KEITH ROGERS, ET AL. VS COUNTY OF LOS ANGELES, ET AL.

Tentative Rulings

Case Number: 19STLC03152    Hearing Date: February 08, 2021    Dept: 25

HEARING DATE: Mon., February 8, 2021 JUDGE /DEPT: Blancarte/25

CASE NAME: Rogers, et al. v. County of Los Angeles, et al.

CASE NUMBER: 19STLC03152 COMP. FILED: 03-29-19

PROCEEDINGS: MOTION FOR ORDER APPOINTING PLAINTIFF MIESHA PAYTON AS SUCCESSOR IN INTEREST TO PLAINTIFF/DECEDENT KEITH ROGERS

MOVING PARTY: Plaintiff Miesha Payton

RESP. PARTY: None

MOTION TO SUBSTITUTE SUCCESSOR-IN-INTEREST

(CCP § 377.32)

TENTATIVE RULING:

Plaintiff Miesha Payton’s Motion for Order Appointing her as Successor in Interest to Plaintiff/Decedent Keith Rogers is CONTINUED TO APRIL 12, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff Payton must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

SERVICE:

[X] Proof of Service Timely Filed (CRC, rule 3.1300) OK

[X] Correct Address (CCP §§ 1013, 1013a) OK

[X] 16/21 Court Days Lapsed (CCP §§ 12c, 1005(b)) OK

OPPOSITION: None filed as of February 4, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

REPLY: None filed as of February 4, 2021 [ ] Late [X] None

ANALYSIS:

1. Background

On March 29, 2021, Plaintiffs Keith Rogers (“Rogers”) and Miesha Payton (“Payton”) (collectively, “Plaintiffs”) filed an action for general negligence and motor vehicle against Defendants County of Los Angeles (“County”) and Daniel Flores (“Flores”).

On January 6, 2021, Plaintiff Payton filed the instant Motion for Order Appointing Plaintiff Payton as Successor in Interest to Plaintiff/Decedent Keith Rogers (the “Motion”). To date, no opposition has been filed.

1. Legal Standard

“Except as otherwise provided by statute, a cause of action for or against a person is not lost by reason of the person’s death, but survives subject to the applicable limitations period.” (Code Civ. Proc., § 377.20, subd. (a).) “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.)

Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32 provides:

“(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 following, 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.”

(b) Where more than one person executes the affidavit or declaration under this section, the statements required by subdivision (a) shall be modified as appropriate to reflect that fact.

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

1. Discussion

As decedent Plaintiff Rogers’ surviving spouse, Plaintiff Payton seeks an order appointing her as Plaintiff Rogers’ successor in interest. (Mot., p. 2:2-12; Payton Decl., ¶ 6, Exh. A.)

Having reviewed the attached declaration, the Court finds it does not meet the content requirements of Code of Civil Procedure section 377.32. Plaintiff Peyton is ordered to file and serve supplemental papers that satisfy the requirements of Section 377.32.

1. Conclusion & Order

For the foregoing reasons, Plaintiff Miesha Payton’s Motion for Order Appointing her as Successor in Interest to Plaintiff/Decedent Keith Rogers is CONTINUED TO APRIL 12, 2021 AT 10:00 A.M. in Department 25 at the SPRING STREET COURTHOUSE. At least 16 court days before the next scheduled hearing, Plaintiff Payton must file and serve supplemental papers addressing the deficiencies identified herein. Failure to do so may result in the Motion being placed off calendar or denied.

Moving party is ordered to give notice.