff’s father “accordingly denounce[s] [his] claim as successor in interest, and instead appoint[s] Amanda Grabowski in [his] place.” (Andrew Grabowski Decl. ¶ 3 [sic].)

The declarants provide a certified copy of Plaintiff’s Certificate of Death from Wayne County, Michigan. (Andrew Grabowski Decl., Ex. A.)

The disposition of a decedent’s intangible personal property is controlled by the law of the domicile. (In re Moore’s Estate (1961) 190 Cal.App.2d 833, 843; see Civ. Code, § 946.) Accordingly, Plaintiff’s estate administration is governed by Michigan, not California, law. The motion cites no Michigan law about intestate succession and who is Plaintiff’s rightful heir under Michigan law.

Regardless of the intestacy state law that is applied, the motion does not comply with the requirements for substituting a successor-in-interest in this case under California law.

Plaintiff’s sister and father both declare that Plaintiff had “no living will.” Generally, a living will documents a person’s desire to not be kept alive by artificial means or heroic measures. (See, e.g., Bartling v. Glendale Adventist Medical Center (1986) 184 Cal.App.3d 961, 966.) The declarations therefore do not establish that Plaintiff died without a testamentary will and do not establish who has inherited Plaintiff’s claims in this action.

The motion states that “the administration of the estate has closed.” If Plaintiff did have an estate that was administered, the motion must include a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor-in-interest. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32, subd. (c).)

Under California law, Plaintiff’s father would be Plaintiff’s heir. (Prob. Code, § 6402, subd. (b).) Plaintiff’s father may disclaim his interest in Plaintiff’s estate. (See Prob. Code, § 282.) If he did so, then Plaintiff’s estate would pass to Plaintiff’s siblings. (Prob. Code, § 6402, subd. (c).) There is no declaration from Plaintiff’s brother. Plaintiff’s father and sister cannot alone “appoint” Amanda to be Plaintiff’s successor-in-interest. Accordingly, under California law, it is not true that “[n]o other person has a superior right to commence the action or proceeding or to be substituted for the decedent in the pending action or proceeding.” Although not cited in the motion, this appears to also be the order of succession under Michigan law. (Mich. Comp. Laws Ann. § 700.2103, subds. (b)-(c).)

Parties who intend to submit on this tentative must send an email to the Court at SMCDEPT48@lacourt.org indicating intention to submit. If all parties in the case submit on the tentative ruling, no appearances before the Court are required unless a companion hearing (for example, a Case Management Conference) is also on calendar.

Hon. Thomas D. Long

Judge of the Superior Court