Judge: Yolanda Orozco, Case: 20STCV11372, Date: 2022-08-16 Tentative Ruling

Counsel may submit on the tentative ruling by emailing Dept. 31 before 8:30 the morning of the hearing. The email address is smcdept31@lacourt.org. Please do not call the court to submit on the tentative. Please do not submit to the tentative ruling on behalf of the opposing party. Please do not e-mail the Court if you plan to appear and argue.

In deciding whether to submit on the tentative ruling or attend the hearing and present oral argument, please keep the following in mind:

The tentative rulings authored by this court reflect that the court has read and considered all pleadings and evidence timely submitted to the court in connection with the motion, opposition, and reply (if any). Because the pleadings were filed, they are part of the public record.

Oral argument is not an opportunity to simply regurgitate that which a party set forth in its pleadings. Nor, is oral argument an opportunity to "make a record" when there is no court reporter present and the statements and arguments of counsel are already part of the record because they were set forth in the pleadings. Finally, simply because a party or attorney disagrees with the court's analysis and ruling or is not satisfied with it does not necessarily warrant oral argument when no new arguments will be articulated.

If you submit on the tentative, you must immediately notify all other parties email that you will not appear at the hearing. If you submit on the tentative and elect not to appear at the hearing, the opposing party may nevertheless appear at the hearing and argue the motions. If all parties to the motion submit, this tentative ruling will become the final ruling after the hearing date and it will be memorialized in a minute order. This tentative ruling is not an invitation, nor an opportunity, to file further documents relative to the hearing in question. No such document will be considered by the Court.

**Tentative rulings on Motions for Summary Judgment will only be available for review in the courtroom on the day of the hearing.

Case Number: 20STCV11372    Hearing Date: August 16, 2022    Dept: 31

MOTION FOR ORDER SUBSTITUTING PARTY IS GRANTED 

Background 

On March 19, 2022, Plaintiffs Naima Smith, Daunteyvia Dates, Douglas Johnson, Chrysalin Byrd, Cesar Rodriguez, Martell Wynder, and Anthony Walker filed a Complaint against Defendants Abode Communities, LLC, Abode Communities, 44000 Sahuayo Street, L.P., Vista del Mar MGP, LLC, and Vista del Mar AGP, LLC for violation of the California Investigative Consumer Reporting Agencies Act (ICRAA). 

A Jury Verdict in favor of the Plaintiffs was signed and filed on June 27, 2022. (Min. Or. 06/27/22.) 

Legal Standard 

“On motion after the death of a person who commenced an action or proceeding, the court shall allow a pending action or proceeding that does not abate to be continued by the decedent’s personal representative or, if none, by the decedent’s successor in interest.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.31.) 

“(a) The person who seeks to commence an action or proceeding or to continue a pending action or proceeding as the decedent’s successor in interest under this article, shall execute and file an affidavit or a declaration under penalty of perjury under the laws of this state stating all of the following:

(1)   The decedent’s name.

(2)   The date and place of the decedent’s death.

(3)   ‘No proceeding is now pending in California for administration of the decedent’s estate.’

(4)   If the decedent’s estate was administered, a copy of the final order showing the distribution of the decedent’s cause of action to the successor in interest.

(5)   Either of the follow, as appropriate, with facts in support thereof:

(a)   “The affiant or declarant is the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in Section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) and succeeds to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.”

(b)   “The affiant or declarant is authorized to act on behalf of the decedent’s successor in interest (as defined in section 377.11 of the California Code of Civil Procedure) with respect to the decedent’s interest in the action or proceeding.”

(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.’

(7)   ‘The affiant or declarant affirms or declares under penalty of perjury under the laws of the State of California that the foregoing is true and correct.’

[ . . .]

(c)   A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate shall be attached to the affidavit or declaration.”

(Code Civ. Proc., § 377.32) 

Discussion 

Plaintiff Anthony Walker passed away on July 12, 2020, in Lancaster, California. (Lopez Decl. ¶2.) A certified copy of the decedent’s death certificate is attached as Exhibit 1 to Plaintiff’s Reply. There is no proceeding pending in California for the administration of the decedent’s estate. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5, Murphy Decl. ¶ 4.)

Plaintiff asserts that under Code Civ. Pro. Sections 377.20 and 377.22, Plaintiff’s action does not abate by death if the cause of action survives or continues. Therefore, Plaintiff’s wife, Danielle Lopez now moves for an order substituting herself as Plaintiff Walker’s successor in interest.

A decedent’s successor in interest means “the beneficiary of the decedent's estate or other successor in interest who succeeds to a cause of action or to a particular item of the property that is the subject of a cause of action.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.11.)

Plaintiff confirmed in the Reply that the decedent died intestate. (Reply at 2:19.) If the decedent died without a will, the beneficiary of the decedent’s estate means “the sole person or all of the persons who succeed to a cause of action, or to a particular item of property that is the subject of a cause of action, under Sections 6401 and 6402 of the Probate Code[.]” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.10.”

Plaintiff asserts that Danielle Lopez is the decedent’s successor in interest as defined in Code of Civil Procedure Section 377.11, because she is entitled to inherit his property, including the causes of action in this lawsuit. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 3, 4; Murphy ¶ 5.) Danielle Lopez also asserts that she is the decedent’s only heir, and that no other person has a superior right to be substituted for the decedent. (Lopez Decl. ¶¶ 4, 6; Murphy Decl. ¶ 6.)

Defendant Adobe Walker opposes this motion on the basis that Mrs. Lopez’s declaration failed to indicate if she is the only successor in interest or whether there are other beneficiaries or persons that have rights to substitute decedent. (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.10.) Defendant asserts that the decedent had multiple children and that Mrs. Lopez was pregnant at the time of trial. (Opp. at 2:26-28, 3:1-2) Plaintiff does not dispute these allegations. 

Although Ms. Lopez did not indicate whether she is the sole beneficiary or the sole person who succeeds to the causes of action, or whether there are other beneficiaries or persons who can succeed to the cause of action, she does state, under penalty of perjury, that she has a “superior right” to be substituted as the successor in interest. (Lopez Decl. ¶ 5.) Under Cal. Civ. Code Proc. Section 377.32(a)(6), Ms. Lopez need only have a superior right, not the sole right. 

Conclusion 

Therefore, the Court grants Plaintiff’s Motion to Substitute Danielle Lopez in place of deceased Plaintiff, as Plaintiff’s successor in interest. 

Moving Party to give notice. 

The parties are strongly encouraged to attend all scheduled hearings virtually or by audio. Effective July 20, 2020, all matters will be scheduled virtually and/or with audio through the Court’s LACourtConnect technology. The parties are strongly encouraged to use LACourtConnect for all their matters. All masking protocols will be observed at the Courthouse and in the courtrooms.